DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 8/28/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paras[0006], [0008]
Para[0007], [00010], [0064], [0067], and [0083] recites “forwards”. The objection can be overcome by replacing "forwards" with "forward".
Para[0028] recites “positions, the second”. The objection can be overcome by replacing “,” with “and”.
Para[0030] recites “(VSP), distributed”. The objection can be overcome by replacing “,” with “or”.
Para[0031] recites “x, or, y, or, z”. The objection can be overcome by replacing “x, or, y, or, z” with “x, y, or z”.
Equations 4, 5, 7, and 7a have the same variable assigned for the error but is referring to different types of errors. The objection can be overcome by relabeling all the errors to distinctly identify them.
Equations 4, 5, 7, and 7a have the same variable assigned for the error but is referring to different types of errors. The objection can be overcome by relabeling all the errors to distinctly identify them.
Equations 11 and 14 have the same variable assigned for the error but is referring to different types of errors. The objection can be overcome by relabeling all the errors to distinctly identify them.
Equations 12 and 15 have the same variable assigned for the error but is referring to different types of errors. The objection can be overcome by relabeling all the errors to distinctly identify them.
Equations 13 and 16 have the same variable assigned for the error but is referring to different types of errors. The objection can be overcome by relabeling all the errors to distinctly identify them.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 11 recite “multiplies”. The objection can be overcome by replacing “multiplies” with “multiples”.
Claims 8, 9, 18, and 19 recite “forwards”. The objection can be overcome by replacing “forwards” with “forward”.
Claims that depend on the above claims are also objected to, due to their dependency.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “attenuating multiplies m associated with the multiple model, from the seismic
data d, by subtraction of the multiple model to calculate demultiple data dd”. This limitation in the claim does not clearly specify what is being subtracted, rendering this limitation in the claim indefinite.
Claims 3 and 6 recites “the step”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites “attenuate multiplies m associated with the multiple model, from the seismic
data d, by subtraction of the multiple model to calculate demultiple data dd”. This limitation in the claim does not clearly specify what is being subtracted, rendering this limitation in the claim indefinite.
Claims 12-20 recite “The system”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims that depend on the above rejected claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poole ("Shallow Water Surface Related Multiple Attenuation Using Multi-Sailine 3D Deconvolution Imaging") in view of Sava (“Angle-domain common-image gathers by wavefield continuation methods”).
With respect to Claim 1, Poole teaches
A method for removing multiples m from seismic data d associated with a subsurface (See Poole Abstract), the method comprising:
receiving the seismic data d associated with the subsurface (See Poole Methodology Para[0001] “For towed streamer data, the method is typically applied to surface datum, deghosted shot gathers.”), wherein the seismic data d includes primaries and multiples m recorded by a receiver (See Poole Figure 1a.);
forward propagating the seismic data d into the subsurface to form forward propagated data dф (See Poole Figure 1b.);
receiving angular dependent reflectivities rө, associated with an angular range Δө, in the subsurface, for a given point;
generating an angle dependent reflecting wavefield Dфөrө based on the forward propagated data d and the angular dependent reflectivities rө (See Poole Figure 1b.);
calculating a multiple model ФDфөrө by forward propagating the angle dependent reflecting wavefield Dфөrө to the receiver (See Poole Figure 1c.);
attenuating multiplies m associated with the multiple model, from the seismic data d, by subtraction of the multiple model to calculate demultiple data dd (See Poole Synthetic Example Para[0001] “Straight subtraction of the multiple prediction from the input data resulted in the data of
Figure 2i.”); and
generating an image of the subsurface indicative of geophysical features associated with a natural resource, carbon capture monitoring or wind turbine placement, based on the demultiple data dd (See Poole Figures 3a-3g.).
However, Poole is silent to the language of:
receiving angular dependent reflectivities rө, associated with an angular range Δө, in the subsurface, for a given point.
Nevertheless, Sava teaches
receiving angular dependent reflectivities rө, associated with an angular range Δө, in the subsurface (See Sava Introduction Para[0003] “ADCIGs produced with either kind of method have similar characteristics since they simply describe the reflectivity as a function of incidence angle at the reflector”), for a given point (See Sava Introduction Para[0003] “reflection point”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Poole wherein the angular dependent reflectivities rө, associated with an angular range Δө, in the subsurface, for a given point are received such as that of Sava.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Poole, because including an angle dependent reflectivity in the propagation of multiples will allow for a more accurate calculation of the trajectory of the multiples.
With respect to Claim 10, Poole teaches
The method of Claim 1,
wherein the subtraction is an adaptive subtraction(See Poole Introduction Para[0001] “This strategy is not without complication, however, the resulting multiple model normally being adaptively subtracted from the input data to address inaccuracies relating to source wavelet squaring and cross-talk between multiples.”).
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poole ("Shallow Water Surface Related Multiple Attenuation Using Multi-Sailine 3D Deconvolution Imaging") and Sava (“Angle-domain common-image gathers by wavefield continuation methods”) , and further in view of Yang (US20170108602A1).
With respect to Claim 2, Poole is silent to the language of
The method of Claim 1,
wherein the associated angular range Δө is between - 50 and +50 degrees.
Nevertheless, Yang teaches
The method of Claim 1,
wherein the associated angular range Δө is between - 50 and +50 degrees (See Yang Para[0040] “As shown in FIG. 3A, a single shot gather is divided into five sections by the dashed lines 301, 302, 303, 304, and 305, which corresponds to the following angle ranges: 0-10; 10-20; 20-30; 30-40; and 40-50 degrees. The angle ranges do not necessarily need to overlap.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Poole wherein the associated angular range Δө is between - 50 and +50 degrees such as that of Yang.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Poole, because defining an angular range between -50 and +50 degrees will allow for precise control of the angle-dependency of the reflectivity.
With respect to Claim 3, Poole is silent to the language of
The method of Claim 1,
wherein the step of receiving the angular dependent reflectivities rө includes receiving a first angular dependent reflectivity rө1, associated with a first angular range, and a second angular reflectivity rө2, associated with a second angular range, wherein the first angular range together with the second angular range form the angular range Δө.
Nevertheless, Yang teaches
The method of Claim 1,
wherein the step of receiving the angular dependent reflectivities rө includes receiving a first angular dependent reflectivity rө1, associated with a first angular range, and a second angular reflectivity rө2, associated with a second angular range, wherein the first angular range together with the second angular range form the angular range Δө (See Yang Para[0033] “Each impedance model can only explain the data of a certain range of reflection angles constrained by the data masks. Within one angle range, the mid angle can be chosen to be the nominal angle of the reflectivity.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Poole wherein the step of receiving the angular dependent reflectivities rө includes receiving a first angular dependent reflectivity rө1, associated with a first angular range, and a second angular reflectivity rө2, associated with a second angular range, wherein the first angular range together with the second angular range form the angular range Δө such as that of Yang.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Poole, because receiving two angular dependent reflectivities can allow for easy identification of the behavior of the multiples depending on the reflection angle.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poole ("Shallow Water Surface Related Multiple Attenuation Using Multi-Sailine 3D Deconvolution Imaging") and Sava (“Angle-domain common-image gathers by wavefield continuation methods”), and further in view of Routh (US20040199330A1).
With respect to Claim 4, Poole is silent to the language of
The method of Claim 1,
wherein the angular dependent reflectivities are calculated with a least square inversion method.
Nevertheless, Routh teaches
The method of Claim 1,
wherein the angular dependent reflectivities are calculated with a least square inversion method (See Routh Para[0042] “The nonlinear inverse problem can be transformed to an optimization problem which is solved using a standard Gauss-Newton approach with regularization and step length search. The system of equations arising from the minimization procedure is solved using conjugate gradient with least-squares (CGLS) method which is efficient and requires minimal storage.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Poole wherein the angular dependent reflectivities are calculated with a least square inversion method such as that of Routh.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Poole, because using a least-square inversion method would efficiently calculate the angular dependent reflectivities without consuming excessive computational resources.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poole ("Shallow Water Surface Related Multiple Attenuation Using Multi-Sailine 3D Deconvolution Imaging") and Sava (“Angle-domain common-image gathers by wavefield continuation methods”), and further in view of Tan (US20120203523A1).
With respect to Claim 5, Poole is silent to the language of
The method of Claim 1,
wherein the multiple model ФDфөrө is calculated by simultaneously forward propagating plural angle dependent reflecting wavefields Dфөrө to the receiver.
Nevertheless, Tan teaches
The method of Claim 1,
wherein the multiple model ФDфөrө is calculated by simultaneously forward propagating plural angle dependent reflecting wavefields Dфөrө to the receiver (See Tan Para[0065] “propagating source wavefield, propagating receiver wavefield, and/or simultaneous propagating of source wavefield and receiver wavefield”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Poole wherein the multiple model ФDфөrө is calculated by simultaneously forward propagating plural angle dependent reflecting wavefields Dфөrө to the receiver such as that of Tan.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Poole, simultaneously forward propagating plural angle dependent reflecting wavefields will allow for comparison analysis with the method of sequential propagation of said wavefields, and see which method allows for more accurate multiple attenuation.
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poole ("Shallow Water Surface Related Multiple Attenuation Using Multi-Sailine 3D Deconvolution Imaging") and Sava (“Angle-domain common-image gathers by wavefield continuation methods”), and further in view of Qin (US20160282490A1).
With respect to Claim 6, Poole is silent to the language of
The method of Claim 1,
wherein the step of generating an angle dependent reflecting wavefield involves converting the angle dependent reflectivity to a subsurface offset domain Srө and accumulating a reflection from a first subsurface offset with a reflection from a second subsurface offset DøsSrө.
Nevertheless, Qin teaches
The method of Claim 1,
wherein the step of generating an angle dependent reflecting wavefield involves converting the angle dependent reflectivity to a subsurface offset domain Srө and accumulating a reflection from a first subsurface offset with a reflection from a second subsurface offset DøsSrө (See Qin Para[0011] “The velocity model is iteratively enhanced while preserving amplitude in a selected data-acquisition-related gathers (e.g., in a common shot domain, in a common receiver domain, in a common surface or subsurface offset domain, in a common angle domain, in a common plane-wave domain, etc.).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Poole wherein the step of generating an angle dependent reflecting wavefield involves converting the angle dependent reflectivity to a subsurface offset domain Srө and accumulating a reflection from a first subsurface offset with a reflection from a second subsurface offset DøsSrө such as that of Qin.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Poole, because converting the angular reflectivity to a subsurface offset domain and accumulating reflections from two subsurface offsets will allow for a controlled analytical solution of the propagator equation for the seismic data when considering angular dependent reflectivities.
With respect to Claim 7, Poole is silent to the language of
The method of Claim 6,
wherein the forward propagated data is offset in space, at the given point, with a subsurface offset h to generate a reflection.
Nevertheless, Qin teaches
The method of Claim 6,
wherein the forward propagated data is offset in space, at the given point, with a subsurface offset h to generate a reflection (See Qin Abstract and Para[0045] “The data (serving as detected data and, thus, the FWI start point) are generated by finite differences for a marine-towed streamer acquisition with offsets ranging from 0 to 3 km.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Poole wherein the forward propagated data is offset in space, at the given point, with a subsurface offset h to generate a reflection such as that of Qin.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Poole, because offsetting the forward propagated data in space will allow for the efficient calculation of the multiple model while considering the angle-dependence of the reflectivities.
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poole ("Shallow Water Surface Related Multiple Attenuation Using Multi-Sailine 3D Deconvolution Imaging") and Sava (“Angle-domain common-image gathers by wavefield continuation methods”), and further in view of Ozbek (US20110060528A1).
With respect to Claim 8, Poole is silent to the language of
The method of Claim 1,
wherein the forward propagated data is dip filtered to a first angular range to create a first angular range forwards propagated wavefield.
Nevertheless, Ozbek teaches
The method of Claim 1,
wherein the forward propagated data is dip filtered to a first angular range to create a first angular range forwards propagated wavefield (See Ozbek Para[0007] “In seismic data processing, a common processing step is velocity (or dip) filtering, where wave field components faster than a given apparent velocity c are past, and the rest are rejected.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Poole wherein the forward propagated data is dip filtered to a first angular range to create a first angular range forwards propagated wavefield such as that of Ozbek.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Poole, because dip filtering is an alternative way to control and modify the seismic data and compare it with other data processing methods.
With respect to Claim 9, Poole is silent to the language of:
The method of Claim 8,
wherein the first angular range forwards propagated wavefield is reflected from a first reflectivity corresponding to the same first angular range.
Nevertheless, Sava teaches
The method of Claim 8,
wherein the first angular range forwards propagated wavefield is reflected from a first reflectivity corresponding to the same first angular range (See Sava Introduction Para[0003] and Para[0004] “ADCIGs produced with either kind of method have similar characteristics since they simply describe the reflectivity as a function of incidence angle at the reflector… This paper focuses on ADCIGs computed in relation with wave-equation migration.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Poole wherein the first angular range forwards propagated wavefield is reflected from a first reflectivity corresponding to the same first angular range such as that of Sava.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Poole, because having the wavefield being angle dependent while reflecting from an angle-dependent reflectivity would allow for more effective characterization of multiples, leading to more accurate calculation of multiple attenuation.
Claim(s) 11 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poole ("Shallow Water Surface Related Multiple Attenuation Using Multi-Sailine 3D Deconvolution Imaging") in view of Sava (“Angle-domain common-image gathers by wavefield continuation methods”) and Strobbia (US 20100128563 A1).
With respect to Claim 11, Poole teaches
removing multiples m from seismic data d associated with a subsurface (See Poole Abstract), the computing system comprising:
receive the seismic data d associated with the subsurface, wherein the seismic data d includes primaries and multiples m recorded by a receiver (See Poole Methodology Para[0001] “For towed streamer data, the method is typically applied to surface datum, deghosted shot gathers.”), wherein the seismic data d includes primaries and multiples m recorded by a receiver (See Poole Figure 1a.); and forward propagate the seismic data d into the subsurface to form forward propagated data dФ (See Poole Figure 1b.)
receive angular dependent reflectivities rө, associated with an angular range Δө, in the subsurface, for a given point (See Poole Figure 1b.);
generate an angle dependent reflecting wavefield Dфөrө based on the forward propagated data d and the angular dependent reflectivities rө;
calculate a multiple model ФDфөrө by forward propagating the angle dependent reflecting wavefield Dфөrө to the receiver (See Poole Figure 1c.);
attenuate multiplies m associated with the multiple model, from the seismic data d, by subtraction of the multiple model to calculate demultiple data dd (See Poole Synthetic Example Para[0001] “Straight subtraction of the multiple prediction from the input data resulted in the data of
Figure 2i.”); and
generate an image of the subsurface indicative of geophysical features associated with a natural resource, carbon capture monitoring or wind turbine placement, based on the demultiple data dd (See Poole Figures 3a-3g.).
However, Poole is silent to the language of:
A computing system for
an interface configured to
a processor connected to the interface and configured to, receiving angular dependent reflectivities rө, associated with an angular range Δө, in the subsurface, for a given point.
Nevertheless, Sava teaches
receiving angular dependent reflectivities rө, associated with an angular range Δө, in the subsurface (See Sava Introduction Para[0003] “ADCIGs produced with either kind of method have similar characteristics since they simply describe the reflectivity as a function of incidence angle at the reflector”), for a given point (See Sava Introduction Para[0003] “reflection point”).
However, Sava is silent to the language of:
A computing system for
an interface configured to
a processor connected to the interface and configured to
Nevertheless Strobbia teaches
A computing system (See Fig. 7) for
an interface configured to (See Para[0046] “The processor 550 may be coupled to a communication interface 560 for purposes of receiving seismic data acquired in a seismic survey.”)
a processor connected to the interface and configured to (See Para[0046] “The processor 550 may be coupled to a communication interface 560 for purposes of receiving seismic data acquired in a seismic survey.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Poole wherein the angular dependent reflectivities rө, associated with an angular range Δө, in the subsurface, for a given point are received such as that of Sava.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Poole, because including an angle dependent reflectivity in the propagation of multiples will allow for a more accurate calculation of the trajectory of the multiples.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Poole with a computing system, an interface, and a processor such as that of Strobbia.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Poole, because using a computer system, an interface, and a processor will allow for efficient compartmentalized analysis of the multiple attenuation, and including an angle dependent reflectivity in the propagation of multiples will allow for a more accurate calculation of the trajectory of the multiples.
With respect to Claim 20, Poole teaches
The system of Claim 11 (See Claim 11 above),
wherein the subtraction is an adaptive subtraction(See Poole Introduction Para[0001] “This strategy is not without complication, however, the resulting multiple model normally being adaptively subtracted from the input data to address inaccuracies relating to source wavelet squaring and cross-talk between multiples.”).
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poole ("Shallow Water Surface Related Multiple Attenuation Using Multi-Sailine 3D Deconvolution Imaging") in view of Sava (“Angle-domain common-image gathers by wavefield continuation methods”) and Strobbia (US 20100128563 A1), and further in view of Yang (US20170108602A1).
With respect to Claim 12, Poole is silent to the language of
The system of Claim 11,
wherein the associated angular range Δө is between - 50 and +50 degrees.
Nevertheless, Yang teaches
The system of Claim 11 (See Claim 11 above),
wherein the associated angular range Δө is between - 50 and +50 degrees (See Yang Para[0040] “As shown in FIG. 3A, a single shot gather is divided into five sections by the dashed lines 301, 302, 303, 304, and 305, which corresponds to the following angle ranges: 0-10; 10-20; 20-30; 30-40; and 40-50 degrees. The angle ranges do not necessarily need to overlap.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Poole wherein the associated angular range Δө is between - 50 and +50 degrees such as that of Yang.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Poole, because defining an angular range between -50 and +50 degrees will allow for precise control of the angle-dependency of the reflectivity.
With respect to Claim 13, Poole is silent to the language of
The system of Claim 11,
wherein the processor is further configured to receive a first angular dependent reflectivity rө1, associated with a first angular range, and a second angular reflectivity rө2, associated with a second angular range, wherein the first angular range together with the second angular range form the angular range Δө.
Nevertheless, Yang teaches
The system of Claim 11 (See Claim 11 above),
wherein the processor is further configured to receive a first angular dependent reflectivity rө1, associated with a first angular range, and a second angular reflectivity rө2, associated with a second angular range, wherein the first angular range together with the second angular range form the angular range Δө (See Yang Para[0033] “Each impedance model can only explain the data of a certain range of reflection angles constrained by the data masks. Within one angle range, the mid angle can be chosen to be the nominal angle of the reflectivity.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Poole wherein the processor is further configured to receive a first angular dependent reflectivity rө1, associated with a first angular range, and a second angular reflectivity rө2, associated with a second angular range, wherein the first angular range together with the second angular range form the angular range Δө such as that of Yang.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Poole, because receiving two angular dependent reflectivities can allow for easy identification of the behavior of the multiples depending on the reflection angle.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poole ("Shallow Water Surface Related Multiple Attenuation Using Multi-Sailine 3D Deconvolution Imaging") in view of Sava (“Angle-domain common-image gathers by wavefield continuation methods”) and Strobbia (US 20100128563 A1), and further in view of Routh (US20040199330A1).
With respect to Claim 14, Poole is silent to the language of
The system of Claim 11,
wherein the angular dependent reflectivities are calculated with a least square inversion method.
Nevertheless, Routh teaches
The system of Claim 11 (See Claim 11 above),
wherein the angular dependent reflectivities are calculated with a least square inversion method (See Routh Para[0042] “The nonlinear inverse problem can be transformed to an optimization problem which is solved using a standard Gauss-Newton approach with regularization and step length search. The system of equations arising from the minimization procedure is solved using conjugate gradient with least-squares (CGLS) method which is efficient and requires minimal storage.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Poole wherein the angular dependent reflectivities are calculated with a least square inversion method such as that of Routh.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Poole, because using a least-square inversion method would efficiently calculate the angular dependent reflectivities without consuming excessive computational resources.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poole ("Shallow Water Surface Related Multiple Attenuation Using Multi-Sailine 3D Deconvolution Imaging") in view of Sava (“Angle-domain common-image gathers by wavefield continuation methods”) and Strobbia (US 20100128563 A1), and further in view of Tan (US20120203523A1).
With respect to Claim 15, Poole is silent to the language of
The system of Claim 11,
wherein the multiple model ФDфөrө is calculated by simultaneously forward propagating plural angle dependent reflecting wavefields Dфөrө to the receiver.
Nevertheless, Tan teaches
The system of Claim 11 (See Claim 11 above),
wherein the multiple model ФDфөrө is calculated by simultaneously forward propagating plural angle dependent reflecting wavefields Dфөrө to the receiver (See Tan Para[0065] “propagating source wavefield, propagating receiver wavefield, and/or simultaneous propagating of source wavefield and receiver wavefield”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Poole wherein the multiple model ФDфөrө is calculated by simultaneously forward propagating plural angle dependent reflecting wavefields Dфөrө to the receiver such as that of Tan.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Poole, simultaneously forward propagating plural angle dependent reflecting wavefields will allow for comparison analysis with the method of sequential propagation of said wavefields, and see which method allows for more accurate multiple attenuation.
Claim(s) 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poole ("Shallow Water Surface Related Multiple Attenuation Using Multi-Sailine 3D Deconvolution Imaging") in view of Sava (“Angle-domain common-image gathers by wavefield continuation methods”) and Strobbia (US 20100128563 A1), and further in view of Qin (US20160282490A1).
With respect to Claim 16, Poole is silent to the language of
The system of Claim 11,
wherein the processor is further configured to convert the angle dependent reflectivity to a subsurface offset domain Srө and accumulate a reflection from a first subsurface offset with a reflection from a second subsurface offset DøsSrө.
Nevertheless, Qin teaches
The system of Claim 11 (See Claim 11 above),
wherein the processor is further configured to convert the angle dependent reflectivity to a subsurface offset domain Srө and accumulate a reflection from a first subsurface offset with a reflection from a second subsurface offset DøsSrө (See Qin Para[0011] “The velocity model is iteratively enhanced while preserving amplitude in a selected data-acquisition-related gathers (e.g., in a common shot domain, in a common receiver domain, in a common surface or subsurface offset domain, in a common angle domain, in a common plane-wave domain, etc.).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Poole wherein the processor is further configured to convert the angle dependent reflectivity to a subsurface offset domain Srө and accumulate a reflection from a first subsurface offset with a reflection from a second subsurface offset DøsSrө such as that of Qin.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Poole, because converting the angular reflectivity to a subsurface offset domain and accumulating reflections from two subsurface offsets will allow for a controlled analytical solution of the propagator equation for the seismic data when considering angular dependent reflectivities.
With respect to Claim 17, Poole is silent to the language of
The system of Claim 16,
wherein the forward propagated data is offset in space, at the given point, with a subsurface offset h to generate a reflection.
Nevertheless, Qin teaches
The system of Claim 16 (See Claim 11 above),
wherein the forward propagated data is offset in space, at the given point, with a subsurface offset h to generate a reflection (See Qin Abstract and Para[0045] “The data (serving as detected data and, thus, the FWI start point) are generated by finite differences for a marine-towed streamer acquisition with offsets ranging from 0 to 3 km.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Poole wherein the forward propagated data is offset in space, at the given point, with a subsurface offset h to generate a reflection such as that of Qin.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Poole, because offsetting the forward propagated data in space will allow for the efficient calculation of the multiple model while considering the angle-dependence of the reflectivities.
Claim(s) 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poole ("Shallow Water Surface Related Multiple Attenuation Using Multi-Sailine 3D Deconvolution Imaging") in view of Sava (“Angle-domain common-image gathers by wavefield continuation methods”) and Strobbia (US 20100128563 A1), and further in view of Ozbek (US20110060528A1).
With respect to Claim 18, Poole is silent to the language of
The system of Claim 11,
wherein the forward propagated data is dip filtered to a first angular range to create a first angular range forwards propagated wavefield.
Nevertheless, Ozbek teaches
The system of Claim 11 (See Claim 11 above),
wherein the forward propagated data is dip filtered to a first angular range to create a first angular range forwards propagated wavefield (See Ozbek Para[0007] “In seismic data processing, a common processing step is velocity (or dip) filtering, where wave field components faster than a given apparent velocity c are past, and the rest are rejected.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Poole wherein the forward propagated data is dip filtered to a first angular range to create a first angular range forwards propagated wavefield such as that of Ozbek.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Poole, because dip filtering is an alternative way to control and modify the seismic data and compare it with other data processing methods.
With respect to Claim 19, Poole is silent to the language of:
The system of Claim 18,
wherein the first angular range forwards propagated wavefield is reflected from a first reflectivity corresponding to the same first angular range.
Nevertheless, Sava teaches
The system of Claim 18 (See Claim 11 above),
wherein the first angular range forwards propagated wavefield is reflected from a first reflectivity corresponding to the same first angular range (See Sava Introduction Para[0003] and Para[0004] “ADCIGs produced with either kind of method have similar characteristics since they simply describe the reflectivity as a function of incidence angle at the reflector… This paper focuses on ADCIGs computed in relation with wave-equation migration.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Poole wherein the first angular range forwards propagated wavefield is reflected from a first reflectivity corresponding to the same first angular range such as that of Sava.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Poole, because having the wavefield being angle dependent while reflecting from an angle-dependent reflectivity would allow for more effective characterization of multiples, leading to more accurate calculation of multiple attenuation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOSTOFA AHMED HISHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-8773. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. ET, Friday 7:00 a.m. - 3 p.m. ET. Every other Friday off.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOSTOFA AHMED HISHAM/ Examiner, Art Unit 2863
/YOSHIHISA ISHIZUKA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2863