DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the claims filed on 9/19/2023.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the
references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although
the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to
the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply
as well. Examiner may also include cited interpretations encompassed within parenthesis, e.g. (Examiner’s interpretation), for clarity. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the claimed invention. The claims & only the claims form the metes & bounds of the invention. Office personnel are to give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. Unclaimed limitations appearing in the specification are not read into the claim. Prior art was referenced using terminology familiar to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such an approach is broad in concept and can be either explicit or implicit in meaning. Examiner's Notes are provided with the cited references to assist the applicant to better understand how the examiner interprets the applied prior art. Such comments are entirely consistent with the intent & spirit of compact prosecution.
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 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 9/19/2023 and 07/08/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“a seismic processing system configured to: obtain seismic data regarding a subsurface region of interest, determine a plurality of first arrivals based on the seismic data, and generate a seismic image based, at least in part, on the plurality of filtered first arrivals; and a seismic interpretation system configured to receive the seismic image and to determine a drilling target in the subsurface region based, at least in part, on the seismic image.” in claim 11,
“a wellbore planning system, configured to plan a planned wellbore trajectory to intersect the drilling target.” In claim 12,
“a seismic acquisition system configured to record measured seismic data regarding the subsurface region of interest; wherein the seismic processing system is further configured to: receive the measured seismic data, obtain a seismic velocity model of the subsurface region of interest” in claim 15,
“wherein the seismic processing system is further configured to: determine excluded first arrivals and retained first arrivals based on a mode of first arrivals in each subdomain” in claim 18,
“wherein the seismic processing system is further configured to perform statics correction of the measured seismic data based, at least in part, on the updated seismic velocity model” in claim 20.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification (i.e. Spec. P.56, 73, 84, 90-91, 94, 96, 100, and 107) as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2, 4-12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception (an abstract idea), as it has not been integrated into a practical application and the claim(s) further do/does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claim(s) under the framework provided in MPEP 2106 and has provided such analysis below.
To determine if a claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the Court
has guided the Office to apply the Alice/Mayo test, which requires:
Step 1. Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category of a Process, Machine, Manufacture, or a Composition of Matter (see MPEP 2106.03);
Step 2A. Determining if the claim is directed to a patent ineligible judicial exception consisting of a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04);
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A).
Under the first prong, examiners evaluate whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
The second prong is an inquiry into whether the claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, determining if the claim recites limitations or elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106).
Step 1:
Claims 1-10 are directed to a method, as such these claims fall within the statutory category of a process.
Claims 11-20 are directed to a system, as such these claims fall within the statutory category of machine.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The examiner submits that the foregoing claim limitations constitute abstract ideas, as the claims cover Mental Processes and/or Mathematical Concepts, given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
In order to apply Step 2A, a recitation of claims is copied below. The limitations of those claims which describe an abstract idea are bolded.
As per claim 1, the claim recites the limitations of:
determining, using the seismic processing system, a plurality of first
arrivals based on the seismic data (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) which are defined as concepts that can practically be performed in the human mind (e.g. observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), or by a human using pen and paper as a physical aid. For instance, a person can reasonably evaluate seismic data and then determine (i.e. judgement/opinion) a plurality of first arrivals therefrom, with/without the aid of pen and paper.);
determining, using the seismic processing system, a plurality of filtered first arrivals by applying a modal filter and replacement interpolation to the plurality of first arrivals (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mathematical Concepts and/or Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)/(III)). The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. The application of a model filter and replacement interpolation is interpreted as mathematical concepts. Additionally, a person can reasonably determine (i.e. observe, evaluate, judge, opinion) a plurality of first arrivals by applying a modal filter and replacement interpolation (i.e. observe, evaluate, judge, opinion), with/without the aid of pen/paper.);
Step 2A, Prong 2:
As per claim 1, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity and/or Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations:
obtaining, using a seismic processing system, seismic data regarding a subsurface region of interest (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional limitation amounts to Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (mere data gathering) per MPEP 2106.05(g). The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, such as the claimed invention.);
generating, using the seismic processing system, a seismic image based, at least in part, on the plurality of filtered first arrivals (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional limitation amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, the limitation recites only the idea of a solution or an outcome, i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considered as an ordered combination and as a whole.
Step 2B:
For step 2B of the analysis, the Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same.
The additional elements as described in Step 2A Prong 2 are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations are considered directed towards Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity and/or Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception. Per MPEP 2106.05(g), “[w]hen determining whether an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity, examiners may consider the following: (1) Whether the extra-solution limitation is well known”. Per MPEP 2106.05(d), “[t]he courts have recognized the following [relevant] computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, ii. Performing repetitive calculations, iii. Electronic recordkeeping, iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”. Per MPEP 2106.05(f), “[t]he recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".”
For the foregoing reasons, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Independent claim 11 recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale. Additionally, claim 11 recites a seismic interpretation system configured to receive the seismic image (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional limitation amounts to Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (mere data gathering) per MPEP 2106.05(g)) and to determine a drilling target in the subsurface region based, at least in part, on the seismic image (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional limitation amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, the limitation recites only the idea of a solution or an outcome, i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished.).
For the foregoing reasons, claim 11 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 2 recites determining, using a seismic interpretation system, a drilling target in the subsurface region based, at least in part, on the seismic image (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional limitation amounts to Mental Processes per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) since a person can reasonably evaluate the seismic image and then determine a drilling target in the subsurface region, with/without the aid of pen/paper.); and planning, using a wellbore planning system, a planned wellbore trajectory to intersect the drilling target (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional limitation amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply An Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, the limitation recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".)
For the foregoing reasons, claim 2 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 4 recites wherein the seismic data comprises synthetic seismic data. The additional limitation elaborates on the gathered seismic data, thus further amounts to Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (i.e. mere data gathering) per MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 5 recites wherein generating the seismic image further comprises: receiving, from a seismic acquisition system, measured seismic data appertaining to the subsurface region of interest (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional limitation amounts to Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (mere data gathering) per MPEP 2106.05(g).); obtaining a seismic velocity model of the subsurface region of interest (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional limitation amounts to Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (mere data gathering) per MPEP 2106.05(g).); and generating an updated seismic velocity model iteratively, or recursively, until a stopping condition is reached (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional limitation amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f).), wherein generating the updated seismic velocity model comprises: generating the synthetic seismic data based, at least in part, on the seismic velocity model and a geometry of the measured seismic data, and updating, using the seismic processing system, the seismic velocity model based, at least in part, on the plurality of filtered first arrivals and the measured seismic data (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional limitation amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f), i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how synthetic seismic data is generated and updated. Additionally, per MPEP 2106.05 (f), “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.”).
Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 6 recites wherein determining the plurality of first arrivals comprises using a modified energy ratio. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional limitation elaborates on first arrival determination, thus further amounts to Mental Processes per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and/or Mathematical Concepts per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) which is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. A claim that recites a numerical formula or equation will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. In addition, there are instances where a formula or equation is written in text format that should also be considered as falling within this grouping. Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 7 recites wherein applying the modal filter comprises sequentially performing modal filtering in an offset domain, a common depth-point domain, and an azimuth domain. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional limitation elaborates on the application of a modal filter, thus further amounts to Mental Processes per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and/or Mathematical Concepts per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) which is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula." A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 8 recites wherein by applying a modal filter comprises: dividing a domain of the plurality of first arrivals in a plurality of subdomains (The additional limitation elaborates on the application of a modal filter, thus further amounts to Mental Processes per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and/or Mathematical Concepts per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).); and determining excluded first arrivals and retained first arrivals based on a mode of first arrivals in each subdomain (The additional limitation amounts to Mental Processes per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) since a person can reasonably determine (i.e. evaluate, judge, opinion) excluded/retained first arrivals based on a mode of first arrivals in each subdomain, with/without the aid of pen/paper. The additional limitation, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, also amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)/(2).)
Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 9 recites wherein applying replacement interpolation comprises: ordering the retained first arrivals by receiver number; and replacing each excluded first arrival by interpolating the retained first arrivals at adjacent receivers. The additional limitations elaborate on replacement interpolation application, thus further amount to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 10 recites further comprising performing statics correction of the measured seismic data based, at least in part, on the updated seismic velocity model. The additional limitation, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f), i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how performing statics correction is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 12 recites substantially the same subject matter recited within claim 2 and is rejected under similar rationale and further failure to add significantly more. Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 14 – 20 recite substantially the same subject matter as claims 4-10, respectively, and are rejected under similar rationale and further failure to add significantly more. Therefore, the claims are rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 set forth in Graham V. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
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 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.
Claims 1-5, 7-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colombo et al. US Patent No. US 11346970 B2 (hereinafter referred to as “Colombo”) in view of Padhi et al. US Patent No. US 10571584 B2 (hereinafter referred to as “Padhi”).
Regarding claim 1, Colombo discloses A method, comprising:
determining, using the seismic processing system, a plurality of filtered first arrivals by applying a modal filter and replacement interpolation to the plurality of first arrivals (“multimodal statistics can be used to optimizing the statistical filtering to remove anomalous or aberrant data, such as rejection of first break pick outliers (i.e. plurality of filtered first arrivals)” Colombo [Col.11 Ln.36]. See Claim 9 below for replacement interpolation [Colombo Col.10 Ln.38].); and generating, using the seismic processing system, a seismic image (“Outliers are identified by discarding estimates whose deviation from the sample mean exceeds the standard deviation (sigma) by more than a specified factor (K). As described below, the images
I-1 and I-2 in FIGS. 5A and 5B (see below) show the standard deviation of first break picks calculated for each bin before and after the rejection (i.e. cleaning) procedure, respectively.” Colombo [Col.9 Ln.43]) based, at least in part, on the plurality of filtered first arrivals (“This methodology allows statistical representation in a single volume of a large three dimensional first break pick dataset into a single organizational module for processing and analysis. The present invention assembles data representing common physical features into a group for statistical analysis, rejection of anomalous or aberrant first break picks (i.e. filtered first arrivals), which are known as outliers, and verification of the consistency of the results relative to the underlying geology.” Colombo [Col.7 Ln.28]).
PNG
media_image1.png
317
620
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Colombo fails to specifically disclose obtaining, using a seismic processing system, seismic data regarding a subsurface region of interest and determining, using the seismic processing system, a plurality of first arrivals based on the seismic data.
However, Padhi discloses obtaining, using a seismic processing system, seismic data regarding a subsurface region of interest (“The surface seismic survey conducted using system 100A may be, for example, an initial exploratory survey conducted over a relatively large area of earth in order to obtain a low resolution mapping of the geometry of subsurface formation 102.” Padhi [Col.5 Ln.27]);
determining, using the seismic processing system, a plurality of first arrivals based on the seismic data (“VSP data 222 may include measured or observed travel time data for a plurality of seismic source and receiver locations associated with the VSP survey of the subsurface formation. Such travel time data may include, for example, first arrival times of direct qP-wave propagations between different sources and receivers in the VSP survey.” Padhi [Col.7 Ln.60])
Colombo and Padhi are analogous art as they both relate to methods and systems for processing seismic data to model subsurface geological properties. Colombo relates to seismic imaging and analysis of subsurface rock formations, specifically to estimating orthorhombic anisotropy parameters of subsurface layers to improve seismic modeling accuracy. It is intended for use in hydrocarbon exploration and well planning by providing refined 3D models of subsurface formations based on vertical seismic profile data and anisotropic ray tracing combined with global inversion techniques. And Padhi relates to geophysical exploration, specifically seismic surveying and data processing, aiming to improve the accuracy and quality of seismic velocity models of near-surface and subsurface earth formations. It provides an automated, iterative computer-implemented method and system to refine first break picks of refracted seismic energy travel times by removing anomalous data, enabling robust tomographic inversion for velocity modeling. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Colombo’s image creation and seismic data quality control techniques to include a seismic processing system and first arrival determination method, such as that disclosed by Padhi, in order “for improved seismic modeling and analysis of three-dimensional (3D) subsurface structures” Padhi [Col.2 Ln.64].
Regarding claim 2, Colombo further discloses further comprising: determining, using a seismic interpretation system, a drilling target in the subsurface region based, at least in part, on the seismic image (“Seismic data from such surveys are then processed to obtain images of rock formations and their locations in an area of interest (i.e. drilling target) beneath the earth's surface.” Colombo [Col.6 Ln.40]), but fails to specifically disclose planning, using a wellbore planning system, a planned wellbore trajectory to intersect the drilling target.
However, Padhi further discloses planning, using a wellbore planning system, a planned wellbore trajectory to intersect the drilling target (“well planning operations that may be performed using the refined 3D model include, but are not limited to, generating well placement or stimulation plans for drilling operations at one or more well sites, planning a well path or trajectory of a wellbore to be drilled through different layers of the formation, and adjusting or optimizing the planned path or trajectory of the wellbore” Padhi [Col.10 Ln.60]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a planned wellbore trajectory, as Padhi discloses, to Colombo’s subsurface drilling target since “[k]nowing the properties and locations of underground rock formations is useful for making decisions as to where and how to economically produce hydrocarbons from underground reservoirs” Padhi [Col.1 Ln.25].
Regarding claim 3, the method of claim 2, Colombo fails to specifically disclose further comprising drilling, using a drilling system, a portion of a wellbore guided by the planned wellbore trajectory. However, Padhi discloses further comprising drilling, using a drilling system, a portion of a wellbore guided by the planned wellbore trajectory (“adjusting or optimizing the planned path or trajectory of the wellbore as it is drilled through the formation” Padhi [Col.10 Ln.66]).
Padhi discloses the limitations of claim 3 and maintains the same rationale for combination with Colombo as claim 2.
Regarding claim 4, Colombo further discloses wherein the seismic data comprises synthetic seismic data (“The present invention utilizes this physical manifestation of seismic energy travel indicated schematically at 46 in FIG. 1 for wide angle ray paths to indicate and identify an apex of a refracted simulated (i.e. synthetic) curvilinear ray path as shown at 48.” Colombo [Col.6 Ln.19] Simulated data is interpreted as synthetic data due to Applicants disclosure, “Synthetic seismic data may include time-space waveforms that are generated by numerical simulations of wave propagating in a model of the subsurface region of interest.” [Spec. P.0090]).
Regarding claim 5, the method of claim 4, Colombo further discloses wherein generating the seismic image further comprises: receiving, from a seismic acquisition system, measured seismic data appertaining to the subsurface region of interest (“FIG. 7 contains a plot for display of seismic traces known as a seismic data gather for a three dimensional land data set from a seismic survey (i.e. measured seismic data). [ ] Seismic data from such surveys are then processed to obtain images of rock formations and their locations in an area of interest beneath the earth's surface.” Colombo [Col.6 Ln.40]); obtaining a seismic velocity model of the subsurface region of interest (“The obtained first break pick distribution 182 in FIG. 8 can be used directly for deriving a robust velocity model through a tomographic procedure.” Colombo [Col.11 Ln.18]); and generating an updated seismic velocity model iteratively, or recursively, until a stopping condition is reached (“FIG. 10 (see below) illustrates in flow chart T the application of the present invention to residual times from tomographic inversion. During step 200, the processed and optimized first break picks, such as those resulting from processing at step 122 in FIG. 3, are used to perform an inversion or tomography process at step 202.” Colombo [Col.12 Ln.26]),
PNG
media_image2.png
358
359
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein generating the updated seismic velocity model comprises: generating the synthetic seismic data based, at least in part, on the seismic velocity model and a geometry of the measured seismic data (“The present invention determines the physical location in the earth of an apex or common mid-point for refracted wave travel such as shown at 48 in FIG. 1 of a refracted simulated (i.e. synthetic seismic data) curvilinear ray path based on the survey data for each source-receiver point of the survey.” Colombo [Col.6 Ln.56]. Simulated data is interpreted as synthetic data due to Applicants disclosure, “Synthetic seismic data may include time-space waveforms that are generated by numerical simulations of wave propagating in a model of the subsurface region of interest.” [Spec. P.0090]), and updating, using the seismic processing system, the seismic velocity model based, at least in part, on the plurality of filtered first arrivals and the measured seismic data (see Colombo Fig.10 above).
Regarding claim 7, Colombo further discloses wherein applying the modal filter comprises sequentially performing modal filtering in an offset domain, a common depth-point domain, and an azimuth domain (“During step 110, computation of bin statistics such as, but not limited to, standard deviation, takes place for each bin. The processing during step 110 includes scanning of the data by azimuthal sectors and the identification of multimodal distributions. First break picks not satisfying the statistical criteria are then eliminated (i.e. filtered) from the dataset during step 112. The outlier rejection during step 112 may be repeated if desired as an iterative step as indicated at 113.” Colombo [Col.8 Ln.66]. Modal filtering is interpreted to include offset, common depth-point, and azimuth domains because “ It can thus be seen that the present invention is applicable and useful for survey data in two dimensional, three dimensional or four dimensional space: X, Y, Offset, and Azimuth. Functions such as cubic b-splines or other polynomial functions fitting the data can be defined and used to impose smoothness among the domains (X, Y, Offset, and Azimuth). This allows a robust multi-dimensional analytical prediction of the first break picks to be used as seed for the autopicking iterative process.” Colombo [Col.11 Ln.24]).
Regarding claim 8, Colombo further discloses wherein by applying a modal filter comprises: dividing a domain of the plurality of first arrivals in a plurality of subdomains (“With the present invention, a large three dimensional first break dataset (i.e. plurality of first arrivals) is organized in a single cubic volume C (FIG. 2A) composed of a number of voxels or bins (i.e. subdomains) of 50, where each voxel 50 stores a collection of first break picks occurring in a three dimensional space. In the embodiment of FIG. 2A, the cubic volume C is composed along intersection axes of offset spacing times based on a Delta-X spacing as indicated at 52, a Delta-Y offset spacing as indicated at 54, and a Delta-Offset offset spacing as indicated at 56. Within each voxel 50 statistics are calculated on the first break data assigned to that voxel to determine multimodal distributions of travel times and derive robust travel time estimates (according to mean, median, mode, standard deviation, kurtosis, and other suitable statistical accuracy analytical measures) related to azimuthal sectors allocated to the bin or voxel 50. FIG. 2B illustrates schematically an example statistical representation of the distribution for a single voxel 50 of the cube C of FIG. 2A. This is performed by sorting the three dimensional first break pick dataset of the cube C into individual binned travel time attribute cubes represented by the individual voxels 50.” Colombo [Col.7 Ln.12]. Voxels or bins are interpreted as subdomains due to Applicant’s disclosure “the plurality of first arrivals may be then divided in a plurality of bins” [Spec. P.0094]); and determining excluded first arrivals and retained first arrivals based on a mode of first arrivals in each subdomain (“The standard deviation (σ) of the first break (i.e. first arrival) pick values for an example such voxel is indicated schematically in FIG. 2B at 60, while a mean value of first break picks is indicated schematically at 62. An anomalous or aberrant first break pick value or outlier is indicated schematically at 64 in FIG. 2B. Based on the other first break pick values of the voxel 50 in FIG. 2B, the outlier first break pick 64 is one not satisfying the statistical filtering, and thus statistically unreliable.” Colombo [Col.7 Ln.47]).
Regarding claim 9, the method of claim 8, Colombo further discloses wherein applying replacement interpolation comprises: ordering the retained first arrivals by receiver number; and replacing each excluded first arrival by interpolating the retained first arrivals at adjacent receivers (“A visual control of the cleaning procedure is provided for a three dimensional land dataset by FIG. 6. FIG. 6 (see below) is a plot (i.e. ordering) of a number of first break picks (i.e. first arrivals by receiver number) for the same survey as that of FIG. 2C. First break picks indicated at 160 and 162 are those that were eliminated (i.e. excluded) by the application of the statistical analysis according to the methodology of the present invention. These first break picks exhibit an out-of-trend distribution from the remaining picks of the data displayed.” Colombo [Col.10 Ln.38]. As shown in Fig.6 below, excluded first arrivals 160 and 162 have been replaced by interpolating the retained first arrivals at adjacent receivers.).
PNG
media_image3.png
568
524
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, the method of claim 5, Colombo further discloses further comprising performing statics correction of the measured seismic data based, at least in part, on the updated seismic velocity model (“The right side of the gather of FIG. 7 shows at 176 an opposite behavior with the original picks (red) at 170 identifying a later arrival (i.e. static) (cycle skip) and the picks at 172 after statistical analysis (includes updated seismic velocity model) (blue) identifying the correct seismic phase (i.e. performing static correction).” Colombo [Col.10 Ln.59]).
Claim 11 recites substantially the same subject matter as claims 1 and 2 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 12-15 and 17-20 recite substantially the same subject matter as claims 2-5 and 7-10, respectively, and are rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colombo et al. US Patent No. US 11346970 B2 (hereinafter referred to as “Colombo”) in view of Padhi et al. US Patent No. US 10571584 B2 (hereinafter referred to as “Padhi”), in further view of Valero et al. US Patent No. 10401523 B2 (hereinafter referred to as “Valero”).
Regarding claim 6, Colombo and Padhi fail to specifically disclose wherein determining the plurality of first arrivals comprises using a modified energy ratio. However, Valero discloses wherein determining the plurality of first arrivals comprises using a modified energy ratio (“The most widely used techniques to pick up first-arrival times use the ratio of energy of the signal within two distinct windows [ ] After calculating the energy ratio between a forward and backward window, a modified energy ratio is calculated” Valero [Col.11 Ln.22, Col.12 Ln.5]).
Valero is analogous art as it relates to the field of borehole sonic logging and acoustic wave analysis, specifically to estimating the time of flight of compressional acoustic waves recorded by an array of receivers in noisy environments such as during drilling operations. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Colombo and Padhi to include using a modified energy ratio, as Valero discloses, in order to nullify “biased estimation of arrival times” Valero [Col.11 Ln.39].
Claim 16 recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 6 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, listed on form PTO-892, and not relied upon is
considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Halliday et al. (Reflection Seismology Inversion with Quality Control – US Pat. No. 12631779 B2). “A method can include receiving seismic data of a subsurface region; performing an iterative full waveform inversion using at least a portion of the seismic data to generate a model of the subsurface region, where the performing includes, after one or more iterations of the full waveform inversion, automatically selecting one or more parts of the seismic data for inclusion in the at least a portion of the seismic data based on data classification using one or more quality attributes; and outputting the model of the subsurface region.” [Abstract]
Al-Momin et al. (Non-hyperbolic Correction Of Seismic Data – US Pat. No. 9329291 B2). “A method for improving seismic images by correction of distortions in the underlying seismic data” [Abstract], “any inversion algorithm that produces good traveltime operators can be used” [Col.6 Ln.53]
Padhi et al. (Borehole Seismic Wavefield Data Separation – US Pat. No 11506806 B2). “Seismic wavefield data is obtained based on the seismic source outputting seismic energy into the wellbore and the plurality of seismic receivers receiving the seismic energy. A velocity profile is determined along the wellbore based on the seismic wavefield data. P and S wave data in a downgoing direction is separated from the seismic wavefield data based on an inversion and the velocity profile. The P and S wave data in the downgoing direction is adaptively subtracted from the seismic wavefield data to form residual wavefield data. The P and S wave data in a upgoing direction is separated from the residual wavefield data based on the inversion and an updated velocity profile. The P and S wave data in the upgoing and downgoing direction is output.” [Abstract]
Lang et al. (Compressional/shear Wave Separation In Vertical Seismic Profiling – US Pat. No 4870580). “the wavefield components along the x-axis and the z-axis are forward Fourier transformed only temporally, in one dimension, the result is filtered in the space-frequency domain with a space-variant filter which can be different for each borehole depth, and the result is inverse-transformed back to the space-time domain to derive the compressional component.” [Abstract]
Seo Kim, Young, et al. "A shallow velocity model building using full-waveform inversion on 3D onshore dataset." SEG International Exposition and Annual Meeting. SEG, 2022. “We apply WTI and TTFWI sequentially to a 3D onshore data set for building the shallow subsurface velocity model. In the WTI stage, only picked first arrivals is employed as an input data to generate a smoothed velocity model without cycle skipping issue. Then, we perform TTFWI with pre processed and muted field data as an input to obtain the intermediate-wavelength velocity model.” [Pg.2382 Conclusion]
Seo Kim, Young, et al. "CDP-domain traveltime and waveform inversion for initial velocity estimation." SEG International Exposition and Annual Meeting. SEG, 2020. “When picking the first arrivals of the synthetic traces, the Modified Energy Ratio (MER) algorithm is employed which works very well in the noise-free data (Wong et al., 2009). In the data preparation stage, we also mute field data with windows surrounding the picked first-arrival times.” [Pg.1885 Col.1 P.3]
Zhang et al. (Methods Using Travel-time Full Waveform Inversion For Imaging Subsurface Formations With Salt Bodies – US Pat. No 11048001 B2). “methods and systems for seismic exploration, more specifically, to types of full waveform inversion, FWI, techniques that improve the images of explored subsurface formations” [Col.1 Ln.28]
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anthony Chavez whose telephone number is (571) 272-1036. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET.
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, Renee Chavez can be reached at (571) 270-1104 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.
/ANTHONY CHAVEZ/ Examiner, Art Unit 2186
/SAIF A ALHIJA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186
Prosecution Insights