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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In [0057], line 11, “seismic data recording sensors 405” should be --seismic data recording sensors 105-- for consistency.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because
In FIGs. 8-13, the text is too blurry to read.
In FIGs. 8-17, there should be descriptions or labels for each axis in the graphs.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 3, “in the survey region a plurality of locations” should be -- at a plurality of locations in the survey region-- for better clarity.
In claim 1, “(c) observing the seismic waves and recording seismic data” should be --(c) observing the seismic waves and recording observed seismic data-- to establish an antecedent basis for “the observed seismic data” recited subsequently in several places.
In claim 1, “(d) transmitting the observed seismic data from the seismic data recording sensors to a computer system including one or more memories and storing the observed seismic data in one or more memories, storing a source wavelet and a current medium parameter model in the one or more memories” should be --(d) transmitting the observed seismic data from the seismic data recording sensors to a computer system including one or more memories, storing the observed seismic data in the one or more memories, and storing a source wavelet and a current medium parameter model in the one or more memories-- for better clarity.
In claim 1, “(e) performing, by the computer system, a forward modeling operation using the source wavelet and a current medium parameter model according to a forward wave equation and obtain a forward wavefield and generate synthetic data based on the forward wave equation” should be --(e) performing, by the computer system, a forward modeling operation using the source wavelet and [[a]]the current medium parameter model according to a forward wave equation and obtain a forward wavefield to generate synthetic data based on the forward wave equation-- for better clarity.
In claim 1, “(k) outputting the updated velocity as a final velocity model to a display upon convergence” should be --(k) outputting the updated velocity as a final velocity model to a display upon the convergence-- to avoid creating another antecedent basis.
In claim 11, lines 14-15, “performing a forward modeling operation using the source wavelet and a current medium parameter model according to a forward wave equation and obtain a forward wavefield” should be --performing a forward modeling operation using the source wavelet and a current medium parameter model according to a forward wave equation to obtain a forward wavefield-- for better clarity.
The other claim(s) not discussed above, or depending on the above claim(s), are objected to for inheriting the issue(s) from their linking claim(s).
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 1-11 are 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.
Regarding claim 1, it recites “(c) observing the seismic waves and recording seismic data based on the seismic waves using the seismic data recording sensors.” However, there are two antecedent bases for “the seismic data recording sensors.” It is unclear which (or both) is referred to. For examination purpose, --(c) observing the seismic waves and recording seismic data based on the seismic waves using the seismic data recording sensors at the plurality of locations and in the well bore-- is assumed.
Regarding claim 4, it recites “wherein operation (g) further comprises, by the computer system, reversely propagating the adjoint source to obtain an adjoint wavefield; calculating a gradient using the forward wavefield and the adjoint wavefield; determining a search direction and a step length; and updating the medium parameter model with the step length.” However, the “adjoint source” is obtained (solved) in step (h), after operation (g). It is unclear how the “adjoint source” can be reversely propagated before it is obtained. For examination purpose, --wherein operation ([[g]]h) further comprises, by the computer system, reversely propagating the adjoint source to obtain an adjoint wavefield; calculating a gradient using the forward wavefield and the adjoint wavefield; determining a search direction and a step length; and updating the medium parameter model with the step length-- is assumed.
Regarding claim 11, it recites “each point of incidence” in line 6. The limitation is too broad without clear boundaries. For examination purpose, --points of incidence-- is assumed.
Regarding claim 11, it recites “the seismic data recording sensors” in line 10. However, there are three antecedent bases for “the seismic data recording sensors.” It is unclear which (or all three) is referred to. For examination purpose, “a plurality of seismic data recording sensors to sense seismic waves and record seismic data based on the seismic waves” in lines 8-9 is assumed to be --the seismic data recording sensors at the different locations and/or in the well bore to sense seismic waves and record seismic data based on the seismic waves--, and “wherein the seismic data recording sensors” in line 10 is assumed to be --wherein the seismic data recording sensors at the different locations and/or in the well bore--.
The other claim(s) not discussed above, or depending on the above claim(s), are rejected for inheriting the issue(s) from their linking claim(s).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of copending Application No. 18785214 in view of ZHANG et al. (US 20190302293 A1). Claim 10 of the copending application teaches substantially the features of the instant claims at issue. Any differences are well-known or obvious in view of ZHANG et al., which teaches substantially the claimed features, except for the “Hann window” operation that is nevertheless taught by claim 10 of the copending application. Therefore, the combination teaches the claims at issue.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Notes
Claims 1 and 11 distinguish over the closest prior art of record as discussed below.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, the closest prior art of record fails to teach the features of claim 1 (as the representative): “(f) processing, by the computer system, the synthetic data and the observed seismic data using a Hann window operation, respectively, to obtain a localized synthetic data and a localized seismic data,” in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant.
ZHANG et al. (US 20190302293 A1) teaches a method of full waveform inversion to generate a velocity model using a cost function based on traveltime differences. ZHANG teaches substantially the features of claim 1, except for “(f) processing, by the computer system, the synthetic data and the observed seismic data using a Hann window operation, respectively, to obtain a localized synthetic data and a localized seismic data.” ZHANG simply defines a frequency-dependent time window selection technique based on a user input parameter k and a frequency f (i.e.,
L
=
k
f
; see [0061]). It appears that ZHANG only concerns about the window length and does not suggest any windowing function, such as the Hann Window, in separating the seismic data into localized data.
Etgen (US 20220276401 A1) teaches a method of estimating a velocity model, involving decomposing sound speed model into a hierarchical-scale set of spatially localized velocity perturbation basis functions based on a Hanning window function. However, this is decomposing in space for search for models. It is unrelated to the features at issue.
VDOVINA et al. (US 20160238722 A1) teaches a multi-stage Full Wavefield Inversion (FWI) workflow, involving a Hann window function as a taper for recorded traces. However, it does not teach or suggest the features at issue. The taper is used only for recorded tracer. There is no motivation to apply it to the synthetic seismic data. Also, the application of the taper (Hann window function) does not result in localized seismic data, but merely to smooth the data (see [0049]).
Wang et al. ("Inversion of seismic refraction and reflection data for building long-wavelength velocity models" GEOPHYSICS, VOL. 80, NO. 2 (MARCH-APRIL 2015); P. R81-R93) teaches a method of generating a velocity model of a region of interest, involving picking windows using a semiautomatic picking approach for field data; maximizing a cross-correlation function for each source receiver pair to obtain traveltime residual; and using an objective function of the traveltime residual to search for a velocity model. Wang does not teach or suggest the features at issue.
Accordingly, the prior art of record, singly or in combination, fails to teach or suggest the above indicated features at issue.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhang et al. (US 20230184975 A1) teaches a method of seismic data inversion to generate a velocity mode of a geological region of interest by using a seismic source and various seismic receiver, with the use of a time window.
LIU et al. (US 20210311215 A1) teaches a method of full waveform inversion, involving using a source wavelet and a current velocity model to generate modeled seismic data of the subterranean formation; and generating and updating a velocity model based on a seismic data residual.
LIANG et al. (CN 114460646 A) teaches a reflected wave travel time inversion method based on wave field excitation approximation, involving using given seismic wavelet and observation seismic data, combining an initial velocity model to calculate a background wave field and storing the excitation amplitude and excitation time of the background wave field; using observation seismic data as the seismic source, calculating the accompanying background wave field, and calculating an inverse time offset with respect to the excitation time; and iteratively updating the speed parameter, until convergence.
GRATACOS et al. (US 20170115418 A1) teaches a method for processing seismic data from a subsurface using least squares migration or wave equation migration velocity analysis over a cost function comprising a function of a matching filter by iteratively updating the reflectivity model velocity model to yield an updated reflectivity model or updated velocity model that matches the observed seismic data.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN C KUAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7066. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM-5:30PM.
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, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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.
/JOHN C KUAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857