FDETAILED 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 .
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. With respect to Claims 1, 5, 9 the limitations b. converting, via the one or more processors, the DAS seismic data into pressure data; and c. processing the pressure data. This limitation is directed to an abstract idea and would fall within the “Mathematical Concept” or “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. This interpretation is supported in the specification as shown by Formula 1 and 2. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.In particular, the claim recites the additional element – receiving, at one or more processors, DAS seismic data; ( A computer system, comprising: one or more processors; memory; and one or more programs, wherein the one or more programs are stored in the memory and configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions that when executed by the one or more processors cause the system to) (A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing one or more programs, the one or more programs comprising instructions, which when executed by an electronic device with one or more processors and memory, cause the device to a) These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Examiner notes that receiving data is viewed as insignificant extrasolution activity and thus does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As such Examiner does NOT view that the claims -Improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field
-Apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
-Effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
-Apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Examiner further notes that such additional elements are viewed to be well known routine and conventional as evidenced by Horne (US 2019/0293814 A1)
Kacewicz (US 2018/0284305 A1). Turnbull (US 2016/0061977 A1) Karrenbach (US 2018/0203144 A1) Considering the claim as a whole, one of ordinary skill in the art would not know the practical application of the present invention since the claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in some meaningful way. As currently claimed, Examiner views that the additional elements do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, because the claims fails to recite clearly how the judicial exception is applied in a manner that does not monopolize the exception. Dependent claims 2-3,5-6,8-9 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea, as detailed below: there is no additional element(s) in the dependent claims that adds a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea to make the claim significantly more than the judicial exception (abstract idea). Claims 2-4,6-8,10-12 further limit the abstract idea with an abstract idea and thus the claims are still directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Examiner notes Claims 4, 8, 12 recite processing to generate an image which is viewed as insignificant extrasolution activity and thus does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
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 3, 7, 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. Claims 3, 7, 11 recite the equations
PNG
media_image1.png
572
1056
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However each variable is not defined by the claims and is therefore indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 8, 9 ,12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Horne (US 2019/0293814 A1).
With respect to Claim 1 Horne teaches A computer-implemented method for processing distributed acoustic sensing (DAS) seismic data, comprising (See Fig 3): a. receiving, at one or more processors, DAS seismic data (See Fig 3 and See Para[0075] The FO cable performs distributed acoustic sensing (DAS) to sense the plurality of seismic waves.); b. converting, via the one or more processors, the DAS seismic data into pressure data (See Para[0077] The DAS optical fiber may be either single-mode or multimode. In some embodiments, the term “acoustic” may be taken to mean any type of mechanical vibration or pressure wave, including seismic waves and sounds from sub-Hertz to 20 KHz. Optical pulses are launched into the DAS optical fiber and the radiation backscattered from within the DAS optical fiber is detected and analyzed. Rayleigh backscattering analysis is used to quantify vibration, seismic waves, or sound. By analyzing the radiation backscattered within the DAS optical fiber, the DAS optical fiber can effectively be divided into a plurality of discrete sensing portions which may be (but do not have to be) contiguous. Within each discrete sensing portion, mechanical vibrations of the DAS optical fiber, for instance from seismic sources, cause a variation in the amount of Rayleigh backscatter from that portion.); and c. processing the pressure data (See Para[0077] This variation can be detected and analyzed and used to give a measure of the acoustic spectrum intensity of disturbance of the DAS optical fiber at that sensing portion. Besides the intensity (amplitude) and distance, other factors that can be measured include frequency, phase, duration, and signal evolution of the transients. In one embodiment, an unmodified, substantially continuous length of standard optical fiber may be used, requiring little or no modification or preparation for use as the DAS optical fiber.). With respect to Claim 4 Horne teaches The method of claim 1 wherein the processing is performing reverse time migration with the pressure data as input to generate a seismic image of a subsurface volume of interest. (See Para[0006] The seismic data is processed to create seismic images that can be interpreted to identify subsurface geologic features including hydrocarbon deposits. The processing may include data conditioning methods (e.g., deghosting, noise attenuation, spectral enhancement, etc.), velocity estimation (e.g., semblance analysis, tomography, etc.), and seismic imaging (e.g., time migration, depth migration, reverse time migration, etc.). The seismic images that are produced are a representation of the physical subsurface and can be used to identify hydrocarbon reservoirs.) With respect to Claim 5 Horne teaches A computer system, comprising: (See Fig 3): one or more processors; (See Fig 3): memory; and (See Fig 3): one or more programs, wherein the one or more programs are stored in the memory and configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions that when executed by the one or more processors cause the system to: (See Fig 3): a. receive, at the one or more processors, DAS seismic data; (See Fig 3 and See Para[0075] The FO cable performs distributed acoustic sensing (DAS) to sense the plurality of seismic waves.); b. convert, via the one or more processors, the DAS seismic data into pressure data; (See Para[0077] The DAS optical fiber may be either single-mode or multimode. In some embodiments, the term “acoustic” may be taken to mean any type of mechanical vibration or pressure wave, including seismic waves and sounds from sub-Hertz to 20 KHz. Optical pulses are launched into the DAS optical fiber and the radiation backscattered from within the DAS optical fiber is detected and analyzed. Rayleigh backscattering analysis is used to quantify vibration, seismic waves, or sound. By analyzing the radiation backscattered within the DAS optical fiber, the DAS optical fiber can effectively be divided into a plurality of discrete sensing portions which may be (but do not have to be) contiguous. Within each discrete sensing portion, mechanical vibrations of the DAS optical fiber, for instance from seismic sources, cause a variation in the amount of Rayleigh backscatter from that portion.) and c. process the pressure data. (See Para[0077] This variation can be detected and analyzed and used to give a measure of the acoustic spectrum intensity of disturbance of the DAS optical fiber at that sensing portion. Besides the intensity (amplitude) and distance, other factors that can be measured include frequency, phase, duration, and signal evolution of the transients. In one embodiment, an unmodified, substantially continuous length of standard optical fiber may be used, requiring little or no modification or preparation for use as the DAS optical fiber.). With respect to Claim 8 Horne teaches The computer system of claim 5 wherein the instructions to process the pressure data comprise performing reverse time migration with the pressure data as input to generate a seismic image of a subsurface volume of interest. (See Para[0006] The seismic data is processed to create seismic images that can be interpreted to identify subsurface geologic features including hydrocarbon deposits. The processing may include data conditioning methods (e.g., deghosting, noise attenuation, spectral enhancement, etc.), velocity estimation (e.g., semblance analysis, tomography, etc.), and seismic imaging (e.g., time migration, depth migration, reverse time migration, etc.). The seismic images that are produced are a representation of the physical subsurface and can be used to identify hydrocarbon reservoirs.) With respect to Claim 9 Horne teaches A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing one or more programs, the one or more programs comprising instructions, which when executed by an electronic device with one or more processors and memory, cause the device to (See Fig 3): a. receive, at one or more processors, DAS seismic data; (See Fig 3 and See Para[0075] The FO cable performs distributed acoustic sensing (DAS) to sense the plurality of seismic waves.); b. convert, via the one or more processors, the DAS seismic data into pressure data; and (See Para[0077] The DAS optical fiber may be either single-mode or multimode. In some embodiments, the term “acoustic” may be taken to mean any type of mechanical vibration or pressure wave, including seismic waves and sounds from sub-Hertz to 20 KHz. Optical pulses are launched into the DAS optical fiber and the radiation backscattered from within the DAS optical fiber is detected and analyzed. Rayleigh backscattering analysis is used to quantify vibration, seismic waves, or sound. By analyzing the radiation backscattered within the DAS optical fiber, the DAS optical fiber can effectively be divided into a plurality of discrete sensing portions which may be (but do not have to be) contiguous. Within each discrete sensing portion, mechanical vibrations of the DAS optical fiber, for instance from seismic sources, cause a variation in the amount of Rayleigh backscatter from that portion.) c. process the pressure data. (See Para[0077] This variation can be detected and analyzed and used to give a measure of the acoustic spectrum intensity of disturbance of the DAS optical fiber at that sensing portion. Besides the intensity (amplitude) and distance, other factors that can be measured include frequency, phase, duration, and signal evolution of the transients. In one embodiment, an unmodified, substantially continuous length of standard optical fiber may be used, requiring little or no modification or preparation for use as the DAS optical fiber.).
With respect to Claim 12 Horne teaches The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 9 wherein the instructions to process the pressure data comprise performing reverse time migration with the pressure data as input to generate a seismic image of a subsurface volume of interest (See Para[0006] The seismic data is processed to create seismic images that can be interpreted to identify subsurface geologic features including hydrocarbon deposits. The processing may include data conditioning methods (e.g., deghosting, noise attenuation, spectral enhancement, etc.), velocity estimation (e.g., semblance analysis, tomography, etc.), and seismic imaging (e.g., time migration, depth migration, reverse time migration, etc.). The seismic images that are produced are a representation of the physical subsurface and can be used to identify hydrocarbon reservoirs.).
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.
Claim(s) (2, 6, 10) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horne (US 2019/0293814 A1) as applied to claims (1, 5, 9) respectively above, and further in view of Kacewicz (US 2018/0284305 A1).
With respect to Claim 2 Horne is silent to the language of The method of claim 1 wherein the converting comprises performing a spatial integral of the DAS seismic data along a DAS cable to get a particle velocity, and performing a spatial derivative of the particle velocity along the DAS cable and a temporal integral to generate the pressure data. Nevertheless Kacewicz teaches wherein the converting comprises performing a spatial integral of the DAS seismic data along a DAS cable to get a particle velocity, and performing a spatial derivative of the particle velocity along the DAS cable and a temporal integral to generate the pressure data (See Para[0007]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Horne generate pressure data such as that of Kacewicz. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Horne because decisions may be made regarding prioritization of hydrocarbon production drilling projects, resource management, etc. to focus efforts on producing hydrocarbon deposits likely to have more favorable pore pressures with improved accuracy. With respect to Claim 6 Horne is silent to the language of The computer system of claim 5 wherein the instructions to convert the DAS seismic data into pressure data comprise performing a spatial integral of the DAS seismic data along a DAS cable to get a particle velocity, and performing a spatial derivative of the particle velocity along the DAS cable and a temporal integral to generate the pressure data. Nevertheless Kacewicz teaches wherein the instructions to convert the DAS seismic data into pressure data comprise performing a spatial integral of the DAS seismic data along a DAS cable to get a particle velocity, and performing a spatial derivative of the particle velocity along the DAS cable and a temporal integral to generate the pressure data. (See Para[0007]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Horne generate pressure data such as that of Kacewicz. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Horne because decisions may be made regarding prioritization of hydrocarbon production drilling projects, resource management, etc. to focus efforts on producing hydrocarbon deposits likely to have more favorable pore pressures with improved accuracy. With respect to Claim 10 Horne is silent to the language of The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 9 wherein the instructions to convert the DAS seismic data into pressure data comprise performing a spatial integral of the DAS seismic data along a DAS cable to get a particle velocity, and performing a spatial derivative of the particle velocity along the DAS cable and a temporal integral to generate the pressure data. Nevertheless Kacewicz teaches wherein the instructions to convert the DAS seismic data into pressure data comprise performing a spatial integral of the DAS seismic data along a DAS cable to get a particle velocity, and performing a spatial derivative of the particle velocity along the DAS cable and a temporal integral to generate the pressure data. (See Para[0007]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Horne generate pressure data such as that of Kacewicz. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Horne because decisions may be made regarding prioritization of hydrocarbon production drilling projects, resource management, etc. to focus efforts on producing hydrocarbon deposits likely to have more favorable pore pressures with improved accuracy.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 7, 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and the 35 U.S.C. §101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 3, 7, 11 recite the limitation.
PNG
media_image2.png
438
982
media_image2.png
Greyscale
This limitation, in combination with the other elements of the claims, are neither anticipated by nor obvious in view of the prior art of record and to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Examiner recommends Applicant to schedule an interview with the Examiner to discuss amendments to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejections, to place the application in condition for allowance.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Turnbull (US 2016/0061977 A1) teaches methods to assess in near real-time defects in seismic data resulting from noise and seismic data acquisition-system deviations during a marine survey. Other intermediate stages of seismic data processing 1208 may include, but are not limited to, source-side deghosting, domain sorting, normal moveout (“NMO”), dip moveout (“DMO”), stacking, filtering, multiple removal, velocity analysis, time migration, and depth migration. The final stage, stage n, may apply an imaging condition to generate an image gather. Karrenbach (US 2018/0203144 A1) teaches methods for interferometric seismic imaging and creation of a high-resolution three-dimensional seismic volume in proximity to a wellbore.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOSHIHISA ISHIZUKA whose telephone number is (571)270-7050. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00-7:00.
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.
YOSHIHISA . ISHIZUKA
Examiner
Art Unit 2863
/YOSHIHISA ISHIZUKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2863