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 .
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. With respect to Claim 1, 15 the limitations generating, based on the seismic data, a down-going wavefield; generating, based on the seismic data, a partial down-going wavefield with attenuated water-wave; estimating a subsurface reflectivity R using multi-dimensional deconvolution, which equates (1) a convolution of the down-going wavefield with the subsurface reflectivity R to (2) the partial down-going wavefield; and 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 Formulas 1-9. 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 seismic data acquired by at least one receiver over a water-covered subsurface formation; generating an image of the water-covered subsurface formation based on the subsurface reflectivity R.) (claim 1) (A computing device for processing seismic data, the computing device comprising: an interface for receiving seismic data acquired by at least one receiver over a water-covered subsurface formation; and a processor connected to the interface and configured to generate an image of the water-covered subsurface formation based on the subsurface reflectivity R.) (Claim 15) The computing device and processors are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) 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. The additional elements regarding an interface for receiving seismic data acquired by at least one receiver over a water-covered subsurface formation; and generate an image of the water-covered subsurface formation based on the subsurface reflectivity R
are view as mere data gathering and insignificant extrasolution activity. 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 element of an interface for receiving seismic data acquired by at least one receiver over a water-covered subsurface formation; and generate an image of the water-covered subsurface formation based on the subsurface reflectivity R is viewed as insignificant extrasolution activity as mere data gathering in an conventional way and, therefore, does not provide an inventive concept. Examiner further notes that such additional elements are viewed to be well known routine and conventional as evidenced by Dawson (US 2023/0077945 A1) Dragoset (US 2010/0246324 A1). Poole (US 2015/0109881 A1) Poole (US 2017/0248716 A1) Robertsson (US 2019/0018157 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 2-14,16-20 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 2-12,14,16-20 further limit the abstract idea with an abstract idea and thus the claims are still directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 13 recite limitations regarding data gathering steps necessary or routine to implement the abstract idea and thus are not significantly more than the abstract idea and viewed to be well known routine and conventional as evidenced by the prior art shown above.
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) 1, 4, 6-10, 14, 15, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dawson (US 2023/0077945 A1).
With respect to Claim 1 Dawson teaches A method for processing seismic data, the method comprising (See Abstract): receiving seismic data acquired by at least one receiver over a water-covered subsurface formation (See Fig 3B); generating, based on the seismic data, a down-going wavefield(See Abstract A method includes receiving seismic data including signals collected using a receiver, separating a downgoing wavefield from an upgoing wavefield in the signals, generating a modified downgoing wavefield by removing direct arrivals from the downgoing wavefield); estimating a subsurface reflectivity R using multi-dimensional deconvolution, which equates (1) a convolution of the down-going wavefield with the subsurface reflectivity R to (2) the partial down-going wavefield; (See Para[0064]-[0066])
PNG
media_image1.png
440
694
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
544
696
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and generating an image of the water-covered subsurface formation based on the subsurface reflectivity R. (See Abstract and generating a seismic image based at least in part on the estimated first-order multiple reflection signals.) However Dawson is silent to the language of generating, based on the seismic data, a partial down-going wavefield with attenuated water-wave; Nevertheless Dawson teaches (See Abstract A method includes receiving seismic data including signals collected using a receiver, separating a downgoing wavefield from an upgoing wavefield in the signals, generating a modified downgoing wavefield by removing direct arrivals from the downgoing wavefield); While Dawson does not explicitly recite a partial down-going wavefield, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the a modified downgoing wavefield would be a type of downgoing wavefield, and would be partial since a part of the wavefield is removed. With respect to Claim 4 Dawson teaches The method of claim 1, further comprising: generating a model M.sub.d of multiples in the down-going wavefield or the partial down-going wavefield based on the subsurface reflectivity R; (See Para[0073]) attenuating multiples in the down-going wavefield or the partial down-going wavefield based on the model M.sub.d of multiples; and (See Para[0073]) calculating the image based on the down-going wavefield with attenuated multiples. (See Fig 4, 5) With respect to Claim 6 Dawson teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the multi-dimensional deconvolution is calculated as a summation over plural source locations. (See Para[0071]) With respect to Claim 7 Dawson teaches The method of claim 6, where the source locations are acquired source locations. (See Para[0071]) With respect to Claim 8 Dawson teaches The method of claim 6, where the source locations are reconstructed source locations. (See Para[0071]) With respect to Claim 9 Dawson teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the multi-dimensional deconvolution is calculated in a transform domain, which is different from the time-space domain. (See Para[0064]) With respect to Claim 10 Dawson teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the multi-dimensional deconvolution is calculated with conditioning, muting, or sparseness weights.(See Para[0056] and Claim 5) With respect to Claim 14 Dawson teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the down-going wavefield and the partial down-going wavefield are in a space-time domain. (See Para[0075]) With respect to Claim 15 Dawson teaches A computing device for processing seismic data, the computing device comprising: (See Fig 1, and Para[0006] Embodiments of the disclosure also provide a non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by at least one processor of a computing system, cause the computing system to perform operations.) an interface for receiving seismic data acquired by at least one receiver over a water-covered subsurface formation; (See Fig 3B); and a processor connected to the interface and configured to, generate, based on the seismic data, a down-going wavefield; (See Abstract A method includes receiving seismic data including signals collected using a receiver, separating a downgoing wavefield from an upgoing wavefield in the signals, generating a modified downgoing wavefield by removing direct arrivals from the downgoing wavefield) estimate a subsurface reflectivity R using multi-dimensional deconvolution, which (1) a convolution of the down-going wavefield with the subsurface reflectivity R to (2) the partial down-going wavefield Du; and
(See Para[0064]-[0066])
PNG
media_image1.png
440
694
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
544
696
media_image2.png
Greyscale
generate an image of the water-covered subsurface formation based on the subsurface reflectivity R. (See Abstract and generating a seismic image based at least in part on the estimated first-order multiple reflection signals.) However Dawson is silent to the language of calculate a partial down-going wavefield by attenuating a water-wave from the down-going wavefield; Nevertheless Dawson teaches (See Abstract A method includes receiving seismic data including signals collected using a receiver, separating a downgoing wavefield from an upgoing wavefield in the signals, generating a modified downgoing wavefield by removing direct arrivals from the downgoing wavefield); While Dawson does not explicitly recite a partial down-going wavefield, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the a modified downgoing wavefield would be a type of downgoing wavefield, and would be partial since a part of the wavefield is removed. With respect to Claim 18 Dawson teaches The computing device of claim 15, wherein the processor is further configured to: generate a model M.sub.d of multiples in the down-going wavefield or the partial down-going wavefield based on the subsurface reflectivity R; (See Para[0073]) attenuate multiples in the down-going wavefield or the partial down-going wavefield based on the model M.sub.d of multiples(See Para[0073]); and calculate the image based on the down-going wavefield with attenuated multiples. (See Fig 4, 5) With respect to Claim 19 Dawson teaches The computing device of claim 15, wherein the multi-dimensional deconvolution is calculated as a summation over plural source locations. (See Para[0071]) With respect to Claim 20 Dawson teaches The computing device of claim 19, where the source locations are acquired source locations. (See Para[0071])
Claim(s) 2, 3, 16, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dawson (US 2023/0077945 A1) in view of Dragoset (US 2010/0246324 A1).
With respect to Claim 2 Dawson is silent to the language of The method of claim 1, wherein the down-going wavefield includes only a source ghost and the partial down-going wavefield is free of the source ghost. Nevertheless, Dragoset teaches wherein the down-going wavefield includes only a source ghost and the partial down-going wavefield is free of the source ghost. (See Fig 1 and Para[003]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Dawson wherein the down-going wavefield includes only a source ghost and the partial down-going wavefield is free of the source ghost such as that of Dragoset. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Dawson because primary reflections contain the desired information about the subterranean formations which is the goal of marine seismic surveying. Other waves, such as multiples, need to be attenuated from the recorded seismic data, in order to isolate the desired primaries. Therefore, the down-going wavefield including only a source ghost and the partial down-going wavefield is free of the source ghost which is described by Dragoset would be no more than predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions and would produce accurate results.
With respect to Claim 3 Dawson is silent to the language of The method of claim 1, wherein both the down-going wavefield and the partial down-going wavefield include a source ghost. Nevertheless Dragoset teaches wherein both the down-going wavefield and the partial down-going wavefield include a source ghost. (See Fig 1 and Para[003]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Dawson wherein both the down-going wavefield and the partial down-going wavefield include a source ghost such as that of Dragoset. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Dawson because primary reflections contain the desired information about the subterranean formations which is the goal of marine seismic surveying. Other waves, such as multiples, need to be attenuated from the recorded seismic data, in order to isolate the desired primaries. Therefore both the down-going wavefield and the partial down-going wavefield including a source ghost which is described by Dragoset would be no more than predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions and would produce accurate results. With respect to Claim 16 Dawson is silent to the language of The computing device of claim 15, wherein the down-going wavefield includes only a source ghost and the partial down-going wavefield is free of the source ghost. Nevertheless Dragoset teaches wherein the down-going wavefield includes only a source ghost and the partial down-going wavefield is free of the source ghost. (See Fig 1 and Para[003]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Dawson wherein the down-going wavefield includes only a source ghost and the partial down-going wavefield is free of the source ghost such as that of Dragoset. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Dawson because primary reflections contain the desired information about the subterranean formations which is the goal of marine seismic surveying. Other waves, such as multiples, need to be attenuated from the recorded seismic data, in order to isolate the desired primaries. Therefore, the down-going wavefield including only a source ghost and the partial down-going wavefield is free of the source ghost which is described by Dragoset would be no more than predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions and would produce accurate results.
With respect to Claim 17 Dawson is silent to the language of The computing device of claim 15, wherein both the down-going wavefield and the partial down-going wavefield include a source ghost. Nevertheless Dragoset teaches wherein both the down-going wavefield and the partial down-going wavefield include a source ghost. (See Fig 1 and Para[003]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Dawson wherein both the down-going wavefield and the partial down-going wavefield include a source ghost such as that of Dragoset. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Dawson because primary reflections contain the desired information about the subterranean formations which is the goal of marine seismic surveying. Other waves, such as multiples, need to be attenuated from the recorded seismic data, in order to isolate the desired primaries. Therefore both the down-going wavefield and the partial down-going wavefield including a source ghost which is described by Dragoset would be no more than predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions and would produce accurate results.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dawson (US 2023/0077945 A1) in view of Poole (US 2015/0109881 A1). Herein Poole (US 2015/0109881 A1) will be referred to as Poole’881
With respect to Claim 5 Dawson is silent to the language of The method of claim 1, further comprising: extracting an up-going wavefield U from the seismic data; generating a model M.sub.u of multiples in the up-going wavefield U based on the subsurface reflectivity R; and attenuating multiples in the up-going wavefield U based on the model M.sub.u of multiples. Nevertheless Poole’881 teaches extracting an up-going wavefield U from the seismic data; (See Para[0042]-[0043]) generating a model M.sub.u of multiples in the up-going wavefield U based on the subsurface reflectivity R; and (See Para[0042]-[0043]) attenuating multiples in the up-going wavefield U based on the model M.sub.u of multiples. (See Para[0042]-[0043]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Dawson and attenuate multiples in the up-going wavefield such as that of Poole’881. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Dawson because such steps would compensates for differences in arrival time, amplitude and phase between the data and the model and thus improve accuracy.
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dawson (US 2023/0077945 A1) in view of Poole (US 2017/0248716 A1). Herein Poole (US 2017/0248716 A1) will be referred to as Poole’716
With respect to Claim 11 The method of claim 1, Dawson is silent to the language of wherein the multi-dimensional deconvolution is calculated with one of an inversion via a conjugate gradient solver, a steepest descent solver, and singular value decomposition. Nevertheless Poole’716 teaches wherein the multi-dimensional deconvolution is calculated with one of an inversion via a conjugate gradient solver, a steepest descent solver, and singular value decomposition. (See Para[0042], [0068],[0173]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Dawson wherein the multi-dimensional deconvolution is calculated with one of an inversion via a conjugate gradient solver such as that of Poole’716. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Dawson, because such a tool would be efficient and less costly to solve. With respect to Claim 12 Dawson is silent to the language of The method of claim 1, wherein the step of estimating the subsurface reflectivity R includes regularization of the inversion. Nevertheless Poole’716 teaches wherein the step of estimating the subsurface reflectivity R includes regularization of the inversion. (See Para[0042], [0068],[0173]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Dawson wherein the step of estimating the subsurface reflectivity R includes regularization of the inversion such as that of Poole’716. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Dawson,such steps would allow for using a more densely sampled version of the dataset and thus improve accuracy. With respect to Claim 13 Dawson is silent to the language of The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one receiver is an ocean bottom sensor Nevertheless Poole’716 teaches wherein the at least one receiver is an ocean bottom sensor.(See Para[0006]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Dawson wherein the at least one receiver is an ocean bottom sensor such as that of Poole’716. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Dawson because such receivers would be stable and would be no more than predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Robertsson (US 2019/0018157 A1) teaches removing the surface ghost from and/or separating wave field data and/or for estimating redatuming operators of the wave field data by effective use of a transform that that relies on the non-uniform distribution of distances with respect to a reference surface or of tuned-source radiation directions of sources and or the non-uniform distribution of receivers with respect to a reference surface to partition or map the wave field from at least two different cones in the transformed domain and using the contribution of sources and or receivers inside at least one of the at least two different cones to estimate a first wave field of interest, a second separated or ghost wave field and/or redatuming operator
Arthur B. Weglein, Fernanda Araújo Gasparotto, Paulo M. Carvalho, Robert H. Stolt; An inverse-scattering series method for attenuating multiples in seismic reflection data. Geophysics 1997;; 62 (6): 1975–1989. teaches a multidimensional multiple-attenuation method that does not require any subsurface information for either surface or internal multiples.
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