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 Interpretation
Claim 1 recites "selecting a refraction window from the sorted trace" and "selecting a reflection window from the sorted trace" (see claim 1, 6th-to-last and 5th-to-last lines). Similarly, claim 11 recites "select a refraction window from the sorted trace" and "select a reflection window from the sorted trace" (see claim 11, 7th-to-last and 6th-to-last lines).
In view of the specification, Examiner has interpreted all four of these phrases to mean selecting a portion of the given trace corresponding to the pilot reflection or refraction window, as opposed to selecting merely a corresponding time window.
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.
Note that, in the following rejections, the highlighting indicates differences from the exact claim language, or items involved in an obviousness argument.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6-11, 13-14, and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colombo et al. (NPL; “Surface-consistent refraction method...”)(a copy submitted by Applicant, 2/29/24) in view of Moldoveanu et al. (2023/0022264).
Regarding claim 1, Colombo et al. disclose a method of correcting a seismic dataset pertaining to a subterranean region (see page 2398, summary; lines 6-9; and right column, lines 1-3), comprising:
having a seismic dataset (recorded seismic data; see page 2399, left column, lines 1-4) comprising a plurality of traces (traces; see page 2399, right column, lines 5-6), wherein each of the plurality of traces represents a time-series of ground motion (early arrival waveforms; see page 2400, left column, lines 23-26) caused by ... a seismic source (source; see page 2399, right column, paragraph “Traces are corrected...”) at a seismic source location and recorded by a seismic receiver (receiver; supra) at a seismic receiver location;
sorting the plurality of traces into a plurality of bins (XYO bins; see page 2399, right column, lines 5-6), wherein each bin comprises a range of midpoint locations (see page 2399; paragraph “We focus...”), a range of seismic source-seismic receiver offsets (offset domain XYO; page 2398, right column, paragraph “For refracted...”), and a range of seismic source-seismic receiver azimuths (azimuth domain XYOA; supra); and
for each of the plurality of bins (see page 2399, right column, lines 5-6):
determining a pilot trace based on a plurality of sorted traces in the bin (see page 2399, right column, paragraph “Traces are corrected...”),
selecting a pilot refraction window from the pilot trace (cross-correlation using a narrow window centered on the first arrival; supra),
selecting a pilot reflection window from the pilot trace (see page 2399, right column, paragraph “Traces are corrected...”, read in light of page 2398, lines 4-9), and
for each of the plurality of sorted traces:
selecting a refraction window from the sorted trace (cross-correlation using a narrow window centered on the first arrival; see page 2399, right column, paragraph “Traces are corrected...”);
selecting a reflection window from the sorted trace (see page 2399, right column, paragraph “Traces are corrected...”, read in light of page 2398, lines 4-9);
determining a correction value (obtained time shifts; see page 2399, right column, paragraph “Traces are corrected...”) based on the refraction window, the pilot refraction window, reflection window and the pilot reflection window; and
determining a corrected trace by applying the correction value to the trace (corrected trace; see page 2400, left column, paragraph “The diagonal matrix...”).
Colombo et al. do not disclose the highlighted limitations:
receiving a seismic dataset comprising a plurality of traces, wherein each of the plurality of traces represents a time-series of ground motion caused by an activation of a seismic source at a seismic source location and recorded by a seismic receiver at a seismic receiver location;
Moldoveanu et al. disclose receiving a seismic dataset comprising a plurality of traces (see paragraph 38); and the ground motion being caused by an activation of a seismic source (paragraph 36).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the invention of Colombo et al. such that the seismic dataset comprising a plurality of traces were received, similarly to the invention of Moldoveanu et al., because such a modification would have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to further modify the combination such that the ground motion were caused by an activation of a seismic source, similarly to the invention of Moldoveanu et al., in order to generate seismic waves, as suggested by Moldoveanu et al. (see paragraph 36).
Regarding claim 3, this combination of references further teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising, using a seismic processing system, determining a seismic image (see Colombo et al., page 2400; § “Application to land data”, 1st paragraph and figure 3) of the subterranean region based, at least in part, on the corrected traces from the plurality of bins (see Colombo et al., page 2400; supra).
Regarding claim 4, this combination of references further teaches the method of claim 3, further comprising, ... , determining a location of a hydrocarbon reservoir based, at least in part, on the seismic image (better definition of the boundaries of major reservoirs; see Colombo et al., page 2400; right column, lines 8-10).
This combination of references does not meet the highlighted limitations:
using a seismic interpretation workstation, determining a location of a hydrocarbon reservoir based, at least in part, on the seismic image.
Moldoveanu et al. disclose using a seismic interpretation workstation (80; see paragraph 38).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to further modify the combination to include using the seismic interpretation workstation, for determining the location, similarly to the invention of Moldoveanu et al., because such a modification would have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395.
Regarding claim 6, this combination of references further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein determining the correction value comprises determining a similarity between the refraction window and the pilot refraction window (correlation coefficients; see Colombo et al., page 2400, paragraph “The diagonal matrix...”).
Regarding claim 7, this combination of references further teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the similarity comprises a cross-correlation (correlation coefficients; see Colombo et al., page 2400, paragraph “The diagonal matrix...”).
Regarding claim 8, this combination of references further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the correction value comprises a time shift (time shifts; see Colombo et al., paragraph bridging pages 2399 and 2400).
Regarding claim 9, this combination of references further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the seismic dataset comprises a four-dimensional acquisition geometry recorded using a seismic acquisition system (XYOA sorting domain; see page 2398 of Colombo et al., paragraph “For refracted waves...”).
Regarding claim 10, this combination of references further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein determining the pilot trace comprises forming trimmed-mean stack (see page 2399 of Colombo et al., paragraph “Traces are corrected...”).
Regarding claims 11, 13-14, and 16-20, see the foregoing rejections of claims 1, 3-4, and 6-10, respectively.
Claim(s) 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colombo et al. (NPL; “Surface-consistent refraction method...”)(a copy submitted by Applicant, 2/29/24) in view of Moldoveanu et al. (2023/0022264), further in view of Chen (2023/0350090).
See the foregoing rejections of claims 1, 3-4, 11, and 13-14 for limitations recited therein.
Regarding claim 5, this combination of references does not meet the highlighted limitations:
planning, using a wellbore planning system, a planned wellbore trajectory to penetrate the hydrocarbon reservoir; and
drilling, using a drilling system, a wellbore guided by the planned wellbore trajectory.
Chen discloses planning, using a wellbore planning system, a planned wellbore trajectory to penetrate the hydrocarbon reservoir (see paragraph 51); and
drilling, using a drilling system, a wellbore guided by the planned wellbore trajectory (see paragraph 51).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to further modify the combination to include planning, using a wellbore planning system, a planned wellbore trajectory to penetrate the hydrocarbon reservoir, similarly to the invention of Chen, in order to ensure the path intersects a hydrocarbon reservoir, as suggested by Chen (see paragraph 51).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to further modify the combination to include drilling, using a drilling system, a wellbore guided by the planned wellbore trajectory, similarly to the invention of Chen, in order to reach a hydrocarbon deposit as suggested by Chen (see paragraph 51).
Regarding claim 15, see the foregoing rejection of claim 5.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art does not disclose or suggest, "selecting an updated reflection window from the interim corrected trace; determining the correction value based on the updated reflection window and the pilot reflection window", in combination with the remaining claim elements as set forth in claim 2.
The prior art does not disclose or suggest, "selecting an updated reflection window from the interim corrected trace; determining the correction value based on the updated reflection window and the pilot reflection window", in combination with the remaining claim elements as set forth in claim 12.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Colombo et al. (2018/0372897), Colombo et al. (2017/0068008), and Colombo et al. (2019/0011587) are each cited for disclosing binning by all of midpoint, offset, and azimuth; averaging traces in each bin, and determining a window for reflection or refraction signals.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEOFFREY T EVANS whose telephone number is (571)272-2369. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at (571) 272-1674. 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.
/WALTER L LINDSAY JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2852
/GEOFFREY T EVANS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights