Detailed Action
The following NON-FINAL office action is in response to application 18/598890 filed on
3/7/24. This communication is the first action on the merits.
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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been rejected as follows.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 3/7/2024 and 7/26/2024 comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and is being considered.
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 a judicial exception without significantly more. A subject matter eligibility analysis is set forth below. See MPEP 2106.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
A method for locating a reflector in a formation comprising:
disposing a borehole sonic logging tool into a borehole disposed in a formation, wherein the borehole sonic logging tool comprises:
a transmitter configured to transmit sonic energy comprising at least one or more waveforms into the formation; and
one or more receivers configured to record a sonic wave field comprising at least one or more reflected waveforms and one or more direct and/or guided waveforms;
selecting a group of traces from at least the one or more reflected waveforms or the one or more direct, or the guided waveforms;
selecting a set of trial velocities from at least a sonic profile;
selecting an initial trial velocity from the set of trial velocities;
shifting the group of traces by the initial trial velocity to form a shifted group of traces;
computing a coherence value between at least two or more traces from the shifted group of traces;
recording the coherence value for the shifted group of traces at its initial trial velocity and depth; and
determining if there are reflections for imaging the formation based at least on the coherence.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been underlined above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements.” Similar limitations comprise the abstract idea of Claim 12.
Step 1:
Under Step 1 of the analysis, Claim 1 belongs to a statutory category, namely it is a *method claim. Likewise, Claim 12 is a system claim.
Step 2A – Prong I:
Under Step 2A, prong 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
In the instant case, Claim 1 is found to recite at least one judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea), that being a mental process and mathematical calculation. Shifting the group of traces involves either a linear or circular time shift, and potentially a fast Fourier Transform [See Inst. Spec. Paragraphs [0046]-[0047]], which are all mathematical operations. The coherence value is calculated, as described in the Specification [Paragraph [0048] – “The coherence may be computed using any number of measurements like semblance, normalized energy, or zero lag cross correlation value.”]. Determining if there are reflections based on the coherence is a data judgement based on a comparison with a threshold [See Spec. Paragraph [0049]] and is thus a mental process and mathematical calculation. Selecting a group of traces, a set of trial velocities, and an initial trial velocity are data selection steps and thus mental processes.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claim 12.
Step 2A – Prong II:
Step 2A, prong 2 of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception(s) into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
Claims 1 and 12 do not amount to the recitation of a particular practical application as nothing is done with the reflectors once they are identified.
Thus, under Step 2A, prong 2 of the analysis, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B:
In addition to the abstract ideas recited in Claim 1, the claimed method recites the additional elements underlined above. The sonic logging tool disposed in a borehole and comprising a transmitter configured to transmit sonic energy and one or more receivers configured to receive a sonic wave field comprising at least one or more reflected waveforms and one or more direct and/or guided waveforms amounts to an attempt to generally link the mental processes to the field of use/technological environment of sonic logging and formations within wellbores. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Further, receiving and transmitting the sonic energy are mere data gathering and output steps necessary to implement the judicial exception and thus is insignificant extra-solution activity. Similarly, recording the coherence value for the shifted group of traces amounts to data storage in a table. See MPEP 2106.05(g) “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity”. Such insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data gathering, output, and recording, when re-evaluated under Step 2B is further found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information from memory, and electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document). Claim 12 additionally recites an “information handling system,” which is recited at such a high level of generality as to amount to no more than the recitation of a general-use computer programmed with instructions to execute the judicial exceptions (i.e., the selecting, shifting, computing, and determining limitations).
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, merely amount to a general purpose computer system that attempts to apply the abstract idea in a technological environment, limiting the abstract idea to a particular field of use, and/or merely performs insignificant extra-solution activit(ies).
Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that Claims 1 and 12 amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With regards to the dependent claims, Claims 2-11 and 13-20, merely further expand upon the algorithm/abstract idea and do not set forth further additional elements that integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Therefore, these claims are found ineligible for the reasons described for parent claims 1 and 12. Specifically:
Claims 2 and 13 recite limitations on the minimum and maximum value in the set of trial velocities, which merely places limitations on the data selecting steps and is thus within the abstract idea.
Claims 3 and 14 recite using a linearly spaced function to determine trial velocities, which is a mathematical algorithm and mental process and thus part of the judicial exception.
Claims 4 and 15 recite updating the initial trial velocity with a new velocity. This is part of the trial velocity selection thus both a mental process and mathematical calculation.
Claims 5, 6, 7, 16, 17, and 18 recite performing a circular time shift and that the shifted trace is wrapped around itself. The circular time shift via Fast Fourier Transform is a mathematical calculation and the shifted trace being wrapped around itself is a consequence of the circular time shift, making them both within the abstract idea.
Claims 8 and 19 recite computing the coherence value by semblance, normalized energy, or zero lag cross correlation value. These are all mathematical calculations and thus part of the judicial exception.
Claims 9 and 20 recite forming a table of coherence values. This is mere data recordkeeping and considered to be Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity that is further found to be well-understood, routine and conventional in the art, in accordance with MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Claims 10 recites identifying a reflector from the table of coherence values. This amounts to determining whether or not a given coherence value meets a threshold and is a comparison, making it both a mathematical calculation and mental process.
Claims 11 recites that the waveforms and reflected waveforms are sonic data from the formation. This is merely a limitation placed on the data gathering steps and as such, is part of the insignificant extra-solution activity discussed with respect to the transmitting and receiving limitations in Claim 1. This could also be seen as an attempt to generally link the judicial exception to the technological environment of sonic data.
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.
Claims 1-4, and 11-15 are rejected as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Hirabayashi et. al. (US 20180246243 A1) in view of Speziali et. al. (WO 2017035104 A1).
Regarding Claims 1 and 12, Hirabayashi discloses a method (system) for locating a reflector in a formation [Paragraph [0078] – “At sub-block 910 in this data processing, the system 800 provides a given constant velocity model with static corrections for a single acquisition point, and at sub-block 912, the system 800 analytically calculates travel times of reflected rays (e.g., seismic waves) using the velocity model.” – distance and thus location can be determined from travel times] comprising: disposing a borehole sonic logging tool into a borehole disposed in a formation [Paragraph [0035] – “FIGS. 1A-1D show typical seismic-while-drilling tools that include one or more transmitters 1 at the surface and one or more receivers 2 in a borehole 3. FIGS. 1A and 1B show that the down-hole tool may include a single receiver 2 in the borehole 3…”; Paragraph [0050] – “…Alternatively, any other suitable type of up-hole or down-hole source or transmitter can be provided….”] wherein the borehole sonic logging tool comprises: a transmitter configured to transmit sonic energy comprising at least one or more waveforms into the formation [Paragraph [0070] – “Referring to FIG. 9, the system 800 to image dipping structures such as fractures may comprise a data logging system 802, acoustic receivers (vibration sensors) 804 located in the wellbore, an acoustic source 806 of generating vibrations to be received with the receivers 804, a data processor 810 such as a computer apparatus, and a memory 820”- Refer also to d Fig. [10], block 900]; and
one or more receivers configured to record a sonic wave field comprising at least one or more reflected waveforms and one or more direct and/or guided waveforms [Paragraph [0035] – “FIG. 1B shows the receiver 2 receiving reflections and direct signals from the transmitters 1, while FIGS. 1C and 1D show multiple receivers 2 receiving signals directly from the one or more transmitters 1.”; Paragraph [0070] – “Referring to FIG. 9, the system 800 to image dipping structures such as fractures may comprise a data logging system 802, acoustic receivers (vibration sensors) 804 located in the wellbore, an acoustic source 806 of generating vibrations to be received with the receivers 804, a data processor 810 such as a computer apparatus, and a memory 820”– refer also to Fig. [10], blocks 904 and 906]; and
an information handling system [Paragraph [0070] – “Referring to FIG. 9, the system 800 to image dipping structures such as fractures may comprise a data logging system 802, acoustic receivers (vibration sensors) 804 located in the wellbore, an acoustic source 806 of generating vibrations to be received with the receivers 804, a data processor 810 such as a computer apparatus, and a memory 820.”; Paragraph [0075] – “In FIG. 10, with reference to the preceding figures and associated descriptions and FIG. 11, the processing 900 begins execution at block 902, at which the system 800 emits acoustic energy, for example, in the form of acoustic waveforms (rays) 1002 by acoustic sources 1004, 1006 of a sonic tool 1000 (refer to FIG. 11) or the transmitters 510, 610 described above.” – see also Figs. [9] and [10]] configured to select a group of traces from at least the one or more reflected waveforms or the one or more direct, or the guided waveforms [Paragraph [0076]-[0077] – “At block 904, after the waveforms (rays) 1002 are reflected off of portions of the subterranean formation including, for example, portions of one or more dipping structure(s) such as fracture(s) 1008 in FIG. 11, the system 800 gathers sonic data (seismic data) from the reflected waveforms (rays) 1002 by acoustic receivers 1010, 1012 in the sonic tool 1000 or the receivers 560, 562, 564, 566, 660, 662, 664, 666, 668 described above and sent to, for example, an input receiver of the data logging system 802 and data processor 810 for recordation and processing. The sonic data is recorded by the sonic tool 1000…At block 906, before the imaging, the system 800 removes the direct arrivals (i.e., P-, S- and Stoneley waves) by the median filter in the common offset domain (i.e., waveforms acquired by unique receiver are sorted by the measurement depth).” – reflected or guided waveforms are selected when direct waveforms are removed].
Hirabayashi does not disclose selecting a set of trial velocities from at least a sonic profile and electing an initial trial velocity from the set of trial velocities.
However, Speziali discloses selecting a set of trial velocities from at least a sonic profile [Paragraph [0003] –“A method can include receiving seismic data of a survey of a geologic environment; extracting a seismic event of the geologic environment based at least in part on the seismic data; estimating a velocity model of the geologic environment based at least in part on the extracted seismic event; outputting predicted seismic event data based at least in part on the velocity model; determining velocity model- based statics using the velocity model; determining data-based statics based at least in part on the predicted seismic event data; and determining at least one static value based at least in part on at least one of the velocity model-based statics and at least one of the data-based statics” – velocity model is set of trial velocities];
selecting an initial trial velocity from the set of trial velocities [Paragraph [0003] - ”A method can include receiving seismic data of a survey of a geologic environment; extracting a seismic event of the geologic environment based at least in part on the seismic data; estimating a velocity model of the geologic environment based at least in part on the extracted seismic event…”; Paragraph [0137] – “As mentioned, a method may include iterations. For example, iterations may aim to iteratively generate observed data while increasing quality of one or more velocity models. For example, a method can include iterations that proceed until a quality of an estimated velocity model and its associated predicted data are considered to be satisfactory (e.g. , according to one or more quality metrics)…” – See fig. 16, method 1600, where first instance of 1640 would produce initial trial velocity].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select a set of trial velocities, as disclosed by Speziali, to check the alignment of the acoustic traces disclosed by Hirabayashi in order to improve imaging of the formation.
The combination of Hirabayashi and Speziali discloses shifting the group of traces by the initial trial velocity to form a shifted group of traces [Hirabayashi, Paragraph [0078] – “At sub-block 910 in this data processing, the system 800 provides a given constant velocity model with static corrections for a single acquisition point, and at sub-block 912, the system 800 analytically calculates travel times of reflected rays (e.g., seismic waves) using the velocity model. At sub-block 914, the system 800 estimates coherency of event signals that are time-corrected for a trial reflector, and at sub-block 916, the system 800 weights waveform (ray) samples corresponding to the travel time based on the coherency.” – time-corrected signals have been shifted];
computing a coherence value between at least two or more traces from the shifted group of traces [Hirabayashi, Paragraph [0064] – “To measure coherency of two event signals, cross-correlation is used…” – see Eq. [03]; Paragraph [0078] – “At sub-block 910 in this data processing, the system 800 provides a given constant velocity model with static corrections for a single acquisition point, and at sub-block 912, the system 800 analytically calculates travel times of reflected rays (e.g., seismic waves) using the velocity model. At sub-block 914, the system 800 estimates coherency of event signals that are time-corrected for a trial reflector, and at sub-block 916, the system 800 weights waveform (ray) samples corresponding to the travel time based on the coherency.”]; and
recording the coherence value for the shifted group of traces at its initial trial velocity and depth [Hirabayashi, Paragraph [0073] – “Semblance values S determined in accordance with Equation (1) are color coded using a gray scale 624, wherein the darker shades indicate higher amplitude and greater coherence. The semblance values S determined based on Equation (1) are plotted as semblance data, indicated at 626.”];
and determining if there are reflections for imaging the formation based at least on the coherence [Hirabayashi, Paragraph [0003] – “The present disclosure relates generally to methods and systems for imaging one or more subterranean structures such as dipping structures. In particular, the present disclosure relates to methods and systems to obtain a high-resolution image of one or more dipping structures such as fractures using seismic and sonic data in oil and gas industries.”; Paragraph [0079] – “The weighting can be performed, for example, by converting the coherency to a weight function and calculating a mapping function based on the weight function and a function of the waveform samples. Finally, at sub-block 918, the system 800 performs mapping of the weighted waveform samples. The image may be created azimuth by azimuth at first…”].
Regarding Claims 2 and 13, the combination of Hirabayashi and Speziali discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the minimum value in the set of trial velocities is the slowest velocity in the profile and the maximum value is based upon a fastest velocity in the profile [Speziali, Paragraph [0161] – “As an example, a velocity model may be represented by an equation with respect to depth, such as, for example: V = Vo + kz where V is the seismic velocity at depth z, Vo is the seismic velocity at a location, and k is the rate of increase of velocity.” – Vo is minimum velocity, maximum is achieved at maximum z; Paragraph [0164] – “In the foregoing example, a single k value or parameter is mentioned. As an example, where a region is stratified, a plurality of k values may exist.” – different regions, different k values, this would apply to different formations].
The combination does not disclose that the minimum and maximum values in the set of trial velocities are also based upon an expected formation dip.
Hirabayashi, however discloses a formation dip [Paragraph [0076] – “At block 904, after the waveforms (rays) 1002 are reflected off of portions of the subterranean formation including, for example, portions of one or more dipping structure(s) such as fracture(s) 1008 in FIG. 11, the system 800 gathers sonic data (seismic data) from the reflected waveforms (rays) 1002 by acoustic receivers 1010, 1012 in the sonic tool 1000 or the receivers 560, 562, 564, 566, 660, 662, 664, 666, 668 described above and sent to, for example, an input receiver of the data logging system 802 and data processor 810 for recordation and processing.”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the formation dips of Hirabayashi as the expected geologic structure for determining the velocity function in the method of Hirabayashi and Speziali as these formation dips would present valid targets in doing so.
Regarding Claims 3 and 14, the combination of Hirabayashi and Speziali discloses the method of claim 1, wherein each trial velocity from the set of trial velocities is determined by a linearly spaced function over the range of the set of trial velocities [Speziali, Paragraph [0161] – “As an example, a velocity model may be represented by an equation with respect to depth, such as, for example: V = Vo + kz where V is the seismic velocity at depth z, Vo is the seismic velocity at a location, and k is the rate of increase of velocity.” – k determines linear spacing].
Regarding Claims 4 and 15, the combination of Hirabayashi and Speziali discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising updating the initial trial velocity with a new trial velocity [See Speziali, Fig. [16], new trial velocity chosen with each loop back to step 1610; Paragraph [0137] – “As mentioned, a method may include iterations. For example, iterations may aim to iteratively generate observed data while increasing quality of one or more velocity models.” – new trial velocity with each velocity model iteration].
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Hirabayashi and Speziali discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more waveforms and the one or more reflected waveforms are sonic data from the formation [Hirabayashi, Paragraph [0076] – “At block 904, after the waveforms (rays) 1002 are reflected off of portions of the subterranean formation including, for example, portions of one or more dipping structure(s) such as fracture(s) 1008 in FIG. 11, the system 800 gathers sonic data (seismic data) from the reflected waveforms (rays) 1002 by acoustic receivers 1010, 1012 in the sonic tool 1000 or the receivers”].
Claims 5, 6, 16, and 17 are rejected as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Hirabayashi et. al. in view of Speziali et. al., in further view of Laws et. al. (US 20150039236 A1).
Regarding Claims 5 and 16, the combination of Hirabayashi and Speziali discloses the method of claim 1.
The combination does not disclose wherein shifting the group of traces is performed by a circular time shift.
Laws, however, discloses wherein the shifting the group of traces is performed by a circular time shift [Paragraph [0048]-[0053] –“In further implementations, measurement data sampled on multiple circularly shifted time grids can be provided, by applying circular time shifts to activations of at least one seismic source. More specifically, the circular time shifts can be applied to a pilot signal that is used to control a seismic vibrator.”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to perform a circular time shift, as disclosed by Laws, prior to computing the coherence values in the method of Hirabayashi and Szpeziali in order to determine coherence for all received traces.
Regarding Claims 6 and 17, the combination of Hirabayashi, Speziali, and Laws discloses the method of claim 5 (claim 16) wherein at least part of a shifted trace from the shifted group of traces is wrapped around itself [Laws, Paragraph [0049] – “Circularly shifting a sequence that makes up a pilot signal refers to shifting samples of the sequence by a specific amount in a given direction, with the samples at the end of the sequence that are shined out being provided to the other end of the sequence. For example, assume a sequence [a b c d e] represents a pilot signal. A forward circular shift of one sample to the sequence results in the shifted sequence [e a b c d]. Another forward circular shift of the shifted sample results in the further shifted sequence [d e a b c].”].
Claims 7 and 18 are rejected as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Hirabayashi et. al. in view of Speziali et. al., in view of Laws et. al., in further view of Berggren et. al. (US 20100135150 A1).
Regarding Claims 7 and 18, the combination of Hirabayashi, Speziali, and Laws discloses the method of claim 5 (claim 16).
The combination does not disclose wherein the circular time shift may be performed by a fast Fourier transform or discrete Fourier transform.
Berggren, however, discloses wherein the circular time shift may be performed by a fast Fourier transform or discrete Fourier transform [Paragraph [0068] – “The circular time shift of the illustrated example can be performed directly in the time domain. When {tilde over (s)}.sub.u is an OFDM signal, the circular time shift can also be implemented in the frequency domain by modulating the Fourier coefficients which produce the centrally symmetric signal {tilde over (s)}.sub.u(k).”; Claim 7 – “The method in claim 1, wherein said circular time shift is performed by modulating a centrally symmetric set of discrete Fourier frequency coefficients…” ].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to execute the circular time shift of Hirabayashi, Speziali, and Laws using the discrete Fourier transform of Berggren to improve speed and efficiency of the time shift.
Claims 8-10, 19, and 20 are rejected as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Hirabayashi et. al. in view of Speziali et. al. (WO 2017035104 A1), in further view of Wang et. al. (US 20190025451 A1).
Regarding Claims 8 and 19, the combination of Hirabayashi and Speziali discloses the method of claim 1. The combination does not disclose wherein the coherence value is computed by semblance, normalized energy, or zero lag cross correlation value.
Wang, however, discloses wherein the coherence value is computed by semblance, normalized energy, or zero lag cross correlation value [Wang, Paragraph [0034] – “As discussed above, an acoustic logging tool transmits acoustic signals in a borehole and receives acoustic response signals based on signal propagation through the borehole and surrounding formations. The acoustic response signals or waveforms are received by a receiver array and can be processed (e.g., using Fourier transforms, etc.) to generate a coherence semblance map, as illustrated by coherence map 300...” – see also Fig. [3]].
Regarding Claims 9 and 20, the combination of Hirabayashi and Speziali discloses the method of claim 1.
The combination does not disclose the method further comprising forming a table of the coherence values indexed by the trial velocity and the depth of the shifted group of traces.
Wang, however discloses the method further comprising forming a table of the coherence values indexed by the trial velocity and the depth of the shifted group of traces [See Fig. [7], which depicts coherence density depicted by depth and slowness; Paragraph [0055] – “A formation slowness or a shear slowness “pick” (i.e., the formation shear estimate at a given depth) is shown by a quality control slowness curve 710…”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form a table of coherence values indexed by trial velocity and depth, as disclosed by Wang, using the coherences determined by the combination of Hirabayashi and Speziali, in order to visualize the peaks in the coherence map and better determine the locations of reflectors.
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Hirabayashi, Speziali, and Wang discloses the method of claim 9, wherein a reflector is identified [Hirabayashi, Paragraph [0076] – “At block 904, after the waveforms (rays) 1002 are reflected off of portions of the subterranean formation including, for example, portions of one or more dipping structure(s) such as fracture(s) 1008 in FIG. 11, the system 800 gathers sonic data (seismic data) from the reflected waveforms (rays) 1002 by acoustic receivers 1010, 1012 in the sonic tool 1000 or the receivers 560, 562, 564, 566, 660, 662, 664, 666, 668 described above and sent to, for example, an input receiver of the data logging system 802 and data processor 810 for recordation and processing.”; Paragraph [0078] – “At block 908, the system 800 executes data processing for imaging the dipping structures such as fractures, as discussed elsewhere herein.” – structures must be identified to be imaged] from the table of coherence values computed from the shifted group of traces which aligns reflected waves traveling at the trial apparent velocity if its coherence is large enough [Wang, Paragraph [0054]-[0056] – “FIG. 7 is a 2D semblance map 700 of a wellbore hole, showing a quality control slowness curve 710 (e.g., a formation slowness curve) based on the processing of dipole waveforms in a test well…A formation slowness or a shear slowness “pick” (i.e., the formation shear estimate at a given depth) is shown by a quality control slowness curve 710 (here, a black line) located at a front edge of the first group of high value banding (e.g., corresponding to distribution 3), indicating that the pick is very reliable and accurate. It can be seen in FIG. 7 that sections of the wellbore where the 2D semblance map is accurately resolved have a high value band (dark color) near the left and right edges of the slowness validation display, and a lower value band (lighter color) in the middle. The presence of the high and low energy bands, as well as their relative thicknesses, provides a visual indicator of the quality and structure of the semblance map for dipole shear data.” – shear formation can be identified from the semblance map].
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-20210149066-A1, REFLECTION SEISMOLOGY INTERNAL MULTIPLE ESTIMATION
US-20210141115-A1, Imaging With Both Dipole And Quadrupole Receivers
US-20200241159-A1, VERTICAL SEISMIC PROFILING FORMATION VELOCITY ESTIMATION
US-20180038980-A1, PEAK TRACKING AND REJECTION IN ACOUSTIC LOGS
US-20140169127-A1, Data Processing Systems And Methods For Downhole Seismic Investigations
US-20100030479-A1, Methods And Computer-readable Medium To Implement Computing The Propagation Velocity Of Seismic Waves
US-5982706-A, Method And System For Determining Normal Moveout Parameters For Long Offset Seismic Survey Signals
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANELLE A HOLMES whose telephone number is (571)272-4336. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 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, Arleen M Vazquez can be reached at (571) 272-2619. 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.
/J.A.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/ARLEEN M VAZQUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights