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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
“In a computer implemented process for determining properties of a subterranean formation located beneath a body of water using a pressure wavefield recorded during a marine survey of the subterranean formation, the improvement comprising: iteratively determining a velocity model and angle gathers of the subterranean formation based on the recorded pressure wavefield and using an acoustic wave equation that models acoustic wavefields and depends on velocities and reflectivity of materials comprising the subterranean formation; and using the angle gathers to identify properties of features in the subterranean formation.”
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (process).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the groupings of subject matter that covers mathematical concepts - mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claims 6, 11, 15, and 20.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the above claims that recites a judicial exception are integrated into a practical application.
The above claims comprise the following additional elements:
In Claim 1: In a computer implemented process for determining properties of a subterranean formation located beneath a body of water using a pressure wavefield recorded during a marine survey of the subterranean formation;
In Claim 6: A computer system for determining properties of a subterranean formation from a pressure wavefield recorded in a marine seismic survey of the subterranean formation, the system comprising: one or more processors; one or more data-storage devices; and machine-readable instructions stored in the one or more data-storage devices that when executed using the one or more processors controls the system to perform operations; recorded pressure wavefield;
In Claim 11: Apparatus for determining properties of a subterranean formation from a recorded pressure wavefield obtained in a marine seismic survey of the subterranean formation, the apparatus comprising: means for determining an angle gather of the subterranean formation based on the recorded pressure wavefield;
In Claim 15: A non-transitory computer-readable medium encoded with machine-readable instructions for enabling one or more processors of a computer system to determine properties of a subterranean formation by performing operations; recorded pressure wavefield;
In Claim 20: a recorded pressure wavefield; storing the image, velocity model, the angle gathers, the vector reflectivity, the acoustic wave impedance, and the density model in a computer readable medium.
The additional elements in the preambles are recited in generality and represent insignificant extra-solution activity (field-of-use limitations) that is not meaningful to indicate a practical application.
The additional elements in the claims such as a one or more processors; one or more data-storage devices; and machine-readable instructions stored in the one or more data-storage devices that when executed using the one or more processors controls the system (Claim 6) and a non-transitory computer-readable medium encoded with machine-readable instructions for enabling one or more processors of a computer system to determine properties of a subterranean formation by performing operations (Claim 15) are examples of generic computer equipment (components) that are generally recited and not meaningful and, therefore, are not qualified as particular machines to indicate a practical application. The limitations that generically recite obtaining and recording pressure wavefield during a marine survey of the subterranean formation (all independent claims) and/or data storing/recording functions (all above claims) represent insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering/storing. According to the October update on 2019 SME Guidance such steps are “performed in order to gather data for the mental analysis step, and is a necessary precursor for all uses of the recited exception. It is thus extra-solution activity, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application”.
Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
However, the above claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B analysis) because these additional elements/steps are well-understood and conventional in the relevant art based on the prior art of record.
The independent claims, therefore, are not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-5, 7-10, 12-14, and 16-19 provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims (additionally comprising abstract idea steps) and, therefore, these claims are not eligible without meaningful additional elements that reflect a practical application and/or additional elements that qualify for significantly more for substantially similar reasons as discussed with regards to Claim 1.
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 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrew Ratcliffe et al. (US 20160146961), hereinafter ‘Ratcliffe’ in view of Norman Daniel Whitmore et al. (US 20210103065), hereinafter ‘Whitmore’.
In a computer implemented process for determining properties of a subterranean formation located beneath a body of water using a pressure wavefield recorded during a marine survey of the subterranean formation (The elastic Earth model equation is suitable for at least one of the incident wavefields and the reflected wavefields in the acquired seismic data [0042]; Figs. 1 and 2; The computing system 400 includes a computer or server 402 having one or more central processing units 404 in communication with a communication module 406, one or more input/output devices 410 and at least one storage device 408 [0045]), the improvement comprising: iteratively determining a velocity model and angle gathers of the subterranean formation based on the recorded pressure wavefield and using an acoustic wave equation that models acoustic wavefields and depends on velocities and reflectivity of materials comprising the subterranean formation (The result is an elastic wave equation fit to the angle gathers calculated from the acquired seismic data [0035]; Eq. 9; [0039-0042]; plurality of iterations [0039]; 302, Fig.3); and using the angle gathers to identify features in the subterranean formation (Fig. 3, Step 312; create Earth model of the formation [0039-0040]; the velocity model and the reflectivity model may be used to identify structural and lithological features in the subterranean formation that correspond to oil and gas reservoirs [0065]).
However, Ratcliffe does not specifically disclose using the angle gathers to identify properties of features in the subterranean formation.
Whitmore discloses using the angle gathers to identify properties of features in the subterranean formation (The velocity and reflectivity models reveal subsurface properties of features and layers of a subterranean formation in terms of structure and lithology [0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ratcliffe in view of Whitmore to use the angle gathers to identify properties of features in the subterranean formation (“gathers” that can be further processed using various seismic data processing techniques to obtain information about the structure of the subterranean formation, Whitmore [0042]).
With regards to Claim 2, Ratcliffe further discloses iteratively determining the velocity model, an angle map, and vector reflectivity of the subterranean formation based on the pressure wavefield, the acoustic wave equation ([0029-31, 36-40]; Equations 8-11), and an initial velocity model (equation 4).
With regards to Claim 3, Ratcliffe does not specifically disclose providing an initial velocity model of the subterranean formation; and iteratively, forwarding modeling a synthetic pressure wavefield based on the recorded pressure wavefield, the acoustic wave equation, the velocity model, and a vector reflectivity model, determining a residual between the synthetic pressure wavefield and the recorded pressure wavefield, using the acoustic wave equation to perform adjoint migration and obtain a migrated residual wavefield based on the residual and a back propagated residual wavefield, determining inverse scattering imaging condition (“ISIC”) kernels for velocity and ISIC impedance kernel based on the synthetic pressure wavefield and the back-propagated residual wavefield, simultaneously updating the velocity model based on the ISIC velocity kernel, determining an angle map of the subterranean formation, and outputting the velocity model and the vector reflectivity when the residual is less than a residual magnitude threshold.
Whitmore discloses providing an initial velocity model of the subterranean formation; and iteratively, forwarding modeling a synthetic pressure wavefield based on the recorded pressure wavefield, the acoustic wave equation, the velocity model, and a vector reflectivity model, determining a residual between the synthetic pressure wavefield and the recorded pressure wavefield, using the acoustic wave equation to perform adjoint migration and obtain a migrated residual wavefield based on the residual and a back propagated residual wavefield, determining inverse scattering imaging condition (“ISIC”) kernels for velocity and ISIC impedance kernel based on the synthetic pressure wavefield and the back-propagated residual wavefield, simultaneously updating the velocity model based on the ISIC velocity kernel, determining an angle map of the subterranean formation, and outputting the velocity model and the vector reflectivity when the residual is less than a residual magnitude threshold ([0061-0065, 0072, 0077, 0080, 0085, 0087]; Figs.9, 10; Claims 3, 8, and 12.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ratcliffe in view of Whitmore to follow the claimed steps to identify features in the subterranean formation as known in the art to output the velocity model and the vector reflectivity when the residual is less than a residual magnitude threshold (Claim 3, Fig.10, Whitmore).
With regards to Claim 4, Ratcliffe additionally discloses parameterizing the acoustic wave equation in terms of velocity and reflectivity ([0031]; Equations 5-7).
With regards to Claim 5, Ratcliffe additionally discloses computing an acoustic wave impedance model of the subterranean formation based on the vector reflectivity model; computing a relative density model of the subterranean formation based on the acoustic wave impedance model and the velocity model; and using at least one of the angle gather, the velocity model, the vector reflectivity, the relative acoustic wave impedance model, and the density model to identify properties of the subterranean formation ([0031, 0042]).
With regards to Claims 6, 11, 15, and 20, Ratcliffe in view of Whitmore disclose the limitations as discussed in Claim 1.
In addition, Ratcliffe discloses computer readable medium [0051].
With regards to Claims 15 and 20, Whitmore additionally discloses computing an image of the subterranean formation based on the velocity model and the recorded pressure wavefield (Claim 1).
With regards to Claims 7, 12, 16, Ratcliffe in view of Whitmore disclose the limitations as discussed in Claim 2 and Claims 6, 11, and 15.
With regards to Claims 8, 13, 17, Ratcliffe in view of Whitmore disclose the limitations as discussed in Claims 3 and Claims 6, 11, and 15.
With regards to Claims 9, 10, 14, and 18, Ratcliffe in view of Whitmore disclose the limitations as discussed in Claim 4 and Claims 6, 11, and 15.
With regards to Claim 19, Ratcliffe in view of Whitmore disclose the limitations as discussed in Claim 5 and Claim 15.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Walter Sollner et al. (US 20200124755) discloses generating an image of a subterranean formation from seismic data recorded during a marine survey that employed a moving vibrational source. Processes and systems compute an up-going pressure wavefield from pressure data and vertical velocity data recorded in the marine survey. Processes and systems generate an image of the subterranean formation based on the subsurface reflectivity wavefield, thereby enhancing resolution of the image by attenuating the source-motion effects, source signature, and source ghost of the moving vibration source.
Nizar Chemingui et al., “Simultaneous inversion of velocity and angle-dependent reflectivity”,Third International Meeting for Applied Geoscience & Energy, 2023, pp.625-629 (art-relevant but published after priority date), discloses the approach that encompasses the velocity model, reflectivity image, and pre-stack angle gathers, along with the derived relative density and impedance.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER SATANOVSKY whose telephone number is (571)270-5819. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9 am-5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Catherine Rastovski can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEXANDER SATANOVSKY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights