Detailed Action
The following NON-FINAL office action is in response to application 18/623672 filed on
4/1/2024. 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 statement (IDS) submitted on 7/31/2024 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and is being considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because Figures 2-5 are blurred to the point that the descriptive writing on them is illegible, and because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
Drilling system 121, Fig. [1]
Label 326, Fig. [3b]
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 computer-implemented method comprising:
accessing wireline data and vertical seismic profiling (VSP) data, both encoding measurements taken from boreholes at a geo-exploration site;
correlating velocity data log from the wireline data with velocity data from the VSP data to calibrate the velocity data log;
responsive to results of said correlating meeting a pre-determined threshold, determining, based on, at least in part, the calibrated velocity data log, a range of incidence angles for acquiring seismic traces that reach a formation depth at the geo-exploration site using pairs of acoustic emitter and acoustic receiver placed at a surface of the geo-exploration site;
subsequently determining a range of offsets between the acoustic emitter and the acoustic receiver of each pair so that the acoustic receiver can acquire seismic traces that reach the formation depth at the geo-exploration site; and
comparing the range of angles and the range of offsets with acquisition parameters of a planned seismic survey to determine whether the planned seismic survey can sufficiently map the geo-exploration site.
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 11.
Step 1:
Under Step 1 of the analysis, Claim 1 belongs to a statutory category, namely it is a method claim. Likewise, Claim 11 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. Correlating the velocity data log and the VSP data to calibrate the velocity data log is accomplished via comparison, interpolation, and splicing data points [See Specification Paragraph [0092]], all of which can be accomplished either mentally or via calculation, with the aid of pen and paper. Determining that the correlation meets a pre-defined threshold is a comparison of numerical values and thus both a Mental Process and Mathematical Calculation. Determining a range of incident angles based on the velocity data log is achieved through 1-D finite difference modeling [See Specification Paragraph [0097]], which is comprised of mathematical calculations. Determining a range of offsets is performed by integrating wireline data and VSP data and applying a rock physics fluid substitution model [See Specification Paragraphs [0025] and [0101], “Gassmann Fluid Substitution” ]. This is a mathematical equation and thus a Mathematical Calculation. Comparing the range of angles and the range of offsets with acquisition parameters is a data judgement and comparison of calculated and measured values and thus both a Mathematical Calculation and Mental Process.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claim 11.
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 11 do not amount to the recitation of a particular practical application as they do not recite any specific steps that would improve upon the execution of the seismic survey itself.
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 Claims 1 and 11, the claimed method and system recite the following additional elements. “Accessing wireline data and vertical seismic profiling (VSP) data” is a data gathering step recited at a high level of generality, and thus merely amount to “insignificant extra-solution” activity(ies). See MPEP 2106.05(g) “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity.” Similarly, the “acquiring seismic traces that reach a formation depth at a geo-exploration site” limitation recited in Claim 11 is considered to be data gathering. Such insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data gathering and output, 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). The geo-exploration site, borehole, acoustic transmitter, and acoustic receivers recited in Claim 11 merely amount to attempts to generally link the abstract idea to the technological environment and field of use of sonic logging of a wellbore. See MPEP 2106.05(h) “Field of Use and Technological Environment.” Claim 11 additionally recites “one or more hardware computer processors configured to perform operations…” The processor is recited at such a high level of generality as to amount to know more than the recitation of a general purpose computer programmed with the instructions to apply the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, 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 11 amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With regards to the dependent claims, Claims 2-10 and 12-20, 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 11. Specifically:
Claims 2 and 12 recite generating an alert and modifying acquisition parameters so the site may be mapped. The recitation of modifying the parameters is so generic and non-specific that it can amount to changing a number, making the modification a step in the mathematical calculation of claim 1. No measurement step is being performed, let alone with any particular measurement tool in any particular location. Generating an alert amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity which is further found to be well-understood, conventional, and routine in the art. The triggering of an alarm has been identified by courts as a well-understood, routine, and conventional practice and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (See Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978). From Page 595 – “Here it is absolutely clear that respondent's application contains no claim of patentable invention. The chemical processes involved in catalytic conversion of hydrocarbons are well known, as are the practice of monitoring the chemical process variables, the use of alarm limits to trigger alarms, the notion that alarm limit values must be recomputed and readjusted, and the use of computers for "automatic monitoring alarming.’”)
Claims 3 and 13 recite a rock physics model that operates on wireline data and comprises a fluid substitution model, which is merely a further limitation on determining the range of incidence angles and range of offsets in Claim 1. The models themselves are comprised of mathematical equations and thus these claims amount to no more than Mathematical Calculations.
Claims 4 and 14 recite a range of incidence angles. This merely provides numerical limitations on the incidence angle and is thus within the abstract idea/Mathematical Calculation of determining the incidence angle.
Claims 5, 6, 15, and 16 recite using an amplitude versus offset model to generate responses to the synthetic gathers and determining a minimum incidence angle and critical angle. The model and determining a minimum incidence angle are both Mathematical Calculations and thus within the abstract idea. The first and second instance being launched from a surface of the geo-exploration site and the synthetic gathers created in-situ are both data gathering steps that amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity and are further found to be well-understood, conventional, and routine in the art See MPEP 2106.05(d)(ii).
Claims 7 and 17 recite using a 1-D ray tracing technique, which is a combination of Mental Process and Mathematical Calculation.
Claims 8 and 18 recite performing the 1D ray tracing technique within a range of angles, which merely specifies the range in which to perform the ray tracing and is thus within the abstract idea.
Claims 9 and 19 recite the data types to be included in the velocity data log and VSP data. This is part of the data acquisition limitations recited in Claim 1 and is thus amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity and well-understood, conventional, and routine.
Claims 10 and 20 recite that the velocity data log is calibrated, and the Vp data is adjusted at depth points where the Vp data differs from the checkshot velocity data. The calibration has been shown to be a Mathematical Calculation. Adjusting the depth points when the Vp and checkshot velocity data differ amounts to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity that is further found to be well-understood, conventional, and routine in the art. See Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978). From Page 595 – “Here it is absolutely clear that respondent's application contains no claim of patentable invention. The chemical processes involved in catalytic conversion of hydrocarbons are well known, as are the practice of monitoring the chemical process variables, the use of alarm limits to trigger alarms, the notion that alarm limit values must be recomputed and readjusted, and the use of computers for "automatic monitoring alarming.’”
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, 2, 8-12, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mortel et. al. (US 20110267921 A1) in view of Wang et. al. (US 20180372901 A1).
Regarding Claims 1 and 11, Mortel discloses a (computer-implemented method) computer system comprising one or more hardware computer processors [Paragraph [0088] – “Embodiments of multicomponent seismic inversion of VSP data may be implemented on virtually any type of computer regardless of the platform being used. For instance, as shown in FIG. 5, a computer system (500) includes one or more processor(s) (502) such as a central processing unit (CPU) or other hardware processor…”] configured to perform operations of:
accessing wireline data [Paragraph [0079] – “Within the elements of initial model building and seismic acquisition (415), legacy information and data (e.g., well position, geology, vintage seismic, logs, etc) are collected to generate well data (402)…The formation model (403) may be a 2D or 3D model and may include geological and geophysical parameters of formation layers, horizons, etc. as functions of depth and offset, which may be updated whenever new information becomes available (e.g. based on wireline logging prior to VSP acquisition).”] and vertical seismic profiling (VSP) data, both encoding measurements taken from boreholes at a geo-exploration site [Paragraph [0079] – “For example, the velocity of seismic wave propagation at a particular depth of the ray path (422) from the wellbore opening (423) to a receiver location (424) within the wellbore may be used to approximate velocities at all locations at that particular depth in the formation (420). Accordingly, the initial velocity model (404) may not be accurate, at locations away from the wellbore. In other examples, the initial velocity model (404) may be empirically derived based on data from adjacent wells or data related to formation layer material compositions. In such examples, the initial velocity model (404) is an empirical estimation and may not be accurate. Further examples of an acquisition geometry (400) are described in reference to FIG. 1.2 above. Examples of VSP-seismic (401) obtained based on the acquisition geometry (400) may include amplitude data of P to P wave reflection (PP), P to S wave reflection (PS), and ratio data of acoustic velocity (Vp) to shear velocity (Vs) as functions of depth and offset.”].
Mortel does not disclose correlating velocity data log from the wireline data with velocity data from the VSP data to calibrate the velocity data log.
Wang, however, discloses correlating velocity data log from the wireline data with velocity data from the VSP data to calibrate the velocity data log [Paragraph [0017] – “To correlate the seismic data and the well log data, a time-depth relationship between the well data and the seismic data may be estimated to generate a synthetic seismic trace that may be shifted to match the original seismic data and generate a seismic well tie.”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to directly calibrate the velocity data log data with the VSP data, as disclosed by Wang in the system of Mortel in order to more accurately predict formation properties throughout the wellbore.
The combination discloses responsive to results of said correlating [Correlating as per Wang] meeting a pre-determined threshold [Mortel, Paragraph [0078] – “For example, the results of the seismic inversion (411) (e.g., acoustic impedance (412), shear impedance (413), and/or density (414)) may be used to revise the formation model (403) and initial velocity model (404) to perform one or more tomographic inversion (416), multicomponent data processing (417), and seismic inversion (411) until the difference of results between two consecutive iterations is less than a pre defined limit.”], determining, based on, at least in part, the calibrated velocity data log, a range of incidence angles for acquiring seismic traces that reach a formation depth at the geo-exploration site [Mortel, Paragraph [0085] – “The amplitude and incidence angle values (specifically, the trigonometric SINE function of the incidence angle) are represented by rendering patterns defined in the legend (436). These four images are shown as 2D plots with the X axis representing CDP (i.e., common depth point, which is related to the offset) and the Y axis representing a depth along a converted TWT time scale. Within the four images, the point where TWT=0 and CDP=1 corresponds to the seismic source at the surface while a range (435) is identified corresponding to an area of interest in proximity of the wellbore, where the area of interest corresponds to a depth range equivalent to 1.0 to 1.7 on the converted TWT scale and 15-63 on the CDP scale. As shown in FIG. 4.3, both PP and PS reflection amplitude and incidence angle information exists except for within a corner portion (435-1) of the identified range (435). As noted above, the multicomponent seismic inversion of VSP data may be performed throughout the identified range (435) with the exception of the corner portion (435-1).” – area of interest is within geo-exploration site, refer also to Figs. [1.1] and [1.2] and using calibrated velocity log data of Wang] using pairs of acoustic emitter and acoustic receiver placed at a surface of the geo-exploration site [Mortel, Paragraph [0081] – “The mathematical analysis then recursively computes seismic waveform routes and the seismic wave propagation velocities along such routes using intermediate transit time data and source/receiver locations of the acquisition geometry (400).” – waveform route is dependent on incidence angle];
subsequently determining a range of offsets between the acoustic emitter and the acoustic receiver of each pair so that the acoustic receiver can acquire seismic traces that reach the formation depth at the geo-exploration site [Mortel, Paragraph [0081] – “The mathematical analysis then recursively computes seismic waveform routes and the seismic wave propagation velocities along such routes using intermediate transit time data and source/receiver locations of the acquisition geometry (400). Accordingly, the updated velocity model is a 2D or 3D model and has improved accuracy at locations away from the wellbore.”; Paragraph [0083] – “In particular, the VSP-seismic (401) and depth/time dependent angle model (406) include information as 2D or 3D functions of depth and offset in proximity to the wellbore.”]; and
comparing the range of angles and the range of offsets with acquisition parameters of a planned seismic survey to determine whether the planned seismic survey can sufficiently map the geo-exploration site as deep as the formation depth [Mortel, Paragraph [0087]– “Further as shown in FIG. 4.4, a portion (441-1) of the range covered by the elastic model corresponds to the area of interest described in reference to FIG. 4.3 above. Specifically, the corner portion (435-1 of FIG. 4.3) where shear image data is missing corresponds to the corner portion (443-1) in the three models (441, 442, 443) where elastic parameters are missing. As discussed above in reference to Element (309) of FIG. 3, the acquisition geometry (400 of FIG. 4.1) may be adjusted and VSP-seismic (401 of FIG. 4.1) may be expanded/supplemented by an expanded seismic survey based on the adjusted acquisition geometry (400 of FIG. 4.1) to eliminate/minimize the corner portion (435-1 of FIG. 4.3) and (441-1) such that both P to P and P to S amplitude and angle information exist throughout the area of interest.”].
Regarding Claims 9 and 19, the combination of Mortel and Wang discloses the computer system of claim 11, wherein the velocity data log comprises compressional velocity (Vp) data [Mortel, Paragraph [0079] – “For example, well data (402) may include acoustic velocity (Vp), shear velocity (Vs), and density (p) as a function of depth.” – acoustic velocity is compressional velocity], and wherein the velocity data from the VSP data comprises checkshot velocity data [Mortel, Paragraph [0036] – “As shown in FIG. 1.2, a seismic source (113) (e.g., a gun array device) is located at the sea surface (122) and generates seismic waves propagating along various ray paths such as a direct arrival ray path (115-1), a down going multiple ray path (115-2), a reflected primary ray path (115-3), and a reflected upgoing multiple ray path (115-4). Such seismic waves are recorded by one or more receivers (e.g., a geophone) located at various depths (e.g., 114-1, 114-2, 114-3, etc.) within the wellbore (112) as time based trace data (e.g., 116-0 through 116-5) depicted as horizontal lines along a time scale interspersed with signal packets (e.g., 117-1 through 117-4 referred to as wiggles by those skilled in the art).”; Paragraph [0079] – “Examples of VSP-seismic (401) obtained based on the acquisition geometry (400) may include amplitude data of P to P wave reflection (PP), P to S wave reflection (PS), and ratio data of acoustic velocity (Vp) to shear velocity (Vs) as functions of depth and offset.” – velocities as function of depth gives travel times at different depths; Paragraph [0081] – “…transit time data (405) (for both acoustic wave propagation and shear wave propagation) is derived from the VSP-seismic (401) as described in reference to FIG. 1.2 above.”].
Regarding Claims 10 and 20, the combination of Mortel and Wang discloses the computer system of claim 19, wherein when the velocity data log is calibrated, the Vp data is adjusted [Mortel, Paragraph [0082] – “Further, the well data (402) may also be converted to be based on the time scale using the updated velocity model (410) to perform log calibration (408). Specifically, the log calibration (408) may calibrate or adjust the low frequency model (409) based on a comparison of information contained in the well data (402) (i.e., in the form of data log along the wellbore) against information contained in the low frequency model (409) (i.e., in the form of 2D or 3D function in proximity to the wellbore in the formation) where the two models intersect at the wellbore.”; Paragraph [0083] – “As noted above, the well data (402) may be converted to be based on the time scale using the updated velocity model (410), which may be compared against the wavelet operators (407) at the wellbore to perform the log calibration (408), which calibrates or adjusts the wavelet operators (407) based on the well data (402).”] at depth points where the Vp data differs from the checkshot velocity data [Wang, Paragraph [0017] – “Some well log data may be averaged, or “blocked” into sample intervals. For example, the well log data may be blocked corresponding to the geological layers of the subterranean formations. Each block of samples may be constrained to allow the association of velocity with the geological layer corresponding to each block. To correlate the seismic data and the well log data, a time-depth relationship between the well data and the seismic data may be estimated to generate a synthetic seismic trace that may be shifted to match the original seismic data and generate a seismic well tie. A system according to some aspects of the present disclosure may shift the synthetic seismic trace using the blocking scheme by controlling the shifts for each block of samples. For example, in some aspects, the system may compute an error matrix including a set of alignment errors for each sample of the well log data compared to the seismic data. The error matrix may correspond to a set of potential shifts of each well log data sample in the synthetic seismic trace to match the seismic data.” – seismic data is checkshot velocity data, blocking well log sample intervals according to geological layer is blocking intervals according to depth, and shifting blocks according to error matrix is shifting depth points where well log data differs from seismic data].
Regarding Claims 2 and 12, the combination of Mortel and Wang discloses the computer system of claim 11, wherein the operations further comprise: generating an alert [Mortel, Paragraph [0043] – “The field data represented by the display unit (216) may be raw data, processed data and/or data outputs generated from various data. In one or more embodiments, the display unit (216) is adapted to provide flexible views of the data, so that the screens depicted may be customized as desired. A user may plan, adjust, and/or otherwise perform field operations (e.g., determine the desired course of action during field operations) based on reviewing the displayed field data. The field operations may be selectively adjusted in response to viewing the data on the display unit (216).”; Paragraph [0055] – “In one or more embodiments, the utility modules (246) include a logging component (not shown) and a user interface (UI) manager component (not shown). The logging component provides a common call for the logging data, which means that the utility modules (246) allow the logging destination to be set by the application. The logging component may also be provided with other features, such as a debugger, a messenger, and a warning system, among others…The warning system may be configured to send error messages and warnings to various locations and/or users throughout the system. In some cases, the warning messages may interrupt the process and display alerts.”].
The combination does not disclose that the alert is generated when one or more of the acquisition parameters cause the planned seismic survey to miss the formation depth at the geo-exploration site.
Mortel, however, discloses that one of more of the acquisition parameters can cause the planned seismic survey to miss the formation depth at the geo-exploration site [Mortel, Paragraph [0087] – “Further as shown in FIG. 4.4, a portion (441-1) of the range covered by the elastic model corresponds to the area of interest described in reference to FIG. 4.3 above. Specifically, the corner portion (435-1 of FIG. 4.3) where shear image data is missing corresponds to the corner portion (443-1) in the three models (441, 442, 443) where elastic parameters are missing. As discussed above in reference to Element (309) of FIG. 3, the acquisition geometry (400 of FIG. 4.1) may be adjusted and VSP-seismic (401 of FIG. 4.1) may be expanded/supplemented by an expanded seismic survey based on the adjusted acquisition geometry (400 of FIG. 4.1) to eliminate/minimize the corner portion (435-1 of FIG. 4.3) and (441-1) such that both P to P and P to S amplitude and angle information exist throughout the area of interest.”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to generate an alert, as disclosed by the combination of Mortel and Wang, in instances when the planned parameters of the survey will miss the formation depth of interest, as disclosed by Mortel, in order to make realtime improvements to the survey.
The combination discloses causing the acquisition parameters to be modified so that the planned seismic survey can sufficiently map the geo-exploration site [Mortel, Paragraph [0043] – “The field data represented by the display unit (216) may be raw data, processed data and/or data outputs generated from various data. In one or more embodiments, the display unit (216) is adapted to provide flexible views of the data, so that the screens depicted may be customized as desired. A user may plan, adjust, and/or otherwise perform field operations (e.g., determine the desired course of action during field operations) based on reviewing the displayed field data. The field operations may be selectively adjusted in response to viewing the data on the display unit (216).”; Paragraph [0087] – “As discussed above in reference to Element (309) of FIG. 3, the acquisition geometry (400 of FIG. 4.1) may be adjusted and VSP-seismic (401 of FIG. 4.1) may be expanded/supplemented by an expanded seismic survey based on the adjusted acquisition geometry (400 of FIG. 4.1) to eliminate/minimize the corner portion (435-1 of FIG. 4.3) and (441-1) such that both P to P and P to S amplitude and angle information exist throughout the area of interest.”].
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mortel et. al., in view of Wang et. al., in further view of Roy et. al. (US 20180038974 A1).
Regarding Claims 3 and 13, the combination of Mortel and Wang discloses the computer system of claim 11, wherein the operations further comprise: driving a model that operates on at least portions of the wireline data including the calibrated velocity data log to create synthetic gathers [Mortel, Paragraph [0083] – “As noted above, the well data (402) may be converted to be based on the time scale using the updated velocity model (410), which may be compared against the wavelet operators (407) at the wellbore to perform the log calibration (408), which calibrates or adjusts the wavelet operators (407) based on the well data (402). Further, upgoing wavefield and well logs are combined as input (e.g., time variant) to estimate wavelet operators for the seismic inversion where anelastic effects on the wavefield and Q factor are estimated and compensated for.” – in this case, seismic inversion is the model; Mortel, Paragraph [0084] – “While a typical seismic inversion of VSP data is only capable of generating acoustic impedance information, shear impedance (413) and density (414) are also generated by the seismic inversion (411), in addition to acoustic impedance (412), based on 2D or 3D information provided by the depth/time dependent angle model (406).” – synthetic gathers].
The combination does not disclose that the model is a rock physics model, wherein the rock physics model comprises a fluid substitution model instantiated at least twice to simulate a first instance of a first fluid condition at the geo-exploration site and a second instance for a second fluid condition at the geo-exploration site, and wherein the synthetic gathers include simulated seismic traces respectively for the first instance and the second instance.
Roy, however, discloses a rock physics model [Paragraph [0008] – “…creating a petro-elastic model in a seismic domain;”], wherein the rock physics model comprises a fluid substitution model instantiated at least twice to simulate a first instance of a first fluid condition at the geo-exploration site and a second instance for a second fluid condition at the geo-exploration site [Paragraph [0008] – “In accordance with some embodiments, a method is disclosed for petro-elastic modeling including receiving, at a computer processor, well log data; computing in situ rock properties; calculating dry frame moduli for a range of porosities; performing fluid substitutions and computing elastic properties for the range of porosities; performing fluid substitutions for the range of porosities; creating a petro-elastic model in a seismic domain; and identifying and producing target hydrocarbon reservoirs based on the petro-elastic model.” – range of porosities are fluid conditions under which fluid substitution is instantiated].
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 rock physics and fluid substitution model of Roy on the velocity log data of Mortel and Wang in order to more accurately estimate the path of the acoustic signals.
The combination of Mortel, Wang, and Roy discloses wherein the synthetic gathers include simulated seismic traces [Mortel, Paragraph [0084] – “While a typical seismic inversion of VSP data is only capable of generating acoustic impedance information, shear impedance (413) and density (414) are also generated by the seismic inversion (411), in addition to acoustic impedance (412), based on 2D or 3D information provided by the depth/time dependent angle model (406).” – acoustic impedance gives a seismic trace] respectively for the first instance and the second instance [Roy, Paragraph [0008] – “…performing fluid substitutions and computing elastic properties for the range of porosities; performing fluid substitutions for the range of porosities…”; Paragraph [0032] – “Referring again to FIG. 1, method 100 next performs operation 14. This operation computes Vp, Vs, and density for the range of additional porosities (Ø.sub.i) using the dry frame moduli and matrix density computed in the previous step. This may be accomplished using any fluid property calculator, e.g., FLAG (Batzle, and Wang., 1992) for computing fluid modulus (K.sub.fl) for wet case (100% brine saturated rock) as function of salinity, temperature and pressure.” – any two porosities (phi) can be first and second instance].
Claims 4-6 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mortel et. al., in view of Wang et. al., in further view of Roy et. al., in further view of Washbourne et. al. (US 20100027376 A1).
Regarding Claims 4 and 14, Mortel, Wang, and Roy disclose the computer system of claim 13.
The combination does not disclose that the range of incidence angles range from a minimum incidence angle to a critical angle.
Washbourne, however, discloses that the range of incidence angles range from a minimum incidence angle to a critical angle [Paragraph [0020] – “FIG. 6 is a plot of a typical AVO response for a single interface using the full Zoeppritz plane wave reflection coefficient Eqn. (1). The figure shows that for typical geologic interfaces and at small reflection angles, the reflection coefficient is nearly constant. At angles approaching 30.degree., the reflection coefficient typically diminishes a few percent and at angles approaching the critical angle, the reflection coefficient approaches unity. There are many approximations to the exact Zoeppritz equation. These approximations stem from the complex structure of the Zoeppritz equation and the types of angle dependent amplitude information available from the seismic data acquisition and processing methods.” – see also Fig. [6]].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to define the minimum incident angle as the point at which amplitude does not vary with angle and the maximum as the critical angle, as disclosed by Washbourne, when implementing the rock physics model of the combination of Mortel, Wang, and Roy in order to only analyze the range at which the amplitude varies with angle and does not fully reflect.
Regarding Claims 5 and 15, Mortel, Wang, Roy, and Washbourne disclose the computer system of claim 14, wherein the operations further comprise: generating, using an amplitude versus offset (AVO) model, responses to the synthetic gathers [Mortel, Paragraph [0084] – “The seismic inversion (411) is then performed on mapped amplitude data for PP reflection and PS reflection, their respective angles of incidence, and the ratio data of Vp/Vs for PS reflection that is mapped in the same domain (i.e., a range in proximity to the wellbore) as the amplitude data. As shown in FIG. 4.1, the seismic inversion (411) is based on the wavelet operators (407) derived using the depth/time dependent angle model (406) and the low frequency model (409), which is generated using the update velocity model (410). While a typical seismic inversion of VSP data is only capable of generating acoustic impedance information, shear impedance (413) and density (414) are also generated by the seismic inversion (411), in addition to acoustic impedance (412), based on 2D or 3D information provided by the depth/time dependent angle model (406). Specifically, shear impedance (413) and density (414) are generated over the domain where the shear image (i.e., data related to the PS reflection) exists, which is typically a subset of the domain where the acoustic image (i.e., data related to the PP reflection) exists.”] from the first instance and the second instance being launched from a surface of the geo-exploration site at various incidence angles [Roy, Paragraph [0008] – “…performing fluid substitutions and computing elastic properties for the range of porosities; performing fluid substitutions for the range of porosities…”; Paragraph [0032] – “Referring again to FIG. 1, method 100 next performs operation 14. This operation computes Vp, Vs, and density for the range of additional porosities (Ø.sub.i) using the dry frame moduli and matrix density computed in the previous step. This may be accomplished using any fluid property calculator, e.g., FLAG (Batzle, and Wang., 1992) for computing fluid modulus (K.sub.fl) for wet case (100% brine saturated rock) as function of salinity, temperature and pressure.” – any two porosities (phi) can be first and second instance and applying the amplitude-based seismic inversion of Mortel]; and
determining the minimum incidence angle above which variations between respective responses are observed [Washbourne, Paragraph [0020] – “FIG. 6 is a plot of a typical AVO response for a single interface using the full Zoeppritz plane wave reflection coefficient Eqn. (1). The figure shows that for typical geologic interfaces and at small reflection angles, the reflection coefficient is nearly constant. At angles approaching 30.degree., the reflection coefficient typically diminishes a few percent and at angles approaching the critical angle, the reflection coefficient approaches unity. There are many approximations to the exact Zoeppritz equation. These approximations stem from the complex structure of the Zoeppritz equation and the types of angle dependent amplitude information available from the seismic data acquisition and processing methods.” – see also Fig. [6]].
Regarding Claims 6 and 16, Mortel, Wang, Roy, and Washbourne disclose the computer system of claim 14, wherein the operations further comprise: generating, using an amplitude versus offset (AVO) model, responses to the synthetic gathers created in-situ from the wireline data at various incidence angles [Mortel, Paragraph [0084] – “The seismic inversion (411) is then performed on mapped amplitude data for PP reflection and PS reflection, their respective angles of incidence, and the ratio data of Vp/Vs for PS reflection that is mapped in the same domain (i.e., a range in proximity to the wellbore) as the amplitude data. As shown in FIG. 4.1, the seismic inversion (411) is based on the wavelet operators (407) derived using the depth/time dependent angle model (406) and the low frequency model (409), which is generated using the update velocity model (410). While a typical seismic inversion of VSP data is only capable of generating acoustic impedance information, shear impedance (413) and density (414) are also generated by the seismic inversion (411), in addition to acoustic impedance (412), based on 2D or 3D information provided by the depth/time dependent angle model (406). Specifically, shear impedance (413) and density (414) are generated over the domain where the shear image (i.e., data related to the PS reflection) exists, which is typically a subset of the domain where the acoustic image (i.e., data related to the PP reflection) exists.”]; and
determining a critical incidence angle beyond which the modeled response is fully reflected [Washbourne, Paragraph [0020] – “FIG. 6 is a plot of a typical AVO response for a single interface using the full Zoeppritz plane wave reflection coefficient Eqn. (1). The figure shows that for typical geologic interfaces and at small reflection angles, the reflection coefficient is nearly constant. At angles approaching 30.degree., the reflection coefficient typically diminishes a few percent and at angles approaching the critical angle, the reflection coefficient approaches unity. There are many approximations to the exact Zoeppritz equation. These approximations stem from the complex structure of the Zoeppritz equation and the types of angle dependent amplitude information available from the seismic data acquisition and processing methods.” – see also Fig. [6]].
Claims 7, 8, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mortel et. al., in view of Wang et. al., in view of Roy et. al., in view of Washbourne et. al., in further view of Hu et. al. (US 20170038490 A1).
Regarding Claims 7 and 17, Mortel, Wang, Roy, and Washbourne disclose the computer system of claim 14.
The combination does not disclose that the operations further comprise: using a 1D ray tracing technique when determining the range of offsets.
Hu, however, discloses that the operations further comprise: using a 1D ray tracing technique when determining the range of offsets [Paragraphs [0037]-[0038] – “…For improved subsurface structural imaging, wide azimuth and offset 3D VSP data can be collected by placing large numbers of surface shots around, and away from, the receiving borehole. The example techniques described herein relate to generating ADCIG from the multi-component 3D VSP data and post-processing of ADCIG to enhance structure image. The ADCIG generation method can be based on Kirchhoff integral method. The ADCIG generation method can include computation of five-dimensional (5D) ADCIG at each image point and computation of Green's function based on ray-tracing.”; Paragraph [0064] – “In some instances, since angle attributes are directly computed from gradients of the travel time field, any void travel time areas (the shadow zones) may fail to contribute input data to the output ADCIG and yield low quality images. To infill travel time shadow zones, several example methods can be used. For example, (1) applying a two-point ray-tracing algorithm between all samples in the shadow zones and the corresponding source or receiver position…”].
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 ray tracing technique of Hu to determine the full range of offsets disclosed in the combination of Mortel, Wang, Roy, and Washbourne.
Regarding Claims 8 and 18, Mortel, Wang, Roy, Washbourne, and Hu disclose the computer system of claim 17, wherein the 1D ray tracing technique [Hu, Paragraphs [0037]-[0038] – “…For improved subsurface structural imaging, wide azimuth and offset 3D VSP data can be collected by placing large numbers of surface shots around, and away from, the receiving borehole. The example techniques described herein relate to generating ADCIG from the multi-component 3D VSP data and post-processing of ADCIG to enhance structure image. The ADCIG generation method can be based on Kirchhoff integral method. The ADCIG generation method can include computation of five-dimensional (5D) ADCIG at each image point and computation of Green's function based on ray-tracing.”; Paragraph [0064] – “In some instances, since angle attributes are directly computed from gradients of the travel time field, any void travel time areas (the shadow zones) may fail to contribute input data to the output ADCIG and yield low quality images. To infill travel time shadow zones, several example methods can be used. For example, (1) applying a two-point ray-tracing algorithm between all samples in the shadow zones and the corresponding source or receiver position…”] is applied within the range of angles and under the critical angle [Washbourne, Paragraph [0020] – “FIG. 6 is a plot of a typical AVO response for a single interface using the full Zoeppritz plane wave reflection coefficient Eqn. (1). The figure shows that for typical geologic interfaces and at small reflection angles, the reflection coefficient is nearly constant. At angles approaching 30.degree., the reflection coefficient typically diminishes a few percent and at angles approaching the critical angle, the reflection coefficient approaches unity. There are many approximations to the exact Zoeppritz equation. These approximations stem from the complex structure of the Zoeppritz equation and the types of angle dependent amplitude information available from the seismic data acquisition and processing methods.” – see also Fig. [6]].
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-20210255349-A1, COMPUTER-IMPLEMENTED METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR SMALL CAVE RECOGNITION USING SEISMIC REFLECTION DATA
US-10884148-B2, Amplitude Compensation Of Reverse Time Migration (RTM) Gathers For AVO/AVA Analysis
US-20190179049-A1, MAPPING CHEMOSTRATIGRAPHIC SIGNATURES OF A RESERVOIR WITH ROCK PHYSICS AND SEISMIC INVERSION
US-20130223187-A1, Geological Structure Contour Modeling And Imaging
US-20120057431-A1, GENERATING INVERSION READY SEISMIC DATA
US-5648937-A, Method And Apparatus For Correlating Geological Structure Horizons From Velocity Data To Well Observations
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 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