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 being integrated into a practical application and do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Utilizing the two step process adopted by the Supreme Court (Alice Corp vs CLS Bank Int'l, US Supreme Court, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014) and the recent 101 guideline, Federal Register Vol. 84, No., Jan 2019)), determination of the subject matter eligibility under the 35 USC 101 is as follows: Specifically, the Step 1 requires claim belongs to one of the four statutory categories (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). If Step 1 is satisfied, then in the first part of Step 2A (Prong one), identification of any judicial recognized exceptions in the claim is made. If any limitation in the claim is identified as judicial recognized exception, then proceeding to the second part of Step 2A (Prong two), determination is made whether the identified judicial exception is being integrated into practical application. If the identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, then in Step 2B, the claim is further evaluated to see if the additional elements, individually and in combination, provide “inventive concept” that would amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. If the element and combination of elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial recognized exception itself, then the claim is ineligible under the 35 USC 101.
Looking at the claims, the claims satisfy the first part of the test 1A, namely the claims are directed to one of the four statutory class, apparatus and method. In Step 2A Prong one, we next identify any judicial exceptions in the claims. In Claim 1 (as a representative example, we recognize that the limitations “obtaining a plurality of field shot gathers of a subsurface reservoir, dividing each of the plurality of field shot gathers into a corresponding plurality of two-dimensional (2D) patches, determining, based on the corresponding plurality of 2D patches of each of the plurality of field shot gathers, an objective function of a full waveform inversion (FWI) process, determining, based on the objective function of the FWI process, a velocity model of the subsurface reservoir; and
providing the velocity model to determine one or more well locations within the subsurface reservoir,” are abstract ideas, as they recite a combination of mental process and usage of mathematical concept. Similar rejections are made for other independent and dependent claims. With the identification of abstract ideas, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong two, where with additional elements and taken as a whole, we evaluate whether the identified abstract idea is being integrated into a practical application.
In Step 2A, Prong two, the claims additionally recite “computer system,”, “one or more processor,” and ‘memory” but said limitation is merely a recitation of general-purpose computer for implementing the abstract idea. The claims do not improve the function of any machines and do not improve other technology. At most, the claims are an improvement in the abstract idea of providing the velocity model. However, improved or new abstract idea is still an abstract idea and not eligible. In short, the claims do not provide sufficient evidence to show that they are more than a drafting effort to monopolize the abstract idea. As such, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Consequently, with the identified abstract idea not being integrated into a practical application, we proceed to Step 2B and evaluate whether the additional elements provide “inventive concept” that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
In Step 2B, the claims additionally recite “computer system,”, “one or more processor,” and ‘memory” but said limitation is merely a recitation of general-purpose computer for implementing the abstract idea, that are well-understood, routine and conventional. As such, the claims do not provide additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
In Summary, the claims recite abstract idea without being integrated into a practical application, and do not provide additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As such, taken as a whole, the claims are ineligible under the 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang, US-PGPUB 2022/0018981 (hereinafter Wang)
Regarding Claims 1, 8 and 15. Wang discloses obtaining a plurality of field shot gathers of a subsurface reservoir, dividing each of the plurality of field shot gathers into a corresponding plurality of two-dimensional (2D) patches (Figs. 1-10; Paragraph [0033]); determining, based on the corresponding plurality of 2D patches of each of the plurality of field shot gathers, an objective function of a full waveform inversion (FWI) process (Paragraph [0005]; [0031], [0045], FWI, misfit), determining, based on FWI process, a velocity model of the subsurface reservoir (Paragraph [0009]), and providing the velocity model to determine one or more well locations within the subsurface reservoir (Paragraphs [0009]; [0045])
Regarding Claims 2, 9 and 16. Wang discloses before dividing each of the plurality of field shot gathers into the corresponding plurality of 2D patches, filtering the plurality of field shot gathers to generate a plurality of shape-filtered field shot gathers, wherein filtering the plurality of field shot gathers comprises convolving the plurality of field shot gathers with a shaping filter, and wherein dividing each of the plurality of field shot gathers into the corresponding plurality of 2D patches comprises dividing each of the plurality of shape-filtered field shot gathers into the corresponding plurality of 2D patches (Paragraph [0037]-[0038]; Fig. 6)
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3-6, 10-13 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, US-PGPUB 2022/0018981 in view of Liu et al., “Robust full-waveform inversion based on automatic differentiation and differentiable dynamic time warping,” J of Geophysics and Engineering (2023) (hereinafter Liu)
Regarding Claims 3, 10 and 17. Wang does not disclose determining the objective function of the FWI process comprises: determining, for each of the corresponding plurality of 2D patches, a respective soft-dynamic time warping (DTW) objective function in a time direction and a respective soft-DTW objective function in a space direction; and determining, based on the respective soft-DTW objective function in the time direction and the respective soft-DTW objective function in the space direction, the objective function of the FWI process.
Liu discloses determining full waveform inversion and the objective function of the FWI process comprises: determining, for each of the corresponding plurality of 2D patches, a respective soft-dynamic time warping (DTW) objective function in a time direction and a respective soft-DTW objective function in a space direction; and determining, based on the respective soft-DTW objective function in the time direction and the respective soft-DTW objective function in the space direction, the objective function of the FWI process (Abstract; page 550, right column; pages 552-562, section 2.2-to Conclusion describing the soft-DTW in detail)
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Liu in Wang and determine the objective function of the FWI process comprises determining, for each of the corresponding plurality of 2D patches, a respective soft-dynamic time warping (DTW) objective function in a time direction and a respective soft-DTW objective function in a space direction; and determining, based on the respective soft-DTW objective function in the time direction and the respective soft-DTW objective function in the space direction, the objective function of the FWI process, and effectively reconstruct the velocity parameters with noise robustness and lower dependence on the initial model.
Regarding Claims 4, 11 and 18. Liu discloses determining the respective soft- DTW objective function in the time direction comprises determining, based on a weighting function, the respective soft-DTW objective function in the time direction (page 557, right column).
Regarding Claims 5, 12 and 19. Wang discloses determining the objective function of the FWI process comprises determining, based on a respective synthetic shot gather within each of the corresponding plurality of 2D patches, the objective function of the FWI process (Paragraph [0005]; [0031], FWI, misfit)
Regarding Claims 6, 13 and 20. Wang does not disclose using a Ricker wavelet.
Liu discloses a robust full waveform inversion (Abstract), that includes using a Ricker wavelet (page 557, left column to page 560)
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Liu in Wang and generate the respective synthetic shot gather within each of the corresponding plurality of 2D patches using a Ricker wavelet, so as to effectively reconstruct the velocity parameters with noise robustness and lower dependence on the initial model.
8. Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, US-PGPUB 2022/0018981 in view of Sun et al., US-PGPUB 2021/0018639 (Hereinafter Sun)
Regarding Claims 7 and 14. Wang does not disclose determining the velocity model of the subsurface reservoir comprises determining, based on the objective function of the FWI process and an adjoint source vector of the objective function of the FWI process, the velocity model of the subsurface reservoir.
Sun discloses determining the velocity model of the subsurface reservoir comprises determining, based on the objective function of the FWI process and an adjoint source vector of the objective function of the FWI process, the velocity model of the subsurface reservoir (Abstract; Paragraphs [0017]-[0020], [0026]-[0027], [0035]-[0054], [0075]; [0002]-[0010])
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Sun in Wang and determine the velocity model of the subsurface reservoir comprises determining, based on the objective function of the FWI process and an adjoint source vector of the objective function of the FWI process, the velocity model of the subsurface reservoir, so as to obtain more accurate location for reservoirs.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kim et al., US-PGPUB 2022/0187485, discloses determining the objective function, full waveform inversion and velocity model.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HYUN D PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-7922. The examiner can normally be reached 11-4.
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 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.
/HYUN D PARK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights