DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the length of the text is less than 50 words (should be 50 to 150). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In, pp. 17 and 18, the “partial differentiation step 322” is not consistent with the text description of 322 in FIG. 3 .
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 320 and 323 (see pp. 17 and 18 ). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a parameterization section” and “a velocity model optimization section,” plus the respective functions recited in claim 1; “the partial differentiation of a velocity function section” and “a synthetic data generation section,” plus the respective functions recited in claim 2; and “a residual definition section,” “a partial differentiation section,” and “a velocity model update section,” plus the respective functions recited in claim 3.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. See specification p. 8 showing “software” as an example of embodiment.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 17, “parametrize” should be --parameterize-- to correct a typo.
In claim 1, lines 19-20, “configured to applying” should be --configured to apply-- to correct a grammatical error.
In claim 1, lines 23-24, “the good initial subsurface velocity model” should be --a good initial subsurface velocity model-- to avoid the issue of lack of antecedent basis.
In claim 2, lines 3-4, “the partial differentiation of a velocity function section” should be --a partial differentiation of a velocity function section-- to avoid the issue of lack of antecedent basis.
In claims 2, lines 5-6, “a frequency domain or the Laplace domain or the Laplace Fourier domain” should be --a frequency domain, a Laplace domain, or a Laplace Fourier domain-- for better clarity and to avoid the issue of lack of antecedent basis.
In claim 2, lines 11-12, “by of the partial differentiation of the velocity function section” should be --by the partial differentiation of a velocity function section-- for better clarity and to be consistent in referring to the antecedent basis.
In claim 3, lines 7-8, “the wavefield” should be --a wavefield-- to avoid the issue of lack of antecedent basis.
In claim 3, lines 8-10, “cosine transform or since transform or the complex Fourier series or the Fourier transform ;” should be --a cosine transform, a sine transform, a complex Fourier series, or a Fourier transform;-- for better clarity and to avoid the issue of lack of antecedent basis.
In claim 3, lines 11-12, “configured to applying” should be --configured to apply-- to correct a grammatical error.
In claim 5, line 4, “velocity model optimizing configured to applying” should be --velocity model optimizing by applying-- to recite a method step properly.
In claim 6, lines 4-5, “a frequency domain or a Laplace or a Laplace Fourier domain” should be --a frequency domain, a Laplace domain, or a Laplace Fourier domain-- for better clarity.
In claim 6, line 7, “the synthetic seismic data” should be --synthetic seismic data-- to avoid the issue of lack of antecedent basis.
In claim 7, line 3, “the measured seismic data” should be --measured seismic data-- to avoid the issue of lack of antecedent basis.
In claim 7, line 6, “the wavefield” should be --a wavefield-- to avoid the issue of lack of antecedent basis.
In claim 7, lines 7-9, “cosine transform or since transform or the complex Fourier series or the Fourier transform ;” should be --a cosine transform, a sine transform, a complex Fourier series, or a Fourier transform;-- for better clarity and to avoid the issue of lack of antecedent basis.
In claim 7, lines 10-11, “a velocity model updating which apply the Gauss Newton method and update the velocity model” should be --a velocity model updating which applies the Gauss Newton method and updates the velocity model-- to correct grammatical errors.
The other claim(s) not discussed above, or depending on the above claim(s), are objected to for inheriting the issue(s) from their linking claim(s).
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
MPEP 2106 outlines a two-part analysis for Subject Matter Eligibility as shown in the chart below.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Step 1, the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories. 35 U.S.C. 101 defines the four categories of invention that Congress deemed to be the appropriate subject matter of a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter.
Step 2, the claimed invention also must qualify as patent-eligible subject matter, i.e., the claim must not be directed to a judicial exception unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception.
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, as shown in the chart below.
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Prong One asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e. whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. If the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea enumerated in MPEP § 2106.04(a), a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two. If the claim does not recite a judicial exception (a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea), then the claim cannot be directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A: NO), and thus the claim is eligible at Pathway B without further analysis. Abstract ideas can be grouped as, e.g., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes.
Prong Two asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? If the additional elements in the claim integrate the recited exception into a practical application of the exception, then the claim is not directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A: NO) and thus is eligible at Pathway B. This concludes the eligibility analysis. If, however, the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception (Step 2A: YES), and requires further analysis under Step 2B.
Claims 1-8 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.
Regarding claim 5, Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Yes.
Step 2A: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (judicially recognized exceptions)? Yes (see analysis below).
Prong one: Whether the claim recites a judicial exception? (Yes). The claim is directed to an abstract idea because it recites the limitations “parameterizing a velocity model; and velocity model optimizing configured to applying a Gauss Newton method through waveform inversion for the velocity model parameterized by the parameterizing to repeatedly update the velocity model, thereby optimizing the velocity model.” These limitations are directed to mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; and/or mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (or with a pen and paper).
Prong two: Whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception? (No). The claim recites no additional elements beyond the abstract idea. Accordingly, no additional elements are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements (other than the judicial exception) that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No (see analysis below).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to make the claim significantly more than the judicial exception, as discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two above. Considered as a whole, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 1 is similarly rejected by analogy to claim 5. Note that the limitations: “a nonvolatile memory configured to store execution code for subsurface velocity model optimization software; a processor configured to execute the execution code for the subsurface velocity model optimization software stored in the nonvolatile memory; a display configured to display a subsurface velocity model optimization software screen output by the execution code for the subsurface velocity model optimization software executed by the processor; and a user input unit configured to receive user operation for input and output of the subsurface velocity model optimization software” are additional elements for the Step 2 analysis. However these are generic computer components recited to facilitate data processing according to the abstract idea. They are not sufficient to make the claim an eligible one. See MPEP 2106.05(d) and (f).
Dependent claims 2-4 and 6-8 when analyzed as a whole respectively are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they either extend (or add more details to) the abstract idea or the additional recited limitation(s) (if any) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea, as discussed below: there is no additional element(s) in the dependent claims that sufficiently integrates the abstract idea into a practical application of, or makes the claims significantly more than, the judicial exception (abstract idea). The additional element(s) (if any) are mere instructions to apply an except, field of use, and/or insignificant extra-solution activities (applied to Step 2A_Prong Two and Step 2B; see MPEP 2016.05(f)-(h)) and/or well-understood, routine, or conventional (applied to Step 2B; see MPEP 2106.05(d)) to facilitate the application of the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pratt et al. ("Gauss-Newton and full Newton methods in frequency-space seismic waveform inversion" Geophys. J. Int. (1998) 133, 341-362; cited in IDS; hereinafter “Pratt”).
Regarding claim 5, Pratt teaches a method of optimizing a subsurface velocity model (i.e., “the Gauss-Newton and full Newton methods prove effective in helping to solve the difficult non-linear problem of extracting a smooth background velocity model from surface seismic-reflection data”; see Summary), the method comprising:
parameterizing a velocity model (i.e., “we reparametrize the high-wavenumber inversion problem from depth to time, in order to decouple the two inverse problems. With such an approach, we now show how Newton methods can be effectively used to converge on the low wavenumbers in the problem. We parametrize the low-wavenumber velocity field using a small number of cubic spline node points”; see p. 354, col. 2, lower section); and
velocity model optimizing configured to applying a Gauss Newton method through waveform inversion for the velocity model parameterized by the parameterizing to repeatedly update the velocity model, thereby optimizing the velocity model (i.e., “The algorithm used to compute the update to the low-wavenumber velocity field for a given iteration is outlined below… We begin by explicitly calculating the required partial derivatives… We parametrize the low-wavenumber model using the velocity values at each of four cubic spline node points… The (unscaled) Gauss-Newton parameter perturbations can then be computed… The final low-wavenumber velocity update given by eqs [] (56) (for the Gauss-Newton method)”; see p. 354, col. 2, lower section through p. 355, col. 2, upper section).
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pratt.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites the same substantive limitations in terms of the method involved as claim 5, and is rejected by applying the same teachings, except the utilization of “a nonvolatile memory configured to store execution code for subsurface velocity model optimization software; a processor configured to execute the execution code for the subsurface velocity model optimization software stored in the nonvolatile memory; a display configured to display a subsurface velocity model optimization software screen output by the execution code for the subsurface velocity model optimization software executed by the processor; and a user input unit configured to receive user operation for input and output of the subsurface velocity model optimization software” for executing the method.
However, the differences are well-known computer components to facilitate data processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pratt by providing those computer components as claimed, configured to executive the method. The rationale would be to facilitate the data processing required for the method.
Notes
Claims 2 and 6 distinguish over the closest prior art of record as discussed below.
Regarding claims 2 and 6, the closest prior art of record fails to teach the feature of claim 6 (as the representative): “parameterizing a velocity function included in a wave function in a frequency domain or a Laplace or a Laplace Fourier domain, and taking partial derivative of the parameterized velocity function with respect to a parameter; and generating the synthetic seismic data from a partial differentiation result by the parameterizing a velocity function,” in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant.
Not only does Pratt fail to teach or suggest partial differentiation of the velocity model, but Pratt also fail to teach or suggest transforming the velocity model in a frequency domain, Laplace domain, or a Laplace Fourier domain. Pratt further fails to teach or suggest generating the synthetic seismic data from a partial differentiation result by the parameterizing a velocity function. None of the prior art of record, singly or in combination, teaches or suggest the feature at issue as claimed.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
XU et al. (CN 116029073 A) teaches a method for optimizing a velocity model, involving obtaining reflected wave observation data required by inversion; constructing a background velocity model and a disturbance model for inversion; obtaining the calculation data corresponding to the current velocity model, according to the current background velocity model and disturbance model, using sound wave equation first-order Born positive evolution method; establishing reflected wave full waveform inversion target function and calculating the gradient corresponding to the current velocity model; updating direction of the model of second order optimization and updating the current model, according to the gradient and truncated Gaussian Newton method reflected wave full waveform inversion; and repeating perturbating the velocity model to update the velocity model until a residual error is minimized.
Shin et al. ("Waveform inversion in the Laplace–Fourier domain" Geophys. J. Int. (2009) 177, 1067-1079) teaches a Laplace–Fourier-domain waveform inversion method by exploiting low frequency components (less than 5 Hz) of the damped wavefield.
Bae et al. ("Frequency-domain acoustic-elastic coupled waveform inversion using the Gauss-Newton conjugate gradient method" Geophysical Prospecting doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2478.2011.00993.x, (2011)) teaches a method for frequency-domain acoustic-elastic coupled waveform inversion based on a Gauss-Newton conjugate gradient method.
Ha et al. ("Efficient velocity estimation in the Laplace domain using gain control" SEG San Antonio 2011 Annual Meeting) teaches a method for velocity estimation in the Laplace domain, involving applying gain functions to observed data and using the results to calculate gradients.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN C KUAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7066. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM-5:30PM.
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, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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.
/JOHN C KUAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights