Final Rejection
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
The amendment filed 05/20/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-18 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims are sufficient to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 of claims 1-18. Accordingly, the rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant' s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 10 and all subsequent dependent claims have been considered but are moot in view of the references cited in the most current rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the computer" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 (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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-12 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Padhi (WO 2018101965 A1) in view of Ferber (US 20110158046 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Padhi teaches a method, comprising: obtaining a normalized amplitude of signals from a geophone (figure 5 is a plot of normalized amplitudes versus time, showing traces picked from simulated geophone) and fiber optic-based borehole seismic measurement (DAS measures strain (strain rate) of an optical fiber in response to impinging seismic waves). (Paragraphs 6-7, 25-26, 17-18, Figs.4-6)
Padhi also teaches computing depth derivatives (performing a derivative over time, using equation (4) for the downgoing wavefield and using equation (6) for the upgoing wavefield at the depths z) of the normalized amplitude (the transformation of the strain data to simulate geophone data as basically a two-step process: first an integration over depth, z, is performed, followed by a derivative over time). (Paragraphs 22-23, 27, Fig.6)
Padhi also teaches performing an outlier detection of the depth derivatives as indicative of a depth of a sensor of a sensor array (outputting a waveform from the generated vertical component of velocity at the selected vertical position, the waveform simulating a waveform from geophone data at the selected vertical position). (Paragraphs 22-23, 30, 44-45, Claims 1-2, Fig.6)
Padhi does not explicitly teach experiencing a coupling issue as part of a warning system to detect coupling issues present in sensors of the sensor array; and generating an indication of the depth of the sensor of the sensor array experiencing a coupling issue to output to a display of the computer as a warning issued from the warning system.
Ferber teaches experiencing a coupling issue as part of a warning system to detect coupling issues present in sensors of the sensor array; and generating an indication of the depth of the sensor of the sensor array experiencing a coupling issue to output to a display of the computer as a warning issued from the warning system. (Paragraphs 25-26)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Padhi to incorporate experiencing a coupling issue as part of a warning system to detect coupling issues present in sensors of the sensor array; and generating an indication of the depth of the sensor of the sensor array experiencing a coupling issue to output to a display of the computer as a warning issued from the warning system as taught by Ferber in order to perform data quality check and alert the geophysicist or data processor of potential processing-related problems.
Regarding claim 2, Padhi teaches wherein the performing the outlier detection of the depth derivatives is performed on a set of database values. (Paragraphs 22-23, 30, 44-45, Claims 1-2, Fig.6)
Regarding claim 3, Padhi teaches wherein the performing the outlier detection of the depth derivatives is based on statistical testings. (Paragraphs 22-23, 30, 44-45, Claims 1-2, Fig.6)
Regarding claim 5, Padhi teaches wherein a source for the signals is located at an elevation higher or lower than a height of a sensor array, and exciting wavefield along the array. (Paragraphs 12-13, 35)
Regarding claim 6, Padhi teaches wherein the sensor array is an acoustic sensor array. (Paragraph 12)
Regarding claim 7, Padhi teaches wherein the obtaining the normalized amplitude of signals is for a zero-offset record. (Paragraph 26)
Regarding claim 8, Padhi teaches wherein the obtaining the normalized amplitude of signals is for an offset record. (Paragraphs 24, 26)
Regarding claim 9, Padhi teaches wherein the offset record is a vertical seismic profile. (Paragraphs 24, 26)
Regarding claim 10, Padhi teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium configured to store a set of instructions to be performed on a computer, the computer readable medium being non-volatile, wherein the set of instructions comprises: obtaining a normalized amplitude of signals from a fiber optic-based borehole seismic measurement (Figure 4 provides a comparison of normalized DAS). (Paragraphs 33, 6-7, 24-26, 17-18, Figs.4-6)
Padhi also teaches computing depth derivatives (performing a derivative over time, using equation (4) for the downgoing wavefield and using equation (6) for the upgoing wavefield at the depths z) of the normalized amplitude (the transformation of the strain data to simulate geophone data as basically a two-step process: first an integration over depth, z, is performed, followed by a derivative over time). (Paragraphs 22-23, 27, Fig.6)
Padhi also teaches performing an outlier detection of the depth derivatives as indicative of a depth of a sensor of a sensor array (outputting a waveform from the generated vertical component of velocity at the selected vertical position, the waveform simulating a waveform from geophone data at the selected vertical position). (Paragraphs 22-23, 30, 44-45, Claims 1-2, Fig.6)
Padhi does not explicitly teach experiencing a coupling issue as part of a warning system to detect coupling issues present in sensors of the sensor array; and generating an indication of the depth of the sensor of the sensor array experiencing a coupling issue to output to a display of the computer as a warning issued from the warning system.
Ferber teaches experiencing a coupling issue as part of a warning system to detect coupling issues present in sensors of the sensor array; and generating an indication of the depth of the sensor of the sensor array experiencing a coupling issue to output to a display of the computer as a warning issued from the warning system. (Paragraphs 25-26)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Padhi to incorporate experiencing a coupling issue as part of a warning system to detect coupling issues present in sensors of the sensor array; and generating an indication of the depth of the sensor of the sensor array experiencing a coupling issue to output to a display of the computer as a warning issued from the warning system as taught by Ferber in order to perform data quality check and alert the geophysicist or data processor of potential processing-related problems.
Regarding claim 11, the claim discloses substantially the same limitations, as claim 2. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 11, and do not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected for the same rational over the prior art cited in claim 2.
Regarding claim 12, the claim discloses substantially the same limitations, as claim 3. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 12, and do not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected for the same rational over the prior art cited in claim 3.
Regarding claim 14, Padhi teaches wherein a source for the signals is located at an elevation higher than a height of a sensor array. (Paragraphs 12-13, 35)
Regarding claim 15, the claim discloses substantially the same limitations, as claim 6. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 15, and do not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected for the same rational over the prior art cited in claim 6.
Regarding claim 16, the claim discloses substantially the same limitations, as claim 7. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 16, and do not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected for the same rational over the prior art cited in claim 7.
Regarding claim 17, the claim discloses substantially the same limitations, as claim 8. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 17, and do not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected for the same rational over the prior art cited in claim 8.
Regarding claim 18, the claim discloses substantially the same limitations, as claim 9. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 18, and do not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected for the same rational over the prior art cited in claim 9.
Claim(s) 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Padhi in view of Ferber and Liu (CN 111382799 A, all citations are provided from machine translation attached).
Regarding claim 4, Padhi does not explicitly teach wherein the performing the outlier detection is based on a deep learning model.
Liu teaches wherein the performing the outlier detection is based on a deep learning model. (Page.5, Last Paragraph-Page.6, First Paragraph)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Padhi to incorporate wherein the performing the outlier detection is based on a deep learning model in order to correct the encoded generating data.
Regarding claim 13, the claim discloses substantially the same limitations, as claim 4. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 13, and do not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected for the same rational over the prior art cited in claim 4.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDALLAH ABULABAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4755. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00am-3:00pm EST.
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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at 571-272-6970. 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.
/ABDALLAH ABULABAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights