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 .
Claim Objection
Claim 35 recites the limitation “the platform” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim use a definite article “the”, however, the claim 35 does not recite the claim limitation of “a platform”.
Claim 54 recites the limitations “the depth” in line 7; “the size” in line 10; “the type” in line 11; “the collaboration survey” in line 11; “the resolution” in line 12; “the acoustic signal sources” in line 17, and “the survey operation” in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. The claim uses a definite article “the”, however, the claim 54 does not recite the claim limitations of “a depth”; “a size”; “a type”; “a collaboration survey”; “a resolution”; “acoustic signal sources”; and “a survey operation”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
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 claims limitations are “module” in claims 35 and 54; and “configured to” in claims 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54. The claims describe the various modules in functional terms of what they do, rather than how they do it. Under 35 USC 112(f), the Specification must identify a specific and readily-identifiable algorithm in the Specification associated with the claimed function.
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, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. For example, [0050] discloses “ … a collaboration platform which is configured to provide seismic data products and/or seismic data services using seismic sensor units, the platform comprising: at least one module configured to receive a request for a seismic data product or seismic data service, at least one module configured to process the received request to identify one or more workflow components comprising one or more configurable functional building blocks for executing a seismic survey or part of a seismic survey to fulfil the request using the seismic sensor units, at least one module configured to determine one or more configuration parameters for configuring the one or more configurable functional building blocks of at least one identified workflow, at least one module configured to generate a workflow for the requested seismic data product or seismic data service by configuring the identified building blocks using the determined configuration parameters, and at least one module configured to execute the work-flow, wherein execution of the workflow includes retrieving data from one or more data sources including the seismic sensors, wherein execution of the workflow generates the requested seismic data product or seismic data service.”
In order to exam the merit, Examiner interprets the above mentioned limitations performed by a generic computer.
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 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 35-54 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.
As to claim 35, the claim recites “An apparatus for interactively generating user-customised end-to-end workflows which to provide seismic data products and/or seismic data services using seismic sensor units, the platform comprising:
an engagement portal for a user to generate a request for a seismic data product and/or service, wherein the request comprises configuration parameters and values for one or more or all of a plurality of workflow components forming an end-to-end workflow, the plurality of workflow components comprising a design workflow component, a planning workflow component, a source workflow component, a receiver workflow component, a navigation workflow component, a recorder workflow component, and a data assurance workflow component;
at least one module configured to receive, via the engagement portal, the request for a seismic data product or seismic data service;
at least one module configured to process the received request to identify one or more workflow components comprising one or more configurable functional building blocks for generating the user-customised end-to-end workflow for executing a seismic survey or part of a seismic survey to fulfil the request using the seismic sensor units;
at least one module configured to determine one or more configuration parameters for configuring the one or more configurable functional building blocks of at least one identified workflow component of the end-to-end workflow;
at least one module configured to generate the user-customised end-to-end workflow for the requested seismic data product or seismic data service by configuring the identified building blocks using the determined configuration parameters; and
at least one module configured to execute the user-customised end-to-end work- flow, wherein execution of the user-customised end-to-end workflow includes retrieving data from one or more data sources including the seismic sensors, wherein execution of the workflow generates the requested seismic data product or seismic data service,
wherein the engagement portal is further configured to allow end-users to interactively engage with the design, planning, source, receiver, navigation, recorder and data assurance stage workflow components of the end-to-end workflow.“
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claim is directed to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (apparatus for claim 35).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the bold type portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim that covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) and mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions).
In claim 35, the steps of “identify one or more workflow components comprising one or more configurable functional building blocks for generating the user-customised end-to-end workflow for executing a seismic survey or part of a seismic survey to fulfil the request using the seismic sensor units”; and
“determine one or more configuration parameters for configuring the one or more configurable functional building blocks of at least one identified workflow component of the end-to-end workflow” are mental processes, therefore, they are considered to be an abstract idea.
The step of “generate the user-customised end-to-end workflow for the requested seismic data product or seismic data service by configuring the identified building blocks using the determined configuration parameters” is a mathematical concept, therefore, it is considered to be an abstract idea.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The claim comprises the following additional elements:
an engagement portal for a user to generate a request for a seismic data product and/or service, wherein the request comprises configuration parameters and values for one or more or all of a plurality of workflow components forming an end-to-end workflow, the plurality of workflow components comprising a design workflow component, a planning workflow component, a source workflow component, a receiver workflow component, a navigation workflow component, a recorder workflow component, and a data assurance workflow component; receive, via the engagement portal, the request for a seismic data product or seismic data service; at least one module configured to process the received request; at least one module configured to execute the user-customised end-to-end work- flow, wherein execution of the user-customised end-to-end workflow includes retrieving data from one or more data sources including the seismic sensors, wherein execution of the workflow generates the requested seismic data product or seismic data service, and wherein the engagement portal is further configured to allow end-users to interactively engage with the design, planning, source, receiver, navigation, recorder and data assurance stage workflow components of the end-to-end workflow.
The additional elements “an engagement portal for a user to generate a request for a seismic data product and/or service, wherein the request comprises configuration parameters and values for one or more or all of a plurality of workflow components forming an end-to-end workflow, the plurality of workflow components comprising a design workflow component, a planning workflow component, a source workflow component, a receiver workflow component, a navigation workflow component, a recorder workflow component, and a data assurance workflow component”; “at least one module configured to process the received request”; “at least one module configured to execute the user-customised end-to-end work- flow, wherein execution of the user-customised end-to-end workflow includes retrieving data from one or more data sources including the seismic sensors, wherein execution of the workflow generates the requested seismic data product or seismic data service”, and “wherein the engagement portal is further configured to allow end-users to interactively engage with the design, planning, source, receiver, navigation, recorder and data assurance stage workflow components of the end-to-end workflow” are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they only add insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception. The additional element “receive, via the engagement portal, the request for a seismic data product or seismic data service” represents necessary data gathering and does not integrate the limitation into a practical application.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claims elements do not reflect an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not reflect improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, do not recite a particular machine, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
The above claim, does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generically recited and are well-understood/conventional in a relevant art as evidenced by the prior art of record (Step 2B analysis).
For example, receive, via the engagement portal, the request for a seismic data product or seismic data service is considered necessary data gathering. As recited in MPEP section 2106.05(g), necessary data gathering (i.e., seismic data) is considered extra solution activity in light of Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
For example, generate a request for a seismic data product and/or service, wherein the request comprises configuration parameters and values for one or more or all of a plurality of workflow components forming an end-to-end workflow components forming an end-to-end workflow is disclosed by “Opfer US 9110177B1”, Col. 6, Lines 26-27 and Lines 30-32; Col. 9, Lines 44-55 and Lines 62-65; FIG. 1, #40, #64, #68, #72 to #76, #84; and “Mullarkey US 6028819A”, the workflow components in FIG. 4, #41; FIG. 9, #91; FIG. 3, #31; FIG. 4, # 42; FIG. 9, #92; FIG. 8, # 61 and #62; the components in FIG. 5, #51, #52, #54; FIG. 6, #64 to #66; FIG. 8, #81, #82, #84, #85; FIG. 5, #53, FIG. 6, #65; FIG. 8, #83, and the data assurance workflow component in FIG. 11, #116, #117; Col. 11, Lines 6-10; FIG. 12, #128, #129 and Col. 11, Lines 37-42.
The claim, therefore, is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 54 recites subject matter that is similar or analogous to that of claim 35, and therefore, the claim is also patent ineligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 36-53 provide additional features/steps which are considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims, and do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
The dependent claims are, therefore, also not patent eligible.
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 35-40, 42-46, 48, 51-52, and 54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Opfer (US 9110177B1, hereinafter Opfer) in view of Mullarkey et al. (US 6028819A, hereinafter Mullarkey).
As to claims 35 and 54, Opfer teaches an engagement portal for a user to generate a request for a seismic data product and/or service, wherein the request comprises configuration parameters and values for one or more or all of a plurality of workflow components forming an end-to-end workflow (Column 6, Lines 26-27 and Lines 30-32 discloses an input digitizer coupled to the processor for inputting digital data, and a display device coupled to the processor and memory for displaying information derived from digital data processed by the processor (i.e., a user generates a request through an input component or engagement portal for a seismic data product and/or service - emphasis added by Examiner); and a plurality of databases or data management systems; Column 9, Lines 44-55 and Lines 62-65 discloses computer system includes a hardware/software combination that performs specific seismic computational tasks, a display device (e.g., a computer monitor), and one or more user input devices. Non-Freznel Zone survey design generator 40 receives input geological input related to, e.g., the topography of the geographical area to have its underground geological formations surveyed (i.e., a user generates a request through user input devices or engagement portal for a seismic data product and/or service
that would include configuration parameters and values for one or more or all of a plurality of workflow components forming an end-to-end workflow - emphasis added by Examiner); FIG. 1, #40), the plurality of workflow components comprising a design workflow component (FIG. 1, #64), a planning workflow component (FIG. 1, #64 and #68), a source workflow component, a receiver workflow component, a navigation workflow component (components in FIG. 1, #72 to #76), a recorder workflow component, and a data assurance workflow component (FIG. 1, #84);
at least one module configured to receive, via the engagement portal, the request for a seismic data product or seismic data service (Col. 9, Line 52-67 discloses the generator 40 receives input geological input related to, e.g., the topography of the geographical area to have its underground geological formations surveyed, and a software operating system, and specialized installed software perform the particular seismic related tasks; FIG. 2, step 204; Col. 13, Lines 35-43; i.e., a module handles a request for a survey for obtaining a seismic data product or seismic data service - emphasis added by Examiner);
at least one module configured to process the received request to identify one or more workflow components (Col. 10, Lines 9-17 discloses positioning seismic signal generating sources 44, e.g., data for describing geographic positions of the sources in FIG.9 along the lines 48 of smaller dots, wherein each such source is represented by one of the smaller dots, (i.e., the workflow components for positioning and operating seismic sources and seismic receiver are identified - emphasis added by Examiner); Col. 14, Lines 13-36; FIG. 2, step 212) comprising one or more configurable functional building blocks for generating the user-customised end-to-end workflow for executing a seismic survey or part of a seismic survey to fulfil the request using the seismic sensor units (Col. 10, Lines 11-17 and FIG. 7 disclose generates non-Freznel Zone survey design data for positioning: (i) seismic signal generating sources 44, e.g., data for describing geographic positions of the sources in FIG.9 along the lines 48 of smaller dots, wherein each such source is represented by one of the smaller dots, and (ii) signal receivers 52, e.g., data for describing geographic positions of the receivers in FIG. 9 along the ZigZag lines 56 of larger black dots, wherein each such receiver is represented by one of the larger black dots that detect the source signals when they are reflected from various underground geological formations (such reflected signals referred to as “traces' herein); Col. 11, Lines 15-26; FIG. 1, #64, #40; FIG. 2, step 212, (i.e., as shown in FIG. 2, step 212,(A),(B), the functional building blocks for determining how to position and operate seismic sources and seismic receiver are identified - emphasis added by Exa5miner));
at least one module configured to determine one or more configuration parameters for configuring the one or more configurable functional building blocks of at least one identified workflow component of the end-to-end workflow (Col. 11, Lines 26-32 discloses the survey design generator 64 generates source 44 and receiver 52 positioning locations by performing the following steps: identifying the bounds and orientation of the survey relative to a corresponding land grid and generating or populating source and receiver points with the bounds of the survey and outputting the data in a standard file format (i.e., the parameters for configuring the functional building blocks indicated above are determined - emphasis added by Examiner); FIG. 1, #64; ; FIG. 2, steps 209 and 228, and Col. 15, Lines 36-49);
at least one module configured to generate the user-customised end-to-end workflow for the requested seismic data product or seismic data service by configuring the identified building blocks using the determined configuration parameters (Col. 11, Lines 33-45; Col. 14, Lines 37-48 discloses in FIG. 2, step 214, a custom parameter file is generated for inputting into the survey design generator 64, and the custom parameter file includes: azimuth of the grid, and a description of the pattern of shifts that are to be applied to the sources 44 and receivers 52 to produce the corresponding desired source bins and receiver bins. Then in step 215, the seismic geographic survey design generator 64 is activated with the custom parameter file as input for obtaining (as output therefrom) a candidate bin layout configuration that includes both source 44 and receiver 52 layouts for the survey site); and
at least one module configured to execute the user-customised end-to-end work- flow, wherein execution of the user-customised end-to-end workflow includes retrieving data from one or more data sources including the seismic sensors (Col. 11, Lines 50-65 to Col. 12, Line 4 disclose the surveyor (or other personnel) place the sensors 44 and receivers 52 on the survey site, each location therefor is recorded in the field computer system 68 with high accuracy. Subsequently (as indicated by the arrow 74), the circular task description 76 (FIG. 1) is performed, wherein the signal sources 44 are activated to generate seismic signals into ground (e.g., via explosive charges, or other seismic in-ground signal wave forming techniques), and their corresponding reflection traces are detected and data therefor is captured by the receivers 52 (i.e., retrieving data from one or more data sources including the seismic sensors - emphasis added by Examiner); FIG. 1, #68, #72, #74, #76, #80), wherein execution of the workflow generates the requested seismic data product or seismic data service (Col. 12, Line 56 to Col. 13, Line 12 disclose the seismic image data generated by seismic data processing computer system 84 is output to the seismic imaging computer system 88, wherein one or more seismic data analysts interpret the seismic image data. The seismic data processing computer system performs the following steps: (i) from input seismic processed trace data, image data of the trace data is produced in such a manor to image the subsurface geology, (ii) identify and pick relevant subsurface geologic reflectors, (iii) apply various attributes to the image data to reveal geologic faults and structures in the subsurface, and (iv) generate various time and depth maps of these geological features; FIG. 1, #84, #88).
Opfer does not explicitly teach wherein the engagement portal is further configured to allow end-users to interactively engage with the design, planning, source, receiver, navigation, recorder and data assurance stage workflow components of the end-to-end workflow.
Mullarkey teaches wherein the engagement portal is further configured to allow end-users to interactively engage with the design, planning, source, receiver, navigation, recorder and data assurance stage workflow components of the end-to-end workflow (Col. 2, Lines 61-65 discloses “The invention employs a Discrete Event Simulation component that exploits the labeled terrain maps, whose data is held in a Geographic Information System, to run land seismic acquisition simulations that include complex dynamic behaviors of the components.”; Col. 7, Lines 12-24 discloses “FIG. 3 is a block diagram of the system of simulating and optimizing land Seismic operations 30. The invention employs a Discrete Event Simulator component 32 that exploits the labeled terrain maps, whose data is held in a Geographic Information System 31, to run land seismic acquisition simulations that include complex dynamic behaviors of the components. Project database information 31 includes other nonspatial data relevant to the project such as prior optimization results and field discovered information, including client requirements, environmental impact minimization Strategies and all other information pertinent to effective, efficient, safe and profitable operations that minimize damage to the environment; FIG. 3, #30; FIG. 10, #100 and #105; i.e., the collaboration platform of FIG. 10 has an engagement portal consisting of the
set of input and output peripherals, and related software components that allow
a user to interact with all the workflow components listed above, namely the
design workflow component (FIG. 4, #41, FIG. 9, #91, FIG.3, #31), the planning workflow component (FIG.4, #42, FIG. 9, #92, FIG. 6, #61 and #62); the components in FIG.5, #51, #52, #54; FIG.6, #64 to #66, FIG.8, #81, #82, #84, #85, which comprise source, receiver and navigation workflow components; the recorder workflow component (FIG.5, #53, FIG.6, #65, FIG.8, #83), and the data assurance workflow component (FIG.11, #116,
#117 and Col. 11, Lines 6-10; FIG.12, #128, #129 and Col. 11, Lines 37-42) - emphasis added by Examiner)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Mullarkey into Opfer for the purpose of simulating and optimizing land seismic survey operations by applying operations research methodologies to the land seismic surveying problem domain, and improve the logistics of a land seismic survey. This combination would improve accuracy of simulations and optimization by using historical operations data.
As to claim 36, the combination of Opfer and Mullarkey teaches the claimed limitations as discussed in claim 35.
Opfer teaches wherein at least one configurable functional building block includes a control interface and a data interface via which the functional building block may be interrogated and/or configured using control information and/or configuration parameters provided in a subsequent request associated with the received request, wherein a subsequent request comprises a request for a seismic data product or seismic data service which comprises a seismic survey workflow status update, wherein the collaboration platform is configured to respond to the request by interrogating one or more workflow components to obtain workflow status update information and shares the workflow status update information with the entity from which the subsequent request originated (Col. 9, Lines 50-53 discloses each computer system typically includes a processing unit (CPU), a random access memory (RAM), a mass or peripheral persistent data storage, a display device (e.g., a computer monitor), one or more user input devices (e.g., a keyboard, a selection/pointing device, etc.), a software operating system, and specialized installed software for performing the particular seismic related tasks attributed herein to the computer system).
As to claim 37, the combination of Opfer and Mullarkey teaches the claimed limitations as discussed in claim 35.
Opfer teaches associate acoustic data captured by a seismic sensor unit with data capable of providing a data source signature, wherein at least one functional building block of the recorder workflow is configured to perform an integrity check on the source signature as part of the executed workflow (FIG. 2, steps 228 and 214).
As to claim 38, the combination of Opfer and Mullarkey teaches the claimed limitations as discussed in claim 35.
Opfer teaches cause the deployment of seismic sensor units, and the retrieval of seismic sensor units (Col. 8, Lines 9-12, Lines 41-46) determining how to position and operate seismic sources and seismic receiver are identified (Col. 11, Lines 40-52 discloses a geologic surveyor for identifying and placing the sources 44 and the receivers 52 at locations on the ground in the survey site area, and as the surveyor (or other personnel) place the sensors 44 and receivers 52 on the survey site, each location therefor is recorded in the field computer system 68 with high accuracy; FIG. 2, steps 214 and 228).
As to claim 39, the combination of Opfer and Mullarkey teaches the claimed limitations as discussed in claim 35.
Opfer teaches configure seismic sensor unit density and placement (Col. 10, Lines 11-17 discloses the generator 40 generates non-Freznel Zone survey design data, as partially represented in FIG. 7, for positioning: (i) seismic signal generating sources 44, e.g., data for describing geographic positions of the sources in FIG.9 along the lines 48 of smaller dots, wherein each such source is represented by one of the smaller dot99s, and (ii) signal receivers 52, e.g., data for describing geographic positions of the receivers in FIG. 9 along the zigzag lines 56 of larger black dots, wherein each such receiver is represented by one of the larger black dots that detect the source signals when they are reflected from various underground geological formations (i.e., FIGs. 7 and 9 show sensor unit density and placement - emphasis added by Examiner); Col. 11, Lines 1-26; FIG. 1, #40 and #64, and FIG. 2, #212 shows the functional building blocks).
As to claim 40, the combination of Opfer and Mullarkey teaches the claimed limitations as discussed in claim 35.
Opfer teaches a plurality of seismic sensor units (Col. 11, Line 50-64 discloses the surveyor (or other personnel) place the sensors 44 (i.e., a plurality of seismic sensor units - emphasis added by Examiner); and receivers 52 on the survey site, each location therefor is recorded in the field computer system 68 with high accuracy; FIG. 1, #84 and #88).
As to claim 42, the combination of Opfer and Mullarkey teaches the claimed limitations as discussed in claim 35.
Opfer teaches configuration parameters and values for a plurality of the workflow components, the apparatus being configured to determine one or more configuration parameters for configuring the one or more configurable functional building blocks for the plurality of workflow components (FIG. 2, step 204; Col. 13, Lines 35-43 discloses “In step 204, the generator 40 requests and receives data describing the actual physical survey site. Such data including, e.g., a description of the boundaries and extent(s) of the survey site area(s), the roads at the site, the acreage of the site as well the topography of the site (e.g., elevations and surface gradients, etc.). Additionally, initial estimates are obtained (e.g., from the database 42) for a maximum spacing of the sources 44 and a maximum spacing of the receivers 52 for laying out these sources and receivers on the survey site.”).
As to claim 43, the combination of Opfer and Mullarkey teaches the claimed limitations as discussed in claim 42.
Opfer teaches configuration parameters and values for all of the workflow components (Col. 2, Line 28-30 to Lines 33-37 discloses methods and computational equipment (e.g., computer system(s)) for utilizing the seismic survey design data generated for defining an actual seismic survey, performing the corresponding seismic survey, capturing the seismic data (traces) there from; FIG. 2, step 204; Col. 13, Lines 35-43).
As to claim 44, the combination of Opfer and Mullarkey teaches the claimed limitations as discussed in claim 35.
Opfer teaches wherein the apparatus causes seismic sensor units to operate to generate seismic sensor data; receive seismic sensor data directly or indirectly from a subset or all of the seismic sensor units; and process a subset or all of the received seismic sensor data to form at least one seismic sensor image (Col. 12, Line 56 to Col. 13, Line 12 discloses the seismic image data generated by seismic data processing computer system 84 is output to the seismic imaging computer system 88, wherein one or more seismic data analysts (and/or corresponding knowledge based computer intelligent agents, e.g., expert systems, etc.) interpret the seismic image data via, e.g., image filtering, convoluting, noise reducing, sharpening techniques; FIG. 1, #84 and #88).
As to claim 45, the combination of Opfer and Mullarkey teaches the claimed limitations as discussed in claim 44.
Opfer teaches wherein the apparatus is to configure at least one of: an amount of shots, a timing of the shots, and a frequency of shots fired (Col. 4, Lines 3-8; Col. 8, Lines 9-12, 31-39, and 41-47 discloses the model seismic image of the subsurface seismic reflector is constructed, using the synthetic seismic amplitudes at the image points.
(i.e., the subsurface seismic reflector model is constructed or configured with seismic amplitude or an amount of the shots - emphasis added by Examiner). Marine seismic surveying including towing seismic sensors in a plurality of streamers in the water, actuating a seismic energy source in the water at selected times and detecting seismic signals at the sensors resulting from the actuation of the source. A data trace is created for each of the detected signals (i.e., actuating or configuring a seismic energy source or the apparatus in the water at selected times or a timing of the shots, and detecting seismic signals at the sensors resulting from the actuation of the source - emphasis added by Examiner)).
As to claim 46, the combination of Opfer and Mullarkey teaches the claimed limitations as discussed in claim 45.
Opfer teaches wherein the apparatus is configured to verify shot data (Col. 4, Lines 3-8; Col. 12, Lines 10-15 discloses once the survey truck computer system 80 has received all the inputs from both the field computer system 68 and the receivers 52, the computer system 80 can computationally associate or link the trace data from each receiver 52 with the receiver's corresponding data identifying its geographic location (i.e., the receiver's trace data would include the reflected shot data, and the data are linked with the corresponding data and identified or verified with its geographic location - emphasis added by Examiner); FIG. 1, #84 and #88).
As to claim 48, the combination of Opfer and Mullarkey teaches the claimed limitations as discussed in claim 36.
Opfer teaches wherein the status update is a seismic sensor unit deployment and/or retrieval status update, and wherein the apparatus is configured to adjust the deployment and/or retrieval operation parameters (FIG. 3, step 340; Col. 14, Lines 37-42 discloses subsequently, step 214, a custom parameter file is generated for inputting into the survey design generator 64 (FIG. 1). The custom parameter file includes: azimuth of the grid, and a description of the pattern of shifts that are to be applied to the sources 44 and receivers 52 to produce the corresponding desired source bins and receiver bins).
As to claim 51, the combination of Opfer and Mullarkey teaches the claimed limitations as discussed in claim 35.
Opfer teaches provide, to the user, raw or intermediate data, the raw or intermediate data comprising at least one of: raw data collected by each seismic sensor unit; data formed by calibrating the raw data; calibrated data which has been processed to remove one or more errors or data outliers (Col. 2, Lines 1-7; Col. 4, Lines 3-8 discloses recording at the receivers corresponding seismic trace data received at the receivers, for each of the sources, the trace data including data indicative of a detected reflection from seismic signals generated by the source together with identifications of the source and receiver that detected the reflection location (i.e., provide, to the user, raw data collected by each seismic sensor unit - emphasis added by Examiner); Col. 8, Lines 9-12 and 41-46).
As to claim 52, the combination of Opfer and Mullarkey teaches the claimed limitations as discussed in claim 35.
Opfer teaches determine whether a seismic sensor unit is generating anomalous data based on metadata ([0005] and [0073] disclose the recorded returning wave energy is then studied to ascertain information about those formations, and the seismic data derived from the recorded waves are processed to, for example, image the subterranean formations of interest. In FIG. 4, the preliminary seismic data 324 are analyzed to determine (at 420) from the naturally occurring seismic background noise 110 in the survey area 100 in the preliminary seismic data, and the azimuth of arrival for the naturally occurring seismic background noise 110 is also ascertained (at 430); [0060] and [0061] disclose the results of analysis and manipulation of seismic data are stored, and the results can be compared; i.e., the recorded returning wave energy data is studied and ascertained the information, and the results of analysis and manipulation of seismic data are stored and can be compared. Thus, whether a seismic sensor unit is generating anomalous data based on metadata would be able to determine - emphasis added by Examiner).
Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Opfer and Mullarkey, in view of Shuck et al. (US 4937793A, hereinafter Shuck).
As to claim 41, the combination of Opfer and Mullarkey teaches the claimed limitations as discussed in claim 35.
The combination of Opfer and Mullarkey does not explicitly teach automatically adjust the seismic sensor unit density.
Shuck teaches automatically adjust the seismic sensor unit density (Abstract;
Col. 3, Lines 1-3 and 26 discloses the seismic waves detected at two selected vertically displaced seismic detectors are combined to form a sum signal which is then combined with a scaled time integral of a difference signal; and automatically adjusting for variations in detector spacing (i.e., automatically adjust detector spacing which is the seismic sensor unit density - emphasis added by Examiner)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Shuck into Opfer in view of Mullarkey for the purpose of surveying marine seismic utilizing two vertically spaced streamers each having a plurality of seismic detectors contained therein so that a time integral of a difference signal is preferably scaled, and thereby automatically adjusting for variations in detector spacing which may occur. This combination would enhance the accuracy of seismic surveying by providing a method for eliminating secondary reflections of seismic waves downward from a surface of a body of water in which a marine survey is being taken.
Claim 47 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Opfer and Mullarkey, in view of Gan et al. (CN210982778U, hereinafter Gan).
As to claim 47, the combination of Opfer and Mullarkey teaches the claimed limitations as discussed in claim 46.
The combination of Opfer and Mullarkey does not explicitly teach perform a quality control check at the completion of each source line and wherein the apparatus verifies the shot data if the quality is determined to be acceptable.
Gan teaches perform a quality control check at the completion of each source line and wherein the apparatus verifies the shot data if the quality is determined to be acceptable (0004 discloses an earthquake data acquisition system is a device used to acquire signals from earthquake waves generated by artificial sources and reflected back to the ground through different strata. The technical condition of the ground electronic equipment in an earthquake data acquisition system directly determines the quality of the acquired earthquake data (i.e., the apparatus verifies the shot data if the quality is determined to be acceptable - emphasis added by Examiner)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Gan into Opfer in view of Mullarkey for the purpose of providing a portable testing device for seismic exploration that has the advantages of simple operation, flexible connection, convenient carrying, and reliable test results so that it can test the ground acquisition equipment under test quickly and without restriction. This combination would provide a testing device that has advantages of simplicity in operation, flexibility in connection, convenience in carrying and reliable detection result, and can be used for quickly testing the ground acquisition equipment to be tested without limitation.
Claim 49 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Opfer and Mullarkey, in view of Kaur et al. (US 20180157552, hereinafter Kaur).
As to claim 49, the combination of Opfer and Mullarkey teaches the claimed limitations as discussed in claim 35.
The combination of Opfer and Mullarkey does not explicitly teach wherein the apparatus is configured to validate sensor data recorded by a seismic sensor unit to determine whether the sensor data is within expected parameter bounds.
Kaur teaches wherein the apparatus is configured to validate sensor data recorded by a seismic sensor unit to determine whether the sensor data is within expected parameter bounds ([0028] and [0032 ]disclose attributes of the distributed sensors may include, attributes describing model information of the sensors, attributes describing expected data to be received from the sensors (e.g., ranges), attributes describing expected anomalous behaviors of the sensors; and the signal may be received when validation module 240 validates data received from the tested sensor (i.e., determine whether the sensor data is within the sensors ranges or expected parameter bounds- emphasis added by Examiner)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Kaur into Opfer in view of Mullarkey for the purpose of providing aggregated and/or disaggregated data to a data validation system by network hubs, and validating anomalous data by comparing the anomalous data to the patterns indicating anomalous sensor activity. This combination would identify whether the data is a result of a malfunction or whether the data is a legitimate reading from the sensor.
Claim 50 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Opfer and Mullarkey, in view of Dellinger et al. (US 20160187514, hereinafter Dellinger).
As to claim 50, the combination of Opfer and Mullarkey teaches the claimed limitations as discussed in claim 35.
The combination of Opfer and Mullarkey does not explicitly teach perform a seismic sensor unit verification and quality control check, the apparatus being configured to allow graphic processing of seismic sensor data to start following completion of the seismic sensor unit verification and quality control check.
Dellinger teaches perform a seismic sensor unit verification and quality control check, the apparatus being configured to allow graphic processing of seismic sensor data to start following completion of the seismic sensor unit verification and quality control check (FIGs. 2 and 4, step 230; [0048] discloses the method 200 then designs (at 220) a low-frequency seismic survey of the survey area. This includes both an ocean bottom seismic receiver array (at 230) in which the receivers are positioned so as to filter the naturally occurring seismic background noise 110 (i.e., the seismic sensor unit verification and quality control check- emphasis added by Examiner) and a seismic source shooting plan (at 240)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Dellinger into Opfer in view of Mullarkey for the purpose of seismic surveying and, developing a technique for low frequency seismic acquisition in order to achieve dramatic reduction in the number of elements required, and allowing recordation of usable data at lower frequencies. This combination would assist in designing an acquisition and processing method to attenuate that noise relative to the desired signal based on the determination of
a range of phase velocities and amplitudes in the seismic data that contain primarily noise and the degree to which that noise needs to be attenuated.
Claim 53 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Opfer and Mullarkey, in view of Liu et al. (US 8520467B2, hereinafter Liu).
As to claim 53, the combination of Opfer and Mullarkey teaches the claimed limitations as discussed in claim 52.
The combination of Opfer and Mullarkey does not explicitly teach wherein, if the seismic sensor unit is determined to be malfunctioning, the apparatus is configured to exclude data from that seismic sensor unit, or assign it a weighting, when generating seismic imaging data.
Liu teaches wherein, if the seismic sensor unit is determined to be malfunctioning, the apparatus is configured to exclude data from that seismic sensor unit, when generating seismic imaging data (FIG. 4A and Col. 7, Lines 6-12 disclose determining (diamond 216) whether any of the transfer functions are out of specification and correctly determined. If so, then possible sensor and/or other hardware failure has occurred, and as such, the affected sensor units/hardware are flagged for further quality control analysis, pursuant to block 220. It is noted that the seismic data for the affected seismic sensor units are discarded), or assign it a weighting.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Liu into Opfer in view of Mullarkey for the purpose of deploying seismic sensors to perform a seismic survey and testing each of the seismic sensors during the deployment of the seismic sensors in order to determine an associated sensor transfer function. This combination would accurately determine whether one or more of the identified transfer functions are correctly determined, and use the identification of a transfer function that is outside of predetermined specification and correctly determined as a quality control indicator indicative of potential hardware failure.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
“Cordery US 20180284307” teaches “A method for processing broadband single-sensor single-source land seismic data includes receiving seismic traces, the seismic traces generated using at least one source and at least one receiver; converting the seismic traces from particle motion measured by the at least one receiver to particle motion represented by the at least one source by applying a deterministic differential filtering operation; applying a deterministic inverse-Q filtering operation on the converted seismic traces; processing the inverse-Q filtered seismic traces using a set of surface-consistent filter and attribute corrections; and generating a seismic image based on the processed seismic traces.”.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAL CE MANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday- 8:30-12:00, 1:00-5:30 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, Catherine T Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/LAL CE MANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights