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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on October 22, 2024, and September 25, 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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(s) 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 10,605,941 B2) (herein after Li) in view of Poole (US 9,864,084 B2) (herein after Poole), and further in view of Kumar et al. (US 11,221,426 B2) (herein after Kumar).
Regarding Claim 1, Li discloses, 1. A method for processing seismic data, the method comprising: receiving blended seismic data from one or more seismic sources (Fig. 1. Col. 3. Ln. 48 a multi-stage inversion method has been developed to overcome certain issues encountered with field blended data. The method strips out a particular portion of energy from blended records); —.
Li fails to disclose, — applying a transform to the blended seismic data to decompose the blended seismic data into different parameters; applying one or more independent sparse inversions to the different parameters; defining a set of prior information techniques to be used within the one or more independent sparse inversions; determining an energy part of the blended seismic data that is greater than a first predetermined threshold based at least partially upon the multiple independent sparse inversions, the set of prior information techniques, or both; and removing the energy part from the blended seismic data to produce modified seismic data.
In analogous art, Poole discloses, — applying a transform (Fig. 1. Col. 5. Ln. 7 a conventional linear least squares Radon formulation) to the blended seismic data to decompose the blended seismic data into different parameters (Fig. 10. Col. 12. Ln. 49 calculate the 'dip map, take the average amplitude for each slowness of interest); applying one or more independent sparse inversions (Fig. 4. Col. 8. Ln. 1 Sparseness weights may be derived to help distinguish between signal and noise) to the different parameters; —
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li by combining the method for processing seismic data disclosed by Li with a method for processing seismic data comprising: applying a transform to the blended seismic data to decompose the blended seismic data into different parameters; applying one or more independent sparse inversions to the different parameters; disclosed by Poole for the benefit of processing seismic data that is free of noise [Poole: Col. 2, Ln. 50: processing the model m to obtain an output seismic dataset d' indicative of seismic data substantially free of the coherent noise data n generated by the man-made device].
Li and Poole fail to disclose, — defining a set of prior information techniques to be used within the one or more independent sparse inversions; determining an energy part of the blended seismic data that is greater than a first predetermined threshold based at least partially upon the multiple independent sparse inversions, the set of prior information techniques, or both; and removing the energy part from the blended seismic data to produce modified seismic data.
In analogous art, Kumar discloses, — defining a set of prior information techniques (Fig. 1. Col. 11. Ln. 1 thresholding functions) to be used within the one or more independent sparse inversions (Fig. 1. Col. 11. Ln. 5 sparsity-promoting norm); determining an energy part (Fig. 1. Col. 12. Ln. 54 data comprising energy from two or more sources) of the blended seismic data that is greater than a first predetermined threshold (Fig. 1. Col. 12. Ln. 58 the current model is thresholded) based at least partially upon the multiple independent sparse inversions, the set of prior information techniques, or both (Fig. 1. Col. 11. Ln. 5 thresholding functions, sparsity-promoting norm); and removing the energy part from the blended seismic data (Fig. 1. Col. 13. Ln. 1 seismic data obtained from individual seismic energy sources) to produce modified seismic data.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li in view of Poole by combining the method for processing seismic data disclosed by Poole with a method for processing seismic data comprising: defining a set of prior information techniques to be used within the one or more independent sparse inversions; determining an energy part of the blended seismic data that is greater than a first predetermined threshold based at least partially upon the multiple independent sparse inversions, the set of prior information techniques, or both; and removing the energy part from the blended seismic data to produce modified seismic data; disclosed by Kumar for the benefit of processing seismic data with improved blending results [Kumar: Col. 12, Ln. 40: FIGS. 9A-9D show the improvement in deblending results while using the proposed quadratic thresholding functions over hard and soft thresholding].
Regarding Claim 2, Li in view of Poole in view of Kumar disclose the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends on.
Li and Kumar fail to disclose, 2. The method of claim 1, wherein the blended seismic data includes pressure measurements, particle motion measurements, or both.
Poole further discloses, 2. The method of claim 1, wherein the blended seismic data includes pressure measurements, particle motion measurements, or both (Fig. 1. Col. 5. Ln. 30 only pressure measurements, only particle motion measurements, or a mixture of pressure and particle motion measurements).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li in view of Poole in view of Kumar by combining the method for processing seismic data disclosed by Li in view of Poole in view of Kumar with a method for processing seismic data wherein, the blended seismic data includes pressure measurements, particle motion measurements, or both; disclosed by Poole for the benefit of processing seismic data that is free of noise [Poole: Col. 2, Ln. 50: processing the model m to obtain an output seismic dataset d' indicative of seismic data substantially free of the coherent noise data n generated by the man-made device].
Regarding Claim 3, Li in view of Poole in view of Kumar disclose the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends on.
Li and Kumar fail to disclose, 3. The method of claim 1, wherein the parameters include directions, dips, slownesses, or a combination thereof.
Poole further discloses, 3. The method of claim 1, wherein the parameters include directions, dips, slownesses, or a combination thereof (Fig. 1. Col. 15. Ln. 62 One azimuth direction with another azimuth direction; Col. 12. Ln. 47 the f-p amplitude data are then summed for each slowness (p) trace to calculate the 'dip map').
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li in view of Poole in view of Kumar by combining the method for processing seismic data disclosed by Li in view of Poole in view of Kumar with a method for processing seismic data wherein, the parameters include directions, dips, slownesses, or a combination thereof; disclosed by Poole for the benefit of processing seismic data that is free of noise [Poole: Col. 2, Ln. 50: processing the model m to obtain an output seismic dataset d' indicative of seismic data substantially free of the coherent noise data n generated by the man-made device].
Regarding Claim 4, Li in view of Poole in view of Kumar disclose the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends on.
Li further discloses, 4. The method of claim 1, wherein the set of prior information techniques is configured to enhance a signal of interest (Fig. 1. Col. 12. Ln. 49 It may be sufficient to attenuate unwanted high-amplitude energy in the blended data and make sparse inversion more favorable for weaker events) in the blended seismic data.
Regarding Claim 5, Li in view of Poole in view of Kumar disclose the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends on.
Li further discloses, 5. The method of claim 1, wherein the set of prior information techniques is configured to enhance a mode of a signal of interest (Fig. 1. Col. 6. Ln. 31 direct arrival energy) in the blended seismic data at one or more of the different parameters (Fig. 1. Col. 6. Ln. 32 higher fidelity of deblending).
Regarding Claim 6, Li in view of Poole in view of Kumar disclose the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends on.
Li further discloses, 6. The method of claim 1, wherein the set of prior information techniques is configured to enhance a sparsity of a mode of a signal of interest (Fig. 1. Col. 6. Ln. 40 blend and subtract that portion of energy, until a high-fidelity deblending is obtained) in the blended seismic data at the different parameters.
Regarding Claim 7, Li in view of Poole in view of Kumar disclose the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends on.
Li further discloses, 7. The method of claim 1, comprising: predicting an interference (Fig. 1. Col. 6. Ln. 26 be interpreted as the blended data with an attenuated direct arrival) of the blended seismic data based at least partially upon the energy part; and removing the energy part and the interference (Fig. 1. Col. 6. Ln. 22 Re-blending p1 and subtract from acquired data) from the blended seismic data to produce the modified seismic data.
Regarding Claim 8, Li in view of Poole in view of Kumar disclose the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends on.
Li and Poole fail to disclose, 8. The method of claim 1, wherein at least a portion of the method is iterative, and the iterations stop in response to a difference between the blended seismic data and the modified seismic data becoming less than a second predetermined threshold.
Kumar further discloses, 8. The method of claim 1, wherein at least a portion of the method is iterative (Fig. 1. Col. 10. Ln. 66 amplitude of the interference noise decreases with each iteration), and the iterations stop in response to a difference between the blended seismic data and the modified seismic data (Fig. 1. Col. 16. Ln. 1 calculating a residual as a difference between the blended output and the input recorded signals) becoming less than a second predetermined threshold (Fig. 1. Col. 10. Ln. 62 the value of the threshold is lowered).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li in view of Poole in view of Kumar by combining the method for processing seismic data disclosed by Li in view of Poole in view of Kumar with a method for processing seismic data wherein, at least a portion of the method is iterative, and the iterations stop in response to a difference between the blended seismic data and the modified seismic data becoming less than a second predetermined threshold; disclosed by Kumar for the benefit of processing seismic data with improved blending results [Kumar: Col. 12, Ln. 40: FIGS. 9A-9D show the improvement in deblending results while using the proposed quadratic thresholding functions over hard and soft thresholding].
Regarding Claim 9, Li in view of Poole in view of Kumar disclose the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends on.
Li further discloses, 9. The method of claim 1, comprising displaying the modified seismic data (Fig. 1. Col. 7. Ln. 27 display includes same two lines of shots).
Regarding Claim 10, Li in view of Poole in view of Kumar disclose the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends on.
Li further discloses, 10. The method of claim 1, comprising performing a wellsite action (Fig. 1. Col. 1. Ln. 38 adoption within the oil and gas industry) based upon the modified seismic data.
Regarding Claim 11, Li discloses, 11. A computing system comprising: one or more processors (Fig. 1. Col. 1. Ln. 61 performing sparse inversion, via a computer processor); and a memory system including one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by at least one of the one or more processors, cause the computing system to perform operations, the operations including: receiving blended seismic data from a plurality of seismic sources (Fig. 1. Col. 3. Ln. 48 a multi-stage inversion method has been developed to overcome certain issues encountered with field blended data. The method strips out a particular portion of energy from blended records), — the set of prior information techniques is configured to enhance a sparsity of a mode of a signal of interest (Fig. 1. Col. 6. Ln. 40 blend and subtract that portion of energy, until a high-fidelity deblending is obtained) in the blended seismic data at the different parameters; — predicting an interference (Fig. 1. Col. 6. Ln. 26 be interpreted as the blended data with an attenuated direct arrival) of the blended seismic data based at least partially upon the energy part; and removing the energy part and the interference (Fig. 1. Col. 6. Ln. 22 Re-blending p1 and subtract from acquired data) from the blended seismic data to produce modified seismic data.
Li fails to disclose, — the blended seismic data includes pressure measurements, particle motion measurements, or both; applying a transform to the blended seismic data to decompose the blended seismic data into different parameters, the parameters include directions, dips, slownesses, or a combination thereof; applying multiple independent sparse inversions to the different parameters; defining a set of prior information techniques to be used within the multiple independent sparse inversions, — determining an energy part of the blended seismic data that is greater than a first predetermined threshold based at least partially upon the multiple independent sparse inversions and the set of prior information techniques; —
In analogous art, Poole discloses, — the blended seismic data includes pressure measurements, particle motion measurements, or both (Fig. 1. Col. 5. Ln. 30 only pressure measurements, only particle motion measurements, or a mixture of pressure and particle motion measurements); applying a transform (Fig. 1. Col. 5. Ln. 7 a conventional linear least squares Radon formulation) to the blended seismic data to decompose the blended seismic data into different parameters (Fig. 10. Col. 12. Ln. 49 calculate the 'dip map, take the average amplitude for each slowness of interest), the parameters include directions, dips, slownesses, or a combination thereof (Fig. 1. Col. 15. Ln. 62 One azimuth direction with another azimuth direction; Col. 12. Ln. 47 the f-p amplitude data are then summed for each slowness (p) trace to calculate the 'dip map'); applying multiple independent sparse inversions to the different parameters (Fig. 4. Col. 8. Ln. 1 Sparseness weights may be derived to help distinguish between signal and noise); —
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li by combining the computing system performing operations disclosed by Li with a computing system performing operations comprising: the blended seismic data includes pressure measurements, particle motion measurements, or both; applying a transform to the blended seismic data to decompose the blended seismic data into different parameters, the parameters include directions, dips, slownesses, or a combination thereof; applying multiple independent sparse inversions to the different parameters; disclosed by Poole for the benefit of processing seismic data that is free of noise [Poole: Col. 2, Ln. 50: processing the model m to obtain an output seismic dataset d' indicative of seismic data substantially free of the coherent noise data n generated by the man-made device].
Li and Poole fail to disclose, — defining a set of prior information techniques to be used within the multiple independent sparse inversions, — determining an energy part of the blended seismic data that is greater than a first predetermined threshold based at least partially upon the multiple independent sparse inversions and the set of prior information techniques; —
In analogous art, Kumar discloses, — defining a set of prior information techniques (Fig. 1. Col. 11. Ln. 1 thresholding functions) to be used within the multiple independent sparse inversions (Fig. 1. Col. 11. Ln. 5 sparsity-promoting norm), — determining an energy part (Fig. 1. Col. 12. Ln. 54 data comprising energy from two or more sources) of the blended seismic data that is greater than a first predetermined threshold (Fig. 1. Col. 12. Ln. 58 the current model is thresholded) based at least partially upon the multiple independent sparse inversions and the set of prior information techniques (Fig. 1. Col. 11. Ln. 5 thresholding functions, sparsity-promoting norm); —
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li in view of Poole by combining the computing system performing operations disclosed by Li in view of Poole with a computing system performing operations comprising: defining a set of prior information techniques to be used within the multiple independent sparse inversions, determining an energy part of the blended seismic data that is greater than a first predetermined threshold based at least partially upon the multiple independent sparse inversions and the set of prior information techniques; disclosed by Kumar for the benefit of processing seismic data with improved blending results [Kumar: Col. 12, Ln. 40: FIGS. 9A-9D show the improvement in deblending results while using the proposed quadratic thresholding functions over hard and soft thresholding].
Regarding Claim 12, Li in view of Poole in view of Kumar disclose the limitations of claim 11, which this claim depends on.
Li further discloses, 12. The computing system of claim 11, wherein the set of prior information techniques causes interference in the blended seismic data to become more incoherent (Fig. 1. Col. 7. Ln. 33 the blending noise will show up as incoherent energy).
Regarding Claim 13, Li in view of Poole in view of Kumar disclose the limitations of claim 11, which this claim depends on.
Li and Poole fail to disclose, 13. The computing system of claim 11, wherein the multiple independent sparse inversions stop based at least partially upon a value of the energy part.
Kumar further discloses, 13. The computing system of claim 11, wherein the multiple independent sparse inversions stop (Fig. 1. Col. 10. Ln. 62 lowered exponentially to zero in the last iteration) based at least partially upon a value of the energy part (Fig. 1. Col. 13. Ln. 1 seismic data obtained from individual seismic energy sources).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li in view of Poole by combining the computing system performing operations disclosed by Li in view of Poole with a computing system performing operations wherein, the multiple independent sparse inversions stop based at least partially upon a value of the energy part; disclosed by Kumar for the benefit of processing seismic data with improved blending results [Kumar: Col. 12, Ln. 40: FIGS. 9A-9D show the improvement in deblending results while using the proposed quadratic thresholding functions over hard and soft thresholding].
Regarding Claim 14, Li in view of Poole in view of Kumar disclose the limitations of claim 11, which this claim depends on.
Li further discloses, 14. The computing system of claim 11, wherein the operations include muting a portion of the blended seismic data (Fig. 1. Col. 6. Ln. 40 blend and subtract that portion of energy, until a high-fidelity deblending is obtained) where the mode of the signal interest does not exist.
Regarding Claim 15, Li in view of Poole in view of Kumar disclose the limitations of claim 11, which this claim depends on.
Li further discloses, 15. The computing system of claim 11, wherein the operations include displaying the modified seismic data (Fig. 1. Col. 7. Ln. 27 display includes same two lines of shots).
Regarding Claim 16, Li discloses, 16. A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by at least one processor of a computing system (Fig. 1. Col. 1. Ln. 61 performing sparse inversion, via a computer processor), cause the computing system to perform operations, the operations comprising: receiving blended seismic data from a plurality of seismic sources (Fig. 1. Col. 3. Ln. 48 a multi-stage inversion method has been developed to overcome certain issues encountered with field blended data. The method strips out a particular portion of energy from blended records), —, the set of prior information techniques is configured to enhance a sparsity of a mode of a signal of interest (Fig. 1. Col. 6. Ln. 40 blend and subtract that portion of energy, until a high-fidelity deblending is obtained) in the blended seismic data — and the set of prior information techniques causes interference in the blended seismic data to become more incoherent (Fig. 1. Col. 7. Ln. 33 the blending noise will show up as incoherent energy); — predicting an interference (Fig. 1. Col. 6. Ln. 26 be interpreted as the blended data with an attenuated direct arrival) of the blended seismic data based at least partially upon the energy part; removing the energy part and the interference (Fig. 1. Col. 6. Ln. 22 Re-blending p1 and subtract from acquired data) from the blended seismic data to produce modified seismic data; and displaying the modified seismic data.
Li fails to disclose, — the blended seismic data includes pressure measurements and particle motion measurements; applying a transform to the blended seismic data to decompose the blended seismic data into different directions, dips, and slownesses; applying multiple independent sparse inversions to the different directions, dips, and slownesses; defining a set of prior information techniques to be used within the multiple independent sparse inversions, — blended seismic data at the different directions, dips, and slownesses, — determining an energy part of the blended seismic data that is greater than a first predetermined threshold based at least partially upon the multiple independent sparse inversions and the set of prior information techniques, the multiple independent sparse inversions stop based at least partially upon a value of the energy part; —
In analogous art, Poole discloses, — the blended seismic data includes pressure measurements and particle motion measurements (Fig. 1. Col. 5. Ln. 30 only pressure measurements, only particle motion measurements, or a mixture of pressure and particle motion measurements); applying a transform (Fig. 1. Col. 5. Ln. 7 a conventional linear least squares Radon formulation) to the blended seismic data to decompose the blended seismic data into different directions, dips, and slownesses (Fig. 10. Col. 12. Ln. 49 calculate the 'dip map, take the average amplitude for each slowness of interest); applying multiple independent sparse inversions to the different directions, dips, and slownesses (Fig. 4. Col. 8. Ln. 1 Sparseness weights may be derived to help distinguish between signal and noise); — blended seismic data at the different directions, dips, and slownesses (Fig. 1. Col. 15. Ln. 62 One azimuth direction with another azimuth direction; Col. 12. Ln. 47 the f-p amplitude data are then summed for each slowness (p) trace to calculate the 'dip map'), —
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li by combining the non-transitory computer-readable medium disclosed by Li with a non-transitory computer-readable medium wherein: the blended seismic data includes pressure measurements and particle motion measurements; applying a transform to the blended seismic data to decompose the blended seismic data into different directions, dips, and slownesses; applying multiple independent sparse inversions to the different directions, dips, and slownesses; blended seismic data at the different directions, dips, and slownesses; disclosed by Poole for the benefit of processing seismic data that is free of noise [Poole: Col. 2, Ln. 50: processing the model m to obtain an output seismic dataset d' indicative of seismic data substantially free of the coherent noise data n generated by the man-made device].
Li and Poole fail to disclose, — defining a set of prior information techniques to be used within the multiple independent sparse inversions, — determining an energy part of the blended seismic data that is greater than a first predetermined threshold based at least partially upon the multiple independent sparse inversions and the set of prior information techniques, the multiple independent sparse inversions stop based at least partially upon a value of the energy part; —
In analogous art, Kumar discloses, — defining a set of prior information techniques (Fig. 1. Col. 11. Ln. 1 thresholding functions) to be used within the multiple independent sparse inversions (Fig. 1. Col. 11. Ln. 5 sparsity-promoting norm), — determining an energy part (Fig. 1. Col. 12. Ln. 54 data comprising energy from two or more sources) of the blended seismic data that is greater than a first predetermined threshold (Fig. 1. Col. 12. Ln. 58 the current model is thresholded) based at least partially upon the multiple independent sparse inversions and the set of prior information techniques (Fig. 1. Col. 11. Ln. 5 thresholding functions, sparsity-promoting norm), the multiple independent sparse inversions stop (Fig. 1. Col. 10. Ln. 62 lowered exponentially to zero in the last iteration) based at least partially upon a value of the energy part (Fig. 1. Col. 13. Ln. 1 seismic data obtained from individual seismic energy sources); —
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li in view of Poole by combining the non-transitory computer-readable medium disclosed by Li in view of Poole with a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising: defining a set of prior information techniques to be used within the multiple independent sparse inversions, determining an energy part of the blended seismic data that is greater than a first predetermined threshold based at least partially upon the multiple independent sparse inversions and the set of prior information techniques, the multiple independent sparse inversions stop based at least partially upon a value of the energy part; disclosed by Kumar for the benefit of processing seismic data with improved blending results [Kumar: Col. 12, Ln. 40: FIGS. 9A-9D show the improvement in deblending results while using the proposed quadratic thresholding functions over hard and soft thresholding].
Regarding Claim 17, Li in view of Poole in view of Kumar disclose the limitations of claim 16, which this claim depends on.
Li and Poole fail to disclose, 17. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 16, wherein the set of prior information techniques includes: defining a multi-dimensional domain where the mode is sparser than a second predetermined threshold; and applying a multi-dimensional transform to the blended seismic data to transform blended seismic data into the multi-dimensional domain.
Kumar further discloses, 17. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 16, wherein the set of prior information techniques includes: defining a multi-dimensional domain (Fig. 1. Col. 5. Ln. 33 three-dimensional (3D) seismic surveys) where the mode is sparser than a second predetermined threshold (Fig. 1. Col. 10. Ln. 62 the value of the threshold is lowered); and applying a multi-dimensional transform (Fig. 1. Col. 5. Ln. 33 three-dimensional (3D) seismic surveys) to the blended seismic data to transform blended seismic data into the multi-dimensional domain (Fig. 1. Col. 10. Ln. 15 Thresholding may be performed in n-dimensional Fourier space).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li in view of Poole in view of Kumar by combining the non-transitory computer-readable medium disclosed by Li in view of Poole in view of Kumar with a non-transitory computer-readable medium wherein, the set of prior information techniques includes: defining a multi-dimensional domain where the mode is sparser than a second predetermined threshold; and applying a multi-dimensional transform to the blended seismic data to transform blended seismic data into the multi-dimensional domain; disclosed by Kumar for the benefit of processing seismic data with improved blending results [Kumar: Col. 12, Ln. 40: FIGS. 9A-9D show the improvement in deblending results while using the proposed quadratic thresholding functions over hard and soft thresholding].
Regarding Claim 18, Li in view of Poole in view of Kumar disclose the limitations of claim 16, which this claim depends on.
Li further discloses, 18. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 16, wherein the set of prior information techniques includes applying timing information to enhance the sparsity of the mode of the signal of interest (Fig. 1. Col. 6. Ln. 40 blend and subtract that portion of energy, until a high-fidelity deblending is obtained).
Regarding Claim 19, Li in view of Poole in view of Kumar disclose the limitations of claim 16, which this claim depends on.
Li and Poole fail to disclose, 19. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 16, wherein at least a portion of the operations is iterative, and the iterations stop in response to a difference between the blended seismic data and the modified seismic data becoming less than a second predetermined threshold.
Kumar further discloses, 19. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 16, wherein at least a portion of the operations is iterative (Fig. 1. Col. 10. Ln. 66 amplitude of the interference noise decreases with each iteration), and the iterations stop in response to a difference between the blended seismic data and the modified seismic data (Fig. 1. Col. 16. Ln. 1 calculating a residual as a difference between the blended output and the input recorded signals) becoming less than a second predetermined threshold (Fig. 1. Col. 10. Ln. 62 the value of the threshold is lowered).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li in view of Poole in view of Kumar by combining the non-transitory computer-readable medium disclosed by Li in view of Poole in view of Kumar with a non-transitory computer-readable medium wherein, at least a portion of the operations is iterative, and the iterations stop in response to a difference between the blended seismic data and the modified seismic data becoming less than a second predetermined threshold; disclosed by Kumar for the benefit of processing seismic data with improved blending results [Kumar: Col. 12, Ln. 40: FIGS. 9A-9D show the improvement in deblending results while using the proposed quadratic thresholding functions over hard and soft thresholding].
Regarding Claim 20, Li in view of Poole in view of Kumar disclose the limitations of claim 16, which this claim depends on.
Li further discloses, 20. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 16, wherein the operations further include generating a control signal based at least partially upon the modified seismic data, and the control signal is configured to control equipment at the wellsite (Fig. 1. Col. 1. Ln. 38 adoption within the oil and gas industry).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Abma (US 2010/0299070 A1) discloses, receiving blended seismic data from one or more seismic sources (Fig. 1, ¶ 41 the seismic survey will be a blended source survey wherein reflections from a later source activation may interfere with (or coincide in time with) reflections from an earlier one).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH O. NYAMOGO whose telephone number is (469)295-9276. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 A to 5:00 P CT.
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, EMAN ALFAKAWI can be reached at 571-272-4448. 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.
/JOSEPH O. NYAMOGO/
Examiner
Art Unit 2858
/FARHANA A HOQUE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights