DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
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) because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “a seismic processing system configured to” in claim 11.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claims 1, 11, 15 similarly recite receiving, from a seismic acquisition system, observed seismic data pertaining to a subterranean region of interest, receiving a first seismic velocity model of the subterranean region of interest, receiving a second seismic velocity model of the subterranean region of interest, iteratively or recursively, until a stopping criterion is satisfied: determining synthetic seismic data based, at least in part, on the first seismic velocity model; determining an updated second seismic velocity model based, at least in part, on the second seismic velocity model, the observed seismic data, and the synthetic seismic data; determining synthetic reflection data based, at least in part, on the updated second seismic velocity model; determining, using dynamic image warping, traveltime shift data between the synthetic reflection data and the observed seismic data; determining warped observed seismic data by applying the traveltime shift data to the observed seismic data; determining, using local similarity based on shaping regularization, conditioned traveltime shift data based, at least in part, on the synthetic reflection data, the warped observed seismic data, and the traveltime shift data; and determining an updated first seismic velocity model based, at least in part, on the first seismic velocity model and the conditioned traveltime shift data, determining a seismic velocity model of the subterranean region of interest based, at least in part, on the updated first seismic velocity model, and determining a seismic image based, at least in part, on the observed seismic data and the seismic velocity model; and determining, using a seismic interpretation workstation, a location of a hydrocarbon reservoir within the subterranean region of interest using, at least in part, the seismic image .
The limitations of iteratively or recursively, until a stopping criterion is satisfied: determining synthetic seismic data based, at least in part, on the first seismic velocity model; determining an updated second seismic velocity model based, at least in part, on the second seismic velocity model, the observed seismic data, and the synthetic seismic data; determining synthetic reflection data based, at least in part, on the updated second seismic velocity model; determining, using dynamic image warping, traveltime shift data between the synthetic reflection data and the observed seismic data; determining warped observed seismic data by applying the traveltime shift data to the observed seismic data; determining, using local similarity based on shaping regularization, conditioned traveltime shift data based, at least in part, on the synthetic reflection data, the warped observed seismic data, and the traveltime shift data; and determining an updated first seismic velocity model based, at least in part, on the first seismic velocity model and the conditioned traveltime shift data, determining a seismic velocity model of the subterranean region of interest based, at least in part, on the updated first seismic velocity model, and determining a seismic image based, at least in part, on the observed seismic data and the seismic velocity model; and determining, using a seismic interpretation workstation, a location of a hydrocarbon reservoir within the subterranean region of interest using, at least in part, the seismic image, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental processes but from the recitation of implementing them on generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the limitations pertaining to the ten “determining” steps in the context of this claim encompasses the user judging synthetic seismic data, judging an updated second seismic velocity model, judging synthetic reflection data, judging traveltime shift data, judging warped observed seismic data, judging conditioned traveltime shift data, judging an updated first seismic velocity model, judging a seismic velocity model of the subterranean region of interest, judging a seismic image, and judging a location. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, claims 1, 11, 15 recite an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 1).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of – a system comprising: a seismic processing system configured to:; a non-transitory computer-readable memory having computer-executable instructions stored thereon that, when executed by a computer processor, perform steps comprising: receiving, from a seismic acquisition system, observed seismic data pertaining to a subterranean region of interest, receiving a first seismic velocity model of the subterranean region of interest, receiving a second seismic velocity model of the subterranean region of interest . The system and non-transitory computer-readable memory are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer devices performing generic computer functions) and do not meaningfully limit the claim. The additional elements pertaining to the receiving steps represent insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception and are mere data gathering steps. Accordingly, these additional elements, individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 2).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements pertaining to the receiving steps represent insignificant extra-solution activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. That is, these limitations represent well-understood, routine, conventional activities in the fields of data processing and/or data storage and retrieval and are merely directed to the well-understood, routine, conventional activity of storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) and/or receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information). Therefore, these limitations, both individually and in combination, fail to amount to an inventive concept because they merely append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, and thus, do not cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (Step 2B). Accordingly, claims 1, 11, 15 are not patent eligible.
Claims 2-10, 12-14, 16-20 depend on claims 1, 11, 15 and include all the limitations of these claims. Therefore, these claims are directed to the same abstract idea and the analysis must proceed to (Step 2A, Prong 2).
Claims 2, 12, 16 similarly recite additional limitations pertaining to designing a wellbore drilling plan. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements represent further mental process steps of analyzing the location and judging a wellbore drilling plan. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. This additional step is considered an abstract idea (mental process step) and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements represent further mental process steps. Therefore, these additional limitations are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 2, 12, 16 are not patent eligible.
Claims 3, 13 recite additional limitations pertaining to drilling a wellbore. These additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and merely represent insignificant extra-solution (post-solution) activities to the judicial exception. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously known to the industry. That is, these limitations represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the fields of drilling, production, and/or reservoir engineering and are merely directed to the well-understood, routine, conventional activity of drilling wells at locations based on drill plans as in a plurality of patent publications comprising at least: [0010], [0012], [0187] of Tawil (US 2021/0318464); [0134] of Ranjan (US 2017/0075005); [0155] of Tawil (US 2021/0319304); [0182], Fig. 7 of Passolt (US 2018/0075544); [0134] of Dusterhoft (US 2017/0075006). Therefore, these additional elements do not cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 4, 17 similarly recite additional limitations pertaining to determining the updated second seismic velocity model. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements represent further mental process steps of judging a first cost function, judging a first gradient, and judging an adjustment to the model. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Further, these claims recite mathematical relationships, calculations and/or formulas These additional steps are considered an abstract idea (mental process or mathematical step) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements represent further mental process or mathematical steps. Therefore, these additional limitations are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 4, 17 are not patent eligible.
Claim 5 recites additional limitations pertaining to the first cost function. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements represent further mental process steps of judging a first cost function comprising a least squares function. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Further, these claims recite mathematical relationships, calculations and/or formulas These additional steps are considered an abstract idea (mental process or mathematical step) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements represent further mental process and/or mathematical steps. Therefore, these additional limitations are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 5 is not patent eligible.
Claim 6 recites additional limitations pertaining to determining the synthetic reflection. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements represent further mental process steps of judging the synthetic reflection data comprising born modeling. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Further, these claims recite mathematical relationships, calculations and/or formulas These additional steps are considered an abstract idea (mental process or mathematical step) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements represent further mental process and/or mathematical steps. Therefore, these additional limitations are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 6 is not patent eligible.
Claims 7, 18 similarly recite additional limitations pertaining to forming a second cost function based on the conditioned traveltime, determining second gradient, and perturbing the model. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements represent further mental process steps of judging a first cost function, judging a first gradient, and judging an adjustment to the model. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Further, these claims recite mathematical relationships, calculations and/or formulas These additional steps are considered an abstract idea (mental process or mathematical step) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements represent further mental process or mathematical steps. Therefore, these additional limitations are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 7, 18 are not patent eligible.
Claims 8, 19 similarly recite additional limitations pertaining to forming a third cost function, determining a third gradient, and perturbing the model. The additional elements represent further mental process steps of judging a first cost function, judging a first gradient, and judging an adjustment to the model. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Further, these claims recite mathematical relationships, calculations and/or formulas These additional steps are considered an abstract idea (mental process or mathematical step) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements represent further mental process or mathematical steps. Therefore, these additional limitations are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 8, 19 are not patent eligible.
Claims 9, 20 similarly recite additional limitations pertaining to using the shaping regularization. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements represent further mental process steps of judging a local similarity attribute. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. This additional step is considered an abstract idea (mental process step) and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements represent further mental process steps. Therefore, these additional limitations are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 9, 20 are not patent eligible.
Claim 10 recites additional limitations pertaining to the first seismic velocity model which is received in claim 1. These additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and merely represent insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception and are mere data gathering steps. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously known to the industry. That is, these limitations represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the fields of data processing and/or data storage and retrieval and are merely directed to the well-understood, routine, conventional activity of storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) and/or receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information). Therefore, these additional elements do not cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 14 recites additional limitations pertaining to the seismic acquisition system. These additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and merely represent insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception and are mere data gathering steps. Further, this claim recites generic computing components performing generic computing functions. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously known to the industry. That is, these limitations represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the fields of data processing and/or data storage and retrieval and are merely directed to the well-understood, routine, conventional activity of storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) and/or receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information). Further, this claim recites generic computing components performing generic computing functions. Therefore, these additional elements do not cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Liu (US 2022/0390632) discloses reflection-based travel time inversion using segment dynamic image warping;
Cooper (US 2021/0063590) discloses full waveform inversion of seismic data using partial match filtering;
Denli (US 2020/0183031) discloses automated seismic interpretation-guided inversion;
Tan (US 2018/0017690) discloses iteratively inverting seismic data to jointly infer a model for at least P-wave velocity and attenuation parameters of the subsurface;
Xu (US 2025/0291077) discloses performing a simulation to generate synthetic seismic data using a wavelet and a velocity model of a subsurface geologic region;
Ramox-Martinez (US 2019/0187312) discloses generating a high-resolution velocity model of a subterranean formation using iterative full-waveform inversion;
Brenders (US 2015/0120200) discloses two stage seismic velocity model generation;
Gomes (US 2018/0196154) discloses Reflection full waveform inversion methods with density and velocity models updated separately;
Liu (US 2022/0350042) discloses super resolution least-squares reverse time migration;
Valensi (US 2021/0223424) discloses generating an image of a subsurface of an area of interest from seismic data;
Song (US 2020/0150302) discloses passive seismic imaging;
Denli (US 2015/0362622) discloses fast viscoacoustic and viscoelastic full wavefield inversion;
Liu (US 2020/0225376) discloses seismic imaging.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM P BARTLETT whose telephone number is (469)295-9085. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 11:30-8:30, F 11-3.
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, Sherief Badawi can be reached on 571-272-9782. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WILLIAM P BARTLETT/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2169
Prosecution Insights