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 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 a method, computer program, and system for minimizing noise during seismic modeling without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) receiving, generating, determining, propagating, and combining . This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims recite steps that manipulate seismic data associated with a resource site using a computer processor, while no seismic sensors nor improved seismic image or detection of gas/oil is obtained. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because:
Regarding Step 1: Statutory Category? Yes. The claims recite a method, a computer program, and a system including at least one step.
Step 2A—Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited? Yes. The claim recites the limitation of receiving, generating, determining, propagating, and combining seismic data. This limitation, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a mental process but for the recitation of “using the computer processor”.
That is, other than reciting “using the computer processor” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from being performed as a mathematically processor. The mere nominal recitation a computer processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Step 2A—Prong 2: Practical Application?
No. The claim recites additional elements of receiving, using a computer processor, seismic data associated with a resource site; generating, using the computer processor, a model based on the seismic data, the model having generated noise associated with unwanted signal reflections during the seismic modeling; determining, using the computer processor, a first boundary associated with the unwanted signal reflections, the first boundary providing a reference point for suppressing the generated noise based on one or more of: at least one velocity parameter, and at least one reflectivity parameter; propagating, using the computer processor, a first wavefield in the model based on the at least one velocity parameter while constraining the at least one reflectivity parameter in a region associated with the first boundary to generate first data; propagating, using the computer processor, a second wavefield in the model based on the at least one velocity parameter while constraining the at least one reflectivity parameter in the region associated with the first boundary to generate second data; and combining, using the computer processor, the first data and the second data to generate output data associated with the model, the output data indicating a minimization of the generated noise during the seismic modeling based on properties of the first and second wavefields.
This amounts to mere data manipulation, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The combining results step is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of displaying the weather evaluation result from the evaluating step), and amounts to mere post solution data output, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The computer processor merely describes how to generally output data that is otherwise a mental processor resulting in yet more seismic data. The computer processor is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the determining step.
Accordingly, even in combination, 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 claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Inventive Concept?
No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the receiving steps and the generating step were considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The claims do not recite any sensors and the background discusses conventional seismic sensor, and the specification does not provide any indication that the computer processor is anything other than a conventional computer operating on seismic data. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. The claim is ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Smith (US 5,999,488; ids).
Regarding claims 1, 16, and 18, Smith teaches a method, computer program, and system for minimizing noise during seismic modeling, the method comprising:
receiving, using a computer processor, seismic data associated with a resource site;
generating, using the computer processor, a model based on the seismic data, the model having generated noise associated with unwanted signal reflections during the seismic modeling;
determining, using the computer processor, a first boundary associated with the unwanted signal reflections, the first boundary providing a reference point for suppressing the generated noise based on one or more of [[abstract] improved method for eliminating reflections from artificial model boundaries encountered in finite-difference acoustic wave propagation computations is based on applying two different boundary conditions at the artificial boundary.]:
at least one velocity parameter [[col. 2:10-25] a wave equation model is represented … V is earth medium velocity, and is the physical quantity measured: particle velocity, acceleration, displacement or pressure], and
at least one reflectivity parameter [[col. 1:55-65] migration is the inverse transformation that carries the plane of recorded events into a true 3D reflectivity of the earth, 60 thereby placing reflections from dipping beds in their correct location and collapsing diffractions];
propagating, using the computer processor, a first wavefield in the model based on the at least one velocity parameter while constraining the at least one reflectivity parameter in a region associated with the first boundary to generate first data [[col. 1-2 bridging] of the various available migration methods, wave equation migration is considered to be superior because it is based on accurate propagation of seismic waves through complex models of the earth. Wave equation computations using numerical techniques have led to a procedure called reverse time migration];
propagating, using the computer processor, a second wavefield in the model based on the at least one velocity parameter while constraining the at least one reflectivity parameter in the region associated with the first boundary to generate second data; and
combining, using the computer processor, the first data and the second data to generate output data associated with the model, the output data indicating a minimization of the generated noise during the seismic modeling based on properties of the first and second wavefields [[col. 3:60-65] averaging the two reflected pressure wavefields and the two reflected particle velocity wavefields over the staggered grid region essentially nulls the reflection from the artificial boundary without suppression of the incident acoustic wave propagation; [col. 6:20-30] As previously mentioned in the staggered grid region, two boundary conditions are applied, and two separate solutions in the staggered grid region are allowed to evolve. Then the two solutions are averaged at a 25 predetermined time interval which allows sufficient evolution time of the reflected wave for the cancellation technique to be effective].
Regarding claim 2, Smith teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one velocity parameter is a spatially varying parameter that numerically characterizes velocity data associated with the model [[col. 5:5-15] computer memory locations for holding values of velocity of the subterranean medium as well as locations for holding values of wavefield 10 parameters such as pressure and particle velocity.].
Regarding claim 3, Smith teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one reflectivity parameter is a spatially varying parameter associated with the region associated with the first boundary [[col. 6:20-30] As previously mentioned in the staggered grid region, two boundary conditions are applied, and two separate solutions in the staggered grid region are allowed to evolve. Then the two solutions are averaged at a 25 predetermined time interval which allows sufficient evolution time of the reflected wave for the cancellation technique to be effective].
Regarding claims 4, 17, and 20, Smith teaches the method of claim 1, the computer program of claim 16, and system of claim 18, wherein the seismic data includes one or more of: data captured by one or more sensors at the resource site [[col. 1:50-55] recorded event is located vertically beneath the source/receiver midpoint.], or synthetic data including test data [[col. 1:25-35] detected signals are recorded for later processing using digital computers where the data are generally quantized as digital sample points such that each sample point may be operated on individually].
Regarding claim 5, Smith teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the model is one of: an acoustic model including the at least one velocity parameter and the at least one reflectivity parameter, or a pseudo-acoustic model including an anisotropic velocity parameter and a Thomsen parameter [[col. 3:45-50] earth velocity model for using EQ. (2) to advance reflected wavefields including a scalar pressure wavefield P(x,y,z,), and a particle velocity vector wavefield {Vx(x,y,z,), V v(x,y,z), Vz,(x,y,z,) },].
Regarding claim 6, Smith teaches the method of claim 1, wherein: the first data includes a first value and the second data includes a second value, and the first value and the second value are numerical opposites of each other [[col. 3:35-45] one of the imposed conditions generates reflections having the same polarity as the incident acoustic wave, and the other imposed condition generates reflections with opposite polarity of the incident acoustic wave.].
Regarding claim 7, Smith teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the first value is +1 and the second value is -1 [[col. 3:35-45] one of the imposed conditions generates reflections having the same polarity as the incident acoustic wave, and the other imposed condition generates reflections with opposite polarity of the incident acoustic wave.].
Regarding claim 8, Smith teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the first value is a real number between 0 and +1, and the second value is a real number between 0 and -1 [[col. 3:35-45][col. 6:40-50] input data includes the best available values for wave velocity in the medium, and also wavefield values, which are real seismic data that is used in the computational grids].
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Smith teaches the method of claim 1 and system of claim 18, wherein the first boundary represents an edge of a computational domain associated with the model [[col. 5:20-30] an edge of the limited model acts as an artificial boundary which is a near-perfect reflector. According to the invention, the finite-difference model includes two regions each having its own arrangement of grids].
Regarding claim 10, Smith teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first boundary correlates with a discontinuity in the region associated with the first boundary based on the at least one velocity parameter [[col. 1:50-60] Steep dip, curved surfaces, buried foci, faults and other discontinuities in subterranean structure each contribute their unique characteristics to the seismic record and, in complexly faulted and folded areas, make interpretation of the geological layering from the seismic record extremely difficult.].
Regarding claim 11, Smith teaches the method of claim 1, comprising initiating, using the computer processor, generation of a first visualization on a graphical interface device, the first visualization indicating the output data associated with the model [[col. 1:1-10] modeling and imaging seismic wave propagation in the earth].
Regarding claim 12, Smith teaches the method of claim 1, wherein combining the first data and the second data includes executing an averaging operation using the first data and the second data to generate the output data [[col. 3:60-65] averaging the two reflected pressure wavefields and the two reflected particle velocity wavefields over the staggered grid region essentially nulls the reflection from the artificial boundary without suppression of the incident acoustic wave propagation; [col. 6:20-30] As previously mentioned in the staggered grid region, two boundary conditions are applied, and two separate solutions in the staggered grid region are allowed to evolve. Then the two solutions are averaged at a 25 predetermined time interval which allows sufficient evolution time of the reflected wave for the cancellation technique to be effective].
Regarding claim 13, Smith teaches the method of claim 1, comprising propagating, using the computer processor, one or more wavefields in the model based on one or more velocity parameters while constraining one or more reflectivity parameters in the region associated with the first boundary to generate a plurality of third data, and combining, using the computer processor, the plurality of third data to generate the output data associated with the model, the output data indicating a minimization of the generated noise during the seismic modeling based on properties of one or more wavefields [[col. 6-7 bridging] procedure then advances to parallel arranged blocks 22 and 24 where wavefield values from the solution of the second order partial differential equation in the interior region of the model are inserted at the interior boundary of the staggered grid region to connect wave equation solutions in the two regions. Step 26 determines if enough time steps have elapsed for the cancellation of reflected waves to be effective, and if so the cancellation technique is applied in step 28 by averaging the appropriate wavefields.].
Regarding claim 14, Smith teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the unwanted signal reflections include reflections associated with a boundary of a computational domain imposed on the model [[abstract] improved method for eliminating reflections from artificial model boundaries encountered in finite-difference acoustic wave propagation computations is based on applying two different boundary conditions at the artificial boundary].
Regarding claim 15, Smith teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the unwanted signal reflections include reflections associated with a velocity contrast in the region associated with the first boundary such that the velocity contrast causes unwanted imaging artifacts in a reverse-time migration of the unwanted signal reflections [[col. 1-2 bridging] wave equation computations using numerical techniques have led to a procedure called reverse time migration … using a model of earth velocities … wavefield at the surface is used as a boundary condition for the numerical computations].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN D ARMSTRONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7339. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 9am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at 571-272-6970. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JONATHAN D ARMSTRONG/ Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights