DETAILED ACTION
1. This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 06/18/2026.
2. Claims 18-19 have been added.
3. Claims 1-19 are pending and presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed on 06/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks, the Applicant argues in substance that:
a) The cited references, Nessim, Muyzert, and Jin, either alone or in combination, fail to teach or suggest the limitations “employing a plurality of electromagnetic vibrators around the pyramid to generate compressional (P) and shear (S) wavefields, and processing the seismic data using Marchenko-based wavefield reconstruction to obtain virtual sources, virtual receivers, or both within or below the pyramid to reveal subsurface features beneath the pyramid, surrounding features, or both”, as recited in independent claim 1.
In response to argument:
a) Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the Examiner would like to remind the applicant that the rejection is based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims. The Applicant argues on pages 14-17 of the remarks that the cited art does not teach or suggest the limitations “employing a plurality of electromagnetic vibrators around the pyramid to generate compressional (P) and shear (S) wavefields, and processing the seismic data using Marchenko-based wavefield reconstruction to obtain virtual sources, virtual receivers, or both within or below the pyramid to reveal subsurface features beneath the pyramid, surrounding features, or both.” However, Nessim discloses one or more transmitters configured to transmit P (longitudinal)-waves and S (shear)-waves into the earth. One or more receivers are located on the surface of the earth configured to receive and record reflected P (longitudinal)-waves and reflected S (shear)-waves and/or PSv converted waves (see, column 2, lines 8-24, column 3, lines 39-60), which corresponds to the claim limitation employing a plurality of vibrators around the pyramid to generate compressional (P) and shear (S) wavefields within the claim.
Further, Nessim discloses the application pertains to a system for detecting an underground archeologic structure…one or more receivers may be located beneath the surface of the earth (e.g., where an underground structure is accessible) configured to receive and record reflected P (longitudinal)-waves and reflected S (shear)-waves and/or PSv converted waves. A processor is configured to generate seismic images for P-waves, S-waves, and/or PSv waves using the one or more receivers located on the surface of the earth, the one or more receivers located beneath the surface of the earth (if present). The seismic images may be used to identify the underground archeologic structure(see, column 2, lines 8-24 and column 3, lines 39-51), which corresponds to the limitation processing the seismic data within or below the pyramid to reveal subsurface features beneath the pyramid, surrounding features, or both within the claim.
Examiner relied on Muyzert to disclose the limitation “electromagnetic vibrators.” Muyzert discloses seismic vibrator 10 may contain an actuator (electromagnetic actuator, as examples), (see, [0015]-[0016]), which corresponds to the limitation electromagnetic vibrators within the claim.
Examiner relied on Jin to disclose the limitation “processing the seismic data using Marchenko-based wavefield reconstruction to obtain virtual sources, virtual receivers, or both.” Jin discloses a Marchenko imaging method for a passive source, which is characterized in that seismic interference processing is carried out on collected seismic data of the passive source by adopting a cross-correlation method to obtain virtual source seismic data of each detector position (see, Abstract, and page 9), which corresponds to the limitation processing the seismic data using Marchenko-based wavefield reconstruction to obtain virtual sources, virtual receivers, or both within the claim. Thus, the combination of Nessim, Muyzert, and Jin meets the scope of the claimed limitation as currently presented.
In response to the Applicant’s argument that “the asserted motivation to combine is inadequate….. Muyzert's electromagnetic vibrator teaching would not be substituted into Nessim's pyramid investigation.” Examiner respectfully disagrees because the method of non-invasive three-dimensional seismic investigation within or below the pyramid to reveal subsurface features using a plurality of vibrators provided in Nessim is enhanced by generating a seismic data using a plurality of electromagnetic vibrators as disclosed by Muyzert. Further, the method of generating a seismic data using a plurality of electromagnetic vibrators provided in Muyzert is further enhanced by the method of processing the seismic data using Marchenko-based wavefield reconstruction to obtain virtual sources and/or virtual receivers as disclosed by Jin. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the teaching of Nessim, Muyzert, and Jin, in order to collect and analyze seismic data efficiently, and constructs accurate subsurface wavefields and obtain quality image of a geological target, such as around and beneath a pyramid (see, Nessim (column 2, lines 8-24 and column 3, lines 39-51), and Willis ([0015]- [0016]), and Jin (page 9)). Thus, the combination of Nessim, Muyzert, and Jin meets the scope of broadly claimed limitation as currently presented.
In addition, in response to applicant’s argument that “the Office Action supplies that limitation only by importing Jin's disclosure of Marchenko-based reconstruction to obtain virtual sources from outside the pyramid-investigation context of Nessim. The rejection does not adequately explain why a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to replace or modify Nessim's pyramid-imaging processing with Jin's Marchenko-based virtual-source reconstruction specifically for non-invasive investigation around and beneath a pyramid, beyond the generic statement that Jin performs "seismic interference processing on collected seismic data." In fact, an ordinary skilled artisan would not have been so motivated with any expectation of success since Nessim does not recognize the problem solved here, i.e., an inability to physically deploy seismic sources and receivers in certain regions of a pyramid or structure while still obtaining adequate subsurface illumination beneath the pyramid or structure." One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986), MPEP 2145.IV.
b) In regard to 101 rejection, the Applicant has provided arguments, “… Claim 1 is directed to a specific, physical method for conducting a non-invasive three- dimensional seismic investigation around and beneath a pyramid using specifically recited field equipment and a specifically recited reconstruction technique to obtain a physical imaging result-namely, virtual sources and/or receivers within or below the pyramid. The generated virtual sources and/or receivers within or below the pyramid can then reveal subsurface features beneath the pyramid, surrounding features, or both. Thus, virtual sources and/or receivers may be used for imaging in situations where physical deployment of sources or receivers is impossible. The claim requires physically employing a plurality of electromagnetic vibrators around the pyramid to generate compressional and shear wavefields, employing a plurality of 3C receiver nodes around the pyramid to receive those wavefields, acquiring seismic data from the received wavefields, and then processing the seismic data using Marchenko- based wavefield reconstruction to obtain virtual sources and/or receivers within or below the pyramid to reveal features.” (pages 6-12).
In response to argument:
b) In Response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Foremost, the decision of the Supreme Court in regard to Alice vs CLS Bank is succinctly discussed as follows. In their decision, Supreme Court has stated that the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract ideas (such as algorithms) into a patent eligible invention. Because the algorithm was an abstract idea, the claim had to supply a “new and useful" application of the idea in order to be patent eligible (Alice, Page 12). Furthermore, the additional limitations had to be significantly more than a patent upon the ineligible concept itself (Alice, page 7, 15).
Regarding independent Claim 1, we recognize that the limitations “processing the seismic data using Marchenko-based wavefield reconstruction to obtain virtual sources, virtual receivers, or both within or below the pyramid to reveal subsurface features beneath the pyramid, surrounding features, or both”, as abstract ideas. The abstract idea of claim 1 can be characterized as processes, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes and/or mathematical concepts.
Beyond the abstract idea, we next look at additional elements that can be considered to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. In particular, the claim limitations “employing a plurality of electromagnetic vibrators around the pyramid to generate compressional (P) and shear (S) wavefields; employing a plurality of three-component (3C) receiver nodes around the pyramid to receive compressional (P) and shear (S) wavefields; acquiring seismic data from the received P and S wavefields” are additional elements.
The claim limitations “employing a plurality of electromagnetic vibrators around the pyramid to generate compressional (P) and shear (S) wavefields; employing a plurality of three-component (3C) receiver nodes around the pyramid to receive compressional (P) and shear (S) wavefields; acquiring seismic data from the received P and S wavefields”, are recited at a high level of generality, and are considered to be insignificant data gathering steps. As shown in the prior art, Nessim et al. US 11467304 (hereinafter, Nessim), (column 2, lines, 9-24, Fig. 5), and Muyzert et al. US 2010/0195439 (hereinafter, Muyzert), ([0015]-[0016], Fig. 1), both show that employing a plurality of electromagnetic vibrators around the pyramid to generate compressional (P) and shear (S) wavefields; employing a plurality of three-component (3C) receiver nodes around the pyramid to receive compressional (P) and shear (S) wavefields; acquiring seismic data from the received P and S wavefields, are nothing more than data collection activity for gathering parameters using a well-known conventional electromagnetic sensor components and activity previously known in the industry in order to execute an abstract idea, which does not further limit and integrate the abstract idea in practical application, and as such, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. 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 combination of these additional elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to “significantly more” than the identified abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible. Therefore, the 101 rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The representative claim 1 recites:
A method for non-invasive three-dimensional seismic investigation around and beneath a pyramid, wherein the method comprises:
employing a plurality of electromagnetic vibrators around the pyramid to generate compressional (P) and shear (S) wavefields;
employing a plurality of three-component (3C) receiver nodes around the pyramid to receive compressional (P) and shear (S) wavefields;
acquiring seismic data from the received P and S wavefields; and
processing the seismic data using Marchenko-based wavefield reconstruction to obtain virtual sources, virtual receivers, or both within or below the pyramid to reveal subsurface features beneath the pyramid, surrounding features, or both.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are 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 claims are considered to be in a statutory category (process).
Under Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitation that fall into/recite abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter that, when recited as such in a claim limitation, covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) and/or mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
Next, under 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.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations in the claim are only: employing a plurality of electromagnetic vibrators around the pyramid to generate compressional (P) and shear (S) wavefields; employing a plurality of three-component (3C) receiver nodes around the pyramid to receive compressional (P) and shear (S) wavefields; acquiring seismic data from the received P and S wavefields. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., gathering or collecting data using electromagnetic sensors) such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic sensors.
Finally, under Step 2B, we consider whether the additional elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as noted above, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., gathering data using generic electromagnetic sensors). Further, the additional elements are conventional in the art, as evidenced by the art of record (see, Nessim et al. US 11467304 (hereinafter, Nessim), (column 2, lines, 9-24, Fig. 5), and Muyzert et al. US 2010/0195439 (hereinafter, Muyzert), ([0015]-[0016], Fig. 1). Therefore, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 2, recites additional element of “wherein the method further comprises employing one or more three-component (3C) receiver nodes inside the pyramid”. However, this limitation is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic receiver nodes) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic asset. Further, the additional element is conventional in the art, as evidenced by the art of record (see, Nessim, (column 2, lines, 9-24, Fig. 5), and Muyzert, ([0015]-[0016], Fig. 1). Therefore, claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 3, recites additional element of “wherein the electromagnetic vibrators are configured to transmit ground motion via electromagnetic actuation”. However, this limitation is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as transmit ground motion via a generic sensor) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic sensor. Further, the additional element is conventional in the art, as evidenced by the art of record (see, Nessim, (column 2, lines, 9-24, column 3, lines 39-60), and Muyzert, ([0015]-[0016], Fig. 1). Therefore, claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 4 and 14, recites additional element of “employing one or more three-component (3C) receiver land nodes equipped with over-under muon detectors, wherein the one or more three-component (3C) receiver land nodes are configured for concurrent muon and seismic data acquisition”. However, this limitation is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic receiver nodes) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic asset. Further, the additional element is conventional in the art, as evidenced by the art of record (see, Schouten et al. WO 2024/050630 A1 (hereinafter, Schouten), ([0062], Fig. 1A), and Le Gonidec et al. “Abrupt changes of hydrothermal activity in a lava dome detected by combined seismic and muon monitoring”, (hereinafter, Le Gonidec), (Figs. 2 and 3). Therefore, claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 5-12, 16, and 17, add further details of the identified abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Independent claim 13, recites the limitations “a plurality of electromagnetic vibrators for generating compressional (P) and shear (S) wavefields surrounding a structure to be imaged; a plurality of three-component (3C) receiver nodes surrounding the structure to be imaged; and a processor configured to receive seismic data from the received compressional (P) and shear (S) wavefields and process the received data employing Marchenko reconstruction and 3D imaging to reveal subsurface features beneath the structure, surrounding features, or both.”
Under Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitation that fall into/recite abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter that, when recited as such in a claim limitation, covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) and/or mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
Next, under 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.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations in the claim are only: a plurality of electromagnetic vibrators for generating compressional (P) and shear (S) wavefields surrounding a structure to be imaged; a plurality of three-component (3C) receiver nodes surrounding the structure to be imaged; and a processor configured to receive seismic data from the received compressional (P) and shear (S) wavefields. The limitations “ a plurality of electromagnetic vibrators for generating P and S wavefields surrounding a structure to be imaged; a plurality of three-component (3C) receiver nodes surrounding the structure to be imaged; and …configured to receive seismic data from the received P and S wavefields” are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., gathering or collecting data using electromagnetic sensors) such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic sensors.
The limitation “a processor” is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a computer structure performing a generic computer function of receiving and processing information) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Finally, under Step 2B, we consider whether the additional elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as noted above, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., gathering data using generic sensors and receiving/processing information using a generic computer component). Further, the additional elements are conventional in the art, as evidenced by the art of record (see, Nessim, (column 2, lines, 9-24, Fig. 5), and Muyzert, ([0015]-[0016], Fig. 1). Therefore, claim 13 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 15, recites additional element of “wherein the plurality of electromagnetic vibrators and the plurality of three-component (3C) receivers are portable”. However, this limitation is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic vibrator and receiver) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic sensor. Further, the additional element is conventional in the art, as evidenced by the art of record (see, Nessim, (column 2, lines, 9-24, column 3, lines 39-60), and Muyzert, ([0015]-[0016], Fig. 1). Therefore, claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 18 and 19, recites additional element of “wherein the plurality of electromagnetic vibrators and the plurality of three-component (3C) receivers are portable”. However, this limitation is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic vibrator and receiver) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic sensor. Further, the additional element is conventional in the art, as evidenced by the art of record (see, Nessim, (column 2, lines, 9-24, column 3, lines 39-60, Fig. 5), and Muyzert, ([0015]-[0016], Fig. 1). Therefore, claims 18 and 19 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AlA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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.
8. Claims 1-3, 6-9, 11-13, 15, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nessim et al. US 11467304 (hereinafter, Nessim), in view of Muyzert et al. US 2010/0195439 (hereinafter, Muyzert), in further view of Jin et al. CN 113534243 B (hereinafter, Jin).
9. Regarding claim 1, Nessim discloses a method for non-invasive three-dimensional seismic investigation around and beneath a pyramid (column 3, lines 39-60: Fig. 5 shows an exemplary system 500 for detecting underground structures…A number of criteria may be employed for selection of one or more sources which criteria and selected sources may vary depending upon the application. Typically one may wish to select sources that a) generate P-waves and S-waves; b) do not damage the underground structures (i.e., non-invasive)), wherein the method comprises:
employing a plurality of vibrators around the pyramid to generate compressional (P) and shear (S) wavefields (column 2, lines 8-24, column 3, lines 39-60: one or more transmitters configured to transmit P (longitudinal)-waves and S (shear)-waves into the earth. One or more receivers are located on the surface of the earth configured to receive and record reflected P (longitudinal)-waves and reflected S (shear)-waves and/or PSv converted waves);
employing a plurality of three-component (three-component (3C)) receiver nodes around the pyramid to receive compressional (P) and shear (S) wavefields (column 3, lines 10-20, 39-67 and column 4, lines 1-3);
acquiring seismic data from the received P and S wavefields (column 2, lines 18-24); and
processing the seismic data within or below the pyramid to reveal subsurface features beneath the pyramid, surrounding features, or both (column 2, lines 8-24 and column 3, lines 39-51: the application pertains to a system for detecting an underground archeologic structure…one or more receivers may be located beneath the surface of the earth (e.g., where an underground structure is accessible) configured to receive and record reflected P (longitudinal)-waves and reflected S (shear)-waves and/or PSv converted waves. A processor is configured to generate seismic images for P-waves, S-waves, and/or PSv waves using the one or more receivers located on the surface of the earth, the one or more receivers located beneath the surface of the earth (if present). The seismic images may be used to identify the underground archeologic structure).
Nessim does not disclose:
electromagnetic vibrators, and processing the seismic data using Marchenko-based wavefield reconstruction to obtain virtual sources, virtual receivers, or both.
However, Muyzert discloses:
electromagnetic vibrators ([0015]-[0016]: seismic vibrator 10 may contain an actuator (electromagnetic actuator, as examples)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Nessim to use electromagnetic vibrators as taught by Muyzert. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to gather and analyze seismic data acquired around and beneath a pyramid efficiently (Muyzert, [0015]-[0016]).
Nessim in view of Muyzert does not disclose:
processing the seismic data using Marchenko-based wavefield reconstruction to obtain virtual sources, virtual receivers, or both.
However, Jin discloses:
processing the seismic data using Marchenko-based wavefield reconstruction to obtain virtual sources, virtual receivers, or both (Abstract, and page 9: a Marchenko imaging method for a passive source, which is characterized in that seismic interference processing is carried out on collected seismic data of the passive source by adopting a cross-correlation method to obtain virtual source seismic data of
each detector position).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Nessim in view of Muyzert to use processing the seismic data using Marchenko-based wavefield reconstruction to obtain virtual sources, virtual receivers, or both as taught by Jin. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to constructs accurate subsurface wavefields and obtain quality image of a geological target, such as around and beneath a pyramid (Jin, page 9).
10. Regarding claim 2, Nessim in view of Muyzert in view of Jin disclose the method of claim 1, as disclosed above.
Nessim further discloses wherein the method further comprises employing one or more three-component (three-component (3C)) receiver nodes inside the pyramid (column 2, lines 14-16).
11. Regarding claim 3, Nessim in view of Muyzert in view of Jin disclose the method of claim 1, as disclosed above.
Nessim further discloses wherein the vibrators are configured to transmit ground motion via actuation (column 3, lines 39-60).
Nessim in view of Jin does not disclose:
electromagnetic vibrators, and electromagnetic actuation.
However, Muyzert discloses:
electromagnetic vibrators, and electromagnetic actuation ([0015]-[0016]: seismic vibrator 10 may contain an actuator (electromagnetic actuator, as examples)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Nessim in view of Jin to use electromagnetic vibrators and electromagnetic actuation as taught by Muyzert. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to gather and analyze seismic data acquired around and beneath a pyramid efficiently (Muyzert, [0015]-[0016]).
12. Regarding claim 6, Nessim in view of Muyzert in view of Jin disclose the method of claim 1, as disclosed above.
Nessim in view of Muyzert does not disclose:
wherein the Marchenko-based wavefield reconstruction comprises reconstructing upgoing and downgoing Green's functions to generate the virtual sources.
However, Jin discloses:
wherein the Marchenko-based wavefield reconstruction comprises reconstructing upgoing and downgoing Green's functions to generate the virtual sources (Abstract, and page 9: Marchenko imaging method for a passive source, which is characterized in that seismic interference processing is carried out on collected seismic data of the passive source by adopting a cross-correlation method to obtain virtual source seismic data of each detector position;…the Marchenko method is adopted to eliminate free surface multiples and interlaminar multiples from the reflection green function response to obtain the reflection green function response
after cancellation,…taking the response of the reflection Green function and the response of the direct wave after the elimination as the input of a Markhenko method, reconstructing an uplink Green function and a downlink Green function between the
position of a virtual detector and an earth detector, and calculating to obtain the reflection coefficients of all grid imaging points; and arranging the reflection coefficients of all grid imaging points to obtain a passive source seismic imaging result).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Nessim in view of Muyzert to use wherein the Marchenko-based wavefield reconstruction comprises reconstructing upgoing and downgoing Green's functions to generate the virtual sources as taught by Jin. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to constructs accurate subsurface wavefields and obtain quality image of a geological target, such as around and beneath a pyramid (Jin, page 9).
13. Regarding claim 7, Nessim in view of Muyzert in view of Jin disclose the method of claim 1, as disclosed above.
Nessim further discloses revealing subsurface anomalies, voids, or chambers beneath the pyramid foundation using imaging (column 3, lines 10-32: 3D high resolution seismic acquisition and/or 3D high resolution signal processing and imaging techniques can be used for detecting underground structures…This feature could allow one to identify underground structures such as chambers, corridors, or even large objects that are filled with air).
14. Regarding claim 8, Nessim in view of Muyzert in view of Jin disclose the method of claim 1, as disclosed above.
Nessim further discloses processing first-order and higher-order multiple reflections to subsurface features located beneath the pyramid (column 2, lines 8-18 and column 3, lines 39-67).
Nessim in view of Muyzert does not disclose:
reconstruct subsurface features.
However, Jin discloses:
reconstruct subsurface features (Abstract, and page 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Nessim in view of Muyzert to use reconstruct subsurface features as taught by Jin. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to constructs accurate subsurface wavefields and obtain quality image of a geological target, such as around and beneath a pyramid (Jin, page 9).
15. Regarding claim 9, Nessim in view of Muyzert in view of Jin disclose the method of claim 2, as disclosed above.
Nessim further discloses processing first-order and higher-order multiple reflections to subsurface features located beneath the pyramid (column 2, lines 8-18 and column 3, lines 39-67).
Nessim in view of Muyzert does not disclose:
reconstruct subsurface features.
However, Jin discloses:
reconstruct subsurface features (Abstract, and page 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Nessim in view of Muyzert to use reconstruct subsurface features as taught by Jin. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to constructs accurate subsurface wavefields and obtain quality image of a geological target, such as around and beneath a pyramid (Jin, page 9).
16. Regarding claim 11, Nessim in view of Muyzert in view of Jin disclose the method of claim 8, as disclosed above.
Nessim further discloses employing multiple-reflection imaging using imaging algorithms (column 3, lines 10-67).
Nessim in view of Muyzert does not disclose:
employing multiple-reflection imaging using Marchenko-based demultiple and imaging algorithms.
However, Jin discloses:
employing multiple-reflection imaging using Marchenko-based demultiple and imaging algorithms (page 9: the multiple elimination module is used for eliminating free surface multiple and interlayer multiple of the reflection Green function response
by adopting a Marchenko method to obtain the reflection Green function response after elimination; the response of the reflection green function after the elimination only comprises a primary reflection wave (i.e., demultiplex) …the Marchenko method is adopted to eliminate free surface multiples and interlaminar multiples from the reflection green function response to obtain the reflection green function response after cancellation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Nessim in view of Muyzert to use employing multiple-reflection imaging using Marchenko-based demultiple and imaging algorithms as taught by Jin. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to constructs accurate subsurface wavefields and obtain quality image of a geological target, such as around and beneath a pyramid (Jin, page 9).
17. Regarding claim 12, Nessim in view of Muyzert in view of Jin disclose the method of claim 8, as disclosed above.
Nessim further discloses employing multiple-reflection imaging using data-driven multiple reflection migration (column 2, lines 8-18 and column 3, lines 39-67). See also Muyzert ([0015]-[0016]), and Jin (page 9).
18. Regarding claim 13, Nessim discloses a system comprises:
a plurality of vibrators for generating compressional (P) and shear (S) wavefields surrounding a structure to be imaged (column 2, lines 8-24, column 3, lines 39-60, Fig. 5);
a plurality of three-component (3C) receiver nodes surrounding the structure to be imaged (column 3, lines 10-20, 39-67 and column 4, lines 1-3); and
a processor configured to receive seismic data from the received compressional (P) and shear (S) wavefields and process the received data employing 3D imaging to reveal subsurface features beneath the structure, surrounding features, or both (column 2, lines 18-24 and column 3, lines 10-67).
Nessim does not disclose:
electromagnetic vibrators, and process the received data employing Marchenko reconstruction to reveal subsurface features.
However, Muyzert discloses:
electromagnetic vibrators ([0015]-[0016]: seismic vibrator 10 may contain an actuator (electromagnetic actuator, as examples)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Nessim to use electromagnetic vibrators as taught by Muyzert. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to gather and analyze seismic data acquired around and beneath a pyramid efficiently (Muyzert, [0015]-[0016]).
Nessim in view of Muyzert does not disclose:
process the received data employing Marchenko reconstruction to reveal subsurface features.
However, Jin discloses:
process the received data employing Marchenko reconstruction to reveal subsurface features (Abstract, and page 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Nessim in view of Muyzert to use process the received data employing Marchenko reconstruction to reveal subsurface features as taught by Jin. The motivation for doing so would have been in order constructs accurate subsurface wavefields and obtain quality image of a geological target, such as around and beneath a pyramid (Jin, page 9).
19. Regarding claim 15, Nessim in view of Muyzert in view of Jin disclose the system of claim 13, as disclosed above.
Nessim further discloses the plurality of vibrators and the plurality of three-component (3C) receivers are portable (column 3, lines 52-67).
Nessim in view of Jin does not disclose:
electromagnetic vibrators.
However, Muyzert discloses:
electromagnetic vibrators ([0015]-[0016]: seismic vibrator 10 may contain an actuator (electromagnetic actuator, as examples)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Nessim in view of Jin to use electromagnetic vibrators as taught by Muyzert. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to gather and analyze seismic data acquired around and beneath a pyramid efficiently (Muyzert, [0015]-[0016]).
20. Regarding claim 18, Nessim in view of Muyzert in view of Jin disclose the process of claim 1, as disclosed above.
Nessim further discloses the plurality of vibrators and the plurality of three-component (3C) receivers are not beneath the pyramid (column 2, lines 8-24, column 3, lines 39-50, Fig. 5).
Nessim in view of Jin does not disclose:
electromagnetic vibrators.
However, Muyzert discloses:
electromagnetic vibrators ([0015]-[0016]: seismic vibrator 10 may contain an actuator (electromagnetic actuator, as examples)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Nessim in view of Jin to use electromagnetic vibrators as taught by Muyzert. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to gather and analyze seismic data acquired around and beneath a pyramid efficiently (Muyzert, [0015]-[0016]).
21. Regarding claim 19, Nessim in view of Muyzert in view of Jin disclose the system of claim 13, as disclosed above.
Nessim further discloses the plurality of vibrators and the plurality of three-component (3C) receivers are not beneath the pyramid (column 2, lines 8-24, column 3, lines 39-50, Fig. 5).
Nessim in view of Jin does not disclose:
electromagnetic vibrators.
However, Muyzert discloses:
electromagnetic vibrators ([0015]-[0016]: seismic vibrator 10 may contain an actuator (electromagnetic actuator, as examples)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Nessim in view of Jin to use electromagnetic vibrators as taught by Muyzert. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to gather and analyze seismic data acquired around and beneath a pyramid efficiently (Muyzert, [0015]-[0016]).
22. Claims 4, 5, 10, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nessim, in view of Muyzert, in view of Jin, in view of Schouten et al. WO 2024/050630 A1 (hereinafter, Schouten), in further view of
Le Gonidec et al. “Abrupt changes of hydrothermal activity in a lava dome detected by combined seismic and muon monitoring”, 2019 (Cited in IDS) (hereinafter, Le Gonidec).
23. Regarding claim 4, Nessim in view of Muyzert in view of Jin disclose the method of claim 1, as disclosed above.
Nessim further discloses employing one or more three-component (3C) receiver land nodes (column 2, lines 9-24).
Nessim in view of Muyzert in view of Jin does not disclose:
employing one or more three-component (3C) receiver land nodes equipped with over-under muon detectors, wherein the one or more three-component (3C) receiver land nodes are configured for concurrent muon and seismic data acquisition.
However, Schouten discloses:
employing one or more receiver land nodes equipped with over-under muon detectors ([0062], Fig. 1A: a first scintillator bar array 32 arranged above the second scintillator bar array).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Nessim in view of Muyzert in view of Jin to use employing one or more receiver land nodes equipped with over-under muon detectors as taught by Schouten. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to detecting muon flux data associated with a pyramid (Schouten, [0002]).
Nessim in view of Muyzert in view of Jin in view of Schouten does not disclose:
wherein the one or more receiver land nodes are configured for concurrent muon and seismic data acquisition.
However, Le Gonidec discloses:
wherein the one or more receiver land nodes are configured for concurrent muon and seismic data acquisition (page 6 (section: Methods), Figs. 2 and 3: muon and seismic data acquisition at the same time window).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Nessim in view of Muyzert in view of Jin in view of Schouten to use wherein the one or more receiver land nodes are configured for concurrent muon and seismic data acquisition as taught by Le Gonidec. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to acquire and process muon and seismic data efficiently (Le Gonidec, page 6).
24. Regarding claim 14, the claim is rejected with the same rationale as in claim 4.
25. Regarding claim 5, Nessim in view of Muyzert in view of Jin in view of Schouten in view of Le Gonidec disclose the method of claim 4, as disclosed above.
Nessim further discloses acquired seismic data below the surface of the pyramid (column 2, lines 9-24, Fig. 5). Further, Muyzert discloses elastic property variations below the surface ([0002]).
Nessim in view of Muyzert in view of Jin in view of Schouten does not disclose:
integrating the concurrently acquired muon and seismic data to estimate density below the surface.
However, Le Gonidec discloses:
integrating the concurrently acquired muon and seismic data to estimate density below the surface (Abstract, pages 5-6, Figs. 2 and 3: muon and seismic data acquisition at the same time window).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Nessim in view of Muyzert in view of Jin in view of Schouten to use integrating the concurrently acquired muon and seismic data to estimate density below the surface as taught by Le Gonidec. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to acquire and process muon and seismic data efficiently (Le Gonidec, page 6).
26. Regarding claim 10, Nessim in view of Muyzert in view of Jin in view of Schouten in view of Le Gonidec disclose the method of claim 4, as disclosed above.
Nessim further discloses processing first-order and higher-order multiple reflections to subsurface features located beneath the pyramid (column 2, lines 8-18 and column 3, lines 39-67).
Nessim in view of Muyzert in view of Schouten in view of Le Gonidec does not disclose:
reconstruct subsurface features.
However, Jin discloses:
reconstruct subsurface features (Abstract, and page 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Nessim in view of Muyzert in view of Schouten in view of Le Gonidec to use reconstruct subsurface features as taught by Jin. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to constructs accurate subsurface wavefields and obtain quality image of a geological target, such as around and beneath a pyramid (Jin, page 9).
27. Regarding claim 16, Nessim in view of Muyzert in view of Jin in view of Schouten in view of Le Gonidec disclose the system of claim 14, as disclosed above.
Nessim in view of Muyzert in view of Jin in view of Le Gonidec does not disclose:
wherein the integrated muon detectors are configured to enhance density imaging by differentiating between a downward and an upward muon flux.
However, Schouten discloses:
wherein the integrated muon detectors are configured to enhance density imaging by differentiating between a downward and an upward muon flux ([0027], [0039], [0049], [0060], Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Nessim in view of Muyzert in view of Jin in view of Le Gonidec to use wherein the integrated muon detectors are configured to enhance density imaging by differentiating between a downward and an upward muon flux as taught by Schouten. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to detecting muon flux data associated with a pyramid (Schouten, [0002]).
28. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nessim, in view of Muyzert, in view of Jin, in further view of Mellors et al. “Joint Muon and Seismic Imaging of the Subsurface”, 2016 (hereinafter, Mellors).
29. Regarding claim 17, Nessim in view of Muyzert in view of Jin disclose the system of claim 13, as disclosed above.
Nessim in view of Muyzert in view of Jin does not disclose:
wherein the processor is configured to improve subsurface resolution by performing joint inversion of seismic and muon data.
However, Mellors discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to improve subsurface resolution by performing joint inversion of seismic and muon data (page 3624 (section: Summary) and page 3625, col. 1, par. 4 ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Nessim in view of Muyzert in view of Jin to use wherein the processor is configured to improve subsurface resolution by performing joint inversion of seismic and muon data as taught by Mellors. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to improve density estimation (Mellors, page 3624).
Conclusion
30. Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers, and/or paragraphs, and/or pages in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
31. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
32. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EYOB HAGOS whose telephone number is (571)272-3508. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30-5:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Shelby Turner can be reached on 571-272-6334. 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.
/Eyob Hagos/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights