Ex Parte Hammon

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 31, 2017

12271609 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O.Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12/271,609 11/14/2008 William Stanley Hammon III 0336-432/99943 4526
11171 7590 02/02/2017
Patent Portfolio Builders, PLLC
P.O. Box 7999
Fredericksburg, VA 22404
EXAMINER
HE, WEIMING
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2612
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/02/2017 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
Mailroom@ppblaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WILLIAM STANLEY HAMMON, III
Appeal 2016-000118
Application 12/271,609
Technology Center 2600
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
KEVIN C. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Non-Final Rejection
of claims 1—56. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
STATEMENT OF THE INVENTION
According to Appellant, the claims are directed to a seismic data
processing system and method, for preprocessing data prior to seismic
interpretation, including voxel connectivity mapping, seismic response
Appeal 2016-000118
Application 12/271,609
reduction, voxel suppression, and voxel density scoring (Abstract). Claim 1,
reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A computer implemented method for processing seismic data,
the method comprising:
receiving a seismic data volume;
determining, with the assistance of a processor, a voxel
connectivity score for constituent members of one or more
connected features in the data volume, the voxel connectivity
score indicating how many voxels make up the constituent
members of the one or more connected features in the data
volume;
collapsing reflections within the data volume to reduce
seismic reflections by reducing minor lobes of a zero phase
wavelet, which is associated with a seismic response of a
reflector, to a main lobe, wherein the zero phase wavelet
includes the main lobe and the minor lobes;
emphasizing high amplitude events using voxel suppression,
wherein the voxel suppression uses a running window to
determine the voxels in the running window that have values
within a specified range of the maximum value in the
window;
scoring the local significance of data trends in the seismic data
volume; and
saving an output data volume, wherein, in the output data
volume, one or more insignificant features have been
removed.
2
Appeal 2016-000118
Application 12/271,609
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Claims 16—23 and 44—51 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Dunn and Sen (Non—Final Act. 6—11).
Claims 27, 28, 55, and 56 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Dunn and Crawford (Non—Final Act. 11—14).
Claims 1—9, 13—15, 29—37, and 41—43 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dunn, Crawford, and Sen (Non—Final
Act. 14—24).
Claims 24—26 and 52—54 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Dunn, Crawford, and Kouri (Non—Final Act. 24—
27).
Claims 10-12 and 38-40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Dunn, Crawford, Sen, and Borgos (Non—Final Act.
27-29).
We have only considered those arguments that Appellant actually
raised in the Briefs. Arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to
make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012).
Crawford
Sen
Dunn
Borgos
Kouri
US 5,987,388
US 2002/0118602 A1
US 2004/0062145 A1
US 2004/0260476 A1
US 7,272,265 B2
Nov. 16, 1999
Aug. 29, 2002
Apr. 1, 2004
Dec. 23, 2004
Sept. 18, 2007
REJECTIONS
3
Appeal 2016-000118
Application 12/271,609
ISSUES
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 1 9, 13-15, 29-37, and 41-43
Appellant contends the invention as recited in claims 1—9, 13—15, 29—
37, and 41—43, is not obvious over Dunn, Crawford, and Sen (App. Br. 12—
20). The issues presented by the arguments are:
Issue 1: Does the combination of Dunn, Crawford, and Sen teach,
suggest, or otherwise render obvious:
determining, with the assistance of a processor, a voxel
connectivity score for constituent members of one or more
connected features in the data volume, the voxel connectivity
score indicating how many voxels make up the constituent
members of the one or more connected features in the data
volume; [and]
collapsing reflections within the data volume to reduce seismic
reflections by reducing minor lobes of a zero phase wavelet,
which is associated with a seismic response of a reflector, to a
main lobe, wherein the zero phase wavelet includes the main lobe
and the minor lobes,
as recited in claim 1?
Issue 2: Has the Examiner improperly combined the teachings and
suggestions of Dunn, Crawford, and Sen?
ANALYSIS
Issue 1:
Appellant summarizes both Dunn and Crawford, and asserts neither
one teaches or suggests “using a zero phase wavelet that includes a main
lobe and minor lobes and a step of collapsing reflections within the data
4
Appeal 2016-000118
Application 12/271,609
volume to reduce seismic reflections by reducing the minor lobes of the zero
phase wavelet to the main lobe” (App. Br. 12—15). More specifically,
Appellant contends although Dunn teaches various traces having peaks and
troughs, Figures 4—6 of Dunn do not disclose a zero phase wavelet
“symmetric about the maximum reflection lobe” (App. Br. 14—15).
Appellant further argues Crawford teaches adjusting a pixel of interest’s
intensity and based on the adjusted intensity, removing “single pixel-wide
stripes” but fails to teach using a zero phase wavelet as recited in claim 1 {id.
at 15).
Appellant’s arguments directed to Dunn and Crawford individually,
are not persuasive as the Examiner relies on each of Dunn and Crawford as
teaching the disputed limitation except for “a zero phase wavelet” for which
the Examiner relies on Sen as teaching (Non-Final Act. 18).
Appellant next contends Sen teaches removing multiples from
recorded seismic data because multiples hide primaries (“a wave that
propagates from a source to a receiver with a single reflection on a reflector
of interest”) (App. Br. 16). According to Appellant, waves having multiple
reflections are called multiples {id.). Appellant argues Sen teaches “[f]or
comparison with the original data, the result has been convolved with a zero
phase wavelet” {id.) (emphasis omitted) but fails to teach whether: minor
lobes of the zero phase wavelet are reduced; the zero phase wavelet is
associated with a seismic response of a reflector; or reflections are collapsed
to a main lobe, as recited in independent claims 1 and 29 {id. at 17). More
specifically, Appellant contends Sen teaches comparison of results of a new
method with original data, the result of the new method having been
convolved with a zero phase wavelet {id. (citing Sen | 52)).
5
Appeal 2016-000118
Application 12/271,609
However, the Examiner relies on Sen to teach the zero phase wavelet
and finds “the filtering process of Dunn can be modified to apply a zero
phase wavelet of Sen to reduce minor lobes (i.e. [,] 47 or 45) and maintain
the main lobe (i.e.[,] 46a)” (Ans. 3). In the Reply Brief, Appellant further
argues Dunn refers to “troughs” and, thus, does not disclose major and
minor lobes (Reply Br. 2). However, the Examiner relies on Sen’s zero
phase wavelet having a main and minor lobes (Ans. 2—3). Therefore,
Appellant has not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s findings.
Next, Appellant argues the zero phase wavelet is not part of the data
volume (Reply Br. 3). Appellant has not defined explicitly “data volume” in
the claim or in their Specification. Moreover, Appellant has not proffered
sufficient evidence to persuade us the Examiner’s interpretation is in error.
We agree with the Examiner and find Sen describes attenuating original data
to achieve a result which has been convolved with a zero phase wavelet
(Ans. 2—3; Sen | 52). Thus, the zero phase wavelet “is associated with a
seismic response of a reflector.”
Appellant further argues Dunn’s reasons “for rejecting elements 45
and 47 are not because they are associated with minor lobes of a zero phase
wavelet, but rather because they do not meet certain criteria introduced by
Dunn” (Reply Br. 4). We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments for
the reasons set forth by the Examiner and, moreover, because Appellant’s
argument is directed to Dunn individually when the Examiner has relied on
Sen as teaching the zero phase wavelet (Ans. 2—3). Further, we note the
claim does not recite particular steps used in “collapsing reflections within
the data volume.”
6
Appeal 2016-000118
Application 12/271,609
Appellant additionally argues none of the references teach “a voxel
connectivity score” (App. Br. 18). According to Appellant, Dunn fails to
teach the disputed limitation because the method in Dunn is different than
the recited method and further, in Dunn, all the voxels are making up the
trace and, thus, no need exists to calculate the score {id. at 20).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. The claim does not
specify the particulars of determining the voxel connectivity score, nor is the
voxel connectivity score used. Instead, the claim merely requires
determining the score. Furthermore, paragraph 58 of Appellant’s
Specification, to which Appellant points as disclosing this feature, also does
not specify the particulars of determining the voxel connectivity score (App.
Br. 2; Spec. 1 58). As such, Appellant has not persuaded us the Examiner’s
findings (Ans. 4—5) are in error.
Issue 2:
Appellant’s assertion that the Examiner’s reason for combining the
teachings and suggestions of Dunn and Crawford “is confusing” (App. Br.
18), is not persuasive. Appellant has not proffered sufficient argument or
evidence to persuade us of error. The Examiner has set forth reasoning with
some rational underpinning (Ans. 3—4; Non-Final Act. 18), specifically:
the combination of Dunn and Crawford teaches the voxel
suppression by using a running window to filter the insignificant
features [(noise)] from the desired significant features
[(reflections)] and associate the voxels with the local maximum
value with the feature. Here, the insignificant features refer to a
noise to the desired feature (i.e. [,] reflections).
(Ans. 3—4). Appellant merely states the Examiner’s reasoning is confusing
because “[i]t is not clear what is (i) a voxel with the local maximum value,
7
Appeal 2016-000118
Application 12/271,609
(ii) the feature, and (iii) how the association of a ‘voxel’ with ‘a local
maximum value’ with a ‘feature’ eliminates ‘insignificant features’” without
any further elaboration (App. Br. 18). However, we find the Examiner has
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning. Thus, Appellant has
not persuaded us the Examiner has improperly combined the teachings and
suggestions of Dunn, Crawford, and Sen.
Accordingly, Appellant has not persuaded us the combination of
Dunn, Crawford, and Sen fails to teach, suggest, or otherwise render obvious
the limitations as recited in independent claim 1, independent claim 29, and
dependent claims 2—9, 13—15, 30-37, and 41—43, not separately argued.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 1—9, 13—15, 29—37, and 41—43
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Dunn, Crawford, and Sen.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 16—23 and 44^51
Appellant contends the invention as recited in claims 16—23 and 44—
51, is not obvious over Dunn and Sen (App. Br. 21—22). The issue presented
by the arguments is:
Issue 3: Has the Examiner erred by improperly combining the
teachings and suggestions of Dunn and Sen?
ANALYSIS
Appellant’s first two arguments, that Dunn and Sen fail to teach
“collapsing reflections” by reducing minor lobes of a zero phase wavelet and
“a voxel connectivity score” (App. Br. 21) are not persuasive for the reasons
set forth above with respect to claim 1.
8
Appeal 2016-000118
Application 12/271,609
Appellant further argues the Examiner’s articulated reason for
combining the teachings of Dunn and Sen “is confusing” (App. Br. 21).
Appellant specifically asserts it is unclear in Dunn, what the “attenuated
signal” that needs to be removed is {id. at 22). Additionally, Appellant
contends Sen’s paragraph 52, indicates two different sets of data needing to
be compared {id.).
The Examiner finds it would have been obvious to combine the
teachings and suggestions of Dunn with the teaching of Sen “so as to remove
the attenuated signal to preserve the primary reflections to make it strongly
visible in the original data” (Non-Final Act. 8). In paragraph 52, to which
the Examiner points, Sen teaches “the multiples have been attenuated, and
more importantly, the primary reflections, which are marked by arrows have
been preserved” (Sen | 52). Sen further teaches the primary reflections will
be more visible as a result {id.). Thus, Appellant’s assertion regarding Dunn
is not persuasive as the Examiner relies on the combination of Dunn and Sen
and specifically, Sen’s removing the attenuated signal (multiples) to
preserve the primary reflections to make it strongly visible. Thus, we
determine the Examiner has articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning as to why the teachings and suggestions of would have been
combined by an ordinarily skilled artisan.
Accordingly, Appellant has not persuaded us the combination of Dunn
and Sen fails to teach, suggest, or otherwise render obvious the limitations as
recited in independent claim 16 and in independent claims 21, 44 and 49, not
separately argued and further, in dependent claims 17—20, 22, 23, 45—48, 50,
and 51, not separately argued. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims
9
Appeal 2016-000118
Application 12/271,609
16—23 and 44—51 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Dunn and
Sen.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 27, 28, 55, and 56
Appellant contends their invention as recited in claims 27, 28, 55, and
56, is not obvious over Dunn and Crawford (App. Br. 23—24). The issue
presented by the arguments is:
Issue 4: Does the combination of Dunn and Crawford teach, suggest,
or otherwise render obvious “convolving the seismic data volume with an
operator” and “for each position of the operator, scoring the local
significance of data trends in the seismic data volume by counting a number
of voxels within a given threshold range in a running window,” as recited in
claim 27?
ANALYSIS
Appellant summarizes the portion of Dunn relied upon by the
Examiner and contends “neither paragraph discloses convolving the seismic
data volume with an operator” (App. Br. 23). Appellant has not persuaded
us of error in the Examiner’s findings and reasoning (Non-Final Act. 11—13;
Ans. 5—7). In the Reply Brief, for the first time, Appellant contends neither
reference discloses an “operator” as “one skilled in the art of seismic
processing, would know that an operator is a mapping from one vector space
to another” {id. at 6) without providing evidence to show an ordinarily
skilled artisan would have interpreted the term as proffered, at the time of
the invention. Thus, Appellant has not persuaded us the Examiner’s
interpretation of “operator” is in error.
10
Appeal 2016-000118
Application 12/271,609
Appellant additionally argues Dunn and Crawford do not teach or
suggest scoring the local significance of data trends in the seismic data
volume (App. Br. 23—24). Appellant identifies the paragraphs of Dunn
relied on by the Examiner and contends none of them discloses an operator
or the recited scoring and further, “the correlation window 130 is not used to
count a number of voxels” (App. Br. 24).
Appellant has not proffered sufficient evidence or argument to
persuade us the Examiner’s findings (Non-Final Act. 11—13; Ans. 5—7) are
in error. Appellant’s argument that Dunn’s correlation window is not used
to count a number of voxels is not persuasive as Dunn teaches a running
window may be a time window (Dunn | 59) and the Examiner determines
“the method of Dunn can be modified to count the number of voxels in a
running window” (Non-Final Act. 12). Moreover, the Examiner further
relies on Crawford, which Appellant has not addressed {id.). Indeed, the
Examiner has set forth with specificity where the relied upon references
teach, suggest, or otherwise render obvious the disputed limitations while
Appellant has not provided sufficient argument or evidence to persuade us
the Examiner’s findings are in error.
Accordingly, Appellant has not persuaded us the combination of Dunn
and Crawford fails to teach, suggest, or otherwise render obvious the
limitations as recited in independent claim 27. Commensurately recited
independent 55 and dependent claims 28 and 56 were not separately argued;
therefore, these claims fall with claim 27. It follows, we sustain the
rejection of claims 27, 28, 55, and 56 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for
obviousness over Dunn and Crawford.
11
Appeal 2016-000118
Application 12/271,609
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 24—26 and 52—54
Appellant contends their invention as recited in claims 24—26 and 52—
54, is not obvious over Dunn, Crawford, and Kouri (App. Br. 25—29). The
issue presented by the argument is:
Issue 5: Does the combination of Dunn, Crawford, and Kouri teach,
suggest, or otherwise render obvious “the voxel suppression convolves in a
running window an operator with the seismic data volume,” as recited in
claim 24?
Issue 6: Has the Examiner improperly combined the teachings and
suggestions of Dunn, Crawford, and Kouri?
ANALYSIS
Appellant contends Dunn does not reference any operator and further,
does not disclose “a maximum value of the running window and determining
voxels in the running window that have values within a range of that
maximum value” (App. Br. 25). Appellant additionally asserts Crawford
does not use the term “operator” nor “convolving” in the cited paragraphs
{id. at 26). As set forth above with respect to claim 27, Appellant’s
arguments directed to Dunn regarding “operator” and “running window” are
not persuasive.
Appellant’s additional arguments directed to Crawford are not
persuasive (App. Br. 26). Although Appellant argues the Examiner’s
interpretation of “operator” as “any mathematical operation” is in error
because “an operator has a well-established meaning in the art” {id.) is not
persuasive because Appellant has not proffered sufficient evidence or
argument to persuade us the Examiner’s interpretation is in error. Moreover,
12
Appeal 2016-000118
Application 12/271,609
the Examiner has set forth with particularity, the basis of the rejection (Non-
Final Act. 24—26; Ans. 8—9). Appellant contends each reference,
individually does not teach the disputed limitation, but Appellant has not
proffered sufficient evidence or argument to persuade us the Examiner’s
findings that the combination of Dunn and Crawford teaches the disputed
limitation, are in error.
Appellant next contends the Examiner’s articulated reasoning for
combining Dunn and Crawford is confusing for the reasons set forth with
respect to claim 1 (App. Br. 26). For the reasons set forth above, we are not
persuaded by Appellant’s assertion.
Appellant additionally contends Kouri fails to teach “sorting a portion
of the voxels by absolute value,” as recited in claim 24 (App. Br. 26).
Appellant contends Kouri does not “introduce the idea of (i) an operator or
(ii) sorting a portion of voxels for an operator position or (iii) using the
absolute value for sorting” {id. at 27). Thus, according to Appellant, Kouri
is unrelated to “sorting a portion of the voxels by an absolute value for an
operator position” {id.). Again, Appellant has provided no detail as to why
Kouri fails to teach the disputed limitation and more particularly, has not
addressed the Examiner’s detailed findings that the combination of Dunn
and Kouri teaches, suggests, or otherwise renders obvious “sorting a portion
of the voxels by absolute value” (Non-Final Act. 24—26; Ans. 8—9).
Lastly, Appellant argues the Examiner has not set forth why an
ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it obvious to combine the
teachings and suggestions of Dunn, Crawford, and Kouri and furthermore,
the conclusion — “to prepare the image data for following trim filtering
process” — lacks reasoning (App. Br. 28). Moreover, Appellant asserts
13
Appeal 2016-000118
Application 12/271,609
because Dunn discloses “how to trim some voxels when there are too many
associated with a trough,” the Examiner has not shown why Dunn needs the
technique disclosed by Kouri {id. at 28—29).
We determine the Examiner has articulated reasoning with some
rational underpinning:
The operation of a running window of Dunn and Crawford can
be further modified by the teaching of Kouri to perform a sorting
operator in a running window in favor of following operator(s)
on the seismic data in the running window, for example, filtering
or trimming the insignificant signals or noises based on the result
of sorting or comparing operator
(Ans. 10; Final Act. 26). Appellant has not proffered sufficient evidence or
argument to persuade us of error in the Examiner’s findings and reasoning
and instead, contend the motivation is confusing (Reply Br. 7). Thus, we are
not persuaded the Examiner improperly combined the teachings and
suggestions of Dunn, Crawford, and Kouri.
Accordingly, Appellant has not persuaded us the combination of
Dunn, Crawford, and Kouri fails to teach, suggest, or otherwise render
obvious the limitations as recited in independent claim 24 and in dependent
claims 25, 26, and 52—54, not separately argued. Therefore, we sustain the
rejection of claims 24—26 and 52—54 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for
obviousness over Dunn, Crawford, and Kouri.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 16—23 and 44—51 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dunn and Sen is affirmed.
14
Appeal 2016-000118
Application 12/271,609
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 27, 28, 55, and 56 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dunn and Crawford is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—9, 13—15, 29—37, and 41—43
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dunn, Crawford, and
Sen is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 24—26 and 52—54 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dunn, Crawford, and Kouri is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 10—12 and 38-40 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dunn, Crawford, Sen, and Borgos is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
15