Ex Parte Nichols et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 26, 2018

13666801 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 26, 2018)

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.
13/666,801 11/01/2012 DAVID NICHOLS IS 12.2418-US-NP 8440
28116 7590
WestemGeco L.L.C.
10001 Richmond Avenue
IP Administration Center of Excellence
Houston, TX 77042
EXAMINER
ARMSTRONG, JONATHAN D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3645
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/30/2018 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):
U S Docketing @ sib. com
jalverson@slb.com
SMarckesoni@slb.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID NICHOLS and EVERETT C. MOBLEY, JR.
Appeal 2017-002682
Application 13/666,801
Technology Center 3600
Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and
BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims
1-11, 13, 15-18, and21-24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2017-002682
Application 13/666,801
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 10, and 18 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below,
illustrates the claimed subject matter:
1. A method, comprising:
receiving, by a system comprising a processor, acquired data
that corresponds at least in part to a target structure;
forming, by the system, one or more vector image partition
(VIP) gathers from at least part of the acquired data, wherein the
one or more VIP gathers comprise bins of the acquired data, the
bins partitioned based on different values of an offset between a
source location of a seismic source and a surface image location,
the surface image location on a surface and projected from an
image location within the target structure;
converting, by the system, the one or more VIP gathers
into one or more angle gathers; and
applying, by the system, processing relating to the target
structure using the one or more angle gathers.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Xioa-Bi Xie et al., Wave-equation-base Siesmic Illumination Analysis,
GEOPHYSICS (Sept. 2006).
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1-11, 13, 15-18, and 21-24 stand rejected under
35U.S.C. 101.
2
Appeal 2017-002682
Application 13/666,801
II. Claims 1-11, 13, 15-18, and21-24! stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Xie.
DISCUSSION
Rejection of Claims 111, 13, 15—18, and 21—24
as Being Directed to Non-statutory Subject Matter
Claims 1-11. 13. 15-17. and 22
Appellants argue claims 1-11, 13, 15-17, and 22 together. See
Appeal Br. 9-10. We select claim 1 as the illustrative claim, and claims
2-11, 13, 15-17, and 22 stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner determines that claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea
of “data manipulation solely performed inside a general purpose computer.”
Final Act. 3. In support of this determination, the Examiner explains that the
claim does not
include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than [an abstract idea] because selecting
seismic traces from a set of global seismic traces which
advantageously produce an image of a local target structure is
known in the art and the steps of converting one gather to
another using velocity models of various complexity and
generating an image are considered post-solution activity.
Id. The Examiner further notes that “[n]o actual sensor or receiver is recited
for receiving seismic reflection signals and no seismic source is present for
generating seismic signals.” Id.
1 Although the statement of this rejection indicates that claims 1-20 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), the explanation that follows includes
claims 21-24. Final Act. 4, 10. Furthermore, claims 12, 14, 19, and 20 are
canceled. See Amendment filed October 13, 2015.
3
Appeal 2017-002682
Application 13/666,801
Noting that “[c]laim 1 recites ‘applying, by the system, processing
relating to the target structure using the one or more angle gathers[’] that are
produced according to the inventive process of claim 1,” Appellants contend
that “claim 1 recites a technique to perform processing that relates to a
physical structure, namely the target structure of claim 1 . . . [such that],
claim 1 is not ‘directed to data manipulation solely performed inside a
general purpose computer.’” Appeal Br. 9-10 (emphasis omitted). Based on
this contention, Appellants argue that claim 1 is not directed to an abstract
idea. Id. at 10.
Although Appellants are correct that claim 1 relates to a physical
structure, Appellants do not contest the Examiner’s finding that such
structure is not claimed. Further, Appellants do not explain how the method
set forth in claim 1 amounts to more than receiving data, analyzing data,
manipulating data by converting it to another format, and then transmitting
the converted data. See Appeal Br. i (Claims App.). Similar data
manipulation steps have been held ineligible under § 101. See Content
Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, National Ass 'n, 776
F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding the concept of “1) collecting data,
2) recognizing certain data within the collected data set, and 3) storing that
recognized data in a memory” abstract); see also Intellectual Ventures I LLC
v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
(“Intellectual Ventures I”) (concluding that customizing information and
presenting it to users based on particular characteristics is abstract as well).
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that claim 1 is directed to the
abstract idea of manipulating data.
4
Appeal 2017-002682
Application 13/666,801
Having determined that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea, we
must determine whether the additional elements of the claim transforms it
into patent-eligible subject matter. Although claim 1 sets forth limitations
directed to specific data to be collected (e.g., target structure data),
indicating that an algorithm is to be used to manipulate the collected data
(e.g., forming vector image partition gathers and converting those gathers
into one or more angle gathers), and requiring the results of the application
of this algorithm to be applied, these limitations do not specify how the data
collection is accomplished or indicate what use is made of the result
obtained. As such, claim 1, at most, requires only “mathematical algorithms
to manipulate existing information to generate additional information.”
Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351
(Fed. Cir. 2014). Moreover, on this record, we do not find that the claims
are narrowly directed to application of particular rules for achieving an
improved technological result. Cf. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am.
Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Thus, these limitations of claim
1 do not transform the abstract ideas embodied in the claim. Rather, they
simply implement those ideas.
Thus, claim 1, when considered “both individually and ‘as an ordered
combination,’” amounts to nothing more than an attempt to patent the
abstract ideas embodied in the steps of this claim. See Alice, 134 S. Ct.
2347, 2355 (2014) (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1298 (2012)). The
limitations of claim 1 fail to transform the nature of these claims into patent-
eligible subject matter. See id. (citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1297, 1298).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 1 as being
directed to non-statutory subject matter. Further, as Appellants do not
5
Appeal 2017-002682
Application 13/666,801
separately contest the Examiner’s determination that the limitations recited
in independent claim 10 or the dependent claims at issue here are directed to
non-statutory subject matter, we also sustain the Examiner’s decision
rejecting claims 2-11, 13, 15-17, and 22 on this ground.
Claims 18, 21, 23, and 24
Appellants argue claims 18 and 24 together. Appeal Br. 9.
Accordingly, claim 24 stands or falls with claim 18. Further, although
claims 21 and 23 depend from claims 1 and 10, respectively, Appellants
refer to the arguments pertaining to claim 18 in contesting the rejection of
claims 21 and 23. See id. at 11. Accordingly, our determination with
respect to whether 18 is directed to non-statutory subject matter is
dispositive with respect to claims 21 and 23 as well.
Claim 18 is similar to claims 1 and 10, in that it also recites steps
requiring the receipt of data, manipulation and conversion of data, and the
application of data. See Appeal Br. iii (Claims App.). Claim 18 further
includes the step of producing an image of the target structure using the data.
See id. However, this additional step, like the displaying step in Electric
Power Group, is still directed to an abstract idea. See Electric Power Group
LLC v. Alstom S.A, 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Having
determined that claim 18 is directed to an abstract idea, we must determine
whether the additional elements of the claim transforms it into patent-
eligible subject matter. As in Electric Power Group the additional step of
merely creating an image does not transform the abstract idea embodied in
claim 18.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 18,
and claim 24 which falls therewith as being directed to non-statutory subject
6
Appeal 2017-002682
Application 13/666,801
matter. As our decision is also dispositive for claims 21 and 23, we also
sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting these claims on this ground.
Rejection of claims 1—11, 13, 15—18, and 21—24
as Anticipated by Xie
The Examiner finds that Xie discloses each and every limitation of
claims 1,10, and 18. Final Act. 4-6. In particular, the Examiner finds that
Xie discloses “converting, by the system, the one or more VIP gathers into
one or more angle gathers.” Id. at 5 (citing Xie, p. SI69, SI72).
Appellants argue “[tjhere is absolutely nothing in Xie that even
remotely teaches or hints at converting the CRP gathers (which the
Examiner equated with the ‘one or more VIP gathers’ of claim 1) to one or
more angle gathers.” Appeal Br. 17. In support of this contention,
Appellants explain that “[sjince Xie refers to use of CRP gathers and
angle-dependent illumination as alternative techniques, Applicant
respectfully submits that Xie would provide no teaching or hint of the
converting of one or more VIP gathers to one or more angle gathers that is
recited in claim 1.” Id.
Responding to this argument, the Examiner asserts that Figure 1 of the
instant Application illustrates the converting step and compares Figure 1 of
the instant Application to Figure 1 of Xie. See Ans. 6. However, Figure 1
of the instant Application does not illustrate converting VIP gathers into
angle gathers as claimed. See Reply Br. 12. Rather, as Appellants further
note, “Fig. 1 depicts an example that includes a source location s and an
image location x that is in a subsurface formation 104 underneath an earth
7
Appeal 2017-002682
Application 13/666,801
surface 102. The image location x is the location of a seismic trace
representing an element in the subsurface formation 104.” Spec. ^ 34.
Thus, the Examiner’s finding is in error.
For this reason, we do not sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting
claims 1, 10, 18, and claims 2-9, 11, 13, 15-17, and 21-24, which depend
therefrom, as anticipated by Xie.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-11, 13, 15-18, and 21-24 under
35 U.S.C. § 101 is AFFIRMED.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-11, 13, 15-18, and 21-24 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is REVERSED.
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
8