Ex Parte Dorn et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 26, 2018

13300949 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 26, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/300,949 11/21/2011 Geoffrey A. Dorn
11171 7590 07/30/2018
Patent Portfolio Builders, PLLC
P.O. Box 7999
Fredericksburg, VA 22404
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
0336-433-CON/99944 6582
EXAMINER
RIVERA VARGAS,MANUELA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2864
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/30/2018 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):
Mailroom@ppblaw.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GEOFFREY A. DORN,
WILLIAM S. HAMMON III, and
JAMES A. CARLSON1
Appeal2017-005714
Application 13/300,9492
Technology Center 2800
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, MONTE T. SQUIRE, and
MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of
claims 1 and 157-175. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
Appellants' invention relates generally to computer-aided, semi-
automatic and automatic interpretation of depositional systems. (Spec. Jr 2).
Claim 1 illustrates the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced from the
Claims Appendix to the principal Brief.
1 These are the names of the identified inventors of the appealed application.
2 According to the Appeal Brief, the real party in interest is CGG JASON
(NETHERLANDS) B.V. (See App. Br. 2).
Appeal2017-005714
Application 13/300,949
1. A method for assisting with identifying a structure within
a volume, the method comprising:
performing a structural interpretation of a three-
dimensional seismic volume to obtain an interpreted structure;
transforming, by one or more computers and using a
three-dimensional transformation, the three-dimensional
seismic volume and the interpreted structure into a stratal-slice
volume;
performing a stratigraphic interpretation, the stratigraphic
interpretation comprising:
calculating at least one stratigraphic attribute
volume in the stratal-slice volume;
imaging a three-dimensional element of a
depositional system using the at least one stratigraphic
attribute volume; and
imaging a connected, closed bounding surface that
entirely surrounds the three-dimensional element of the
depositional system; and
transforming both the at least one stratigraphic attribute
volume and the bounding surface into the spatial domain.
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner maintains the following rejections:
I. Claims 1 and 157-175 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for being
directed to non-statutory subject matter. (Final Act. 2).
II. Claims 1 and 157-166 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Crawford (US 5,987,388, issued Nov. 16, 1999 (Crawford).
(Final Act. 3-5).
III. Claims 161 and 171 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over the combination of Crawford and Strata! Slicing, Part II: Real 3-D
Seismic Data, 63 Geophysics 514 (1998) (Zeng). (Final Act. 5---6).
2
Appeal2017-005714
Application 13/300,949
OPINION
We have reviewed Appellants' arguments in the Brief, the Examiner's
rejections, and the Examiner's response to Appellants' arguments.
Appellants' arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner's
determination that the claims recite non-statutory subject matter.
Rejection 13
The Supreme Court reiterated the framework set out in Mayo
Collaborative Services, v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S.Ct. 1289 (2012),
for "distinguishing patents that claim ... abstract ideas from those that claim
patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., v. CLS
Bank International, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014). Assuming that a claim
nominally falls within one of the statutory categories of machine,
manufacture, process, or composition of matter, the first step in the analysis
is to determine if the claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural
phenomenon, or an abstract idea (judicial exceptions). If so, the second step
is to determine whether any element or combination of elements in the claim
is sufficient to transform the nature of the claim into a patent eligible
application, that is, to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more
than the judicial exception.
3 Appellants present arguments for independent claim 1. (App. Br. 4--21 ).
Appellants do not present separate substantive arguments that sufficiently
address independent claim 166 or dependent claims 157-165 and 167-175.
(See generally App. Br.). Our analysis applies to all the independent claims
and we limit our discussion to independent claim 1, which we select as
representative of the rejected claims.
3
Appeal2017-005714
Application 13/300,949
Appellants argue the Examiner has not provided sufficient showing
that the claimed invention is similar to at least one concept recognized in
the case law as an abstract idea and therefore has not met the burden of
establishing that the claims are ineligible subject matter and. (App Br. 6-
11 ).
Appellants' arguments are not persuasive of reversible error in the
Examiner's rejection because the initial arguments presented in the principal
Brief, are premised on the guidance provided in the May 4, 2016
Memorandum to the Examining Corps, which was issued after the February
24, 2016 Final Action from which this appeal arises.
Appellants argue a proper analysis, under the Alice/ Mayo analysis,
and of the claimed invention shows that the claimed invention is not directed
to a judicial exception and even if taken as directed to a judicial exception
amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. (App Br.
12-21).
Appellants argue the claimed invention meets the first prong of the
Alice/ Mayo analysis because the claimed invention recites specific elements
that are used to generate improved stratigraphic features and provide
improved recognition and interpretation of depositional features. Appellants
specifically argue
The method of claim 1 identifies and interprets depositional
environments, depositional systems and elements of depositional
systems from 3-D seismic volumes such that noise in the seismic
volume after acquisition and seismic processing is removed or
minimized at each step in the work flow. (App Br. 15).
Appellants conclude the claimed invention recites specific elements
that are used to generate improved stratigraphic features and provide
4
Appeal2017-005714
Application 13/300,949
improved recognition and interpretation of depositional features. (App Br.
17).
The Examiner finds that claim 1 is directed to a method for assisting
with identifying a structure within a volume comprising performing
structural or stratigraphic interpretation, calculating a volume and
transforming data into a stratal-slice volume, are the same as basic
mathematical calculation functions routinely provided by a general purpose
computer. (Final Act. 2; Ans. 3--4). The Examiner further determines the
additional element of imaging a three-dimensional element as required by
the claimed invention is an insignificant extra solution activity using
conventional equipment. (Final Act. 6). As such, the Examiner determines
the claimed invention does not include additional elements that are sufficient
to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Specifically, the
Examiner finds the claimed invention does not go beyond collecting data
and performing analysis using abstract ideas on a processor. (Final Act. 7;
Ans. 3).
We concur with the Examiner that independent claim 1 is directed to
data collection and implementation of abstract ideas on a processor. The
Federal Circuit has explained that, in determining whether claims are patent-
eligible under Section 101, "the decisional mechanism courts now apply is
to examine earlier cases in which a similar or parallel descriptive nature can
be seen-what prior cases were about, and which way they were decided."
Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288, 1294 (Fed.
Cir. 2016). The Federal Circuit also noted in that decision that "examiners
are to continue to determine if the claim recites (i.e., sets forth or describes)
a concept that is similar to concepts previously found abstract by the courts."
5
Appeal2017-005714
Application 13/300,949
Amdocs, 841 F.3d at 1294 n.2 (citation omitted). Our reviewing court has
said that "merely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting
and analyzing information, without more (such as identifying a particular
tool for presentation) is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and
analysis." Elec. Power Grp. LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54
(Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims reciting the combination of the abstract-idea
processes of gathering and analyzing information of a specified content and
then displaying the results, without any particular assertedly inventive
technology for performing those functions, are directed to an abstract idea);
id. at 1354 (treating "analyzing information by steps people go through in
their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially
mental processes within the abstract-idea category.").
Claim 1 recites: interpreting data (three-dimensional seismic data to
obtain an interpreted structure), transforming the interpreted structure
(utilizing a computer to create the stratal-slice volume), performing
stratigraphic interpretation comprising: calculating at least one stratigraphic
attribute volume; utilizing the stratigraphic attribute volume to image a
three-dimensional element of the depositional system; and transforming both
at least one stratigraphic attribute volume and the bounding surface into the
spatial domain. We consider claim 1 to be directed to an abstract concept of
collecting and analyzing data similar to that held to be abstract in Elect.
Power Grp.
While Appellants argue the claimed invention improves the
monitoring and seismic imaging of actual target subsurface formations and
is more than merely transforming seismic data from one form to another.
6
Appeal2017-005714
Application 13/300,949
(App. Br. 15-17), the language of the independent claim 1 does not recite
any step of identifying the actual location of a structure within a volume.
With respect to the second step of the Alice analysis, Appellants argue
the claimed invention is an improvement in the field of seismic imaging and
identifying stratigraphic features, providing improved recognition and
interpretation of depositional features. (App. Br. 17). As such, Appellants
assert the limitations are directed to significantly more than an abstract
concept. (App. Br. 17-18). Appellants argue that their invention improves
the technology and can be analogized to the Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175
(1981) and Research Corporation Technologies Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 627
F.3d 859 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (App. Br. 18-19).
The Examiner finds that claim 1 does not recite significantly more
than the abstract concept as the system does not go beyond collecting data
and performing analysis using abstract ideas on a processor. (Final Act. 2,
6-7; Ans. 4--5).
We concur with the Examiner, and we do not find that the claim
recites significantly more than the abstract concept. Appellants' arguments
do not direct us to any element or combination of elements in the claim
sufficient to transform the nature of the claim into a patent eligible
application, that is, to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more
than the judicial exception. Instead, Appellants argue the claimed invention
represents an improvement in the field of seismic imaging and identifying
stratigraphic features, providing improved recognition and interpretation of
depositional features. However, a patent-ineligible abstract idea is not
transformed into a patent-eligible invention by "limit[ing] the use of [an
abstract idea] 'to a particular technological environment."' Alice, 134 S. Ct.
7
Appeal2017-005714
Application 13/300,949
at 2358, quoting Bilski v. Kappas, 561 U.S. 593, 610-11 (2010). As
discussed above, this is just a method of gathering and manipulating data.
Appellants do not identify nor adequately explain what additional features
amount to significantly more than a patent upon the ineligible concept itself.
While Appellants argue that the claim does not preempt subject matter
by attempting to patent any specific mathematical relationships or formulas,
nor does it attempt to patent any general ones (App. Br. 20-21 ), the
Examiner determined the claims are primarily directed to abstract ideas, with
the remaining additional elements directed to a conventional data collection
activity and usage of a generic processor. (Ans. 5). Appellants
acknowledge that the claimed invention is directed to a method of
performing a structural interpretation of a three-dimensional seismic volume,
manipulating, transforming, and interpreting the structural interpretation.
(App. Br. 20). However, Appellants do not adequately explain why the
claimed invention does not preempt any specific mathematical relationships
or formulas, or any general ones.
For the reasons stated above, and the reasons presented by the
Examiner, we do not consider the independent claims to recite significantly
more to transform the abstract idea to patent-eligible subject matter and we
sustain the rejections of claims 1, 157-175 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Re} ections 114
We have reviewed each of Appellants' arguments for patentability.
However, we are in complete agreement with the Examiner's reasoned
4 Appellants present arguments for independent claims 1. (App. Br. 21-29).
Appellants do not present separate substantive arguments that sufficiently
8
Appeal2017-005714
Application 13/300,949
analysis and application of the prior art, as well as the Examiner's cogent
and thorough disposition of the arguments raised by Appellants.
Accordingly, we will adopt the Examiner's reasoning as our own in
sustaining the rejections of record, and we add the following for emphasis
only.
Appellants argue Crawford does not disclose or teach any type of
domain transformation that creates a stratal-slice volume as recited in the
claimed invention. (App. Br. 25). Appellants argue Crawford also fails to
provide any teaching or disclosure regarding these steps performed in the
stratal-slice volume. (App. Br. 23).
We agree with the Examiner that Crawford discloses the domain
transformation of enhanced 3D seismic volume into individual lateral slices
(i.e. stratal slices). (See abstract). Further, Appellants are not claiming a
domain transformation that creates a stratal slice but a transformation of a
3D image of the seismic volume into a stratal slice volume (see second
limitation in claim 1 ). Appellants have not disputed the Examiner's
determination that Crawford discloses a system that calculates a line
enhanced value pixel of interest which is analogous to a stratigraphic
attribute volume in the stratal-slice volume. (Ans. 5; Crawford col. 9 11. 7-
48).
Appellants argue the Examiner's determination that Crawford's lateral
slices are the same as the stratal-slice volume of the claimed invention
address independent claim 166 or dependent claims 157-165 and 167-175.
(See generally App. Br.). Our analysis applies to all the independent claims
and we limit our discussion to independent claim 1 which we select as
representative of the rejected claims.
9
Appeal2017-005714
Application 13/300,949
(resulting from domain transformation applied to seismic data) is inaccurate.
The Examiner determined that Crawford describes stratigraphic data is the
spatial domain because the spatial domain is a normal image space in which
a change in position in the image directly projects to a change in position in
a scene. (Ans. 7; Crawford col. 7 11. 25-32). Appellants have not disputed
the Examiner's determination.
Rejection III
Appellants repeat the arguments that Crawford fails to disclose or
teach many of the elements of the claimed invention and therefore the
Examiner has misapplied Crawford to the claimed invention. (App. Br. 27-
28). Appellants argue Zeng does not disclose or teach stratigraphic
interpretation that includes calculating at least one stratigraphic attribute
volume in the stratal-slice volume, imaging a three-dimensional element of a
depositional system using the at least one stratigraphic attribute volume and
imaging a connected, closed bounding surface that entirely surrounds the
three-dimensional element of the depositional system. (App. Br. 27-28).
We have reviewed each of Appellants' arguments for patentability.
However, we are in complete agreement with the Examiner's reasoned
analysis and application of the prior art.
The Examiner determined Crawford fails to disclose the transforming
of both, at least one stratigraphic attribute volume and the bounding surfaces
into the spatial domain is an inverse transformation. The Examiner cited
Zeng for describing the transforming at least one stratigraphic attribute
volume and a bounding surfaces into the spatial domain is an inverse
transformation (see fig. 3 and page 518). The Examiner determined it
10
Appeal2017-005714
Application 13/300,949
would have been obvious to modify Crawford's invention to have the
transformation to be an inverse transformation. Appellants have not
disputed the Examiner's determination regarding Zeng.
ORDER
The rejection of claims 1 and 157-175 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is
affirmed.
The prior art rejections of claims 1 and 15 7-16 6 and claims 161 and
171 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103(a) are affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136.
AFFIRMED
11