Ex Parte KITCHENSIDE et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 18, 2018

13932800 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 18, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/932,800 07/01/2013
28116 7590 07/20/2018
WestemGeco L.L.C.
10001 Richmond Avenue
IP Administration Center of Excellence
Houston, TX 77042
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
PHILIP W. KITCHENSIDE
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.
ISl 1.0384-US-NP 6615
EXAMINER
ARMSTRONG, JONATHAN D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3645
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/20/2018 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):
USDocketing@slb.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 PHILIP W. KITCHENSIDE
and PHILLIPPE CAPRIOLI 1
Appeal2017-009607
Application 13/932,800
Technology Center 3600
Before EDWARD A. BROWN, JAMES P. CALVE, and
JILL D. HILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
CAL VE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Office
Action rejecting claims 1, 2, 5-17, and 19. Br. 1. Claims 3, 4, and 18 are
cancelled. Id. at 21-24 (Claims App'x). We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Schlumberger Technology Corporation is identified as the real party in
interest. Br. 4.
Appeal2017-009607
Application 13/932,800
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 17, and 19 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A method for deghosting marine seismic data,
compnsmg:
providing marine seismic data obtained by a seismic
streamer comprising a plurality of detectors, the marine seismic
data having a total acoustic wavefield that includes an upgoing
acoustic wavefield and a downgoing acoustic wavefield;
obtaining wave-height measurements at detector locations;
performing, using a processor, a deghosting operation to
determine a part of the total acoustic wavefield corresponding to
one of the up going acoustic wavefield and the downgoing
acoustic wavefield, wherein performing the deghosting operation
comprises accounting for a varying vertical distance between a
detector of the seismic streamer and a sea surface represented by
the wave-height measurements, wherein the varying vertical
distance is time variant, spatially variant, or both;
identifying, using the processor, one of the up going and
downgoing acoustic wavefields in the total acoustic wavefield
based on a result of the de ghosting operation;
removing, using the processor, the downgoing acoustic
wavefield from the total acoustic wavefield; and
showing a wavefield comprising the upgoing acoustic
wavefield.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 5-17, and 19 are rejected as being directed to patent-
ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8-14, 16, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Ali Ozbek, Crossline wavefield reconstruction
from multicomponent streamer data: Part I-Multichannel interpolation by
matching pursuit (MIMAP) using pressure and its cross line gradient and
Part 2-Joint interpolation and 3D up/down separation by generalized
2
Appeal2017-009607
Application 13/932,800
matching pursuit, Geophysics, Vol. 75, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 2010 and Ed
Kragh, Rough-sea deg hosting using wave heights derived from low-
frequency pressure recordings-A case study, SEG Int'l Exposition and 74th
Annual Meeting, Oct. 10-15, 2004.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Ozbek, Kragh, and Johan 0. A. Robertsson, Rough-sea deghosting using a
single streamer and a pressure gradient approximation, Geophysics, Vol.
67, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 2002, p. 2005).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Ozbek, Kragh, Robertsson, and Moldoveanu, Broadband Seismic Methods
for Towed-streamer Acquisition, 74th EAGE Conference incorporating SPE
EUROPEC 2012, Copenhagen, Denmark, June 4--7, 2012.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, 5-17, and 19
As Directed To Patent-Ineligible Subject Matter
Appellants argue claims 1, 2, 5-17, and 19 as a group. See Br. 10-15.
We select claim 1 as representative, with claims 2, 5-17, and 19 standing or
falling with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). The Examiner finds that
claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea of obtaining marine seismic data, and
processing that data by (1) performing de ghosting operations, (2) identifying
upgoing and downgoing acoustic wavefields, and (3) removing downgoing
acoustic wavefield data from the total acoustic wavefield using an algorithm.
Final Act. 2-3; Ans. 3. The Examiner finds that claim 1 does not recite any
improvement in computer technology but merely uses computers to perform
known signal/image processing. Final Act. 3--4, 10. The Examiner also
finds that the claimed method does not improve seismic imaging. Ans. 3.
3
Appeal2017-009607
Application 13/932,800
Appellants argue that the claims are directed to an improved seismic
survey technology that "expressly results in an improved seismic image (the
wavefield) being shown." Appeal Br. 11. In particular, Appellants argue
that prior art techniques assume the sea is flat, but the claims are directed to
a specific technique that improves seismic survey technology for deghosting
marine seismic data in the presence of rough seas by measuring wave height
and therefore "the claims represent a software improvement, i.e., a specific
solution to a software problem." Id. at 12, 14. In this regard, Appellants
argue that the "specification provides clear evidence that the described and
claimed invention is superior to the prior art and addresses an identified
problem." Id. at 13.
We analyze patent-eligibility of claim 1, as did the Examiner, under
the two-step framework of Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int 'l, 134 S. Ct.
2347, 2355 (2014) and Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs.,
Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012). First, we consider whether claim 1 is directed
to a patent-ineligible concept such as a law of nature, natural phenomena, or
an abstract idea. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. If claim 1 is directed to a patent-
ineligible concept, then we proceed in step two to consider the elements of
claim 1 individually and as an ordered combination to determine whether
any additional elements exist to transform the claim into a patent-eligible
application. Id. This search for an "inventive concept" in the second step of
the Alice/Mayo two-step analysis involves a search for an element or a
combination of elements that is/are "sufficient to ensure that the patent in
practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible
concept] itself." Id. (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294).
4
Appeal2017-009607
Application 13/932,800
Alice Step One
We agree with the Examiner that claim 1 is directed to an abstract
idea of collecting information in the form of marine seismic data and wave
height measurements at seismic streamer detector locations, analyzing the
information by performing "deghosting operations" that account for varying
vertical distances between a detector and a sea surface "represented by the
wave-height measurement," to identify and remove "the downgoing acoustic
wavefield from the total acoustic wavefield," and displaying certain results
in the form of "a wavefield comprising the up going acoustic wavefield."
Br. 21 ( Claims App 'x ). Collecting information, even when it is limited to a
particular content, is an abstract idea, as is analyzing such information by
steps people go through in their minds as mental processes, and presenting
the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information is an
abstract, ancillary part of the collection and analysis. Elec. Power Grp., LLC
v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54 (Fed. Cir. 2016); TDE Petroleum
Data Solutions, Inc. v. AKM Enter., Inc., 657 F. App'x 991, 993 (Fed. Cir.
2016) (non-precedential), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 1230 (2017) (claim 1 is
directed to an abstract idea as it recites operations performed by any general-
purpose computer for the sort of data gathering and processing claim that is
an abstract idea under step one of Alice, i.e., by storing well operation states
and receiving mechanical and hydraulic data for a well operation to select an
operation state); Coffelt v. NVIDIA Corp., 680 F. App'x 1010, 1011 (Fed.
Cir. 2017) (non-precedential), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 2143 (2017) (claims
were directed to abstract idea of calculating and comparing steradian regions
in space by analyzing information in steps people go through in their minds
or by mathematical algorithms as mental processes).
5
Appeal2017-009607
Application 13/932,800
Appellants disclose the use of acoustic wave propagation with marine
seismic data studies to determine the total wave field and then the up-going
pressure wave field is determined by partially or wholly removing the down-
going wavefields that are reflected by the sea surface. Spec. ,r 20. The ghost
reflections result from up-going waves that are reflected downwardly at the
sea surface and interfere with other up-going waves at a detector location to
create gaps in the recorded signal, thereby reducing the useful bandwidth of
the seismic data. Id. ,r 2. Appellants deghost (i.e., remove) the down-going
reflected waves using a generalized matching pursuit ( GMP) approach that
incorporates "a rough-sea ghost model" to account for the varying distance
between detectors of a streamer and the sea surface. Id. ,r 20. Appellants
also disclose a variety of mathematical formulas that are used to perform the
deghosting steps. Id. ,r,r 26, 27, 29, 31, 33, 38, 39.
There is no disclosure that the GMP approach or the mathematical
formulas are innovative or anything other than mathematical formulas that
can be performed as mental processes. Even if any formulas represent an
improvement in software, as Appellants allege, claim 1 does not recite any
of their particulars. Instead, claim 1 recites "providing marine seismic data,"
"obtaining wave-height measurements," "performing, using a processor, a
deghosting operation," and "removing a downgoing acoustic wavefield."
Unlike the claims in Diamond v. Diehr, in which Arrhenius' equation
was used in an industrial process for curing rubber to change the state of the
article and provide a more efficient solution, claim 1 recites general data
gathering and analysis steps at a high level of generality to indicate claim 1
is directed to an abstract idea of data processing using unspecified math
formulas. See Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188, 191-94 (1981).
6
Appeal2017-009607
Application 13/932,800
Nor does Enfish v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
support Appellants' argument that claim 1 in this case recites patent-eligible
subject matter. See Br. 10-11. In Enfish, the claims were directed to, and
also recited, elements of an improved self-referential or logical table for a
computer database. Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1336-37. The claimed self-
referential table functioned differently than conventional database structures
and achieved benefits over conventional databases of increased flexibility,
faster search times, and smaller memory requirements. Id. at 13 3 7.
As the Examiner points out, Appellants do not describe any similar
improvements in a database or other computer operation or process in the
manner of Enfzsh. There is no indication that claim 1 recites a process that is
more accurate, efficient, or faster than conventional deghosting operations.
Final Act. 3; Ans. 3. Instead, as Appellants admit (see Br. 11-13), claim 1
collects additional information indicative of wave-heights and uses that data
in a known deghosting calculation process. At best, claim 1 is directed to an
abstract idea of deghosting data processing using wave height data. See
Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir.
2016) ("But a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.").
Nor does Research Corp. Techs. Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859
(Fed. Cir. 2010) require a different result. There, the claims recited methods
for halftoning gray scale images using a pixel-by-pixel comparison of the
image against a blue noise mask to produce dot profiles thresholded at any
level of gray scale images. Research Corp., 627 F.3d at 865. The claims
thus recited functional, palpable improvements in computer technology for
halftoning. Id. at 868---69. Here, claim 1 recites "accounting for a varying
vertical distance" rather than computer improvements for deghosting.
7
Appeal2017-009607
Application 13/932,800
Alice Step Two
The abstract nature of the claimed method becomes more apparent
under step two of Alice as we search for an inventive concept or element to
elevate the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application beyond merely
reciting the abstract idea in a particular environment with generic computers
that perform well-known data-manipulation functions of such computers.
Appellants argue that the claims recite more than an abstract idea and
are analogous to the digital image processing claims that were held patent-
eligible in Research Corporation because "the mathematical operation, part
of the de ghosting operation, is linked to the processor's ability to process
electronic signals" [ and] adds substantially more than simply performing the
de ghosting operation, because the ghost signals are received as part of the
acquired signal, identified, and then removed, as recited in the claim." Br.
14. Appellants also argue that the claims "recite concrete process steps to
process real-world data with a physical goal in mind" versus a mere concept
of calculating data on a computer. Id. at 15.
The claims in Research Corp. recited a physical array "thresholded at
a number of levels produces a number of dot profiles" and "substantially all
of said number of dot profiles have a power spectrum characteristic of a blue
noise power spectrum for the level at which the dot profile is produced" and
a "halftoning mask is designed to produce substantially all visually pleasing
dot profiles when thresholded at a number of levels." Research Corp., 627
F .3d at 871. Here, claim 1 recites a processor as a mere tool that implements
an abstract idea. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (reciting the use of a generic
computer in a particular environment cannot make an abstract idea patent-
eligible ); Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1354--55 (same).
8
Appeal2017-009607
Application 13/932,800
Thus, Appellants implement their process on computing system 1 OOA
(Fig. 7) such as individual computer system 101 A or a distributed system.
Spec. ,r 43. Computer system 101A has one or more analysis modules 102
configured to perform tasks on one or more processors 104 connected to
storage media 106A. Id. The processor may include a microprocessor,
microcontroller, processor module or subsystem, or a programmable
integrated circuit, programmable gate array or other control or computing
device. Id. 1144. Storage media 106A can be a computer or a machine-
readable storage media. Id. 1144. Appellants do not disclose or claim any
innovative computer architecture or functions for the deghosting process to
elevate claim 1 above an abstract idea. If innovation exists in this process, it
is not claimed. Instead, claim 1 accounts for varying vertical distances of a
detector relative to a sea surface during deghosting with no apparent change
in the images produced. 2 See Br. 15; Final Act. 10; Spec. Figs. 2, 3.
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-17, and 19.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8-14, 16, 17, and 19
Rejected Over Ozbek and Kragh
Regarding claim 1, which we select as representative based on
Appellants' argument of the claims as a group (Br. 15-18), the Examiner
relies on Ozbek to teach all of the claimed steps to include a de ghosting
operation, except for the use of wave height measurements at the detector
locations. Final Act. 4---6. The Examiner relies on Kragh to teach this step
and determines it would have been obvious to include this step on Ozbek to
compensate for rough seas, as Kragh teaches. Id. at 6, 10--11.
2 As discussed in the prior art rejections in the next section, the abstract idea
of using a rough sea model of different wave heights was known in the prior
art and was implemented using streamer detectors as Appellants disclose.
9
Appeal2017-009607
Application 13/932,800
Appellants argue first that Ozbek considers only flat sea conditions
and does not account for varying vertical distance between a detector of a
streamer and a sea surface as claimed. Br. 15-17. This argument is not
persuasive because the Examiner relies on Kragh, not Ozbek, to teach this
feature as discussed above.
Appellants argue second that Kragh estimates wave heights rather
than measure wave heights as claimed. Id. at 18. This argument is not
persuasive because, as the Examiner correctly finds, Kragh determines wave
height for rough sea conditions in the exact manner as Appellants disclose.
Final Act. 10-11; Ans. 4--5. Kragh calculates wave heights for deghosting a
single towed streamer to compensate for rough sea responses by using the
seismic streamer detectors to record very low frequencies of pressure below
0.5 Hz. Kragh, p. 1. Appellants "measure" wave height in the very same
way by acquiring ultra-low frequency pressure data at each detector location
"from which the [wave] heights may be derived." Spec. ,r 23 ( emphasis
added). Thus, Appellants do not disclose measuring wave height directly.
Rather, like Kragh, they measure very low frequencies of pressure at
streamer detectors and use that data to "derive" wave heights.
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-17, and 19.
Claim 7
Rejected Over Ozbek, Kragh, and Robertsson
Appellants argue that claim 7 is allowable because it depends from
claim 6, which is allowable for the reasons presented above for the previous
rejection. Br. 18. Because we sustain the rejection of claim 6, this argument
is not persuasive, and we also sustain the rejection of claim 7.
10
Appeal2017-009607
Application 13/932,800
Claim 15
Rejected Over Ozbek, Kragh, Robertsson, and Moldoveanu
Appellants argue that claim 15 is allowable because it depends from
claim 1, which is allowable for the reasons presented above. See Br. 18.
Because we sustain the rejection of claim 1, this argument is not persuasive
and we also sustain the rejection of claim 15.
DECISION
We affirm the rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-17, and 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.
We affirm the prior art rejections of claims 1, 2, 5-1 7, and 19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
11