Ex Parte Rentsch et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 26, 2018

12429288 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 26, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/429,288 0412412009
28116 7590 04/30/2018
WestemGeco L.L.C.
10001 Richmond Avenue
IP Administration Center of Excellence
Houston, TX 77042
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Susanne Rentsch
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.
53.0110-US-NP 1718
EXAMINER
SATANOVSKY,ALEXANDER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2857
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/30/2018 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):
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 SUSANNE RENTSCH and
DIRK-JAN VAN MANEN
Appeal2017-008950
Application 12/429,288
Technology Center 2800
Before TERRY J. OWENS, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
DONNA M. PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judges.
OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-24 and 26-29. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Invention
The Appellants claim a seismic exploration method and system.
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method comprising:
receiving seismic data acquired by at least one seismic
sensor, the seismic data being indicative of at least one
observed wavefield quantity associated with at least one
seismic event;
Appeal2017-008950
Application 12/429,288
processing the seismic data on a processor-based
machine to:
determine a candidate event for said at least one
observed wavefield quantity based at least in part on a
ghost model, a source wavelet and a candidate value for
at least one directional attribute quantity of said at least
one seismic event;
correlate the candidate event with said at least one
observed wavefield quantity; and
determine an event time based on a result of the
correlation.
The Rejection
Claims 1-24 and 26-29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
failing to claim patent eligible subject matter.
OPINION
We affirm the rejection.
The Appellants argue claims 1-22 as a group and, for claims 23, 24
and 26-29, rely upon the same argument (App. Br. 8-14). We therefore
limit our discussion to one claim in each group, i.e., claims 1 and 26.
Claims 2-22 stand or fall with claim 1, and claims 23, 24 and 27-29 stand or
fall with claim 26. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012).
"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." 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court stated in
Bilski v. Kappas, 561 U.S. 593, 601 (2010) that "[t]he Court's precedents
provide three specific exceptions to§ 101 's broad patent-eligibility
principles: 'laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas.'
[Diamond v.] Chakrabarty, [ 447 U.S. 303,] 309, 100 S. Ct. 2204 [(1980)]."
2
Appeal2017-008950
Application 12/429,288
Determining whether a claimed invention is patent-eligible subject matter
requires determining whether the claim is directed toward a patent-ineligible
concept and, if so, determining whether the claim's elements, considered
both individually and as an ordered combination, transform the nature of the
claim into a patent-eligible application. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int 'l,
134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014).
Claim 1
Claim 1 's requirement of "receiving seismic data acquired by at least
one seismic sensor, the seismic data being indicative of at least one observed
wavefield quantity associated with at least one seismic event" is a
data-gathering step, and "mere ' [data-gathering] step[ s] cannot make an
otherwise nonstatutory claim statutory."' CyberSource Corp. v. Retail
Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting In re Grams,
888 F.2d 835, 840 (Fed. Cir. 1989)). The claim requirement of "processing
the seismic data on a processor-based machine" is "the mere recitation of a
generic computer [which] cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea
into a patent-eligible invention." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358. The claim step
of processing seismic data to "determine a candidate event for said at least
one observed wavefield quantity based at least in part on a ghost model, a
source wavelet and a candidate value for at least one directional attribute
quantity of said at least one seismic event" encompasses the abstract idea of
generating a synthetic wavefield based at least in part on a ghost model (a
mathematical model which accounts for interference by down-going
pressure waves (Spec. i-fi-125, 33)), a known or estimated source wavelet
(Spec. i132), and a candidate value for at least one seismic event directional
attribute (such as azimuth or incidence angle (Spec. i-fi-127, 36, 39, 40)). The
3
Appeal2017-008950
Application 12/429,288
"correlate the candidate event with said at least one observed wavefield
quantity" and "determine an event time based on a result of the correlation"
claim steps encompass the abstract idea of mathematically determining an
event time (arrival time) based upon a correlation of the determined
wavefield quantity with an observed wavefield quantity (Spec. i-fi-142, 44)).
The Appellants assert that in claim 1 "a result is not merely recited,
but rather this claim recites a specific concrete solution to determine an
event time associated with a seismic event determining a candidate event
time based on a ghost model, source wavelet and candidate value;
correlating the candidate event with observed wavefield quantity(ies); and
determining the event time based on a result of the correlation"
(Reply Br. 3).
The Appellants' claim 1 does not recite a concrete solution but, rather,
recites an abstract idea.
The Appellants assert that "[i]t is entirely unclear how the human
mind can process seismic data, or determine a candidate event from an
observed wavefield based at least in part on a ghost model, a source value
and a candidate event; and it is entirely unclear how the human mind can
correlate a candidate event with observed wavefield quantities, or determine
an event time based on the result of the correlation" (Reply Br. 3).
Even if a computer is needed to perform those tasks, claiming an
abstract idea that requires computer implementation does not transform the
abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358.
The Appellants assert that "the instant claims are clearly directed to an
innovation or improvement to a relevant technology (i.e., an improvement to
4
Appeal2017-008950
Application 12/429,288
reflection seismology) and do not rely on the innovation being the use of a
computer as a tool" (Reply Br. 4 ).
The Appellants' claim 1 does not recite a technique for improving
reflection seismology but, rather, merely recites an abstract idea for using a
processor-based machine to determine an event time based upon a ghost
model, a source wavelet and a directional attribute quantity of at least one
seismic event.
Claim 26
Claim 26 includes requirements similar to those of claim 1 and also
requires constructing, based at least in part on determined directional
attributes including event times, a representation of a seismic wavefield, and
processing the constructed seismic wavefield to determine at least one
property of a geologic structure.
The Appellants assert that "claim 26 expressly ties the processing to
another technology outside of the processor-based machine" (App. Br. 12-
13) and "expressly recites how the innovative method of this claim is tied to
an improvement to seismic measurement processing technology"
(App. Br. 13).
For written descriptive support of the above-stated claim 26
limitations the Appellants rely upon their Specification's paragraph 24
(App. Br. 6). That paragraph and the disclosure to which it refers
(Spec. i-f 65) state that the seismic wavefield representation is processed by a
data processing system (320). Thus, claim 26 merely recites the abstract
idea of using a processing system to construct a representation of a seismic
wavefield and process it to determine at least one property of a geologic
structure.
5
Appeal2017-008950
Application 12/429,288
For the above reasons we are not persuaded of reversible error in the
rejection.
DECISION/ORDER
The rejection of claims 1-24 and 26-29 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
failing to claim patent eligible subject matter is affirmed.
It is ordered that the Examiner's decision 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).
AFFIRMED
6