Ex Parte SHAO et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 25, 2018

14397835 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/397,835 10/29/2014
142050 7590 09/27/2018
HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC.
C/0 PARKER JUSTISS, P.C.
14241 DALLAS PARKWAY
SUITE 620
DALLAS, TX 75254
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Wei SHAO
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.
2013-075255 Ul US 4355
EXAMINER
QUIGLEY, KYLE ROBERT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2865
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2018 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):
docket@pj-iplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WEI SHAO and SONGHUA CHEN
Appeal2018-005435
Application 14/397,835
Technology Center 2800
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and
LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges.
WILSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
October 27, 2017 decision finally rejecting claims 1-25 ("Final Act."). We
have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Halliburton Energy
Services, Inc. (Appeal Br. 3).
Appeal2018-005435
Application 14/397,835
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants' invention relates to a method of training a subterranean
formation permeability model based on nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR)
data, a system which can be used to carry out the method, and a non-
transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that are operable
to carry out the steps of training the model (Abstract). Details of the claimed
invention are set forth in representative claims 1 and 9, which are
reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief:
1. A method of training a subterranean formation
permeability model based on nuclear magnetic resonance
(NMR) data, the method comprising:
acquiring NMR measurements associated with at least
one subterranean region using a downhole NMR logging tool;
accessing a plurality of relaxation-time distributions
generated from the NMR measurements;
normalizing the plurality of relaxation-time distributions;
generating multiple sets of principal components from
the normalized relaxation-time distributions by applying a
principle component analysis to the normalized relaxation-time
distributions, each set of principal components representing a
respective one of the normalized relaxation-time distributions;
computing parameters for a plurality of weighted radial
basis functions based on the sets of principal components and
measured permeability values of the at least one subterranean
region; and
producing a subterranean formation permeability model
that includes the weighted radial basis functions and the
computed parameters.
9. A system comprising:
2
Appeal2018-005435
Application 14/397,835
a downhole NMR logging tool adapted to acquire NMR
measurements of at least one subterranean region;
a computing system comprising:
a communication interface operable to receive the
NMR measurements; and
a data processing apparatus operable to perform
operations that include:
generating a plurality of relaxation-time
distributions from the NMR measurements;
normalizing the plurality of relaxation-time
distributions;
generating multiple sets of principal components
from the normalized relaxation-time distributions
by applying a principle component analysis to the
normalized relaxation-time distributions, each set
of principal components representing a respective
one of the relaxation-time distributions;
computing parameters for a plurality of weighted
radial basis functions based on the sets of
principal components and measured permeability
values of the at least one subterranean region; and
producing a subterranean formation permeability
model that includes the weighted radial basis
functions and the computed parameters.
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for being
directed to non-statutory subject matter.
3
Appeal2018-005435
Application 14/397,835
II. Claims 1, 2, 5-12, 15-19, and 22-25 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wu2 in view of Niemeyer. 3
III. Claims 3, 4, 13, 14, 20, and 21 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Wu in view of Niemeyer, and
further in view of Parker. 4
DISCUSSION
Rejection I. Claims 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for
being directed to non-statutory subject matter (Final Act. 2--4). The
Examiner finds that each of the claims is directed to the abstract idea of a
mathematical algorithm for producing/training a subterranean formation
permeability model (Final Act. 2). The Examiner further finds that the
claims do not include:
[a]dditional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more
than the judicial exception because the additional element(s) or
combination of elements in the claim( s) other than the abstract idea per se
amount(s) to no more than: mere instructions to implement the idea on a
computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure that serves to
perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine,
and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry
[The recited computing system, communication interface, data
processing apparatus, and computer readable medium amount to the
recitation of general purpose computer components. The recited NMR
measurement system of Claim 9 does not distinguish the claim from the
recitation of the abstract idea itself because such a system would be
required in order to obtain the information used by the algorithm. The
laboratory NMR system of Claim 11 does not distinguish from the
recitation of the abstract idea itself because, under a reasonably broad
2 Wu et al., US 2012/0065888 Al, published March 15, 2012.
3 Niemeyer et al., US 2009/0125239 Al, published May 14, 2009.
4 Parker et al., US 2002/0146160 Al, published October 10, 2002.
4
Appeal2018-005435
Application 14/397,835
interpretation of that term, a laboratory NMR system would be read on
by a general purpose computer. The recitation of a downhole NMR
logging tool does not distinguish that claim from the recitation of the
abstract idea because the use of such a tool in logging underground NMR
data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional practice [For
example see Paragraph [0060] of Wu et al. (US 2012/0065888 A 1) - ''At
903, NMR measurements are made using a sensor on a wireline or while
drilling." See Paragraph [0046] of Niemeyer (US 2009/0125239 A 1) -
"The drilling assembly 90 makes various measurements including the
pulsed nuclear magnetic resonance measurements while the borehole 26
is being drilled.]. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s)
do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into
a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s)
amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the
claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-
statutory subject matter.
(Final Act. 3--4).
The Supreme Court has long held that "laws of nature, natural
phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable." Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v.
CLS Bankint'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014) (quoting Assoc.for Molecular
Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2107, 2116 (2013)). The
"abstract ideas" category embodies the longstanding rule that an idea, by
itself, is not patentable. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354 (quoting Gottschalkv.
Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)).
In Alice, the Supreme Court reiterated an analytical two-step
framework previously set forth in Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus
Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012), "for distinguishing patents that claim laws
of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim
patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct at
2355. The first step in the analysis is to "determine whether the claims at
issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts," such as an
5
Appeal2018-005435
Application 14/397,835
abstract idea. Id. If the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept,
the second step in the analysis is to consider the elements of the claims
"individually and 'as an ordered combination'" to determine whether there
are additional elements that "'transform the nature of the claim' into a
patent-eligible application." Id. (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. 66 at 79, 78). In
other words, the second step is to "search for an 'inventive concept'-i.e., an
element or combination of elements that is 'sufficient to ensure that the
patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the
[ineligible concept] itself."' Id. (brackets in original) ( quoting Mayo, 566
U.S. 66 at 72-73).
Appellants make three general arguments urging that the § 101
rejections should be reversed: (1) the claims "do not tie up a mathematical
relationship or algorithm" (Appeal Br. 7); (2) the claims as a whole amount
to significantly more than an abstract idea (Appeal Br. 8); (3) the claims
effect a transformation of an article into a different state (Appeal Br. 9)
In this instance, we agree with Appellants that the claims are not
directed to an abstract idea. Instead, the claims are directed to specific
process steps for producing a subterranean formation permeability model
from NMR measurements made using a downhole NMR logging tool. The
claims do not preempt the use of such NMR measurements for producing a
subterranean formation permeability model, but recite a specific series of
steps to solve the problem of creating such a model. See, e.g., McRO, Inc. v.
Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Moreover, as argued by Appellants, the claims are directed to an
improvement in a technical field, in particular the field of well logging and
geophysical applications. Therefore, even if the claims were directed to an
6
Appeal2018-005435
Application 14/397,835
abstract idea ( which we do not determine to be the case), the claims as a
whole would amount to significantly more than simply an abstract idea.
Accordingly, we agree with Appellants that the claims do constitute
patentable subject matter, and reverse the rejection under§ 101.
Rejection II. With regards to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Wu
discloses a system for a method of training a subterranean formation
permeability model based on NMR data (Final Act. 4, citing Wu, ,r 46). The
Examiner further finds that Wu discloses (a) acquiring NMT measurements
associated with at least one subterranean region using a downhole NMR
logging tool, and (b) accessing a plurality of relaxation-time distributions
generated from the NMR measurements (Final Act. 5, citing Wu ,r,r 46, 54,
60). The Examiner further finds that Wu fails to disclose normalizing the
plurality of relaxation-time distributions; or generating multiple sets of
principal components from the normalized relaxation-time distributions by
applying a principle component analysis to the normalized relaxation time
distributions, each set of principal components representing a respective one
of the normalized relaxation-time distributions (Final Act. 5).
The Examiner finds that Niemeyer discloses the use of principal
component analysis on normalized sample data sets to reduce signal space
and reduce noise (Final Act. 5---6, citing Niemeyer, ,r,r 63, 64, 67). Therefore,
according to Examiner, it would have been obvious to use this analysis on
Wu's data sets to reduce signal space and/or reduce noise (Final Act. 6).
The Examiner further finds that the combination of Wu and Niemeyer would
disclose the remaining limitations of claim 1 (Final Act. 6-7).
7
Appeal2018-005435
Application 14/397,835
Appellants argue that the Examiner has not established an adequate
reason to combine the teachings of Wu and Niemeyer (Appeal Br. 13).
Appellants argue that because Wu's input relaxation-time distributions come
from the laboratory core sample measurements, they have much smaller
NMR measurement errors and do not require normalization (Appeal Br.
13-14).
Appellants further argue that the combination of Wu and Niemeyer do
not teach or suggest "computing parameters for a plurality of weighted radial
basis functions based on the sets of principal components and measured
permeability values of the at least one subterranean region" (Appeal Br. 14--
15). The Examiner finds that the parameters of the RBF interpolation of
paragraphs 44--45 of Wu reads on these limitations when performed after
performing normalization and PCA as taught by Niemeyer (Ans. 9-10).
However, Appellants argue that the cited portions of Wu are silent with
respect to using measured permeability values in computing parameters for
radial basis functions (Reply Br. 10-11) .
To establish a prima facie case of obviousness, the Examiner must
show that each and every limitation of the claim is described or suggested by
the prior art or would have been obvious based on the knowledge of those of
ordinary skill in the art or the inferences and creative steps a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have employed. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071,
1074 (Fed. Cir. 1988); KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417
(2007). In the absence of a proper prima facie case of obviousness, an
applicant who complies with the other statutory requirements is entitled to a
patent. In re Roujfet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1998); see also In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). On the record before us, the
8
Appeal2018-005435
Application 14/397,835
Examiner has not adequately shown that the limitation of "computing
parameters for a plurality of weighted radial basis functions based on the
sets of principal components and measured permeability values of the at
least one subterranean region" was taught or suggested by, or otherwise
rendered obvious, over the cited art. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection
of claim 1. Moreover, because these limitations are common to each of the
rejected claims, we reverse the obviousness rejection of each of these claims.
CONCLUSION
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for
being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-12, 15-19, and 22-25
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wu in view ofNiemeyer.
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 3, 4, 13, 14, 20, and 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wu in view of Niemeyer, and
further in view of Parker.
REVERSED
9