12870906 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 19, 2016)

Ex Parte Zhang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 19, 2016

12870906 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 19, 2016)

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. 12/870,906 08/30/2010 Yang Zhang MSI-10-03 1790 34010 7590 07/20/2016 RICHARD A. FAGIN P.O. BOX 1247 RICHMOND, TX 77406-1247 EXAMINER HULKA, JAMES R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3645 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/20/2016 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte YANG ZHANG and LEO EISNER ________________ Appeal 2014-006615 Application 12/870,906 Technology Center 3600 ________________ Before LINDA E. HORNER, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and MARK A. GEIER, Administrative Patent Judges. HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from a final rejection of claims 1–16. App. Br. 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The disclosed subject matter “relates generally to the field of passive detection and imaging of subsurface occurring seismic events.” Spec. ¶ 1. Claims 1 and 10 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims on appeal and is reproduced below: Appeal 2014-006615 Application 12/870,906 2 1. A method for determining positions and origin times of seismic events occurring in the Earth’s subsurface, comprising: generating a one dimensional velocity model of the subsurface by recording travel time of seismic energy between the surface and selected depths in a substantially vertical wellbore; accepting as input to the method signals recorded from a plurality of seismic sensors deployed at or above a subsurface volume of interest, the recorded signals being a physical representation of seismic amplitude with respect to time; inverting the signals using non-linear inversion to obtain an origin time of seismic events in the subsurface and to obtain Thomsen’s parameters in formations in the volume of interest; and searching for depths of each of the seismic events by individually searching the depth of each seismic event, the inversion with each incorporated new depth including updating the Thomsen parameters and setting as a limit a minimum value of RMS error. REFERENCES RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER Meek US 2004/0041815 A1 Mar. 4, 2004 Duncan US 2008/0068928 A1 Mar. 20, 2008 Summerfield US 2009/0116336 A1 May 7, 2009 Ludmila Adam, et al., Multi-level 3D VSP travel time inversion in VTI media, Weyburn Field, Canada, 73rd Ann. Internat. Mtg.: Soc. of Exploration Geo. (2003) (hereinafter “Adam”). THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL Claims 1, 4, 5, 8–13, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Duncan, Summerfield, and Adam. Claims 2, 3, 6, 7, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Duncan, Summerfield, Adam, and Meek. Appeal 2014-006615 Application 12/870,906 3 ANALYSIS The rejection of claims 1, 4, 5, 8–13, 15, and 16 as unpatentable over Duncan, Summerfield, and Adam Each independent claim (i.e., claims 1 and 10) includes the limitation, “inverting the signals using non-linear inversion to obtain an origin time of seismic events in the subsurface.”1 Emphasis added. It is not disputed that “Duncan discloses a method for determining origin time.” Reply Br. 2; see also Duncan Abstract and Final Act. 2. However, the Examiner acknowledges, “Duncan does not explicitly teach . . . inverting the signals using non-linear inversion to obtain an origin time.” Final Act. 2. The Examiner relies on Adam for teaching “inverting the signals using non- linear inversion to obtain an origin time.” Final Act. 3 (referencing “p1, Column 1” of Adam). Appellants disagree with this finding by the Examiner stating, “[b]oth the origin times of the subsurface occurring seismic events, and Thomsen’s parameters are determined using non-linear inversion.” App. Br. 8; see also Reply Br. 2. Appellants also contend, “[t]he claimed process includes elements not disclosed in any of the cited references” or their combination. App. Br. 8; see also Reply Br. 3. In response to Appellants’ contentions, the Examiner states that the fact “that Adam does not teach determining origin times of the sources is not relevant, as this is already delineated in Duncan.”2 Ans. 3. As indicated 1 This limitation also recites using this inversion methodology “to obtain Thomsen’s parameters in formations in the volume of interest.” 2 The Examiner continues addressing Adam’s disclosure of signals “used to invert for Thomsen’s parameters,” but the Examiner does not address an inversion method used “to obtain an origin time” as claimed. Ans. 3–4. Appeal 2014-006615 Application 12/870,906 4 supra, Appellants acknowledge, “Duncan discloses a method for determining origin time.” Reply Br. 2. However, the dispute is whether, as per the Examiner’s findings, Adam teaches this inversion method by which “to obtain an origin time,” or whether doing so would have been obvious to one skilled in the art. Adam teaches the following: “Travel times from direct arrivals of compressional sources are used to invert for Thomsen’s parameters for a transversely isotropic with a vertical symmetry axis (VTI) media.” Adam pg. 1, col. 1. Even if one accepts the foregoing as a teaching of the use of an inversion methodology to ascertain a Thomsen’s parameter, such teaching is not facially applicable to the use of an inversion methodology “to obtain an origin time” as the claim requires. Moreover, we do not have explanation from the Examiner as to why the relied upon teaching from Adam would also teach the “to obtain an origin time” limitation. Indeed, Adam is silent as to employing an inversion methodology “to obtain an origin time” as recited.3 Furthermore, and again presuming for the sake of argument, that the cited references to Summerfield and Adam disclose an inversion methodology, they do so for obtaining a velocity model and a location (Summerfield ¶¶ 27, 59) and for obtaining Thomsen’s parameters (Adam pg. 1, col. 1), but not for obtaining an origin time. The Examiner’s stated reason 3 Elsewhere, Adam teaches, “Only the overburden is studied, as the inversions are based on direct travel times to each receiver, and the deepest receiver is just above the reservoir.” Adam, pg. 1, col. 1. Again, there is no indication that, as found by the Examiner, “Adam teaches inverting the signals using non-linear inversion to obtain an origin time.” Final Act. 3. Appeal 2014-006615 Application 12/870,906 5 for combining Duncan, Summerfield, and Adam is equally silent as to any basis that it would have been obvious to employ such methodology “to obtain an origin time of seismic events in the subsurface” as claimed.4 See Final Act. 3. Accordingly, based on the record presented and lacking any articulated reasoning with rational underpinning, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4, 5, 8–13, 15, and 16 as obvious over Duncan, Summerfield, and Adam. Regarding dependent claims 2, 3, 6, 7, and 14, these claims are rejected based on the above three references, and also Meek. Final Act. 4. The Examiner employs Meek for various reasons related to origin times, but not for teaching “inverting the signals using non-linear inversion to obtain an origin time” as recited. Final Act. 4. Accordingly, because Meek does not cure the defect discussed above, we likewise do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 3, 6, 7, and 14. DECISION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–16 are reversed. REVERSED 4 The Examiner’s stated reason for combining the cited art is that it would have been obvious “to modify the method and program of Duncan to include Thomsen parameter inversion and updating, limited by RMS, to improve resolution and minimize travel time differences.” Final Act. 3.