Ex Parte Bardainne

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 18, 2018

14188170 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 18, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/188,170 02/24/2014 Thomas Bardainne
11171 7590 12/20/2018
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.
0336-585/100582 1004
EXAMINER
RIVERA VARGAS,MANUELA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2864
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/20/2018 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):
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 THOMAS BARDAINNE
Appeal2018-003075
Application 14/188, 170 1
Technology Center 2800
Before WESLEY B. DERRICK, BRIAND. RANGE, and
JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges.
RANGE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
SUMMARY
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellant is the Applicant, CGG SERVICES SA, which according to the
Appeal Brief, is also the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2018-003075
Application 14/188, 170
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
Appellant describes the invention as relating to seismic analysis, and
in particular, to methods and systems of determining a fault plane of a
microseismic event. Spec. ,r 2. The Specification explains that conventional
methods require additional data collected separately to determine, based on
data collected from a seismic event, which of two planes is a true geological
fault plane. Id. ,r 9. The Specification describes solving this problem based
on data from a plurality of receivers that each collect seismic data from
seismic events. Id. ,r 10. Claims 1 and 10, reproduced below with emphases
added to key recitations, are illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of using passive seismic data, the method
compnsmg:
determining a moment tensor for each of a plurality of
microseismic events using an inversion algorithm on raw data
detected at a plurality of receivers at a tracking site, each of
the moment tensors including two nodal planes;
grouping a subset of the plurality of microseismic events
into a family of microseismic events;
determining whether the family of microseismic events
include a single plane that is common across each of the nodal
planes of the micro seismic events for the moment tensors of the
family of microseismic events;
selecting a solution fault plane for the family of
microseismic events, the solution fault plane being the single
plane; and
outputting information for optimizing a tracking operation
in view of the solution of the fault plane.
2 In this Decision, we refer to the Final Office Action dated February 7, 2017
("Final Act."), the Appeal Brief filed June 27, 2017 ("Appeal Br."), and the
Examiner's Answer dated October 5, 2017 ("Ans.").
2
Appeal2018-003075
Application 14/188, 170
10. A system comprising:
a plurality of receivers placed at a tracking site and
configured to detect microseismic events;
a network communicatively coupled to the plurality of
receivers; and
a computing unit coupled to the plurality of receivers via the
network and comprising a processor unit and a memory unit coupled
to the processing unit, the memory unit including instructions that,
when executed by the processing unit, make the processor to:
receive raw data associated with the microseismic events from
the receivers via the network;
determine a moment tensor for each of the micro seismic events
using an inversion algorithm on the raw data, each of the moment
tensors including two nodal planes;
group a subset of the microseismic events into a family of
microseismic events;
determine whether the family of microseismic events include a
single plane that is common across each of the nodal planes of the
microseismic events for the moment tensors of the family of
microseismic events;
select a solution fault plane for the family of microseismic
events, the solution fault plane being the single plane; and
outputting information related to the solution fault plane to
optimize a tracking operation in view thereof.
Appeal Br. 14, 16-17 (Claims App.).
REJECTION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101
because the claims are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea)
without significantly more is before us on appeal. Final Act. 2.
3
Appeal2018-003075
Application 14/188, 170
ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejects all claims on appeal as unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 101 based upon the claims being directed to abstract ideas
without significantly more. Final Act. 2. The Examiner states, for example,
Claims 1, 10 and 16 are directed to the abstract idea of determining a
moment tensor for each of a plurality of microseismic events;
grouping a subset of the plurality of microseismic events into a family
of microseismic events; determining whether the family of
microseismic events include a single plane that is common across
each of the nodal planes of the micro seismic events for the moment
tensors of the family of microseismic events; and selecting a solution
fault plane for the family of micro seismic events.
Id.
To determine whether an invention claims ineligible subject matter
requires the application of the two-step test first introduced in Mayo
Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 70 (2012) and
further explained in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'!, 573 U.S. 208,
215-17 (2014 ). The first step requires a determination as to whether the
claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept such as an abstract
idea. See Alice, 21 7-18. The second step requires examination of "the
elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an 'inventive
concept' sufficient to 'transform' the claimed abstract idea into a patent-
eligible application." Id. at 220-22 (quoting Mayo 566 U.S. at 71-73, 79-
80).
Here, the second step of the Alice/Mayo test is dispositive. Appellant
argues that "the claimed receivers, network[,] and computing unit form a
system at the fracking site that is not generic and conventional as evidenced
by the absence of any prior art references anticipating it or rendering it
obvious." Appeal Br. 9 ( arguing with respect to claim 1 O); see also Appeal
4
Appeal2018-003075
Application 14/188, 170
Br. 10 (stating that argument above applies to remaining independent claims
1 and 16). The Examiner finds that, for example, the plurality of receivers to
receive data and computer components are conventional (see, e.g., Final Act.
2-3; Ans. 4 ), but the Examiner does not provide evidentiary support for this
assertion.
On the record before us, the Examiner has not provided sufficient
evidence to establish that, for example, the plurality of receivers recited by
each independent claim are well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ("[w]hether
something is well-understood, routine, and conventional to a skilled artisan
at the time of the patent is a factual determination."); see also "Changes in
Examination Procedures Pertaining to Subject Matter Eligibility, Recent
Subject Matter Eligibility Decision (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.)," available at
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/memo-berkheimer-
20180419.PDF (April 19, 2018). We, therefore, are constrained to reverse
the Examiner's rejection.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner's rejections of
claims 1-2 0.
REVERSED
5