Ex Parte Hegna et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 12, 2017

12806098 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 12, 2017)

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.
12/806,098 08/05/2010 STIAN HEGNA PGS-10-08US 7791
137491 7590 04/14/2017
OLYMPIC PATENT WORKS PLLC
P.O. BOX 4277
SEATTLE, WA 98104
EXAMINER
HULKA, JAMES R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3645
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/14/2017 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):
joanne@olympicpatentworks.com
docketing@pgs.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STIAN HEGNA and GREGORY ERNEST PARKES
Appeal 2015-006208
Application 12/806,098
Technology Center 3600
Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, LISA M. GUIJT, and
BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Stian Hegna and Gregory Ernest Parkes (Appellants) appeal under 35
U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2015-006208
Application 12/806,098
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method for determining a deghosted marine seismic
energy source wavefield from signal recordings of seismic data
acquired by actuating a first seismic source at a first time and one
or more additional seismic sources at their own characteristic
times with respect to an index time of the signal recordings, the
sources substantially collocated and disposed at different depths
in a body of water, comprising:
determining from the signal recordings a first wavefield
that would occur if the first source were actuated at a selected
time with respect to an initiation time of the signal recordings,
the first wavefield being time adjusted with respect to the
depth in the water of the first source;
determining from the signal recordings one or more
additional wavefields that would occur if the one or more
additional sources were each actuated at said selected time
with respect to said initiation time of the signal recordings,
the one or more additional wavefields being time adjusted
with respect to the depths in the water of the one or more
additional sources; and
combining the first wavefield with the one or more
additional wavefields to determine a deghosted wavefield
corresponding to actuation of a single seismic source.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Grion
Krohn
Robertsson
Dragoset
US 2006/0227660 A1
US 2006/0250891 A1
US 2009/0097357 A1
US 2009/0245022 A1
Oct. 12, 2006
Nov. 9, 2006
Apr. 16, 2009
Oct. 1, 2009
B. J. Posthumus, Deghosting Using a Twin Streamer Configuration,
Geophysical Prospecting 41, pp. 267—286 (1993) (hereinafter “Posthumus”).
2
Appeal 2015-006208
Application 12/806,098
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1—20 stand rejected under 35U.S.C. § 101 as being
directed to non-statutory subject matter.
II. Claims 1—4, 6, 8, 11—15, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Robertsson and Grion.
III. Claims 7 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Robertsson, Grion, and Dragoset.
IV. Claims 5 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Robertsson, Grion, and Krohn.
V. Claims 9 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Robertsson, Grion, and Posthumus.
VI. Claims 10 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Robertsson, Grion, Krohn, and Posthumus.
DISCUSSION
Rejection I
The Examiner determines that claims 1—20 are directed to non-
statutory subject matter. See Non-Final Act. 2. In support of this
determination the Examiner finds that:
The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea of applying a
mathematical formula to one or more algorithms or functions.
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.
Any active transformation of energy from electrical to acoustic
or acoustic into electrical appears to be extraneous to the
invention.
Id.
3
Appeal 2015-006208
Application 12/806,098
Appellants contend that the Examiner has not properly applied the test
for statutory subject matter set forth in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank
Int’l., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014) because the Examiner does not
separately discuss the first and second steps. See Appeal Br. 5—8. However,
as discussed infra, the rejection addresses both steps. Accordingly,
Appellants do not apprise us of error.
The Supreme Court has set forth “a framework for distinguishing
patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas
from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts.” Alice,
134 S. Ct. at 2355 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs,
Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1294 (2012). According to the Supreme Court’s
framework, we must first determine whether the claims at issue are directed
to one of those concepts (i.e., laws of nature, natural phenomena, and
abstract ideas). Id. If so, we must secondly “consider the elements of each
claim both individually and ‘as an ordered combination’ to determine
whether the additional elements ‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a
patent-eligible application.” Id. The Supreme Court characterizes the
second step of the analysis as “a 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.
As noted supra, the Examiner finds that the claims at issue are
directed to the abstract idea of “applying a mathematical formula to one or
more algorithms or functions.” Non-Final Act. 2. This finding fulfills the
first step of the Alice framework in that the Examiner has determined that
the claims are directed to an abstract idea. See id. Next, the Examiner
considered the elements of the claim both individually and in combination
4
Appeal 2015-006208
Application 12/806,098
and determined that the claims do not amount to significantly more than a
patent upon the abstract idea of applying a mathematical formula to one or
more algorithms or functions. See id. In support of this determination, the
Examiner noted that the elements in the claims other than the
implementation of the instructions set forth therein “appear[] to be
extraneous to the invention.” Id. We agree. The claims merely set forth
instructions for collecting and comparing data. See, e.g., Clm. 1. Thus, the
Examiner has properly applied the second step of the Alice framework. See
Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A, 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54 (Fed.
Cir. 2016) (explaining that an invention directed to the collection,
manipulation, and display of data was an abstract process).
Appellants further argue that “[c]laims 1—20 are rooted in modem
seismology in which actual responses of the earth’s interior to seismic
impulses generated by seismic sources are digitally recorded as seismic
data.” Appeal Br. 8. However, such recordation of data is merely the
collection of data, which in the context of the instant invention amounts to
no more than the implementation of an abstract idea. The rejection is not
based on the fact that mathematical formulas are employed. Rather, as
discussed supra, the basis of the rejection is that such formulas are only used
to compare and display data.
In addition, Appellants argue that “claims 1 and 11 do not recite
generic processes of inputting signal recordings of seismic data acquired by
actuating a seismic source, removing the source wavefield from the seismic
data, and outputting a source deghosted wavefield associated with the
seismic source. Instead, claims 1-20 describe specific elements and
limitations.” Appeal Br. 9; see also Reply Br. 2. However, the fact that the
5
Appeal 2015-006208
Application 12/806,098
data manipulated is specific does not transform the data into patent eligible
subject matter.
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims
1—20 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Rejection II
Regarding independent claims 1 and 11, the Examiner finds, inter
alia, that Robertsson discloses “determining from the signal recordings a
first wavefield that would occur if the first source were actuated at a selected
time with respect to an initiation time of recording seismic signals.” Non-
Final Act. 3 (citing Robertsson | 81). Appellants contend that:
Robertsson does not teach or suggest determining a wavefield in
a signal recording based on the selected time with respect to an
initiation time of recording seismic signals. Robertsson simply
explains in paragraph 0081, with reference to Figure 9, how
attenuating acoustic energy output from one seismic source can
appear as shot noise in the recordings of seismic energy
associated with a subsequently fired seismic source. By contrast,
the first element of claim 1 is directed to determining form the
signal recordings a first wavefield.
Appeal Br. 11.
Responding to this argument, the Examiner “notes that in [0063]
Robertsson clearly describes that [] Deghosting a wavefield generally refers
to the process of removing the down-going wavefield (reflected wave off the
ocean-air surface) from the upgoing wavefield (reflection off the ocean
bottom)” and reiterates that “[w]hile Robertsson does not explicitly teach
that there are sources actuated at different depths, this teaching is clearly
present in Grion [Figure 4] — where sources (#405 and #410) are actuated,
produce acoustic signals (#425, #430, #435, #440) that travel through the
water.” Ans. 4. The Examiner further concludes that “[t]he combination of
6
Appeal 2015-006208
Application 12/806,098
the teachings from Robertsson and Grion has shown that combining a
plurality of wavefield to achieve a deghosted wavefield is obvious.” Id. at 5.
However, the Examiner never addresses the arguments pertaining to timing
quoted supra.
As noted by Appellants in the Reply Brief, “claims 1 and 11 describe
determining first and second wavefields with specific limitations regarding
not only the depth but also the time when the sources were activated.”
Reply Br. 6. The Examiner fails to explain how these timing limitations are
met by the prior art. See Non-Final Act. 3^4; see a Iso Ans. 4—5. Thus,
Appellants’ argument is persuasive.
For this reason, we do not sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting
claims 1 and 11, and claims 2—4, 6, 8, 12—15, and 18, which depend from
either claim 1 or claim 11.
Rejections III—VI
Claims 5, 7, 9, 10, 16, 17, 19, and 20 rejected in Rejections III—VI
depend from either claim 1 or claim 11. See Appeal Brief. 19—25.
Rejections III—VI do not cure the deficiency in the Examiner’s findings
pertaining to the timing limitations discussed supra. Accordingly, we do not
sustain the Examiner’s decisions rejecting claims 5, 7, 9, 10, 16, 17, 19, and
20, for the same reason we do not sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting
claims 1 and 11.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is
AFFIRMED.
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
are REVERSED.
7
Appeal 2015-006208
Application 12/806,098
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
8