Ex Parte Hou et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 29, 2018

14377426 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/377,426 08/07/2014 Junsheng Hou
138627 7590 10/31/2018
Gilliam IP PLLC (Halliburton)
7200 N. Mopac
Suite 440
Austin, TX 78731
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.
164.2011-IP-046241 Ul US 5040
EXAMINER
AIELLO, JEFFREY P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2864
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/31/2018 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):
uspto@gilliamip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL
AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JUNSHENG HOU and LUISE. SAN MARTIN 1
Appeal2018-006421
Application 14/377 ,426
Technology Center 2800
Before BEYERL YA. FRANKLIN, DONNA M. PRAISS, and
JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Halliburton Energy Servs.
Inc. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2018-006421
Application 14/377,426
Appellants request our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the
Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13-18, and 21-24.
We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellants' subject matter on appeal and is
set forth below:
1. A method comprising:
generating probe signals into a formation from a
transmitter of an induction logging tool that comprises the
transmitter and a plurality of receivers longitudinally disposed
along a length of a borehole;
receiving signals in at least one of the receivers in
response to generating the probe signals, the received signals
including R-signal apparent conductivity data;
collecting R-signal apparent conductivity data over a
logging section of the borehole from the receivers, the R-
signal data corresponding to the induction logging tool
operating at a single frequency or multiple frequencies;
selecting weight coefficients corresponding to a depth
window of the induction logging tool along the length of the
borehole, the weight coefficients based on a relationship with
only Doll vertical geometrical factors and Born vertical
geometric factors in the depth window; and
conducting a convolution filtering of conductivity
values derived from the R-signal apparent conductivity data
and the weight coefficients to determine a skin-effect
correction for the conductivity values.
2
Appeal2018-006421
Application 14/377,426
THE REJECTION
1. Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13-18, and 21-24 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial
exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea)
without significantly more.
ANALYSIS
To the extent that Appellants have presented substantive arguments
for the separate patentability of any individual claim on appeal, we will
address each separately consistent with 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(vii). We
select claim 1 as representative (Appellants' argue claim 11 in a similar
manner (Appeal Br. 14--20)).
Upon consideration of the evidence and each of the respective
positions set forth in the record, we find that the preponderance of evidence
supports the Examiner's findings and conclusion that the subject matter of
Appellants' claims is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner's rejection on appeal for the reasons set forth in the
Final Office Action and in the Answer, and add the following for emphasis.
Rather than repeat the text set forth in the Appeal Brief herein, we
refer to pages 4--20 of the Appeal Brief regarding Appellants' position in the
record. Appellants also reiterate stated positions in the Reply Brief. In
short, Appellants essentially argue that their claimed subject matter is not an
abstract idea, and also that the claim elements amount to significantly more
than an abstract idea, for the reasons stated in the record.
However, we agree with the Examiner's position as stated in the
record. Final Act. 2-11; Ans. 2-22. Therein, it is the Examiner's position
3
Appeal2018-006421
Application 14/377,426
that the claims are directed to an abstract idea in the form of calculating a
skin-effect correction. Ans. 4 The Examiner states that the recited method
steps comprise a series of mathematical/algorithmic and/or mathematical
formula and/or data processing/analysis steps which correspond to
concepts identified as an abstract idea, or ideas, in the form of a
mathematical formula similar to those found to be non-patent eligible by the
courts. Id. The Examiner also states that the additional elements when
considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount
to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional steps
"comprise generic/conventional data gathering and data processing and
computer/computing components as disclosed in i-f0021, i-f0023-i-f0025, and
i-f0028 of Appellants' specification," and "are recited at a high level of
generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions
routinely used in computer applications." Ans. 5. Moreover, the Examiner
determines that the claims do not require a special or unique transmitter,
probe signal, induction logging tool, receiver, storage device, transmitter
sensor, control unit, data processing unit, database, a depth window,
interfaces, or processing unit. Id.
Appellants primarily argue that the depth window is a physicality that
is not abstract, and that the claim elements amount to more than an abstract
idea, referring to certain case law. See, e.g., Appeal Br. 7-8; Reply Br. 1-2.
However, unlike the case of Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d.
1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (using sensors in a configuration that has not
been done before), the use of sensors and probe signals, etc, in the manner as
claimed by Appellants does not amount to significantly more than the
abstract idea, as the Examiner explains throughout pages 4---6 of the Answer;
4
Appeal2018-006421
Application 14/377,426
and furthermore, the elements comprise generic/conventional data
gathering/processing/computer components (Ans. 5). In other words, the
claims amount to manipulating data processing utilizing conventional
techniques, and Appellants have not demonstrated unconventionality in this
regard. The instant case is also unlike the case of McRO, Inc. v. Bandai
Namco Games America, Inc. 837 F.3d 1299, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (the
claim's construction incorporated rules of a particular type that improved an
existing technological process) because, the instant claims are directed to a
result or effect that itself is the abstract idea and merely invoking generic
processes and machinery to achieve such.
In view of the above, we affirm.
DECISION
The rejection is affirmed.
TIME PERIOD
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
5