Ex Parte Krebs et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 13, 2018

14484603 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 13, 2018)

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.
14/484,603 09/12/2014 Jerome R. Krebs 2010EM141-4 9763
34477 7590 02/15/2018
ExxonMobil Upstream Research Company
22777 Springwoods Village Parkway
(EMHC-E2-4A-296)
Spring, TX 77389
EXAMINER
OCHOA, JUAN CARLOS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2123
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/15/2018 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):
urc-mail-formalities @ exxonmobil. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JEROME R. KREBS, SUNWOONG LEE,
and YOUNG HO CHA
Appeal 2017-006095
Application 14/484,6031
Technology Center 2100
Before ERIC B. CHEN, KAMRAN JIVANI, and SCOTT E. BAIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), of the
Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 16—19, which constitute all the
claims pending in this application. Claims 1—15 and 20 have been cancelled.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is “ExxonMobil
Upstream Research Company.” (App. Br. 2.)
Appeal 2017-006095
Application 14/484,603
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
“The invention relates generally to the field of geophysical
prospecting, and more particularly to geophysical data processing.
Specifically, the invention pertains to reducing artifacts in iterative inversion
of data resulting from approximations made in the inversion.” (Spec. 12.)
Claim 16, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal.
16. A method comprising:
selecting, with a computer, a subset of measured data as
an approximation in a computer implemented iterative
geophysical data inversion, wherein the measured data
correspond to active seismic sources;
executing, with the computer, a first cycle of the iterative
geophysical data inversion that uses the subset of measured data
as the approximation, wherein the first cycle produces an
intermediate subsurface model;
varying, with the computer, the subset of measured data
that is selected for processing in the iterative geophysical data
inversion in at least one subsequent iterative cycle of the iterative
geophysical data inversion, wherein the varying reduces an
artifact in a subsequent subsurface model produced by the
iterative geophysical data inversion relative to the intermediate
subsurface model,
wherein the varying reduces the artifact in a final
subsurface model, generated from the intermediate subsurface
model through the iterative geophysical data inversion, by
causing the artifact in updated subsurface models to not
coherently add in leading to the final subsurface model as the
iterative geophysical data inversion progresses; and
displaying, with the computer, an image of a subsurface
region generated with the final subsurface model.
2
Appeal 2017-006095
Application 14/484,603
REJECTIONS
Claims 16—19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed
to non-statutory subject matter. (Final Act. 3—4.)
The rejection of claims 16—19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) has been
withdrawn by the Examiner. (Ans. 3.)
The rejection of claims 16—19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) has been
withdrawn by the Examiner. (Ans. 3.)
ANALYSIS
We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 9—10) that
independent claim 16 complies with 35 U.S.C. § 101 as statutory subject
matter.
The Examiner finds claim 16 is “directed to a mathematical algorithm
of reducing artifacts caused by approximations in iterative data inversion.”
(Final Act. 3.) In particular, the Examiner explains the claimed “varying
step ... is part of the data inversion mathematical algorithm (described in
the Specification in | [038-039])” and “[mathematical relationships and
algorithms have been found by the courts to be abstract (e.g., Benson, Flook,
Diehr, Grams).” (Id.; see also Ans. 5.) We do not agree with the
Examiner’s finding that the claim constitutes ineligible subject matter.
The United States Supreme Court has identified a two-step framework
for determining whether claimed subject matter is judicially-excepted from
patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLSBank
Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014). In Alice, the Supreme Court reiterated
the framework set out in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs.,
Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012), for “distinguishing patents that claim . . . abstract
3
Appeal 2017-006095
Application 14/484,603
ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts.”
Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. Assuming that a claim nominally falls within one
of the statutory categories of machine, manufacture, process, or composition
of matter, the first step in the analysis is to determine if the claim is directed
to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (judicial
exceptions). Id. If so, the second step is to determine whether any element
or combination of elements in the claim is sufficient to transform the nature
of the claim into a patent-eligible application. Id.
With respect to step one of the Alice analysis, our reviewing court
instructs that “examiners are to continue to determine if the claim recites
(i.e., sets forth or describes) a concept that is similar to concepts previously
found abstract by the courts.” Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc.,
841 F.3d 1288, 1294 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). Moreover, the
Federal Circuit has articulated that “the first step in the Alice inquiry . . .
asks whether the focus of the claims is on the specific asserted improvement
in computer capabilities ... or, instead, on a process that qualifies as an
‘abstract idea’ for which computers are invoked merely as a tool.” Enfish,
LLCv. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the Federal Circuit determined, if “the claims are directed to a
specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts,” then
“the claims at issue are not directed to an abstract idea.” Id. at 1339.
In the “Background of the Invention” section, Appellants’
Specification discloses that “[d]ue to its high computational cost, iterative
inversion often requires application of some type of approximation that
speeds up the computation” and “[ujnfortunately, these approximations
usually result in errors in the final inverted model which can be viewed as
4
Appeal 2017-006095
Application 14/484,603
artifacts of the approximations employed in the inversion.” (| 7.) Thus,
according to Appellants’ Specification, “[w]hat is needed is a general
method of iteratively inverting data that allows for the application of
approximations without generating artifacts in the resulting inverted model”
and “[t]he present invention satisfies this need.” (1 8.)
Appellants’ Specification discloses:
Figures 10—13 represent a synthetic example of
performing inversion using an approximation to the measured
data. An example of such an approximation is using a subset of
the measured data (1010 in Fig. 10). This approximation reduces
the amount of measured data, which speeds up the inversion,
because the computational time of the inversion is directly
proportional to the number of measured data.
(148 (emphasis added).) Appellants’ Specification discloses “[i]n this
example, in step 1060, a subset of the measured data is randomly selected as
inversion iteration increases” and “[t]his results in a different subset of the
data being used in each iteration cycle.” (149 (emphasis added).)
Moreover, Appellants’ Specification discloses:
Figure 13 shows the results of applying the inversion method
outlined in the flowchart in Fig. 6, but eliminating the inventive,
artifact-reducing step 1060. It may be noted that the inversion
in Fig. 13 has artificial footprints at deeper parts below 2000
meters and short wavelength noises in the overall inverted model,
whereas this footprint noises are mitigated in the inversion using
the present inventive method (Fig. 12), and the short wavelength
noises are invisible.
(1 50 (emphases added).) Accordingly, Appellants’ invention provides for
“a general method of iteratively inverting data that allows for the application
of approximations without generating artifacts in the resulting inverted
model” (1 8) by using “a different subset of the data being used in each
5
Appeal 2017-006095
Application 14/484,603
iteration cycle,” the subset being an example of an approximation of the
measured data (149).
Thus, Appellants’ claimed invention is a “specific asserted
improvement in computer capabilities” rather than “a process that qualifies
as an ‘abstract idea’ for which computers are invoked merely as a tool.” See
Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335—36. Accordingly, because “the claims are directed
to a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts,”
claim 16 is not directly toward an abstract idea. See id. at 1339.
We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that “the claimed
invention is an improvement in computer capabilities as the computer can
create a more accurate (i.e., less artifacts) subsurface image (see Applicant’s
Fig. 12 contrasted to Fig. 13) coupled with a computer speed-up” and “the
claimed invention is rooted in computer technology as evidenced by the
speed up in and improvement of the computer’s ability to generate
subsurface imagery.” (App. Br. 10.) The Examiner, therefore, erred in
finding claim 16 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 16
under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Claims 17—19 depend from independent claim 16.
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 17—19 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for
the same reasons discussed with respect to independent claim 16.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 16—19 is reversed.
REVERSED
6