Ex Parte POOLE

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 9, 2018

13398060 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 9, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/398,060 02/16/2012 Gordon POOLE
11171 7590 08/13/2018
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.
0336-031-2/100153 6740
EXAMINER
SCHECHTER, ANDREW M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2857
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/13/2018 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 GORDON POOLE
Appeal2017-009895
Application 13/398,060
Technology Center 2800
Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, A VEL YN M. ROSS, and
MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.
CASHION, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
1 The real party in interest is identified as CGGVERITAS SERVICES SA.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal2017-009895
Application 13/398,060
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below:
1. A method for denoising irregular seismic data recorded with
seismic receivers (R), the method comprising:
receiving the irregular seismic data recorded with the seismic
receivers, wherein the irregular seismic data is recorded in a time-space
domain;
applying with a computing device a high resolution transform to the
irregular seismic data in the time-space domain to obtain transformed
seismic data in a different domain than the time-space domain, such that the
method is amplitude preserving;
determining regions of noise and regions of true signal in the
transformed seismic data;
scaling down the regions of noise; and
reverse transforming the transformed seismic data to the time-space
domain.
REJECTIONS
Appellant (App. Br. 1, 3) requests review of the following rejections
from the Examiner's Final Action:
I. Claims 1-22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the
claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter (i.e., an abstract
idea) without significantly more.
II. Claims 1-3 and 6-16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Wason (US 5,138,583, issued August 11, 1992) and
Norris (US 5,920,828, issued July 6, 1999).
2
Appeal2017-009895
Application 13/398,060
III. Claims 4 and 5 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Wason, Norris, and Imhof (US 2012/0090834 Al,
published April 19, 2012).
IV. Claims 17-20 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Wason, Norris, and Oropeza (Vicente Oropeza and
Mauricio Sacchi, Simultaneous seismic data denoising and reconstruction
via multichannel singular spectrum analysis, GEOPHYSICS, Vol. 76, No.
3(May-June 2011) V25-V32).
V. Claims 21-22 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Wason, Norris, Oropeza, and Imhoff.
ANALYSIS
Rejection I (35 US.C. § 1 OJ (ineligible subject matter))
Appellant relies on the same line of arguments in addressing the
rejection of independent claims 1, 11, 16 and 17 (App. Br. 10) and does not
present separate arguments for their respective dependent claims (see
generally id.). Accordingly, we select claim 1 as representative of the
claimed subject matter for review on appeal for this rejection. Claims 2-22
stand or fall with claim 1.
The Examiner finds that the subject matter of claim 1 is directed to a
mathematical algorithm and a mental process because the claimed method
receives a data set and performs an algorithm to convert it into a new data
set. Ans. 4. According to the Examiner, the subject matter of claim 1 is
analogous to organizing information through mathematical correlations
(Digitech Image Tech., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344
(Fed. Cir. 2014)), an algorithm for calculating parameters indicating an
3
Appeal2017-009895
Application 13/398,060
abnormal condition (In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 836-37 (Fed. Cir. 1989)),
collecting and comparing known information ( Classen Immunotherapies
Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 2011)), and collecting
information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and
analysis (Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed.
Cir. 2016)). Id. The Examiner also determines that claim 1 does not include
additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than
the judicial exception. Id. at 5-6.
In Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'!, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355
(2014), the Supreme Court reiterated the following two-step analysis
(previously set forth in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs.,
Inc., 132 S.Ct. 1289, 1300 (2012)) for distinguishing patents that claim
patent-ineligible laws of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract ideas
from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts:
First, we determine whether the claims at issue are
directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts.
If so, we then ask, what else is there in the claims
before us? ... We have described step two of this
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.
Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2355.
With respect to the first step under Alice, Appellant argues that
independent claim 1 is not a patent ineligible abstract idea because the claim
4
Appeal2017-009895
Application 13/398,060
language does not include a mathematical formula made of unambiguous
series of symbols and mathematical operations. App. Br. 9. Appellant
further argues that the data described in claim 1 have a definite and specific
significance being the result of an exploration of a subsurface structure using
seismic excitations where the sampling of the seismic data is "irregular "and
does not provide uniform coverage of the bins used in processing. Id. at 10.
We are unpersuaded by these arguments.
As the Examiner explains, a mathematical formula can be expressed
in a manner other than using symbols and operations. Ans. 6-7. Moreover,
throughout the Specification, Appellant describes using an algorithm that
includes applying a high resolution transform to the seismic data. See Spec.
,r,r 11. 28, 23. Claim 1 at least requires the application of a high resolution
transform to the irregular seismic data to transform it in a different domain.
Given the noted portions of the Specification, the Examiner correctly
interpreted the subject matter of claim 1 as a mathematical algorithm.
With respect to the irregularity of the data sampling, the Examiner
finds that the Specification discloses seismic data as often exhibiting
irregularity. Ans. 6; Spec. 11. This is also acknowledged by Appellant in
the Appeal Brief. Ans. 6; Spec. 11; App. Br. 19. Thus, the Examiner
determines that the data being "irregular" does not identify a particular
process or type of data being collected that would narrow the claim to be
directed to a particular application of the abstract idea. Ans. 5. According
to the Examiner, the irregularity of the data sampling can instead be viewed
5
Appeal2017-009895
Application 13/398,060
as an aspect of the algorithms used to analyze the data. Id.
Therefore, Appellant has not shown error in the Examiner's
determination that the subject matter of claim 1 is directed to patent
ineligible subject matter.
We now tum to the second step under Alice to consider if there is an
inventive concept that is sufficient to ensure that the patent amounts to
significantly more than a patent on the patent-ineligible concept. Alice, 134
S.Ct. at 2355 (citing Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1294).
Appellant asserts, even if claim 1 is considered to be directed to an
abstract idea, claim 1 is significantly more because it improves/solves a
problem (noise removal for irregular seismic data) in a technological field
(seismic exploration used in oil and gas industry), which is beneficial for
obtaining an image to determine where to drill. App. Br. 11-12. Appellant
directs us to Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175) in support of this assertion.
However, we are unpersuaded by these arguments because claim 1
does not require generating an image. While an application of a law of
nature or abstract idea to a known structure or process may be deserving of
patent-eligibility, Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 (1981), the key
question is whether the claims do significantly more than simply describe
the law of nature or abstract idea. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus
Labs., Inc., 132 S.Ct. 1289, 1297 (2012). Further, the use of the data to
generate an image is acknowledged as conventional by Appellant. See Spec.
,r 4 and also Norris, col. 1, 11. 10-19.
Thus, Appellant has not established reversible error in the Examiner's
determination that the subject matter of representative claim 1 lacks
6
Appeal2017-009895
Application 13/398,060
additional elements that transforms the subject matter of the claim into a
patent-eligible application under the second step of Alice. Ans. 3.
We also note that, given that no Reply Brief was filed, Appellant does
not contest the Examiner's finding that the subject matter of claim 1 is
analogous to abstract ideas determined by a number of decisions listed
above. Therefore, we find no error in the Examiner's conclusion based on
these decisions.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-22 under
35 U.S.C. § 101 for the reasons presented by the Examiner and given above.
Prior Art Rejections under 35 US.C. § 103(a)
Re} ection II and III
For Rejections II and III, Appellant does not argue any claim separate
from the other. App. Br. 14--15. Accordingly, we select claim 1 as
representative of the claimed subject matter for review on appeal for these
rejections. Therefore, claims 2-16 stand or fall with claim 1.
After review of the respective positions provided by Appellant and the
Examiner, we AFFIRM the Examiner's prior art rejections of claims 1-16
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the reasons presented by the Examiner. We
add the following for emphasis.
The Examiner finds Wason teaches a method for attenuating coherent
and irregular (i.e., incoherent) noise in seismic signal data using a diversity
Radon transform, where the process differs from the claimed invention in
that Wason does not disclose recording with seismic receivers or the use of a
7
Appeal2017-009895
Application 13/398,060
computing device to accomplish the high resolution transform. Final Act. 7-
9. The Examiner relies on Norris for the missing features. Id.
Appellant argues Wason's diversity Radon transform is not a high
resolution transform that preserves amplitude. App. Br. 16. According to
Appellant, the step of using a "diversity Radon transformation" described in
Wason is not the equivalent of the claimed high resolution transform
because it is not a high resolution transform as defined on paragraph 34 of
the published Specification (hereinafter "Specification" or "Spec."). Id. at
16-1 7. Appellant also argues Wason indicates that incoherent noise is
attenuated and therefore asserts that this is an indication that the overall
amplitude is not preserved as claimed. Id. at 18.
We are unpersuaded of reversible error by the Examiner. While
Appellant cites to paragraph 34 of the Specification for a definition of a high
resolution transform (id. at 16-17), the Examiner correctly notes that the
cited portion only refers to examples of high-resolution transforms that can
be used when an amplitude-preserving algorithm is desired (Ans. 11-12).
Therefore, this portion of the Specification is insufficient to define what a
high resolution transform is. However, the Specification also discloses that
the focus of the invention is to enhance weak signals hidden under high
amplitude noise. Spec. ,r 45. As recognized by the Examiner and Appellant,
Wason's diversity Radon transform attenuates incoherent noise. Final Act.
8; App. Br. 18; see Wason col. 3, 11. 50-53. As explained by the Examiner,
Wason also discloses that the diversity Radon transform preserves the signal
while attenuating the incoherent noise. Ans. 13; Wason col. 3, 11. 50-53.
Thus, Appellant has not adequately explained why one of ordinary skill in
the art would not understand that Wason's diversity Radon transform
8
Appeal2017-009895
Application 13/398,060
preserves the signal amplitude. While Appellant contends that Wason's
diversity Radon transform does not preserve the overall amplitude (App. Br.
18), the Specification does not disclose preserving an overall amplitude and
the language of claim 1 does not require such a step. Therefore, Appellant
has not adequately explained why Wason's diversity Radon transform is not
a high-resolution transform.
Appellant argues that the cited art does not apply a high resolution
transform to irregular seismic data. App. Br. 18. According to Appellant,
Wason and Norris are silent regarding the regularity or irregularity of the
seismic data because at the time these references were filed, the recorded
seismic data was by default regularized prior to any processing as disclosed
in paragraph 10 of the Specification. Id. at 20.
We are also unpersuaded by these arguments. As noted by the
Examiner, the language of claim 1 is written using the transitional language
"comprising" which does not exclude a data regularization step. Ans. 15.
Moreover, the irregularity of sampling seismic data is also discussed by
Norris. Norris col. 1, 11. 34--47.
Appellant argues the applied references do not render obvious the step
of determining the region of noise and the regions of signal followed by
scaling down the regions of noise because, even if Wason's muting were
equivalent to scaling down, it occurs concurrently with applying the data
transformation and not based on the regions of noise determined in the
transformed seismic data (i.e., on the transformation result) as claimed.
App. Br. 21.
We find this argument also unavailing. As explained by the
Examiner, Wason's attenuation and muting (scaling down) of the noise also
9
Appeal2017-009895
Application 13/398,060
determines the regions of noise and true signal. Ans. 15-16. We find no
language in the claim that excludes a concurrent determination/scaling down
process with application of a transform. Thus, Appellant's arguments do not
adequately address the Examiner's reasons. While Appellant appears to
argue that Wason's attenuation is not the same as the claimed "scaling
down," Appellant does not adequately explain why. Nor does Appellant
points to any special definition for the phrase that would distinguish it from
Wason's attenuation.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's prior art rejection of claims 1-
16 for the reasons presented by the Examiner and given above.
Re} ections IV and V
After review of the respective positions provided by Appellant and the
Examiner, we REVERSE the Examiner's rejections of claims 17-222 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the reasons presented by Appellant. We add the
following for emphasis.
Independent claim 1 7 is directed to a method for denoising original
recorded irregular seismic data by scaling down regions of true signal to
generate a noise model, reverse transforming the noise model to the time-
space domain at coordinates identical to those of the original seismic data,
and subtracting the noise model from the original seismic data to obtain
denoised seismic data.
The premise of the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 17 is
that one of ordinary skill in the art would modify Wason's noise attenuation
method of transforming seismic data by attenuating the signal instead and
2 We limit our discussion to claim 17.
10
Appeal2017-009895
Application 13/398,060
subtract attenuated signal data from Wason's original data to achieve a noise
free data set, according to the teachings of Oropeza. Final Act. 14--16.
As argued by Appellant, claim 1 7 is directed to generating a noise
model while Wason does not generate a noise model. App. Br. 22-23.
Appellant contends Wason does not teach or suggest reverse transforming
the noise model to the time-space domain, but rather reverse transforming
the true data (from which the noise was removed) to the time-space domain.
Id. at 23.
We determine that Appellant has identified a reversible error in the
Examiner's determination of obviousness for claim 17 and its dependent
claims. The Examiner has provided no adequate technical reason for one
skilled in the art to modify Wason's noise attenuation model into a noise
model for denoising seismic data. The Examiner has not adequately
explained how one of ordinary skill in the art would modify Wason's
method to incorporate the subtraction model of Oropeza and still arrive at
the claimed invention.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's prior art rejection of claims
17-22 for the reasons presented by Appellant and given above.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is
affirmed.
The Examiner's prior art rejections of claims 1-16 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 (a) is affirmed.
11
Appeal2017-009895
Application 13/398,060
The Examiner's prior art rejection of claims 17-22 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) is reversed.
Because all claims have been affirmed under one ground of rejection,
the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-22 is affirmed.
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
12