Ex Parte Wibaux et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 17, 2017

11945570 (P.T.A.B. May. 17, 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.
11/945,570 11/27/2007 Sebastien Wibaux MSM4-44865-US(BAT0050US2) 7609
44639 7590 05/19/2017
CANTOR COLBURN LLP- BAKER HUGHES INCORPORATED
20 Church Street
22nd Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
EXAMINER
HULKA, JAMES R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3645
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/19/2017 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):
usptopatentmail@cantorcolbum.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SEBASTIEN WIBAUX and VINCENTE H. GUIS
Appeal 2015-007390
Application 11/945,570
Technology Center 3600
Before ANNETTE R. REIMERS, JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, and
ERIC C. JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judges.
JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Sebastien Wibaux and Vincente H. Guis (“Appellants”) seek review
under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s decision, as set forth in the Final
Office Action dated November 6, 2014 (“Final Act.”), rejecting claims 1—4
and 9—16.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants identify MAGNITUDE SPAS as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2015-007390
Application 11/945,570
BACKGROUND
The disclosed subject matter “relates to geologic exploration and, in
particular, to techniques for determining seismic events.” Spec. 2. Claim
1, the sole independent claim, is reproduced below, with emphasis added:
1. A method for identifying a seismic event, the
method comprising:
detecting a plurality of seismic data signals
using a seismic monitoring system, each of the
plurality of seismic data signals indicating energy
levels;
extracting by a processor an extracted
portion of each of the plurality of seismic data
signals based on a respective maximum energy level
among the energy levels indicated by each of the
plurality of seismic data signals, the extracted
portion of each of the plurality of seismic data
signals indicating an energy level, among the
energy levels indicated by a respective one of the
plurality of seismic data signals, equal to or greater
than a selected proportion of the respective
maximum energy level of the respective one of the
plurality of seismic data signals',
comparing the extracted portion of each of
the plurality of seismic data signals to a known time
pattern corresponding to a seismic event, and
determining a correlation between the extracted
portion of each of the plurality of seismic data
signals and the known time pattern based on the
comparing; and
identifying the seismic event based on the
correlation.
2
Appeal 2015-007390
Application 11/945,570
REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1—4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Johnson (US 4,203,161, issued May 13, 1980) and
Peacock (US 4,751,655, issued June 14, 1988).
2. Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Johnson, Peacock, and Drew (US 7,391,675 B2, issued
June 24, 2008).
3. Claims 10 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Johnson, Peacock, and Zhou (US 2003/0151975 Al,
published Aug. 14, 2003).
4. Claims 12—16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Johnson, Peacock, and Eastwood (US 2003/0043693 Al,
published Mar. 6, 2003).
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1 — Claims 1—4
Independent claim 1 recites, among other steps:
extracting by a processor an extracted portion of each of the
plurality of seismic data signals based on a respective maximum
energy level among the energy levels indicated by each of the
plurality of seismic data signals, the extracted portion of each of
the plurality of seismic data signals indicating an energy level,
among the energy levels indicated by a respective one of the
plurality of seismic data signals, equal to or greater than a
selected proportion of the respective maximum energy level of
the respective one of the plurality of seismic data signals.
Appeal Br. 10 (Claims App.).
3
Appeal 2015-007390
Application 11/945,570
In the Final Office Action, the Examiner found that Johnson did not
disclose this limitation, but found that Peacock did. See Final Act. 2—3
(citing Peacock, Figs. 1,3, col. 2,1. 60 —col. 3,1. 5).
Appellants argue that “Peacock is directed to reconstituting seismic
data that has been rectified by a scanner” and that “[i]n the cited portion . . .
Peacock discusses selecting a time window ‘f for the signal from an optical
scanner 14” and discloses that, “[w]ithin the selected time window ‘t,’ ... a
measurement is made of a predominant period, which is a function of the
predominant signal frequency.” Appeal Br. 7. Appellants argue that “[t]he
Examiner errs in providing no explanation of how the predominant period
relat[es] to the claimed extracting at all.” Id.
In the rejection of claim 1, the Examiner cites to Figures 1 and 3 as
well as column 2, line 60 to column 3, line 5 of Peacock, but provides no
further explanation as to how Peacock discloses each aspect of the limitation
at issue. See Final Act. 3. Having considered the disclosures relied on, we
agree with Appellants that Peacock’s teachings regarding reconstitution of
data do not satisfy all aspects of the limitation at issue.
In the Answer, the Examiner clarifies the findings regarding the
limitation at issue:
Step 2 involves “extracting by a processor” a portion of
each of the signals, based on a maximum energy level. This is
equivalent to setting a threshold. The claim is non-specific to the
absolute value, or absolute percentage of the signal that is
extracted, or whether the extracted portion is of high amplitude
(peak) or low amplitude (minimum). Fig. 5 of Johnson shows
identified specific peak points of the wave. Secondary reference
Peacock (4,751,655) teaches clipping a seismic amplitude signal
(extracting a portion, based on a threshold).
Ans. 3.
4
Appeal 2015-007390
Application 11/945,570
Appellants reply that, in the first sentence of this discussion, “the
Examiner has erroneously omitted the word ‘respective’ before maximum
energy level in the recitation of Claim 1.” Reply Br. 2. According to
Appellants, “[t]he omission of this word represents a mischaracterization of
the extracting as being based on a threshold.” Id. Appellants contend that:
The recitation of, “the extracted portion of each of the plurality
of seismic data signals indicating an energy level, among the
energy levels indicated by a respective one of the plurality of
seismic data signals, equal to or greater than a selected
proportion of the respective maximum energy level of the
respective one of the plurality of seismic data signals’ '' indicates
that the extracted portion of each seismic signal (which is made
up of energy levels) will include energy levels and a number of
energy levels individual to the seismic signal. This is because
each extracted portion is based on the maximum energy level for
that seismic signal.
Id. at 2—3.
We agree with Appellants that, with the Answer, the Examiner has not
shown that Peacock discloses all aspects of the limitation at issue. Peacock
discloses that in the scanning process at issue, “oftentimes the amplitudes of
the traces above a certain maximum value are clipped, i.e., removed or
flattened” and the “negative values of the waveforms cannot be determined.”
Peacock, col. 1,11. 34^43 (discussing Figure 1). Even assuming that the
“clipping” disclosed in Peacock satisfies the requirement for “extracting by a
processor an extracted portion of each of the plurality of seismic data
signals”—as found by the Examiner (Ans. 3 (14, last sentence))—the
Examiner has not adequately shown how that process is “based on a
respective maximum energy level among the energy levels indicated by each
of the plurality of seismic data signals,” rather than based on, for example, a
5
Appeal 2015-007390
Application 11/945,570
fixed range (or threshold) for every seismic data signal (i.e., trace). See
Appeal Br. 10 (Claims App.) (emphasis added).
For these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, or the
rejection of claims 2-4, which depend from claim 1.
Rejections 2 through 4 —Claims 9—16
Claims 9—16 depend from claim 1. Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App.).
The Examiner’s added reliance on Drew (Rejection 2), Zhou (Rejection 3),
and Eastwood (Rejection 4) does not remedy the deficiencies in the
combined teachings of Johnson and Peacock. Thus, for the same reasons
discussed above, we do not sustain the rejections of claims 9—16.
DECISION
We REVERSE the decision to reject claims 1—4 and 9—16.
REVERSED
6