Ex Parte SABLONDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 11, 201814078940 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 11, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 14/078,940 11/13/2013 Ronan SABLON 11171 7590 07/13/2018 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. 0336-137/100248 5086 EXAMINER NOLAN, JOHN T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3646 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/13/2018 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 RONAN SABLON Appeal2017-009120 Application 14/078,940 Technology Center 3600 Before: STEFAN STAICOVICI, LEE L. STEPINA, and ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges. STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Ronan Sablon ("Appellant") 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision in the Final Action ( dated July 15, 2016, hereinafter "Final Act.") rejecting claims 1-16 and 18-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). SUMMARY OF DECISION We REVERSE. 1 CGG SERVICES SA is the applicant and is identified as the real party in interest in Appellant's Appeal Brief ( dated Dec. 7, 2016, hereinafter "Br."). Br. 2. Appeal2017-009120 Application 14/078,940 INVENTION Appellant's invention relates to "methods and systems configured to process marine seismic data." Spec. para. 1. Claims 1, 12, and 20 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for processing seismic data related to a structure under a body of water to generate an image of the structure, the method comprising: receiving seismic data acquired with detectors disposed on a depth-varying profile streamer; generating, from the seismic data, first traces (UP) that correspond to traces as recorded by the detectors and migrated to water surface, wherein the first traces include corresponding first primaries and first ghosts, and second traces (DW) that correspond to traces as would be recorded by virtual detectors mirroring the detectors relative to the water surface and migrated to water surface, wherein the second traces include corresponding second primaries and second ghosts; generating (A) third traces (SYM) as a sum of corresponding ones among the first traces and the second traces, and (B) fourth traces (DBG) as a difference of the corresponding ones among the first traces and the second traces; and de ghosting at least one of the first traces and the second traces using positive and negative polarity portions of the third traces and of the fourth traces. 2 Appeal2017-009120 Application 14/078,940 REJECTIONS 2 I. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 11, 12, 14, 16, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Sanders et al. (US 4,935,903, iss. June 19, 2000, hereinafter "Sanders") and Soubaras (US 2011/0305109 Al, pub. Dec. 15, 2011). II. The Examiner rejects claims 2, 4, 6, 8-10, 13, 15, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Sanders, Soubaras, and Ray et al. (US 4,353,121, iss. Oct. 5, 1982, hereinafter "Ray"). ANALYSIS The Examiner finds that Sanders' disclosure of "waves that are normalized to each other" by adding or subtracting meets the limitation of generating "(A) third traces (SYM) as a sum of corresponding ones among the first traces and the second traces, and (B) fourth traces (DBG) as a difference of the corresponding ones among the first traces and the second traces," as recited by each of independent claims 1, 12, and 20. Final Act. 2-3 ( citing Sanders col. 7, 11. 33--42); see also Br. 24, 28, and 32 (Claims App.). Furthermore, in the Examiner's Answer (dated Mar. 27, 2017, hereinafter "Ans."), the Examiner takes the position that column 7, lines 50- 66 of Sanders discloses the above noted limitation, and states that the 2 Claim 17 is not mentioned in the heading of neither rejections, nor does the Examiner include an analysis of claim 17 in the body of the rejections. See Final Act. 2-10. Also, claim 17 does not appear as canceled or withdrawn. See Br. 30 (Claims App.). Hence, no rejection of claim 17 is before the Board. 3 Appeal2017-009120 Application 14/078,940 limitation "is merely the 'additive linear combination' taught by Sanders." Ans. 3. Appellant argues that what occurs in Sanders "is different from generating third traces (SYM) by adding the first traces (which include both primaries and ghosts) to the second traces ( which also include both primaries and ghosts)." Br. 14. Appellant similarly asserts that what occurs in Sanders "is different from generating fourth traces (DBG) as a difference of the first traces (which include both primaries and ghosts) and the second traces (which also include both primaries and ghosts)." Id. at 15. Rather, Appellant contends that in Sanders "ghosts/primaries are normalized to each other" and "are added together such that a ghost/primary reflection cancels out to obtain primary/ghost data." Id. at 14--15. Appellant notes that Sanders' method requires data "supplied by two different sensors (hydrophone and geophone)." Id. Appellant's arguments are persuasive because Sanders does not sum and take the difference of first and second traces, wherein each trace includes both primaries and ghosts to obtain respective third and fourth traces. Rather, Sanders discloses that when adding the hydrophone data and the geophone data, separator 50 is used to output primary data, and separator 52 is used to output ghost data. See Sanders, col. 6, 11. 16-18 and 38--40, col. 7, 11. 33--42. For example, Sanders discloses that "if the outputs of the primary or up going signal are normalized and the hydrophone [pressure] data is subtracted from the geophone [velocity] data, the primary data will cancel and all remaining data will be downgoing or ghost." Id., col. 7, 11. 38--42. Hence, we agree with Appellant that Sanders is adding primary data from two different sensors, or is subtracting ghost data from two different 4 Appeal2017-009120 Application 14/078,940 sensors and, thus, is not summing or taking the difference of traces that each contain primary and ghost data, as called for by each of independent claims 1, 12, and 20. See Br. 14--15. As to the Examiner's position regarding Sanders' disclosure of an "additive linear combination," we note that Sanders identifies and separates upward signal components (primaries) using separator 50 and downward signal components (ghosts) using separator 52. See Sanders, col. 6, 11. 14--18 and 38--40. Sanders further discloses adding a time shift to the downward signal components (ghosts), and then recombining the upward and downward signal components using element 56. See id., col. 7, 11. 60-65 ("linearly additively combines those signals, preferably summing them."); Fig. 4. As such, Sanders recombines primary and ghost signals. Although we appreciate the Examiner's position that "[t]he sum (or difference) of two traces is by definition itself a trace," the Examiner incorrectly posits that the claims "do not preclude traces that have no ghost or primary component" (Ans. 3), because claim 1 explicitly recites "wherein the first traces include corresponding first primaries and first ghosts, and ... wherein the second traces include corresponding second primaries and second ghosts." See Br. 24 (Claims App.). For the foregoing reasons, the Examiner does not set forth adequate factual findings or technical reasoning that would lead a person skilled in the art to make such a finding. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967). In conclusion, we agree with Appellant that Sanders fails to disclose "generating third traces (SYM) by adding the first traces (which include both primaries and ghosts) to the second traces (which also include both primaries and ghosts)," and "generating fourth traces (DBG) as a difference of the first 5 Appeal2017-009120 Application 14/078,940 traces . . . and the second traces," as called for by each of independent claims 1, 12, and 20. Br. 14--15. The Examiner's use of the disclosure of Soubaras does not remedy the deficiencies of Sanders discussed supra. See Final Act. 3. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 1, 12, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sanders and Soubaras. As Appellant relies on the arguments discussed supra to argue the rejection of dependent claims 3, 5, 7, 11, 14, 16, and 19, for the same reasons discussed above, we also do not sustain the rejection of these claims over the combined teachings of Sanders and Soubaras. See Br. 1 7. Rejection II The Examiner's use of the disclosure of Ray does not remedy the deficiency of Sanders as discussed supra. See Final Act. 7-10. Therefore, for the same reasons discussed above, we also do not sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 2, 4, 6, 8-10, 13, 15, and 18 as unpatentable over Sanders, Soubaras, and Ray. DECISION The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-16 and 18-20 is reversed. REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation