Ex Parte Goujon et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 11, 2017

12169401 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 11, 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.
12/169,401 07/08/2008 NICOLAS GOUJON 14.0354-US-NP 9222
28116 7590
WestemGeco L.L.C.
10001 Richmond Avenue
IP Administration Center of Excellence
Houston, TX 77042
EXAMINER
LOBO, IAN J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3645
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/13/2017 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):
U S Docketing @ sib. com
jalverson@slb.com
SMarckesoni@slb.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NICOLAS GOUJON, LUREN YANG,
and ASLAUG STROEMMEN MELBOE
Appeal 2015-0041451
Application 12/169,4012
Technology Center 3600
Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and
KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judges.
SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection of
claims 1—22 and 25—31. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Our decision references the Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed Oct. 13,
2014) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Feb. 23, 2015), and the
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Dec. 24, 2014) and Final Office Action
(“Final Act.,” mailed June 18, 2014).
2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is “WestemGeco, L.L.C.,
which is related to Schlumberger Technology Corporation.” Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2015-004145
Application 12/169,401
BACKGROUND
According to the Specification, “[t]he invention relates generally to
controlling a seismic source having plural seismic source elements according
to a determined three-dimensional geometry of the plural seismic source
elements.” Spec. 11.
CLAIMS
Claims 1,18, and 25 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the appealed claims and recites:
1. A method of controlling a seismic source having plural
seismic source elements, comprising:
determining a three-dimensional geometric shape of the
plural seismic source elements, wherein the determining includes
measuring a first distance between at least two of the plural
seismic source elements in an inline direction of the seismic
source, and measuring a second distance between at least two of
the plural seismic source elements in a cross-line direction of the
seismic source; and
adjusting timings of activation of the plural seismic source
elements according to the determined three-dimensional
geometric shape.
REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 11, 27, 29, and 31 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Lunde3 in view of Brae.4
2. The Examiner rejects claims 3, 4, and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Lunde in view of Brae and Loweth.5
3 Lunde et al., US 6,026,056, iss. Feb. 15, 2000.
4 Brae, US 4,862,422, iss. Aug. 29, 1989.
5 Loweth, “Manual of Offshore Surveying for Geoscientists and Engineers”,
1997.
2
Appeal 2015-004145
Application 12/169,401
3. The Examiner rejects claims 5, 25, 28, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Lunde in view of Brae, Loweth, and Huizer.6
4. The Examiner rejects claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Lunde in view of Brae, Loweth, and Paulsen7 or
Falkenberg.8
5. The Examiner rejects claims 9, 12, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Lunde in view of Brae and Huizer.
6. The Examiner rejects claims 10 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Lunde in view of Brae, Huizer, and Cao.9
7. The Examiner rejects claims 13 and 1410 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Lunde in view of Brae, and Cao.
8. The Examiner rejects claims 18 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Lunde in view of Brae and Robertsson.* 11
9. The Examiner rejects claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Lunde in view of Brae, Robertsson, and Loweth.
10. The Examiner rejects claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Lunde in view of Brae, Robertsson, Huizer, and Cao.
1 l.The Examiner rejects claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Lunde in view of Brae, Robertsson, and Cao.
6 Huizer et al., US H656, pub. July 4, 1989.
7 Paulsen, US 2006/0256654 Al, pub. Nov. 16, 2006.
8 Falkenberg et al., US 2007/0091719 Al, pub. Apr. 26, 2007.
9 Cao et al., US 4,300,653, iss. Nov. 17, 1981.
10 The rejection of claims 15 and 16 over this combination of art has been
withdrawn. See Ans. 2.
11 Robertsson, US 2006/0285435 Al, pub. Dec. 21, 2006.
3
Appeal 2015-004145
Application 12/169,401
DISCUSSION
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Lunde discloses a
method including “determining a geometric shape of plural seismic source
elements and adjusting timings of activation of the plural source elements
according to the geometric shape.” Final Act. 3 (citing Lunde col. 2,11. 21—
45). The Examiner acknowledges that Lunde does not teach determining the
three dimensional shape of the plural seismic source elements as claimed.
Final Act. 3,4. The Examiner relies on Brae as teaching “determining the
geometry of plural seismic source elements which includes (see Fig. 3)
measuring inline distances, crossline distances and (see col. 4, lines 33+) and
depths of the source elements. Such inline, crossline and depth
measurements are tantamont to determining the three-dimensional shape or
geometry of the plural source elements.” Id. at 4. The Examiner concludes
that “in view of Brae, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art to have modified the method of Lunde by determining the 3D
geometric shape of the source array so as to provide a more accurate
geometric shape for the timing adjustment activations.” Id. Further, the
Examiner adds that the motivation for the modification comes directly from
Brae’s disclosure, which teaches that “the purpose of [using a] three-
dimensional shape of plural elements [is to] increase the acoustic power
dissipated, to improve the shape of the emitted signature, and to obtain a
more directional emission diagram” and that “it is important to know the
geometry of the emission system.” Ans. at 3^4 (citing Brae col. 1,11. 18—
27).
4
Appeal 2015-004145
Application 12/169,401
We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings with respect to the
rejection of claim 1. See Final Act. 3^4; see also Ans. 2—5. As discussed
below, we are not persuaded of reversible error by Appellants’ arguments.
First, we are not persuaded of error to the extent Appellants argue that
“it is clear that Funde would have led a person of ordinary skill in the art to
performing activation of a seismic source based on a two-dimensional
path.” Appeal Br. 7. As noted above, the rejection before us acknowledges
that Funde teaches only determining a two-dimensional path and relies on a
modification based on Brae regarding the determination of a three-
dimensional geometric shape of plural seismic source elements.
Second, Appellants argue “that Brae would not have led a person of
ordinary skill in the art to the subject matter of claim 1.” Id. In support,
Appellants assert that Brae determines the geometry of plural seismic source
elements for “signature reconstitution methods.” Id. at 7—8 (citing Brae col.
2,11. 22—26). Thus, Appellants assert:
A person of ordinary skill in the art would thus have been led by
Brae to using the determination of a geometry of source elements
in data processing of recorded data, and would not have been
led to the subject of claim 1, which recites the control of seismic
source elements, by adjusting timings of activation of the plural
seismic source elements according to the determined three-
dimension on geometric shape of the seismic source elements.
When the entirety of the teachings of Brae are properly
considered, Appellant respectfully submits that Brae would not
have led to the subject matter of claim 1.
Appeal Br. 8. We are not persuaded because Appellants have not shown
why the particular use for the determined geometry in Brae is relevant to the
rejection before us. The Examiner relies on Brae only insofar as Brae
generally teaches a method for determining the three-dimensional geometry
5
Appeal 2015-004145
Application 12/169,401
of plural seismic source elements and teaches why determining the three-
dimensional geometry would be beneficial. Appellants do not adequately
explain why the particular use of the determined geometry disclosed in Brae
has any bearing on the proposed modification of Lunde’s method and the
claimed method.
Further, to the extent Appellants are arguing that Brae teaches away
because Brae would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the
geometry for data processing and not for controlling the source elements, we
are not persuaded. See Appeal Br. 9; see also Reply Br. 7. A reference may
be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the
reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the
reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was
taken by the applicant. In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 53 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Although Brae discloses a different use for the determined three-dimensional
geometry of the seismic sources, we see no indication that Brae discourages
the use of a three-dimensional geometry as in the claimed method.
Appellants also argue against the proposed motivation provided by the
Examiner in the Answer. See Reply Br. 4—9. Appellants assert that the
proposed motivation found in Brae’s disclosure “does not provide any
teaching or hint of adjusting timings of activation of the plural seismic
source elements according to the determined three-dimensional shape.”
Reply Br. 6; see also id. at 5 (“the concept of adjusting timings of activation
of seismic source elements according to the determined three-dimensional
geometric shape does not exist anywhere in Brae.”); 7—8 (“Brae clearly does
not acknowledge any need for adjusting timings of activation of plural
seismic source elements according to a determined three-dimensional
6
Appeal 2015-004145
Application 12/169,401
geometric shape in the technique described by Brae”). Again, we are not
persuaded of error by the fact that Brae uses the determined three-
dimensional shape for a purpose other than the claimed adjustment of
timings of activation of the plural seismic sources. We understand from the
Answer that the rejection does not rely upon a bodily incorporation of Brae’s
specific method into Lunde’s method. Rather, the Examiner finds that “in
view of Brae, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
to modify Lunde to determine a three-dimensional shape of the plural
seismic source elements and adjust the timings of activation of the plural
source elements according to the three dimensional geometric shape.”
Ans. 3. We also note that, with respect to Brae, the Examiner “need not seek
out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged
claim” as “the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in
the art would employ” can be taken into account. KSR Int 7 Co. v. Teleflex
Inc., 550 U.S. 398,418 (2007).
Further, the Examiner finds motivation for the modification of
Lunde’s method in Brae. Id. We agree with the Examiner that Brae
supports the Examiner’s conclusion that the modification of Lunde would
have been obvious. Brae discloses that it is important to know the geometry
of a seismic wave emission system, i.e. plural seismic source elements,
because “[t]he effect obtained by sequential triggering depends very
precisely on the configuration of the sources used and the time intervals
separating the emissions.” Brae col. 1,11. 18—30. It is not disputed that Brae
goes on to describe the determination of the three-dimensional shape of
plural seismic source elements. From these disclosures, one of ordinary skill
in the art would have recognized that knowing the three-dimensional shape
7
Appeal 2015-004145
Application 12/169,401
of plural seismic source elements would be beneficial in adjusting the
timings of activation of the plural seismic source elements in order to
achieve the specific effects desired, potentially including the effects
described in Brae of increasing the acoustic power dissipated, improving the
shape of the emitted pulse or signature, or obtaining a more directional
emission diagram. See id. Appellants arguments do not persuasively
explain why the proposed motivation is not applicable to Lunde’s method
such that the proposed modification of Lunde would not have been obvious.
Finally, Appellants argue in their Reply Brief that “at a fundamental
level the combination of Lunde and Brae that is proposed by the Examiner
would not be logical to a person of ordinary skill in the art” because Brae’s
position information “is not found in time to be useful to tune the sources as
described in Lunde.” Reply Br. 2-4. However, as noted above, the rejection
does not rely on a bodily incorporation of Brae’s specific method of
determining the three-dimensional geometric shape into Lunde’s method.
Thus, Appellants’ argument here is not persuasive of error in the rejection.
Based on the foregoing, we are not persuaded of reversible error with
respect to the rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of
claim 1. Further, with respect to the remaining claims and rejections that
have not been withdrawn, Appellants either rely on the same arguments or
only generally argue that the other art of record does not cure the alleged
deficiencies discussed above. See Appeal Br. 6—16. We are not persuaded
of error for the reasons discussed above, and thus, we also sustain the
rejections of claims 2—14, 17—22, and 25—31.
8
Appeal 2015-004145
Application 12/169,401
CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the rejections of claims 1—14, 17—22, and 25—31 for the
reasons provided herein.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
9