Ex Parte Groenaas et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 11, 2017

13019606 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 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.
13/019,606 02/02/2011 Halvor Sehested Groenaas 14.0531-US-NP 1786
28116 7590
WestemGeco L.L.C.
10001 Richmond Avenue
IP Administration Center of Excellence
Houston, TX 77042
EXAMINER
BAGHDASARYAN, HOVHANNES
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3645
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/13/2017 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 HALVOR SEHESTED GROENAAS and SVEIN ARNE FRIVIK
Appeal 2015-004843
Application 13/019,606
Technology Center 3600
Before GEORGE R. HOSKINS, BRANDON J. WARNER, and
SEAN P. O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Halvor Sehested Groenaas and Svein Arne Frivik (Appellants)1 appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s June 19, 2014 final decision
(“Final Act.”) rejecting claims 1—25. We have jurisdiction over this appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is WestemGeco, L.L.C.
App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2015-004843
Application 13/019,606
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
Appellants’ disclosure is directed to a method and system for
determining a streamer position. Spec. 11. Claim 1, reproduced below
from page 21 (Claims Appendix) of the Appeal Brief, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A method comprising:
receiving seismic measurements acquired by at least one
sensor on a spread of at least one streamer, the seismic
measurements being indicative of a seismic source signature
produced by a seismic source to penetrate into the Earth to
acquire geophysical information in connection with a seismic
survey;
determining a plurality of positions on the streamer
relative to a reference position not disposed on the streamer
based at least in part on the seismic measurements; and
processing the seismic measurements to determine at
least part of the geophysical information.
REJECTION2
Claims 1—16 and 18—25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Hatteland (US 5,668,775, issued Sept. 16, 1997).
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Hatteland discloses all of the steps of
independent claim 1. Final Act. 2—3. More specifically, the Examiner finds
that Hatteland discloses a method including, inter alia, “determining a
plurality of positions on the streamer relative to a reference position not
disposed on the streamer based at least in part on the seismic
2 We note that the two obviousness rejections of the claims were withdrawn.
Ans. 2. Thus, there is no pending rejection of claim 17.
2
Appeal 2015-004843
Application 13/019,606
measurements.” Id. at 2 (citing Hatteland, 3:29—54). The Examiner further
finds that “Hatteland teaches on (col 6 lines 53-57) that the signal from [the]
transducer may be mixed with seismic signal[s,] therefore the seismic
measurements are present in data,” and reasons that “[t]he seismic
measurements are removed from the data which are used in calculation of
the position and therefore [the] determining step is based at least in part on
the seismic measurements.” Id. at 3 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner
further finds that Hatteland’s system determines sensor position
by cross-correlating the transmitted signal with [the] received
signal and as [the] received signal contains the seismic
measurement therefore(col 6 line 50- col 7 line 15)
“determining a plurality of positions on the streamer relative to
a reference position not disposed on the streamer based at least
in part on the seismic measurements” is inherent.
Id. (emphasis omitted). The Examiner also notes that, with Appellants’
system, “direct arrival [signals are] used to calculate the position,” and
reasons that “direct arrivals cannot be considered ‘the seismic
measurements’ as they do not contain any information regarding the
subterranean structure.” Id. at 2 (citing Spec. 125).
Appellants traverse, arguing, inter alia, that “Hatteland fails to
disclose determining positions on a streamer relative to a reference position
not on the streamer based at least in part on seismic measurements.” App.
Br. 10. Continuing, Appellants assert that “Hatteland discusses determining
the position of seismic equipment based on spread spectrum signal
measurements, not based on seismic measurements.” Id. Appellants further
note that, “[according to Hatteland, ‘since there is no correlation between
the seismic signal and the spread spectrum codes, i.e. it is not possible to
3
Appeal 2015-004843
Application 13/019,606
confuse a seismic signal with a spread spectrum signal transmitted from a
transmitter.’” Id. at 11 (quoting Hatteland, 6:47—50). Appellants reason that
“as acknowledged by the Final Office Action, any seismic measurements
that might be present in Hatteland’s hydrophone data are removed . . . before
the equipment position determination and as such, do not serve as a basis or
foundation from which the equipment position is determined.” Id. at 12.
Appellants similarly argue that “cross-correlation is a technique to remove
any other signal from the position determination such that the position
determination is based on the identified spread spectrum signal, not on
another signal, such as a signal that represents a seismic measurement,” and,
therefore, “no reasoning or evidence has been presented to explain why
determining a position based on seismic measurements necessarily flows
from Hatteland.” Id. at 12—13.
The Examiner responds by determining that because the signals used
by Hatteland’s system for cross-correlation are “taken when [the] seismic
signal is weakest but still present,” “the data later used in cross-correlation
consists] of transmitter data . . . and [p]art of [sjeismic [measurement[]
data” and, therefore, “the cross[-]correlation values will inherently depend
on [sjeismic [m]easurement[] data.” Ans. 2—3 (citing Hatteland, 6:54—57).
Appellants reply:
[T]he seismic signal sensed by the seismic sensors 10 is
effectively noise for Hatteland’s purposes of determining
streamer positions. ... It does not necessarily flow from
Hatteland’s teaching, and is thus, not inherent, that the seismic
measurements are somehow considered along with, or instead
of, the acoustic measurements for purposes of determining
positions on a streamer.
4
Appeal 2015-004843
Application 13/019,606
Reply Br. 1—2.
We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. Initially, we disagree
with the Examiner’s position that “[t]he seismic measurements are removed
from the data which are used in calculation of the position and therefore
[the] determining step is based at least in part on the seismic measurements.”
Final Act. 3 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner’s logic is internally
inconsistent and flawed—if seismic measurements are removed prior to
determining the position, then the positions are necessarily not determined
based at least in part on the seismic measurements. See App. Br. 12.
We further agree with Appellants that Hatteland’s cross-correlation is
not inherently based at least in part on seismic measurements. See id. at 12—
13. Hatteland explains that acoustic transmitters are added to its seismic
streamers (Hatteland 5:55—57) and that, rather than transmitting seismic
shotpoint signals, the acoustic transmitters transmit spread spectrum signals
(id. at 3:62-4:4, 6:28—31, 6:58—61). Hatteland further explains that
in spread spectrum modulation the entire bandwidth in a
communication channel will be used and split up a transmitted
signal frequency, the individual parts being transferred on
several different frequencies. Only the receiver will know
which frequency and phase combination the incoming
information will have. The receiver knows a transmitter’s
individual code. By cross-correlating the incoming signals with
a transmitter’s individual code, a receiver will be able to extract
the unambiguous spread spectrum signal from the range of
other signals. . . .
... In order to avoid false detection of e.g., signals
which use the same communication line, the cross-correlation
function between the codes must have a top value which is as
low as possible.
5
Appeal 2015-004843
Application 13/019,606
Id. at 6:66—7:24 (emphases added). Thus, Hatteland discloses that the cross­
correlation of the spread spectrum signal extracts the incoming information
from the range of unwanted signals. In the context of Hatteland’s system,
this means that even if seismic signals are transmitted at the same time as the
spread spectrum signal, the seismic signals will be ignored due to the cross­
correlation of the received signal(s). Moreover, Hatteland further discloses
that the cross-correlation function is chosen so as to avoid false detection of
signals—such as seismic signals—that use the same communication line as
the spread spectrum signal. Id. at 7:5—24.
Finally, we further disagree with the Examiner’s determination that
direct arrivals, as used in the Specification, “cannot be considered ‘the
seismic measurements’ as they do not contain any information regarding the
subterranean structure.” Final Act. 2. Claim 1 recites that the “the seismic
measurements [are] indicative of a seismic source signature produced by a
seismic source to penetrate into the Earth to acquire geophysical information
in connection with a seismic survey.” App. Br. 21 (Claims App’x). The
Specification explains that seismic measurements are measurements “of the
seismic source signature.” Spec. 121. The Specification further explains
that the seismic source signature “includes a direct arrival 152, which is the
portion of the sensed signal 150 attributable to the seismic energy arriving at
the seismic sensor without first being reflected and another portion 154
attributable to the seismic energy that is reflected off the sea bed.” Id. 125
(emphasis added); see also id. Fig. 4. Thus, the direct arrival portion of the
received signal is part of the seismic signal, and the measurement thereof is
a seismic measurement. In other words, measurement of any signal
6
Appeal 2015-004843
Application 13/019,606
transmitted by Appellants’ seismic source is a seismic measurement. This is
in contrast with Hatteland’s disclosure, which adds acoustic transmitters 18
for use in determining position rather than using the seismic sources (gun
arrays) 3.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1,
nor of its dependent claims 2—11, as being anticipated by Hatteland.
Each of independent claims 12, 16, and 22 includes a similar
recitation as that of claim 1 that a determination of streamer position is
“based at least in part on the seismic measurements.” App. Br. 23—24
(Claims App’x). Thus, for the same reasons as discussed above with respect
to the rejection of claim 1, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 12, nor of
its dependent claims 13—15, of claim 16, nor of its dependent claims 18—21,
and of claim 22, nor of its dependent claims 23—25, as being anticipated by
Hatteland.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—16 and 18—25 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Hatteland is reversed.
REVERSED
7