Ex Parte MAPLES et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 7, 2017

13664708 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 7, 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.
13/664,708 10/31/2012 Mike MAPLES 0337-015-2 1735
11171 7590 02/09/2017
Patent Portfolio Builders, PLLC
P.O. Box 7999
Fredericksburg, VA 22404
EXAMINER
MURPHY, DANIEL L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3645
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/09/2017 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):
Mailroom@ppblaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MIKE MAPLES and JOHN S. HEPP
Appeal 2015-004312
Application 13/664,708
Technology Center 3600
Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, THOMAS F. SMEGAL, and
GORDON D. KINDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Mike Maples and John S. Hepp (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§134 from the rejection of claims 1—26. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
Appeal 2015-004312
Application 13/664,708
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A solid streamer for seismic data collection in a marine
environment, the solid streamer comprising:
a bulk cable that provides strength to the solid streamer;
a hydrophone section distributed along the bulk cable and
including plural hydrophones, the plural hydrophones being
configured to record seismic waves;
an accelerometer section distributed along the bulk cable
and including plural accelerometers;
a buoyant solid material distributed around the bulk cable;
a sleeve enclosing the plural accelerometers; and
a jacket enclosing the bulk cable, the plural hydrophone,
the plural accelerometers, the buoyant material, and the sleeve,
wherein the buoyant solid material provides flotation to
the solid streamer.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Savit US 4,319,347 Mar. 9, 1982
Weiss US 5,600,608 Feb. 4, 1997
Nash US 7,021,146 B2 Apr. 4, 2006
Singh US 2006/0239117 A1 Oct. 26, 2006
Maples US 7,382,689 B2 June 3, 2008
Boergen US 7,623,414 B2 Nov. 24, 2009
Kurtz US 7,624,637 B2 Dec. 1, 2009
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1—3, 5—7, 11—13, and 15—17 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Weiss, Boergen, and
Maples.
2
Appeal 2015-004312
Application 13/664,708
II. Claims 4, 14, and 21—24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Weiss, Boergen, Maples, Savit,
and Singh.
III. Claims 8 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Weiss, Boergen, Maples, and Kurtz.
IV. Claims 9, 10, 19 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Weiss, Boergen, Maples, and Nash.
V. Claims 25 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Weiss, Boergen, Maples, Savit, Singh, and
Nash.
DISCUSSION
Rejection I
Claims 1—3, 5, 6, 11—13, 15, and 16
Appellants argue claims 1—3, 5, 6, 11—13, 15, and 16 together. See
Appeal Br. 8—15. We select independent claim 1 as the illustrative claim,
and claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 11—13, 15, and 16 stand or fall with claim 1.
The Examiner finds that Weiss discloses all of the limitations of claim
1 except for “an accelerometer section distributed along the bulk cable and
including plural accelerometers,” “a sleeve enclosing the plural
accelerometers,” and “jacket also enclosing the plural accelerometers and
the sleeve.” Final Act. 5—6. The Examiner further finds that Boergen
teaches “an accelerometer section distributed along the bulk cable and
including plural accelerometers and that the jacket also encloses the plural
accelerometers.” Id. at 6 (citations omitted). In addition, the Examiner finds
that Maples teaches “a sleeve enclosing the plural sensors and the jacket also
enclosing the sleeve.” Id. at 7 (citation omitted). Based on these findings,
the Examiner determines that it would have been obvious
3
Appeal 2015-004312
Application 13/664,708
to utilize a solid streamer for seismic data collection in a marine
environment, the solid streamer comprising: a bulk cable that
provides strength to the solid streamer; a hydrophone section
distributed along the bulk cable and including plural
hydrophones, the plural hydrophones being configured to record
seismic waves; a buoyant solid material distributed around the
bulk cable; a jacket enclosing the bulk cable, the plural
hydrophones, and the buoyant solid material; wherein the
buoyant solid material provides flotation to the solid streamer as
taught by Weiss, in combination with an accelerometer section
distributed along the bulk cable and including plural
accelerometers; and the jacket also enclosing the plural
accelerometers as taught by Boergen, since such combination
enables determination of acoustic wave direction, which can
mitigate the effect of multiples
(id. at 6) and
to utilize a solid streamer for seismic data collection in a marine
environment, the solid streamer comprising: a bulk cable that
provides strength to the solid streamer; a hydrophone section
distributed along the bulk cable and including plural
hydrophones, the plural hydrophones being configured to record
seismic waves; an accelerometer section distributed along the
bulk cable and including plural accelerometers; a buoyant solid
material distributed around the bulk cable; and a jacket enclosing
the bulk cable, the plural hydrophones, the plural accelerometers,
and the buoyant solid material, wherein the buoyant solid
material provides flotation to the solid streamer as taught by
Weiss as modified by Boergen, in combination with a sleeve
enclosing the plural accelerometers and the jacket also enclosing
the sleeve as suggested by Maples, since such combination
provides better isolation from noise carried into the streamer
through the jacket.
Id. at 7—8.
In other words, the Examiner determines that it would have been
obvious to modify Weiss’ streamer to include a plurality of accelerometers
in an accelerometer section, which would result in a streamer wherein the
jacket encloses the hydrophones and the accelerometers, and to include a
4
Appeal 2015-004312
Application 13/664,708
sleeve enclosing the hydrophones and the accelerometers, between the
hydrophones and accelerometers and the jacket. The Examiner reasons that
including a plurality of accelerometers in an accelerometer section is an
improvement because it adds the functionality of being able to determine
acoustic wave direction which can be used to mitigate the effect of
multiples. See id. at 6. The Examiner further determines that it would have
been obvious to further modify Weiss’ streamer to use a sleeve between the
hydrophones and accelerometers and the jacket to isolate these sensors from
noise. See id. at 8.
Appellants contend that “Maples does not teach or suggest ‘a sleeve
enclosing the plural accelerometers.’” Appeal Br. 9 (emphasis omitted); see
also Reply Br. 4. Appellants are correct; however, this is not indicative of
error, as Appellants’ contention is not responsive to the rejection as
articulated by the Examiner. As discussed supra, the rejection proposes a
sleeve enclosing hydrophones and accelerometers. See Final Act. 6—8.
Moreover, Appellants do not explain why a sleeve enclosing hydrophones (a
type of sensor) as taught by Maples, would not suggest a sleeve enclosing
accelerometers (another type of sensor). The Examiner finds that:
There are many, and well-known, reasons, for such use, a few
being: to hold components in position during streamer
fabrication and during subsequent deployment and use of the
streamer; to protect components from mechanical shock; to
isolate component wiring from other streamer wiring; to isolate
components from possible contact with liquid.
Final Act. 3. Appellants do not contest this finding in the Appeal Brief. See
generally. Appeal Br.
In the Reply Brief, Appellants contest the Examiner’s common sense
reasoning for the first time. See Reply Br. 5—6. For example, Appellants
5
Appeal 2015-004312
Application 13/664,708
argue that it would not be obvious to use a sleeve “for holding components
in position during streamer fabrication and during deployment and use,”
because “Figure 2 of the present application shows that the ‘components’ are
held in place with screws and not with a sleeve.” Reply Br. 5. As this
reasoning was set forth in the Final Action, Appellants’ argument is not in
response to an argument raised in the Answer. In accordance with 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.41(b)(2), lacking a showing of good cause, we do not consider the
arguments raised in the Reply Brief which are not responsive to an argument
raised in the Answer.
Appellants further contend that “Boergen is silent about having plural
accelerometers in an accelerometer section and plural hydrophones in a
hydrophone section.” Appeal Br. 10. Appellants’argument attacks Boergen
separately and does not consider the combined teachings of Weiss and
Boergen. Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references
individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art
disclosures. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Appellants do not explain why the combined teachings of Weiss and
Boergen would not suggest an accelerometer section and a hydrophone
section. Moreover, as noted by the Examiner there is no limitation in claim
1 “that precludes the hydrophone section and the accelerometer section
being coextensive.” Final Act. 3. Thus, Appellants do not apprise us of
error.
In addition, Appellants argue that the rejection does not rely upon any
of the rationales set forth in MPEP § 2143.01. See Appeal Br. 11—12. We
are not aware of any requirement that the rejection rely on one of the
rationales set forth in this section of the MPEP. Rather, the key to
supporting any prima facie conclusion of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103
6
Appeal 2015-004312
Application 13/664,708
is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would
have been obvious. The Court in KSR Int 7 Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
398, 418 (2007) noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35
U.S.C. § 103 should be made explicit. The Federal Circuit has stated that
“rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory
statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some
rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006), cited with approval in KSR, 550
U.S. at 418.
As discussed above, the Examiner articulated the reasons for the
proposed modifications. See Final Act. 6—8. Moreover, the Examiner
articulated further reasons in the Answer. See Ans. 6—8. Appellants do not,
in this section of their arguments, explain why the Examiner’s original
reasoning or additional reasoning added in the Answer lacks rational
underpinnings. Thus, Appellants do not apprise us of error.
Noting that the Examiner’s reasoning “in support for combining the
two references is not accurate unless the hydrophone and accelerometer are
collocated as shown in Figure 2A of Boergen,” Appellants argue that the
proposed modification would not result in a streamer having “a hydrophone
section and an accelerometer section.” Appeal Br. 13. However, as
discussed supra, claim 1 does not preclude a streamer having a hydrophone
section and an accelerometer section that are collocated. Thus, Appellants’
observation does not apprise us of error.
Finally, Appellants contend that “[t]he reason for combining the
teachings of Weiss, Boergen and Maples is defective” because “[t]he jacket
of the streamer is not acknowledged in the art to transmit any noise. Even if
the jacket transmits noise, adding a sleeve would only enhance the noise
7
Appeal 2015-004312
Application 13/664,708
transmission process because there is no evidence that a sleeve would limit
the noise propagated through the jacket.” Appeal Br. 14 (emphasis omitted).
Appellants further contend that:
the jacket is desired to be made as flexible as possible because
the pressure waves (which are quite faint when arriving at the
sensors from a considerable depth) that propagate through the
water to the streamer need to pass through the jacket and contact
the inside sensors for detection. Thus, to the contrary, the jacket
is designed to allow almost any water perturbation to propagate
thorough it.
Id. at 14—15.
Responding to this argument, the Examiner explains that “it is a
common, if not everyday experience that interposing material between a
sound source and a sound receptor diminished the perceived loudness of the
sound. Consequently, the addition of a sleeve to the jacket has the effect of
reducing noise carried into the streamer from outside.” Ans. 9. Noting that
Appellants’ argument oversimplifies streamer design, the Examiner further
explains that:
Both the desired signals and the undesired noise have frequency
spectra. Seismic signals are generally low frequency, particularly
those of interest from subterranean interfaces well below the sea
floor. Sources of noise that can be carried into the streamer from
outside may include action of waves and currents, sounds of
marine animals, sounds from towing vessel propulsion, and even
sounds from other seismic surveys. Addition of a sleeve along
with the jacket increases the amount of mass that a penetrating
wave must traverse to penetrate into the streamer. For low
frequency waves, this has little effect (the sleeve-plus-jacket can
move in phase with the incoming wave, to accommodate its
propagation into the streamer), but for higher frequency waves
the effect is similar to a low pass filter (the sleeve-plus-jacket
increasingly is more out-of-phase with the incoming wave as
incoming waves of greater frequency are considered).
8
Appeal 2015-004312
Application 13/664,708
Id. at 9—10. We further note that claim 1 does not require any particular type
of jacket or sleeve. Moreover, Appellants do not contest the Examiner’s
reasoning. Thus, Appellants do not apprise us of error.
In the Reply Brief, Appellants contest the Examiner’s comments with
respect to Figure 11 of the instant invention. See Reply Br. 2—3. However,
as the rejection is not predicated upon a particular interpretation of what is
shown in Figure 11, we hold any mischaracterization by the Examiner to be
harmless error.
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim
1, and claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 11—13, 15, and 16, which fall therewith.
Claims 7 and 17
Appellants argue that:
the Final Office Action did not establish that additively
connecting hydrophones (which are designed to measure
pressure, i.e., a scalar quantity) is the same with additively
connecting accelerometers (which are designed to measure
particle motion data, i.e., a vectorial quantity) especially because
the rules of adding scalars are different from the rules of adding
vectors.
Appeal Br. 16. Appellants are correct because vectors have direction as well
as magnitude, whereas scalars only have magnitude. See, e.g., The Physics
Classroom.com, http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/lDKin/Lesson-
1/Scalars-and-Vectors (last accessed February 2, 2017).
For this reason, we do not sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting
claims 7 and 17.
9
Appeal 2015-004312
Application 13/664,708
Rejection II
Claims 21-23
Appellants argue claims 21—23 together. See Appeal Br. 17—18. We
select independent claim 21 as the illustrative claim, and claims 22 and 23
stand or fall with claim 21.
The Examiner makes essentially the same findings and articulates
essentially the same reasoning discussed supra with respect to claim 1. In
addition, the Examiner determines that none of Weiss, Boergen, or Maples
teaches “plural hydrophone sections, plural accelerometer sections
distributed along the bulk cable, the plural accelerometer sections alternating
with the plural hydrophone sections.” Final Act. 20. However, the
Examiner finds that “Savit teaches a field digitizing unit located between
cable sensor sections and configured to receive seismic signals from the
plural hydrophones or geophones” and “Singh teaches alternating
hydrophone and geophone cable sections.” Id. (citations omitted). Based on
these findings, the Examiner determines that:
Savit and Singh therefore suggest a field digitizing unit located
between the hydrophone section and the accelerometer section
and configured to receive seismic signals from the plural
hydrophones and/or the plural accelerometers, and thus further
suggest plural hydrophone sections, plural accelerometer
sections, and the plural accelerometer sections alternating with
the plural hydrophone sections.
Id. The Examiner further determines that it would have been obvious to
further modify Weiss to use “plural hydrophone sections, plural
accelerometer sections, and the plural accelerometer sections alternating
with the plural hydrophone sections as suggested by Savit and Singh, since
such combination enables advanced array-forming processing to be applied
10
Appeal 2015-004312
Application 13/664,708
to the sensor sections for improving signal to noise ratio and enhancing
seismic imaging.” Id. at 21.
Noting that “[independent Claim 21 is similar to independent Claim 1
discussed above,” Appellants argue that “[t]hus, the arguments noted above
in Sections 1 A—E also apply to this rejection.” Appeal Br. 17. As discussed
supra, those arguments are not persuasive.
Appellants further contend that “[t]he reason provided for combining
Savit and Singh with Weiss, Boergen and Maples is without basis.” Id.
(emphasis omitted). In support of this contention, Appellants argue that “the
Examiner combines Savit and Singh without any reason.” However, as
discussed supra, Appellants mischaracterize the rejection which considers
the teachings of all of these references.
Noting that the Examiner’s reasoning for the proposed modification is
that ‘“such combination enables advanced array-forming processing to be
applied to the sensor sections for improving signal to noise ratio and
enhancing seismic imaging,’” Appellants contend that “the statement noted
above lacks a logical connection to the features being imported from Savit
and Singh.” Appeal Br. 17. Appellants’contention is not well taken. It
appears that Appellants would require the Examiner to discuss the references
in some unknown proscribed manner. Such is not the case. Our reviewing
court has provided instruction that “all that is required of the office to meet
its prima facie burden of production is to set forth the statutory basis of the
rejection and the reference or references relied upon in a sufficiently
articulate and informative manner as to meet the notice requirement of [35
U.S.C.] § 132.” In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Appellants do not explain how the teachings of Savit and Singh do not
suggest the limitations at issue. Thus, Appellants do not apprise us of error.
11
Appeal 2015-004312
Application 13/664,708
In addition, Appellants contend that “stating that a combination of
references enhances ‘seismic imagining’ is not enough for supporting an
obviousness rejection because enhancing the ‘seismic imagining’ is the goal
of any seismic patent.” Appeal Br. 18. However, as discussed supra, all
that is required is “some articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” Kahn, 441
F.3d at 988. Appellants do not explain why improving seismic imaging is
not achieved by the proposed combination. Thus, Appellants do not apprise
us of error.
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim
21, and claims 22 and 23, which fall therewith.
Claims 4, 14, and 24
Appellants contend that “neither Savit nor Singh teaches or suggests
locating a field digitizing unit between the hydrophone section and the
accelerometer section as recited by the claims.” Appeal Br. 20. In support
of this contention, Appellants explain that:
The fact that Savit teaches a digitizing unit located
between hydrophone sections is not equivalent to locating the
same unit between a hydrophone section and an accelerometer
section given the fact that the output of a hydrophone is pressure
and the output of an accelerometer is particle motion (e.g.,
velocity), two quantities that cannot be combined together by
simply digitizing them.
Id.
Responding to this argument, the Examiner explains that “claim 4
[and likewise, claims 14 and 24] must be interpreted as reciting a field
digitizing unit that lies between the limits of the hydrophone section and the
limits of the accelerometer section; thus, in the case of coextensive sections,
a field digitizing unit as the applied art teaches fully meets the claim
12
Appeal 2015-004312
Application 13/664,708
limitations.” Ans. 13. However, the Examiner’s claim interpretation is
unreasonable. Claims 4 and 14 require “a field digitizing unit located
between the hydrophone section and the accelerometer section” and claim
24 similarly requires “a field digitizing unit being located between
corresponding hydrophone and accelerometer sections.” Appeal Br. 25, 27,
29. The Examiner does not explain how these limitations can be met when
the sections are coextensive.
For this reason, we do not sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting
claims 4, 14, and 24.
Rejection III
Noting that “Kurtz discloses that housing 43 is a ‘hermetic housing,’
which means that there is no communication with the outside, i.e., the
housing is airtight,” Appellants argue that Kurtz fails to disclose “a chamber
fluidly communicates with an exterior of the chamber” as required by claims
8 and 18. Appeal Br. 21.
Appellants are correct. In Kurtz housing 43 is the chamber. Kurtz,
5:55—58. Claims 8 and 18 require “a piezoelectric element mounted inside
the housing to form a chamber” that “fluidly communicates with an exterior
of the chamber.” Id. at 25, 27. As Kurtz’ housing/chamber is hermetically
sealed it cannot fluidly communicate with its exterior.
We do not sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 8 and 18.
Rejection IV
Appellants do not present any arguments contesting this rejection.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 9, 10, 19,
and 20.
13
Appeal 2015-004312
Application 13/664,708
Rejection V
Claim 25
Appellants argue that “the Final Office Action consistently fails to
articulate reasons for why the claimed invention would have been obvious
and only presents a broad statement, which is one of the advantages of the
claimed invention.” Appeal Br. 22.
Appellants’ argument is not well taken. As discussed supra, the
Examiner articulates reasons for the proposed modifications. Further, with
respect to the rejection of claim 25 in particular, the Examiner finds support
for the reasoning in Nash. See Final Act. 26 (citing Nash Abstract, 1:58—
67); see also Ans. 14 (citing Nash 1:49—65). Appellants do not explain why
Nash does not support the articulated rationale. Thus, Appellants do not
apprise us of error.
We sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 25.
Claim 26
Appellants do not present arguments contesting the rejection of claim
26. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 26.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—3, 5, 6, 9—13, 15, 16, and 19—
23 are AFFIRMED.
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 4, 7, 8, 14, 17, 18, and 24 are
REVERSED.
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).
14
Appeal 2015-004312
Application 13/664,708
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
15