Ex Parte ROMMEL

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 4, 2019

14300443 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 4, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/300,443 06/10/2014 Bjorn Eino ROMMEL
11171 7590 04/08/2019
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.
0336-299-2/100490 9857
EXAMINER
LOBO,IANJ
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3645
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/08/2019 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 BJORN EINO ROMMEL
Appeal2018-001057
Application 14/300,443 1
Technology Center 3600
Before BRUCE T. WIEDER, AMEE A. SHAH, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-21. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is CGG SERVICES SA.
(Appeal Br. 2.)
Appeal2018-001057
Application 14/300,443
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant's invention "generally relate[s] to methods and systems
and, more particularly, to mechanisms and techniques for deghosting seismic
data." (Spec. ,r 1.)
Claims 1, 17, 18, and 21 are the independent claims on appeal.
Claim 1 is illustrative. It recites ( emphasis added):
1. A method for seismic data acquisition and processing, the
method comprising:
generating a first seismic wave at a source position (Xs,
Ys, Zs);
recording the first seismic wave, after undertaking a
seismic event, at a first receiver position (XI, YI, Zl), to obtain
a first record;
generating a second seismic wave substantially at the same
source position (Xs, Y s, Zs);
recording the second seismic wave, after undertaking the
seismic event, at a second receiver position (X2, Y2, Z2), to
obtain a second record; and
combining the first and second records to form a
substantially deghosted seismic record,
wherein the first receiver position and the source position
are characterized by a first source-receiver offset and a first
common mid-point, the second receiver position and the source
position are characterized by a second source-receiver offset
and a second common mid-point, and
the first source-receiver offset is substantially the same as
the second source-receiver offset, the first common mid-point is
substantially the same as the second common mid-point, and a
first depth (Z 1) of the first receiver position is different from a
second depth (Z2) of the second receiver position.
2
Appeal2018-001057
Application 14/300,443
REJECTI0N2
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Hegna (US 2012/0033526 Al, pub. Feb. 9, 2012) and Moldoveanu
(US 2013/0107663 Al, pub. May 2, 2013).
ANALYSIS
Obviousness is a legal conclusion involving a determination of four
underlying facts.
Under § 103, the scope and content of the prior art are to be
determined; differences between the prior art and the claims at
issue are to be ascertained; and the level of ordinary skill in the
pertinent art resolved. Against this background, the obviousness
or nonobviousness of the subject matter is determined. Such
secondary considerations as commercial success, long felt but
unsolved needs, failure of others, etc., might be utilized to give
light to the circumstances surrounding the origin of the subject
matter sought to be patented.
KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,406 (2007) (quoting Graham v.
John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966)).
With regard to the scope and content of the prior art, the Examiner
finds that
[ f]rom Fig. 1 of Hegna et al, it is seen that the sources ( 14, 16),
aligned vertically at different depths, will EACH have a first
source-receiver offset (distance) substantially the same as a
second source-receiver offset and a first common mid-point
(reflection point halfway between a source and a receiver) being
substantially the same as a second common mid-point.
2 The rejection of claims 1-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) was withdrawn.
(Advisory Action mailed April 12, 2017.)
3
Appeal2018-001057
Application 14/300,443
(Answer 4.) The Examiner also finds that "[a]s seen in Fig. 1 of Hegna, the
first common midpoint is 'equal to' or 'substantially the same as' the second
midpoint." (Final Action 3.)
Appellant argues that "Hegna does not present any detail about the
offsets of specific source positions and receiver positions, or common mid-
points associated with these offsets." (Appeal Br. 10.) Appellant also
argues that "there is no disclosure in [Moldoveanu that] ... the first common
mid-point is substantially the same as the second common mid-point." (Id.
at 11.)
To aid us in resolving this matter, we will construe the claim term
"common mid-point."
Appellant's Specification relates particularly to "[ m ]arine seismic data
acquisition and processing [to] generate a profile (image) of the geophysical
structure (subsurface) under the seafloor." (Spec. ,r 2.) In relevant part, the
Specification discloses:
Ray path 320 leaves first source 304, travels toward ocean
bottom 330 (see Figure 4 that shows system 300 in a lateral
view), where it gets reflected, and then travels toward receiver
314 where it gets recorded. A line 332 that is substantially
perpendicular to the water surface and also intersects the point
where the ray path 320 is reflected is illustrated in Figures 4
and 5. A point where line 332 intersects the water surface 334 is
called common midpoint (CMP). The CMP shall herein mean
the location on the surface, halfway between the location of the
seismic source and the receiver. In a typical seismic acquisition,
a common midpoint is typically shared by numerous
combinations of locations of a seismic source and of a seismic
sensor.
(Id. ,r 38, emphasis added.)
4
Appeal2018-001057
Application 14/300,443
Appellant's Figure 4, illustrating the position of ray path 320 and
common mid-point 332, is reproduced below.
Figure 4 rx 302
y 334
CMP
30(;
3tB
330
' . . . '
~·,:::::::,-;:_'7/--::-~~~~.~~.,:..._.,;;_:.~.,.:_...,~'--'--r""""7'~--/--'--_
- /: j
. .--- - ,,,.. .· _,.. ...
; ..
Figure 4 is a side view of an embodiment of a seismic survey system. (Spec.
,r 15.)
Figure 4 shows the common mid-point at a particular location on the
surface defined by the ray path associated with a particular seismic wave
generated at a particular source position and recorded at a particular receiver
position. Appellant's Specification further illustrates the common mid-point
in Figure 7, reproduced below.
5
Appeal2018-001057
Application 14/300,443
Figure 7
700
724 722 (720
706
710
\.734 ~732 ~
'----130
702
Figure 7 is a schematic diagram of an embodiment of another seismic survey
system. (Spec. ,r 18.)
As shown in Appellant's Figure 7,
four seismic sources are used to increase seismic survey
efficiency. The seismic survey system 700 includes a vessel 702
towing four seismic sources 704, 706, 708 and 710. A receiver
722 on streamer 720 is illustrated as being connected by a ray
path 723 to first source 704, and a receiver 732 on streamer 730
is illustrated as being connected by ray path 733 to third source
708. The CMP of source 704 and receiver 722 is CMPJ and the
CMP of source 708 and receiver 732 is CMP2. As the vessel 702
advances by distance D, source 706 and receiver 724 will have
6
Appeal2018-001057
Application 14/300,443
CMP 1 and source 710 and receiver 734 will have CMP2. Thus,
these source-receiver pairs share the same offset and CMP while
having different sensor depths, i.e., sensor 724 is assumed to
have a different depth than sensor 722, and sensor 734 is assumed
to have a different depth than sensor 732.
(Id. ,r 48, emphasis added.)
Claim 1 recites "generating a first seismic wave at a source position
(Xs, Y s, Zs)," "recording the first seismic wave ... at a first receiver
position (XI, YI, Zl)," "generating a second seismic wave substantially at
the same source position (Xs, Y s, Zs)," "recording the second seismic wave
... at a second receiver position (X2, Y2, Z2)," and that "the first receiver
position and the source position are characterized by ... a first common
mid-point, the second receiver position and the source position are
characterized by ... a second common mid-point."
In view of the above, and applying a broadest reasonable
interpretation, we construe the claim term "common mid-point" to include a
particular "location on the surface" defined by a ray path associated with a
particular seismic wave generated at a particular source position ( e.g., Xs,
Ys, Zs) and recorded at a particular receiver position (e.g., XI, YI, Zl).
We now tum to the cited art. Figure 1 of Hegna, reproduced below,
shows an acquisition system 12 with seismic energy sources 14 and 16. (See
Hegna ,r 31 and Fig. 1.)
7
Appeal2018-001057
Application 14/300,443
FJG. 1
Figure 1 is a side view showing an arrangement of seismic energy sources
and receivers acquiring seismic data. (Hegna ,r 18.)
As shown in Figure 1 of Hegna, energy from the first source 14
travels both upwardly 24 and downwardly 22. The upward energy is
reflected downwardly from the water surface. (See Hegna ,r 31 and Fig. 1.)
The reflection from the downward energy 22 is shown, after being reflected
from, e.g., the water bottom, intersecting a first receiver 20. The reflection
from the upward energy 24 is shown, after being reflected downwardly from
the water surface and again from, e.g., the water bottom, intersecting a
second receiver 20. The two reflections from the water bottom shown, have
different common mid-points.
8
Appeal2018-001057
Application 14/300,443
Hegna further discloses that the system 12
is configured to actuate the second seismic energy source, e.g.,
source 16, at the end of a second time relative to the start of the
seismic data recording, or, alternatively, after a selected time
before or after the actuation of the first source 14. Energy
travelling outwardly from the second source 16 moves along
similar paths as the energy from the first source 14. In the present
invention, the above described time delays are selected so that
energy from both sources is detected by the receivers 20 in each
data recording ( called a shot record). It is expected that the time
of actuating the sources at different depths may vary between
shot records in a random, semi-random, or systematic manner.
(Id. ,r 31, emphasis added.) In other words, in the above description of
Figure 1, Hegna does not disclose that the release of energy from second
source 16 is to be timed such that the source would be located so as to result
in the common mid-points resulting from the release of energy from the first
source being "substantially the same" as either of the common mid-points
resulting from the release of energy from the second source, as recited in
claim 1.
"' [T]here must be some articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.'" KSR Int 'l
Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,418 (2007) (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d
977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Here, the Examiner does not sufficiently explain
why, in view of Hegna, it would have been obvious to have "the first
common mid-point [be] substantially the same as the second common mid-
point," as recited in claim 1. Nor does the Examiner explain why
Moldoveanu would cure this deficiency.
Therefore, we will reverse the rejection of claim 1, and dependent
claims 2-16 under § 103. Independent claims 17, 18, and 21 contain similar
9
Appeal2018-001057
Application 14/300,443
language, and the Examiner's rejection of claims 17, 18, and 21 relies on
similar reasoning. Therefore, for similar reasons we will reverse the
rejection of claims 1 7, 18, and 21, and dependent claim 19 under § 103.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
reversed.
REVERSED
10