Ex Parte Siliqi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2017

13748062 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 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.
13/748,062 01/23/2013 Risto SILIQI 0336-128-2/100309 2666
11171 7590 09/28/2017
Patent Portfolio Builders, PLLC
P.O. Box 7999
Fredericksburg, VA 22404
EXAMINER
HULKA, JAMES R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3645
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/28/2017 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
eofficeaction @ appcoll.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RISTO SILIQI, THOMAS MENSCH, and DAMIEN GRENIE
Appeal 2016-006749
Application 13/748,062
Technology Center 3600
Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2016-006749
Application 13/748,062
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants, Risto Siliqi et al.,1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from
the Examiner’s decision, as set forth in the Final Office Action, dated June
25, 2015 (“Final Act.”), rejecting claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to “methods and systems for marine seismic
data acquisition.” Spec. 11. Claims 1, 14, 15, and 19 are the independent
claims on appeal. Claim 1, reproduced below with disputed limitations
italicized for emphasis, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for determining a seismic survey configuration of
a multi-vessel acquisition system, the method comprising:
receiving a number that corresponds to vessels to be used
in the multi-vessel acquisition system;
receiving a cross-line distance between first and last
straight line paths corresponding to first and last vessels,
respectively, of the multi-vessel acquisition system;
receiving an inline distance between the first and last
vessels',
selecting shapes of undulating paths for the vessels of the
multi-vessel acquisition system;
receiving a desired azimuth and/or offset distribution of
receivers towed by one or more streamer vessels of the multi­
vessel acquisition system relative to source vessels of the multi­
vessel acquisition system;
calculating amplitudes (Ai), periods (Ti) and phases of the
undulating paths', and
1 Appellants identify CGGVeritas Services SA as the real party in
interest. Appeal Brief, dated December 11, 2015 (“Br.”), at 2.
2
Appeal 2016-006749
Application 13/748,062
driving the first and last vessels along corresponding
undulating paths, wherein a cross-line interval between first and
last undulating paths varies along the first and last straight line
paths.
REFERENCES
In rejecting the claims on appeal, the Examiner relied upon the
following prior art:
Payton US 3,921,124 Nov. 18, 1975
Moldoveanu ’381 US 2008/0285381 A1 Nov. 20, 2008
Goswami US 2009/0105956 A1 Apr. 23, 2009
Moldoveanu ’374 US 2010/0027374 A1 Feb. 4, 2010
Janiszewski US 2012/0002503 A1 Jan. 5, 2012
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
1. Claims 1—6, 8, and 11—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Moldoveanu ’381 and Payton.
2. Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Moldoveanu ’381, Payton, and Goswami.
3. Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Moldoveanu ’381, Payton, and Moldoveanu ’374.
4. Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Moldoveanu ’381, Payton, Moldoveanu ’374, and
Janiszewski.
Appellants seek our review of these rejections.
3
Appeal 2016-006749
Application 13/748,062
DISCUSSION
The Rejection of Claims 1—6, 8, and 11—20
as Unpatentable Over Moldoveanu ’381 and Payton
Claims 1^. 6. 8.11-13.16
Appellants argue claims 1—4, 6, 8, 11—13, 16, and 18 as a group.
Appeal Br. 8—11. We select independent claim 1 as the representative claim,
and claims 2—4, 6, 8, 11—13, 16, and 18 stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Claims 5, 14, 15, 17, 19, and 20 are addressed below.
The Examiner finds, in part, that Moldoveanu ’381 discloses, in part,
a method and computing device for determining a seismic survey
configuration of a multi-vessel acquisition system, including receiving a
cross-line distance between first and last vessels, and receiving inline
distance between first and last vessels, as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 2—3.
Appellants argue that the Examiner’s rejection is erroneous for several
reasons. Before we address Appellants’ specific arguments, we note that the
gravamen of Appellants’ arguments is that Moldoveanu ’381 discloses a
single vessel 8 towing a seismic spread including source 6 and multiple
streamers 4 on a generally curved advancing path. See, e.g., Br. 6, 8, 9.
Referring to Moldoveanu ’381 ’s embodiments which determine parameters
recited in the claims (e.g., cross-line distances, inline distances, and
amplitudes (Ai), periods (Ti) and phases of the undulating paths) between
multiple streamers, Appellants argue that Moldoveanu ’381 does not
disclose measuring these parameters for multiple vessels. See, e.g., id. at 8—
11.
We agree with the Examiner that Appellants’ arguments are based on
a narrow reading of Moldoveanu ’381. See Answer, dated April 15, 2016
4
Appeal 2016-006749
Application 13/748,062
(“Ans.”), at 5—6. Contrary to Appellants’ arguments, Moldoveanu ’381
clearly discloses that multiple vessels may be used, including, for example:
(1) “a marine seismic acquisition survey typically involves one or more
vessels towing at least one seismic streamer through a body of water”
(Moldoveanu ’3811 8); and (2) “[w]ide-azimuth towed streamer survey data
is typically acquired using multiple vessels, for example: one streamer vessel
and two source vessels . . . ; two streamer vessels and two source vessels”
{id. at 111); and (3) “[m]any possible marine seismic spreads comprising
streamers, streamer vessels, and source vessels may be envisioned for
obtaining wide- or rich-azimuth survey data” {id.). Moldoveanu ’381 also
discloses that one vessel may tow one streamer or multiple streamers. Id. at
194. Thus, contrary to Appellants’ arguments that Moldoveanu ’381 only
measures the parameters recited in the claims (e.g. cross-line distances,
inline distances, and amplitudes (Ai), periods (Ti) and phases of the
undulating paths) between multiple streamers, Moldoveanu ’381 also
measures these parameters for multiple vessels, especially when one vessel is
towing one streamer. In Figure 16A, for example, Moldoveanu ’381
discloses two vessels S1, S2 having the same period T and amplitude A
while traveling a designated crossline distance, dh. Id. at 1147.
First, Appellants argue that Moldonveanu ’381 ’s entire disclosure,
including the portions cited by the Examiner, does not disclose “receiving a
number that corresponds to vessels to be used in the multi-vessel acquisition
system,” as recited in claim 1. Br. 7—8. Contrary to Appellants’ arguments,
we agree with the Examiner that “[n]o seismic survey is going to be
undertaken if the company performing the survey does not know how many
vessels are going to be used in the survey.” Ans. 6. As Appellants’
5
Appeal 2016-006749
Application 13/748,062
acknowledge, at least paragraphs 11 and 47 49 of Moldoveanu ’381 disclose
the data acquisition system employs multiple vessels. Br. 7—8. Appellants’
argument is unpersuasive.
Second, Appellants’ argument that Moldoveanu ’381 “teaches away”
from alternatives using multiple vessels because they are “too costly” is
unpersuasive. Br. 7—8. A “reference does not teach away, however, if it
merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does
not ‘criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage’ investigation into the
invention claimed.” DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc.,
567 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195,
1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Here, Moldoveanu ’381 discloses that multiple
vessels may be used for the data acquisition system. See, e.g., Moldoveanu
’38111, 47-49, Fig. 16A.
Third, Appellants argue that Moldoveanu ’381 does not disclose (1)
“receiving a cross-line distance between first and last straight line paths
corresponding to first and last vessels, respectively, of the multi-vessel
acquisition system” {id. at 8—9); and (2) “receiving an inline distance
between the first and last vessels” {id. at 9—10). According to Appellants,
the “crossline separation between streamers towed by a same vessel” is
“NOT to a cross-line distance between vessels ’ paths.” Id. at 8 (emphasis
added). Likewise, Appellants argue that the “inline offset mentioned in
paragraph [0150] is NOT explicitly or inherently related to the inline
distance between vessels as recited in claim 1.” Id. at 9 (emphasis added).
We agree with the Examiner that “[n]o seismic survey is going to be
undertaken if. . . the crew steering the vessels do not know their sail paths
individually, or in relation to any other vessels.” Ans. 6. As correctly noted
6
Appeal 2016-006749
Application 13/748,062
by the Examiner, Figure 16A of Moldoveanu ’381, for example, discloses
the crossline distance, dh, between two vessels. Ans. 6; see Moldoveanu
’3811147. As discussed above, Moldoveanu ’381 ’s disclosure of crossline
and inline distances between multiple streamers towed by the same vessel is
equally applicable to crossline and inline distances of vessels which tow one
streamer. See, e.g., Moldoveanu ’381 H 9, 48, 92, 150, 170. Appellants do
not persuasively explain why Figures 18 and 19 cited by the Examiner,
which illustrate inline offsets (horizontal axis), crossline offsets (vertical
axis), and azimuths, are not applicable to multiple vessels. See, e.g., id. at
1150. Accordingly, Appellants’ argument is unpersuasive.
Fourth, Appellants argue that Moldoveanu ’381 does not disclose
“receiving a desired azimuth and/or offset distribution of receivers towed by
one or more streamer vessels of the multi-vessel acquisition system relative
to source vessels of the multi-vessel acquisition system” as recited in claim
1. Br. 10. Appellants argue that “Moldoveanu ’381 ’s Figure 21[2] is an
after-the-acquisition observation and it is NOT received in a method for
determining a seismic survey configuration of a multi-vessel acquisition
system as claimed,” and Figure 21 and paragraph 38 “of Moldoveanu ’381
do NOT refer to ‘a desired azimuth and/or offset distribution of receivers
towed by one or more streamer vessels of the multi-vessel acquisition
system relative to source vessels of the multi-vessel acquisition system’
(missing features discussed below are underlined).” Id. at 10.
2 According to Moldoveanu ’381, “FIG. 21 graphs the offset-azimuth
distribution for a series of bins generated from a sincurve acquisition
geometry.” Id. at 1151.
7
Appeal 2016-006749
Application 13/748,062
In response to Appellants’ argument, the Examiner correctly explains
that the “term ‘receiving’ in independent claims 1, 14, 15 and 19 refer
merely to data transfer,” and the “‘receiving’ of the bin size, fold, azimuth,
number of vessels are either programmed into the software package (e.g. a
database), or entered manually by the person using software to plan the
seismic survey.” Ans. 7. Because “these are all steps done prior to the
actual performing of the seismic survey,” the Examiner concludes that
“these limitations are not directed towards feedback communication between
a central controller or processing system and individual or groups of sensors
in operation.” Id. at 7.
In addition, Moldoveanu ’381 discloses that it is known that “[w]ide-
azimuth towed streamer survey data is typically acquired using multiple
vessels, for example: one streamer vessel and two source vessels; two
streamer vessels and two source vessels; or one streamer vessel and three
source vessels,” and “[m]any possible marine seismic spreads comprising
streamers, streamer vessels, and source vessels may be envisioned for
obtaining wide- or rich-azimuth survey data.” See, e.g., Moldoveanu ’381,
111. Moldoveanu ’381 also explicitly discloses that the invention includes
one or more streamer vessels and source vessels. See, e.g. ^fl[ 126—129.
Thus, Appellants’ do not persuasively explain why the azimuth and offset
parameters illustrated in Fig. 21 and discussed in Moldoveanu ’381 are not
applicable to the streamer and source vessels.
The Examiner also correctly finds that “[i]n addition to the paragraphs
cited in the Final Rejection [e.g., 138 and Fig. 21], Moldoveanu ’381
describes in [paragraphs 109—112] the optimization of controller
performance during operations, while [paragraph 150] outlines the benefits
8
Appeal 2016-006749
Application 13/748,062
of the range of azimuths covered in the seismic survey due to the planning of
the sail lines of each of the vessels.” Ans. 7—8. Accordingly, Appellants do
not identify any error in the Examiner’s findings.
Fifth, Appellants argue that Moldoveanu ’381 does not disclose
‘calculating amplitudes (Ai), periods (Ti) and phases of the undulating
paths’ as recited in claim 1.” Br. 11. According to Appellants,
“Moldoveanu ’381 refers to paths of a single vessel,” and “does not
discloses calculating parameters (amplitudes, periods and phases) of
undulating paths for plural vessels of a multi-vessel acquisition system.” Id.
In response to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner correctly finds
that Figures 11, 16A, and 16B of Moldoveanu disclose the recited
parameters. Ans. 6. The Examiner correctly finds that “Figure 11 shows a
general sincurve sail path taken by one (or more than one) vessel during a
seismic survey,” where “[t]he ‘inline distance’ is the same direction as item
L (the length of the sincurve sailed)” and “T and A represent the period and
amplitude of the sinusoidal path.” Id. The Examiner also correctly finds
that Figure 16A discloses two vessels SI, S2 having the same period T and
amplitude A while traveling a designated crossline distance, dh. Id.', see also
Moldoveanu 1147. Appellants do not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s
findings.
Sixth, Appellants argue that Moldoveanu ’381 and Payton do not
disclose “driving the first and last vessels along corresponding undulating
paths, wherein a cross-line interval between first and last undulating paths
varies along the first and last straight line paths.” Br. 11. According to
Appellants, because “Payton refers to two sources 16 towed by the same
vessel 24 (which also tows a streamer 14) and NOT to different vessels
9
Appeal 2016-006749
Application 13/748,062
driven along undulating paths,” “Payton’s teachings combined with
Moldoveanu ’381 ’s teachings fail to render obvious the claimed features as
both refer to a path of a single vessel.” Br. 11.
In response to Appellants’ argument, the Examiner finds that “Figure
1 of Payton shows two streamers towed by the same vessel with sinusoidal
paths where the cross-line distance varies (same period and Amplitude, but
out of phase).” Ans. 6—7. We agree with the Examiner that the “streamers
in Payton are steered by steering devices on the streamers, but the same
effect can be had if the vessels did the steering of the streamers along the
desired path.” Id. Appellants do not persuasively explain why Moldoveanu
’381 as modified by Payton would not also drive the first and last vessels
along corresponding undulating paths, wherein a cross-line interval between
first and last undulating paths varies along the first and last straight line
paths, especially when multiple vessels are each towing one streamer, as
disclosed in Moldoveanu ’381.
For the reasons above, the rejection of claim 1 is sustained. Claims 2—
4, 6, 8, 11—13, and 16 fall with claim 1
Claim 5
Appellants argue that Moldoveanu ’381 and Payton do not disclose
“the step of calculating comprises: applying an optimization algorithm to
calculate the amplitudes, periods and phases based on the number of vessels,
the cross-line distance, the inline distance, and the desired azimuth and/or
offset distribution,” as recited in claim 5. Br. 11—12. Appellants argue that
paragraphs 107 and 134 of Moldoveanu ’381, including the Model
Predictive Control, do not teach or suggest either that the number of vessels,
10
Appeal 2016-006749
Application 13/748,062
the cross-line distance, the inline distance and the desired azimuth and/or
offset distribution are used as input, or that such control or algorithm yields
the amplitudes, periods and phases of undulating paths of vessels. Id.
Contrary to Appellants’ argument, we agree with the Examiner’s
finding that Moldoveanu ’381 discloses
the processing hardware and software architecture necessary to
determine and plan the sail paths for the seismic surveys—
capable of performing the methods in Claims 1 and 15. The
interfacing with control systems, receiver arrays, seismic
sources, and acoustic communication systems to manage the
positioning of the streamers is described in Moldoveanu ’381 in
several locations — not limited to [paragraphs 133—137, 78—85].”
Ans. 7; see Final Act. 5 (citing Moldoveanu ’381 ^fl[ 107, 134). We also
agree with the Examiner’s finding that Moldoveanu ’381 ’s processing
system calculates the parameters recited in claim 5. Ans. 7 (citing
Moldoveanu ’3811153, Fig. 24A, 24B). Appellants’ argument does not
apprise us of error in the Examiner’s findings.
Claim 14
Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 14 is erroneous for the
same reasons as those presented above for claim 1. Br. 12—13. As discussed
above, the rejection of claim 1 is sustained, and, thus, Appellants’ argument
for claim 14 is unpersuasive. The rejection of claim 14 is sustained.
Claim 15
Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 15 is erroneous for the
same reasons as those presented above for claim 1. Br. 13—15. As discussed
11
Appeal 2016-006749
Application 13/748,062
above, the rejection of claim 1 is sustained, and, thus, Appellants’ argument
for claim 15 is unpersuasive. The rejection of claim 15 is sustained.
Claim 17
With respect to claim 17, Appellants argue that claim 17 recites
different features than claim 5, and because the Examiner rejected “claim 17
in the same paragraph as claim 5 (see item 7 on page of the [Final Action]),”
the Examiner “has failed to set forth a prima facie case of obviousness
relative to claim 17.” Appellants’ argument that dependent claim 17 recites
additional elements that support patentability is not persuasive. See In re
Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (37 C.F.R. § 41.37 requires
“more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the
claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were
not found in the prior art.”). Appellants conclusory argument does not
identify any patentable distinctions for claim 17, and fails to apprise us of
error in the Examiner’s findings or reasoning.
Thus, the rejection of claim 17 is sustained.
Claims 19 and 20
With respect to claims 19 and 20, Appellants argues that the rejection
of claims 19 and 20 is erroneous for the same reasons as those presented
above for claim 15. Br. 13—15. As discussed above, the rejection of claim
15 is sustained, and, thus, Appellants’ argument for claims 19 and 20 is
unpersuasive.
Appellants’ argument that claims 19 and 20 recite additional elements
that support patentability is not persuasive. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d at
12
Appeal 2016-006749
Application 13/748,062
1357. Appellants’ conclusory argument does not identify any patentable
distinctions for claims 19 and 20, and fails to apprise us of error in the
Examiner’s findings or reasoning.
Thus, the rejection of claims 19 and 20 is sustained.
The Rejections of Claims 7, 9, and 10
Because Appellants did not address the rejections of claims 7, 9, and
10, the rejections are sustained.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—20 are
AFFIRMED.
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
13