Ex Parte SOUBARAS

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 17, 2018

13606601 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 17, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/606,601 09/07/2012 Robert SOUBARAS
11171 7590 12/19/2018
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.
0336-097-2/100228 5580
EXAMINER
N'DURE, AMIE MERCEDES
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3645
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/19/2018 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 ROBERT SOUBARAS
Appeal2018-000809
Application 13/606,601
Technology Center 3600
Before LINDA E. HORNER, LISA M. GUIJT, and LEE L. STEPINA,
Administrative Patent Judges.
GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection2 of claims 1-23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as CGGVERIT AS
SERVICES SA. Appeal Br. 2.
2 Appeal is taken from the Non-Final Office Action dated November 4,
2016.
Appeal2018-000809
Application 13/606,601
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 1, 14, and 17 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A method for determining a shape of a streamer to
be towed underwater for collecting seismic data regarding a
subsurface, the method comprising:
receiving a velocity model for the subsurface;
selecting a first profile for the streamer to be used to
survey the subsurface;
selecting plural reflectors of the subsurface;
calculating ghosts and/ or residual ghosts and/ or residual
ghost spectra for the plurality of the reflectors; and
determining that the first profile is appropriate for
surveying the subsurface when at least one criterion, related to
the ghosts, and/ or the residual ghosts and/ or the residual ghost
spectra, is met.
THE REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1-7, 9, 12-15, and 17-23 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § I02(b) as anticipated by Soubaras (FR 105499). 3' 4
II. Claims 8, 10, 11, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Soubaras and Ray (US 4,353,121; issued Oct.
5, 1982).
3 The Examiner relied on corresponding U.S. Patent Application Publication
No. 2011/0305109 Al, published December 15, 2011, as provided in the
record (hereinafter "Soubaras") "for translation purposes." We likewise rely
this corresponding U.S. published application. Non-Final Act. 5.
4 The omission of claims 15, 22, and 23 in the statement of the rejection is
an apparent typographical error. Non-Final Act. 5-7.
2
Appeal2018-000809
Application 13/606,601
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds, inter alia, that
Soubaras teaches the claimed method, including the step of determining that
the first profile is appropriate when at least one criterion, related to the
ghosts, is met. Non-Final Act. 5 (citing Soubaras ,r,r 64--67).
Appellant argues, inter alia, that "[ n Jone of the cited paragraphs"
relied on by the Examiner supra for disclosing the step of determining that
the first profile is appropriate "makes any reference to the streamer's
profile." Appeal Br. 11.
The Examiner responds that the deghosting method disclosed in
Soubaras' paragraphs 64 to 67 demonstrates that "a final image 'd' of the
subsurface is generated in step 512 after the joint deconvolution step 510,
wherein white areas 600 are greatly reduced." Ans. 22-23. The Examiner
relies on Soubaras's disclosure that the deghosted method is applicable to
many types of streamer profiles. Id. at 23 ( citing Soubaras ,r 78 ( disclosing
that "[the] discussed procedures are also applicable to data acquired using
streamers each having several sections with different slopes, or streamers
having one or more sloped sections and one or more horizontal sections, or
horizontal streamers located at different depths or streamers having a curved
profile.")). The Examiner determines that "one of ordinary skill in the art
would conclude after the computation meeting at least one criterion, related
to ghosts" that the streamer profile used to create the data is appropriate, as
claimed. Id.
3
Appeal2018-000809
Application 13/606,601
Here, we agree with Appellant that Soubaras is silent as to whether
the shape of the streamer, or streamer profile, is considered as appropriate or
inappropriate based on the image generated from the deghosted data. At
most, Soubaras discloses that the method of deghosting is equally applicable
to many types of streamer profiles to improve the image. The Examiner's
reliance on the knowledge of someone skilled in the art (i.e., to interpret the
image quality to determine the appropriateness of the streamer profile) is not
factually supported by Soubaras. 5
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 1, and claims 2-7, 9, 12, and 13 depending therefrom,
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), as anticipated by Soubaras. The Examiner relies
on the same findings with respect to Soubaras in the rejection of independent
claims 14 and 1 7, and therefore, for essentially the same reasons as stated
supra, we also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims
14 and 17, and claims 15 and 18-23 depending therefrom, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b), as anticipated by Soubaras. Non-Final Act. 5.
Rejection II
The Examiner's reliance on Ray for teaching certain calculations does
not cure the deficiency in the Examiner's reliance on Soubaras as applied to
independent claims 1 and 14, supra. Non-Final Act. 8-12. Accordingly, for
5 Notably, Ray discloses that the prior art recognizes that the streamer
profile is a variable that effects the resulting noise generated in the data, for
example, noise related to ghosts. See, e.g., 4:52---62 ("[t]he cable is
buoyantly controlled to slope at a relatively constant angle," and "[fJor each
reflecting interface, because of the slope of the cable, the primary and ghost
reflections become further and further apart from detectors further and
further from the source"); 13:39--41 ("the deeper tow moves the cable or
streamer detectors away from the noise created by the sea's surface").
4
Appeal2018-000809
Application 13/606,601
essentially the same reasons as stated supra, we do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claims 8, 10, 11, and 16, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a),
as unpatentable over Soubaras and Ray.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-23 are REVERSED.
REVERSED
5