Ex Parte TEYSSANDIER et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 5, 2018

13962250 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 5, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/962,250 08/08/2013 Benoit TEYSSANDIER
11171 7590 07/09/2018
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.
0336-188-2/100372 1711
EXAMINER
ARMSTRONG, JONATHAN D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3645
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07 /09/2018 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 BENOIT TEYSSANDIER, ROBERT DOWLE,
LAURENT RUET, and JOHN SALLAS
Appeal2017-008649
Application 13/962,250
Technology Center 3600
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, RICHARD H. MARSCHALL, and
ANTHONY KNIGHT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellant is the Applicant, CGG Services SA, which is identified as the
real party in interest. Br. 2.
Appeal2017-008649
Application 13/962,250
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 18, and 20 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter. 2
1. A method for adapting a frequency sweep for a vibro-
acoustic source element that is configured to generate acoustic
waves during a seismic survey, the method comprising:
driving a seismic source element to generate a current
frequency sweep;
recording seismic data with plural seismic sensors in
response to the current frequency sweep;
selecting, during the seismic survey, a data subset of the
seismic data, wherein the data subset has a size less than 10%
of the seismic data;
calculating with a processing device an attribute based on
the data subset;
calculating a new frequency sweep based on the attribute;
and
driving the seismic source element with the new
frequency sweep.
REJECTIONS 3
I. Claims 1-5 and 8-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Johnson (US 2009/0076730 Al, pub. Mar. 19,
2009).
II. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Johnson and Lazaratos (US 6,516,275 B2, iss. Feb. 4, 2003).
2 Unlike claim 1, claims 18 and 20 do not specify that "the data subset has a
size less than 10% of the seismic data"; instead, claims 18 and 20 recite that
the size of the data subset is "less than" that of the seismic data. Br. 21, 22
(Claims App.).
3 The Examiner withdrew rejections of claims 3, 7, and 12 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. Ans. 2.
2
Appeal2017-008649
Application 13/962,250
III. Claim 7 stands under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Johnson and Bird (US 6,366,857B1, iss. Apr. 2, 2002).
DISCUSSION
Rejection I
Each of Appellant's independent claims 1, 18, and 20 requires, in
pertinent part, recording seismic data and selecting a data subset of the
seismic data, wherein the data subset has a size less than that of the seismic
data. Br. 18, 21, 22 (Claims App.). One issue raised in this appeal is
whether the Examiner has established, by a preponderance of the evidence,
that Johnson discloses the step of selecting a data subset. See Final Act. 4,
11-12; Ans. 2-5; Br. 8-11.
In rejecting claims 1, 18, and 20, the Examiner found that Johnson's
disclosure of compressing and/or stacking the recorded data "via cross-
correlation with either the pilot signal or a reference sweep" satisfies the
selecting a subset step. See Final Act. 4, 7, 8, 11-12 (citing Johnson i-f 3).
Appellant contends that compressing the recorded data is not the same
as selecting a subset of the seismic data. Br. 8. Appellant asserts that the
compressed data in Johnson still includes all the adaptive sensor data. Id.
Appellant contends that "[t]he plain meaning of the verb to 'select' implies
that some data is selected while other [data] is not, which is not the case in
Johnson." Id. at 8-9. Appellant also submits that changing the data format
by compression, resulting in reduction of the storage space, "does not result
in selecting a subset of the seismic data recorded by the seismic sensors as
claimed," and that "[t]he stacking mentioned ... on page 12 of the [Final
Action] does not select a subset of the seismic data either." Id. at 9.
3
Appeal2017-008649
Application 13/962,250
In response, the Examiner relies on paragraphs 34, 37, and 38 of
Appellant's Specification as describing criteria on which "the 'selecting' can
be based." Ans. 2-3. According to the Examiner, these criteria include time
(citing Spec. i-f 34 ), quantity of sensors (id.), signal processing such as
windowing (id. i-f 38) and stacking (id. i-f 37), and combinations of these
criteria. Id.
The Examiner misinterprets Appellant's Specification, with respect to
the signal processing being a criterion on which the "selecting" is based.
The claimed "selecting" step corresponds to extraction step 100 in
Appellant's Figure 1. Spec. i-f 33. Additionally, because the Specification
describes the windowing discussed in paragraph 3 8 of the Specification as
further reducing the amount of data associated with the data subset, by
considering a window extending from around a selected predetermined
depth, the type of windowing disclosed in paragraph 38 of the Specification
appears to be a means of selecting a subset of data (by selecting some data
and not selecting other data). However, Appellant's Specification describes
the de ghosting, sorting, stacking, etc. operations of paragraph 37 as being
applied in step 104---processing the data subset. The Specification gives no
indication that this type of processing is considered to be "selecting a
subset" of the seismic data, as recited in claims 1, 18, and 20. Thus, the
Examiner does not establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that data
compression (or the stacking associated therewith) as disclosed by Johnson
in paragraph 3 selects some of the data recorded by the seismic sensors,
4
Appeal2017-008649
Application 13/962,250
while excluding (i.e., not selecting) other data recorded by the seismic
sensors, to form a data subset as claimed. 4
The Examiner is correct, however, that Appellant's Specification
describes selecting a data subset as encompassing selecting or extracting on
the basis of time or from only a subset of the sensors. Specifically,
Appellant's Specification discloses that the data subset may include only
minutes and/or hours of recorded seismic data corresponding to days of
seismic survey. Spec. i-f 34. Alternatively, "the data subset may include
signals only from the first hydrophones along the streamer (e.g., the first 100
[of 10,000] hydrophones), or signals only from hydrophones located in the
middle of the streamer, or every lOlth hydrophone along the streamer." Id.
The Examiner finds that Johnson discloses using the data from only
some (e.g., four) of a larger number of seismic sensors to calculate an
attribute and, thus, discloses selecting a data subset of the seismic data" as
called for in claims 1, 18, and 20. Ans. 4 (citing Johnson i-f 39). Johnson
discloses that, "in normal survey implementations, seismic sensors would be
distributed over the surface area and potentially in subsurface areas," but
that the array has been omitted in Figure 1 "to simplify the figure." Johnson
i-f 39. Johnson discloses using data from four adaptive feedback sensors,
4 The Examiner alludes to a patent, "Jeffryes (US 5,933,790)," as
"alternatively describ[ing] this and related data compression strategies."
Ans. 5. Even assuming that Jeffryes teaches a data compression strategy
that entails selecting some data while excluding (i.e., not selecting) other
data, which is not entirely clear from the passage quoted by the Examiner,
the Examiner's reliance on Jeffryes is unavailing because the rejection is
based on anticipation by Johnson, not on obviousness based on a
combination of Johnson and Jeffryes.
5
Appeal2017-008649
Application 13/962,250
which may be part of the array of seismic sensors, 5 during the method of
adapting the seismic sources. Id. Thus, Johnson discloses using data from a
subset (i.e., the adaptive feedback sensors) of the seismic sensors. However,
Johnson does not explicitly state that all of the seismic sensors in the array,
including those not used as adaptive sensors, record seismic data during this
adaptive method. See id. (referring to "the ancillary or feedback" sensors as
"sensors that are strategically deployed in the present invention").
Consequently, Johnson's disclosure of using the four adaptive sensors in
paragraph 39 is not sufficient to establish that Johnson is selecting a data
subset of the seismic data recorded by the seismic sensors-that is, selecting
some seismic data recorded while excluding other seismic data recorded-as
required in claims 1, 18, and 20.
For the above reasons, the Examiner does not establish by a
preponderance of the evidence that Johnson discloses a method as called for
in any of claims 1, 18, and 20, comprising recording seismic data and
selecting a data subset of the seismic data, wherein the data subset has a size
less than that of the seismic data. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
rejection of claims 1, 18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Johnson. We also do not sustain the rejection of claims 2-5 and 8-17,
which depend from claim 1, or claim 19, which depends from claim 18.
5 The Examiner finds that arrays of seismic sensors, including arrays of
hundreds to thousands of receivers, were well known in the art. Ans. 4
(citing Spec. 29; "Ray (US 2008/0192569)").
6
Appeal2017-008649
Application 13/962,250
Re} ections II and III
The Examiner's unsupported finding with respect to selecting a data
subset of the seismic data, wherein the data subset has a size less than that of
the seismic data, as required in claim 1, also pervades the rejections of
claims 6 and 7, which depend from claim 1, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The
Examiner does not articulate any additional findings or reasoning, or rely on
either Lazaratos or Bird for any teaching, that would cure the deficiency in
the rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of
claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Johnson and
Lazaratos or the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Johnson and Bird.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20 is reversed.
REVERSED
7