PGS GEOPHYSICAL AS

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 18, 2020

15209554 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 18, 2020)

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.
15/209,554 07/13/2016 GREGORY ERNEST PARKES PGS-11-15US-DIV1 4944
137491 7590 09/18/2020
OLYMPIC PATENT WORKS PLLC
4979 Admiral Street
Gig Harbor, WA 98332
EXAMINER
BREIER, KRYSTINE E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3645
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/18/2020 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):
joanne@olympicpatentworks.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte GREGORY ERNEST PARKES and STIAN HEGNA

Appeal 2020-001123
Application 15/209,554
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, and
GEORGE R. HOSKINS, Administrative Patent Judges.

FITZPATRICK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant, PGS GEOPHYSICAL AS,1 appeals under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) from the Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1–5, 9–15, and
19–22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm in part.

1 “Appellant” refers to the applicant as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42.
Appellant identifies itself as sole real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-001123
Application 15/209,554

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Specification
The Specification relates to geophysical prospecting and, in particular,
marine seismic surveys. Spec. ¶2, claim 1 (as-filed).
The Claims
Claims 1–5, 9–15, and 19–22 are rejected. Final Act. 1. No other
claims are pending. Id. Claims 1 and 11 are independent. Claim 1 is
representative and reproduced below.
1. A system for mapping the earth’s geology, comprising:
a seismic source comprising a plurality of seismic sub-
sources disposed in a body of water at a plurality of depths and
activated with different time delays;
seismic sensors disposed in the body of water to detect
seismic energy reflected from the earth’s subsurface in response
to seismic signals generated by the seismic source and record
the seismic energy as seismic data in a memory storage device;
and
a programmable computer used to perform at least the
following:
determining far-field signatures for the plurality of
seismic sub-sources at each of the plurality of depths;
determining a composite ghost-free far-field
signature of the seismic source from the far-field
signatures for the plurality of seismic sub-sources at each
of the plurality of depths and different time delays; and
removing a source response from the seismic data
using the composite ghost-free far-field signature of the
seismic source.
Appeal Br. 16.
Appeal 2020-001123
Application 15/209,554

3
The Examiner’s Rejections
The Examiner’s rejections are:
1. Claim 9, under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶4, as being of improper
dependent form (Final Act. 4);
2. Claims 1, 4, 9–11, 14, 19, and 20, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as
unpatentable over Laws,2 Davies,3 and Howlid4 (id. at 5);
3. Claims 2, 3, 5, 12, 13, and 15, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as
unpatentable over Laws, Davies, Howlid, and Parkes5 (id. at 8); and
4. Claims 21 and 22, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as unpatentable
over Laws, Davies, Howlid, and Kragh6 (id. at 10).
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1
Appellant does not argue against the rejection of claim 9 under 35
U.S.C. § 112 ¶4. The rejection has not been withdrawn. See, e.g., Adv. Act.
(dated Aug. 21, 2019); Ans. 3. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the
rejection.
Rejection 2
Claims 1, 4, 9, and 10
The Examiner found that Laws teaches the subject matter of claim 1
except that “it does not teach the sub-sources are at a plurality of depths and
activated with different time delays; the composite far-field signature is
ghost-free; and removing a source response from the seismic data using the

2 US 2012/0072115 A1, published Mar. 22, 2012 (“Laws”).
3 US 7,586,810 B2, issued Sept. 8, 2009 (“Davies”).
4 US 2004/0136266 A1, published July 15, 2004 (“Howlid”).
5 US 7,218,572 B2, issued May 15, 2007 (“Parkes”).
6 US 8,958,266 B2, issued Feb. 17, 2015 (“Kragh”).
Appeal 2020-001123
Application 15/209,554

4
composite ghost-free far-field signature of the seismic source.” Final Act. 5
(citing Laws ¶¶ 61, 64, 66–68, 70, 74, 80, and 81, Figs. 10 and 11). The
Examiner relied on Howlid and Davies for teaching the limitations
admittedly missing from Laws. Id. at 5 (citing Howlid ¶¶ 44, 45, 58), 6
(citing Davies 7:60–62, 9:39–42).
Critical to this Decision is the Examiner’s finding that Laws teaches
“determining far-field signatures for the plurality of seismic sub-sources.”
Id. at 5 (citing Laws ¶64, lines 1–4). The cited excerpt states: “At step 3, a
notional signature is estimated for at least one of the sources of the source
array, and preferably a notional signature is estimated for each source of the
source array.” Laws ¶64 (emphasis added).
Appellant argues that paragraph 64 of Laws does not support the
Examiner’s finding. Appeal Br. 4–7. Appellant explains that a “notional
signature” (Laws ¶64) is distinct from a far-field signature. Id. at 5–6 (citing
Spec. ¶22; Laws ¶8). In particular, Appellant explains: “A notional
signature is the signature of an individual source element, such as the
signature of an air gun, in the near field of the source element without the
effects created by the other source elements. . . . The far-field signature, on
the other hand, is the signature of a source array in the far field.” Id. at 6.
Thus, Appellant urges, “the Examiner has erred in associating the notional
signature of Laws with the far-field signature in the first step of claim 1” and
“[m]oreover, nowhere does Laws teach or suggest determining far-field
signatures for a plurality of source arrays (i.e., sub-sources).” Id.
The Examiner responds to Appellant’s argument by citing and quoting
additional portions of Laws as follows:
Appeal 2020-001123
Application 15/209,554

5
Laws performs the same steps as the Appellant including
determining the far-field signature of the array of sources
(see [0012]: “The far field signature of the array may then be
found, at any desired point, from the notional signatures of the
two airguns” and [0066]: “The signature of the source array may
then be estimated at step 4, by superposing the notional
signatures estimated at step 3 for each source of the array”).
Ans. 5 (citing Laws ¶¶12, 66).
Appellant replies that “Paragraphs [0012] and [0066] describe
determining a single far-field signature of a single source array from near-
field notional signatures of the source elements comprising the source
array.” Reply Br. 3.
Appellant’s arguments are persuasive of Examiner error. The record
before us does not support the Examiner’s finding that “Laws teaches . . .
determining far-field signatures for the plurality of seismic sub-sources.”
Final Act. 5 (citing Law ¶64). Even considering the Examiner’s additional
citations to paragraphs 12 and 66 of Laws (see Ans. 5), the Examiner has not
supported adequately the finding that Law teaches “determining far-field
signatures for the plurality of seismic sub-sources,” as recited in claim 1.
Nor has the Examiner asserted, let alone explained why, it might have been
obvious in light of what Laws does teach, for example, that “[t]he far field
signature of the array may then be found, at any desired point, from the
notional signatures of the two airguns.” Laws ¶12.
Appellant explicitly raised the issue of singular versus plural in the
Appeal Brief. See Appeal Br. 6 (“Moreover, nowhere does Laws teach or
suggest determining far-field signatures for a plurality of source arrays (i.e.,
sub-sources), as alleged by the Examiner.”), 7 (“There is no evidence that
Laws teaches or suggests ‘determining far-field signatures for the plurality
Appeal 2020-001123
Application 15/209,554

6
of seismic sub-sources’ as alleged by the Examiner.”). The Examiner
wholly failed to rebut Appellant’s arguments on this issue. We will not
speculate on behalf of the Examiner as to what would have been obvious in
view of Laws.
For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the obviousness rejection of
claim 1, as well as that of claims 4, 9, and 10, which ultimately depend
therefrom.
Claims 11, 14, 19, and 20
Like claim 1, independent claim 11 recites “determining far-field
signatures for the plurality of seismic sub-sources at each of the plurality of
depths.” Appeal Br. 17. The Examiner makes the same finding based on the
same evidence with respect to this limitation. Final Act. 6; Ans. 5.
Accordingly, for the same reasons as with respect to claim 1, we reverse the
obviousness rejection of claim 11, as well as that of claims 14, 19, and 20,
which ultimately depend therefrom.
Rejections 3 and 4
The Examiner rejected dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 12, 13, 15, 21, and 22
as unpatentable over Laws, Davies, and Howlid, as discussed above, and
additionally in view of either Parkes or Kragh. Final Act. 8–10. The
Examiner does not rely on Parkes or Kragh in a manner that could cure the
deficiency noted above in the rejection of independent claims 1 and 11.
Accordingly, for essentially the same reason we reverse the rejection of
claims 1 and 11, we likewise reverse the rejection of claims 2, 3, 5, 12, 13,
15, 21, and 22.
Appeal 2020-001123
Application 15/209,554

7
SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
9 112 ¶4 Improper
dependent form
9
1, 4, 9–11,
14, 19, 20
103(a) Laws, Davies,
Howlid
1, 4, 9–11,
14, 19, 20
2, 3, 5, 12,
13, 15
103(a) Laws, Davies,
Howlid, Parkes
2, 3, 5, 12,
13, 15
21, 22 103(a) Laws, Davies,
Howlid, Kragh
21, 22
Overall
Outcome

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)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED IN PART