CGG SERVICES SA

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 4, 2021

2019006586 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 4, 2021)

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.
14/069,483 11/01/2013 Benoit TEYSSANDIER 0337-085/P100373 1208
11171 7590 01/04/2021
Patent Portfolio Builders, PLLC
P.O. Box 7999
Fredericksburg, VA 22404
EXAMINER
ARMSTRONG, JONATHAN D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3645
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/04/2021 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
____________

Appeal 2019-006586
Application 14/069,483
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JOHN C. KERINS, STEFAN STAICOVICI, and
EDWARD A. BROWN, Administrative Patent Judges.

BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 11–13, 16, and 18–21.2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies CGG Services SA as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 2.
2 Claims 2, 3, 5, 8–10, 14, 15, 17, and 22 have been cancelled. Appeal Br.
(Claims App.).
Appeal 2019-006586
Application 14/069,483

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s disclosure “generally relate[s] to . . . mechanisms and
techniques for determining a far-field signature of a marine vibratory
source.” Spec. ¶ 1.
Claims 1, 13, and 18 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below
with reference letters added in brackets, illustrates the claimed subject matter
on appeal.
1. A method for seismic survey, the method comprising:
[A] measuring a back-and-forth acceleration of a piston
of the marine vibratory seismic source relative to a housing
thereof with at least one sensor, while the marine vibratory
seismic source generates a seismic wave under water as a back-
and-forth movement of the piston displaces a volume of water
surrounding the housing;
[B] determining an absolute acceleration of the piston of
the marine vibratory seismic source relative to the earth using
the back-and-forth acceleration and an acceleration of the
housing relative to the earth;
[C] calculating, based on the absolute acceleration of the
piston, a far-field waveform of the marine vibratory seismic
source at a given point (O) under water, away from the marine
vibratory seismic source,
[D] adding a driving pilot to a ghost pilot, wherein the
driving pilot drives the marine vibratory seismic source and the
ghost pilot includes the driving pilot, time delayed, depending
upon a depth of the marine vibratory seismic source;
[E] cross-correlating with a processor the far-field
waveform with the sum of the driving pilot and the ghost pilot,
to determine the far-field signature of the marine vibratory
seismic source; and
[F] displaying an image of a surveyed subsurface based
on recorded seismic data deconvolved with the far-field
signature,
Appeal 2019-006586
Application 14/069,483

3
[G] wherein the seismic data is acquired using plural
seismic receivers detecting reflections of the seismic wave
emerging from the surveyed subsurface.
Appeal Br. 24–25 (Claims App.).

REJECTIONS3
1. Claims 1, 12, 13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Baeten4, Trantham5, Parkes6, and Gees7.
2. Claim 48 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Baeten, Trantham, Parkes, Gees, and Schwemmer9.
3. Claims 6, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Baeten, Trantham, Parkes, Gees, and Grosso10.

3 The rejection of claims 1, 13, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being
directed to patent ineligible subject matter has been withdrawn. Ans. 4;
Non-Final Act. 2.
4 Baeten et al., The marine vibrator source, First Break, vol. 6, no. 9, pp.
285–294, Sept. 1988.
5 Trantham, US 5,400,299, issued Mar. 21, 1995.
6 Parkes et al., Geophysics, The signature of an air gun array: Computation
from near-field measurements including interactions-Practical
considerations, vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 105–111, Feb. 1984.
7 Gees, Accelerometer-Enhanced Speed Estimation for Linear-Drive
Machine Tool Axes, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Thèse no.
1575, 1996.
8 In the Non-Final Action, the rejection headings for Rejections 2–5 omit
Gees as an applied reference, although claims 4, 6, 7, 16, and 19–21 depend
from claim 1, 13, or 18, as rejected in Rejection 1. Non-Final Act. 8, 10–12.
We treat these omissions of Gees as inadvertent in these rejection headings.
9 Schwemmer et al., US 5,396,973, issued Mar. 14, 1995.
10 Grosso, US 5,130,953, issued July 14, 1992.
Appeal 2019-006586
Application 14/069,483

4
4. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Baeten, Trantham, Parkes, Gees, Baeten ’74611, and Baeten
Vibroseis12.
5. Claims 7, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Baeten, Trantham, Parkes, Gees, Baeten ’746, and Mei13.

ANALYSIS
Rejection 1—Baeten, Trantham, Parkes, and Gees
(Claims 1, 12, 13, and 18)
Claims 1 and 12
Appellant contends that the applied combination fails to render
obvious steps A, B, C, and E of claim 1. Appeal Br. 14–19.
Steps A and B
Step A of claim 1 recites “measuring a back-and-forth acceleration of
a piston of the marine vibratory seismic source relative to a housing thereof
with at least one sensor, while the marine vibratory seismic source generates
a seismic wave under water.” Appeal Br. 24 (Claims App.) (emphasis
added). The Examiner finds that Baeten discloses this limitation. Non-Final
Act. 4 (citing Baeten 286, left col., third para. (“For example, baseplate
acceleration, reaction mass acceleration and a weighted sum of the two have
been suggested.” (citations omitted)); 288, left col., second para. (“hydraulic
piston in the central part of the baseplate”)).

11 Baeten et al., GB 2190746 A, published Nov. 25, 1987 (hereinafter
“Baeten ’746”).
12 Baeten, Theoretical and practical aspects of the Vibroseis method,
Technische Universiteit Delft, Apr. 1989 (hereinafter “Baeten Vibroseis”).
13 Mei, Chapter Three, Two Dimensional Waves, MIT, Fall 2004.
Appeal 2019-006586
Application 14/069,483

5
Step B of claim 1 recites “determining an absolute acceleration of the
piston of the marine vibratory seismic source relative to the earth using the
back-and-forth acceleration and an acceleration of the housing relative to the
earth.” Appeal Br. 24 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). The Examiner
again relies on Baeten’s disclosure of measuring a weighed sum of the
baseplate acceleration and reaction mass acceleration. Non-Final Act. 4
(citing Baeten 286, left col., third para.). The Examiner further relies on
Gees as teaching that inertial accelerometers measure the absolute
acceleration of the part on which they are mounted, and that, “[i]n the two-
accelerometer case, the base also performs some movements. Therefore, the
relative acceleration has to be determined as the difference between the two
measured accelerations aA [acceleration of sliding part] and aB [acceleration
of base part].” Id. at 4–5 (citing Gees 68 § 4.3.4.2).
As to step A, Appellant contends that Baeton’s reference to a weighed
sum of two accelerations, and to a baseplate acceleration and a reaction mass
acceleration, refers to land vibratory sources, not marine vibratory sources.
Appeal Br. 14. Therefore, Appellant contends, this teaching does not
inherently apply to a marine vibratory source. Id. According to Appellant,
this position is supported by Baeten’s statement that “[f]rom these
differences, we conclude that the above-mentioned land vibrator
characteristics do not necessarily apply to the marine environment.” Id. at
16 (citing Baeten 287, left col., second para.).
These contentions are unpersuasive. The Examiner responds that
Baeten is concerned with developing a marine version of the land vibrator.
Ans. 5 (citing Baeten 285, “Introduction”). The Examiner notes that Figure
3 of Baeten shows a marine vibrator configuration including a baseplate and
Appeal 2019-006586
Application 14/069,483

6
a reaction mass, and finds that these elements are analogous to the claimed
piston and housing. Id.; see Baeten 286, Fig. 3. The Examiner submits that
Baeten applies acceleration signals previously used in land vibratory
technology in the marine vibrator context. Id.
We understand that “the above-mentioned land vibrator
characteristics” referred to in Baeten correspond to land vibrator
characteristics described in the section entitled “Vibroseis: land and
marine.” See Baeten 286, right col.–287, left col. In this section, however,
Baeten does not describe that the baseplate acceleration, the reaction mass
acceleration, and the weighed sum of these two accelerations, in particular,
do not apply to a marine environment.
Appellant also contends that step A specifies that the acceleration is of
a piston, and this acceleration is measured with at least one sensor. Appeal
Br. 14. Appellant asserts that the Examiner provides no evidence that
Baeten measures the acceleration of the baseplate or the reaction mass with a
sensor. Id. at 14–15.
The Examiner responds that Baeten’s disclosure that “mass
acceleration can be used as a reference signal on the marine vibrator”
teaches “measuring . . . acceleration of a piston . . . with at least one sensor .
. . under water,” as claimed. Ans. 5 (citing Baeten 294, right col., first
para.). The Examiner submits that one skilled in the art would know that the
baseplate acceleration, which produces a mass acceleration signal and is
driven by a piston, is analogous to “measuring a back-and-forth acceleration
of a piston.” Id. at 6 (citing Baeten 286, left col., third para.; 294, right col.;
288, left col., second para.). Appellant does not dispute that Baeten’s
Appeal 2019-006586
Application 14/069,483

7
baseplate is driven by a piston, or that the baseplate acceleration corresponds
to acceleration of a piston.
Appellant asserts that Gees’s teachings are irrelevant to step A, and
the rejection fails to provide any motivation for a person of ordinary skill in
the art to even consider any teaching in Gees in seismic survey technology.
Appeal Br. 15. This contention is unpersuasive because the Examiner does
not rely on Gees for step A, but for step B, as discussed below.
As to limitation B, Appellant contends that the weighed sum of the
baseplate and the reaction mass accelerations, as taught by Baeten, does not
anticipate or render obvious the claimed determination of the absolute
acceleration because none of Baeten’s accelerations is relative. Appeal Br.
16. Appellant asserts that a land source is stationary while emitting seismic
waves, and therefore, the land source’s motion does not have to be added to
the vibrating element’s motion, whereas a marine source is towed and its
motion must be added. Id.
Step B recites “determining an absolute acceleration of the piston of
the marine vibratory seismic source relative to the earth using the back-and-
forth acceleration and an acceleration of the housing relative to the earth.”
This limitation implies that the housing is accelerating relative to the earth.
However, Baeten recognizes that “the marine vibrator is moving through the
water when in operation.” See Baeten 287, left col., first para. As such,
Baeten teaches that the components of the marine vibrator, including the
baseplate and reaction mass, are moved through the water when in operation.
The Examiner concedes that Baeten does not expressly describe that
acceleration signals are measured by an accelerometer sensor. Ans. 6. The
Examiner submits, however, that Gees demonstrates that those skilled in the
Appeal 2019-006586
Application 14/069,483

8
art would understand this to be the case. Id. According to the Examiner,
“when one skilled in the art reads in Baeten that acceleration signals are
measured on the marine vibrator piston, those skilled understand that this
absolute acceleration measurement is always measured by accelerometers
mounted to that part as demonstrated by Gees.” Id. at 6–7.
Appellant does not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s position. As
discussed below, we are not persuaded by Appellant that none of Baeten’s
accelerations is relative. See Appeal Br. 16.
Step C
Step C recites “calculating, based on the absolute acceleration of the
piston, a far-field waveform of the marine vibratory seismic source at a
given point (O) under water, away from the marine vibratory seismic
source.” Appeal Br. 24 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). The Examiner
finds that Baeten discloses this limitation. Non-Final Act. 5 (citing Baeten
286, left col., third para.; 288, left col., sec. para.; 290, right col., Eq. (6)).
The Examiner finds that equation (6) yields the expression for the far-field
pressure, where “the far-field pressure is composed of two terms: the first
term shows that the particle acceleration at the surface propagates
undistorted to the far field.” Id.
Appellant contends that the term “a” in Baeten’s equation (6) is the
radius of the reaction mass, not the acceleration. Appeal Br. 17 (citing
Baeten 286, right col., second para.; Fig. 3); Reply Br. 2–3. In response, the
Examiner maintains that “the ‘a’ in formula 6 refers to acceleration.” Ans.
12.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner does not establish with
evidence that the term “a” in equation (6) refers to acceleration. However,
Appeal 2019-006586
Application 14/069,483

9
Baeten states that “the first term [of equation (6)] shows that the particle
acceleration at the surface propagates undistorted to the far field.” See
Baeten 290, right col. (emphasis added). Baeten also states, “[t]he first term,
containing the mass acceleration. . . .” See id. at 291, left col., first para.
We understand that the “first term” of equation (6) corresponds to the all the
terms and mathematical operations included between the “=” sign and the
“+” sign. We note that the first term includes the terms ubp and urm, which
denote the displacement of the baseplate and reaction mass, respectively.
See id. at 290, right col., third para. The first term also includes the second
derivative with respect to time of “[ubp - 2urm],” which denotes a difference
in the displacements of the baseplate and reaction mass. That is, this
difference encompasses both the baseplate and reaction mass moving with
respect to time, which is consistent with Baeten’s teaching that the marine
vibrator moves through the water in operation. In such case, the
displacements of the baseplate and reaction mass are functions of time, and
the second derivative corresponds to a difference in the accelerations of the
baseplate and reaction mass.
Further, as found by the Examiner, Gees teaches that when a first part
moves relative to a second part, and the second part also moves, then the
relative acceleration corresponds to the difference between the acceleration
of the first part relative to the second part and the acceleration of the second
part relative to the earth. Gees 68 § 4.3.4.2. This difference gives the
absolute acceleration of the first part relative to the earth.
Appellant replies that the Examiner fails to show that Baeten’s
baseplate acceleration is measured relative to a vibratory source’s housing,
as claim 1 requires. Reply Br. 2. Although Baeten does not appear to
Appeal 2019-006586
Application 14/069,483

10
explicitly disclose this, Appellant does not explain persuasively why one of
ordinary skill in the art would fail to have this understanding, in view of
Baeten’s teaching that the baseplate moves and the marine vibrator, in
general, is moved through the water, and in view of Gees’s teachings as to
how relative and absolute accelerations for such moving parts are
determined by use of sensors (accelerometers).
Accordingly, Appellant’s contentions do not apprise us of error in the
Examiner’s position that the combination of Baeten and Gees teaches or
suggests “calculating, based on the absolute acceleration of the piston, a far-
field waveform of the marine vibratory seismic source,” as recited in step C.
Step E
Step E recites “cross-correlating with a processor the far-field
waveform with the sum of the driving pilot and the ghost pilot, to determine
the far-field signature of the marine vibratory seismic source.” Appeal Br.
24 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). The Examiner finds that Trantham
discloses:
the first step in convention [sic] processing of vibrator data is to
cross-correlate the recorded data with the sweep signal. [The]
inventive method may be used either in place of or in addition
to cross-correlation. [F]or uncorrelated data, the vibrator pilot
signal (sweep signal) is used as the signature. [F]or correlated
data, the signature is the autocorrelation of the pilot signal.
Non-Final Act. 6–7 (citing Trantham, col. 3, ll. 10–15, col. 4, ll. 5–8).
Appellant contends that Trantham suggests cross-correlating seismic
data with the sweep signal. Appeal Br. 18. Appellant asserts, “[s]eismic
data does not correspond to the claimed far-field waveform (calculated
based on piston’s absolute acceleration), even though the sweep signal
Appeal 2019-006586
Application 14/069,483

11
corresponds to the pilot signal (yet not with the sum of the driving pilot and
the ghost pilot).” Id. at 19.
We understand Appellant’s position is that Trantham does not teach
cross-correlating a far-field waveform, as calculated based on the absolute
acceleration of a piston as recited in step C; Trantham’s sweep signal is not
the sum of a driving pilot and a ghost pilot; and thus, Trantham does not
teach cross-correlating a far-field waveform with the sum of a driving pilot
and a ghost pilot, as claimed.
In response, the Examiner refers to several additional passages in
Trantham. Ans. 12–14. Particularly, the Examiner notes that Trantham
discloses:
in marine seismic prospecting the energy propagated into the
earth is the direct downgoing energy as well as a delayed
version of the original signal (i.e., a ghost signal) produced by
reflection of upgoing energy from the water surface. In this
situation, the resulting seismic data will include both reflections
of the actual signal and reflections of the ghost signal.
Id. at 12; see Trantham, col. 2, ll. 9–15 (emphasis added). The Examiner’s
position is that, in Trantham, the “original signal” or “sweep signal”
corresponds to the recited “driving pilot,” the “ghost signal” corresponds to
the recited “ghost pilot,” and “the actual signal recorded by the seismic
detectors” corresponds to the recited “far-field waveform.” Ans. 13. As for
adding a driving pilot to a ghost pilot, as claimed, the Examiner finds that
Trantham describes “the scenario where a ghost signal pollutes downgoing
energy/original/sweep signal produced by a marine vibrator,” and that this
“sum” is referred to as a “composite signal.” Id. at 13–14. According to the
Examiner, Trantham’s goal “is to obtain the original signal/sweep signal
from among the polluted signal using cross-correlation.” Id. at 14.
Appeal 2019-006586
Application 14/069,483

12
In reply, Appellant maintains that the applied combination does not
disclose or render obvious step E. Reply Br. 3.
This contention is unpersuasive. First, as discussed, the Examiner
relies on Baeten and Gees for step C. Second, Appellant does not address
the Examiner’s findings and reasoning regarding Trantham’s teaching set
forth in the Examiner’s Answer, and thus, does not apprise us of error.
For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, and claim 12
depending therefrom, as unpatentable over Baeten, Trantham, Parkes, and
Gees.
Claim 13
Appellant contends that claim 13 recites features that are not also in
claim 1; namely, “receiving information relating to a geometry of the marine
vibratory seismic source array, wherein the geometry includes a distance of
the center of the source array to a predetermined observer point” (emphasis
added), and “calculating, based on the absolute accelerations of the pistons
and the geometry, a far-field waveform of the marine vibratory seismic
source.” Appeal Br. 19. Appellant contends that the Examiner has provided
no specific evidence that claim 13 is rendered obvious by the applied
combination, but has merely combined claim 13 with claims 1 and 18. Id. at
19–20.
We disagree. First, the Examiner does, in fact, point to additional
evidence in rejecting claim 13. That is, the Examiner discusses teachings of
Parkes that pertain to a source array with reference to the language of the
claimed “receiving” step. Non-Final Act. 8. The Examiner also provides
reasoning why one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Parkes’s
teachings with Baeten to include this step. Id.
Appeal 2019-006586
Application 14/069,483

13
Second, Appellant’s general contention does not address the
Examiner’s specific findings set forth for claim 13. Instead, Appellant
merely recites some language of claim 12 and asserts that the applied
references to not render obvious claim 13. As stated in In re Guldenaar
Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2018):
our case law and Rule 41.37(c)(1)(iv) make clear that, for
an applicant to receive separate consideration by the Board for
each of its appealed claims, an applicant’s appeal brief must
contain substantive argument beyond “a mere recitation of the
claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding
elements were not found in the prior art.” In re Lovin, 652 F.3d
1349, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2011); see also Rule 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Third, in the Examiner’s Answer, the Examiner explains that the
geometrical relationship between the vibrator source and far-field receiver is
depicted by a ray shown in Figure 13 of Baeten. Ans. 15. Appellant
responds that the Examiner applies “geometry” in the abstract, but does not
take into account that “the ‘geometry’ is the geometry of the marine
vibratory seismic source array.” Reply Br. 4. This contention merely
indicates again what claim 13 recites, but does not address sufficiently the
Examiner’s specific findings in either the Non-Final Action or the
Examiner’s Answer.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 13 as unpatentable over
Baeten, Trantham, Parkes, and Gees.
Claim 18
Appellant contends that the applied references do not render obvious a
computing device comprising a processor configured to perform the
“calculate,” “add,” and “cross-correlate” limitations. Appeal Br. 20.
Appeal 2019-006586
Application 14/069,483

14
We note, however, that these limitations are closely similar to steps C,
D, and E, respectively, of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of
claim 18 as unpatentable over Baeten, Trantham, Parkes, and Gees for
substantially the same reasons as claim 1.

Rejection 2—Baeten, Trantham, Parkes, Gees, and Schwemmer (Claim 4)
Rejection 3—Baeten, Trantham, Parkes, Gees, and Grosso
(Claims 6, 19, and 21)
Rejection 4—Baeten, Trantham, Parkes, Gees, Baeten ’746, and
Baeten Vibroseis (Claim 11)
Rejection 5—Baeten Trantham, Parkes, Gees, Baeten ’746, and Mei
(Claims 7, 16 and 20)
Claims 4, 6, 7, 11, 16, and 19–21 depend from claim 1, 13, or 18.
Appellant does not present any separate argument for Rejections 2–5.
Accordingly, we sustain Rejections 2–5 for the same reasons as those
discussed above for claims 1, 13, and 18.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 12, 13, 18 103(a) Baeten, Trantham,
Parkes, Gees
1, 12, 13,
18

4 103(a) Baeten, Trantham,
Parkes, Gees,
Schwemmer
4
6, 19, 21 103(a) Baeten, Trantham,
Parkes, Gees,
Grosso
6, 19, 21
Appeal 2019-006586
Application 14/069,483

15
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
11 103(a) Baeten, Trantham,
Parkes, Gees,
Baeten ’746,
Baeten Vibroseis
11
7, 16, 20 103(a) Baeten, Trantham,
Parkes, Gees,
Baeten ’746, Mei
7, 16, 20
Overall
Outcome
1, 4, 6, 7,
11–13, 16,
18–21

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED