CGG SERVICES SAS

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 13, 2021

2021000153 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 13, 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.
15/329,458 01/26/2017 Benjamin ROURE 0336-442-2/100833 6132
11171 7590 08/13/2021
Patent Portfolio Builders, PLLC
754 Warrenton Road
Suite 113-314
Fredericksburg, VA 22406
EXAMINER
BREIER, KRYSTINE E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3645
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/13/2021 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 BENJAMIN ROURE
____________

Appeal 2021-000153
Application 15/329,458
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
MICHAEL L. WOODS, Administrative Patent Judges.

STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE.
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision in the Final Office Action (dated Oct. 2, 2019, hereinafter “Final
Act.”) rejecting claims 1–10, 12–18, and 20.2 We have jurisdiction over this
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. CGG SERVICES SAS is identified as the real party in
interest in Appellant’s Appeal Brief (filed Mar. 9, 2020, hereinafter “Appeal
Br.”). Appeal Br. 2.
2 Claims 11 and 19 are canceled. Appeal Br. 22, 24 (Claims App.).
Appeal 2021-000153
Application 15/329,458

2

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE.

INVENTION
Appellant’s invention relates to processing of seismic data. Spec.
para. 2.
Claims 1, 12, and 20 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
claimed invention and reads as follows:
1. A seismic exploration method for simultaneously
inverting PP and PS seismic amplitudes in native time domains
with optimized registration through travel times’ estimations,
the method comprising:
obtaining PP and PS seismic data acquired during a
seismic survey of a multi- layer structure; and
jointly inverting the PP and the PS seismic data in a
stratigraphic grid defined by interfaces between layers, using
different time axes for PP and PS reflections to obtain an image
of the multi-layer structure usable to assess presence of oil
and/or gas reservoir, wherein a ratio of PP and of PS waves
travel times inside each layer cell is a function of a ratio of a P-
wave propagation velocity and of an S-wave propagation
velocity therein,
wherein the function takes into consideration that, for the
PP waves travel time, an incident and a reflected P-wave have
same P-wave propagation velocity and an incident angle
substantially equal to a P-reflection angle, while, for PS waves
travel time, the incident and a reflected S-wave have different
propagation velocities and an S- reflection angle different from
the incident angle.

Appeal Br. 19 (Claims App.).

Appeal 2021-000153
Application 15/329,458

3

REJECTIONS
I. The Examiner rejects claims 1–10, 12–18, and 20 under 35
U.S.C. § 112(b) as being incomplete for omitting essential
steps.3
II. The Examiner rejects claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as
being anticipated by Agullo.4
III. The Examiner rejects claims 2–6, 9, 10, 12–15, and 18 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Agullo and
Guillaume.5
IV. The Examiner rejects claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Agullo, Guillaume, and Kahn.6
V. The Examiner rejects claims 8 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Agullo, Guillaume, and Garotta.7
VI. The Examiner rejects claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Agullo and Kahn.

ANALYSIS
Rejection I
The Examiner finds independent claim 1 is incomplete for omitting
“steps regarding the calculation or subsequent use of the ratio of PP wave

3 The Examiner’s indefiniteness rejection regarding the limitation “a
function of a ratio of PP and of PS waves travel times” in claim 1 is
withdrawn. See Final Act. 3–4; Examiner’s Answer (dated Apr. 15, 2020,
hereinafter “Ans.”) 3.
4 Agullo et al., US 2006/0023569 Al, published Feb. 2, 2006.
5 Guillaume et al., US 2016/0341835 Al, published Nov. 24, 2016.
6 Kahn et al., US 2015/0241582 Al, published Aug. 27, 2015.
7 Garotta et al., US 6,639,871 Bl, issued Oct. 28, 2003.
Appeal 2021-000153
Application 15/329,458

4

travel time and PS wa[ve] travel times.” Final Act. 3. According to the
Examiner, “the ratio is merely a mathematical construct unrelated in any
way to the seismic inversion.” Id.
Appellant argues that the recited ratio of PP wave travel time and PS
wave travel time is related to the claimed “inverting” step, which uses
“different time axes for PP and PS reflections.” See Appeal Br. 8–9.
In response, the Examiner asserts that “the steps which show how the
ratio of PP wave travel times and PS wave travel times is calculated and
used in the context of the method are omitted from the claim.” Ans. 5. The
Examiner explains that “[l]acking steps which show how the ratio of PP
wave travel times and PS wave travel times is calculated and used in the
context of the method renders the claim incomplete.” Id.
The Examiner appears to require that claim 1 specify exactly how the
ratio of PP wave travel time and PS wave travel time is calculated and used
in the “jointly inverting” step. However, by not specifying such features,
claim 1 is merely broad. See In re Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008, 1016 n.17
(CCPA 1977) (breadth is not indefiniteness). That is to say, it is clear that
claim 1 requires calculating and using the ratio of PP wave travel time and
PS wave travel time in the claimed “jointly inverting” step, thus, setting
forth the metes and bounds of the claim. In particular, Appellant’s
Specification describes how to calculate the ratio of PP wave travel time and
PS wave travel time. See Spec. para. 37 (equations (3) and (3')). The
Specification further describes “[j]oint inversion of PP and PS seismic
amplitudes . . . using one time axis for PP data and another time axis for PS
data” and “match[ing] the PP and PS amplitudes . . . and the [PP wave and
PS wave] travel times (via the VP/VS ratio shown in equations 3').” Id. at
Appeal 2021-000153
Application 15/329,458

5

paras. 13, 44. Thus, Appellant provides an example by which to interrelate
PP and PS wave travel times.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) of claims 1–10, 12–18, and 20 as being incomplete
for omitting essential steps.

Rejection II
Appellant argues that “Agullo’s method substantively differs from the
claimed inversion at least by (A) NOT using different time axes for PP and
PS reflections, instead using the scale factor η.” Appeal Br. 11. According
to Appellant, Agullo “squeez[es] PS times into the PP times axis using the
scale factor η,” whereas in claim 1 “shear and compressional data are treated
in their respective native time domains, i.e. with different time axes for PP
and for PS data.” Id. at 13.
In response, the Examiner relies on Agullo’s Figure 1 to illustrate
“different time axes for PP and PS reflections.” Ans. 6. The Examiner notes
that because Agullo discloses that “joint inversion” is performed on “‘data
expressed in different time scales,’” a skilled artisan “would recognize that
the time scales of [A]gullo and the time axes of the present application are
equivalent.” Id. at 6–7 (citing Agullo, para. 28).
Agullo discloses constructing a model representative of a geophysical
structure including (1) “estimat[ing] parameters of the model, described in
each time scale, from data expressed in different time scales”; (2)
determining a scale factor η; and (3) “joint inversion of the data using scale
factor η.” Agullo, para. 58. Although we appreciate that the data in Agullo
is expressed in different time scales, nonetheless, Agullo’s joint inversion is
Appeal 2021-000153
Application 15/329,458

6

performed using scale factor η, rather than “different time axes for PP and
PS reflections,” as called for by claim 1. Stated differently, “Agullo uses the
scale factor η for converting all the times in a single time scale,” that is, uses
“PP and PS data aligned in PP times,” whereas the claimed invention uses
“PP and PS seismic amplitudes in native time domains.” See Appeal Br. 11;
Spec. para. 47, Figs. 8, 9. The Examiner does not adequately explain why
Agullo’s joint inversion using scale factor η constitutes Appellant’s joint
inversion using different time axes for PP and PS reflections.
Accordingly, we agree with Appellant that “Agullo does not perform
joint inversion using different time axes for PP and PS reflections as
claimed.” Appeal Br. 12. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) of claim 1 as anticipated by Agullo.

Rejections III–VI
The Examiner’s use of the Guillaume, Kahn, and Garotta disclosures
does not remedy the deficiency of Agullo discussed supra. See Final Act. 4–
11. Therefore, for the same reasons discussed above, we do not sustain the
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 2–6, 9, 10, 12–15, and 18 as
unpatentable over Agullo and Guillaume; of claim 7 as unpatentable over
Agullo, Guillaume, and Kahn; of claims 8 and 17 as unpatentable over
Agullo, Guillaume, and Garotta; and of claim 20 as unpatentable over
Agullo and Kahn.

Appeal 2021-000153
Application 15/329,458

7

CONCLUSION

Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1–10,
12–18, 20
112(b) Written
description
1–10,
12–18, 20
1 102(a)(2) Agullo 1
2–6, 9, 10,
12–15, 18
103 Agullo,
Guillaume
2–6, 9, 10,
12–15, 18
7 103 Agullo,
Guillaume,
Kahn
7
8, 17 103 Agullo,
Guillaume,
Garotta
8, 17
20 103 Agullo, Kahn 20
Overall
Outcome
1–10, 12–18,
20

REVERSED