Ex Parte Ozdemir et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 22, 2016

12369124 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/369, 124 02/11/2009
28116 7590 06/24/2016
WestemGeco L.L.C.
10001 Richmond Avenue
IP Administration Center of Excellence
Houston, TX 77042
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ahmet Kemal Ozdemir
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.
14.0423-US-NP 3245
EXAMINER
BREIER, KRYSTINE E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3645
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/24/2016 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):
USDocketing@slb.com
jalverson@slb.com
SMarckesoni@slb.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AHMET KEMAL OZDEMIR, VIDAR ANDERS HUSOM,
NICOLAS GOUJON, OEYVIND TEIGEN, and LARS BORGEN
Appeal2014-007042
Application 12/369,124
Technology Center 3600
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, JAMES P. CALVE, and
SEAN P. O'HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
O'HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Ahmet Kemal Ozdemir et al. (Appellants 1) appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 from the Examiner's decision finally rejecting claims 14--23.2 We
have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is WestemGeco, L.L.C.
App. Br. 3.
2 Claims 1-13 are canceled. Id. at 5.
Appeal2014-007042
Application 12/369,124
SUMMARY OF INVENTION
Appellants' invention "relates to using a rotation sensor measurement
to attenuate noise acquired by a streamer-disposed sensor." Spec. i-f 1.
Claim 20, reproduced below from page 18 (Claims Appendix) of the Appeal
Brief, is representative of the claimed subject matter:
20. A processing system comprising:
an interface to receive data indicative of a first
measurement acquired by a rotation sensor on a seismic
streamer; and
a processor to process the data to:
based on the first measurement, estimate a noise
present in a second measurement acquired by a second sensor
on the streamer; and
attenuate the noise present in the second
measurement based on the estimation.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references in rejecting
the claims on appeal:
Tenghamn US 2005/0194201 Al Sept. 8, 2005
De Kok US 2006/0245300 Al Nov. 2, 2006
Robertsson US 2007 /0297287 Al Dec. 27, 2007
Vrcelj US 7,347,096 B2 Mar. 25, 2008
Rouquette US 7,616,522 B2 Nov. 10, 2009
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 14--17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Tenghamn and De Kok.
2
Appeal2014-007042
Application 12/369,124
II. Claims 18 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Tenghamn, De Kok, and Robertsson.
III. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Tenghamn, De Kok, Robertsson, and Rouquette.
IV. Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Tenghamn, De Kok, Robertsson, and Vrcelj.
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
Regarding independent claim 14, the Examiner finds that Tenghamn
discloses a seismic streamer (streamer 10)3 having a second sensor (motion
sensors 20X, 20Y, 20Z) adapted to acquire a first measurement and a
rotation sensor (orientation sensor) adapted to acquire a second
measurement, but "does not teach the second measurement is indicative of a
noise present in the first measurement." Final Act. 3 (citing Tenghamn
i-fi-121, 36, 37, 39. The Examiner finds that De Kok teaches a rotation sensor
(angular accelerometer) used to acquire a measurement indicative of noise
present in a first measurement, and concludes that it would have been
obvious to a skilled artisan "to modify the system of Tenghamn with the
noise measuring of DeKok [sic] since such a modification would have
allowed for the removal of the noise for cleaner data that is easier to work
with and will produce more accurate final results." Id. (citing De Kok i-fi-135,
37,38).
3 Parentheticals refer to the terminology of the cited references.
3
Appeal2014-007042
Application 12/369,124
Appellants argue that "the Final Office Action fails to set forth any
plausible reason to explain how or why the skilled artisan would have
derived a rotation sensor of a streamer that is adapted to acquire a
measurement indicative of a noise present in a measurement acquired by
another sensor." App. Br. 15. We do not find this argument to be
persuasive because, as noted above, the Examiner has set forth such an
explanation in the Final Office Action. Appellants' bald assertion does not
apprise us of error in the rejection.
Appellants also rely on arguments presented with respect to claim 20.
Id. For the reasons set forth below, we find these arguments to be
unpersuasive.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of independent claim 14 as being unpatentable over Tenghamn and
De Kok. Appellants do not make any other substantive argument regarding
the rejection of claims 15-17, each of which depends directly from claim 14.
See App. Br. 16. Therefore, we likewise sustain the rejection of claims 15-
17.
Re} ection II
Regarding independent claim 20, the Examiner finds that Tenghamn
discloses a seismic streamer as discussed above, but fails to disclose, inter
alia, "estimating noise present in the first measurement based on the second
measurement, and attenuating the noise based on the estimation." Final Act.
4 (citing Tenghamn i-fi-121, 37, 39). The Examiner finds that De Kok teaches
estimating noise present in a first measurement based on a second
measurement, and concludes that it would have been obvious to a skilled
4
Appeal2014-007042
Application 12/369,124
artisan "to modify the system of Tenghamn with the noise estimation and
attenuation of DeKok [sic] since such a modification would have allowed for
the removal of the noise for cleaner data that is easier to work with and will
produce more accurate final results." Id. at 5 (citing De Kok i-fi-135, 37, 38).
Appellants argue that "[ t ]he orientation sensor in the context of
Tenghamn is not a rotation sensor that is indicative of a noise in the context
of claim 20." App. Br. 12. The Examiner answers that "Tenghamn clearly
teaches a gyroscope. Gyroscopes are well-known sensors used to measure
rotation." Ans. 3.
We are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments. Tenghamn provides
orientation sensors in an embodiment in which its motion sensors are
"suspended inside the streamer in a rotationally fixed manner." Tenghamn
i1 3 6. In other words, the motion sensors rotate with-and impart rotational
noise to---sensor enclosure 19 and exterior jacket 12. The orientation
sensors are "disposed proximate the particle motion sensors" "[i]n order to
resolve the direction from which seismic energy originates using multiple,
rotationally fixed [motion] sensors," and may take the form of "three
mutually orthogonal accelerometers," "three mutually orthogonal
magnetometers, or a gyroscope." Id. i139. Thus, Tenghamn fairly discloses
a rotation sensor, as well as the use thereof to resolve seismic measurements
of the motion sensors.
Appellants also argue that "the Final Office Action neither explains
nor is it predictable how DeKok's [sic] determination of horizontal/vertical
distortion may be performed for sensors on a sensor cable that is not
5
Appeal2014-007042
Application 12/369,124
laying/constrained by a surface." App. Br. 13. Similarly, Appellants further
argue:
Even assuming, for purposes of argument, that Tenghamn's
orientation sensor is a "rotation sensor," it is entirely unclear
how to incorporate such a "rotation sensor" into DeKok's [sic]
system (or vice versa), as DeKok's [sic] technique relies on
measuring the actual non-linear motion of a cable about its axis
and not on sensing a magnetic or geographical reference for a
sensor.
Reply Br. 2. Appellants further allege that "DeKok's [sic] seabed cable-
based technique is inapplicable for streamers." Id. The Examiner answers:
DeKok [sic] teaches correcting non-horizontal and/or
non-vertical measurements taken by the second sensor. These
corrections, using the rotation measurements would be
applicable to and useful in streamer applications in addition to
seabed applications. The noise in DeKok [sic] is the rotational
measurement. In the marine seismic art (which encompasses
the use of both seabed and streamer cables) a rotation
measurement is made for the purpose of correcting other
measurements. Although Tenghamn does not state the
equivalency, a measurement of rotation is essentially a
measurement of noise. DeKok [sic] shows how the rotation
measurement is used to provide corrected linear measurement
data.
Ans. 4--5.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. As noted by the
Examiner, De Kok recognizes that"[ w ]hen cable 6 rotates, pivots, and/or
rolls, one or more linear motion seismic sensing units 3 ... also rotates,
pivots, or rolls" and "it is not possible to distinguish between a lateral
movement and a seismic signal." De Kok i-f 3 7. De Kok further teaches that
an "angular accelerometer may be used to measure non-linear motion of the
6
Appeal2014-007042
Application 12/369,124
seabed seismic sensor or seismic cable about any axis, which may be
converted into a measure of horizontal displacement at the circumference of
the seabed seismic sensor." Id. i-f 35 (emphasis added). Using this
converted/ decomposed data, "[ r ]aw seismic data may then be corrected ...
to form corrected seismic data." Id. i-f 3 7.
Appellants have not convincingly explained how a skilled artisan
would not be able to employ the teachings of De Kok in a streamer system
that "is not confined to a seabed surface." App. Br. 13. De Kok's angular
accelerometers can measure rotational motion about any axis, and De Kok
discusses error correction for non-flat seabed surfaces using three linear
motion seismic sensing units. See De Kok i-fi-135, 39-44. Moreover, "[a]
person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an
automaton." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007). Thus,
a skilled artisan would have been able to apply the correction of raw seismic
data to remove rotational error, as taught by De Kok, to the streamer system
of Tenghamn. This conclusion is buttressed by the fact that De Kok states
that "the methods described above may be extended to three dimensions."
De Kok ,-r 42.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of independent claim 20 as being unpatentable over Tenghamn,
De Kok, and Robertsson. Appellants do not make any other substantive
argument regarding the rejection of claims 21 and 22, each of which depends
directly from claim 20. See App. Br. 14. Therefore, we likewise sustain the
rejection of claims 21 and 22.
7
Appeal2014-007042
Application 12/369,124
Appellants do not make any other substantive argument regarding the
rejection of claim 18, which depends directly from claim 14. See id. at 15.
Therefore, we likewise sustain the rejection of claim 18.
Re} ection III
With respect to the rejection of claim 19 Appellants rely on the
arguments presented above in regards to the rejection of claim 14, from
which claim 19 indirectly depends. See id. at 16. Accordingly, for the same
reasons as discussed above, we also sustain the rejection of claim 19.
Re} ection IV
With respect to the rejection of claim 23 Appellants rely on the
arguments presented above in regards to the rejection of claim 20, from
which claim 23 indirectly depends. See id. Accordingly, for the same
reasons as discussed above, we also sustain the rejection of claim 23.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 14--23 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8