Ex Parte Ozdemir et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 7, 201612611626 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 7, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/611,626 11103/2009 28116 7590 09/09/2016 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. 14.0489-US-NP 2858 EXAMINER HULKA, JAMES R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3645 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/09/2016 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 and LARS BORGEN Appeal2014-006682 Application 12/611,626 1 Technology Center 3600 Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judges. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-12. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. 1 "The real party in interest is the assignee WestemGeco, L.L.C." (Appeal Br. 3.) Appeal2014-006682 Application 12/611,626 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants' invention relates to "the spacing of particle motion sensors on a seismic streamer." (Spec. i-f 1.) Illustrative Claim2 1. A method comprising: receiving data indicative of first samples of a particle motion wavefield acquired by nonuniformly spaced particle motion sensors while in tow, the sensors being spaced apart by an average spacing interval and the average spacing interval being insufficient to prevent vibration noise from being aliased into a signal cone in a first signal constructed from second samples of the particle motion wavefield hypothetically acquired by particle motion sensors uniformly spaced apart by the average spacing interval; and processing the data in a processor-based machine to generate a second signal indicative of the particle motion wavefield and not having vibration noise aliased into the signal cone. Engel er Amundsen Goujon Rouquette References us 5,600,675 US 2006/0074562 Al US 2008/0151689 Al US 2008/0285380 Al Rejections3 Feb.4, 1997 Apr. 6, 2006 June 26, 2008 Nov. 20, 2008 I. The Examiner rejects claims 1 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Goujon. (Final Action 3.) II. The Examiner rejects claims 2, 6, 8, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Goujon. (Id. at 4.) 2 This illustrative claim is quoted from the Claims Appendix ("Claims App.") set forth on pages 19-21 of the Appeal Brief. 3 The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph (see Final Action 2), has been withdrawn (see Answer 8-9). 2 Appeal2014-006682 Application 12/611,626 III. The Examiner rejects claims 3, 4, 9, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Goujon and Engeler. (Id. at 5.) IV. The Examiner rejects claims 5 and 11under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Goujon, Engeler, and Amundsen. (Id.) V. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 6-8, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Rouquette and Goujon. (Id. at 6.) VI. The Examiner rejects claims 3, 4, 9, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Rouquette, Goujon, and Engeler. (Id. at 8.) VII. The Examiner rejects claims 5 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Rouquette, Goujon, Engeler, and Amundsen. (Id. at 8-9.) ANALYSIS Claims 1 and 7 are the independent claims on appeal, with the rest of the claims on appeal (i.e., claims 2---6 and 8-12) depending therefrom. (Claims App.) Independent claim 1 is directed to a method wherein data indicative of "samples of a particle motion wavefield" is received and processed to generate a signal "indicative of the particle motion wavefield and not having vibration noise aliased into the signal cone." (Id.) Independent claim 7 is directed to an article comprising a storage medium to store instructions which, when executed by a computer, cause the performance of similar data-receiving and data-processing steps. (Id.) REJECTIONS I-IV The Examiner rejects claims 1-12 as being unpatentable over Goujon alone or in combination with other prior art references. (See Final Action 3-5.) Goujon discloses a seismic streamer that "includes a first set 3 Appeal2014-006682 Application 12/611,626 of sensors [e.g., geophones], which are spaced apart pursuant to a first spacing distance [e.g., 90 cm] and a second set of sensors, which are spaced apart by a second spacing distance [e.g., 150 cm] that is different than the first distance." (Goujon i-f 28; see also id. i-fi-120, 33.) Goujon also discloses "processing" these different sets of data "to generate a signal that is indicative of a seismic event." (Id. i-f 5.) In Goujon's processing, "the 90 cm sampling interval data set" is combined with "the 150 cm sampling interval data set" to generate "[a] full bandwidth composite data set that is substantially free of vibration noise." (Id. i-f 37.) Independent Claim 1 Independent claim 1 requires the samples to be acquired by "non- uniformly spaced" particle motion sensors. (Claims App.) The Examiner finds Goujon discloses non-uniformly spaced particle motion sensors. (See Final Action 3.) The Appellants argue that Goujon does not disclose "non-uniformly spaced particle motion sensors." (Appeal Br. 10.) We are not persuaded by this argument because we "give claims their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the [S]pecification." In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Here, the Specification conveys that the Appellants' exemplary streamer 30 has some sensors spaced apart a first spacing distance ~x (e.g., 39 cm) while other sensors are spaced apart a second spacing distance 2~x (e.g., 78 cm). (See Spec. i-f 60, Fig. 11.) The same is true in Goujon, as some sensors are spaced apart a first spacing distance (e.g., 90 cm) while other sensors are spaced apart a second spacing distance (e.g., 150 cm). (See Goujon i-f 28.) As such, we 4 Appeal2014-006682 Application 12/611,626 agree with the Examiner that Goujon's sensor-spacing arrangement can likewise be "considered non-uniform spacing." (Answer 9). Independent claim 1 also recites that the non-uniformly spaced sensors are "spaced apart by an average spacing interval." (Claims App.) The Examiner finds that Goujon's sensors are spaced apart by an average spacing interval. (See Final Action 3.) The Appellants do not challenge this finding and, in any event, it is noted that an average spacing interval could be mathematically calculated for a group of sensors spaced apart on a streamer. Independent claim 1 additionally recites that the average spacing interval is "insufficient to prevent vibration noise from being aliased into a signal cone in a first signal constructed from second samples of the particle motion wavefield hypothetically acquired by particle motion sensors uniformly spaced apart by the average spacing interval." (Claims App.) The Examiner finds that the average spacing interval of Goujon's sensors meets this criterion. (See Final Action 3.) The Appellants argue that if Goujon's streamer has non-uniformly spaced spacers as maintained by the Examiner, then it "fails to disclose uniformly spaced particle motion sensors" and thus cannot satisfy the above- recited limitation involving ''uniformly spaced sensors." (Reply Br. 2.) We are not persuaded by this argument because, as alluded to by the Examiner (see Answer 10), this limitation does not require Goujon to disclose uniformly spaced apart sensors and it does not require Goujon to disclose a hypothetical acquisition of samples. This limitation merely requires Goujon's average spacing interval to satisfy a criterion that is measured via characteristics of a signal corresponding to hypothetically acquired samples. 5 Appeal2014-006682 Application 12/611,626 The Appellants do not contend that Goujon's average spacing interval (e.g., a spacing interval falling somewhere between 90 cm and 150 cm) would not satisfy this criterion. Independent claim 1 further recites that the data is processed to generate a signal "indicative of the particle motion wavefield and not having vibration noise aliased into the signal cone." (Claims App.) The Examiner finds that Goujon discloses such data processing. (See Final Action 2.) Insofar as the Appellants challenge this finding (see Appeal Br. 10), as noted above, Goujon discloses generating a composite data set "that is substantially free of vibration noise." (Goujon i-f 37.) Thus, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Goujon (Rejection I). Independent Claim 7 Independent claim 7 contains limitations similar to those of independent claim 1. (See Claims App.) The Examiner's findings with respect to independent claim 1 also apply to independent claim 7 (see Final Action 4) and the Appellants refer to and/ or reiterate the same arguments (see Appeal Br. 10). For the reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded by these arguments. Thus, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Goujon (Rejection I). Dependent Claims 2 and 8 Claims 2 and 8 depend respectively from independent claims 1 and 7 and further require the samples to be "associated with alternating non- uniformly spaced points of a uniform grid." (Claims App.) The Examiner finds that, although Goujon does not use the specific term "uniform grid," its 6 Appeal2014-006682 Application 12/611,626 samples could nonetheless be associated with alternating non-uniformly spaced points on a uniform grid. (See Final Action 4.) The Appellants argue that it is unclear why one of ordinary skill would acquire samples "in such a manner that the samples are associated with alternating non-uniformly spaced points of a uniform grid." (Appeal Br. 11.) We are not persuaded by this argument because, with respect to the word "associated," we apply the broadest reasonable meaning to this word which, here, is "[its] ordinary usage as [it] would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art." In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55 (Fed. Cir. 1997).4 A dictionary definition of the word "associate" is "to bring together or into relationship in any of various intangible ways (as in memory or imagination)."5 The Appellants do not adequately address why non- uniformly spaced sample points (as occurs in Goujon) could not be intangibly related to points on an imagined uniform grid. Thus, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 2 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Goujon (Rejection II). Dependent Claims 6 and 12 Claim 6 depends directly from independent claim 1 and further requires data processing to be based on "a non-uniform sampling" to 4 We must also "tak[ e] into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained in the [Appellants' Specification]." Morris, 127 F.3d at 1055. Here, however, the Appellants do not point to, and we do not find, statements in the Specification about what is meant by samples being "associated" with points on a uniform grid. 5 http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/associate (last visited September 7, 2016). 7 Appeal2014-006682 Application 12/611,626 generate a signal "containing a first frequency band" and also based on "a uniform sampling" to generate a signal "containing second and third frequency bands." (Claims App., emphasis added.) Claim 12 depends indirectly from independent claim 7 and likewise recites "non-uniform sampling" and "uniform sampling." (Id.) The Examiner finds that Goujon teaches the generation of first, second, and third frequency bands. (See Final Action 4.) The Appellants argue that Goujon "fails to disclose or render obvious combining a first frequency band generated based on non-uniform sampling with other frequency bands generated based on uniform sampling." (Appeal Br. 13, emphasis omitted.) We are persuaded by this argument because Goujon discloses that its full bandwidth composite is generated with "the 90 cm sampling interval data set" and "the 150 cm sampling interval data set." (Goujon i-f 37.) This establishes that Goujon teaches the generation of frequency bands that are each based on a uniform sampling. However, the Examiner does not sufficiently explain how or why Goujon teaches the generation of a frequency band based on a non-uniform sampling. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 6 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Goujon (Rejection II). Dependent Claims 3-5 and 9-11 Claims 3-5 depend directly or indirectly from independent claim 1 and claims 9-11 depend directly or indirectly from independent claim 7. (See Claims App.) The Appellants do not offer separate arguments for these dependent claims. (See Appeal Br. 16.) 8 Appeal2014-006682 Application 12/611,626 Thus, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 3, 4, 9, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Goujon and Engeler (Rejection III); and we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 5 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Goujon, Engeler, and Amundsen (Rejection IV). REJECTIONS V-VII The Examiner additionally or alternatively rejects claims 1-12 as unpatentable over Rouquette and Goujon either alone or in combination with other prior art references. (See Final Action 6-9.) As discussed above, Goujon discloses a seismic streamer with a first set of 90-cm-spaced sensors and a second set of 150-cm-spaced sensors. (See Goujon i-fi-120, 28, 33.) Rouquette discloses a seismic steamer wherein "hydrophones are disposed sequentially along the length of the streamer at predetermined irregular positions." (Rouquette i1 6.) Independent Claim 1 As indicated above, independent claim 1 requires samples to be acquired by "non-uniformly spaced" particle motion sensors that are spaced apart by an "average spacing interval" that meets certain criterion. (See Claims App.) The Examiner finds that Rouquette teaches non-uniformly spaced hydrophones that are spaced apart by an average spacing interval that is insufficient to prevent vibration noise from being aliased. (See Final Action 6.) And the Examiner determines that the method recited in independent claim 1 would have been obvious over the combined teachings ofRouquette and Goujon. (Id. at 7.) The Appellants appear to agree that Rouquette teaches non-uniformly spaced hydrophones. (See Appeal Br. 14.) However, the Appellants argue 9 Appeal2014-006682 Application 12/611,626 that Rouquette "fails to disclose or render obvious" non-uniformly-spaced particle motion sensors. (Id.) We are not persuaded by this argument because the Examiner's rejection is based upon a finding that "both geophones and hydrophones are commonly used in marine seismic surveys" and a determination that it would have been obvious to modify Rouquette' s method "to include particle motion sensors instead of hydrophones." (Final Action 7.) The Appellants do not adequately address this finding and/ or this determination by the Examiner. The Appellants also argue that Rouquette does not show or suggest some other allegedly missing elements in Goujon, such as those relating to the "average spacing interval," the "hypothetically acquired" samples, the "uniformly spaced" sensors, and/or the "vibration noise." (See Appeal Br. 14--15.) As discussed above, we are not persuaded by the Appellants' arguments that Goujon fails to show or suggest these elements. As such, the Appellants do not adequately address why these elements would be absent in the Examiner's proposed combination of Goujon and Rouquette. Thus, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Rouquette and Goujon (Rejection V). Independent Claim 7 The Appellants argue independent claims 1 and 7 in conjunction (see Appeal Br. 14--15), and thus we likewise sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Rouquette and Goujon (Rejection V). 10 Appeal2014-006682 Application 12/611,626 Dependent Claims 2 and 8 As indicated above, dependent claims 2 and 8 require samples to be "associated with alternating non-uniformly spaced points of a uniform grid." (Claims App.) The Appellants reiterate their arguments that Goujon does not show or suggest this feature (see Appeal Br. 15) and, for the same reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded by these arguments. Moreover, Rouquette teaches sensors disposed "sequentially along the length of the streamer at predetermined irregular positions" that "deviate from a set of uniform positions" which are "equally spaced apart." (Rouquette i-f 6.) Thus, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 2 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Rouquette and Goujon (Rejection V). Dependent Claims 6 and 12 As indicated above, dependent claims 6 and 12 require the generation of frequency bands based on both "non-uniform sampling" and "uniform sampling." (Claims App.) The Appellants argue that Goujon does not disclose such generation. (See Appeal Br. 16.) As discussed above, the Examiner does not sufficiently explain how or why Goujon teaches the processing steps required by these claims. And the Examiner's findings and determinations with respect to Rouquette (see Final Action 7-8) do not compensate for this shortcoming. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 6 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Rouquette and Goujon (Rejection V). 11 Appeal2014-006682 Application 12/611,626 Dependent Claims 3-5 and 9-11 The Appellants do not argue the rejection of these claims separately from independent claims 1 and 7. (See Appeal Br. 16.) Thus, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 3, 4, 9, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Rouquette, Goujon, and Engeler (Rejection VI); and we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 5 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Rouquette, Goujon, Engeler, and Amundsen (Rejection VII). DECISION We AFFIRM the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-5 and 7-11. We REVERSE the Examiner's rejections of claims 6 and 12. 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-IN-PART 12 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation