Ex Parte Tenghamn

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 2, 2018

14061433 (P.T.A.B. May. 2, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
14/061,433
136882 7590
Tumey LLP - PGS
Corey Tumey
PO Box 22188
FILING DATE
10/23/2013
05/04/2018
Houston, TX 77227-2188
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Stig Rune Lennart Tenghamn
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.
PGS-12-54US 7339
EXAMINER
NOLAN, JOHN T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3646
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/04/2018 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):
ctumey@tumeyllp.com
docketing@pgs.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STIG RUNE LENNART TENGHAMN 1
Appeal2017-007323
Application 14/061,433
Technology Center 3600
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.
OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-3 and 5-24. 2 We have jurisdiction over the
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 PGS Geophysical AS (''Appellant") is the Applicant as provided in
37 C.F.R. § 1.46 and is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
2 Claim 4 is canceled. Appeal Br. 19 (Claims App.).
Appeal2017-007323
Application 14/061,433
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 9, and 16 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below
and is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A marine seismic vibrator comprising:
a shell having a spring constant selected to provide a first
resonance frequency within an operational frequency range of
about 1 Hz and about 300 Hz, wherein the shell comprises
endbeams and shell side portions coupled to the endbeams,
wherein one or more reinforced portions are disposed on either
side of a mid-line of the at least one of the shell side portions,
and wherein the reinforced portions force the corresponding shell
side portions to bend at the midline;
a driver disposed within the shell and having a first end
and a second end; and
a spring element coupled to the shell between the first end
and the second end of the driver, wherein the spring element has
a second mode of oscillation that provides a second resonance
frequency within the operational frequency range.
EVIDENCE
The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Purcell us 5,805,529
Tenghamn3 US 2011/0038225 Al
Tenghamn4 US 2011/0317515 Al
Morozov US 2012/0243377 Al
3 Hereinafter referred to as "Tenghamn '225."
4 Hereinafter referred to as "Tenghamn '515."
2
Sept. 8, 1998
Feb. 17, 2011
Dec. 29, 2011
Sept. 27, 2012
Appeal2017-007323
Application 14/061,433
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1, 2, 5-9, 11-14, 16, 17, and 19-23 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tenghamn '225 and
Tenghamn '515. Final Act. 2-8.
II. Claims 3, 10, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Tenghamn '225, Tenghamn '515, and Purcell. Id.
at 8-9.
III. Claims 15 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Tenghamn '225, Tenghamn '515, and Morozov.
Id. at 9-10.
OPINION
Rejection I
The Examiner finds that Tenghamn '225 teaches a marine seismic
vibrator having most of the limitations of independent claim 1 (Final Act. 2-
3), but "does not explicitly teach one or more reinforced portions [that] are
disposed on either side of a mid-line of the at least one of the shell side
portions, and wherein the reinforced portions force the corresponding shell
side portions to bend at the midline" (id. at 3). However, the Examiner finds
that "Tenghamn ['] 515 teaches one or more reinforced portions ( 11) [that]
are disposed on either side of a mid-line of the at least one of the shell side
portions (FIG 1 ), and wherein the reinforced portions force the
corresponding shell side portions (2) to bend at the midline." Id. The
Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to modify the marine
seismic vibrator of Tenghamn '225 to include the reinforced portions of
3
Appeal2017-007323
Application 14/061,433
Tenghamn '515 "for the purpose of preventing non-uniformity of
vibrations." Id.
Appellant argues that "item (11) in Tenghamn [ ']515 is defined as a
'transmission element' and thus should not be correlated with the requisite
reinforced portions." Appeal Br. 9. In particular, Appellant asserts that
transmission element 11 "functions to move flextensional shell 2, not
strengthen or support flextensional shell 2." Id. at 10; see also id. (asserting
that "the word 'reinforce', as defined by Merriam-Webster dictionary, is to
'strengthen or support, especially with additional ... material"'). According
to Appellant, "[ t ]he movement prevents transmission element (11) from
performing reinforcement to flextensional shell 2." Id.; see also Reply Br. 2
(asserting that "[t]he transmission element does not supply any additional
strength or support to the shell" because, if it did, "it would prevent or
reduce flexing across the shell in Tenghamn [ ']515"). We are not persuaded
by Appellant's argument in that the Examiner's finding that transmission
element 11 reinforces flextensional shell 2 is consistent with the definition
for the term "reinforce" provided by Appellant, and as the term is used in the
Specification. 5 As the Examiner explains, "the transmission element [ of
Tenghamn '515] is stronger and more rigid tha[ n] the shell, providing
strength and support in the form of backing with additional material as
defined by Merriam-Webster." Ans. 3 (citing Tenghamn '515, Fig. 1). In
this regard, Appellant does not persuasively explain why the Examiner's
position is in error.
5 The Specification describes that "ribs 30 may be used, for example, to
reinforce the shell side portion 28 and make the shell side portion 28 more
stiff." Spec. ,r 35.
4
Appeal2017-007323
Application 14/061,433
Appellant argues that transmission element 11 cannot both move
flextensional shell 2 and reinforce it. Appeal Br. 10. According to
Appellant, "[ t ]he transmission element cannot be 'one or more reinforced
portions,' as argued by the Examiner above, and allow the midline to flex[,]
as further argued by the Examiner." Reply Br. 2; see also id. (asserting that,
if transmission element 11 is a reinforced portion, "then it would prevent
flexing at the midline"). We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument.
Appellant does not adequately explain why the ability of transmission
element 11 to transfer motion of electric coil 10 to the inner surface of
flextensional shell 2 precludes transmission element 11 from also
constituting additional material strengthening the fl extensional shell 2.
Appellant argues that "there is no teaching or suggestion in Tenghamn
[ ']515 that flextensional shell 2 may flex 'to bend at the midline,' much less
that the transmission element (11) would force such bending." Appeal Br.
10. Appellant asserts that "the 'transmission element' of Tenghamn [ ']515
is clearly connected to the midline of flextensional shell 2." Reply Br. 2
(citing Tenghamn '515, Figs, 1, 2A). Tenghamn '515 teaches that "each
transmission element 11 may transfer motion of electric coil 10 to the inner
surface of flextensional shell 2 proximate its minor axis." Tenghamn '515 ,r
24. In particular, "[fJorce F may cause electric coil 10 to move, and
transmission element 11 may transfer this movement and force F to
flextensional shell 2, which may flex while resisting the movement and force
F." Id. Tenghamn '515 also teaches that hinges 12 "may enable contraction
of the major axis of the flextensional shell 2 when the minor axis is enlarged
by the motion of the driver 8." Id. ,r 23 (emphasis added). The Examiner
takes the position that, "[i]f the minor axis (35 in all of FIG 1 A) is enlarged
5
Appeal2017-007323
Application 14/061,433
( or contracted) then the shell must necessarily bend at the midline." Ans. 3;
see also id. (explaining that "[i]t is not conceivable that the length of the
minor axis could change without some bending taking place at the mid-line
of the shell"). Appellant's argument does not specifically address or explain
an error in the Examiner's position.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant does not apprise us of error in
the Examiner's conclusion that the combination of Tenghamn '225 and
Tenghamn '515 renders obvious the subject matter of independent claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Tenghamn '225 and Tenghamn '515. We also sustain the
rejection of: independent claims 9 and 16, for which Appellant relies on the
same arguments and reasoning we found unpersuasive in connection with
claim 1; and dependent claims 2, 5-8, 11-14, 17, and 19-23, for which
Appellant provides no separate arguments. Appeal Br. 9-15; Reply Br. 1-5.
Rejection II
Appellant presents arguments for the patentability of claims 3, 10, and
18 together as a group. Appeal Br. 15-17; Reply Br. 2--4. We select claim 3
as the representative claim, and claims 10 and 18 stand or fall therewith.
37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
In rejecting claim 3, the Examiner acknowledges that "Tenghamn
'225 does not explicitly teach [that the] reinforced portions comprise
protruding ribs." Final Act. 8. However, the Examiner finds that Purcell
teaches "shell (20) side portions [that] comprise protruding ribs (24, FIG 4;
Col 4 [l]n 18-22)." Id. The Examiner determines that it would have been
obvious "to modify the marine seismic vibrator of Tenghamn ['225 as
already modified by Tenghamn '515] with the reinforced portions
6
Appeal2017-007323
Application 14/061,433
comprising protruding ribs, as taught by Purcell, for the purpose of
preventing non-uniformity of vibrations." Id.
Appellant initially relies on the arguments and reasoning that we
found unpersuasive in connection with independent claim 1, from which this
claim depends. Appeal Br. 15. Appellant further asserts that "in view of the
[S]pecification, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the
ridges or cusps 24 of Purcell could not be ribs." Id. at 16 (citing Spec. ,r 38).
In particular, Appellant asserts that Purcell's "ridges or cusps 24 do not
appear to be reinforcing the shell 20," but, "[r]ather, ... are simply folds in
the shell 20." Id. at 16-17. We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument.
Purcell teaches that "thin-walled folded shell 20 is inwardly concavely
shaped with a number of axially extending corrugations 20 having valleys 22
and ridges or cusps 24." Purcell, col. 4, 11. 18-20. According to Purcell, the
"axially extending corrugations ... provide a predetermined axial
compliance and radial to axial transformation ratio." Id., col. 2, 11. 54--57.
The Examiner explains that Purcell's ridges or cusps 24 are similar in
structure and function to the claimed protruding ribs because "these
structures provide reinforcement in one area while facilitating bending or
flexing in another area." Ans. 4; see also id. ("While it is the case that the
'valleys' and 'cusps' of Purcell allow the device to flex in the radial
direction, they do in fact provide reinforcement against bending in the axial
direction."). In this regard, Appellant's argument does not specifically
address the Examiner's position or explain why it is in error.
Appellant also asserts that, "if the 'valleys' and 'cusps' from Purcell
were disposed on the device in Tenghamn [ ']515, as the Examiner suggests,
the 'valleys' and 'cusps' would traverse the major axis along flextensional
7
Appeal2017-007323
Application 14/061,433
shell 2 from a first hinge 12 to the opposing hinge 12." Reply Br. 3 (citing
Tenghamn '515, Fig. 2A); see also id. (asserting that "the 'valleys' and
'cusps' would cross the midline of the device in Figure 2A of Tenghamn
[ ']515 in a perpendicular manner"). According to Appellant, such a
modification "would mechanically reduce flexing along the midline, which
is due to the crease formed by the 'cusp' traversing perpendicular to the
midline." Id. at 4. Appellant, however, does not explain how including
Purcell's valleys and cusps along a different axis of outer shell side portions
2a ( e.g., vertically as shell side portion 2a is depicted in Tenghamn '225,
Fig. 4) would reduce flexing in the radial direction so as to show error in the
Examiner's finding that including Purcell's ribs would allow the device to
flex in the radial direction while providing reinforcement against bending in
the axial direction. See Ans. 4. We are not persuaded by Appellant's
argument in that it is premised on an unsupported assumption that modifying
the shell side portions ofTenghamn '225/Tenghamn '515 based on the
teachings of Purcell would necessarily result in the protruding ribs (i.e.,
Purcell's ridges or cusps 24) being oriented such that they cross the
Appellant-identified midline of the shell side portions (i.e., the minor axis of
the ellipse of the cross-section of the shell as described in T enghamn '515
,r 22) in a particular manner.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant does not apprise us of error in
the Examiner's conclusion that the subject matter of claim 3 would have
been obvious. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 3, and claims
10 and 18 falling therewith, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Tenghamn '225, Tenghamn '515, and Purcell.
8
Appeal2017-007323
Application 14/061,433
Rejection III
In contesting the rejection of dependent claims 15 and 24, Appellant
relies on the same arguments and reasoning we found unpersuasive in
connection with base claims 9 and 16. See Appeal Br. 17 (relying on the
alleged deficiencies of Tenghamn '225 and Tenghamn '515, and asserting
that Morozov fails to remedy such deficiencies). Accordingly, for the same
reasons discussed above in connection with Rejection I, we also sustain the
rejection of claims 15 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Tenghamn '225, Tenghamn '515, and Morozov.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 2, 5-9, 11-14, 16, 17, and
19-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tenghamn '225 and
T enghamn '515 is affirmed.
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 3, 10, and 18 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tenghamn '225, Tenghamn '515,
and Purcell is affirmed.
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 15 and 24 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Tenghamn '225, Tenghamn '515, and
Morozov 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
9