Ex Parte WU

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 15, 2016

13037794 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 2016)

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.
13/037,794 03/01/2011 Zhaohong WU 0336-009/100128 7577
11171 7590 12/19/2016
Patent Portfolio Builders, PLLC
P.O. Box 7999
Fredericksburg, VA 22404
EXAMINER
BAGHDASARYAN, HOVHANNES
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3645
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/19/2016 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):
Mailroom@ppblaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ZHAOHONG WU
Appeal 2014-008108
Application 13/037,794
Technology Center 3600
Before JILL D. HILL, JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, and
PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Zhaohong Wu (“Appellant”) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from
the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—33. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART and enter a NEW GROUND OF
REJECTION pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).
Appeal 2014-008108
Application 13/037,794
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Independent claims 1, 9, 27, and 32 are pending. Claim 1, reproduced
below, illustrates the claimed subject matter.
1. A method of enriching an acquisition bandwidth of
seismic data related to a subsurface of a body of water, the
method comprising:
towing underwater along a first line of sail (i) at a first
depth, at least one seismic source configured to generate a
seismic wave and (ii) at a second depth, at least one streamer
having at least one receiver configured to record reflections in
the subsurface of the seismic wave;
firing the at least one seismic source while being towed
along the first line of sail;
recording the reflections of the seismic wave along the
first line of sail;
changing (A) the first line of sail to a second line of sail,
and (B) the first depth to a third depth different from the first
depth, or the second depth to a fourth depth different from the
second depth;
towing underwater, along the second line of sail, the at
least one seismic source and the at least one streamer, the at least
one seismic source being towed at the third depth, or the at least
one streamer being towed at the fourth depth; and
recording new reflections along the second line of sail.
REJECTIONS1
I. Claims 1, 3, 4, 9, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Gratacos (US 2009/0016158 Al; pub. Jan. 15,
2009). Final Act. 2.
1 The grounds of rejection listed in the Answer differ from those set forth in
the Final Action, yet no rejections are indicated as being withdrawn. The
grounds of rejection set forth in the Final Action are addressed herein.
2
Appeal 2014-008108
Application 13/037,794
II. Claim 32 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Gratacos and Laws (US 7,257,049 Bl; iss. Aug. 14,
2007). Final Act. 3.
III. Claim 33 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Gratacos, Laws, and Robertsson (US 2007/0189117 Al;
pub. Aug. 16, 2007). Final Act. 4.
IV. Claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 14, and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Gratacos and Fleming (US 2004/0125697 Al;
pub. July 1, 2004). Final Act. 5.
V. Claims 2, 5—7, 10, 13, and 15—17 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gratacos, Fleming, and Kragh (US
2010/0074049 Al; pub. Mar. 25, 2010). Final Act. 7.
VI. Claims 8 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Gratacos, Fleming, and Moldoveanu ’381 (US
2008/0285381 Al; pub. Nov. 20, 2008). Final Act. 8.
VII. Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Gratacos, Fleming, and Bale (US 5,771,202; iss. June 23,
1998). Final Act. 9.
VIII. Claims 12 and 19-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Gratacos, Fleming, and Moldoveanu ’044 (US
2011/0158044 Al; pub. June 30, 2011). Final Act. 10.
IX. Claims 27—31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Moldoveanu ’044, Gratacos, Pramik (US 2008/0019214
Al; pub. Jan 24, 2008), and Laws. Ans. 8.
3
Appeal 2014-008108
Application 13/037,794
ANALYSIS
Rejection I—Anticipation by Gratacos
In refuting this rejection, Appellant argues claims 1,3, and 4 as a
group (Br. 10-11), and also argues claims 9 and 14 as a group {id. at 8—11).
We select independent claims 1 and 9 as representative of their respective
groups. Claims 3 and 4 stand or fall with claim 1, and claim 14 stands or
falls with claim 9.
Appellant argues, inter alia, that Gratacos, alone or as combined with
Fleming (Rejection IV below), does not disclose changing the line of sail
and a source-streamer configuration (e.g., a depth of a source or a streamer),
“which step is not inherent as conventional surveys do not change the
source-streamer configuration.” Br. 10.
Each of independent claims 1 and 9 recite “changing (A) the first line
of sail to a second line of sail, and (B) the first depth to a third depth
different from the first depth, or the second depth to a fourth depth different
from the second depth.”
The Examiner responds that the first and second lines of sail can be
the same line of sail, such that the limitation of claims 1 and 9 is met by
surveying at different depths along the same line of sail. Ans. 12. The
Examiner’s construction of the claim as including a depth change along a
single line of sail is unreasonable. The claim recites changing from a first
line of sail to a second line of sail, and we see no reasonable way for a vessel
to change from a line of sail to the same line of sail. The only way for the
first and second lines of sale to remain the same, is for the word “changing”
to be read out of the claim, which is impermissible.
4
Appeal 2014-008108
Application 13/037,794
The Examiner further contends that the “[l]ine of sail to exploration
region is different from line of sail out of exploration region and as the data
may be collected in and out of exploration region it will inherently include
the two different line of sail while streamers are towed towards the
exploration region.” Ans. 13 (emphasis added). This finding is speculative,
as the Examiner cites no support for a vessel collecting data to and from a
given exploration region.
The Examiner lastly contends that Gratacos discloses that, in a given
exploration region, “the positions of the streamers and the [sources] at the
first and second depths can be different. Thus, the positions of the streamers
and the [sources] when acquiring data at the first depth are independent from
the positions of the streamers and [sources] when acquiring data at the
second depth.” Ans. 13 (citing Gratacos 140) (emphasis altered).
According to the Examiner, the different “positions” referred to in Gratacos
infers multiple lines of sale.
Even if we agree with the Examiner that Gratacos discloses streamer
positions that create two distinct lines of sale, we are not persuaded that
Gratacos discloses changing between those two distinct lines of sail as
required by claim 1.
For the reasons set forth above, we do not sustain Rejection I.
Rejection II— Claim 32 — Gratacos and Laws
Independent claim 32 differs from independent claims 1 and 9 by
reciting a single line of sail, changing the depth of the source or the
streamer, and “recording the reflections of the seismic wave along a first line
of sail,” and “recording new reflections along the first line of sail with
changed depths.” Br. 22 (Claims App.)(emphasis added).
5
Appeal 2014-008108
Application 13/037,794
The Examiner finds that Gratacos teaches the claim limitations except
for changing a depth of seismic source or the streamer “while progressing
along the first line of sale.” Final Act. 4. The Examiner finds that Laws,
however, discloses changing the depth of a seismic source while progressing
along a first line of sale. Id. (citing Laws 5:25—34).
Appellant argues that neither Gratacos nor Laws discloses or renders
obvious recording new reflections indicative of a depth change, reasoning
that because “the depth of [Laws’] seismic source varies during a sweep
which lasts 8-15s followed by a listening time of about 20s (see Laws col. 1,
lines 33-42) it is not possible to record the reflections of the seismic wave
corresponding to different depths separately.” Br. 13.
The Examiner responds that “Laws does not teach a sweep which lasts
8-15 s followed by a listening time of about 20 s.” Ans. 17. Rather, Laws
discloses an 8—15 second sweep that occurs periodically (every 20 seconds).
Id. at 17 and 18 (citing Laws 1:33—42). According to the Examiner
recording can occur during a sweep or continuously. Id.
The Examiner’s findings regarding the disclosure of Laws are correct.
Laws discloses a vibration source emitting an 8—15 second sweep that occurs
every 20 seconds. Laws 1:33 42. No limitations are placed on the timing
for receipt of reflections by Laws’ receiving array. We therefore sustain
Rejection II.
Rejection III— Claim 33 — Gratacos, Laws, and Robertsson
Appellant makes no argument that claim 33 would be allowable over
Gratacos, Laws, and Robertsson, if claim 32 is not allowable over Gratacos
and Laws. We therefore sustain Rejection III for the reason set forth above
regarding Rejection II.
6
Appeal 2014-008108
Application 13/037,794
Rejection IV— Claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 14, and 32 — Gratacos and Fleming
As set forth above in our analysis of Rejection I, we disagree with the
Examiner’s finding that Gratacos discloses changing from a first line of sail
to a second line of sail. In the rejection of the claims as obvious over
Gratacos and Fleming, the Examiner finds that Fleming discloses changing
from a first line of sail to a second line of sail, and concludes that it would
have been obvious to modify Gratacos’ method to change the lines of sail to
cover a larger area while collecting data “in the same place with streamers at
two different depth[s] as taught by Gratacos.” Final Act. 6.
In addition to the arguments set forth above regarding Rejection I,
Appellants argue that Fleming discloses plural distinct lines of sail, but is
silent regarding changing a “source-streamer depth configuration associated
with the change from a lines of sail to another.” Br. 11.
We agree that prima facie obviousness has not been established.
Gratacos discloses collecting data at two depths, and Fleming discloses
changing a line of sale. The Examiner, however, has not explained how or
why one skilled in the art would combine the teachings of Gratacos and
Fleming such that both the line of sail and the depth of one of the sources or
streamers takes place. Neither reference discloses a depth change, nor does
the Examiner provide a reason why one skilled in the art would change the
depth of either the source or the streamer(s) when the line of sail changes.
We therefore do not sustain Rejection IV.
7
Appeal 2014-008108
Application 13/037,794
Rejection V— Claims 2, 5—7, 10, 13, and 15—17 — Gratacos, Fleming, Kragh
Claims 2 and 10 recite “extending an operation weather window for
collection of the seismic data by increasing depth for at least one [of] the at
least one source and the at least one streamer when adverse weather is
present.” Br. 16 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds, inter alia, that Kragh
discloses extending the claimed operation weather window for collecting
seismic data. Final Act. 7 (citing Kragh 156).
Appellant argues claims 2, 5—7, 10, 13, 15—17 as a group. Br. 12—13.
We select claim 2 as representative, and claims 5—7, 10, 13, and 15—17 stand
or fall with claim 2.
Appellant argues that the proposed combination fails to disclose
extending an operation weather window by increasing the depth of the
source(s) and/or the streamer(s). Br. 12—13.
The Examiner responds that Kragh discloses two sets of streamers at
depths dl and d2, and then discloses measurements made at three different
depths, the measurements teaching that increasing a depth of streamers will
improve signal-to-noise ratio at low frequencies. Ans. 15 (citing Kragh
1 54, Figs. 1 A, IB, 3, 4A—F). Deeper streamers are less noisy because “the
dominant noise source is swell-induced from the sea surface.” Kragh 153.
Indeed, Kragh discloses that shallow sources and streamers “increase
the high-frequency content of the seismic data needed for resolution” and
deeper sources and streamers “enhance the low frequencies, but attenuate the
high frequencies,” having “a higher signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) due to [a]
more benign towing environment.” Kragh || 2—3. Kragh proposes to
“effectively mute signals from the shallow streamer or receiver cable from
the lower limit of the bandwidth up to a transition or crossover frequency,”
8
Appeal 2014-008108
Application 13/037,794
and effectively mute signals from the deep streamer “[i]n the frequency
interval from the transition frequency to the upper limit of the survey
bandwidth.” Kragh 147.
To the extent that the Examiner finds that Kragh discloses three
depths and only two streamers, implying a depth change for the streamers,
we disagree. However, the Examiner further concludes that it would have
been “common sense” to lower the streamer(s) to extend an operation
weather window because, “[djuring some weather conditions the waves can
be more than several meters high and therefore in order to protect streamers
from damage the depth of the streamer should be increased to the depth
which is below the height of the waves in order to avoid the severe bending
of the streamers.” Ans. 16. While Kragh itself does not explicitly link
weather to streamer depth increases, it does acknowledge that deeper
streamers are less noisy because “the dominant noise source is swell-induced
from the sea surface.” Kragh 153. Appellants do not refute the Examiner’s
articulated “common sense” reasoning, and we therefore decline to find that
it lacks a rational underpinning. Further, we determine that this
uncontroverted reasoning cures the deficiency of Rejection IV. We
therefore sustain Rejection V.
Rejection VI— Claims 8 and 18 — Gratacos, Fleming, and Moldoveanu ’381
Claim 8 depends from claim 1. Claim 18 depends from claim 9. The
Examiner does not rely on Moldoveanu ’381 to cure the deficiencies
discussed above regarding the rejections of independent claims 1 and 9. We
therefore do not sustain Rejection VI.
9
Appeal 2014-008108
Application 13/037,794
Rejection VII— Claim 11 — Gratacos, Fleming, and Bale
Claim 11 depends from claim 9. Appellant makes no argument that
claim 11 would be allowable over Gratacos, Fleming, and Bale, if claim 9 is
not allowable over Gratacos and Fleming. We therefore do not sustain
Rejection VII.
Rejection VIII— Claims 12, and 19—26 — Gratacos, Fleming, Moldoveanu
’044
Claims 12 and 19—26 depend from claim 9. Appellant makes no
argument that claims 12 and 19-26 would be allowable over Gratacos,
Fleming, and Moldoveanu ’044, if claim 9 is not allowable over Gratacos
and Fleming. We therefore do not sustain Rejection VIII.
Rejection IX— Claims 27—31 —Moldoveanu ’044, Gratacos, Pramik, Laws
Claim 27 recites a system for enriching a seismic data bandwidth,
including “a control mechanism configured to adjust a first depth of the first
set of sources, a second depth of the second set of sources, a third depth of
the first set of streamers and a fourth depth of the second set of streamers so
that at least one depth of the first to fourth depths alternates as a line of sail
of a fleet that includes first to four vessels is changed in a predetermined
block.” Br. 20—21 (Claims App.).
Thus, a first set of sources is configured to be towed by a first vessel,
and a second set of sources is configured to be towed by a third vessel. First
and second sets of streamers are configured to be towed by either the first
and third vessels, respectively, or by second and fourth vessels, respectively.
These claim limitations do not positively recite any vessels, but rather recite
functional language. Thus, the sources and streamers must be capable of
10
Appeal 2014-008108
Application 13/037,794
being towed by one or more vessels. The last limitation of claim 27 recites a
control mechanism configured to adjust a depth of the sources and streamers
“so that at least one depth of the first to fourth depths alternates as a line of
sail of a fleet that includes first to four vessels is changed in a predetermined
block.” This limitation also does not positively recite any vessels, but rather
recites functional language. The control mechanism need only be capable of
“alternating” the depth of one source or streamer as a line of sail of a fleet
changes. Although it is unclear what the depth “alternates” between, we
consider the findings, conclusions, and arguments below.
The Examiner finds that Moldoveanu ’044 discloses the claim
limitations except for (1) alternating the depth of sources or streamers as the
line of sail changes, and (2) a control mechanism for adjusting source depth.
Final Act. 13 (citing Moldoveanu ’044, Fig. 6 and 136). The Examiner
finds, however, that Gratacos discloses alternating streamer or source depth
along multiple lines of sail to cover a larger area and improve output trace
quality. Id. (citing Gratacos H 24, 25 (“in the case of an acquisition of
seismic data at two depths, the acquisition of seismic data at the first depth is
performed at a first step, and the acquisition of seismic data at the second
depth is performed in a second step”). The Examiner also finds that Laws
and Pramik disclose alternating source depth. Id. (citing Laws 5:25—67,
Pramik 110).
Appellants argue, inter alia, that none of the cited references discloses
alternating a source or streamer depth as a line of sail changes. Br. 14. In
response, the Examiner appears to refer back to arguments made regarding
the claim including first and second lines of sail that are the same. Br. 20.
For the reasons set forth above in our analysis of Rejection I, we are not
11
Appeal 2014-008108
Application 13/037,794
persuaded that it is reasonable to construe the claim such that the first and
second lines of sail are the same, nor are we persuaded that Gratacos
discloses changing from a first line of sail to a second line of sail, and we
therefore do not sustain Rejection IX.
New Ground of Rejection — Indefiniteness
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), we enter a new ground of rejection
for claims 27—31. Independent claim 27 recites “a control mechanism
configured to adjust a first depth of the first set of sources, a second depth of
the second set of sources, a third depth of the first set of streamers and a
fourth depth of the second set of streamers so that at least one depth of the
first to fourth depths alternates as a line of sail of a fleet that includes first to
four vessels is changed in a predetermined block.”
The Specification states that Figures 10 and 11 illustrate towing at
“alternating depths.” Spec. 7—8. Considering Figures 10 and 11, the depth
of the streamer 108 and sources 106 would appear to alternate between
depth Zi and depth Z2. It is therefore unclear what depths the sets of
streamers and sources of claim 27 alternate between. Is the term “alternates”
merely intended to mean “changes,” or are there predetermined depths
between which at least one of the first to fourth depths is intended to
alternate? One skilled in the art would not understand whether the claim is
intended to recite a mere change in depth, or alternating between two depths,
and how such depth changes are to “alternate” as a line of sail changes.
Claim 27 is therefore indefinite. Claims 28—31 depend therefrom and are
likewise indefinite.
DECISION
12
Appeal 2014-008108
Application 13/037,794
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1,3,4, 9, and 14 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Gratacos.
We AFFIRM the rejection of claim 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Gratacos and Laws.
We AFFIRM the rejection of claim 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Gratacos, Laws, and Robertsson.
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 14, and 32 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gratacos and Fleming.
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 2, 5—7, 10, 13, and 15—17 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gratacos, Fleming, and Kragh.
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 8 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as unpatentable over Gratacos, Fleming, and Moldoveanu ’381.
We REVERSE the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Gratacos, Fleming, and Bale.
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 12 and 19-26 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Gratacos, Fleming, and Moldoveanu ’044.
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 27—31 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as unpatentable over Moldoveanu ’044, Gratacos, Pramik, and Laws.
We enter a NEW GROUND OF REJECTION of claims 27-31
pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).
This decision contains new grounds of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(b), which provides that “[a] new ground of rejection pursuant to this
paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review.” 37 C.F.R. §
41.50(b) also provides that Appellant, WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM
THE DATE OF THIS DECISION must exercise one of the following two
13
Appeal 2014-008108
Application 13/037,794
options regarding the new ground of rejection to avoid termination of the
appeal as to the rejected claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate
amendment of the claims so rejected or new evidence relating
to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter
reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the prosecution
will be remanded to the Examiner. . . .
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be
reheard under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same record. . . .
Further guidance on responding to a new ground of rejection can be
found in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure $ 1214.01.
AFFIRMED-IN-PART; 37 C.F.R, $ 41.50(b)
14