2020004126 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 18, 2021)

PGS Geophysical AS

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardFeb 18, 2021

2020004126 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 18, 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. 15/152,175 05/11/2016 Didier B.P. LECERF PGS-15114-US-ORG1 3852 136703 7590 02/18/2021 OKAMOTO & BENEDICTO LLP P.O. Box 641330 San Jose, CA 95164-1330 EXAMINER LOBO, IAN J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3645 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/18/2021 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): docketing@pgs.com james@OBLLP.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DIDIER B.P. LECERF and NIZAR CHEMINGUI Appeal 2020-004126 Application 15/152,175 Technology Center 3600 Before PATRICK R. SCANLON, JEREMY M. PLENZLER, and NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–4 and 13–16.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as PGS Geophysical AS. Appeal Br. 2. 2 The rejection of claims 5–12 has been withdrawn. Ans. 3. Appeal 2020-004126 Application 15/152,175 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a seismic data acquisition system. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An apparatus for acquiring seismic data, the apparatus comprising: a plurality of geophysical sensors in an arrangement on a seabed, wherein the arrangement has a distance between consecutive geophysical sensors in a range from 25 meters to 400 meters along lines in the arrangement, wherein the arrangement comprises curved segments and forms an array of cells, and wherein each cell in the array has an interior region that contains no geophysical sensors and is sufficiently large in area such that a 500 meter diameter circle may be inscribed therein. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Brune US 2012/0113748 A1 May 10, 2012 Hatchell US 2013/0013212 A1 Jan. 10, 2013 Stork US 2013/0170317 A1 July 4, 2013 Nash US 9,086,325 B2 July 21, 2015 REJECTIONS Claims 1–4 and 14–16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hatchell, Nash, and Stork. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hatchell, Nash, Stork, and Brune. Appeal 2020-004126 Application 15/152,175 3 OPINION The Examiner finds that Hatchell’s “ocean bottom nodes” correspond to the recited “sensors.” Final Act. 2. The Examiner finds that “the arrangement [of ocean bottom nodes] forms an array of cells . . . where each cell in the array has an interior region that contains no geophysical sensors and is sufficiently large in area such that a 500 meter diameter circle may be inscribed therein.” Id. (citing Hatchell ¶ 22 and noting that “typical spacing between the adjacent ocean bottom nodes [is] 100 to 500 meters”). The Examiner proposes modifying Hatchell’s arrangement based on the teachings of Nash “to space the consecutive geophysical sensors at i.e, 50 meters apart.” Id. at 3. Appellant responds that the combined teachings do not produce the “arrangement compris[ing] . . . an array of cells . . . wherein each cell in the array has an interior region that contains no geophysical sensors and is sufficiently large in area such that a 500 meter diameter circle may be inscribed therein.” Appeal Br. 4–8. We agree that the Examiner does not explain how such an arrangement is met by the proposed combination, particularly where the proposed modification has Hatchell’s nodes spaced 50 meters apart and the rejection is silent as to where there is any teaching of spacing between lines of nodes that would form the recited cells. See Final Act. 2–3. In the Answer, the Examiner attempts to address the deficiencies in the rejection, explaining that “there is no distinction between a small cell and a larger cell where ‘a 500 meter circle diameter may be inscribed therein.’” Ans. 4. The Examiner proceeds to explain that “[m]ore specifically, an arrangement of sensors spaced 400 meters (as Hatchell et al suggests) apart Appeal 2020-004126 Application 15/152,175 4 in a square or rectangular layout, as shown in Hatchell et al or Nash et al, would provide for a 500 meter diameter circle to be inscribed therein by virtue of Pythagorean’s theorem.” Id. That is, the Examiner relies on a square cell, for example, with adjacent corners spaced 400 meters apart or a rectangle with at least two of the sides defined by nodes spaced 400 meters apart. Appellant identifies the error in the Examiner’s rejection, explaining that “it is factually impossible to inscribe a 500 meter circle within a cell defined by an arrangement of sensors spaced 400 meters apart in a square or rectangular array.” Reply Br. 3. Appellant provides several figures to illustrate the problem with the rejection, each reproduced below. The leftmost figure is a circle inscribed within a square, with the circle having a diameter equal to the lengths of the sides of the square. Id. at 3. The center figure is a circle partially inscribed within a square, with the circle having a diameter of 5 units and the length of sides of the square being 4 units. Id. The rightmost figure is a circle partially inscribed within a rectangle, with the circle having a diameter of 5 units and the rectangle being 4 units by 8 units. Id. at 4. Appellant’s illustrations make clear that the proposed modification (i.e., either of the center or rightmost figures above) does not meet the claim Appeal 2020-004126 Application 15/152,175 5 language. Although the claim additionally requires that “the arrangement comprises curved segments,” the Examiner does not propose any curvature, or provide any rationale therefore, to cure the deficiency noted above. For at least the reasons set forth above, we do not sustain the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–4 and 13–16. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections are reversed. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–4, 14–16 103 Hatchell, Nash, Stork 1–4, 14–16 13 103 Hatchell, Nash, Stork, Brune 13 Overall Outcome 1–4, 13–16 REVERSED