CGG SERVICES SA

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 26, 2021

2020003697 (P.T.A.B. May. 26, 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. 15/119,433 08/17/2016 Julien COTTON 0337-086/P100736 1119 11171 7590 05/26/2021 Patent Portfolio Builders, PLLC 754 Warrenton Road Suite 113-314 Fredericksburg, VA 22406 EXAMINER ALKAFAWI, EMAN A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2865 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/26/2021 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): Mailroom@ppblaw.com eofficeaction@appcoll.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JULIEN COTTON, FLORIAN DURET, and ERIC FORGUES Appeal 2020-003697 Application 15/119,433 Technology Center 2800 Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges. TIMM, 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, 3–8, 10–15, and 17–23. See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as CGG Services SA. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-003697 Application 15/119,433 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a method of seismically exploring a subsurface formation (see, e.g., claim 1), a system for doing so (see, e.g., claim 8), and a non-transitory computer-readable medium containing instructions for performing the method (see, e.g., claim 15). The method generates a composite image based on first and second seismic images. The first seismic image is generated from controlled signals, i.e., signals deliberately generated by a controlled source at the direction of a seismic imaging system. The second seismic image is generated from a reconstructed uncontrolled signals. The uncontrolled signals are signals from a natural source such as ambient noise, industrial noise or ocean waves or a signal from the controlled source but otherwise uncoordinated by the seismic imaging system. Spec. ¶ 3. The issue on appeal focuses on the generation of composite image using the first and second images. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method of seismic exploration of a subsurface formation, the method comprising: accessing one or more controlled signals, each controlled signal being detected by receivers disposed and configured to detect seismic signals emerging from the subsurface formation; accessing one or more uncontrolled signals detected by the receivers, the uncontrolled signals having a different frequency content than the controlled signals; generating one or more reconstructed signals based on the one or more uncontrolled signals; and Appeal 2020-003697 Application 15/119,433 3 generating a composite image of the subsurface formation based at least on the one or more controlled signals and the one or more reconstructed signals by generating a first seismic image based at least on the one or more controlled signals; generating a second seismic image based at least on the one or more reconstructed signals; and generating the composite image based at least on the first and second seismic images. Appeal Br. 11 (Claims Appendix). REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Pires de Vasconcelos US 2015/0046093 A1 Feb. 12, 2015 Van Manen US 2016/0334270 A1 Nov. 17, 2016 Jing WO 2010/080366 A1 July 15, 2010 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 3, 4, 6–8, 10, 11, 13–15, 17, 18, and 20–23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over by Jing in view of Pires de Vasconcelos. Final Act. 3. Claims 5, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Jing and Pires de Vasconcelos and further in view of Van Manen. Final Act. 17. Appeal 2020-003697 Application 15/119,433 4 OPINION All of the claims require the generation of three images. One image is generated from controlled signals, a second from reconstructed uncontrolled signals, and the third generated based on the first and second images. There is no dispute that Jing teaches generating the last image, i.e., the composite image. Jing teaches using passive (uncontrolled) and geophysical (controlled) data jointly to derive subsurface images “either by using joint inversion techniques or by applying inversion and/or imaging methods on the individual datasets sequentially.” Jing ¶ 71. When generating sequential images, only two images are generated, a first image based on the first dataset and a second image based on combined datasets. Jing does not teach generating all three images required by Appellant’s claims. Because Jing does not teach generating a first image based on controlled signals and second image based on reconstructed uncontrolled signals and using those separate images to generate a composite image, the Examiner turns to Pires de Vasconcelos. Final Act. 6. The Examiner finds that Pires de Vasconcelos teaches creating the necessary first and second images before combining them into a third composite image (Final Act. 6), but we, like Appellant (Appeal Br. 8; Reply Br. 5), do not find such a disclosure in Pires de Vasconcelos. Pires de Vasconcelos uses Joint Point-Spread Functions (JPSF) to process several different types of measurement data to yield a single image. Pires de Vasconcelos ¶¶ 6, 57–60. The JPSFs are block matrices, i.e., mathematical functions; they are not images. Nor does Pires de Vasconcelos disclose using the functions to generate the two intermediate images required by Appellant’s claims and using those images to generate a composite image. Appeal 2020-003697 Application 15/119,433 5 Pires de Vasconcelos ¶¶ 57–59. Pires de Vasconcelos only discloses generating the last composite image. Id. The Examiner reasons that Jing’s data could be represented by separate images before the final step of generating a composite image and doing so would not change or affect the final and ultimate result of providing a single final composite image (Ans. 6), but this reasoning is not grounded in evidence arising from the prior art. The fact that one could generate a first image based on controlled signals and a second image based on uncontrolled signals and base the composite image on those two images does not mean there is a suggestion arising from the prior art to do so. The suggestion must arise from the prior art or knowledge within the skill in the art to support a conclusion of obviousness. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Because the Examiner has not established that the suggestion arises from the prior art or knowledge within the ordinary skill in the art, the conclusion of obviousness is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. The Examiner’s application of Van Manen to reject dependent claims does not remedy the deficiency. Thus, we do not sustain any of the Examiner’s rejections. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3–8, 10–15, and 17–23 is REVERSED. Appeal 2020-003697 Application 15/119,433 6 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3, 4, 6–8, 10, 11, 13– 15, 17, 18, 20–23 103 Jing, Pires de Vasconcelos 1, 3, 4, 6–8, 10, 11, 13– 15, 17, 18, 20–23 5, 12, 19 103 Jing, Pires de Vasconcelos, Van Manen 5, 12, 19 Overall Outcome 1, 3–8, 10– 15, 17–23 REVERSED