Ex Parte Hegna

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 29, 2019

14074080 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. 14/074,080 136766 7590 MHKKG(PGS) P.O. BOX 398 FILING DATE 11/07/2013 04/02/2019 AUSTIN, TX 78767-0398 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Stian Hegna 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-13-19US-l 2192 EXAMINER NOLAN, JOHN T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3646 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/02/2019 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): patent_docketing@intprop.com ptomhkkg@gmail.com docketing@pgs.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Exparte STIAN HEGNA Appeal 2018-006411 Application 14/074,080 Technology Center 3600 Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE PGS Geophysical AS ("Appellant") 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-15 and 18-29, which are all the pending claims. See Appeal Br., Cover Page; Final Act. 1 (Office Action Summary). We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We REVERSE. PGS Geophysical AS is the applicant, as provided in 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.46, and is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2018-006411 Application 14/074,080 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant's disclosed invention relates to geophysical surveys. See, e.g., Spec. ,r 2. Claims 1, 10, 21, and 25 are independent. Claim 10, reproduced below with emphasis added, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 2 10. A method of geophysical data processing, comprising: obtaining, at a geophysical data processing system, geophysical data specific to a geophysical formation, wherein the obtained geophysical data includes data from a single geophysical survey representative of: a particle motion signal recorded using a plurality of particle motion sensors towed at a first depth; a first pressure signal recorded using a plurality of first pressure sensors towed at the first depth, wherein the particle motion sensors and the first pressure sensors are on a first streamer; and a second pressure signal recorded using a plurality of second pressure sensors towed at a second, greater depth, wherein the plurality of second pressure sensors are on a second streamer that does not include particle motion sensors such that the geophysical data does not include particle motion data from sensors at the second depth; generating estimated particle motion data that is estimated based on the second pressure signal; and replacing, by the geophysical data processing system, data representing a low-frequency portion of the particle motion signal with the estimated particle motion data to generate a modified particle motion signal, wherein the low-frequency portion is defined using a frequency filter with a cutoff frequency that is based on the second depth. 2 Appellant expressly characterizes claim 10 as representative. See Appeal Br. 18. 2 Appeal 2018-006411 Application 14/074,080 EVIDENCE The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims on appeal: Robertsson US 2009/0245021 Al Oct. 1, 2009 Vassallo US 2009/0290448 Al Nov. 26, 2009 Kragh US 2010/0074049 Al Mar. 25, 2010 Siidow US 2012/0230150 Al Sept. 13, 2012 REJECTIONS The following rejections are before us for review: I. Claims 1--4, 6-15, 18-26, 28, and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Robertsson, Vassallo, and Kragh. Final Act. 2-13. II. Claims 5 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Robertsson, Vassallo, Kragh, and Siidow. Id. at 13-14. ANALYSIS Independent claim 10 recites, in relevant part, "a second pressure signal recorded using a plurality of second pressure sensors towed at a second, greater depth, wherein the plurality of second pressure sensors are on a second streamer that does not include particle motion sensors." Appeal Br. 26-27, Claims App. ( emphasis added). The other independent claims recite similar limitations regarding sensors on a second streamer that does not include particle motion sensors. See id. at 25-30, Claims App. 3 Appeal 2018-006411 Application 14/074,080 Appellant argues that Robertsson, as relied upon in the rejection, does not teach this feature. See id. at 18-20; Reply Br. 2-3. We agree. In rejecting claim 10, the Examiner found that Robertsson discloses, inter alia, a particle motion signal recorded using a plurality of particle motion sensors towed at a first depth wherein the particle motion sensors (58) and the first pressure sensors (58) are on a first streamer (110) [0013-0015]; a first pressure signal recorded using a plurality of first pressure sensors towed at the first depth [0015]; and a second pressure signal [0015] recorded using a plurality of second pressure sensors (58) towed at a second, greater depth wherein the plurality of second pressure sensors are on a second streamer (120) that does not include particle motion sensors such that the geophysical data does not include particle motion data from sensors at the second depth ([0014]: "the seismic sensors 58 may be hydrophones only, which are constructed to acquire pressure wavefield measurements"; FIG 1). Final Act. 4 ( emphasis added). The Examiner also found that "Robertsson teaches [that] individual sensors can be different components (multi- component v. hydrophone)." Ans. 3 (citing Robertsson ,r 17). The Examiner made similar findings, particularly with respect to the second streamer not including particle motion sensors, in rejecting claims 1, 21, and 25. See Final Act. 2-3, 5---6, 7. Robertsson discloses a marine seismic data acquisition system including towed seismic streamers 30 comprising cables mounted with seismic sensors 58. Robertsson ,r 12, Fig. 1. The system includes shallow streamer set 110 and deep streamer set 120. Id. ,r 13. Robertsson discloses that seismic sensors 58 may be hydrophones, which acquire pressure wavefield measurements (id. ,r 14) or multi-component seismic sensors that detect pressure and at least one component of particle motion (id. ,r 15). The 4 Appeal 2018-006411 Application 14/074,080 multi-component sensors may comprise a single device or a plurality of devices. Id. ,r 17. The Examiner takes the position that, "[ s ]tructurally, since multi-component sensors 'may be implemented as a single device[,]' there is no difference between having multi-component sensors disposed on both streamer[ s] or having them only on the first streamer and pressure sensors only on the second streamer." Ans. 4 (quoting Robertsson ,r 17). According to the Examiner, "[e]ven if Robertsson did not teach the possibility of having multi-component sensors on the first streamer and pressure sensors only on the second streamer, all that would be required to arrive at this arrangement would be to discard the data from these sensors." Id. However, the Examiner's position does not sufficiently consider that the claims expressly recite that the "second streamer ... does not include particle motion sensors." Appeal Br. 25-30, Claims App. (emphasis added). In other words, the claims require the structural limitation that the second streamer includes only pressure sensors ( simply disregarding data from additional sensors would be insufficient, as the sensors themselves would remain present). Although Robertsson teaches that the streamer seismic sensors 58 could be pressure sensors or multi-component sensors capable of detecting both pressure and particle motion, the Examiner does not point to, nor do we discern, sufficient disclosure in Robertsson of a streamer arrangement in which the first streamer (i.e., shallow set streamer 110) includes multi-component sensors that detect pressure and particle motion, and the second streamer (i.e., deep set streamer 120) includes only pressure sensors, as the claims require. Rather, seismic sensors 58 on shallow set 5 Appeal 2018-006411 Application 14/074,080 streamer 110 and seismic sensors 58 on deep set streamer 120, whichever type the sensors may be, appear to be the same. See Robertsson, Fig. 1. Thus, the Examiner has not sufficiently established that the cited references, particularly Robertsson as relied upon, discloses the disputed limitation as claimed. We note that the Examiner relied on Vassallo and Kragh in the rejection of claims 1--4, 6-15, 18-26, 28, and 29, and on Siidow in the rejection of claims 5 and 27, for teaching additional features, but not in any way that would cure the aforementioned deficiency with respect to the Examiner's findings as to the disclosure of Robertsson. See Final Act. 5, 13-14. Accordingly, based on the record before us, the Examiner has not established a proper case that the claims are unpatentable based on the cited references. On this basis, we do not sustain the rejections of claims 1-15 and 18-29 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103. DECISION We REVERSE the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1--4, 6-15, 18-26, 28, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Robertsson, Vassallo, and Kragh. We REVERSE the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 5 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Robertsson, Vassallo, Kragh, and Siidow. REVERSED 6