Ex Parte Safinya et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 27, 2017

11466972 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2017)

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.
11/466,972 08/24/2006 Kambiz A. Safinya 23.0673-US-NP 2869
28116 7590 03/29/2017
WestemGeco L.L.C.
10001 Richmond Avenue
IP Administration Center of Excellence
Houston, TX 77042
EXAMINER
MURPHY, JEROLD B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2687
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/29/2017 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):
U S Docketing @ sib. com
jalverson@slb.com
SMarckesoni@slb.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KAMBIZ A. SAFINYA and ERIK VIGEN
Appeal 2014-000224
Application 11/466,972
Technology Center 2600
Before: THU A. DANG, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER,
and JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.
MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2014-000224
Application 11/466,972
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1, 3—15, 17, 18, 20-22, and 24—29. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
The claimed invention is directed to deploying a monitoring station
near the sea surface and monitoring a position of a subsurface device as the
subsurface device moves in a path between the sea surface and the sea floor.
The technique includes communicating an indication of a position of the
subsurface device from the monitoring station to a surface vessel. See
Abstract.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method comprising:
deploying a monitoring station near the sea surface;
on the monitoring station, monitoring a position of a first
electromagnetic receiver of a plurality of electromagnetic receivers as
the first electromagnetic receiver moves in a path between the sea
surface and a sea floor;
communicating an indication of the monitored position of the
first electromagnetic receiver from the monitoring station to a surface
vessel other than the monitoring station; and
using the plurality of electromagnetic receivers on the sea floor
to measure electromagnetic fields in connection with an
electromagnetic survey.
2
Appeal 2014-000224
Application 11/466,972
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Gaer US 4,924,448 May 8, 1990
Hagerty US 5,452,262 Sep. 19, 1995
Constable US 5,770,945 Jun. 23, 1998
Reid US 6,532,192 B1 Mar. 11,2003
Leal US 7,642,919 B2 Jan. 5, 2010
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1, 3—15, 17, 18, 20, and 24—28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Constable in view of Gaer.
Claims 18, 20, and 24—28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Constable in view of Hagerty.
Claims 8 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Constable in view of Gaer and further in view of Hagerty.
Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Constable in view of Hagerty and further in view of
APAA.
Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Constable in view of Hagerty and furter in view of Reid.
Claim 25 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Constable in view of Leal’837 (by using US Leal’919 for
English translation).
Claim 29 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Constable in view of Gaer and in further view of Reid.
3
Appeal 2014-000224
Application 11/466,972
ISSUES
The pivotal issues are whether the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Constable in view of Gaer teaches or suggests the limitations
of:
1. “communicating an indication of the monitored position of the
first electromagnetic receiver from the monitoring station to a
surface vessel other than the monitoring station” as recited in claim
1 and similarly recited in claim 18;
2. “wherein the monitoring comprises monitoring the position of the
first electromagnetic receiver as the first electromagnetic receiver
ascends from the sea surface” as recited in claim 4; and
3. “in response to receiving an assignment change designating a
different second group of at least one of the electromagnetic
receivers” as recited in claim 25.
ANALYSIS
We adopt the Examiner’s findings in the Answer and Final Action and
we add the following primarily for emphasis. We note that if Appellants
failed to present arguments on a particular rejection, we will not unilaterally
review those uncontested aspects of the rejection. See Ex parte Frye, 94
USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential); Hyatt v. Dudas, 551 F.3d
1307, 1313—14 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (The Board may treat arguments Appellants
failed to make for a given ground of rejection as waived).
Claims 1, 15, 18, and 20
Appellants argue that neither Constable nor Gaer teaches or suggests
the limitation of “communicating an indication of the monitored position of
the first electromagnetic receiver from the monitoring station to a surface
4
Appeal 2014-000224
Application 11/466,972
vessel other than the monitoring station” as required by claim 1 and
similarly required by claim 18 (see App. Br. 12—13).
We do not agree with Appellants’ argument. We agree with the
Examiner’s finding that Constable teaches a monitoring station near the sea
surface (i.e., ship 302; Fig. 3) monitoring the position of a first
electromagnetic receiver of a plurality of electromagnetic receivers (i.e.,
magnetoelluric (MT) units 310-313; Fig. 3) (Ans. 18; col. 4,1. 56—col. 5,1.
5). Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that the ship of Constable
acquires the MT’s position data (Ans. 18). The Examiner acknowledges that
while Constable does not disclose communicating the monitored position to
a surface vessel other than the monitoring station, Gaer teaches ship to ship
communication of the monitored data (i.e., communication between a
monitoring station and a surface vessel) (see ships 10 and 30 in Fig. 2; Fig. 4
and col. 4,11. 8—21, and claim 1) (Ans. 18). We note that the claim does not
preclude the monitoring station being also a surface vessel or a ship.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that it would have
been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention to implement Constable with the well-known technique of
providing for surface vessel to surface vessel communication of data related
to an ocean survey as taught by Gaer. The Examiner articulated many
reasons for the combination that support the conclusion of obviousness such
as to transfer the data to a linking ship which further transfers the data to a
central control or data base out of range of the survey ship, or in the event
that an MT unit is drifting out of the range of one survey vessel and into the
range of another to request the second ship take over the monitoring of the
MT unit, or to allow for a central vessel to coordinate the surveying efforts
of a number of vessels over a larger region or in order to allow for greater
5
Appeal 2014-000224
Application 11/466,972
survey efficiency since two surface vessel operating in tandem can cover a
larger region of the ocean (see Gaer, col. 3,11. 27—31; Ans. 18—19). We
further note with respect to claim 18 that the two ships in Gaer are spatially
separated as shown in Figure 2 (elements 10 and 30).
Appellants further argue with respect to claim 18 that the alternate
combination of Constable in view of Hagerty does not teach the limitation of
“communicate indications of the monitored positions of the electromagnetic
receivers to a surface vessel spatially separated from the monitoring station”
(emphasis added) (App. Br. 23). The Examiner finds, and we agree, in the
alternative rejection regarding claim 18, that Hagerty teaches that buoy 30
having housing 34 is designed to operate in a relatively fixed relationship to
the transponder system 20 and that the buoy reports its position to linking
ship 10 (see Fig. 1 and col. 5,11. 3—16; Ans. 23; also see description of Fig.
1, col. 3,11. 7-A9).
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that as the buoy 30 is in a fixed
relationship with transponders 20, Hagerty teaches the limitation
“communicate indications of the monitored positions of the electromagnetic
receivers to a surface vessel spatially separated the monitoring station” (Ans.
23).
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 18.
We also affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 15 and 20 for similar
reasons (see App. Br. 18; App. Br. 23).
Claims 4, 11, and 20
Appellants further argue that the combination does not teach or
suggest the limitation of “wherein the monitoring comprises monitoring the
position of the first electromagnetic receiver as the first electromagnetic
6
Appeal 2014-000224
Application 11/466,972
receiver ascends from the sea surface” as recited in claim 1 and similarly
recited in claim 20 (Appeal Br. 14—16).
We do not agree with this argument. At the outset, we agree with the
Examiner’s characterization that claim 4 should have stated that the
electromagnetic receiver ascends from the sea floor, and not “ascends from
the sea surf ace'1'’ (emphasis added) (Ans. 19-20). Furthermore, we agree
with the Examiner’s finding that Constable teaches “comprising activating a
mechanism of the first position of the first electromagnetic receiver as the
first electromagnetic receiver ascends from the sea surface” (col. 4,11. 56—
60; Acoustic navigation/release system 116 provides means for locating the
MT system underwater within +/-1 m by ranging from known (GPS)
locations on the surface; Ans. 20). Accordingly, we agree with the
Examiner that Constable teaches acoustic “pings” generated by a shipboard
unit to determine the range of the MT system from the ship 302 as well as its
position relative to the sea floor 306 (col. 4,1. 56-col. 5,1. 5; Ans. 20).
Constable further teaches that the navigation/release system 116 provides an
acoustic means for locating the MT system underwater within +/-1 m (col. 4,
11. 56—60; Ans. 20). Thus, we agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that
Constable teaches monitoring the position of the first electromagnetic
receiver as the first electromagnetic receiver ascends from the sea floor
within the broadest reasonable interpretation (Ans. 20) because the MTs can
be monitored at any location between the sea surface and the sea floor.
Appellants raise similar arguments, as those raised for claim 4, for
claim 11 (App. Br. 21—22). Accordingly for the same reasons as stated
supra, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4, 11, and 20.
7
Appeal 2014-000224
Application 11/466,972
Claim 25
Appellants further additionally argue that the limitation of “in
response to receiving an assignment change designating a different second
group of at least one of the electromagnetic receivers” as recited in claim 25
is not taught or suggested by the combination of references (App. Br. 23—
26).
We do not agree. The Examiner finds (Final Act. 16—17), and we
agree, that Leal teaches a second monitoring station, ship 302, which bings
to monitor receiver 211, in response to receiving a signal from receiver 211
originally assigned monitoring station ship 301, when receiver 211 moves
out of range of the originally assigned monitoring station ship 301 (Fig. 3
and description of Fig. 3, col. 10-col. 12). Accordingly, we agree with the
Examiner’s conclusion that at the time of the invention, it would have been
obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement Constable with
the known technique of the monitoring station receiving assignment
changes, as taught by Leal, in order to provide for the monitoring of devices
that are at excessive distances from or encounter obstacles in communicating
with the originally assigned monitoring station (Fig. 3 and description of
Fig. 3, col. 10-col. 12).
Thus, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 25.
Claim 29
We also affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 29 (see App. Br. 26—
29) because of Appellants’ similar arguments as those raised for claim 4.
Claims 3, 5—10, 12—14, 17, 21—22, 24, and 26—28
Appellants do not raise any additional arguments with respect to
claims 3, 5—10, 12—14, 17, 21—22, 24, and 26—28. Accordingly, we
8
Appeal 2014-000224
Application 11/466,972
summarily sustain the Examiner’s rejections of these claims for the same
reasons as stated supra.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Constable
in view of Gaer teaches or suggests the limitations of:
4. “communicating an indication of the monitored position of the
first electromagnetic receiver from the monitoring station to a
surface vessel other than the monitoring station” as recited in claim
1 and similarly recited in claim 18;
5. “wherein the monitoring comprises monitoring the position of the
first electromagnetic receiver as the first electromagnetic receiver
ascends from the sea surface” as recited in claim 4; and
6. “in response to receiving an assignment change designating a
different second group of at least one of the electromagnetic
receivers” as recited in claim 25.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3—15, 17,
18, 20-22, and 24—29 is affrmed.
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