Fugro N.V.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 17, 2021

2020003965 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 17, 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.
14/843,772 09/02/2015 Olaf BOOIJ 546082-
P2015.FINT.002.US
1892
68769 7590 09/17/2021
HOUSTON OFFICE OF
POLSINELLI PC
PO Box 140310
Kansas City, MO 64114-0310
EXAMINER
NIRJHAR, NASIM NAZRUL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2482
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/17/2021 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):
PatentDocketing@Polsinelli.com
houstonipassistant@polsinelli.com
salaniz@polsinelli.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte OLAF BOOIJ, EVERT SCHIPPERS, HENDRIK WOUTERS,
FATEMEH KARIMI NEJADASL, DIEGO DIAS BISPO CARVALHO

Appeal 2020-003965
Application 14/843,772
Technology Center 2400

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, LARRY J. HUME, and JASON J. CHUNG,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–6 and 8–24 which constitute all of
the pending claims. Appeal Br. 1. Claim 7 is cancelled. Id. at 24. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We refer to the Specification, filed Sept. 2, 2015 (“Spec.”); the Final Office
Action, mailed Aug. 13, 2019 (“Final Act.”); the Appeal Brief, filed Feb. 13,
2020 (“Appeal Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer, mailed Mar. 5, 2020 (“Ans.”);
and the Reply Brief, filed May 4, 2020 (“Reply Br.”).
2 “Appellant” refers to “Applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a).
Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Fugro N.V. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-003965
Application 14/843,772
2
II. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
According to Appellant, the claimed subject matter relates to a system
for determining the position of an object in 3D space, and more particularly
for moving reference frame to determine the spatial positioning of offshore
structures. Spec. ¶ 2.
Figure 1, reproduced below, is useful for understanding the claimed
subject matter:

Figure 1 above depicts a schematic view of positioning system 1 for
determining the position of jacket 10 having markers 12A–F affixed to its
legs 8 for installation off shore. Id. ¶44. Positioning system 1 is mounted
onboard heavy lift vessel 2 having a crane 3 and is equipped with survey
unit 4 having camera 20 and vessel navigation equipment 5 adapted to
provide cm accurate x-y-z positioning and pitchroll-heading data with
dynamic accuracy of better than 0.5°, at least in the pitch and roll directions.
Id.
Appeal 2020-003965
Application 14/843,772
3
Claims 1, 9, and 17 are independent. Claim 1, with disputed
limitations emphasized, is illustrative:
1. A system for determining a six-degrees-of-freedom position
of a quasi-stationary offshore structure in an earth-fixed
reference frame, associated with a seafloor, by observations from
a moving reference frame during placement of the quasi-
stationary offshore structure at a predetermined location on the
seafloor, the system comprising:
a plurality of markers affixed at defined positions on an
upper portion of the quasi-stationary offshore structure that
extends above a waterline during the placement of the quasi-
stationary offshore structure and arranged to define the position
of the quasi-stationary offshore structure in the earth-fixed
reference frame;
an imaging device, located on a vessel or unmanned
vehicle associated with the moving reference frame and arranged
to view the upper portion of the quasi-stationary offshore
structure with the markers and generate image data
representative of relative positions of the markers in the moving
reference frame, wherein the moving reference frame is the
vessel or unmanned vehicle;
a local positioning system, arranged to determine
instantaneous positions of the imaging device in the earth-fixed
reference frame and generate position data; and
a processing unit, arranged to receive the image data from
the imaging device and the position data from the local
positioning system, and to process the image data and the
position data to compute the six-degrees-of-freedom position of
the quasi-stationary offshore structure in the earth-fixed
reference frame based on the defined positions of the markers.
Appeal 2020-003965
Application 14/843,772
4
III. REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following single reference as evidence.3

Name Reference Date
Holland US 6,826,452 B1 Nov. 30,
2004
Schneider US 2010/0230370 A1 Sept. 16,
2010
Engedal US 2014/0107971 A1 Apr. 17,
2014
Geissler US 2016/0005185 A1 Jan. 7, 2016
Benetazzo, “Accurate Measurement of Six Degree of Freedom
Small-scale Ship motion Through Analysis of one Camera Images,
Ocean Engineering” 38, pp. 1755−1762,
www.elsavier.com/locate/ocean.eng (Aug. 21, 2011)
Kim et al., “An Advanced Cargo Handling System Operating at Sea,
International Journal of Control, Automation, and Systems” August
2014, Volume 12, Issue 4, pp. 852−860 (2014)

IV. REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects claims 1–6 and 8–24 as follows:
Claims 1–4, 9–12, 17, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combined teachings of Engedal, Schneider, and
Geissler. Final Act. 7–23.
Claims 5, 6, 13–16, 18–21, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Engedal, Schneider,
Geissler, and Holland. Id. at 24–35.

3 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only.
Appeal 2020-003965
Application 14/843,772
5
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
the combined teachings of Engedal, Schneider, Geissler, and Benetazzo. Id.
at 35–36.
Claims 21 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combined teachings of Engedal, Schneider, Geissler,
Holland, and Kim. Id. at 36–40.
V. ANALYSIS
We consider Appellant’s arguments seriatim, as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 9–22 and the Reply Brief, page 4–15.4 We are
unpersuaded by Appellant’s contentions on the obviousness rejections.
Except as otherwise indicated herein below, we adopt as our own the
findings and reasons specific to the obviousness rejections set forth in the
Final Action, and the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal
Brief. Final Act. 7–40; Ans. 36–53. However, we highlight and address
specific arguments and findings for emphasis as follows.
A. Obviousness Rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Appellant argues none of the references teaches or suggests a quasi-
stationary offshore structure associated with the seafloor that extends above
a waterline and is placed on the seafloor at a predetermined location, as
recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 12. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s
arguments because, as correctly noted by the Examiner, Schneider teaches
positioning of a quasi-stationary offshore load by a crane from a ship to a

4 We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellant
actually raised in the Briefs. Arguments not made are forfeited. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2017).
Appeal 2020-003965
Application 14/843,772
6
seafloor. Ans. 38–39, Schneider ¶ 45. Appellant’s argument that Schneider
discloses using the crane ship for installation tasks above sea level in
Schneider ¶ 51 (Appeal Br. 14) is likewise not persuasive because the
Examiner does not cite to paragraph 51, but cites to paragraph 45 of
Schneider for teaching or suggesting the disputed limitations. Regarding
paragraph 45, Appellant argues Schneider teaches “avoiding the seafloor.”
(Appeal Br. 15). This is not an accurate description of the citation.
Schneider does not teach “avoiding the seafloor,” but rather teaches avoiding
collisions with the seafloor. See Schneider ¶ 45 (“to avoid collisions of the
load with the seabed.”). We find that one can position and place a load on
the sea floor without colliding with it.
Appellant further argues the cited art does not teach or suggest “a
plurality of markers affixed at defined positions on an upper portion of the
quasi-stationary offshore structure.” Appeal Br. 16. In particular, Appellant
argues Engedal’s corners are not “markers that are affixed at a defined
position” and Engedal “make[s] no mention of affixing anything that serves
as a marker to the cargo.” Id. Appellant further contends “there are no
rational underpinnings to affix the markers of Geissler on the cargo of
Engedal because the system in Engedal is designed to operate [sic] without
having to or the need to use any kind of affixed markers.” Appeal Br. 17.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments because Engedal’s
projection of an illuminating pattern or adding a visual marker onto the
cargo for the sensor system to identify the cargo at least suggests the
disputed limitation. See Engedal ¶ 185, Fig. 14, Ans. 40.
The Examiner also provides a rational underpinning for the
motivation to combine the teachings of Geissler with Engedal:
Appeal 2020-003965
Application 14/843,772
7
It will be obvious to combine Engedal and Geissler, because
combined teaching will accommodate plurality of markers on an
upper portion of the quasi-stationary offshore structure for more
accurate detection with predictable results. Because the position
of marker can be at any location as per Geissler [0032] the optical
navigation system is installed additionally comprises a random
or regular array of markers 26 stuck to the ceiling (not shown),
lighting rails (not shown) or other objects located above the
camera 12. Some of the markers 26 are retroreflective and the
ceiling-facing camera 16 is fitted with an annular ring of LEDs
28 around its lens, which LEDs project a beam of visible light
towards, and for illuminating, the markers 26.
Appeal Br. 40–41. See also Final Act. 15–16.
The Examiner finds Geissler’s optical navigation system tracking the
markers and calculating the positions teaches or at least suggests the
limitation “a plurality of markers arranged to define the position.” See
Geissler ¶¶ 11, 13, 39.
Appellant does not address the Examiner’s findings in Geissler ¶¶ 11
and 39, but argues “Geissler [at ¶ 13] teaches the exact opposite of defined
positions” by teaching “randomly-placed markers which do not need to be
accurately placed.” Appeal Br. 17–18. Appellant’s arguments are not
persuasive because paragraph 13 of Geissler describes that the optical
navigation system falls somewhere in between the range of “an accurate
triangulation system in which the markers are placed [in] precise and known
locations” and a SLAM system which uses natural features, like corners.
Appellant further argues Schneider teaches six degrees of freedom of
the ship and not the quasi-stationary offshore structure. Appeal Br. 18–19.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument because Appellant is
arguing the references separately. While it is correct that Schneider teaches
six degrees of freedom of the ship, Engedal’s Cargo Detector teaches
Appeal 2020-003965
Application 14/843,772
8
locating the cargo by estimating its coordinates and position. Engedal ¶ 111,
256, Final Act. 10–11. Engedal also teaches calculating the heave of the
cargo, which calculates its position while in movement. Engedal ¶¶ 201,
216, Final Act. 7. Accordingly, we concur with the Examiner that the
proposed combination of Schneider, Geissler, and Engedal would have
predictably resulted in computing six-degrees-of-freedom position of a
quasi-stationary offshore structure in the earth-fixed reference frame based
on the defined positions of the markers. Final Act. 15–16. Therefore, on
this record, and based upon a preponderance of the evidence, we are not
persuaded of Examiner error and so we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claim 1 and grouped claims 4, 9–12, 17, and 22.
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 2 under
this same rejection because Appellant does not present separate substantive
arguments. See Appeal Br. 19.
We also sustain the Examiner’s separate obviousness rejections of
claims 4, 9–12, 17, and 22, because Appellant does not present substantive
arguments regarding the limitations of these claims. Appeal Br. 22.
B. Claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Appellant argues dependent claim 3 recites “at least four markers,”
but there is no teaching or suggestion in the cited art for this limitation.
Appeal Br. 19.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument because Geissler’s
array of markers 26 are depicted as 4 markers in Figure 1. See Geissler
Fig. 1, ¶¶ 21, 32, 35, 38, 39, 43; Final Act. 18–19.
Appeal 2020-003965
Application 14/843,772
9
Therefore, on this record, and based upon a preponderance of the
evidence, we are not persuaded of Examiner error and so we sustain the
Examiner's obviousness rejection of claim 3.
C. Claims 21 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
The Examiner rejects dependent claims 21 and 24 as obvious over the
combined teachings and suggestions of Engedal, Schneider, Geissler,
Holland, and Kim. Final Act. 36.
Appellant argues the limitation “virtual markers corresponding to
boundary edges” should not have been split by the Examiner in its rejection.
Appeal Br. 20. Appellant further argues Kim does not teach the “six-
degrees of-freedom” position of the quasi-stationary offshore structure
“because they only operate for in-plane motion (surge, sway, and skew).”
Id. Appellant also argues there is “no teaching in Kim of a comparison
between the electronic file and the in-plane data-Kim suggests a
compensation, not a comparison.” Appeal Br. 21.
We disagree with Appellant's characterization of the Examiner's
analysis, i.e., splitting the disputed limitation into discrete elements for the
purpose of asserting two different references.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the
Examiner to establish a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 1988). The
Examiner can satisfy this burden by showing “‘some articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.”’ KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)
(quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). “‘The
Appeal 2020-003965
Application 14/843,772
10
combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be
obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”’ Leapfrog
Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
(quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 416). Here, the Examiner showed each element
of the claim limitation existed in the prior art — that is, the Examiner
showed them to be “familiar.” Final Act. 36–40; Leapfrog, 485 F.3d at
1161. The Examiner also provided “some articulated reasoning with some
rational underpinning” as to why the claimed combination would have been
obvious. Final Act. 38, 40. Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error
based on this argument.
We are also not persuaded “six degrees of freedom” is not taught
because all six degrees of freedom are explicitly taught at least by Geissler
¶ 39 and Schneider ¶ 53. Appellant is arguing the references separately.
The Examiner cites to Kim to compute the surge, sway and skew positions
of the quasi-stationary offshore structure in the earth-fixed reference frame.
Final Act. 39. One of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to apply
Kim’s teaching regarding three positions to Schneider’s and Geissler’s
teaching of all six positions.
As noted above, Appellant also argues there is “no teaching in Kim of
a comparison between the electronic file and the in-plane data-Kim suggests
a compensation, not a comparison.” We are not persuaded by Appellant’s
argument because in order to compensate one has to first perform a
comparison in order to determine the necessary compensation.
Therefore, on this record, and based upon a preponderance of the
evidence, we are not persuaded of Examiner error and so we sustain the
Examiner's obviousness rejection of dependent claims 21 and 24.
Appeal 2020-003965
Application 14/843,772
11
Regarding the rejections of claims 5, 6, 8, 13–16, 18–20, and 23,
Appellant either does not present separate patentability arguments or
reiterates substantially the same arguments as those discussed above for the
patentability of claims 1, 3, 21, and 24. As such, claims 5, 6, 8, 13–16, 18–
20, and 23 fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
VI. CONCLUSIONS
We affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) of claims 1–6 and 8–24.
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35
U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 9–12,
17, 22
103 Engedal, Schneider,
Geissler
1–4, 9–12,
17, 22
5, 6, 13–16,
18–21, 23
103 Engedal, Schneider,
Geissler, Holland
5, 6, 13–
16, 18–21,
23

8 103 Engedal, Schneider, Geissler, Benetazzo 8
21, 24 103
Engedal, Schneider,
Geissler, Holland,
Kim
21, 24
Overall
Outcome
1–6, 8–24

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED