PGS Geophysical AS

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 2, 2021

2019003572 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 2, 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. 14/074,190 11/07/2013 Stian Hegna PGS-13-19US-2 2584 172805 7590 04/02/2021 Hart IP, PLLC - PGS 23501 Cinco Ranch Boulevard Suite H120-916 Katy, TX 77494 EXAMINER LOBO, IAN J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3645 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/02/2021 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 eofficeaction@appcoll.com kevin@hartiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte STIAN HEGNA ____________ Appeal 2019-003572 Application 14/074,190 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 Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–16, 22, and 23, which are all the pending claims. See Appeal Br. 19; Final Act. 2. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to the “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as PGS Geophysical AS. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2019-003572 Application 14/074,190 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant’s disclosed invention relates to geophysical surveys. See Spec. ¶ 2. Claims 1, 11, and 22 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below with emphasis added, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A method of geophysical data processing, comprising: obtaining, at a geophysical data processing system, geophysical data specific to a geophysical formation, wherein the geophysical data includes: a first set of data representative of a first particle motion signal and a first pressure signal, wherein the first particle motion signal and the first pressure signal are each recorded using geophysical sensors towed at a first depth; and a second set of data representative of a second particle motion signal and a second pressure signal, wherein the second particle motion signal and the second pressure signal are each recorded using geophysical sensors towed at a second, greater depth; generating, by the geophysical data processing system, information corresponding to first and second wave separation equations from the first and second sets of data respectively, wherein the first and second wave separation equations each include a cross-line wave number parameter; determining, by the geophysical data processing system, a cross-line wave number value for the cross-line wave number parameter based on a corresponding difference in results between up-going pressure wavefields for the first and second equations; processing the geophysical data to determine an up-going wavefield using the determined cross-line wave number value; and generating an image of the geophysical formation based on the determined up-going wavefield. Appeal 2019-003572 Application 14/074,190 3 EVIDENCE The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims on appeal: Robertsson US 2009/0067285 A1 Mar. 12, 2009 Pan US 2013/0028049 A1 Jan. 31, 2013 REJECTIONS The following rejections are before us for review: I. Claims 1–4, 8–13, 15, 16, 22, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Robertsson.2 Final Act. 3–6. II. Claims 5–7 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Robertsson in view of Pan. Id. at 7–8. ANALYSIS Independent claim 1 recites, in relevant part, obtaining geophysical data that includes a first set of data “recorded using geophysical sensors towed at a first depth” and a second set of data “recorded using geophysical sensors towed at a second, greater depth,” generating “information corresponding to first and second wave separation equations from the first and second sets of data respectively, wherein the first and second wave 2 We note that claim 23 is not listed in the heading of this rejection, but is included in the body of the rejection. Compare Final Act. 3, with id. at 6. We treat this omission from the heading as an inadvertent and harmless error, and we refer to the rejection as including claim 23 herein. Appeal 2019-003572 Application 14/074,190 4 separation equations each include a cross-line wave number parameter,” and determining “a cross-line wave number value for the cross-line wave number parameter based on a corresponding difference in results between up-going pressure wavefields for the first and second equations.” Appeal Br., Claims App. (emphasis added). After determining the cross-line wave number value based on the corresponding difference in results between up- going pressure wavefields for the first and second equations (which are tied to the first and second data sets recorded at different depths), the method also processes the geophysical data to determine an up-going wavefield using the determined cross-line wave number value, and generates an image of the geophysical formation based on the determined up-going wavefield. See id. The other independent claims recite similar limitations regarding determination of a cross-line wave number value based on a corresponding difference in results between up-going pressure wavefields for the first and second equations, which, again, are tied to first and second data sets recorded at different depths. See id. Appellant argues that Robertsson, as relied upon in the rejections, does not teach the claimed manner of determining a cross-line wave number value using data sets from different depths. See Appeal Br. 11–13; Reply Br. 2–4. We agree. In the rejections, the Examiner relies on Robertsson for teaching or suggesting determination of a cross-line wave number value in the manner recited in the independent claims—namely, based on a corresponding difference in results between up-going pressure wavefields for first and second equations. See Final Act. 3–5. In particular, and somewhat curiously for an anticipation rejection, the Examiner acknowledges that “Robertsson does not explicitly disclose the steps of determining a cross-line Appeal 2019-003572 Application 14/074,190 5 wave number value for the cross-line wave number parameter based on a corresponding difference in results between up-going pressure wavefields for the first and second equations,” as required by the claims, but asserts that “Robertsson does disclose the mathematical relationships and operations required to arrive at these values in [Equations] 1-3.” Id. at 4. The Examiner then takes the position that it “would be obvious to one skilled in the art to be able to arrive at the method of claim 1 using mathematical and analytical operations that are well known in this and many arts.” Id. (emphasis added). Appellant acknowledges that Robertsson generally addresses determining cross-line wave number information, as does the present invention. See Reply Br. 2; see also Appeal Br. 11–12 (noting some general similarities and contrasting Robertsson’s “different technique” for estimating a cross-line wave number). But Appellant also asserts that “Robertsson does not teach or suggest the specific techniques recited in the appealed claims.” Reply Br. 2. Specifically, Appellant persuasively argues that “Robertsson does not teach the claimed ‘difference in results between up-going pressure wavefields’ for any two equations discussed in that reference,” such that, since “there is no teaching in Robertsson of this difference in results, it follows that this reference does not teach or suggest determining any quantity, much less the recited cross-line wave number, ‘based on’ this difference.” Id.; see id. at 2–4. Having reviewed the equations disclosed in Robertsson, as relied on by the Examiner,3 and in consideration of 3 We agree with Appellant that Equations 1 and 3 of Robertsson are “alternative expression[s]” of the same wave separation equation and are not shown to involve a depth parameter that would be affected by first and Appeal 2019-003572 Application 14/074,190 6 Appellant’s arguments regarding the differences between determinations made in Robertsson and determinations made in the present claims, we agree with Appellant. See Appeal Br. 11–18; Reply Br. 2–4. In short, upon review of the evidence before us, we agree with Appellant that Robertsson does not teach or suggest determining a cross-line wave number value for the cross-line wave number parameter based on a corresponding difference in results between up-going pressure wavefields for the first and second equations, which depend on different depths, as required by the claims. Accordingly, because the Examiner’s rejections are premised on findings that are not supported by a preponderance of the evidence, and because the Examiner does not otherwise explain adequately what would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to use the specific mathematical and analytical operations of the claimed steps, we do not sustain the rejections. DECISION We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–4, 8–13, 15, 16, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Robertsson. We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 5–7 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Robertsson in view of Pan. second data sets recorded at different depths, as in the present claims. Reply Br. 2–3 (citing Robertsson ¶¶ 29, 30); see also Appeal Br. 12–13 (similar discussion). Appeal 2019-003572 Application 14/074,190 7 CONCLUSION In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–4, 8–13, 15, 16, 22, 23 102(a)(1) Robertsson 1–4, 8–13, 15, 16, 22, 23 1–4, 8–13, 15, 16, 22, 23 103 Robertsson 1–4, 8–13, 15, 16, 22, 23 5–7, 14 103 Robertsson, Pan 5–7, 14 Overall Outcome 1–16, 22, 23 REVERSED