PGS Geophysical AS

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardNov 12, 2021

2021000956 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 12, 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. 14/258,552 04/22/2014 Neil Turnbull PGS-13-39US 5949 137491 7590 11/12/2021 OLYMPIC PATENT WORKS PLLC 4979 Admiral Street Gig Harbor, WA 98332 EXAMINER LIANG, LEONARD S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2862 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/12/2021 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): joanne@olympicpatentworks.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte NEIL TURNBULL1 ____________ Appeal 2021-000956 Application 14/258,552 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before DONNA M. PRAISS, CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, and JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges. KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 and 3–37. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. BACKGROUND The subject matter on appeal relates to improved processes for generating images of subterranean formations. E.g., Spec. ¶¶ 1, 2, 23; Claim 1. Claim 1 is reproduced below from page 21 (Claims Appendix) of the Appeal Brief: 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as PGS GEOPHYSICAL AS. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2021-000956 Application 14/258,552 2 1. In a process that generates an image of a subterranean formation using marine seismic techniques in which consecutively recorded seismic data gathers were generated in a marine seismic survey of the subterranean formation, each recorded gather is a record of acoustic reflections from the subterranean formation after each activation of a source and contains residual acoustic energy (“RAE”) from one or more previous activations of the source, the specific improvement comprising: aligning the recorded gathers in time to generate time-aligned gathers with the RAE coherent and the reflections incoherent between the time-aligned gathers: generating model acoustic energy (“MAE”) gathers of the RAE from the time-aligned gathers; aligning one or more of the MAE gathers in time with the corresponding recorded gathers to generate one or more corresponding time-adjusted gathers; subtracting one or more of the time-adjusted gathers from corresponding recorded gathers to generate one or more RAE attenuated gathers; and applying migration to one of the one or more RAE attenuated gathers to generate an image of the subterranean formation, thereby attenuating residual acoustic energy contamination in the seismic image. REJECTIONS ON APPEAL The claims stand rejected as follows: 1. Claims 1, 3, 7, 9–15, 19, 21–27, 31, and 33–37 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Poole (US 2014/0078860 A1, published Mar. 20, 2014). 2. Claims 4–6, 16–18, and 28–30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Poole and Dowle (US 2013/0155810 A1, published June 20, 2013). Appeal 2021-000956 Application 14/258,552 3 3. Claims 8, 20, and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Poole and Ferris (US 2009/0323470 A1, published Dec. 31, 2009). ANALYSIS Rejection 1. Claim 1 recites, inter alia, “aligning the recorded gathers in time to generate time-aligned gathers.” Appeal Br. 21 (emphasis added). The Examiner cites Figure 8, reference 802, and ¶ 51 of Poole in support of the Examiner’s finding that Poole teaches that limitation of claim 1. Final Act. 4. Figure 8 is a black box style flow chart depicting Poole’s method. Poole Fig. 8. Reference 802 of Figure 8 is a black box labeled “[a]lign interference noise.” Id. Paragraph 51 of Poole discloses that “align[ing] the interference noise . . . . involves applying a different time shift for each trace in the gather so that the interference noise is limited.” Id. ¶ 51 (emphasis added). There is no dispute that a trace is not a gather; rather, as the Examiner acknowledges, “[a] ‘gather’ is a collection of traces.” Ans. 5. In the Appeal Brief, the Appellant argues, inter alia, that the Examiner’s reliance on disclosures in Poole concerning time shifting of individual traces is not the same as “aligning the recorded gathers,” as recited by claim 1. Appeal Br. 12–13 (“Methods of the current application do not time align traces within the same gather. Time aligning two or more gathers is described in [the current application].” (emphases added)). In the Answer, the Examiner responds that this argument is an “example of the Appellant applying a narrow interpretation to broad claims.” Ans. 13. The Examiner states that, “even if Poole did simply teach performing operations on traces of a single gather, it would still read on the Appeal 2021-000956 Application 14/258,552 4 broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation in question, for reasons stated above.” Id. The Examiner also states that “Poole’s illustrative examples are not restrictive,” and that “Poole’s disclosure of performing operations on traces of a single gather are meant to illustrate a principle of how noise is aligned, not restrict Poole’s teachings to only a single gather.” Id. “Knowledge of shooting timings of multiple sources in multiple surveys suggests multiple collections of gather data, not just one.” Id. at 14. In the Reply Brief, the Appellant argues that, in the Examiner’s Answer, “the Examiner does not actually cite any evidence in support of the Examiner’s allegation that Poole anticipates the time aligning step.” Reply Br. 10. The Appellant argues that “Poole describes applying a different time shift to each trace of the same gather,” and that “Poole does not describe aligning two or more recorded gathers.” Id. at 11–12. On this record, we agree with the Appellant. As set forth above, the portions of Poole cited by the Examiner concern time aligning individual traces within individual gathers. See Poole ¶ 51. Claim 1 expressly requires “aligning the recorded gathers,” not the traces within the gathers. See Appeal Br. 21 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis added). The Examiner has not sufficiently explained how the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “aligning the recorded gathers” reads on Poole’s disclosure of time shifting individual traces within a gather. See Ans. 13. Similarly, the Examiner has not sufficiently explained how Poole’s disclosure of time shifting individual traces within a gather is “meant to illustrate a principle . . . not restrict Poole’s teachings to only a single gather.” Id. To the extent the Examiner is suggesting that alignment of gathers would have been obvious in view of a disclosure of time shifting traces, we note that the rejection before us was Appeal 2021-000956 Application 14/258,552 5 made under 35 U.S.C. § 102, not § 103. The Examiner has not identified a portion of Poole that discloses aligning gathers as opposed to traces. The Examiner’s position concerning whether or not Poole concerns collection of multiple gathers, e.g., Ans. 14, also fails to show that Poole anticipates the disputed subject matter. Even accepting as accurate the Examiner’s position that Poole collects multiple gathers, Poole ¶ 51 describes only time shifting the traces in the gathers. Thus, Poole may disclose time shifting the traces within multiple gathers, but the Examiner has not adequately explained how time shifting traces within multiple different gathers is equivalent to aligning the gathers themselves. On this record, the Examiner has not established that Poole anticipates the subject matter of claim 1. Because claims 3, 7, 9–15, 19, 21–27, 31, and 33–37 include the same requirement (aligning the recorded gathers), either directly or through claim dependency, the Examiner likewise has not established that Poole anticipates the subject matter of those claims. Rejections 2 and 3. Rejections 2 and 3 are obviousness rejections, and the Examiner adds additional references relevant to certain dependent claims. All claims subject to Rejections 2 and 3 include the “aligning the recorded gathers” limitation, either directly or through claim dependency. The Examiner’s discussions concerning Rejections 2 and 3 do not remedy the error identified above or otherwise provide reasoning as to why the “aligning the recorded gathers” limitation would have been obvious in view of Poole. Accordingly, we reverse as to Rejections 2 and 3 for the reasons stated above as to Rejection 1. Appeal 2021-000956 Application 14/258,552 6 CONCLUSION In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s) Affirmed Reversed 1, 3, 7, 9–15, 19, 21–27, 31, 33–37 102(a)(2) Poole 1, 3, 7, 9–15, 19, 21–27, 31, 33–37 4–6, 16–18, 28– 30 103 Poole, Dowle 4–6, 16–18, 28– 30 8, 20, 32 103 Poole, Ferris 8, 20, 32 Overall Outcome 1, 3–37 REVERSED