CGG SERVICES SAS

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 16, 2021

2021001034 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 16, 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.
15/507,986 03/01/2017 Gordon POOLE 0336-493-2/100830 9924
11171 7590 12/16/2021
Patent Portfolio Builders, PLLC
754 Warrenton Road
Suite 113-314
Fredericksburg, VA 22406
EXAMINER
PARK, HYUN D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2865
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/16/2021 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):
Mailroom@ppblaw.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GORDON POOLE and SIMON KING
Appeal 2021-001034
Application 15/507,986
Technology Center 2800
Before JAMES C. HOUSEL, BRIAN D. RANGE, and LILAN REN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HOUSEL, 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 1–20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies CGG Services SA as the real party in
interest. Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) filed May 18, 2020, 2.
Appeal 2021-001034
Application 15/507,986

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The invention recited in the claims on appeal relates to methods and
systems for processing seismic data collected with one or more marine
seismic sensors. Specification (“Spec.”) filed March 1, 2017, ¶ 2.2 Marine
seismic data acquisition and processing generates a profile of the geological
structure under the seafloor. Id. ¶ 3. During the seismic data gathering
process, a vessel tows an acoustic source and a plurality of seismic detectors
or sensors disposed along a cable. Id. ¶¶ 4, 5. The acoustic source generates
and acoustic wave which propagates downward into the seafloor, eventually
reflecting upward to the detectors. Id. ¶ 5. Part of this reflected acoustic
wave are recorded by the detectors, but part also travels past the detectors to
the water surface and reflect back down toward the detectors. Id. This water-
reflected wave, normally referred to as a ghost or down-going wave, is also
recorded by the detectors, but with reverse polarity and a time lag relative to
the primary wave. Id. Detector recorded traces may be used to determine an
image of the seafloor subsurface, but the ghost waves disturb the accuracy of
the final image. Id. ¶ 6. As such, various methods exist for deghosting (i.e.,
removing ghosts) from the results of seismic analyses. Id.
However, many of these methods assume that the sea surface is a flat,
horizontal plane, whereas the sea surface actually varies in time and space.
Spec. ¶ 7. Such variance adversely affects the quality of the seismic data
processing and final subsurface image. Id. Existing methods to address this
variance require either continuous measurements of the wave height along

2 This Decision also cites to the Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) dated
November 29, 2019, the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) dated October 9,
2020, and the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed November 17, 2020.
Appeal 2021-001034
Application 15/507,986

3
the detector cable or a substantial modification of the acquisition set up. Id. ¶
12. Appellant discloses methods that use the correct ghost’s travel time
without the need to modify the existing acquisition set up. Id.
Claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal
Brief, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for seismic exploration of a subsurface
formation under the seafloor, the method comprising:
receiving input seismic data recorded with seismic
sensors configured to detect seismic waves traveling through
the subsurface formation;
obtaining wave-height data using the input seismic data;
processing up-going energy and down-going energy
following a reflection at the sea-surface extracted from the
input seismic data corresponding to one of the sensors and
using a linear operator modified to take into account the wave-
height data; and
generating an image of the subsurface formation using
the up-going energy or the down-going energy or a combination
of the input seismic data and one of the up-going or down-
going energy,
wherein the image enables detecting a hydrocarbon
reservoir in the subsurface formation.
Claim 13 recites a computing device for seismic exploration of a
subsurface formation comprising an interface for receiving input seismic
data recorded with seismic sensors and wave-height data obtained from the
input seismic data, and a processor connected to the interface and configured
to perform functions similar to steps recited in claim 1.
Appeal 2021-001034
Application 15/507,986

4
Claim 20 recites a computer readable medium (“CRM”) including
computer executable instructions for performing a method similar that
recited in claim 1.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Name Reference Date
Laws et al. (“Laws”) US 2009/0073804 A1 Mar. 19, 2009
Poole (“Poole ‘379”) US 2013/0163379 A1 June 27, 2013
Poole (“Poole ‘249”) US 9,176,249 B2 Nov. 3, 2015
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains, and Appellant requests our review of, the
following rejections:3
1. Claims 1–20 on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type
double patenting as unpatentable over claims 1–29 of Poole
‘249 in view of Laws and Poole ‘379; and
2. Claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Poole
‘379 in view of Laws.

3 The Examiner’s Answer states that every ground of rejection set forth in
the November 29, 2019 Office Action is being maintained and does not list
any withdrawn rejections. In the November 29 Action, the Examiner
rejected claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA),
second paragraph, as indefinite. Neither Appellant nor the Examiner discuss
this rejection in this appeal. Although less than clear, it appears that the
Examiner may have withdrawn this rejection in the March 6, 2020 Advisory
Action (“The Objection to the Drawing and the claim are withdrawn based
on the amendment filed on 02/03/2020.”). For purposes of this appeal, we
assume that the Examiner withdrew this rejection, and, therefore, it is not
before us on appeal.

Appeal 2021-001034
Application 15/507,986

5
OPINION
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
Appellant identifies, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential),
cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify
the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”). After considering
Appellant’s arguments and the evidence of record, we are persuaded of
reversible error in the stated rejections. Therefore, we reverse the
Examiner’s nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting and obviousness
rejections based substantially on the arguments raised in the Appeal and
Reply Briefs. We offer the following for emphasis.
The Examiner rejects claims 1–20 on the ground of nonstatutory
obviousness-type double patenting as unpatentable over claims 1–29 of
Poole ‘249 in view of Laws and Poole ‘379, and claims 1–20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Poole ‘379 in view of Laws. Final Act. 3–
4, 6–12. Because each of the independent claims recites similar limitations
regarding obtaining wave-height data using the input seismic data and the
Examiner relies on Laws for this feature in both rejections, we need only
address these rejections with respect to independent claim 1 and Laws.
For the double patenting rejection, the Examiner acknowledges that
Poole ‘249 fails to teach obtaining wave-height data using the input seismic
data, processing up-going energy and down-going energy following
reflection at the sea surface extracted from the input seismic data
corresponding to one of the seismic sensors, and using a linear operator
modified to take into account the wave-height data. Final Act. 4. However,
Appeal 2021-001034
Application 15/507,986

6
the Examiner finds that Laws discloses receiving wave-height data and
determining the height or depth of the seismic sources and receivers, and
that Poole ‘379 discloses processing up-going energy and down-going
energy following a reflection at the sea surface extracted from the input
seismic data corresponding to one of the receivers and using a linear
operator modified to take into account the wave-height data. Id. The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify Poole ‘249
in view of Laws’ and Poole ‘379’s teachings to generate an accurate image
of the subsurface by correcting for the shape of the sea surface. Id.
For the obviousness rejection, the Examiner finds that Poole ‘379
discloses a method, system, and CRM substantially as recited in claims 1,
13, and 20, except for obtaining wave-height data using the input seismic
data. Final Act. 6–7. However, the Examiner finds that Laws discloses
determining the height or depth of the seismic receivers or sensors using the
input seismic data. Id. at 7. The Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to modify Poole ‘379 in view of Laws’ teaching to generate an
accurate image of the subsurface by correcting for the shape of the top
surface of a body of water. Id.
The Examiner expressly interprets the limitation, “obtaining wave-
height data using the input seismic data,” as (1) not requiring that the wave-
height data is exclusively obtained from the input seismic data, and (2)
failing to recite any reference positions from which the wave-height is
determined. Ans. 3. The Examiner finds that Poole ‘379 discloses the depth
of the receivers, Zr, “can be considered as the claimed wave-height data
since it is the distance or height from the receivers to the surface of the
wave.” Id. at 4. In addition, the Examiner finds that Laws discloses
Appeal 2021-001034
Application 15/507,986

7
determining wave-height variations from a mathematically derived reference
surface. Id. The Examiner further finds that it is understood that Laws’
sources with antennae and the global positioning system (“GPS”) are “to be
used together with seismic receivers during conventional marine seismology
to make the necessary correction” due to surface perturbation. Id. And since
Laws’ measurement arrangement (including source, receivers, antennae, and
GPS) are involved in seismic surveying, the Examiner finds that “said
arrangement are also the claimed seismic sensors as well,” on the basis that
the claims fail to recite either the type of sensor or their exact position in the
sea. Id.
Moreover, the Examiner finds that Laws specifically teaches
“determining” the height or depth of the source and the seismic receivers by
correcting for surface wave perturbation. Ans. 4. In this regard, the
Examiner finds that Laws’ determination involves correction using both the
data from the seismic receivers and the measurement arrangement. Id. at 5.
Appellant argues, inter alia, that the prior art applied in both
rejections fails to teach or suggest obtaining wave-height data from the input
seismic data received from the seismic sensors configured to detect seismic
waves traveling through the subsurface formation. Appeal Br. 6. Appellant
contends that Laws fails to obtain wave-height data from the input seismic
data recorded with the seismic sensors, but instead measures the source
elevation or depth using antennae and GPS on the tow vessel as well as a
float carrying the source. Id. at 7. Further, Appellant contends that even if
Laws obtains wave-height data, such data is not obtained from the input
seismic data recorded with the seismic sensors. Id. In addition, Appellant
contends that although Poole ‘379 teaches an individual receiver’s depth, Zr,
Appeal 2021-001034
Application 15/507,986

8
this parameter is not wave-height data nor is it obtained from the input
seismic data from the seismic receivers. Id. at 8. Appellant asserts that “[i]n
spite of representing sea surface 18 as a wiggled line, Poole ‘379 does not
appear to take into consideration the surface waves.” Id.
Appellant also argues that the Examiner’s claim interpretation is
unreasonable in light of the Specification. Reply Br. 1. Appellant asserts that
the Specification clearly teaches wave-height and wave-height data. Id.
Appellant contends that Poole ‘379’s receiver depth, Zr, is not wave-height
as defined in the original application. Id. at 2 (citing Fig. 17). Appellant
further disputes the Examiner’s characterization of Laws’ GPS and antennae
as being part of the arrangement, including the seismic receivers, for
determining wave-height because only the GPS and antennae are used to
determine wave-height, but neither records input seismic data. Id.
Appellant’s arguments are persuasive of reversible error in the
Examiner’s double patenting and obviousness rejections. In Figure 17,
reproduced below, Appellant describes the wave height, zw, relative to both
the surrounding sea surface 1704 and seismic sensor 1702.

Appellant’s Fig. 17, showing a seismic receiver and
ray propagation for a wave on a sea surface

Appeal 2021-001034
Application 15/507,986

9
We note that a time delay due to the wave’s height, Δτwave, is introduced into
the time delay of the ghost, as compared to a flat sea surface. Spec. ¶¶ 89,
91–93.4 In contrast, Poole, Figure 4, reproduced below, fails to account for
the additional time delay, Δτwave, due to a wave’s height relative to the height
of a seismic sensor.

Poole ‘379, Fig. 4, showing a seismic receiver and
ray propagation for a sea surface

As Appellant contends, although Poole ‘379 shows the sea surface with a
“wiggly line,” the Examiner fails to direct our attention to any disclosure in
Poole ‘379 accounting for the effect of a wave on ghost signal, G, nor do we
find any. To the contrary, Poole ‘379 appears to assume that the sea surface
is flat and horizontal, similarly to Appellant’s Figure 16. Compare Poole
‘379, Fig. 4, with Appellant, Fig. 16.

4 It is our understanding that this time delay may be positive or negative
depending on whether the wave height is above or below the height of the
sensor, zn.
Appeal 2021-001034
Application 15/507,986

10
With regard to Laws, we note that the Examiner errs as to how Laws
determines the height of the source and receivers. Laws discloses that height
is measured using the GPS and antennae arrangement. Laws ¶¶ 28, 29. Laws
then corrects for various perturbations in the sea surface relative to a flat,
horizontal surface, wherein each correction is based on the measured
elevation of the source, rather than from the input seismic data itself. Id. ¶¶
31, 33, 39. Thus, Laws obtains wave-height data using the GPS and
antennae to measure the actual elevation of the source. Although the
Examiner is correct that Laws discloses that the height or depth of the source
and receivers may be determined with respect to a reference (id. ¶ 43), the
Examiner does not direct our attention to any description as to how Laws
determines the receiver height or depth. As such, presumably the
determination of the receiver height or depth is also based on the measured
actual elevation of the receivers. Nonetheless, the Examiner interprets Laws
as obtaining wave-height data using the input seismic data because the
claims do not require that only the input seismic data be used for this
purpose. However, the Examiner has not persuasively shown that Laws
determines the wave-height data using, even in part, the input seismic data.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s nonstatutory
obviousness-type double patenting and obviousness rejections based on
Poole ‘379 and Laws.
CONCLUSION
Upon consideration of the record and for the reasons set forth above
and in the Appeal and Reply Briefs, the Examiner’s decision to reject claims
1–20 is reversed.
Appeal 2021-001034
Application 15/507,986

11
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–20 Nonstatutory Double
Patenting Poole ‘249
(claims 1–29), Laws,
Poole ‘379
1–20
1–20 103 Poole ‘379, Laws 1–20
Overall
Outcome
1–20

REVERSED