PTAB

IPR2018-00962

Seabed Geosolutions US Inc v. Fairfield Industries Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: OCEAN BOTTOM SEISMOMETER PACKAGE
  • Brief Description: The ’362 patent discloses self-contained, continuous-recording ocean bottom seismometers (OBS) for seismic data collection. The invention is characterized by a low-profile, disk-shaped, water-tight case designed to house standard OBS components, such as geophones, a power source, a data recorder, and a clock.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Cranford, Sutton, Schmalfeldt, and Jones - Claims 1-17

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Cranford (a 1976 article from the Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America), Sutton (a 1987 paper from Marine Geophysical Researches), Schmalfeldt (a 1983 SACLANTCEN Report), and Jones (Patent 6,951,138).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the combination of these references disclosed all limitations of the challenged claims. Cranford was asserted to teach a self-contained OBS with a water-tight cylindrical case containing all the core internal components recited in the independent claims: a geophone, clock, power source (batteries), and a seismic data recorder. However, Cranford’s case was described as having a high-profile (long and narrow) configuration.

      Sutton, a seminal paper on OBS design not considered during prosecution, was presented as teaching the optimal form factor for an OBS to ensure proper coupling with the seafloor and minimize noise from ocean currents. Sutton concluded that an OBS should have a "low profile," a "low height-to-base area ratio," and "maximum symmetry about the vertical axis" to improve data quality.

      Petitioner contended that Schmalfeldt and Jones provided examples of OBS devices that implemented the exact design principles taught by Sutton. Both Schmalfeldt and Jones disclosed OBS units housed within low-profile, symmetrical, disk-shaped cases. Schmalfeldt’s device included geophones in a circular, low-profile housing designed for direct coupling with the seafloor. Jones disclosed a self-contained OBS with internal components in a "discoid in shape" case that was low-profile and symmetrical to ensure equal mass distribution. The combination of Cranford’s internal components with the optimal case design taught by Sutton and exemplified by Schmalfeldt and Jones allegedly rendered the claims obvious. Dependent claims were argued to be obvious as they recited conventional features also found in the prior art, such as the diameter being greater than the height (taught by Sutton, Schmalfeldt, and Jones) and internal water-tight compartments (inherent in Cranford’s pressure case).

    • Motivation to Combine: The petition asserted that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have been motivated to combine the references because they all address the same field of technology: ocean bottom seismometers. The primary motivation stemmed from Sutton’s scientific analysis, which explicitly taught that modifying an OBS to have a low-profile, symmetrical shape would result in a superior, better-performing device. A POSITA seeking to improve the known OBS design of Cranford, which contained all the necessary functional components, would have looked to Sutton’s teachings for optimizing the case shape. Schmalfeldt and Jones would have confirmed the feasibility and provided working examples of such a low-profile, disk-shaped design, motivating a POSITA to apply Sutton’s principles to Cranford’s established internal architecture.

    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued a POSITA would have had a high expectation of success. The proposed modification was not a complex integration but a known design choice to improve performance, as taught by Sutton. The success of such a combination was confirmed by the existence of the Schmalfeldt and Jones devices, which already demonstrated the viability of building OBS units with a low-profile, disk-shaped form factor. Furthermore, Petitioner argued that by the ’362 patent’s priority date, advancements in electronics and battery technology would have made it even easier to package the components of Cranford into the more compact, low-profile case taught by Sutton.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 1-17 of the ’362 patent as unpatentable.