PTAB

IPR2019-00850

In Depth Geophysical Inc v. COnoCOPhillips Co

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Methods for Acquiring and Reconstructing Seismic Data
  • Brief Description: The ’248 patent discloses methods for acquiring and reconstructing seismic data where the lateral spacing between seismic receivers and/or source points is deliberately non-uniform and not aligned in at least one horizontal direction. This arrangement is intended to improve the accuracy of the subsequent reconstruction of the seismic data wavefield.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation - Claims 1-9 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by Zwartjes.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Zwartjes and Sacchi, "Fourier reconstruction of nonuniformly sampled, aliased seismic data," Geophysics, Vol. 72, No. 1 (Jan-Feb 2007) (“Zwartjes”).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Zwartjes, which addresses seismic data acquisition and reconstruction, explicitly teaches improving wavefield reconstruction by using non-uniform sampling patterns. Zwartjes disclosed perturbing sampling locations to create increasingly non-uniform patterns, illustrating receiver geometries (FIG. 9c) that are laterally spaced in an irregular pattern and not aligned in straight columns or rows in two horizontal directions. Petitioner contended this disclosure, aimed at more accurate reconstruction, meets all limitations of independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-9.

Ground 2: Obviousness - Claims 1-17 are obvious over the combination of Clay, Pavel, and Zwartjes.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Clay (Patent 2,906,363), Pavel (Application # 2009/0279384), and Zwartjes.
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Clay taught using non-uniform spacing between receivers in two horizontal directions to improve seismic prospecting. Pavel taught that seismic data acquisition can be improved using sensor stations deployed in an asymmetric, non-aligned pattern. Zwartjes taught that wavefield reconstruction improves with non-uniform sampling. The combination allegedly disclosed all elements of the claims, with Clay providing the non-uniform spacing and Pavel providing the non-aligned arrangement that was the basis for allowance of the ’248 patent.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) in the field of seismic data acquisition would have been motivated to combine the known techniques from these references to achieve improved results. A POSITA seeking to enhance the non-uniform array of Clay would have looked to other known patterns, such as the non-aligned arrays in Pavel, and would have naturally applied the advanced reconstruction techniques of Zwartjes to the resulting non-uniformly sampled data.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these compatible and well-understood techniques from the same field to improve seismic data acquisition and wavefield reconstruction.

Ground 3: Obviousness - Claims 1-17 are obvious over the combination of Cordsen and Zwartjes.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Cordsen, et al., "Planning Land 3-D Seismic Surveys," Society of Exploration Geophysicists (2000) (“Cordsen”), and Zwartjes.
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Cordsen, a guide for planning 3-D seismic surveys, disclosed using random or quasi-random layouts for both sources and receivers to reduce costs and improve offset/azimuth distribution. Petitioner argued that these random layouts inherently result in non-uniform spacing and non-aligned receivers and sources in two horizontal directions. Zwartjes provided the known method for reconstructing wavefields from such non-uniformly acquired data.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA, aware of the cost-saving and effective random survey designs taught by Cordsen, would have been motivated to apply known, state-of-the-art reconstruction techniques to the resulting data. Zwartjes provided an enabling technique for reconstructing data from the exact type of non-uniform sampling pattern disclosed in Cordsen.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination involved applying a known reconstruction algorithm (Zwartjes) to a known data acquisition layout (Cordsen), both within the same technical field, leading to a high expectation of successfully reconstructing the wavefield.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "deliberately non-uniform": Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "non-uniform or irregular spacing between seismic receivers and/or seismic source points intended for more accurate reconstruction of the seismic data acquired." This construction links the structural limitation to the patent's stated objective, which Petitioner argued was used to overcome prior art during prosecution.
  • "two horizontal directions": Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "along each source or receiver line (in-line) and between each source or receiver line (cross-line)." This construction was based on descriptions in the specification and arguments made by the Patent Owner during prosecution.
  • "wherein the receivers are not aligned in at least one of the two horizontal directions": Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "wherein the receivers are not aligned in common lines or straight columns in at least one of the two horizontal directions..." This language was based on the Patent Owner's own arguments used to distinguish the claims from the Clay reference during prosecution, suggesting a basis for prosecution history estoppel.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-17 of the ’248 patent as unpatentable.