Ex Parte Childers et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 11, 2019

14138972 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 11, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/138,972 12/23/2013 Brooks A Childers
44639 7590 01/15/2019
CANTOR COLBURN LLP-BAKER HUGHES, A GE COMPANY, LLC
20 Church Street
22nd Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
OPS4-56688-US
(OSY0106US)
3043
EXAMINER
GREEN, YARAB
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2884
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/15/2019 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):
usptopatentmail@cantorcolbum.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL
AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BROOKS A CHILDERS, CHRISTOPHER J FAZIO,
and ROGER GLEN DUNCAN
Appeal2017-010616
Application 14/138,972
Technology Center 2800
Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, A VEL YN M. ROSS, and
MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.
COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2017-010616
Application 14/138,972
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) the non-final rejection of
claims 1-18. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
Appellants' invention is directed to an apparatus and method for
estimating an environmental parameter such as temperature, pressure, strain,
and vibrations. (Spec. ,r 1, claims 1 and 12).
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. An apparatus for estimating an environmental
parameter, the apparatus comprising:
an optical fiber including at least one core configured to
be optically coupled to a light source and transmit an
interrogation signal, the at least one core including a plurality of
fiber Bragg gratings (FBGs) distributed along a measurement
length of the optical fiber and configured to reflect light;
a detector configured to receive a reflected return signal
including light reflected from one or more of the plurality of
sensing locations; and
a processor, the processor configured to:
receive data describing the reflected return signal;
compare the received data to expected data for a reflected
return signal for the optical fiber;
determine a shift in wavelength of light reflected for one
or more of the plurality of FBGs based on the comparison;
determine a change in a length of a dead zone of the optical
fiber based on the comparison;
estimate locations of two or more of the plurality of FBG'
s based on the shift in wavelength and the change in length of the
dead zone; and
based on the estimates, estimate the environmental
parameter.
1 Appellants name Baker Hughes Incorporated as the real party in interest.
(App. Br. 1.)
2
Appeal2017-010616
Application 14/138,972
Appellants appeal the following rejections:
1. Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a
judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
2. Claims 1-7 and 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Sapack (US 6,072,567; June 6, 2000) in view of
Duncan (US 2012/0237205 Al; Sept. 20, 2012).
3. Claims 8, 9, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Sapack in view of Duncan and Willner (US
6,915,040 B2; July 5, 2005).
FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 101 Rejection
The Examiner finds that the claims are directed to an abstract idea
because "the steps performed by the processor are calculations based on
received data." (Non-Final Act. 5). The Examiner finds that the claims do
not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations (i.e., the
optical fiber, Fiber Bragg gratings, and detector) are well known in the art as
shown by Sapack. (Non-Final Act. 5). The Examiner finds that the claims
use a generic computer to collect and analyze the data, which does not
transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. (Non-Final
Act. 5). The Examiner finds that even though the calculated value may have
real world applications, such real world applications, by themselves, are not
sufficient to remove the computed "value from the realm of being abstract as
simply a value." (Ans. 5).
Appellants argue that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea
because the apparatus and method use Fiber Bragg gratings (FBGs) and an
3
Appeal2017-010616
Application 14/138,972
optical fiber to estimate a real world value (e.g., temperature). (App. Br. 6).
Appellants contend that the apparatus and method are used while drilling for
and producing underground fluids such as oil and water. (App. Br. 6).
Appellants contend that "the claims here are not directed solely to applying
"math" to a system but, rather, to form a result by considering changes to the
system ( e.g., changes to the dead zone) not previously considered in the
prior art." (Reply Br. 4). Appellants cite to Thales Visionix Inc. v. U.S., 850
F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2017) to support the argument that the claims are not
directed to an abstract idea. (Reply Br. 4).
The facts in Thales are distinguishable from the present case. Thales
involved a system for tracking motion of an object comprising a first inertial
sensor on a moving object, a second inertial sensor on a moving reference
frame, and an element adapted to receive signals from the first and second
sensors and configured to determine an orientation of the object relative to
the moving reference frame based on the signals received from the two
sensors. Thales, 850 F.3d at 1345. The court in Thales found that the
claims used the inertial sensors in a non-conventional manner to determine
the relative position and orientation of a moving object on a moving
reference frame. Thales, 850 F.3d at 1348--49.
In the present appeal, the optical fiber with the fiber Bragg gratings,
light source, detector and processor are all used in a conventional manner.
The Examiner finds that Sapack teaches using these elements to determine
an environmental parameter in a bore hole. (Non-Final Act. 5). Though
Appellants contend that adjusting measurements based on changes in the
4
Appeal2017-010616
Application 14/138,972
"dead zone"2 of the optical fiber is non-conventional, we note that Duncan
teaches adjusting measurements based on signals adjusted for the lead-in
fiber length (i.e., the dead zone). (See e.g., Duncan ,r,r 3, 6, 30, 37). The
delay of the reference modulation signal to compensate for lead-in lengths is
determined by the time of flight of the signal from the optical source to the
sensing region (i.e., the region with the fiber Bragg gratings). (Duncan ,r 30).
In other words, Duncan teaches that the lead-in fiber length affects the
measurement range of the fiber-optic distributed system (DSS) and how to
address these problems by adjusting the reference modulation signal based
upon the lead-in length. (Duncan ,r,r 3, 30). The lead-in length will change
by virtue of the fiber being exposed to conditions in the borehole as
suggested by Sapack' s teaching that fiber Bragg gratings work by the shift in
wavelength caused by movement of the gratings due to stretching of the
fibers at conditions in the borehole. (Sapack col. 7, 11. 60-65). As the
Examiner explains, the lead-in length will undergo some stretching due to
the conditions in light of Sapack' s and Duncan's teachings about the effect
of borehole conditions on the fiber. (Non-Final Act. 7-8). In other words,
the prior art includes taking into account a change in lead-in length of the
fiber by adjusting the reference modulation signal accordingly. Thus,
contrary to Appellants' allegation, taking into account a change in the length
of the dead zone (i.e., lead-in length) appears to be conventional in the art.
The Examiner correctly finds that the output of the apparatus is
merely a value without any claim recitation of what is done with that
2 Dead-zone is described in the Specification as the length of optical fiber
having no fiber Bragg gratings (FBGs) that extends from the optical light
source to the first FBG. (Spec. ,r 20).
5
Appeal2017-010616
Application 14/138,972
"value." (Ans. 5). In other words, claim 1 recites that an environmental
parameter is determined as an output of the processor, but nothing more is
done with that "value" and the mere collection of data by measuring the
environmental parameter constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity. See
Mayo Collaborative Servs v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 US 66, 79 (2012).
On this record, we affirm the Examiner's§ 101 rejection of claims 1-
18.
REJECTIONS (2) AND (3): § 103
Appellants argue the claims as a group. (App. Br. 4--5). We select
claim 1 as representative of the group. Any claim not argued separately will
stand or fall with our analysis of the rejection of claim 1.
The Examiner finds, in relevant part, that Sapack discloses the subject
matter of claim 1, including that environmental factors cause expansion or
compression of the Bragg grating sensors. (Non-Final Act. 7). The
Examiner finds that the expansion or compression of the length of fiber
where the fiber Bragg gratings are located would cause a change between a
given end of the optical fiber and a Bragg grating (i.e., the dead zone). (Non-
Final Act. 7). The Examiner further finds that Duncan teaches that
compression and expansion of the fiber, due to external forces, occurs due to
a change in the length of the fiber, thereby resulting in a change in reflected
light from the sensors, such as Bragg gratings, along the fiber. (Non-Final
Act. 7-8). The Examiner finds that determining the locations of the Bragg
grating sensor regions would therefore include measuring the dead zone and
any changes in its length due to environmental parameters such as
temperature or strain. (Non-Final Act. 8).
6
Appeal2017-010616
Application 14/138,972
Appellants argue that Duncan does not teach determining the change
in length of the dead zone as recited in claim 1. (App. Br. 4). Appellants
contend that paragraphs 19, 20, 30, and 34 of Duncan relied upon by the
Examiner do not teach that the location of the fiber Bragg gratings change
with respect to a starting location (i.e., a change in length of a dead zone).
(App. Br. 4). Appellants contend that the there is no discussion in Sapack
about changes in length of the fiber. (Reply Br. 3).
Contrary to Appellants' arguments, the Examiner reasonably finds
that the combined teachings of Sapack and Duncan would have suggested
the claimed subject matter including the step of determining a change in
length of the "dead zone" as part of the processor used to determine an
environmental parameter. Duncan teaches basing the reference modulation
signal delay on the lead-in fiber (i.e., dead zone) length (i130). Sapack
teaches that the fiber stretches and changes the distance between fiber Bragg
gratings which provides a change in reflected wavelength and indicates a
particular environmental parameter ( col. 7, 11. 60-65). The location of the
Bragg gratings are moved due to static, dynamic or temperature induced
strain on the fiber. (Sapack col. 7, 11. 62---65). The Examiner reasonably
finds that the strain that causes a stretching of the fiber portion having the
Bragg gratings would also cause a change in the size of the lead-in portion
of the fiber or dead zone. Duncan teaches adjusting the reference
modulation signal based on the lead-in fiber length (time of flight of the
optical signal) (i1 30). In other words, the combined teachings of Sapack and
Duncan would have suggested determining an environmental parameter by
taking into account the change in length of the dead-zone (i.e., the lead-in
length) of the optical fiber.
7
Appeal2017-010616
Application 14/138,972
Appellants' arguments do not convince us of reversible error in the
Examiner's obviousness determination. On this record, we affirm the
Examiner's § 103 rejections.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8