Ex Parte Kopal et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 26, 2016

13014183 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/014,183 01/26/2011 Margarete M. Kopal
87884 7590 04/28/2016
Mossman, Kumar and Tyler, PC
P.O. Box 421239
Houston, TX 77242
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.
NUK4-50395-US 1112
EXAMINER
SCHECHTER, ANDREW M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2857
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/28/2016 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):
docket@mktlaw.us.com
tthigpen@mktlaw.us.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARGARETE M. KOP AL, FEYZI INANC,
and LOREN P. ROBERTS
Appeal2014-006153
Application 13/014, 183
Technology Center 2800
Before DAVID M. KOHUT, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1-20, which are all the pending claims. Final Act. 1.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2014-006153
Application 13/014,183
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' invention relates to a radiation detector to be used in
sensing parameters of geological earth formations for use in oil and gas well
drilling (see Spec. i-f 3). A detector 120, 130 is inserted into a borehole (see
Figs. 4a/4b ).
Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows:
1. A method for estimating at least one parameter of interest
of an earth formation, comprising:
estimating the at least one parameter of interest using a
first component and a second component of an information set
obtained using a single radiation detector, wherein the second
component is related to radiation induced in the earth
formation.
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
Claims 1-6, 9-15, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Odom (US 2002/0130258 Al; Sept. 19, 2002). Final
Act. 4--7.
Claims 7, 8, 16, 17, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Odom, Emmerich (W.S. Emmerich,
A Fast Neutron Scintillator, Rev. Sci. Instrum., 25, 69 (1954)), and Kurkoski
(US 7,573,026 B2; Aug. 11, 2009). Final Act. 8-10.
2
Appeal2014-006153
Application 13/014,183
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-6, 9-15, and 18
We select claims 1 and 10 as representative of the group of claims
comprising claims 1---6, 9-15, and 18 as Appellants have not argued any of
the other claims in this group with particularity. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Appellants contend the claim limitation "estimating the at least one
parameter of interest using a first component and a second component of an
information set obtained using a single radiation detector," as recited in
claims 1 and 10, is directed to "a single radiation detector" to perform the
function (App. Br. 20-21 ).
Appellants' Specification at paragraph 35 describes a "single radiation
detector" as having two detectors 120 and 130 (Ans. 3).
The Examiner finds Odom's gamma ray detectors 14 and 14' and the
fast neutron detector 100 encompasses the claimed single radiation detector
(Ans. 3). We agree with the Examiner that, in light of Appellants'
Specification, the claim limitation "single radiation detector" does not
preclude the use of multiple sensing materials working together to detect
neutron and gamma radiation (see Ans. 3).
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1---6,
9-15, and 18.
Claims 7, 8, 16, and 17
We select claim 7 as representative of the group of claims comprising
claims 7, 8, 16, and 17 as Appellants have not argued any of the other claims
in this group with particularity. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
3
Appeal2014-006153
Application 13/014,183
Appellants contend the claim limitation, "separating the information
set into the first component and the second component," as recited by claim
7, is not taught by Emmerich because Emmerich teaches discrimination, not
separation (App. Br. 24).
As discussed supra, we agree with the Examiner's finding that a
single detector may comprise both a fast neutron detector 100 and gamma
ray detectors 14 and 14'. The Examiner points to Odom's paragraph 90,
(see Ans. 7; Final Act. 8), to demonstrate that Odom teaches that a first
component consisting of neutron counts and a second component consisting
of gamma radiation can be separated. We agree, further noting that Odom's
paragraph 91 teaches time gates to produce and effectively separate the
different neutron detector and gamma ray detector responses. The Examiner
finds, and we agree, that Emmerich, at page 69, teaches a method of
separation of neutron versus gamma by a photomultiplier (Ans. 7; Final Act.
8). The Examiner finds Odom's paragraph 92, in the final rejection of
claims 4, 6, 13, and 15, teaches a first component and a second component.
Specifically, Odom's paragraph 92 teaches:
The porosity (or density) and water or gas saturation of earth
formation 32 are determined by combining measures of prompt
gamma radiation made with detectors 14 and 14' resulting from
fast neutron reactions, and measures of fast neutron radiation
made with detector 100.
The porosity (or density) and water or gas saturation of earth formation 32
corresponds to the "at least one parameter of interest" (see Final Act. 5-7),
gamma radiation corresponds to the second component (see id.), and fast
neutron radiation is the first component (see id.).
4
Appeal2014-006153
Application 13/014,183
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner's conclusion that it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention in light of the combination of the teachings of Odom and
Emmerich to combine first component and second component
measurements, which are previously separated, from a single radiation
detector, to determine the at least one parameter of interest and together
provide several methods of separation into a first component and a second
component. Therefore, we are unpersuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 7.
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 7, 8,
16, and 17.
Claim 19
Appellants contend the claim limitation, "estimating the at least one
parameter of interest using a non-neutron component of an information set
obtained using a neutron detector, wherein the non-neutron component is
related to radiation induced in the earth formation," as recited by claim 19, is
directed to using a neutron detector to obtain a non-neutron component of an
information set, but that Odom discloses a method using a fast neutron
detector that responds only to fast neutrons (see App. Br. 22-23).
The Examiner finds Odom's paragraph 92 recites estimating porosity,
water and gas saturation as at least one parameter of interest (Ans. 5; Final
Act. 7). As discussed above, we find it is reasonable to interpret a single
detector as comprising elements 100, 14 and 14' as discussed supra in
regard to Odom's paragraph 92. The Examiner finds gamma radiation is a
non-neutron component (see Ans. 5; Final Act. 7). Thus, we agree with the
5
Appeal2014-006153
Application 13/014,183
Examiner that Odom teaches a parameter of interest estimated using a non-
neutron component obtained using a single radiation detector (see id.).
For these reasons, we agree with the Examiner's findings with respect
to claim 19.
Claim 20
Appellants contend that neither Odom nor Emmerich teach the claim
limitation, "separating the information set into a neutron component and the
non-neutron component," as recited by claim 20 (App. Br. 25-26).
Specifically, Appellants argue Odom and Emmerich only teach
discriminators, not a neutron detector that estimates a parameter using a non-
neutron component (see Id.). For the same reasons as discussed above under
claim 7, we agree with the Examiner that the gamma radiation detectors 14
and 14' of Odom's paragraph 92 detect non-neutron information
components for the radiation detector comprising elements 100, 14, and 14'
(see Ans. 8; Final Act. 4).
For these reasons, we agree with the Examiner's findings with respect
to claim 2 0.
CONCLUSIONS
For the reasons discussed supra, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
rejection of claims 1---6, 9-15, 18, and 19 as being anticipated by Odom. We
sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 7, 8, 16, 17, and 20 as
unpatentable over Odom, Emmerich, and Kurkoski.
6
Appeal2014-006153
Application 13/014,183
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-20 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
7