Ex Parte Lu et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardFeb 27, 2019

14429286 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/429,286 03/18/2015 142050 7590 03/01/2019 HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC. C/0 PARKER JUSTISS, P.C. 14241 DALLAS PARKWAY SUITE 620 DALLAS, TX 75254 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR YinghuiLu 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. 2013-083402 Ul US 9114 EXAMINER MURPHY, DANIELL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3645 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/01/2019 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): docket@pj-iplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte YINGHUI LU and DANIEL VIASSOLO Appeal2018-006431 Application 14/429,286 Technology Center 3600 Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, BRETT C. MARTIN, and MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judges. MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2018-006431 Application 14/429,286 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1--4, 8, 11-13, 15-17, 19-22, 26, 29-31, 33-35, and 37- 40. Claims 5-7, 9, 10, 14, 18, 23-25, 27, 28, 32, and 36 were canceled during prosecution. See Claims App'x. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We REVERSE. THE INVENTION Appellants' claims are directed generally "to accoustic transduce [ r] s, and more particularly to adjusting the input pulse driving an acoustic transducer in order to obtain a desired transducer response." Spec. 1, 11. 1-3. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An acoustic logging method, comprising: producing an acoustic signal using a transmitter module comprising an acoustic transducer; controlling a response of the acoustic transducer by adjusting a drive pulse applied to the transmitter module in order to reduce a difference between the produced acoustic signal and a desired acoustic signal, wherein adjusting the drive pulse comprises modifying a waveform corresponding to the drive pulse, and wherein modifying the waveform comprises modifying a spectral composition of the waveform or modifying an amplitude of the waveform; after adjusting the drive pulse, directing the produced acoustic signal towards a subterranean region; and acquiring an acoustic log for the subterranean region based on measurements of a returning acoustic signal returning from the subterranean region in response to the produced acoustic signal; wherein the adjustment of the drive pulse is based on at least one of: 2 Appeal2018-006431 Application 14/429,286 an oscillation or a ringing of the produced acoustic signal or the returning acoustic signal; a condition of the subterranean region proximate to the acoustic transducer; and an estimate of the difference between the produced acoustic signal and the desired acoustic signal. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Jahns Hutchens Reiffin Varsamis Wisniewski Binnard us 4,345,502 us 4,796,237 us 5,542,001 us 5,987,385 US 2003/0123326 Al US 2010/0237819 Al REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: Aug. 24, 1982 Jan.3, 1989 July 30, 1996 Nov. 16, 1999 July 3, 2003 Sept. 23, 2010 Claims 1--4, 11-13, 16, 19-22, 29-31, 34, 37, and 39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Wisniewski and Hutchens. Final Act. 6. Claims 8 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Wisniewski, Hutchens, and Varsamis. Final Act. 19. Claims 15, 17, 33, and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Wisniewski, Hutchens, and Binnard. Final Act. 21. Claims 38 and 40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Wisniewski, Hutchens, and Jahns or Reiffin. Final Act. 23. 3 Appeal2018-006431 Application 14/429,286 ANALYSIS The Examiner rejects claims 1 and 19, the only independent claims, over the combination of Wisniewski and Hutchens. The Examiner finds that Wisniewski teaches all elements of claim 1 except that the adjustment of the drive pulse is based on at least one of (i) an oscillation or a ringing of the produced acoustic signal, (ii) a condition of the subterranean region proximate to the acoustic transducer, and (iii) an estimate of the difference between the produced acoustic signal and the desired acoustic signal, for which Hutchens is used. Final Act. 7. Most pertinent to our analysis is the Examiner's finding that Wisniewski teaches the claimed modification of the drive pulse. The Examiner makes a vague statement that Wisniewski "teaches adapting the digital waveform to optimize the amplitude of a received signal (see paragraph [0014]), and therefore suggests that adjusting the drive pulse comprises modifying a waveform corresponding to the drive pulse." Final Act. 7 (emphasis added). A reference must do more than simply suggest a claim limitation, it must actually teach what is claimed, and optimization is not necessarily the same as modification. As Appellants point out, "Wisniewski, may teach converting a digital waveform to optimize an amplitude of an analog signal ... [but] Wisniewski' s optimizing an amplitude of its received signal does not teach or suggest modifying a spectral composition or an amplitude of the waveform corresponding to the claimed drive pulse." App. Br. 9--10. As Appellants' Specification points out, the claimed modification is something akin to applying a filter to the original drive pulse to achieve a fine-tuned drive pulse. See Spec. 11-12. Regardless of the exact manner of modification, it is clear that the modified drive pulse must be some derivative of the initial drive pulse. 4 Appeal2018-006431 Application 14/429,286 Wisniewski, on the other hand, "teaches adjusting its drive pulse (its dipole source) by picking one of a 'limitless' number of pre-defined control firing sequences stored in its memory." App. Br. 10. The Examiner's response is merely to state that "Appellant's assertion is merely conclusory." Ans. 4. Regardless, Appellants have pointed out a deficiency in the Examiner's findings that requires further explanation, meaning that the Examiner has failed to produce a prima facie case that Wisniewski teaches the claimed limitation. It is thus the Examiner's responsibility to further explain how Wisniewski actually teaches the claimed modification rather than mere generation of a new, optimized waveform, such as mere replacement of an existing waveform by one of a pre-defined set of waveforms, as asserted by Appellants. See Reply Br. 3. The Examiner attempts to shift the burden onto Appellants, but it is the Examiner who still has the burden in this case. The Examiner states that "there is no elaboration in Wisniewski that a 'firing sequence' means a waveform stored entirely in memory as an indexed set of amplitude values," but Wisniewski also does not elaborate that the waveform adjustment is actually a modification as claimed, which is the Examiner's burden of initially providing a prima facie case of obviousness. Ans. 4. As noted above, merely suggesting modification of the waveform is insufficient. We have not been apprised by the Examiner of any teaching in Wisniewski that any filter or other modification of the initial drive pulse is performed to produce a derivative drive pulse. Optimization alone is insufficient as that appears to be, as Appellants point out, merely a selection of an entirely new drive pulse stored in memory or generated by the DSP. At best, the Examiner appears to state that Wisniewski could teach modification, but this is insufficient. Absent some clear teaching that 5 Appeal2018-006431 Application 14/429,286 Wisniewski actually teaches modification of the drive pulse to produce a drive pulse that is a derivative thereof, we cannot sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1 and 19, which both require modification of a waveform corresponding to the drive pulse. All of the rejections rely on this finding regarding Wisniewski and we therefore do not sustain any of the prior art rejections. DECISION For the above reasons, we REVERSE the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1--4, 8, 11-13, 15-17, 19-22, 26, 29-31, 33-35, and 37--40. REVERSED 6