Ex Parte Market

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 30, 2017

12595294 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12/595,294 05/23/2011 Jennifer A. Market 1880.190US1 2036
138627 7590
Gilliam IP PLLC (Halliburton)
7200 N. Mopac
Suite 440
Austin, TX 78731
EXAMINER
ALKAFAWI, EMAN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2865
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/03/2017 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):
u spto @ gilliamip .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL
AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JENNIFER A. MARKET1
Appeal 2016-002453
Application 12/595,294
Technology Center 2800
Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.
COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 the final rejection of claims
1, 3—6, and 8—16. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appellant’s invention is directed to well logging and drilling tools,
and more particularly, to acoustic profiling of formations (Spec. 11).
1 According to the Appellant, the real party in interest is Haliburton Energy
Services, Inc.
Appeal 2016-002453
Application 12/595,294
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method comprising:
transmitting acoustic signals from a tool in a borehole;
receiving the transmitted acoustic signals at a receiver array to
provide a set of received time signals;
performing a frequency semblance on the set of received time
signals to provide a set of semblance values as a function of
slowness and wavelength; and
providing a radial distance profile of slowness based upon the
set of semblance values.
Appellant appeals the following rejections:2
1. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as lacking
enablement;
2. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as
indefinite;
3. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6 and 8—15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Chang (US 5,077,697, issued Dec. 31, 1991) in
view of Blanch et al., (US 6,766,252 B2, issued July 20, 2004); and
4. Claims 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Chang in view of Blanch, and Bittar (US 6,476,609 Bl, issued
Nov. 5, 2002).
2 The Examiner’s §112, 1, lack of written description rejection of claim 13
is moot due to an amendment to the claim entered per the Advisory Action
dated February 9, 2015.
2
Appeal 2016-002453
Application 12/595,294
FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 112,11 and 12 (Rejections (1) and (2))
The Examiner concludes that claim 15 lacks enablement because the
limitation that “at least one transmitter comprises a plurality of acoustic
transmitters” is unclear and the Examiner is not able to locate a description
of it (Final Act. 3—4). The Examiner further concludes that the claim 15
limitation is unclear because it describes a transmitter having multiple
transmitters (Final Act. 5).
Appellant argues that the claim 15 limitation is enabled and definite
because Figure 1 of Appellant’s Specification shows, and 19 of the
Specification discloses, that there may be two or more transmitters (TX1),
one on the left and one on the right of the tool 102 (App. Br. 8—9).
Appellant contends that “at least one acoustic transmitter” is equivalent to
saying “one or more” and “a plurality” in the disputed claim phrase means
“more than one” (App. Br. 8).
The Examiner maintains that the disputed claim 15 phrase is not
enabled and indefinite because there is no disclosure of a transmitter
embodiment that includes an array of acoustic transmitters (Ans. 2—3).
The preponderance of the evidence favors Appellant’s argument of
enablement and definiteness. The Examiner reads the claim limitation “at
least one transmitter comprises a plurality of acoustic transmitters” as
requiring one transmitter have multiple acoustic transmitters. This
construction of the claim phrase is not consistent with the Specification or
the plain reading of the claim. Independent claim 13 from which claim 15
depends recites “at least one acoustic transmitter.” Dependent claim 15
further limits claim 13 in reciting that “the at least one acoustic transmitter
3
Appeal 2016-002453
Application 12/595,294
comprises a plurality of acoustic transmitters.” Claim 15 (emphasis added).
In other words, claim 15 merely further limits claim 13 by requiring that
“the at least one transmitter” requires more than one transmitter (i.e., a
plurality). The claim 15 embodiment is shown in Appellant’s Figure 1
where two transmitters (TX1) are shown.
We conclude that claim 15 is enabled and definite within the meaning
35 U.S.C. § 112, || 1 and 2. We reverse the Examiner’s § 112 rejections (1)
and (2) of claim 15.
35 U.S.C. § 103 (Rejections (3) and (4))
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection over Chang in view of
Blanch is based upon impermissible hindsight (App. Br. 10—15). Appellant
contends that the Examiner’s finding that Chang teaches providing a radial
distance profile of slowness based upon the set of semblance values is
erroneous because the column 18, lines 17—62 disclosure in Chang does not
teach determining slowness or using semblance values to determine the
shear velocity profile (App. Br. 14).
The Examiner’s findings and conclusions with regard to Chang in
view of Blanch are located on pages 5 to 6 of the Final Action. The
Examiner finds that Chang teaches the subject matter of claim 1, except for
explicitly disclosing performing a frequency semblance to provide a set of
semblance values as a function of slowness and wavelength (Final Act. 5).
The Examiner finds that Chang discloses various known waveform
processing techniques include those applying frequency semblance
algorithms. Id. The Examiner finds that Blanch teaches a method of
applying a frequency semblance algorithm that provides a set of semblance
values as a function of slowness and frequency. Id. The Examiner concludes
4
Appeal 2016-002453
Application 12/595,294
that it would have been obvious to apply one or more known waveform
processing techniques as taught by Chang and to apply specifically the
method of Blanch for the benefit of properly analyzing such formations
(Final Act. 6). The Examiner finds that Chang teaches a method to convert
frequency to wavelength and concludes that it would have been obvious to
express the semblance values of Blanch in terms of wavelength to explore
the many relationships between collected data as possible and to understand
the data from different perspectives. Id. The Examiner finds that the radial
distance profile of slowness based upon semblance values is taught by
Chang at column 18, lines 17—62 and the use of semblance values to derive
slowness is taught at column 2, lines 29—36 (Final Act. 6). The Examiner
finds that Chang’s shear velocity is the same as slowness (Final Act. 6). The
Examiner explains that Chang is relied upon merely to teach several known
functions and tools within the art that are known for processing data, but
Chang’s own invention is not relied upon in the rejection (Ans. 8). In other
words, the Examiner is relying on Chang’s discussion of the prior art in
formulating the rejection and is relying on Chang’s disclosure in column 18
as indicating that it is known to derive shear velocity profile as a function of
radius from the borehole.
Claims 1, 6, and 13 each require a method or processor that performs
a frequency semblance on a set of acoustic signals as a function of time in
order to provide a set of semblance values as a function of frequency (co) and
slowness (s), and then provides a radial distance profile based upon the set
of semblance values as a function of wavelength and slowness. The
Specification discloses that slowness is the inverse of velocity (Spec. 12).
The Examiner’s findings regarding Chang’s disclosure of various waveform
5
Appeal 2016-002453
Application 12/595,294
processing techniques without more explanation fails to establish that it
would have been obvious to use the particularly recited wave form
processing techniques to determine semblance values that are then used to
provide a radial distance profile of slowness. In particular, the Examiner’s
reliance on column 18 of Chang is directed to providing a shear velocity
profile as a function of radial distance. Chang does not teach providing a
radial distance profile of slowness.
In response to Appellant’s argument that Chang would not have
suggested a radial profile of slowness, the Examiner finds that Chang’s
disclosure of developing a slowness profile as a function of borehole depth
is equivalent to providing a description of slowness as a function of radial
distance (Ans. 7—8). The Examiner finds that the Specification discloses that
“radial distances (or depths)” means that radial distances are the same as
depth. Id. Chang’s Figure 3 depicts the slowness of the formation as a
function of depth of the borehole. Chang’s teaching regarding measuring
slowness as a function of depth is not synonymous with providing a radial
distance profile of slowness. Chang’s column 18 disclosure to provide a
shear velocity profile as a function of radius is achieved without using
semblance values. While the Examiner relies on Chang’s prior art
disclosure in column 2 to teach using semblance algorithms to assess
slowness, the Examiner has not explained why Chang’s teaching in column
18 to provide a radial profile of shear velocity would have suggested
forming a radial profile of slowness based upon the semblance values
determined as a function of slowness and wavelength as required by the
claims absent hindsight.
6
Appeal 2016-002453
Application 12/595,294
On this record, we are constrained to reverse the Examiner’s § 103
rejections (3) and (4).
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision is reversed.
ORDER
REVERSED
7