Ex Parte Robbins et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 31, 2016

12918552 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/918,552 08/20/2010 15604 7590 04/04/2016 Baker Botts LLP, 910 Louisiana Street, One Shell Plaza Houston, TX 77002 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Carl A. Robbins 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. 2008-IP-009629U lUS 8900 EXAMINER WONG, ALBERT KANG ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3649 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/04/2016 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): susan.stewart@bakerbotts.com s ydney.long@bakerbotts.com tami.day@bakerbotts.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CARL A. ROBBINS and LI GAO Appeal2014-006399 Application 12/918,552 Technology Center 3600 Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, JON M. JURGOV AN, and JOHN F. HORVATH, Administrative Patent Judges. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 seek review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1-17 and 19-24.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We reverse. 3 1 Appellants identify Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. as the real party in interest. 2 Claim 18 is canceled. (App. Br. 5.) 3 Our decision refers to the Specification filed Aug. 20, 2010 ("Spec."); the Final Office Action mailed July 17, 2013 ("Final Act."); the Appeal Brief filed Dec. 10, 2013 ("App. Br."); the Examiner's Answer mailed Mar. 10, 2014 ("Ans."); and the Reply Brief filed May 6, 2014 ("Reply Br."). Appeal2014-006399 Application 12/918,552 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The claims are directed to a method and system of transmitting acoustic signals from a wellbore. (Spec.; Abstract.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A system comprising: a repeater system coupled to a tubing in a wellbore, the repeater system comprising: a first receiver that detects an acoustic signal; a transducer coupled to the first receiver that converts the acoustic signal to a first electromagnetic signal; and an antenna coupled to the transducer, the antenna induces a second electromagnetic signal in the tubing a second receiver disposed outside a casing of the wellbore, and the second receiver proximate to the tubing, the second receiver detects the second electromagnetic signal propagating in the tubing. REJECTION Claims 1-17 and 19-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) based on Ringgenberg (US 6,177,822 Bl; Jan. 23, 2001) and Kyle (US 7,301,472 B2; Nov. 27, 2007). (Final Act. 2--4.) ANALYSIS Claim 1, 8, and 17 Appellants argue, inter alia, that Ringgenberg's transmitter (87) does not induce an electromagnetic signal in a tubing (claims 1, 8, 1 7), nor does it have a second receiver outside of a wellbore casing and proximate the tubing that detects the second electromagnetic signal propagating in the tubing (claims 1, 17). (App. Br. 13-14.) We agree. Referring to Figure lB, Ringgenberg discloses that information is picked up by sensors 40 near drill bit 32 and is transmitted both 2 Appeal2014-006399 Application 12/918,552 electromagnetically and acoustically using a series of repeaters to pickup device 64. (Ringgenberg 6:36-7:32.) Electromagnetic-to-acoustic and acoustic-to-electromagnetic repeaters are used to convey the signal through a highly conductive medium such as a salt layer 89. (Id.) In this case, the acoustic signal travels through the drill string unimpeded by the highly conductive layer 89. (Id.) Acoustic-to-electromagnetic repeater 81 converts the acoustic signal to electromagnetic wave fronts that travel through the earth and are received by electromagnetic pickup device 64. (Id.) From there the signal is carried to the surface by wires 70, 74 for further processing. (Id.) There is no teaching in the cited parts of Ringgenberg that any repeater induces an electromagnetic signal in the drill string. In nearly all cases where an electromagnetic repeater is mentioned, Ringgenberg describes the electromagnetic signal from its transmitter travels through the earth, not the drill string. (See, e.g., 4:56-58; 5:7-10; 5: 13-17; 7: 17-19.) Although the acoustic signal is indicated as traveling through Ringgenberg's drill string through salt layer 89, this is not an electromagnetic signal as claimed. Kyle's signal converter 54 is used to convert received acoustic signals into electromagnetic waves 72 that are transmitted through the earth 16 to transceiver 74. (Kyle 6:47-55; Fig. 5.) Although, the electromagnetic waves 72 travel through the wellbore casing 12 to signal converter 54, they do not appear to propagate in the tubing 20 because the signal converter 54 is disposed outwardly of the tubing. Accordingly, we agree with Appellants the combination of Ringgenberg and Kyle fails to teach or suggest any "antenna induces a second electromagnetic signal in the tubing" in 3 Appeal2014-006399 Application 12/918,552 combination with the other claimed elements, as recited in claim 1, 8, and 17. Moreover, claims 1 and 17 recite "a second receiver disposed outside a casing of the wellbore, and the second receiver proximate to the tubing, the second receiver detects the second electromagnetic signal propagating in the tubing." As explained, neither Ringgenberg nor Kyle disclose using the tubing as an electromagnetic waveguide to convey an acoustically-derived electromagnetic signal to a second receiver proximate the tubing and located outside of the casing. 4 Thus, we are persuaded by Appellants' arguments. Our decision for the stated reasons renders it unnecessary to reach Appellants' remaining arguments. Remaining Claims Claims 2-7, 9-16, and 19-24 depend from respective independent claims 1, 8, and 17, and for the stated reasons, we do not sustain their rejection underÂ§ 103(a) based on Ringgenberg and Kyle. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner's Decision to reject claims 1-17 and 19-24 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) is reversed. REVERSED 4 We appreciate, and agree with, the Examiner's argument that the electromagnetic signals transmitted by Ringgenberg and Kyle inherently induce signals in nearby tubing. See Final Act. 6; Ans. 8, 10-11. However, neither reference teaches or suggests the tubing is capable of propagating the induced signals to a distant receiver. 4