HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 2, 2021

2020003605 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 2, 2021)

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. 15/035,725 05/10/2016 Usman Sami Ansari 074263.1364 8959 52239 7590 08/02/2021 BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. 1500 SAN JACINTO CENTER 98 SAN JACINTO BLVD AUSTIN, TX 78701-4039 EXAMINER LUU, CUONG V ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2129 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/02/2021 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): crystle.garbade@bakerbotts.com jennifer.k.smith@bakerbotts.com juli.tran@BakerBotts.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte USMAN SAMI ANSARI Appeal 2020-003605 Application 15/035,725 Technology Center 2100 Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JENNIFER L. MCKEOWN, and CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges. SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-003605 Application 15/035,725 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to “fabricating drill bits” and “systems and methods for manufacturing such drill bits or other oil-field tools by using real-time visual feedback that allows a user to view a rendering of the drill bit relative to a model drill bit.” Spec. ¶ 1. “The method includes comparing the placement of the cutting element on the drill bit body to the placement of a visual representation of the cutting element relative to an image of the computer-generated, three-dimensional model of the drill bit in real-time.” Spec. ¶ 13. The comparison further includes viewing a continuous, live video feed of an image of the model drill bit body and an image of the actual drill bit body and images of the model and actual cutting element.” Spec. ¶ 14. Claim 1, reproduced below, illustrates the claimed subject matter: 1. A method of manufacturing a drill bit assembly, the method comprising: positioning a cutting element on a cutting element support structure of the drill bit assembly; using an imaging system to acquire and compare a relative position of the cutting element on the cutting element support structure to a relative position of a computer-generated model of the cutting element on a computer-generated model of the cutting element support structure using a continuous, live video feed; in response to the continuous, live video feed, adjusting a position of the cutting element on the cutting element support structure to an adjusted position that matches the relative position of the computer-generated model of the cutting element on the computer-generated model of the cutting element support structure; and joining the cutting element to the cutting element support structure at the adjusted position. Appeal 2020-003605 Application 15/035,725 3 Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.). REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Luce US 2010/0204824 A1 Aug. 12, 2010 Lind US 2010/0312370 A1 Dec. 9, 2010 Schoonmaker US 2013/0013251 A1 Jan. 10, 2013 Tarbox IVIS: An Integrated Volumetric Inspection System, 1994 IEEE, pp. 220–227. Corke VISUAL CONTROL OF ROBOTS: High- Performance Visual Servoing, Aug. 1996, pp. 1–353. GOM GOM Inspect Professional, V7-5 Manual, Inspect – Advanced, Dec. 8, 2011. REJECTIONS Claims 1–3, 7, and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Luce. Final Act. 5–8. Claims 4, 6, and 10–12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Luce and GOM. Final Act. 9–11. Claims 5 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Luce and Tarbox. Final Act. 11–12. Claims 13 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Luce, GOM, and Schoonmaker. Final Act. 12–13. Claims 15–17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Luce and Lind. Final Act. 13–15. Claims 18–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Luce, Lind, GOM, and Schoonmaker. Final Act. 15–16. Appeal 2020-003605 Application 15/035,725 4 Claims 15–17 alternatively stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Luce and Corke. Final Act. 16–18. Claims 18–20 alternatively stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Luce, Corke, GOM, and Schoonmaker. Final Act. 18–19. OPINION 35 U.S.C. § 102 REJECION With respect to claim 1, Appellant contends the Examiner’s rejection is in error because Luce does not teach “‘in response to the continuous, live video feed, adjusting a position of the cutting element on the cutting element support structure to an adjusted position that matches the relative position of the computer-generated model of the cutting element on the computer- generated model of the cutting element support structure’” recited in Claim 1. Appeal Br. 7–8. The Examiner relies on using the sensors comprising a vision system configured to capture one or more images in Luce for disclosing the “continuous, live video feed” limitation. Final Act. 6 (citing Luce ¶¶ 39, 51). According to Appellant, Luce merely discloses capturing and analyzing images, not the claimed continuous, live video feed. The cited portions of Luce disclose one or more sensors 228 that are used to determine the position and/ or rotational orientation of a cutting element 110 in three-dimensional space. (Paragraph [0039]). Power-driven device 226 rotates cutting element 110 within cutting element pocket 112, and sensor 228 senses that the cutting element 110 is in a desirable position based on the position of a mark or feature on the cutting element. (Paragraph [0039]). The sensor may be a camera, a laser distance finder, a Appeal 2020-003605 Application 15/035,725 5 proximity sensor, or a point contact sensor. (Paragraph [0039]). Luce also discloses a vision system of sensors 240 that acquire one or more images of a body 102 of an earth-boring tool that may in turn be analyzed to determine the position and/or orientation of the body. (Paragraph [0051]). Appeal Br. 8–9. Appellant further argues that the captured images in Luce are not converted into a continuous, live video feed, and therefore, are not used in adjusting a position of the cutting element. Id. at 9. In response, the Examiner explains that, based on Appellant’s disclosure in paragraphs 20 and 32 that “‘images’, or ‘live images’ may refer to a live video feed” and “continuous, live images may be captured and analyzed to compare the locations of the reference points,” respectively, the images captured in Luce meet the disputed limitation. Ans. 3. The Examiner concludes that “any teaching of capturing and analyzing images should read on live video feed, and any teaching of the process of capturing images continues on should read on ‘continuous, live video feed’ as recited in the claim.” Id. We agree with Appellant’s arguments that “[w]hile video may be comprised of a sequence of images, the claimed ‘continuous, live video feed’ is distinct from still images.” Reply Br. 3. As further stated by Appellant, id., other portions of the instant application describe “comparison may include viewing a continuous, live video feed of an image of the model drill bit body and an image of the actual drill bit body and images of the model and actual cutting element” (Spec. ¶ 14) and “comparing the placement of the cutting element on the cutting element support structure to the placement of a model cutting element on the image of the model cutting Appeal 2020-003605 Application 15/035,725 6 element support structure in real-time by, for example, viewing continuous, live video feed of the model” (Spec. ¶ 39). Here, in support of the anticipation rejection, the Examiner relies on the disclosure of “capturing images” in Luce, which is not described in the references as continuous or live video images. That is, the Examiner has provided no supporting evidence for finding that Luce teaches or suggests the “continuous, live video feed” limitation, and instead has relied on speculative assumptions as to the meaning of the claim terms and the reference teachings in basing the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102. See Ans. 3– 4. “The Patent Office has the initial duty of supplying the factual basis for its rejection. It may not . . . resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies in its factual basis.” In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967). Accordingly, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner does not provide prima facie support for the rejection. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Therefore, we are persuaded that the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 1, independent claim 8 which recites similar limitation, and claims 2–7 and 9–14 dependent therefrom, as obvious. 35 U.S.C. § 103 REJECIONS Regarding claim 15, the Examiner relies on Luce as disclosing the recited system limitations except for “continuous video image signal to the display for displaying a continuous video image,” for which the Examiner relies on Lind or Corke. Final Act. 14, 17 (citing Lind ¶¶ 48–50; Corke pp. 2–4, 337). Appellant contends the Examiner’s rejection is in error because neither of the cited references teaches or suggests the recited features related to “the continuous, live video feed.” See Appeal Br. 11. According to Appeal 2020-003605 Application 15/035,725 7 Appellant, Lind discloses “a 3D scanning system 100 that scans portions of well tool 20 and displays ‘an image of well tool 20 . . . on monitor 142.’ (Paragraphs [0048]-[0050]). These portions of Lind only disclose using a camera to capture and display images related to 3D scanning.” Id. at 12. Similarly, Appellant argues that Corke “discloses displaying live images from a camera,” instead of “‘a continuous, live video feed that is indicative of a position of the cutting element on the cutting element support structure in real time,’ and generating the ‘continuous, live video feed signal to the display showing the position of each measurement point relative to each reference point.’” Id. at 12–13. In response, the Examiner reiterates the findings with respect to Lind and explains that, based on Appellant’s disclosure in paragraphs 20 and 32 that “‘images’, or ‘live images’ may refer to a live video feed” and “continuous, live images may be captured and analyzed to compare the locations of the reference points,” respectively, the images captured in Lind “teaches scanning and displaying an images of various portions of well tool to create an associated 3D image of the scanned portion in ¶ 0049-0050.” Ans. 5. We agree with Appellant’s arguments. As discussed above regarding the interpretation of the recited “continuous, live video feed,” still images obtained by 3D scanning or a camera, as disclosed in Lind and Corke, are not the same as the recited limitation. Lind provides a 3D image of the tool that is displayed to show the configuration and dimensions of the tool. See Lind ¶¶ 40, 49, 50. Similarly, the cited portions of Corke disclose comparing a graphical data with an image obtained by a camera, rather than providing a “continuous, live video feed,” as recited in claim 15. See Corke Appeal 2020-003605 Application 15/035,725 8 pp. 3, 337. In fact, similar to our discussion of Luce above, the Examiner has provided no supporting evidence for finding that these portions of Lind or Corke teach or suggest the “continuous, live video feed” limitation, and instead has relied on speculative assumptions as to the meaning of the claim terms and the reference teachings in basing the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103. See Ans. 4–5. Accordingly, we agree with Appellant that the cited portions of Lind or Corke do not disclose the disputed limitation, and do not provide prima facie support for the obviousness rejection. Therefore, we are persuaded that the Examiner errs in rejecting independent claim 15 and dependent claims 16 and 17 over the combination of Luce with Lind or Corke, as well as dependent claims 18–20 because the Examiner did not rely on the other cited references as disclosing the disputed limitation missing in the combination of Luce with Lind or Corke. CONCLUSION 1. We do not sustain the rejection of claims 1–3, 7, and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. 2. We do not sustain the rejections of claims 4–6, and 9–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–3, 7, 8 102(a) Luce 1–3, 7, 8 4, 6, 10–12 103(a) Luce, GOM 4, 6, 10–12 5, 9 103(a) Luce, Tarbox 5, 9 Appeal 2020-003605 Application 15/035,725 9 13, 14 103(a) Luce, GOM, Schoonmaker 13, 14 15–17 103(a) Luce, Lind 15–17 18–20 103(a) Luce, Lind 18–20 15–17 103(a) Luce, Corke 15–17 18–20 103(a) Luce, Corke, GOM, Schoonmaker 18–20 Overall Outcome 1–20 REVERSED