Ex Parte Bittar et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2016

12295158 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/295, 158 04/12/2011 Michael S. Bittar
36177 7590 11/01/2016
KRUEGER !SELIN LLP
P. 0. BOX 1906
CYPRESS, TX 77410-1906
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.
1391-742.02 5402
EXAMINER
MARTELLO, EDWARD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2613
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
11/01/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte MICHAELS. BITTAR, MARTIN D. PAULK, GARY ALTHOFF,
PAUL F. RODNEY, and FRODE HVEDING1
Appeal2015-005337
Application 12/295, 158
Technology Center 2600
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, MELISSA A. HAAPALA, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1, 6-9, 12-18, 23-26, and 29-34. Claims 2-5, 10, 11, 19-22, 27, 28,
and 35--41 have been canceled. Br. 17-20. We have jurisdiction over the
remaining pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
1 Appellants identify Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. as the real party in
interest. Br. 3.
Appeal2015-005337
Application 12/295, 158
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' claimed invention is directed to "borehole data
presentation systems and methods that facilitate communication of
volumetric logging data to a surface processing system for presentation to a
driller or other user interested in visualizing the formations surrounding a
borehole." Spec. 2-3.
Claim 1 is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below with the disputed limitations emphasized in italics:
1. A logging system that comprises:
a surface computing facility that receives formation
measurements from at least one logging tool, wherein the formation
measurements are volumetric data measurements including at least one
of a resistivity, a density, and a porosity measurement; and
a display coupled to the surface computing facility, wherein the
display shows a three-dimensional holographic representation of the
formation, and wherein the representation shows the volumetric data's
dependence on axial distance, azimuth, and radial distance.
The Examiner's Rejections
1. Claims 1, 9, 14, 18, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Abramov et al. (US 6,460,936 Bl;
Oct. 8, 2002) ("Abramov") and Cook (US 6,772,066 B2; Aug. 3, 2004).
Final Act. 2-5.
2. Claims 6-8, 15-17, 23-25, and 32-34 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Abramov, Cook, and Fleury
et al. (US 2004/0204855 Al; Oct. 14, 2004) ("Fleury"). Final Act. 5-8.
2
Appeal2015-005337
Application 12/295, 158
3. Claims 12, 13, and 29-31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Abramov, Cook, and Chapellat et al.
(US 5,528,029; June 18, 1996) ("Chapellat"). Final Act. 8-9.
Issues on Appeal
1. Did the Examiner err in finding Abramov teaches or suggests
receiving "formation measurements from at least one logging tool, wherein
the formation measurements are volumetric data measurements" and
displaying a three-dimensional representation of a formation "wherein the
representation shows the volumetric data's dependence on axial distance,
azimuth, and radial distance," as recited in claim 1?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding Fleury teaches or suggests the
three-dimensional representation shows gradients in formation property
values "represented as being substantially transparent" if the gradients are
below a given threshold, as recited in claim 8?
3. Did the Examiner err in finding Chapellat teaches or suggests
"volumetric data measurements are averaged from higher-resolution
volumetric measurements," as recited in claim 12?
4. Did the Examiner err in finding Chapellat teaches or suggests
the "received volumetric data is determined by calculating differences
between measured data values," as recited in claim 13?
3
Appeal2015-005337
Application 12/295, 158
ANALYSIS2
Claims 1, 6, 7, 9, 14-16, 18, 23, 24, 26, 32, and 33
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Abramov teaches
receiving volumetric data measurements from a logging tool. Br. 11-12. In
particular, Appellants assert Abramov' s data is not "volumetric data" (i.e.,
measured with respect to three independent dimensions), but rather is limited
to only two independent dimensions. Br. 11-12. Appellants argue "[t]he
measured radius r is not independent of depth and azimuth" and that
Abramov is only mapping a two-dimensional surface as opposed to
acquiring and displaying volumetric data. Br. 12.
According to the Specification, "volumetric data" means that the
formation parameter is measured with respect to three independent
dimensions. Spec. 5. The Specification gives an example coordinate system
of depth, azimuthal angle, and radial distance. Spec. 5. The Examiner finds
Abramov teaches the measurement of three-dimensional data. Ans. 5-8
(citing Abramov, col. 18, 11. 33-59); see also Final Act. 3--4; Adv. Act. 2. In
particular, the Examiner finds Abramov teaches measuring data by
"obtaining two dimensional slices driven or sampled by the rotation of the
drilling rig and these slices are stacked or arranged along a third axis, the
bore axis, to allow creation of three dimensional data structures of
measurement data that allow computer processing and display of the
collected three dimensional measurement data." Ans. 7.
2 Throughout this Decision, we have considered the Appeal Brief, filed
November 24, 2014 ("Br."); the Examiner's Answer, mailed on February 12,
2015 ("Ans."); and the Final Office Action ("Final Act."), mailed on
May 14, 2014, from which this Appeal is taken.
4
Appeal2015-005337
Application 12/295, 158
Abramov teaches a formation measurement with respect to radius and
azimuthal angle. Abramov, col. 18, 11. 50-52 ("Thus, each gauging
(penetration) of the cavern 82 gives the R-radius of the cavern 82 and the
A-azimuth, that are complete linear and angular positioning information.").
Further, Abramov teaches that in addition to radius and azimuth information,
depth information, Z, is also measured for processing. Abramov, col. 18, 11.
55-59. "The sum [of] all incoming data (R, A[,] and Z) is used to generate
the 3D image of the stope [(i.e., logging tool)]." Abramov, col. 18, 11. 62-
63. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Abramov teaches or suggests
receiving "formation measurements from at least one logging tool, wherein
the formation measurements are volumetric data measurements," as recited
in claim 1.
For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 and, for
similar reasons the rejection of independent claims 9, 18, and 26, which
recite similar limitations and were not separately argued. See Br. 11-12.
Further, we sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 6, 7, 14--16, 23, 24,
32, and 33, which depend therefrom and were not argued separately. See
Br. 12-13.
Claims 8, 17, 25, and 34
Claim 8 depends from claim 1 and further recites "wherein the
representation shows gradients in formation property values, and wherein
formation regions having gradients below a given threshold are represented
as being substantially transparent."
5
Appeal2015-005337
Application 12/295, 158
Appellants assert Fleury, as relied upon by the Examiner, fails to
teach or suggest that formation property value gradients (or any other form
of derivative) are used as a basis for the transparency with which a region of
the formation is displayed. Br. 13. Instead, Appellants assert Fleury
suggests the transparency attribute is directly based on the formation
property values. Br. 13.
Fleury teaches, inter alia, "the transparency may be set according to
selected functions that depend on measurement values being displayed."
Fleury i-f 38. Fleury also provides an example, in the case of formation
resistivities, transparent regions may indicate low resistivities, whereas
opaque regions may indicate high resistivities. Fleury i-f 38. The
transparency may be progressively increasing to indicate changes in the
formation resistivities. Fleury i-f 39. Thus, we agree with the Examiner's
findings that Fleury teaches this disputed limitation. See Ans. 10-11; Final
Act. 7.
For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 8 and, for
similar reasons, the rejection of claims 17, 25, and 34, which recite similar
limitations and were not argued separately. Br. 13.
Claims 12 and 29
Claim 12 recites, in relevant part, "volumetric data measurements are
averaged from higher-resolution volumetric measurements." Appellants
contend Chapellat, as relied upon by the Examiner, teaches "the processing
occurs at the surface rather than downhole." Br. 14. Appellants assert,
6
Appeal2015-005337
Application 12/295, 158
therefore, Chapellat fails to teach that data received from the tool be
averaged from higher-resolution volumetric measurements. Br. 14.
The Examiner notes, as do we, "[ n ]either the independent claims from
which these claims depend [n]or the subject claims directly specify or even
suggest the location at which this averaging is accomplished." Ans. 11-12.
Rather, the formations measurements are received from the logging tool.
Accordingly, Appellants' arguments are not commensurate with the scope of
claims 12 or 29 and, thus, do not persuade us of error in the Examiner's
rejection. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (limitations not
appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for patentability).
Further, the Examiner finds, and we agree, Chapellat teaches the
volumetric data measurements are averaged from higher-resolution
measurements. Ans. 12 (citing Chapellat, col. 3, 11. 47-51 ("the 'high
resolution' measurements are combined by averaging 'high resolution'
measurements coming from the very near detector over a total longitudinal
distance")).
For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 12 and, for
similar reasons, claim 29, which recites a similar limitation and was not
argued separately. Br. 13-14.
Claims 13, 30, and 31
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in relying on Chapellat as
teaching or suggesting determining volumetric data "by calculating
differences between measured data values," as recited in claim 13. Br. 14--
15. In particular, Appellants argue the cited portions of Chapellat teach a
7
Appeal2015-005337
Application 12/295, 158
comparison of real measurements to theoretical measurements. Br. 14-15
(citing Chapellat, col. 3, 11. 52-56, col. 8, 11. 35--46, 55-59, col. 9, 11. 2-12,
23-27, 40-50).
Chapellat teaches a "low resolution" real measurement combines the
measurements from all three detectors whereas the "high resolution" real
measurement combines the measurements from two of the detectors.
Chapellat, col. 3, 11. 18-20, 26-28. The value of the parameter "is
determined by minimizing ... the difference between the real measurements
and the theoretical measurements calculated by applying the model to the
parameter." Chapellat, col. 3, 11. 52-56.
In response, the Examiner relies on the explanations provided with
respect to Appellants' other arguments and does not provide sufficient
evidence or technical reasoning to support the finding that Chapellat teaches
the disputed limitation of claim 13. Ans. 12.
Accordingly, on this record, we are persuaded of Examiner error and
do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 13 or claim 30, which
recites a similar limitation. Additionally, we do not sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claim 31, which depends from claim 30.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 6-9, 12, 14--18,
23-26, 29, and 32-34.
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 13, 30, and 31.
8
Appeal2015-005337
Application 12/295, 158
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-IN-PART
9