Ex Parte Chemali et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 29, 2018

13813343 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2018)

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.
13/813,343 01/30/2013 Roland E. Chemali 164.2009-IP-019956U1 US 4648
138627 7590
Gilliam IP PLLC (Halliburton)
7200 N. Mopac
Suite 440
Austin, TX 78731
EXAMINER
HULS, NATALIE F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2856
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/31/2018 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 ROLAND E. CHEMALI and MOUSTAFA E. ORABY1
Appeal 2017-001675
Application 13/813,3432
Technology Center 2800
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and
JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of
claims 1—22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
Appellants’ invention relates generally to a logging while drilling tool
that comprises a drill collar having at least one acoustic transmitter and at
1 Roland E. Chemali and Moustafa E. Oraby are the named inventors of the
present application.
2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Halliburton Energy
Services, Inc. See App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-001675
Application 13/813,343
least one acoustic receiver to make azimuthally-sensitive measurements of
formation P-wave and S- wave velocity or slowness values. (Spec. p.3.11.
6—15). Independent claims 1 and 13 are representative of the appealed
subject matter and are reproduced below:
1. A logging while drilling tool that comprises:
a drill collar having at least one acoustic transmitter and at least
one acoustic receiver to make azimuthally-sensitive
measurements of formation P-wave and S- wave velocity or
slowness values; and
processing circuitry coupled to the at least one receiver,
wherein the processing circuitry determines formation density
based at least in part on measured P-wave and S-wave
velocities or slowness values.
13. A logging method that comprises:
rotating a logging-while-drilling tool as it moves along a
borehole;
detecting acoustic waves propagating along a wall of the
borehole using at least two receivers;
processing signals from the receivers to measure formation
density values; and
associating the formation density values with the tool's position
and orientation.
Claims Appendix to App. Br.
Appellants (see generally App. Br.) request review of the following
rejections:
I. Claims 1—4, and 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Castagna (US
2
Appeal 2017-001675
Application 13/813,343
4,701,891, iss. Oct. 20, 1987) and Tang (US 2005/0078555
Al, pub. Apr. 14, 2005).
II. Claims 5—8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Castagna, Tang and
Chemali (US 2005/0006090 Al, pub. Jan. 13, 2005).
III. Claims 9-11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Castagna, Tang,
Chemali and Haugland (US 7,039,524 B2, pub. May 2,
2006).
IV. Claims 13—15, 20 and 22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over the combination of Fredericks (US
6,564,883 B2, pub. May 20, 2003) in view of Castagna.
V. Claims 16, 17, and 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Fredericks, Castagna
and Chemali.
VI. Claims 18 and 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Fredericks, Castagna,
Chemali and Haugland.
The complete statement of the rejections on appeal appears in
the Final Office Action. (Final Act. 4—16).
3
Appeal 2017-001675
Application 13/813,343
OPINION
Rejections I—III3
After consideration of the evidence in this appeal record in light of the
respective positions advanced by the Examiner and Appellants, we
determine the Examiner did not err in determining that the combination of
Castagna and Tang would have suggested a logging while drilling tool that
comprises a drill collar having at least one acoustic transmitter and at least
one acoustic receiver to make azimuthally-sensitive measurements of
formation P-wave and S-wave velocity or slowness values as required by
independent claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain Rejections I—III.4
Appellants argue independent claim 1 requires a drill collar having at
least one acoustic transmitter and at least one acoustic receiver to make
azimuthally-sensitive measurements of formation P-wave and S-wave
velocity or slowness values. (App. Br. 10). Appellants argue Tang fails to
teach or suggest how any measurement is made azimuthally-sensitive as
required by the claim. (App. Br. 11). Appellants argue Tang discloses a
gamma ray device that uses nuclear technology in conjunction with
electromagnetic waves to measure resistivity that is not compatible with
acoustic waves and cannot be combined with Castagna in the way the
Examiner proposes. (App. Br. 11).
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive because they do not address
the reasons Tang was cited by the Examiner. The Examiner found Castagna
3 Our discussion applies to independent claims 1, 9, and 12.
4 The additional references relied upon by the Examiner in the obviousness
rejections II and III were cited to address limitations of the dependent
claims. Appellants assert the additional references do not cure the
deficiencies in Castagna and Tang.
4
Appeal 2017-001675
Application 13/813,343
teaches a logging while drilling tool that comprises an acoustic transmitter
and at least one acoustic receiver to make measurements of formation P-
wave and S-wave velocity or slowness values as required by independent
claim 1. (Final Act. 5; Castagna col. 5, Fig. 4). The Examiner found
Castagna is silent as to the transmitter and receiver being in a drill collar and
the measurements being azimuthally-sensitive. The Examiner found Tang
teaches a logging while drilling tool that comprises a drill collar having an
acoustic transmitter and at least one acoustic receiver to make azimuthally-
sensitive measurements. (Final Act. 5). The Examiner concluded it would
have been obvious to form a logging while drilling tool comprising a drill
collar having an acoustic transmitter and at least one acoustic receiver to
make azimuthally-sensitive measurements. (Final Act. 5). The Examiner
concluded it would have been obvious to include a position sensor in a
logging while drilling tool. (Final Act. 5). Appellants have not adequately
explained why it would have been unobvious to a person of ordinary skill in
the art in view of the relied-upon disclosures in Castagna and Tang to form a
drill collar comprising an acoustic transmitter and at least one acoustic
receiver to make azimuthally-sensitive measurements. Appellants have also
not adequately explained why it would have been unobvious in view of the
relied-upon disclosures in Castagna and Tang to include a position sensor in
a logging while drilling tool.
Appellants argue “determining the drill string azimuth in Tang fails to
teach or suggest how any measurement is made azimuthally-sensitive as
required by the claim.” (App. Br. 11). The Examiner cited Tang for
describing a logging while drilling tool including a drill collar. The
Examiner also stated that Tang describes the appropriateness of including a
5
Appeal 2017-001675
Application 13/813,343
position sensor in bottom hole assembly (BHA). (Final Act. 5; Tang f 41).
Tang describes that the drill collar includes position sensors “to determine
the drill string azimuth, true coordinates and direction in the wellbore”
(Tang 141). Thus, once the information from Tang’s position sensors is
obtained Castagna’s formation measurements would necessarily be
azimuthally-sensitive as the ordinary artisan would naturally associate this
data together.
Rejections IV—VI5
After consideration of the evidence in this appeal record in light of the
respective positions advanced by the Examiner and Appellants, we
determine the Examiner erred in the determination that the combination of
Fredericks and Castagna would have suggested associating the formation
density values with the tool’s position and orientation as required by
independent claim 13. Accordingly, we reverse Rejections IV—VI.6
The Examiner found Fredericks describes a logging method
comprising rotating a logging while drilling tool through a borehole and
detecting acoustic waves propagating along the wall of the borehole, and
utilizing receivers to process the signals associated with the tool’s position
and orientation. (Final Act. 11). According to the Examiner:
Fredericks discloses the processed compressional and shear wave
signals can yield information about fracturing of the formation (col.
11, lines 39—57).
5 Our discussion applies to independent claim 13.
6 The additional references relied upon by the Examiner in the obviousness
rejections V and VI were cited to address limitations of the dependent
claims. The additional references do not address the deficiencies in
Fredericks and Castagna.
6
Appeal 2017-001675
Application 13/813,343
Fredericks is silent specifically to formation density values.
In the same field of endeavor, Castagna teaches in figures 1 A-1C
using compressional and shear wave signals from a logging tool (11)
to measure formation density values (col. 4, lines 10-26).
(Final Act 11).
Appellants argue the combination of Fredericks and Castagna will not
work in the way the Examiner proposes because the resistivity data of
Fredericks is not comparable to the formation density values of Castagna
due to their derivation from different types of waves. (App. Br. 9-10).
In response to Appellants’ arguments the Examiner states “since
Fredericks discloses acoustic data, which yields positional and orientation
data (see col[.] 11), this acoustic data is combinable with Castagna’s
acoustic data collection method.” (Ans. 4).
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 13 is not well-founded. The Examiner has failed to
adequately explain the basis of the appealed rejection. The Examiner has
not addressed Appellants’ argument that the technology of Fredericks and
Castagna are not compatible. The Examiner has not adequately explained
what components from Castagna are utilized in association with Fredericks.
It is noted that Castagna discloses the transmitter 21 and the receiver 25 are
both located within the borehole, however Fredericks discloses the receiver
560 is located on the surface. However, the Examiner has not clearly
articulated how the teachings of Fredericks and Castagna render the claimed
subject matter obvious.
7
Appeal 2017-001675
Application 13/813,343
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 13—
22 for the reasons presented by Appellants and given above.
ORDER
The obviousness rejections of claims 1—12 are affirmed.
The obviousness rejections of claims 13—22 are reversed.
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
8