13123531 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 23, 2016)

Ex Parte Conrad

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 23, 2016

13123531 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 23, 2016)

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. 13/123,531 04/10/2011 Christopher J. Conrad 1391-774.01 8476 36177 7590 12/23/2016 Iselin Law PLLC (HAL) P. O. BOX 1906 CYPRESS, TX 77410-1906 EXAMINER BROCK, ROBERT S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2128 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/23/2016 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 ____________ Ex parte CHRISTOPHER J. CONRAD ____________ Appeal 2016-004118 Application 13/123,531 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, NABEEL U. KHAN, and AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2016-004118 Application 13/123,531 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1–22, which are all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. THE INVENTION The application is directed to “[s]ystems and methods . . . to enhance logging data images.” (Abstract.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary: 1. A logging system that comprises: a downhole tool that gathers logging data as a function of position and azimuth while moving through a borehole; a downhole sensor that measures a blur-inducing logging condition separate from the logging data; a processing system that determines a spreading function independently of a logging data image and based at least in part on the measured blur-inducing logging condition, wherein the processing system converts the spreading function to a de-spreading function and applies the de-spreading function to the logging data to obtain an enhanced logging data image; and a user interface that makes the enhanced logging data image perceptible to a user. 1 Appellant identifies Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. as the real party in interest. (See App. Br. 3.) Appeal 2016-004118 Application 13/123,531 3 THE REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Hagiwara US 6,211,678 B1 Apr. 3, 2001 Kruspe et al. US 2004/0196038 A1 Oct. 7, 2004 Hassan et al. US 2006/0106541 A1 May 18, 2006 Haugland US 2006/0248735 A1 Nov. 9, 2006 Sugiura US 2009/0030616 A1 Jan. 29, 2009 THE REJECTIONS 1. Claims 1, 4–8, 10, 13, 15–17, and 19–22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Sugiura. (See Final Act. 2–10.) 2. Claims 2, 11, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sugiura and Haugland. (See Final Act. 11–12.) 3. Claims 3 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sugiura and Hassan. (See Final Act. 12–14.) 4. Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sugiura and Hagiwara. (See Final Act. 14–15.) 5. Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sugiura and Kruspe. (See Final Act. 15–16.) ANALYSIS Appellant argues the rejections are in error because Sugiura fails to teach or suggest “a downhole sensor that measures a blur-inducing logging condition separate from the logging data.” (App. Br. 10, emphasis omitted.) Appeal 2016-004118 Application 13/123,531 4 Appellant’s Specification describes data collected by a borehole logging tool, where “the data values are collected as a function of position along the borehole axis (z), azimuth (α), and radius (r) from the borehole axis.” (Spec. 9:17–20.) The data may be represented by “nested cylinders that can be split along one side and flattened as shown in Figs. 8B and 8C,” where in images 802, 804, and 806 “each cell corresponding to a depth, azimuth coordinate has a color or intensity that represents the log data value for that cell.” (Id. at 9:23–27.) The Specification further explains that “the actual image resolution can be degraded, causing blurring that is a function of one or more logging conditions such as tool motion (including tool vibration), standoff distance, borehole geometry (e.g., variation in diameter, ellipticity, rugosity), and variations in borehole fluid properties.” (Id. at 9:31–10:3.) To address that issue, sensors may “track such logging conditions, making it possible to obtain a log of tool motion, standoff distance or other logging conditions that can be closely correlated with the logging measurements being collected by the logging tool.” (Id. at 10:4–6.) The tracked conditions data may then be used to compensate for the blurring. (See id. at 10:10–12:29.) Sugiura describes a borehole imaging technique in which “the logging sensor data and the corresponding azimuths are measured during drilling of a borehole while a LWD [logging while drilling] tool rotates with the drill string in the borehole.” (Sugiura ¶ 9.) Sugiura’s “LWD tool 100 typically includes at least one LWD sensor 120 and an azimuth sensor 130 deployed thereon.” (Id. ¶ 23.) The “LWD sensor 120 is configured . . . to measure borehole parameters including formation density, formation resistivity, formation acoustic velocity, gamma ray interaction cross section, neutron Appeal 2016-004118 Application 13/123,531 5 interaction cross section, caliper interaction cross section, and the like,” while “[a]zimuth sensor 130 (also referred to in the art as an orientation sensor) may include substantially any sensor that is sensitive to the rotational orientation of the tool 100 in the borehole.” (Id. ¶ 23–24.) “LWD tool 100 rotates 202 with the drill string in the borehole,” and “[l]ogging data and azimuth data are measured by LWD sensor 120 and azimuth sensor 130 (FIG. 1), respectively, during rotation of the tool 100 and correlated 204 such that each data point in the sequence of logging data points is assigned an azimuth.” (Id. ¶ 31.) The Examiner finds the “downhole tool . . .” claim element described by Sugiura’s “LWD tool [that] rotates” because “data may be distributed in . . . two-dimensions (azimuthal and axial).” (Final Act. 3.) The Examiner further finds the “downhole sensor . . .” claim element described in the reference because it has an “azimuth sensor 130,” a “depth sensor” and “telemetry systems,” because “[t]he tool includes at least one logging sensor and at least one azimuth sensor,” and because in “the previous step of [the] claim, i.e. ‘logging data as a function of position and azimuth,’ azimuth is interpreted as ‘separate from the logging data.’” (Id.) We agree with Appellant that Sugiura does not teach or suggest “a downhole sensor that measures a blur-inducing logging condition.” In Sugiura, as in the instant application, the logging data is collected with axial and azimuthal components to produce a two dimensional data set, such as shown in Fig. 9A of the instant application and Fig. 8 of Sugiura. The azimuthal data, however, is simply the rotational position of the sensor, and the Examiner fails to adequately explain how the rotational position is a blur-inducing condition. While it is true that the azimuthal data can be used Appeal 2016-004118 Application 13/123,531 6 for binning to facilitate deblurring (see, e.g., Sugiura ¶ 7), we fail to see how that teaches or suggests measurement of a “blur-inducing logging condition.”2 For this reason, we reverse the rejection of claims 1, 4–8, 10, 13, 15– 17, and 19–22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), as well as the rejections of claims 2, 3, 9, 11, 12, 14 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).3 DECISION The rejections of claims 1–22 are reversed. REVERSED 2 Because the issue is not before us, we do not consider whether it would have been obvious to modify the combination to include the sensors that “exist to track [blur-inducing] logging conditions” described in Appellant’s Specification. (See Spec. 9:30–10:9.) 3 We do not reach Appellant’s argument regarding the “separate from the logging data” claim limitation. (See App. Br. 10.)