Ex Parte Donderici et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 15, 2016

14111288 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 15, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/111,288 10/11/2013
15604 7590 09/19/2016
Baker Botts LLP,
910 Louisiana Street, One Shell Plaza
Houston, TX 77002
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Burkay Donderici
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.
201 l-IP-043176 US
(063718
CONFIRMATION NO.
8493
EXAMINER
MURPHY, DANIELL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3645
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/19/2016 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
debie.hernandez@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 BURKA Y DONDERICI and BARIS GUNER
Appeal2016-006721
Application 14/111,288 1
Technology Center 3600
Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, GEORGE R. HOSKINS, and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.
ST AI CO VICI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Burkay Donderici and Baris Guner (Appellants) appeal under 35
U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final decision rejecting under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) claims 1, 2, 8-11, and 16 as being anticipated by Wang (US
8,542,553 B2, iss. Sept. 24, 2013) and under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) claims 3, 6,
7, 12, 14, and 15 as being unpatentable over Wang and Unz (US 3,877,033,
According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Halliburton
Energy Services, Inc. Appeal Br. 2 (filed Nov. 6, 2015).
Appeal2016-006721
Application 14/111,288
iss. Apr. 8, 1975).2'3 We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM.
INVENTION
Appellants' invention relates to "testing and evaluation of
subterranean formations and formation fluids." Spec. 1, 11. 6-7.
Claims 1 and 10 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
claimed invention and reads as follows:
1. A system for measuring a time semblance of a formation,
compnsmg:
a transmitter, wherein the transmitter transmits energy
into the formation;
a plurality of sensors, wherein the plurality of sensors
measures energy received from the formation, wherein at least
one of the plurality of sensors is positioned in a non-uniform
axial spacing configuration, and wherein the non-uniform axial
2 Claims 4, 13, and 17-20 are canceled. See Appeal Br. 7-9; Ans. 1
(transmitted Apr. 28, 2016). Claim 5 is objected to by the Examiner as
being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but otherwise is indicated as
being allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the
limitations of the base claim and any intervening claim. Final Act. 15.
Claim 5 is not part of the instant appeal.
3 As claims 17-20 are canceled, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
of claims 17 and 19 as being anticipated by Kimball (US 4,594,691, iss. June
10, 1986) is moot. Likewise, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of
claims 17 and 19 as being unpatentable over Cuomo (US 4,363,115, iss.
Dec. 7, 1982) and Wang, and of claims 18 and 20 as being unpatentable over
Kimball, are moot.
2
Appeal2016-006721
Application 14/111,288
spacing configuration is determined, at least in part, using a
time semblance algorithm; and
a data processing unit including at least one time
semblance algorithm, wherein the data processing unit receives
measurements from the plurality of sensors and processes the
measurements to determine a time semblance of the formation.
ANALYSIS
Each of independent claims 1 and 10 requires, inter alia, that "the
non-uniform axial spacing configuration is determined, at least in part, using
a time semblance algorithm." See Appeal Br. 7, 8 (Claims App.).
The Examiner finds that Wang teaches all the limitations of
independent claims 1 and 10, including the limitation recited above. See
Final Act. 4--5 (citing Wang, col. 6, 1. 20-col. 8, 1. 19, Figs. 4, 6-8)
(transmitted Feb. 4, 2015). According to the Examiner,
Wang shows analysis of the effects of the non-uniform spacing
on coherence/semblance analysis (FIGS. 7, 8; col. 10, lines 5-
47), and thus indeed does "disclose, teach, or suggest, expressly
or inherently, each and every element of independent claims 1
and 1 O" (Remarks, p. 11, lines 1-2), since the configurations of
FIGS. 5 and 6 of Wang would be unacceptable were the
coherence/semblance analysis to show such.
Id. at 3.
Appellants argue that Wang fails to teach that, "the non-uniform axial
spacing configuration is determined, at least in part, using a time semblance
algorithm," as recited by each of independent claims 1 and 10. Appeal Br.
3. According to Appellants, Wang's teaching of selecting non-uniform
spacing such that "skipping of an integral number of cycles between all pairs
of consecutive receivers in the array is impossible" is not a teaching of
"'using a time semblance algorithm' to determine a spacing configuration, as
3
Appeal2016-006721
Application 14/111,288
required," by each of independent claims 1 and 10. Appeal Br. 3--4 (citing
Wang, col. 8, 11. 1-8). Appellants contend that, "each of equations 3-5 of
Wang rely on energy integrations ... as opposed to the required 'time
semblance algorithm.'" Reply Br. 2 (citing Wang, col. 6, 11. 56-58).
Appellants further assert that the portions of Wang cited by the Examiner as
evidence of Wang's "use of a time semblance algorithm to determine a 'non-
uniform axial spacing configuration'," "appear to describe analysis on
sensor spacing that is already determined." Appeal Br. 4. Thus, Appellants
conclude that Wang's "aliasing and cycle skipping [does] not explicitly or
inherently disclose a time semblance algorithm." Reply Br. 2.
Similar to Appellants' Specification, Wang discloses that, in contrast
to spacing consecutive receivers at uniform intervals, which generates
aliasing, "non-uniform spacing between consecutive receivers" reduces
"constructive interference which leads to aliasing" and therefore, reduces or
even eliminates the aliasing effect. Wang, col. 8, 11. 2--4, 18-19; see also
Spec., 3, 1. 24--4, 1. 2. As noted by the Examiner, Wang discloses that, "non-
uniform spacing can be selected ... so that skipping of an integral number
of cycles between all pairs of consecutive receivers in the array is
impossible." Wang, col. 8, 11. 5-8 (emphasis added). For example, Wang
describes spacing consecutive receivers axially at non-uniform distances in
arrays 180, 190 and then, in the course of a coherence/time semblance
analysis, 4 shows that in such configurations, the effects of skipping cycles
cannot be present. Id. at col. 10, 11. 5-39, Figs. 7, 8.
4 Wang describes a conventional coherence/time semblance algorithm.
See Wang, col. 5, 1. 48---col. 7, 1. 64.
4
Appeal2016-006721
Application 14/111,288
In other words, the non-uniform axial spacing of Wang's consecutive
receivers is "selected" when, in the course of a coherence/time semblance
analysis, the effects of skipping cycles cannot be present. Although we
appreciate Appellants' position that Wang's coherence/time semblance
analysis is performed on "sensor spacing that is already determined,"
nonetheless, such sensor spacing has to be then "selected" such that the
effects of skipping cycles cannot be present in a coherence/time semblance
analysis. See Appeal Br. 4. In other words, the non-uniform axial spacing
that is selected by the user is the spacing where the effects of skipping cycles
cannot be present in a coherence/time semblance analysis. Therefore, Wang
discloses that the non-uniform axial spacing is "determined, at least in part"
by a time semblance analysis, as called for by each of independent clams 1
and 10. If Appellants are arguing that the claims require using a time
semblance analysis to calculate the non-uniform axial spacing of consecutive
sensors, we note that such a limitation is not recited and limitations not
appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for patentability. In re Self,
671F.2d1344, 1348(CCPA1982). We thus agree with the Examiner that,
"the tool design [of Wang] is based on applying a time semblance
algorithm." Ans. 2. 5
Appellants further contend that the "Examiner essentially disregards
the requirement of 'non-uniform axial spacing' (emphasis added) as [the]
5 All the page numbers of the Examiner's Answer are labeled as "Page
1." Therefore, for ease of referring to the Examiner's Answer, we have
assigned page numbers 2 through 4 to the pages following the first instance
of "Page 1."
5
Appeal2016-006721
Application 14/111,288
Examiner focuses only on 'non-uniform spacing."' Reply Br. 2. We are not
persuaded by Appellants' argument because the Examiner explicitly finds
that Wang teaches "sensors ... positioned in a non-uniform axial spacing
configuration." Final Act. 4 (emphasis added). The Examiner is correct that
Wang's Figures 4, 5, 7, and 8, show a plurality of sensors positioned in a
non-uniform axial spacing configuration. See id. at 5. For example, in
Figure 4, sensors 142b, 142a, and 144d are positioned axially and the
distance 141 between sensors 142b, 142a is different from the distance 143
between sensors 142a, 144d.
Lastly, Appellants argue that the Examiner acknowledged in the
Interview Summary (transmitted Apr. 21, 2015) the possibility that the
instant anticipation rejection based upon Wang is deficient. See Appeal Br.
4--5. We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument because the Examiner
merely set forth a hypothetical situation when stating, "even if the Office
were to concede that Wang is not anticipatory of claim 1." See Interview
Summary 3 (emphasis added). On the record before us, the Examiner is
quite clear in the position "that the rejections of independent claims 1 and 10
are, and have always been, rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)." Ans. 3.
In conclusion, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) of independent claims 1 and 10 as being
anticipated by Wang.
Appellants do not present any other substantive arguments with
respect to the rejections of claims 2, 3, 6-9, 11, 12, and 14--16. See Appeal
Br. 5. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth supra, we also sustain the
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) of claims 2, 8, 9, 11, and 16 as being
6
Appeal2016-006721
Application 14/111,288
anticipated by Wang, and under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), of claims 3, 6, 7, 12, 14,
and 15 as being unpatentable over Wang and Unz.
SUMMARY
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-3, 6-12, and 14--16 is
affirmed.
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
7