Ex Parte Han et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 23, 2017

13031325 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 23, 2017)

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.
13/031,325 02/21/2011 Xiaogang Han NUK4-50087-US 4681
87884 7590 03/27/2017
Mossman, Kumar and Tyler, PC
P.O. Box 421239
Houston, TX 77242
EXAMINER
CASEY, LIAM R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2863
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/27/2017 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):
docket @ mktlaw .u s .com
tthigpen@mktlaw.us.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte XIAOGANG HAN and
FREDDY ENRIQUE MENDEZ
Appeal 2016-001118
Application 13/031,325
Technology Center 2800
Before TERRY J. OWENS, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY Administrative Patent Judges.
OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 4—7 and 10-16. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Invention
The Appellants claim a method and apparatus for evaluating an earth
formation. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method of evaluating an earth formation, the
method comprising:
making measurements on a single logging run using at least one
sensor on a downhole assembly conveyed in a borehole in the
earth formation;
Appeal 2016-001118
Application 13/031,325
making first additional measurements indicative of a porosity of the
earth formation and second additional measurements
indicative of a density of the earth formation on the same
single logging run;
using a processor for:
estimating, in real time, while on the single logging run, an
elemental composition of the earth formation from the
measurements made by the at least one sensor; and
estimating, in real time, while on the single logging run, a
fraction of each of a plurality of mineral constituent
solids by using at least the estimated elemental
composition, the first additional measurements, and
the second additional measurements as inputs for a
constrained optimization module utilizing a quadratic
objective function; and
conducting further operations using the estimated fraction of
each of the plurality of mineral constituent solids;
wherein each mineral constituent solid of the plurality of mineral
constituent solids has a fixed chemical composition; and
wherein the optimization module uses a weighting function to derive
different weights for each of the estimated elemental
composition, the first additional measurements, and the second
additional measurements depending upon a corresponding
measurement variance.
The References
References relied upon by the Examiner
Radtke US 6,944,548 B2 Sep. 13,2005
StatSoft, Statistics Glossary (Apr. 20, 2007),
http://www.uta.edu/faculty/sawasthi/Statistics/gloss.htm (hereafter StatSoft).
Darwin V. Ellis and Julian M. Singer, Well Logging for Earth Scientists -
Ch. 22, Lithography and Porosity Estimation 629-49 (Springer 2007)
(hereinafter Ellis).
2
Appeal 2016-001118
Application 13/031,325
Reference relied upon by the Appellants
Roscoe US 5,440,118 Aug. 8, 1995
The Rejections
Claims 1, 4—7 and 10-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Radtke in view of Ellis and StatSoft.
OPINION
We affirm the rejections.1
The Appellants argue the claims as a group (App. Br. 7—17). We
therefore limit our discussion to one claim, i.e., claim 1. Claims 4—7
and 10-16 stand or fall with that claim. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv)
(2012).
Radtke discloses a logging tool (100) which “can be configured to log
any neutron-induced signals, e.g., neutron signals, gamma ray signals, and/or
X-ray signals” (col. 3,11. 47-49) and “may be used to provide real-time or
recorded apparent neutron porosity, formation bulk density, and
photoelectric factor data to characterize formation porosity and lithology
while drilling” (col. 3,11. 49—53). The logging tool (100) “may comprise a
neutron tool 101, a gamma ray tool 102, and an ultrasonic device 103”
(col. 3,11. 54—56) and may include circuitry (104) which “may include one
or more memories 105 for storing the measurement data and/or programs for
data analysis” (col. 3,11. 58—60). “The relative positions (arrangements) of
these individual devices and the number of devices on the logging tool 100
are not important” (col. 3,11. 60-62). “The detected neurons may be used to
infer formation porosity” (col. 5,11. 4—5). “Because different nuclei emit
1 We incorporate herein the Examiner’s findings of fact and conclusions of
law in the rejection appealed from and the Examiner’s Answer.
3
Appeal 2016-001118
Application 13/031,325
gamma rays of different energy, gamma ray spectroscopy may be used to
derive element ratio (elemental yields), which in turn can be used to infer
lithology” (col. 5,11. 12-15).
Ellis states that “the term lithology, as used here and by log
interpreters, refers mainly to the mineral content of rocks, with little
consideration of other aspects such as grain size and texture” (p. 630). Ellis
discloses that “[i]n more complex lithologies there can be mixtures of many
different materials. For these cases one would like to have the use of a large
number of logging measurements, each with a slightly different sensitivity to
the various minerals, in order to make a complete mineralogical analysis”
{id.) and that elemental analysis can be used for clay evaluation and “can
also be used for general lithology evaluation” (pp. 643 44). Elemental
analysis measurements “can be combined with others in the more complete
numerical approaches to lithology determination” (p. 644). Ellis illustrates
quantitative evaluation using a simple example of two logging
measurements, density and porosity, wherein the formation consists of a
mixture of two minerals, and states that “[o]bviously this approach can be
extended to as many measurements as are available” (p. 647) and that the
problem of overdetermination, wherein the number of logging measurements
exceeds the number of minerals in the model, can be solved using a
least-squares solution to the set of equations” {id.).
The Appellants assert that the Appellants’ claim 1 requires that the
first and second additional measurements are separate measurements using
separate tools (App. Br. 14).2
2 We refer only to the Appeal Brief because the arguments in the Reply Brief
are essentially the same as those in the Appeal Brief.
4
Appeal 2016-001118
Application 13/031,325
That assertion is not well taken with respect to separate tools being
required because the claim does not include that requirement. See In re Self,
671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (“[AJppellant's arguments fail from the
outset because . . . they are not based on limitations appearing in the
claims.”). Regardless, the Appellants use a gamma ray tool to measure
density and a neutron tool to measure porosity (Spec. 21; Fig. 3), and
Radtke uses both of those types of tools on a single logging tool string (100)
while drilling (col. 3,11. 46-48, 54—56). Hence, like the Appellants, one of
ordinary skill in the art, through no more than ordinary creativity, would
have used a gamma ray tool to measure density and, separately, a neutron
tool to measure porosity. SeeKSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
418 (2007) (in making an obviousness determination one “can take account
of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would employ”).
The Appellants assert that Radtke’s “inferring the lithology from the
elemental composition fails to disclose using the elemental composition as
an input for a constrained optimization module” (App. Br. 10) and that
Radtke “fails to disclose estimating a fraction of each of a plurality of
mineral constituent solids” (id.).
That argument is deficient in that the Appellants are attacking Radtke
individually when the rejection is based on a combination of references. See
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981); In re Young, 403 F.2d 754,
757—58 (CCPA 1968). The Examiner relies upon a combination of Radtke
and Ellis for a suggestion of those claim features (Final Act. 3^4; Ans. 2—3).
The Appellants assert that “Ellis does not disclose using elemental
composition as an input for a constrained optimization module utilizing a
5
Appeal 2016-001118
Application 13/031,325
quadratic objective function” (App. Br. 11) and “fails to disclose using the
results of elemental analysis to estimate mineral fraction” (id.; see also
App. Br. 12-13).
Ellis uses the relative volumes of minerals (i.e., the elemental
composition) as an input to equations which are solved using least squares
which, it is undisputed, is an optimization module utilizing a quadratic
objective function, and it is undisputed that the optimization module is
constrained. Ellis, therefore, would have led one of ordinary skill in the art,
through no more than ordinary creativity, to use elemental composition as an
input for a constrained optimization module utilizing a quadratic objective
function, see KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, particularly since that approach was
known in the art.3
The Appellants argue that “[t]he references cited do not disclose
estimating the fractions for the mineral constituents in real-time”
(App. Br 15) because “Roscoe describes surface instrumentation 32, which
suggests non-automated (and thus, not real-time) techniques” (id.), “Radtke,
based on Roscoe, discloses that the elemental composition must be
interpreted by the skilled person to estimate the lithology” (id.), and
“Ellis demonstrates the conventional understanding of lithology estimation
3 The Appellants state (Spec. H 3, 21) that they use the method in
Madigan et al., US 7,205,535 B2 (issued Apr. 17, 2007), which discloses:
“Elemental analysis of an earth formation is obtained using measurements
from a gamma ray logging tool. From the elemental analysis, an estimate of
the mineralogy of the formation is made treating the problem as one of
Linear Programming (maximizing an objective function subject to equality
and/or inequality constraints)” (Abstract). StatSoft states that least squares
is a linear model technique using a loss function which is the sum of squared
deviations from a fitted line or plane (p. 7).
6
Appeal 2016-001118
Application 13/031,325
is that it depends on the skilled person to select the appropriate parameters to
model the lithology” (App. Br. 16).
Radtke is not limited to Roscoe’s method but, rather, cites it as one of
the well-known methods for determining formation lithology by gamma ray
spectroscopy (col. 5,11. 15—18), and Ellis’s disclosure regarding an
interpreter’s judgement applies to models generally (p. 649). Radtke does
not require recorded measurement data but, rather, discloses that the data can
be provided in real time while drilling (col. 3,11. 49—53).
Thus, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the rejection.
DECISION/ORDER
The rejection of claims 1, 4—7 and 10-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Radtke in view of Ellis and StatSoft is affirmed.
ft is ordered that the Examiner’s decision 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).
AFFIRMED
7