Ex Parte Han et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 23, 201713031325 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 23, 2017) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation