Ex Parte MarketDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 30, 201712595294 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 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. 12/595,294 05/23/2011 Jennifer A. Market 1880.190US1 2036 138627 7590 Gilliam IP PLLC (Halliburton) 7200 N. Mopac Suite 440 Austin, TX 78731 EXAMINER ALKAFAWI, EMAN A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2865 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/03/2017 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): u spto @ gilliamip .com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JENNIFER A. MARKET1 Appeal 2016-002453 Application 12/595,294 Technology Center 2800 Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 the final rejection of claims 1, 3—6, and 8—16. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appellant’s invention is directed to well logging and drilling tools, and more particularly, to acoustic profiling of formations (Spec. 11). 1 According to the Appellant, the real party in interest is Haliburton Energy Services, Inc. Appeal 2016-002453 Application 12/595,294 Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A method comprising: transmitting acoustic signals from a tool in a borehole; receiving the transmitted acoustic signals at a receiver array to provide a set of received time signals; performing a frequency semblance on the set of received time signals to provide a set of semblance values as a function of slowness and wavelength; and providing a radial distance profile of slowness based upon the set of semblance values. Appellant appeals the following rejections:2 1. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as lacking enablement; 2. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite; 3. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6 and 8—15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Chang (US 5,077,697, issued Dec. 31, 1991) in view of Blanch et al., (US 6,766,252 B2, issued July 20, 2004); and 4. Claims 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Chang in view of Blanch, and Bittar (US 6,476,609 Bl, issued Nov. 5, 2002). 2 The Examiner’s §112, 1, lack of written description rejection of claim 13 is moot due to an amendment to the claim entered per the Advisory Action dated February 9, 2015. 2 Appeal 2016-002453 Application 12/595,294 FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS 35 U.S.C. § 112,11 and 12 (Rejections (1) and (2)) The Examiner concludes that claim 15 lacks enablement because the limitation that “at least one transmitter comprises a plurality of acoustic transmitters” is unclear and the Examiner is not able to locate a description of it (Final Act. 3—4). The Examiner further concludes that the claim 15 limitation is unclear because it describes a transmitter having multiple transmitters (Final Act. 5). Appellant argues that the claim 15 limitation is enabled and definite because Figure 1 of Appellant’s Specification shows, and 19 of the Specification discloses, that there may be two or more transmitters (TX1), one on the left and one on the right of the tool 102 (App. Br. 8—9). Appellant contends that “at least one acoustic transmitter” is equivalent to saying “one or more” and “a plurality” in the disputed claim phrase means “more than one” (App. Br. 8). The Examiner maintains that the disputed claim 15 phrase is not enabled and indefinite because there is no disclosure of a transmitter embodiment that includes an array of acoustic transmitters (Ans. 2—3). The preponderance of the evidence favors Appellant’s argument of enablement and definiteness. The Examiner reads the claim limitation “at least one transmitter comprises a plurality of acoustic transmitters” as requiring one transmitter have multiple acoustic transmitters. This construction of the claim phrase is not consistent with the Specification or the plain reading of the claim. Independent claim 13 from which claim 15 depends recites “at least one acoustic transmitter.” Dependent claim 15 further limits claim 13 in reciting that “the at least one acoustic transmitter 3 Appeal 2016-002453 Application 12/595,294 comprises a plurality of acoustic transmitters.” Claim 15 (emphasis added). In other words, claim 15 merely further limits claim 13 by requiring that “the at least one transmitter” requires more than one transmitter (i.e., a plurality). The claim 15 embodiment is shown in Appellant’s Figure 1 where two transmitters (TX1) are shown. We conclude that claim 15 is enabled and definite within the meaning 35 U.S.C. § 112, || 1 and 2. We reverse the Examiner’s § 112 rejections (1) and (2) of claim 15. 35 U.S.C. § 103 (Rejections (3) and (4)) Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection over Chang in view of Blanch is based upon impermissible hindsight (App. Br. 10—15). Appellant contends that the Examiner’s finding that Chang teaches providing a radial distance profile of slowness based upon the set of semblance values is erroneous because the column 18, lines 17—62 disclosure in Chang does not teach determining slowness or using semblance values to determine the shear velocity profile (App. Br. 14). The Examiner’s findings and conclusions with regard to Chang in view of Blanch are located on pages 5 to 6 of the Final Action. The Examiner finds that Chang teaches the subject matter of claim 1, except for explicitly disclosing performing a frequency semblance to provide a set of semblance values as a function of slowness and wavelength (Final Act. 5). The Examiner finds that Chang discloses various known waveform processing techniques include those applying frequency semblance algorithms. Id. The Examiner finds that Blanch teaches a method of applying a frequency semblance algorithm that provides a set of semblance values as a function of slowness and frequency. Id. The Examiner concludes 4 Appeal 2016-002453 Application 12/595,294 that it would have been obvious to apply one or more known waveform processing techniques as taught by Chang and to apply specifically the method of Blanch for the benefit of properly analyzing such formations (Final Act. 6). The Examiner finds that Chang teaches a method to convert frequency to wavelength and concludes that it would have been obvious to express the semblance values of Blanch in terms of wavelength to explore the many relationships between collected data as possible and to understand the data from different perspectives. Id. The Examiner finds that the radial distance profile of slowness based upon semblance values is taught by Chang at column 18, lines 17—62 and the use of semblance values to derive slowness is taught at column 2, lines 29—36 (Final Act. 6). The Examiner finds that Chang’s shear velocity is the same as slowness (Final Act. 6). The Examiner explains that Chang is relied upon merely to teach several known functions and tools within the art that are known for processing data, but Chang’s own invention is not relied upon in the rejection (Ans. 8). In other words, the Examiner is relying on Chang’s discussion of the prior art in formulating the rejection and is relying on Chang’s disclosure in column 18 as indicating that it is known to derive shear velocity profile as a function of radius from the borehole. Claims 1, 6, and 13 each require a method or processor that performs a frequency semblance on a set of acoustic signals as a function of time in order to provide a set of semblance values as a function of frequency (co) and slowness (s), and then provides a radial distance profile based upon the set of semblance values as a function of wavelength and slowness. The Specification discloses that slowness is the inverse of velocity (Spec. 12). The Examiner’s findings regarding Chang’s disclosure of various waveform 5 Appeal 2016-002453 Application 12/595,294 processing techniques without more explanation fails to establish that it would have been obvious to use the particularly recited wave form processing techniques to determine semblance values that are then used to provide a radial distance profile of slowness. In particular, the Examiner’s reliance on column 18 of Chang is directed to providing a shear velocity profile as a function of radial distance. Chang does not teach providing a radial distance profile of slowness. In response to Appellant’s argument that Chang would not have suggested a radial profile of slowness, the Examiner finds that Chang’s disclosure of developing a slowness profile as a function of borehole depth is equivalent to providing a description of slowness as a function of radial distance (Ans. 7—8). The Examiner finds that the Specification discloses that “radial distances (or depths)” means that radial distances are the same as depth. Id. Chang’s Figure 3 depicts the slowness of the formation as a function of depth of the borehole. Chang’s teaching regarding measuring slowness as a function of depth is not synonymous with providing a radial distance profile of slowness. Chang’s column 18 disclosure to provide a shear velocity profile as a function of radius is achieved without using semblance values. While the Examiner relies on Chang’s prior art disclosure in column 2 to teach using semblance algorithms to assess slowness, the Examiner has not explained why Chang’s teaching in column 18 to provide a radial profile of shear velocity would have suggested forming a radial profile of slowness based upon the semblance values determined as a function of slowness and wavelength as required by the claims absent hindsight. 6 Appeal 2016-002453 Application 12/595,294 On this record, we are constrained to reverse the Examiner’s § 103 rejections (3) and (4). DECISION The Examiner’s decision is reversed. ORDER REVERSED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation