Ex Parte Market

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 24, 2018

12922978 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 24, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
12/922,978
99701 7590
Howard L. Speight
742 Central A venue
Napa, CA 94558
FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
09/16/2010 Jennifer Anne Market
08/28/2018
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. CONFIRMATION NO.
001001.2007-IP-004996 US 5250
EXAMINER
HULKA, JAMES R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3645
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/28/2018 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):
howard@hspeight.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
info@hspeight.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JENNIFER ANNE MARKET
Appeal2017-010893
Application 12/922,978
Technology Center 3600
Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, MICHAEL L. WOODS, and
NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 27-38. App. Br. 4. Claims 1-26 have
been canceled. See Request for Continued Prosecution dated September 21,
2016. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellant identifies Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 1.
2 The present Application was the subject of a Board Decision (Appeal No.
2013-008143, dated July 30, 2015) which affirmed the Examiner's rejections
of claims 1-9, 13-22, and 26.
Appeal2017-010893
Application 12/922,978
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The disclosed subject matter relates to "Acoustic Anisotropy And
Imaging By Means Of High Resolution Azimuthal Sampling." Spec. Title.
Method claim 27 is the sole independent claim; is illustrative of the claims
on appeal; and, is reproduced below.
27. A method comprising:
deploying an acoustic logging tool in a borehole having a
borehole wall, the acoustic logging tool having:
a longitudinal tool body,
an X-axis acoustic source coupled to the
longitudinal tool body,
a Y-axis acoustic source coupled to the longitudinal
tool body,
an X-axis acoustic receiver coupled to the
longitudinal tool body,
a Y-axis acoustic receiver coupled to the
longitudinal tool body, and
a caliper to measure an X distance from the X-axis
acoustic receiver to the borehole wall and a Y-distance from the
Y-axis acoustic receiver to the borehole wall;
firing the X-axis acoustic source to produce X-axis surface
waves on the borehole wall and receiving the X-axis surface
waves at the X-axis acoustic receiver to produce an XX
waveform and at the Y-axis acoustic receiver to produce an XY
waveform;
firing the Y-axis acoustic source to produce Y-axis surface
waves on the borehole wall and receiving the Y-axis surface
waves at the X-axis acoustic receiver to produce a YX waveform
and at the Y-axis acoustic receiver to produce a YY waveform;
removing delay caused by the transit of the X-axis surface
waves and the Y-axis surface waves from the borehole wall to
the X-axis acoustic receiver and the Y-axis acoustic receiver
from the XX waveforms, the XY waveforms, the YX waveforms,
and the YY waveforms using the X distance and the Y distance
measured by the caliper to produce a corrected XX waveform, a
2
Appeal2017-010893
Application 12/922,978
corrected XY waveform, a corrected YX waveform, and a
corrected YY waveform; and
calculating a waveform function for waveforms at all
azimuths around the longitudinal tool body using the corrected
XX waveform, the corrected XY waveform, the corrected YX
waveform, and the corrected YY waveform.
Anderson et al.
Robbins et al.
Mandal
Haugland
REFERENCES
us 5,311,484
us 5,678,643
US 6,188,961 Bl
US 2006/0285439 Al
THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
May 10, 1994
Oct. 21, 1997
Feb. 13,2001
Dec. 21, 2006
Claim 27 and 34--38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Mandal and Haugland.
Claims 28-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Mandal, Haugland, and Anderson.
Claims 32 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Mandal, Haugland, Anderson, and Robbins.
ANALYSIS
The rejection of claims 27 and 34-38 as
unpatentable over Manda! and Haugland
Sole independent method claim 27 includes a limitation directed to
"removing delay caused by the transit" of the X and Y axis surface waves
"from the borehole wall to the" X and Y axis receivers. The Examiner
primarily relies on the teachings of Mandal for disclosing the limitations of
claim 27, and specifically references Mandal, 4:50-5: 10, as disclosing this
"removing delay" limitation. Final Act. 3. The Examiner relies on
3
Appeal2017-010893
Application 12/922,978
Haugland for teaching use of a caliper to measure X and Y axis distances
between a borehole wall and a receiver. Final Act. 3.
Appellant disagrees with the Examiner's reliance on Mandal stating,
"Mandal describes adjusting a calculation to account for arbitrary
receiver spacing, not 'removing delay ... '". App. Br. 4; see also Reply Br.
1. Appellant states:
[a]djusting a calculation that assumes a 90-degree receiver
spacing on the tool to account for arbitrary (i.e., non-90 degree)
spacing is not the same as and does not hint at adjusting a
calculation to remove delay caused by the transit of the X-axis
surface waves and the Y-axis surface waves from the borehole
wall to the receivers, as required by independent claim 27.
App. Br. 5 ( emphasis added); see also Reply Br. 2. Thus, according to
Appellant, "Mandal does not teach or suggest" this "removing delay"
limitation. App. Br. 5; see also Reply Br. 2.
As indicated above, the Examiner references Mandal, 4: 5 0-5: 10. as
disclosing this limitation. Final Act. 3. This portion of Mandal sets forth
four equations (together identified as Equation 1 ), each directed to one of
four receivers. Mandal, 4:50-62. Mandal further states, "[i]n the case of
adjacent receivers which are separated by a[ n] arbitrary angle, Equation (1)
must be modified to include this angular separation between the adjacent
receivers." Mandal. 5:3---6. Thus, Mandal's modification to Equation 1
arises if there is arbitrary spacing between the receivers themselves. See
also Ans. 5. Accordingly, Appellant contends that there is no indication that
Mandal' s modification is the same as or hints at removing delay in signal
wave transit and, specifically, removing transit delay based on a distance
from the borehole wall to the receiver. See App. Br. 5.
4
Appeal2017-010893
Application 12/922,978
The Examiner, however, responds, "appellant clearly ignores the
entirety of the specification and disclosure of the Mandal reference" because
"Mandal clearly defines and distinguishes fast and slow directions in
anisotropic media." Ans. 4. The Examiner specifically references where
Mandal teaches "[t]ransit time anisotropy is the arrival-time difference
between the fast and slow shear waves at the receivers." Ans. 4 (referencing
Mandal, 2:7-23). However, the Examiner does not explain how the above
modification of Mandal' s Equation 1 ( which arises if there happens to be
arbitrary receiver spacing) somehow equates to or suggests removing delay
in the transit of a signal based on the distance the signal travels "from the
borehole wall to the" receiver as recited.
The Examiner also indicates where Appellant's own Specification
discloses, in the Examiner's words, that "well-known mathematical
techniques allow one having ordinary skill in the art to remove any transit
delays due to irregular spacing." Ans. 4 (referencing Spec. ,r 90). Paragraph
90 of Appellant's Specification states, "the flexural mode can be measured
at each azimuth, and each measurement can be corrected for the tool position
and hole size affecting the receiver array at each aximuth independently."
This disclosure in Appellant's Specification seems to be consistent with
Mandal' s teachings regarding a known need for a modification due to
arbitrary receiver spacing or tool position. The Examiner is silent as to how
this disclosure in Appellant's Specification addresses removing delay arising
from the transit of the wave "from the borehole wall to the" receiver as
recited.
Accordingly, and based on the record presented, we are not persuaded
the Examiner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the
5
Appeal2017-010893
Application 12/922,978
combination of Mandal and Haugland renders claims 27 and 34--38 obvious.
We do not sustain their rejection.
The rejections of (a) claims 28-31 as unpatentable over Manda!, Haugland,
and Anderson; and, (b) claims 32 and 33 as unpatentable over Manda!,
Haugland, Anderson, and Robbins
Each of these claims (i.e., claims 28-33) depend, directly or
indirectly, from claim 27. The Examiner relies on the teachings of Mandal
and Haugland as discussed above. See Final Act. 5---6. Accordingly, we
likewise do not sustain these rejections as well.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 27-38 are reversed.
REVERSED
6