Ex Parte Mickael

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 30, 2016

12195810 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/195,810 08/21/2008
90116 7590 10/04/2016
Weatherford/Precision
c/o Blank Rome LLP
717 Texas Avenue, Suite 1400
Houston, TX 77002
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Medhat W. Mickael
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.
135-0077US 9180
EXAMINER
SUGLO, JANET L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2864
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/04/2016 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):
houstonpatents@blankrome.com
kcortes@blankrome.com
smcdermott@blankrome.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MEDHAT W. MICKAEL 1
Appeal2014-009502
Application 12/195,810
Technology Center 2800
Before JASON V. MORGAN, MIRIAM L. QUINN, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-7, 14--17, 20, 22-25, and 27-29. App. Br. 4.
Claims 3, 4, 8, 9, 11-13, and 18 are canceled. Id. at 14--16. The Examiner
withdrew a 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, rejection of claims 10, 19,
21, and 26 (Ans. 2), which depend from claims that are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellant identifies Precision Energy Services, Inc., as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 4.
Appeal2014-009502
Application 12/195,810
Invention
Appellant discloses a data reduction method for transmission of a
borehole image to the surface of the earth using restricted band widths of
logging-while-drilling (LWD) telemetry systems. Abstract.
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below with key limitations emphasized, is
illustrative:
1. A method for reducing measured borehole image data that
are measured in a borehole with a logging tool sensor, the
method comprising:
within a logging tool:
fitting the measured borehole image data to an
azimuthally dependent response function of the logging
tool sensor, the response function representing
measurement physics of the logging tool, wherein the
fitting includes determining one or more response
function coefficients;
scaling the one or more response function
coefficients to a predetermined number of bits, wherein
the scaled coefficients combined with the response
function represent reduced measured data; and
telemetering the scaled coefficients to a surface
equipment.
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 7, 14, 15, 20, 22, 25, and 27 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Tang (US 2009/0192711 Al;
July 30, 2009). Final Act. 3-6.
The Examiner rejects claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Tang and Hagiwara (US 5,753,813; May 19, 1998). Final
Act. 7-8.
2
Appeal2014-009502
Application 12/195,810
The Examiner rejects claims 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Tang, Hagiwara, and Torres (US 5,162,994; Nov.
10, 1992). Final Act. 8-9.
The Examiner rejects claims 16, 17, 23, 24, 28, and 29 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tang and Torres. Final Act.
9-10.
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding that Tang discloses "fitting the
measured borehole image data to an azimuthally dependent response
function of the logging tool sensor, the response function representing
measurement physics of the logging tool, wherein the fitting includes
determining one or more response function coefficients," as recited in claim
1?
ANALYSIS
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds Tang's azimuthal
downsampling of samples of sensor data, transformation of the
downsampled data into a two-dimensional matrix, and compression of the
two-dimensional matrix teach or suggest the claimed fitting of the measured
borehole image data to an azimuthally dependent response function of the
logging tool sensor. Final Act. 3 (citing Tang i-fi-140, 49, 59, 60, and 63).
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred because claim 1 is
directed to a data reduction technique, rather than a mathematical
compression algorithm. App. Br. 11. In particular, Appellant argues that
"Tang relies on a type of spatial frequency domain transform similar to those
used for JPEG picture compression and MPEG and similar video
compression." Id. Appellant argues that this form of compression does not
3
Appeal2014-009502
Application 12/195,810
teach or suggest "fitting measured borehole data to a response function
representing measurement physics of the logging tool." App. Br. 12 (citing
Deel. of Robert A. Aiello i-fi-15, 6, and 7); see also Reply Br. 3-5.
The Examiner's findings do not show that Tang's spatial frequency
domain transform teaches or suggests the claimed azimuthally dependent
response function fitting. Rather, the Examiner finds that because "data
gathered by the [Tang] sensors is bound by their measurement physics ...
the fitting of the sensor data into an image meets the claim limitations."
Ans. 5-6. That is, the Examiner finds that a response function representing
"'measurement physics of the logging tool' could be interpreted to represent
how ... the sensors which are mounted to the logging tool ... gather data."
Id. at 5.
Appellant contends, and we agree, that the Examiner's claim
interpretation of an azimuthally dependent response function representing
measurement physics of a logging tool as image data alone is unreasonably
broad. In particular, we agree with Appellant that the claimed response
function, given a reasonably broad interpretation in light of the
Specification, is directed to "a curve that yields a fit for measured data
points-not the data points themselves." Reply Br. 8; see also, e.g., Spec.
i-fi-1 32-34. The distinction between image data (i.e., data points) and an
azimuthally dependent response function fitted to the image data is
particularly clear in the Specification's Figure 3, reproduced below.
4
Appeal2014-009502
Application 12/195,810
62 / ,,. . .,
2A -f_.,,.- 0.-~ , ...
,,--bl
2.35
66 -. (,)
(,) - 2.3 Cl -> ;:: 225 !IJ
c: m
0 2.2
.t:l.
a.
2.15
2, 1
6' 4
2.05
0 50
,
100 150 200 250 300
Ax:imuthal Ang.le (degrees)
FIG,. 3
350 400
For example, the Specification's Figure 3 illustrates measured data
points 62 and curve 60, where curve 60 represents the fitting of bulk density
data points 62 to a modified Gaussian response function. Spec. i-f 32.
As can be seen in the Specification's Figure 3, and in a different
disclosed response functionf(x) (see Reply Br. 7 (citing Spec. i-fi-130-31 );
Spec. Fig. 2), the data points (e.g., image data) are distinct from a response
function representing measurement physics of a logging tool that has been
fitted to the measured data points. The data points merely represent discrete
measurements rather than a curve from which similar data points can be
reproduced (i.e., a curve that yields a fit for measured data points).
For these reasons, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner's
findings do not show that Tang discloses "fitting the measured borehole
image data to an azimuthally dependent response function of the logging
tool sensor, the response function representing measurement physics of the
5
Appeal2014-009502
Application 12/195,810
logging tool, wherein the fitting includes determining one or more response
function coefficients," as recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
rejection of claim 1, and claims 7, 14, 15, 25, and 27, which contain the
same recitation or similar recitations.
Claim 20 is directed to a surface-located well logging apparatus that
comprises a telemetry unit configured to receive "data comprising one or
more scaled coefficients of a response function representing measurement
physics of the logging tool" (emphasis added). With respect to this
recitation, the Examiner's rejection relies on Tang in a manner similar to the
Examiner's reliance on Tang to disclose the disputed recitation of claim 1.
Final Act. 5. For the reasons discussed above, we also do not sustain the
Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claim 20, or claim 22 which
contains the same recitation.
The Examiner's findings do not show that Hagiwara or Torres cure
the noted deficiency of Tang. Therefore, we also do not sustain the
Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 2, 5, 6, 16, 17, 23, 24,
28, and 29.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 5-7, 14--17,
20, 22-25, and 27-29.
REVERSED
6