Ex Parte Raum et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 7, 2019

14462804 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 7, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/462,804 08/19/2014 Matthew Thomas Raum
44639 7590 06/11/2019
CANTOR COLBURN LLP-BAKER HUGHES, A GE COMPANY, LLC
20 Church Street
22nd Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
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.
OPS4-56151-US-NP 2191
EXAMINER
LOBO,IANJ
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3645
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/11/2019 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):
usptopatentmail@cantorcolbum.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MATTHEW THOMAS RAUM,
ROGER GLEN DUNCAN, and BROOKS A. CHILDERS
Appeal2018-005645
Application 14/462,804
Technology Center 3600
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, EDWARD A. BROWN, and
LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MATTHEW THOMAS RAUM et al. (Appellants) 1 appeal under 35
U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-17. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify Baker Hughes Incorporated as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2018-005645
Application 14/462,804
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
1. A system to obtain acoustic information from a borehole
penetrating the earth, the system comprising:
a light source configured to provide a continuous output
beam over a selected period of time;
a modulator configured to modulate the continuous
output beam with a modulation signal to provide a frequency
modulated continuous wave (FMCW) to be sent out on an
optical fiber disposed along the borehole, the optical fiber
including a plurality of reflectors at known locations along the
optical fiber; and
a processor configured to process a light reflection signal
from the optical fiber to determine the acoustic information.
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Hartog (US 2010/0085572 Al, published Apr. 8, 2010) and
Collins (S. F. Collins et al., A Multiplexing Scheme for Optical
Fibre Interferometric Sensors using an FMCW Generated Carrier,
8th Optical Fiber Sensors Conference 209-12 (1992)).
II. Claims 1-5, 9-13, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Goldner (US 2007/0047867 Al, published Mar.
1, 2007) and Collins.
DISCUSSION
Rejection I
In contesting the rejection of claims 2-17 as unpatentable over Hartog
and Collins, Appellants rely on the arguments made for claim 1. See Appeal
2
Appeal2018-005645
Application 14/462,804
Br. 8. We decide the appeal of this rejection on the basis of claim 1, with
claims 2-17 standing or falling with claim 1. See 37 C.F .R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (permitting the Board to select a single claim to decide the
appeal as to a single ground of rejection of a group of claims argued
together).
The Examiner finds that the only difference between Hartog's system
and the system recited in claim 1 is that Hartog does not disclose "providing
a FMCW to be sent out on the optical fiber." Final Act. 4. Notably, claim 1
does not specify whether the processor is configured to process the light
reflection signal in the time domain or in the frequency domain. See Appeal
Br. 12 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds that Collins discloses using
optical fiber sensors for physical measurands and "suggests that time domain
multiplexing schemes," such as Hartog, "require complex signal
processing." Final Act. 4. The Examiner also finds that Collins suggests
"[a] simpler scheme [that] uses frequency modulated continuous wave
(FMCW) techniques" and "teaches that one of the advantages, along with
being simpler, of using such FMCW techniques is that individual sensors
may be distinguished from each other." Id. Thus, the Examiner determines
that it would have been obvious to modify Hartog's system "by modulating
the output optical beam using FMCW technology so as to provide for a
simpler multiplexing scheme where the individual sensors (reflectors) are
distinguished within a borehole." Id.
Appellants contend that "time domain multiplexing and the use of
pulses in the time domain multiplexing scheme are part of the principle of
operation of Hartog." Appeal Br. 4. Thus, Appellants argue that modifying
Hartog "to use a frequency domain multiplexing scheme would change the
3
Appeal2018-005645
Application 14/462,804
principle of operation of Hartog" and that modifying Hartog "to implement
its time domain multiplexing scheme with a frequency modulated
continuous wave would change the principle of operation of Hartog and also
render it unfit for its intended purpose." Id. at 5.
Appellants argue that the title of the Hartog patent (i.e., "TIME
DOMAIN MULTIPLEXING OF INTERFEROMETRIC SENSORS") sets
out Hartog' s principle of operation. Id. Appellant does not cite any
authority for this position, and we are not aware of any legal authority for
the position that a patent's title necessarily sets out its principle of operation.
The Examiner interprets the principle of operation of Hartog as "using
an optical fiber with plural reflectors located therein, with the optical fiber
located in a borehole as the sensing mechanism, modulating an output of an
optical source that is connected to the optical [fiber] and processing the
reflected signals to thereby obtain acoustic information from the borehole."
Ans. 4. Based on our findings below, the Examiner's interpretation of the
principle of operation of Hartog strikes us as substantially reasonable, but
we interpret Hartog's principle of operation slightly more narrowly. In
particular, Hartog discloses that "[ w ]hen multiple sensors are arranged in an
array, the extraction of useful information requires identification of each
sensor's contribution to the combined signal." Hartog ,-J 17. Thus, we
interpret Hartog' s principle of operation as using an optical fiber with an
array of sensors ( or reflectors) to identify and determine one or more
downhole properties by modulating the output from an optical source,
transmitting the modulated signal to the fiber, and processing the reflected
signals in a manner in which each sensor's contribution to the combined
signal is identified. See id. ,-i,-i 1, 17, 20.
4
Appeal2018-005645
Application 14/462,804
Hartog discusses two alternative multiplexing techniques for
identifying each sensor's contribution to the combined signal. See id. ,i,i 3,
4, 18, 19. One alternative is to use wavelength multiplexing, in which each
sensor (reflector) responds to interrogation pulses having a particular optical
wavelength. Id. ,i,i 3, 18. The other alternative is to use a time domain
multiplexing technique in which the sensors in the array are disposed at
different locations within the region and at different distances from the
interrogation and acquisition equipment, and the sensors are distinguished
based on measuring the transit time of an optical signal between the
interrogation equipment and the detection equipment. Id. ,i,i 4, 19. Hartog
discloses that systems implementing wavelength multiplexing schemes may
not be optimal for all applications, such as where it is desired to use arrays
of identical sensors, rather than sensors that respond to different
wavelengths. Id. ,i,i 3, 18. Hartog also points out that wavelength
multiplexing techniques do not provide location information, and any
inherent imprecision in knowing the exact location of a sensor that
corresponds to a particular wavelength or ambiguities in the returned
combined signal may create difficulties in separating out the contributions
from each sensor. Id.
Thus, Hartog discusses embodiments of systems which launch a series
of optical pulses, generated by modulating output from an optical source,
into an optical sensor array having a plurality of interferometric sensors
disposed at a plurality of locations in a region of interest, analyze returned
signals in response to the pulses in a time domain to identify each sensor's
contribution to the returned signals, analyze each sensor's contribution in a
wavelength domain to determine an optical path imbalance associated with
5
Appeal2018-005645
Application 14/462,804
each sensor, and determine at least one physical parameter at the locations in
the region of interest based on the optical path length imbalances. Id. ,i,i 4,
5. Hartog's disclosed multiplexing techniques "exploit [the] differences in
the locations of the respective sensors to distinguish their respective
contributions to the returned signal based on a determination of each
sensor's location in the region of interest." Id. ,i 18. In other words,
Hartog's multiplexing scheme requires the locations of the sensors in the
sensor array to be known prior to launching the series of pulses and
analyzing the returned combined signal. Hartog determines the location
(i.e., the position information along the fiber) of each sensor by launching an
interrogating pulse of light into the optical fiber and measuring the transit
time of the optical signal in the time domain (i.e., the time difference
between the launch of the pulse and the receipt of the returned signal). Id.
,i 19. Further, the minimum spacing between pulses, or pulse repetition
frequency of the pulses, in the series of pulses used in the multiplexing
technique is dictated by the round-trip transit time between the nearest
sensor and the most remote sensor in the array, and the duration of
individual pulses is selected to be less than the round-trip transit time
between adjacent sensors. Id. ,i,i 20, 26.
Although Hartog elects to modulate the optical source into a series of
pulses having a duration and minimum spacing dictated by the known
spacing between adjacent sensors and between the closest and most remote
sensors, and Hartog uses time domain multiplexing to distinguish the
contributions of each sensor, this particular means of distinguishing the
contributions of each sensor is not integral to the principle of operation of
Hartog, as Appellants contend. Other means of interrogating sensors and
6
Appeal2018-005645
Application 14/462,804
multiplexing the returned signals in a manner in which the contributions of
each sensor are distinguished may be used without changing the principle of
operation of Hartog. Interrogating the sensors with a frequency modulated
continuous wave and multiplexing as taught by Collins would omit the
series of pulses as an input and the time domain multiplexing to determine
the contribution of each sensor, which Hartog apparently regards as his
contribution to the art, along with the advantages it provides. However, the
resulting system will operate on the same principles as before, namely, using
an optical fiber with an array of sensors ( or reflectors) in known locations to
identify and determine one or more downhole properties by modulating the
output from an optical source, transmitting the modulated signal to the fiber,
and processing the reflected signals in a manner in which each sensor's
contribution to the combined signal is identified. Collins 210-11; see In re
Umbarger, 407 F.2d 425,430 (CCPA 1969) (stating that a substitution that
omits a circuit portion apparently regarded by the inventor of the prior art as
his contribution to the art, along with such advantages as the circuit may
provide, was clearly obvious and did not change the principles on which the
prior art operated).
Appellants' argument that modifying Hartog to use a frequency
domain multiplexing scheme would change Hartog' s principle of operation
(Appeal Br. 5) is unsound because, as discussed above, Hartog discloses
analyzing the returned signals in both a time domain ( to identify each
sensor's contribution) and in a wavelength domain (to determine an optical
path imbalance associated with each sensor, and determine at least one
physical parameter at the locations in the region of interest based on the
optical path length imbalances). Hartog ,i,i 4, 5.
7
Appeal2018-005645
Application 14/462,804
Appellants' argument that modifying Hartog "to implement its time
domain multiplexing scheme with a frequency modulated continuous wave
would change the principle of operation of Hartog and also render it unfit for
its intended purpose" (Appeal Br. 5) is unavailing because it does not
address the rejection set forth by the Examiner. The Examiner's stated
reason for using FMCW technology, as taught by Collins, is "to provide for
a simpler multiplexing scheme" where the individual sensors are
distinguished. Final Act. 4. The "simpler multiplexing scheme" entails the
signal processing taught by Collins, which Collins characterizes as being
simpler than the "complex signal processing" required in an optical time
domain scheme using nanosecond pulses. See Collins 209-11. We do not
understand the Examiner's rejection as proposing to maintain the signal
processing of Hartog, which is configured for returned signals from a series
of pulses, because the stated reason for the modification is to provide a
simpler multiplexing scheme in contrast to the complex signal processing
required for time domain multiplexing schemes using nanosecond pulses.
See Ans. 5 ( explaining that one of ordinary skill in the art would not
maintain such a multiplexing scheme while using a frequency modulated
continuous wave, as this would presume a lack of skill, knowledge of
multiplexing schemes, and creativity); Collins 209-10. "A person of
ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton."
KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,421 (2007).
For the reasons discussed above, we do not agree with Appellants that
the use of pulses is a necessary part of the principle of operation of Hartog.
Further, as also discussed above, Hartog recognizes that wavelength
multiplexing (i.e., multiplexing in the frequency domain) is an alternative
8
Appeal2018-005645
Application 14/462,804
way of distinguishing sensors in a sensor array when the positions of the
sensors are known. Collins teaches that an optical time domain scheme
using nanosecond pulses requires complex signal processing and suggests,
instead, using a simpler scheme using "a variation of the FMCW (frequency
modulated continuous wave) technique to provide each of the sensor outputs
with a unique carrier frequency." Collins 209-10. Collins concludes that, in
the proposed FMCW technique, "[ e Jach sensor generates a unique carrier
frequency, thereby enabling the individual sensor inputs to be distinguished
from each other." Id. at 211. Thus, it is not apparent, and Appellants do not
provide technical reasoning or evidence to explain, why modifying Hartog to
use an FMCW technique, with its simpler signal processing, would render
Hartog unfit for its intended purpose.
For the above reasons, Appellants fail to apprise us of error in the
rejection of claim 1 as unpatentable over Hartog and Collins. Accordingly,
we sustain the rejection of claim 1, as well as claims 2-1 7, which fall with
claim 1, as unpatentable over Hartog and Collins.
Rejection II
The Examiner finds that Goldner differs from the system recited in
independent claim 1, and the method recited in independent claim 10, in that
Goldner does not disclose "providing a FMCW to be sent out on the optical
fiber." Final Act. 4. The Examiner notes, however, that Goldner
contemplates the use of frequency analysis. Id. ( citing Goldner ,-J,-J 48-49).
The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious, in view of
Collins, discussed above, to modify Goldner "by modulating the output
optical beam using FMCW technology so as to provide for a simpler
9
Appeal2018-005645
Application 14/462,804
multiplexing scheme where the individual sensors (reflectors) are
distinguished within a borehole." Id.
Appellants contend that modifying Goldner, as the Examiner
proposes, by using a frequency modulated continuous wave would result in a
carrier modulated with a swept frequency signal being "sent down the
optical fiber 110 of Goldner instead of a pulse," and, "[t]hus, instead ofN
pulses, N waves, each comprised of multiple frequencies and each shifted by
a different phase, would be reflected by the N fiber gratings 105 based on
each transmission." Appeal Br. 9-10. Thus, Appellants argue that,
"[l]ogically, the processing needed for the N waves of phase shifted multiple
frequencies is clearly more complicated than the processing needed for the N
pulses described by Goldner," which conflicts with "the purported
motivation for the proposed modification based on Collins," namely,
"simplicity and the ability to distinguish individual sensors." Id. at 10.
Unlike Hartog, which modulates the light source into a series of
pulses to interrogate the sensors in the sensor array, Goldner discloses
modulating the laser light "into a pulse" and sending the modulated pulse of
light to circulator 155 and then down optical fiber 110 to the acoustical
sensors. Goldner ,i,i 42, 43. Goldner's single pulse into fiber 110 "results in
a return series of N-pulses back to the circulator 155 where N is proportional
to the number of fiber gratings 105 in the remotely deployed fiber sensor
array." Id. ,i 44 (boldface omitted). According to Goldner, "[l]ight passing
through the individual sensors ... undergoes a phase shift based upon the
presence or absence of an acoustic signal." Id. Goldner discloses that the
multiple return pulses from the sensors can be processed using either time
domain analysis or frequency domain analysis, both of which are well
10
Appeal2018-005645
Application 14/462,804
known in the art. Id. ,i 46. According to Goldner, the choice of whether to
use time domain analysis or frequency domain analysis depends "on the
information desired to be provided by the analysis." Id. As illustrated by
comparison of Figures 5A, 5B, 6A, 6B, 7 A, and 7B, although time domain
graphs of signals received during a rebar wire break and a hammer blow,
respectively, show some differences between the acoustic signatures of the
two events, time domain analysis may not always be preferable in that
different sources may provide similar acoustic signatures in the time domain.
Id. ,i 47. In some cases, frequency domain analysis may better distinguish
the acoustic signatures of different acoustic events. Id. ,i 48.
The Examiner does not dispute Appellants' contention that, if Goldner
were modified to send a frequency modulated continuous wave, as taught by
Collins, instead of a single pulse, as disclosed by Goldner, the result would
be that N waves, each comprised of multiple frequencies and each shifted by
a different phase, would be reflected by the N fiber gratings based on each
transmission, rather than the N pulses returned from the transmission of
Goldner's single pulse. (Appeal Br. 9-10). Nor does the Examiner
explicitly disagree with, much less offer persuasive evidence or technical
reasoning to rebut, Appellants' assertion that "[l]ogically, the processing
needed for the N waves of phase shifted multiple frequencies is clearly more
complicated than the processing needed for the N pulses described by
Goldner" (id. at 10). Notably, Collins, the evidence cited by the Examiner in
support of the proffered motivation that the proposed modification would
"provide for a simpler multiplexing scheme" (Final Act. 4), describes the
suggested scheme using a variation of the frequency modulated continuous
wave technique as being simpler relative to an optical time domain scheme
11
Appeal2018-005645
Application 14/462,804
using nanosecond pulses. Collins 209-10. Collins does not address whether
the suggested scheme using a frequency modulated continuous wave would
require less complex signal processing than a scheme such as that disclosed
by Goldner using a single pulse to interrogate the sensor array.
Collins does teach that using an FMCW technique enables the
individual sensor outputs to be distinguished from each other by causing
each sensor to generate a unique carrier frequency. Collins 211. However,
Goldner does not give any indication that there would be any difficulty
distinguishing the individual sensor outputs from each other when
interrogated by a single pulse as described by Goldner, nor does the
Examiner explain why Goldner's system would present such difficulty. 2
Thus, the Examiner does not articulate reasoning with any rational
underpinning as to why the sensor-distinguishing aspect of using an FMCW
technique would have prompted a person having ordinary skill in the art to
modify Goldner to use a frequency modulated continuous wave, rather than
a single pulse, to interrogate the sensors in the sensor array, especially if
such a modification would require a more complex signal processing, in
accordance with Appellants' uncontested contention.
In summary, on the basis of the record before us, there is insufficient
evidence to support the Examiner's determination that modifying Goldner
by using a frequency modulated continuous wave, rather than a single pulse,
to interrogate the sensors would provide for a simpler multiplexing scheme,
2 In this regard, Hartog teaches that sensors may be distinguished based on
measuring the transit time of an optical signal between the interrogation
equipment and the detection equipment, and addresses the transit time of the
optical signal by launching an interrogating pulse of light into an optical
fiber. Hartog ,-J,-J 18, 19.
12
Appeal2018-005645
Application 14/462,804
as well as insufficient evidence or technical reasoning to support any other
rationale for making the proposed modification. Consequently, the
Examiner fails to establish the requisite factual basis to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of
independent claims 1 and 10, or their dependent claims 2-5, 9, 11-13, and
16, as unpatentable over Goldner and Collins.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-17 as unpatentable over
Hartog and Collins is AFFIRMED.
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-5, 9-13, and 16 as
unpatentable over Goldner and Collins is REVERSED.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l .136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ l.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
13