Ex Parte Wood et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 29, 2017

13773024 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 29, 2017)

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.
13/773,024 02/21/2013 Edward Wood WBI4-54161-US(BAO0996US2) 4988
44639 7590 12/01/2017
CANTOR COLBURN LLP- BAKER HUGHES INCORPORATED
20 Church Street
22nd Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
EXAMINER
MAINI, RAHUL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2866
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/01/2017 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):
usptopatentmail@cantorcolbum.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte EDWARD WOOD, ZHIYUE XU, YANG XU,
and DAVID GERRARD
Appeal 2017-001657
Application 13/773,024
Technology Center 2800
Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, JULIA HEANEY,
and MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.
McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Examiner rejected claims 1—24 of Application 13/773,024 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious. Non-Final Act. (June 6, 2016) 5—24.
Appellants1 seek reversal of these rejections pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a).
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE.
1 Baker Hughes Incorporated is identified as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2017-001657
Application 13/773,024
BACKGROUND
The present application generally relates to a self-powered borehole
communication assembly that can be used to transmit data or signals via
electric current. Spec. 3, 12. The assembly includes a first and a second
electrode capable of forming an electrochemical cell when disposed in a
borehole fluid that is at least partially electrolytic. Id. 13. The
electrochemical cell may produce a current or voltage configured to directly
convey information related to the borehole. Id.
Claim 1 is representative of the pending claims and is reproduced
below with certain language bolded for emphasis:
1. A self-powered borehole communication assembly,
comprising:
a first electrode member having a first electrode potential; and
a second electrode member having a second electrode potential
different than the first electrode potential, the first and second
electrodes forming an electrochemical cell when disposed in a
borehole fluid that is at least partially electrolytic;
wherein the electrochemical cell is operatively arranged for
producing a current and a voltage with at least one of the
current or the voltage configured to directly convey through
the earth information related to at least one sensed borehole
condition, property, or parameter proximate to one of the first
and second electrodes.
Appeal Br. 9 (Claims App.).
REJECTIONS
On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejections:
1. Claims 1—3, 22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Stephenson (US 6,253,847 Bl, iss. July 3, 2001) in view of
Fisseler et al. (US 8,564,315 B2, iss. Oct. 22, 2013) (hereinafter “Fisseler”)
2
Appeal 2017-001657
Application 13/773,024
and further in view of Douglas (US 2,364,957, iss. Dec. 12, 1944). Final
Act. 5-11.
2. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Stephenson in view of Fisseler and Douglas and further in view of Mullins et
al. (US 8,061,444 B2, iss. Nov. 22, 2011) (hereinafter “Mullins”). Id. at 11—
13.
3. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Stephenson in view of Fisseler, Douglas, Mullins, and further in view of
Casciaro et al. (US 8,931,570 B2, iss. Jan. 13, 2015) (hereinafter
“Casciaro”). Id. at 13—14.
4. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Stephenson in view of Fisseler and Douglas, and further in view of Hansen
et al. (US 8,321,190 B2, iss. Nov. 27, 2012) (hereinafter “Hansen”). Id. at
14—15.
5. Claims 7, 8, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Stephenson in view of Fisseler and Douglas, and further in
view of Zhang et al. (US 7,096,955 B2, iss. Aug. 29, 2006) (hereinafter
“Zhang”). Id. at 15-17.
6. Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Stephenson in view of Fisseler, Douglas, and Zhang, and
further in view of Habashy et al. (US 8,754,651 B2, iss. June 17, 2014)
(hereinafter “Habashy”). Id. at 17—19.
7. Claims 13, 15, 17, 19, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Stephenson in view of Fisseler and Douglas and
further in view of Schultz et al. (US 6,672,382 B2, iss. Jan. 6, 2004)
(hereinafter “Schultz”). Id. at 19-20.
3
Appeal 2017-001657
Application 13/773,024
8. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Stephenson in view of Fisseler, Douglas, and Schultz, and further in view of
Lovom et al. (US 2013/0008648 Al, pub. Jan. 10, 2013) (hereinafter
“Lovom”). Id. at 20—21.
9. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Stephenson in view of Fisseler, Douglas, and Schultz, and further in view of
Hall et al. (US 7,277,026 B2, pub. Oct. 2, 2007) (hereinafter “Hall”). Id. at
21-22.
10. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Stephenson in view of Fisseler, Douglas, and Schultz, and further in view of
Capderou (US 2012/0061095 Al, pub. March 15, 2012). Id. at 22—23.
11. Claims 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Stephenson in view of Fisseler, Douglas, and Schultz, and
further in view of Zabcik (US 4,518,888, iss. May 21, 1985). Id. at 23—24.
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1. The Examiner rejected claims 1—3, 22, and 24 as
obvious over Stephenson in view of Fisseler and Douglas. Non-Final Act.
5—11. In support of such rejection, the Examiner found that Fisseler teaches
a device “. . .with at least one of the current or the voltage [. . .] configured
to directly convey . . . information.” Id. at 6 (emphasis omitted). The
Examiner further found that Douglas teaches propagating a signal “. . .
through the earth.” Id. at 7 (emphasis omitted).
Appellants argue that Douglas does not teach a device that directly
conveys the voltage or current from the electrochemical cell through the
earth. Appeal Br. 5. Specifically, Appellants assert that “Douglas describes
4
Appeal 2017-001657
Application 13/773,024
employing produced power to operate oscillators whose signals are then sent
through the formation.” Id.
In response, the Examiner cites to a portion of the Specification
describing an embodiment as follows:
the switch 32 is included and the relatively constant current
provided between the members 16 and 18 is controlled by
altematingly opening and closing the switch 32. The device 28
would then detect either some current or no current, depending
on the open/closed status of the switch 32. By associating the
detection of a current voltage as a T and the lack of detection as
a 'O', information can be communicated in binary form from the
assembly 24 to the device 28.
Answer 5—6 (citing Spec. 114).
The Examiner interprets the foregoing to mean that the current or
voltage of the present application may be configured to directly convey “hg
the switch information through the earth. The Examiner determines that
turning the switch on and off transforms the power into a current that
conveys information about a downhole condition and which travels through
the earth to the communication device 28, and which can be analyzed at the
surface. Answer 6. The Examiner determines that this mode of operation is
similar to Douglas. Specifically, the Examiner reasons that:
just as, in the Instant Application, the current or voltage
is configured to directly convey through the earth information
related to the borehole condition by the switch; so also in
Douglas the current or voltage is configured to directly convey
through the earth information related to the borehole condition
by the oscillator.
Id.
5
Appeal 2017-001657
Application 13/773,024
We do not adopt the Examiner’s construction of the claim. The
claims at issue require that the electrochemical cell produce the current or
voltage that is directly conveyed through the earth. Although the optional
switch of the present application may play a role in power supply, the
current or voltage is not taught to be sent “by the switch.” Rather, the
current or voltage of the present claims is conveyed directly by the
electrochemical cell. None of the cited references teach this feature.
Accordingly, Appellants have shown error in the Examiner’s
determination and the rejections of claims 1—3, 22, and 24 as obvious will be
reversed.
Rejection 2. The Examiner rejected claim 4 as obvious over
Stephenson in view of Fisseler and Douglas and further in view of Mullins.
Non-Final Act. 11—13. Claim 4 depends indirectly from claim 1 and further
requires as follows:
the composition of the fluid is defined by at least a first fluid
component and a second fluid component and the composition is
sensed by the system by a comparison of the voltage actually
measured to a first value representing the electrochemical cell
being used in the first fluid component only and to a second value
representing the electrochemical cell being used in the second
fluid component only.
Appeal Br. 9 (Claims App.).
The Examiner relies upon Mullins’ disclosure of various analytical
instruments such as spectrometer 204 and sensors 205 used to generate fluid
analysis reports. Answer 12; Mullins 12:8—15. The Examiner finds that
mass spectrometers work by detecting ions which are measured as a current
or voltage. Answer 12. The Examiner does not, however, cite to any
6
Appeal 2017-001657
Application 13/773,024
portion of Mullins that teaches that a voltage is produced by an
electrochemical cell. The “voltage” required by claim 4 finds antecedent
basis in the “voltage” term of claim 1. That is, claim 4 requires comparison
of the voltage produced by the electrochemical cell. The Examiner makes
no finding in this regard.
In addition to the foregoing, claim 4 depends (indirectly) from claim 1
which has not been shown to be unpatentable. Accordingly, claim 4 has not
been shown to be obvious.
Rejections 3—6. The Examiner rejected claims 5—12 as described
above. Non-Final Act. 13—17. Appellants argue that these rejections should
be reversed for the same reasons as put forth with regard to claim 1. Appeal
Br. 7. As we find Appellants’ arguments regarding claim 1 to be persuasive
of reversible error, we reverse the rejections of claims 5—12 on the same
basis.
Rejection 7. The Examiner rejected claims 13, 15, 17, 19, and 23 as
obvious over Stephenson in view of Fisseler and Douglas and further in
view of Schultz. Non-Final Act. 19—20.
Appellants briefly argue that certain limitations of the foregoing
claims are not taught by Schultz. After summarizing the claims at issue and
the Examiner’s findings regarding Schultz, Appellants present two sentences
of argument. Appeal Br. 6—7. First, they argue that “[t]he electrolytic fluid
is not disclosed as being borehole fluid.” Id. at 7. Second, Appellants argue
that Schultz “does not describe providing power to multiple mechanisms.”
Id.
7
Appeal 2017-001657
Application 13/773,024
The Examiner responds that Schultz teaches that the electrolytic fluid
may be borehole fluid as follows: “[t]he voltaic cell has an electrolyte which
may be isolated from well fluid, or the electrolyte may be well fluid.”
Answer 15 (citing Schultz 1:43—49) (emphasis in original). Similarly, the
Examiner finds that Schultz teaches that “[t]he power system 10 includes an
electrical power source 12 and an electrical power-consuming well tool 14.”
Id. at 16. Appellants have not shown error in these findings.
Although Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner’s findings
regarding claims 13, 15, 17, 19, and 23, such claims depend from
independent claims 1 and 22. As we have determined to reverse the
rejections of the claims 1 and 22, we similarly determine to reverse the
rejections of claims 13, 15, 17, 19, and 23.
Rejections 8-10. The Examiner rejected claims 14, 16, and 18 as
described above. Non-Final Act. 20-23. Appellants argue that these
rejections should be reversed for the same reasons as put forth with regard to
claim 1. Appeal Br. 7—8. As we find Appellants’ arguments regarding
claim 1 to be persuasive of reversible error, we reverse the rejections of
claims 14, 16, and 18 on the same basis.
Rejection 11. The Examiner rejected claims 20 and 21 as obvious
over Stephenson in view of Fisseler, Douglas, and Schultz, and further in
view of Zabcik. Non-Final Act. 23—24. Claims 20 and 21 depend from
claim 13 and claim 1. Appellants argue that these rejections should be
reversed for the same reasons as put forth with regard to claims 1 and 13.
Appeal Br. 7. As we find Appellants’ arguments regarding claim 1 to be
8
Appeal 2017-001657
Application 13/773,024
persuasive of reversible error, we reverse the rejections of claims 20 and 21
on the same basis.
CONCLUSION
The rejections of claims 1—24 as obvious are reversed.
REVERSED
9