Ex Parte Wood et alDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardNov 29, 201713773024 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 29, 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. 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation