Mark Olsson et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 1, 2021

2020003980 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 1, 2021)

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.
14/027,027 09/13/2013 Mark S. Olsson SEEK 09-248-201 5403
13235 7590 04/01/2021
Steven C. Tietsworth
3855 Ruffin Road
San Diego, CA 92123
EXAMINER
ZHANG, HAIDONG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2858
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/01/2021 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):
steven.tietsworth@seescan.com
susan.hammons@seescan.com
tietsworth@cox.net
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARK S. OLSSON, JUSTIN W. TAYLOR,
RAY MEREWETHER, and JAN SOUKUP
Appeal 2020-003980
Application 14/027,027
Technology Center 2800
Before TERRY J. OWENS, LINDA M. GAUDETTE, and
JENNIFER GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges.
OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–5 and 7–38. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as SeeScan, Inc.
(Appeal Br. 1).
Appeal 2020-003980
Application 14/027,027

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a sonde device including a sectional ferrite
core structure. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A sonde device, comprising:
a battery for providing DC power;
a waterproof housing including a watertight sealable
openable battery compartment cap for removing and replacing
the battery:
an electronic circuit disposed within the housing, the
electronic circuit electrically coupled to and powered by the
battery to generate an alternating current signal output at a
plurality of different predetermined frequencies;
a magnetic core centrally and axially disposed inside the
housing along the length of the housing, the magnetic core
including:
a plurality of axially elongate cross-sectional arc shaped
core section elements; and
a support structure for positioning the core section
elements thereon; and
a coil assembly disposed along the length of the magnetic
core, the coil assembly comprising a winding wound outside
the plurality of core section elements with the core section
elements positioned tightly adjacent, the winding being coupled
to the output of the electronic circuit to receive a current signal
therefrom and generate a corresponding magnetic field dipole
signal.
Appeal 2020-003980
Application 14/027,027

3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Olsson ’239 US 5,808,239 Sept. 15, 1998
Prammer US 2005/0030021 A1 Feb. 10, 2005
Olsson ’875 US 2006/0006875 A1 Jan. 12, 2006
Plyushchenkov US 2011/0019500 A1 Jan. 27, 2011
Olsson ’437 US 2011/0109437 A1 May 12, 2011
Tinlin US 2011/0203394 A1 Aug. 25, 2011
Huang US 2011/0291564 A1 Dec. 1, 2011
REJECTIONS
Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
1–5, 7–38 112, second paragraph Indefiniteness
1–5, 7–19, 29, 32–36,
38
103(a) Olsson ’875, Prammer
20–24 103(a) Olsson ’875, Prammer,
Huang
25 103(a) Olsson ’875, Prammer,
Olsson ’239
26–28 103(a) Olsson ’875, Tinlin,
Prammer, Olsson ’437
30, 31 103(a) Olsson ’875, Prammer,
Tinlin
1, 37 103(a) Olsson ’875,
Plyushchenkov
OPINION
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
The relevant inquiry under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is
whether the claim language, as it would have been interpreted by one of
ordinary skill in the art in light of the Appellant’s Specification, sets out and
circumscribes a particular area with a reasonable degree of precision and
particularity. See In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235 (CCPA 1971).
Appeal 2020-003980
Application 14/027,027

4
The Examiner concludes, regarding claim 1 (Final 4):
[T]he term “tightly” is a relative term which renders the claim
indefinite. The term “tightly” is not defined by the claim, the
specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the
requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not
be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore,
it is not clear how “tightly” is being quantified as tightly.

The Examiner finds that the Appellant’s Figure 8 “shows a gap between the
core section elements. However, there is no specific value and/or width to
classified width of the gap; therefore, it is not clear whether the core section
elements are tightly positioned or not” (Ans. 3).
“[D]uring examination proceedings, claims are given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” In re Translogic
Tech. Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting In re Hyatt, 211
F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000)).
The Appellant’s Specification states that “in FIG. 8, the gaps or
openings between the ferrite arc core section elements 620 may provide for
an ideal passageway for the return wires 682 and the coil leads 720 from the
PCB 680 to be routed to their respective component destinations” (¶ 70).
Regarding Figure 10A, the Appellant’s Specification states that
“manufacturing tolerances may be lower since the core section elements
may be positioned with varying gaps between each other” (¶ 81), and
“wiring or structures may be disposed in the gaps between arc core section
elements to allow for reductions in size and/or other performance
benefits” (id.). Thus, the Appellant’s claim term “tightly adjacent,” given its
broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the Appellant’s Specification,
includes the gaps disclosed in the Specification. That claim term, therefore,
Appeal 2020-003980
Application 14/027,027

5
is not indefinite, so we reverse the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph.
Rejections involving Olsson ’875 and Prammer
We need address only the sole independent claim, i.e., claim 1.
Olsson ’875 discloses a sonde comprising a core (12) of flexible wire
rope made of a plurality of individual bundles (12a) of parallel fine gauge
wires (¶ 35; Fig. 2).
Prammer discloses a nuclear magnetic resonance tool for logging-
while-drilling of a geological formation (¶ 44; Fig. 2). The tool comprises a
magnetic assembly (200) including a transceiver assembly (240) comprising
an antenna core (250) which can have two or more core segments (725)
adjacent to a yoke (710) (¶¶ 63, 77; Fig. 2). The shape of each core
segment (725) resembles a sector of a tubular cylinder cut along its
longitudinal axis, and the core segments (725) are separated from each other
by guide projections (715) of the yoke (710) (¶ 77; Fig. 7A).
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to use Prammer’s segmented core structure instead of
Olsson ’875’s flexible wire rope core structure “for the purpose of
improving the quality of measurements and optimizing signal quality”
(Final 6–7; Ans. 7–8). The Examiner finds (Ans. 7–8):
Using a plurality of core section elements to construct the
magnetic core enables the sonde to improve the capability to
obtain more data points about a particular region of interest at a
particular time, while a single core element sonde obtain
information on its surrounding all at once; therefore, data
capacity on a particular region of its surrounding is relatively
less. Therefore, having the magnetic core with a plurality of
core section enables the sonde to obtain more data points which
improves the quality of measurements because it provides more
Appeal 2020-003980
Application 14/027,027

6
detail information about the particular region of interest. As a
result, the signal strength is improved when operating one core
section element one by one, because doing so enables the
capability of having more power provided to a smaller core
section element to improve electromagnetic signal strength; as
compare to having the same amount of power provided to the
single core sonde, the electromagnetic signal strength would be
weaker. Therefore, having the magnetic core with a plurality of
core section enables the sonde to have stronger signal strength
which improves signal quality.

Those findings and the conclusion of obviousness based thereon are
not well taken because the findings are unsupported by evidence. See In re
Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967) (“The Patent Office has the
initial duty of supplying the factual basis for its rejection. It may not . . .
resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction to
supply deficiencies in its factual basis.”). Accordingly, we reverse the
rejections involving Olsson and Prammer.
Rejection over Olsson ’875 in view of Plyushchenkov
The Appellant does not challenge the rejection over Olsson ’875 in
view of Plyushchenkov (Appeal Br. 3–10; Reply Br. 1–7). We therefore
summarily affirm that rejection.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–5 and 7–38 is affirmed in
part.
Appeal 2020-003980
Application 14/027,027

7
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–5, 7–38 112, second
paragraph
Indefiniteness 1–5, 7–38
1–5, 7–19,
29, 32–36,
38
103(a) Olsson ’875,
Prammer
1–5, 7–19,
29, 32–36,
38
20–24 103(a) Olsson ’875,
Prammer, Huang
20–24
25 103(a) Olsson ’875,
Prammer, Olsson
’239
25
26–28 103(a) Olsson ’875,
Tinlin, Prammer,
Olsson ’437
26–28
30, 31 103(a) Olsson ’875,
Prammer, Tinlin
30, 31
1, 37 103(a) Olsson ’875,
Plyushchenkov
1, 37
Overall
Outcome
1, 37 2–5, 7–36,
38
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED IN PART