15021478 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 5, 2019)

Minh Dang. Nguyen

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardSep 5, 2019

15021478 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 5, 2019)

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. 15/021,478 03/11/2016 Minh Dang Nguyen 2013-075824 U1 US 4276 142050 7590 09/05/2019 HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC. C/O PARKER JUSTISS, P.C. 14241 DALLAS PARKWAY SUITE 620 DALLAS, TX 75254 EXAMINER LOBO, IAN J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3645 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/05/2019 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): docket@pj-iplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte MINH DANG NGUYEN ____________________ Appeal 2019-002331 Application 15/021,4781 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before ANTON W. FETTING, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. According to Appellant, the “disclosure relates to logging while drilling (LWD) or measurement while drilling (MWD) logging systems 1 “The real party in interest . . . is . . . Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.” Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2019-002331 Application 15/021,478 2 implemented in wellbores.” Spec. ¶ 1. Claims 1 and 16 are the independent claims under appeal. Below, we reproduce claim 1 as illustrative of the appealed claims. 1. An acoustic well logging tool positionable in a wellbore, the tool comprising: a longitudinal tool body; an acoustic signal transmitter mounted in the tool body; an acoustic signal receiver mounted in the tool body and spaced longitudinally apart from the transmitter; and an acoustic signal attenuator including a plurality of slots formed in an outer surface of a portion of the tool body between the transmitter and the receiver, each slot defining an interior surface substantially covered with a plurality of protrusions extending therefrom. REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART The Examiner rejects the claims as follows: I. Claims 1–4, 8–17, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bradley (US 6,588,267 B1, iss. July 8, 2003) and Valenza, II et al. (US 2013/0170318 A1, pub. July 4, 2013) (“Valenza”); and II. Claims 5–7 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bradley, Valenza, and McDaniel et al. (US 6,850,462 B2, iss. Feb. 1, 2005) (“McDaniel”). ANALYSIS Rejection I As set forth above, independent claim 1 recites, in relevant part, “an acoustic signal attenuator including a plurality of slots formed in an outer Appeal 2019-002331 Application 15/021,478 3 surface of a portion of the tool body between the transmitter and the receiver, each slot defining an interior surface substantially covered with a plurality of protrusions extending therefrom.” Appeal Br., Claims App. (emphasis added). For the following reasons, the Examiner does not support adequately that Valenza discloses a plurality of protrusions substantially covering a slot interior surface, as claimed. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection. In the Final Office Action, the Examiner finds that “[t]he difference between . . . claim[] 1 . . . and Bradley[] . . . is the claim[] specif[ies] . . . ‘each slot defining an interior surface substantially covered with a plurality of protrusions extending therefrom.’” Final Action 3. Instead, the Examiner relies on Valenza’s Figure 9 and paragraph 51 to disclose the claimed protrusions extending from the slot interior surface, finding that Valenza’s flares 910 “cover 2/3 of the slots and therefore read upon the ‘surface substantially covered’ limitation.” Id. at 4. However, we agree with Appellant that “F[igure] 9 of Valenza is . . . a cross-section of the slot . . . . Accordingly, if one were to look at a different cross-section of Valenza, one could . . . find that . . . flares 910 do not extend entirely around the sidewall of the slot.” Appeal Br. 7 (bold omitted); see Valenza Fig. 9. Thus, Valenza’s Figure 9 only illustrate that flares 910 cover some unspecified portion of the slot’s interior surface, rather than 2/3 of the slot interior surface. Further, Valenza’s paragraph 51, which describes Figure 9, does not disclose to what extent flares 910 cover the slot’s interior surface—rather, as does Figure 9, the paragraph at most discloses that some unspecified portion of the slot’s interior surface includes flares 910. See id. ¶ 51. Appeal 2019-002331 Application 15/021,478 4 In the Answer, the Examiner determines that “the teaching of Valenza (paragraph 0051) of using protrusions for further attenuating acoustic signals would make one of ordinary skill in the art encompass the entirety of the interior surface of the slots of Bradley so as to attenuate acoustic signals travelling from the transmitter to receiver.” Answer 4. To the extent that one would understand the Examiner’s statement to mean that one of ordinary skill would interpret this portion of Valenza as disclosing that an entire surface of the slot’s interior wall includes flares 910, we disagree. Valenza’s paragraph 51 is not detailed enough to support such an interpretation. To the extent that one would understand the Examiner’s statement to mean that it would have been obvious to use flares 910 around an entire surface of the slot’s interior wall, the Examiner does not undertake any obviousness analysis sufficient to adequately support such a determination. Thus, for the above reasons, it is unclear to what extent Valenza’s flares 910 cover slot 212’s interior surface. The Examiner determines that “since [Appellant’s] [S]pecification does not specifically define what ‘substantially covered’ entails, it is the Examiner[’]s opinion that Valenza’s depiction in F[igure] 9 of an interior surface covered by flares (protrusions) reads upon ‘substantially covered.’” Answer 4. We disagree with the Examiner, however. Even though we do not precisely delineate to what extent protrusions must cover a surface before the protrusions substantially cover the surface, the fact that Valenza’s flares 910 cover some unspecified portion of slot 212’s interior surface is insufficient to support adequately the Examiner’s rejection. Therefore, based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 1. For similar reasons, we do Appeal 2019-002331 Application 15/021,478 5 not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 16, which includes a similar recitation as, and which the Examiner rejects with, independent claim 1. Further, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 2–4, 8–15, 17, 19, and 20 that depend from, and the Examiner rejects with, the independent claims. Rejection II Claims 5–7 and 18 depend from independent claims 1 and 16. The Examiner does not rely on McDaniel to disclose anything that would remedy the above-discussed deficiency in the independent claim’s rejection. Thus, we also do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent claims 5–7 and 18. DECISION We REVERSE the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1–20. REVERSED