Saudi Arabian Oil CompanyDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 18, 20212021000197 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 18, 2021) 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. 16/056,669 08/07/2018 Sameeh Issa Batarseh 2012738-0060 7472 148219 7590 06/18/2021 Choate / Saudi Arabian Oil Company (ASC and SAO) C/M Ref: 2012737 and 2012738 Two International Place Boston, MA 02110 EXAMINER GAY, JENNIFER HAWKINS ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3619 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/18/2021 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): jnease@choate.com patentdocket@choate.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ___________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ___________________ Ex parte SAMEEH ISSA BATARSEH ____________________ Appeal 2021-000197 Application 16/056,669 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before JONI Y. CHANG, MICHAEL R. ZECHER, and JUSTIN T. ARBES, Administrative Patent Judges. ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2021-000197 Application 16/056,669 2 I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1–22. Appeal Br. 5.2,3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. We affirm. Appellant’s Invention Appellant’s purported invention generally relates to laser tools configured to generate and output a laser beam downhole in a wellbore. Spec. ¶ 1. According to Appellant, “[a]s the laser beam travels along the optical transmission medium, the optical power of the laser beam decreases,” thereby “resulting [in] optical power loss increases as the distance the laser beam travels increases.” Id. ¶ 2. “In some downhole applications, the optical power loss may be considerable” and “may adversely affect use of the laser beam downhole.” Id. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Saudi Arabian Oil Company. Appeal Br. 3. 2 Although the Examiner initially rejected dependent claim 14 in the Final Action under appeal as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combined teachings of Faircloth, Batarseh, and Batarseh ’778 (Final Act. 1, 14–16), the Examiner withdrew the obviousness rejection of this claim in the Answer (Ans. 3). Dependent claim 14, however, still remains the subject to an indefiniteness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) because its underlying base claim recites the relative term “about.” Final Act. 4, 7. 3 Claim 12 was objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form, including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claim. Final Act. 17. Dependent claim 12, however, still remains the subject to two indefiniteness rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) because (1) this claim recites a range with an unbounded lower limit; and (2) its underlying base claim recites the relative term “about.” Id. at 4–5, 7. Appeal 2021-000197 Application 16/056,669 3 To address this problem, Appellant provides “laser tools for ablating structures located downhole” in a wellbore, where the laser tools each include “a laser generator” that “generate[s] the laser beam from within the wellbore.” Spec. ¶ 19. Figure 3, reproduced below, illustrates “a cross- sectional side view of components of an example laser tool downhole in a wellbore.” Id. ¶ 16. Figure 3, reproduced above, illustrates laser tool 46 that includes, among other things, control system 49, generator 50 with an optical power ranging from 4 kilowatt (“kW”) to 10kW, optical assembly 48, and housing 56. Id. ¶¶ 40–42. Housing 56 contains purging knife 58 configured to clear a path Appeal 2021-000197 Application 16/056,669 4 to target 60 and purging nozzle 62 configured to expel dust or vapor from inside optical assembly 48. Id. ¶ 41. Illustrative Claim Claims 1 and 17 are independent claims. Independent claim 1 is directed to “[a] laser tool configured to operate within a wellbore,” whereas independent claim 17 to “[a] method” for operating the laser tool. Appeal Br. 25, 30 (Claims Appendix). Claims 1–11, 13, 15, and 16 directly or indirectly depend from independent claim 11, and claims 18–22 directly or indirectly depend from independent claim 17. Independent claim 1 is illustrative of the disclosed invention and this claim is reproduced below: 1. A laser tool configured to operate within a wellbore, the laser tool comprising: a generator to generate a laser beam, the generator being configured to fit within the wellbore, to withstand at least some environmental conditions within the wellbore, and to generate the laser beam from within the wellbore, the laser beam having an optical power from about one kilowatt (1kW) to about ten kilowatts (10kW); an optical assembly fitting within the wellbore; a housing holding the optical assembly, the housing comprising a purging nozzle and a purging knife that are configured to cool the optical assembly and to clear a path for the laser beam to a target; and a control system to control movement of at least part of the laser tool to cause the laser beam to move within the wellbore. Id. at 25 (Claims Appendix). Appeal 2021-000197 Application 16/056,669 5 Prior Art Relied Upon Inventor4 Patent or Publication No. Relevant Dates Schultz U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0326659 A1 published Dec. 30, 2010; filed June 29, 2010 Batarseh ’778 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0360778 A1 published Dec. 11, 2014; filed June 10, 2013 Batarseh U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0160618 A1 published June 9, 2016; filed Dec. 4, 2014 Faircloth U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0191314 A1 published July 6, 2017; filed Feb. 28, 2017 Rejections on Appeal References/Basis 35 U.S.C. § Claims Rejected Indefiniteness (for reciting the relative term “about”) 112(b) 1–22 Indefiniteness (for reciting a range with an unbounded lower limit) 112(b) 9, 12 Faircloth, Batarseh 103 1–11, 15–17, 19–22 Faircloth, Batarseh, Batarseh ’778 103 13 Faircloth, Batarseh, Schultz 103 18 Examiner’s Findings and Conclusions 1. Upon reviewing the specification, the Examiner finds that the range associated with “a maximum lateral diameter of less than five-and-a- half (5.5) inches” recited in dependent claim 9 has an unbounded lower limit that includes a lateral diameter of zero inches. Final Act. 4; Ans. 15 (citing 4 For clarity and ease of reference, we only list the first named inventor. Appeal 2021-000197 Application 16/056,669 6 Spec. ¶ 55). The Examiner concludes that the range of dependent claim 9 is indefinite under § 112(b), because in the scenario where the lateral diameter is zero inches, the laser tool would cease to exist. Final Act. 4; Ans. 15. 2. Upon reviewing the specification, the Examiner finds that the range associated with “the pressure within the wellbore has been reduced to 25,000 kilopascals or lower” recited in dependent claim 12 has an unbounded lower limit that includes a pressure of zero kilopascals. Final Act. 5; Ans. 12–13 (citing Spec. ¶ 27). The Examiner concludes that the range of dependent claim 12 is indefinite under § 112(b), because in the scenario where the pressure is zero kilopascals, the pressure would be inconceivably low. Final Act. 4. The Examiner finds that “[i]t is not possible for a well to have a wellbore pressure of zero or no pressure as a well will always have a pressure due to the pressure of the earth itself and the hydrostatic pressure [of] the fluid within the well.” Ans. 13. 3. The Examiner finds that Faircloth’s laser tool, particularly certain features associated with the embodiments illustrated in Figures 13 and 35, teach all of the limitations of independent claim 1, except “a purging nozzle . . . configured to cool the optical assembly and to clear a path for the laser beam to a target.” Final Act. 8 (citing Faircloth ¶¶ 22, 89–93, 140, 141, 154, 232, Figs. 1, 13, 35); Ans. 5–7 (clarifying that the Examiner relies on Faircloth’s air knife 1301 illustrated in Figure 13—not Batarseh’s fluid knife 46 illustrated in Figures 3 and 4—to teach the claimed “purging knife”). The Examiner turns to Batarseh’s purging nozzle 48 illustrated in Figures 3 and 4 to teach the claimed “purging nozzle.” Final Act. 9 (citing Batarseh ¶¶ 37, 38). According to the Examiner, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Faircloth’s laser tool that operates downhole in a wellbore to include Batarseh’s purging nozzle 48 Appeal 2021-000197 Application 16/056,669 7 within the housing of the optical manipulator “in order to . . . deflect debris and dust away from and cool the optical assembly.” Final Act. 9 (citing Batarseh ¶¶ 37, 38); Ans. 6 (concluding the same). With the exception of a “purging knife,” independent claim 17 recites similar limitations to those of independent claim 1. Compare Appeal Br. 30 (Claims Appendix), with id. at 25. The Examiner relies on essentially the same findings and conclusion to support the obviousness rejection of independent claim 17 based on the combined teachings of Faircloth and Batarseh. Compare Final Act. 13, with id. at 7–9. Appellant’s Contentions 1. Appellant contends that the Examiner’s indefiniteness rejection of dependent claim 9 is improper because, according to Appellant, a range that includes an upper bound without specifying a lower bound is not per se indefinite. Appeal Br. 20. Appellant further argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art, upon reviewing the specification, would have understood that “a minimum diameter” is required for a laser tool “to function properly,” “have sufficient structural integrity,” and “to be compatible with other downhole tools and components, among other possible design considerations.” Reply Br. 7. 2. Appellant contends that the Examiner’s indefiniteness rejection of dependent claim 12 is improper because, according to Appellant, a range that includes an upper bound without specifying a lower bound is not per se indefinite. Appeal Br. 17. Appellant argues that the requirement in dependent claim 12 of outputting purging media when the wellbore pressure is equal to or lower than 25,000 kilopascals is not the same as stating that the well may be operational at zero pressure. Id. at 16–17. Appellant further argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art, upon reviewing the Appeal 2021-000197 Application 16/056,669 8 specification, would have understood that, “if the pressure in the wellbore has gone from a pressure above 25,000 kilopascals to a pressure lower than 25,000 kilopascals, purging media is output.” Reply Br. 6. 3. Appellant contends a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have combined the teachings of Faircloth and Batarseh because Faircloth already discloses a cooling system and first flow path 9117 that function to cool the laser tool and clear debris from the optical path, thereby eliminating any motivation to incorporate the same features from Batarseh. Appeal Br. 10–12 (citing Faircloth ¶¶ 90, 91, 94, 149). Stated differently, Appellant argues that the Examiner fails to explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have incorporated Batarseh’s purging nozzle 48 into Faircloth’s laser tool that operates downhole in a wellbore, especially because Faircloth already discloses a cooling system and first flow path 9117 that function to cool and clean. Reply Br. 4–5 (citing Faircloth ¶¶ 90, 91, 94, 149). II. ISSUES Based on the record before us, the issues presented are as follows: 1. whether the Examiner erred in concluding that a person of ordinary skill in the art, having read the specification, would have been apprised of the lower bound of the lateral diameter of a laser tool where the range includes “a maximum lateral diameter of less than five-and-a-half (5.5) inches,” as recited in dependent claim 9; 2. whether the Examiner erred in concluding that a person of ordinary skill in the art, having read the specification, would have been apprised of the lower bound of wellbore pressure for outputting purging media where the range is “25,000 kilopascals or lower,” as recited in dependent claim 12; and Appeal 2021-000197 Application 16/056,669 9 3. whether the Examiner presents a sufficient rationale to combine the teachings of Faircloth with those of Batarseh? III. ANALYSIS Indefiniteness Rejections Claims 1–22 As an initial matter, we note that the Examiner rejects both independent claims 1 and 17 as unpatentable under § 112(b) for being indefinite because each claim recites the term “about,” which, according the Examiner, is a relative term that is “not defined by the claim” and “the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining [the term’s] requisite degree.” Final Act. 4, 6–7. In its Appeal Brief, Appellant states that “[it] is not appealing any of the rejections of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112[b], with the exception of claims 9 and 12.” Appeal Br. 16 n.2. Based on the record before us, Appellant does not present arguments with respect to the Examiner’s indefiniteness rejection of independent claims 1 and 17 because each claim recites the relative term “about,” nor did the Examiner withdraw these indefiniteness rejections in the Answer. Consequently, we summarily sustain the Examiner’s indefiniteness rejections of independent claims 1 and 17. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (“MPEP”) § 1205.02 (9th ed., R-08.2017, Jan. 2018) (“If a ground of rejection stated by the examiner is not addressed in the appellant’s brief, appellant has waived any challenge to that ground of rejection and the Board may summarily sustain it, unless the examiner subsequently withdrew the rejection in the examiner's answer.”); see also Hyatt v. Dudas, 551 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“When the appellant fails to contest a ground of rejection to the Board, . . . the Board may treat any argument with respect to that ground of rejection as waived.”). Appeal 2021-000197 Application 16/056,669 10 By virtue of their dependency, claims 2–16 and 18–22 also include the same relative term “about” that is recited in each of independent claims 1 and 17. Accordingly, we also summarily sustain the Examiner’s indefiniteness rejections of dependent claims 2–16 and 18–22. See Final Act. 4–8. For the sake of completeness, we address the Examiner’s indefiniteness rejections of dependent claims 9 and 12 for reciting a range with an unbounded lower limit in the interest of responding to all the arguments presented and developed in the Appeal Brief, Answer, and Reply Brief. Claim 9 Based on the record before us, we discern error in the Examiner’s indefiniteness rejection of dependent claim 9, which recites the lateral diameter of a laser tool where the range includes “a maximum lateral diameter of less than five-and-a-half (5.5) inches.” Pursuant to § 112(b), claims must “particularly point[] out and distinctly claim[] the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.” 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) (2011). “As the statutory language of ‘particular[ity]’ and ‘distinct[ness]’ indicates, claims are required to be cast in clear—as opposed to ambiguous, vague, indefinite— terms.” In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (alterations in original). The test for determining the question of indefiniteness may be formulated as whether the claims, when considered in light of the specification and what is known in the art, “set out and circumscribe a particular area with a reasonable degree of precision and particularity.” In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235 (CCPA 1971); see Packard, 751 F.3d at 1310, 1313. Appeal 2021-000197 Application 16/056,669 11 According to the specification, some of the stated objectives of the disclosed invention include, among other things, a “laser tool [that] is operable within a wellbore” and “configured to fit within the wellbore.” Spec. ¶¶ 3, 6. The specification further states that “the laser tool [h]as a maximum lateral diameter of less than 5.5 inches (about 14 centimeters), allowing the laser tool to fit within downhole pipes or other structures having a minimum diameter of 5.5 inches.” Id. ¶ 55. Based on these cited disclosures, we agree with Appellant that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably understood that the laser tool must have at least some lateral diameter, but the maximum lateral diameter must not exceed 5.5 inches, for the laser tool “to function properly,” “have sufficient structural integrity,” and “to be compatible with other downhole tools and components, among other possible design considerations.” Reply Br. 7. We disagree with the Examiner that the lateral diameter of the laser tool encompassed by dependent claim 9 is indefinite because the claimed range includes a lateral diameter of zero inches. See Final Act. 4; Ans. 15. As a practical matter, if the laser tool has a lateral diameter of zero inches it would cease to exist and, therefore, it would be incapable of functioning at all. Qualifying the lower bound of the range of dependent claim 9 in this way would be unreasonable. Accordingly, it follows that the Examiner erred in concluding that the subject matter of dependent claim 9 is indefinite. Claim 12 Based on the record before us, we discern error in the Examiner’s indefiniteness rejection of dependent claim 12, which recites outputting the purging media when the wellbore pressure falls within a range of “25,000 kilopascals or lower.” Appeal 2021-000197 Application 16/056,669 12 According to the specification, purging media (e.g., liquid or gas) is “based on the type o[f] rock in the formation and the pressure of a reservoir associated with the formation.” Spec. ¶ 27. The specification further states that “[a] gas purging medium may be appropriate when fluid pressure in the wellbore is reduced.” Id. The specification then provides a number of examples by which purging media is output when the fluid pressure in the wellbore is reduced, including “less than 25000 kilopascals.” Id. Based on these cited disclosures, we agree with Appellant that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably understood that purging media (i.e., gas) may be output when wellbore pressure is reduced to 25,000 kilopascals or lower. We disagree with the Examiner that the range of pressure encompassed by dependent claim 12 is indefinite because it includes a scenario where the wellbore pressure is zero kilopascals, which, according to the Examiner, is impossible practically. See Final Act. 5; Ans. 12–13. The Examiner, however, appears to undermine her initial position by finding that “a well will always have a pressure due to the pressure of the earth itself and the hydrostatic pressure [of] the fluid within the well.” Ans. 13 (emphasis added). Based on this finding, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that there will always be at least some pressure within the wellbore such that setting a higher bound of wellbore pressure at or below 25,000 kilopascals circumscribes a particular range with a reasonable degree of precision and particularity for triggering the output of purging media. Accordingly, it follows that the Examiner erred in concluding that the subject matter of dependent claim 12 is indefinite. Appeal 2021-000197 Application 16/056,669 13 Obviousness Rejection Over Faircloth and Batarseh Claims 1–11, 15–17, and 19–22 Based on the record before us, we do not discern error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claims 1 and 17. Nor do we discern error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent claims 2–11, 15, 16, and 19–22, each of which depends directly or indirectly from either independent claims 1 or 17. As we explained above, the Examiner relies on the combined teaching of Faircloth and Batarseh to teach the limitations of independent claims 1 and 17. See Final Act. 8–9, 13–14; Ans. 5–7. The Examiner then asserts that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Faircloth’s laser tool that operates downhole in a wellbore to include Batarseh’s purging nozzle 48 within the housing of the optical manipulator “in order to . . . deflect debris and dust away from and cool the optical assembly.” Final Act. 9 (citing Batarseh ¶¶ 37, 38); Ans. 6 (concluding the same). The Examiner’s rationale for combining the teachings of Faircloth with those of Batarseh suffices as articulated reasoning with rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion. Indeed, the Examiner’s stated motivation of modifying Faircloth’s laser tool to include Batarseh’s purging nozzle 48 for cleaning and cooling purposes comes directly from Batarseh itself, which states, in relevant part, purging nozzle 48 “direct[s] a purging fluid” that “can clean the penetration 22 [illustrated in Figure 1], remove debris, clear the path for the laser beam 38, and cool the penetration 22.” Batarseh ¶ 38. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner fails to explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have incorporated Batarseh’s purging nozzle 48 into Faircloth’s laser tool, especially because Appeal 2021-000197 Application 16/056,669 14 Faircloth already discloses a cooling system and first flow path 9117 that function to cool and clean. See Reply Br. 4–5. As the Examiner correctly notes in the Answer, Faircloth “discloses many different embodiments of the laser bottom hole assembly (LBHA) including [those] shown in Figures 8– 11, 14, and 27–36.” Ans. 7. The Examiner, however, relies on specific features found in the laser tool embodiments illustrated in Figures 13 and 35 to formulate the obviousness rejection of independent claims 1 and 17. See Final Act. 8, 13. Appellant does not explain how Faircloth’s laser cooling system, which is described at a high level of generality, applies to the specific laser tool embodiments illustrated in Figures 13 and 35 of Faircloth. See Appeal Br. 10–11 (citing Faircloth ¶¶ 90, 91, 94); Reply Br. 4 (citing the same). Even if we were to treat Faircloth’s laser cooling system as applying to the laser tool embodiments illustrated in Figures 13 and 35 of Faircloth, Appellant does not explain why incorporating Batarseh’s purging nozzle 48 into these particular embodiments would not serve to further supplement, or provide the requisite detail, for the cooling function performed by Faircloth’s laser cooling system. We also are not persuaded by Appellant’s reliance on first flow path 9117 illustrated in Figure 9 of Faircloth to rebut the Examiner’s rationale to combine the teachings of Faircloth with those of Batarseh. See Appeal Br. 11; Reply Br. 4–5. As the Examiner correctly notes in the Answer, first flow path 9117 appears to be a feature that is specific to the laser tool embodiment illustrated in Figure 9 of Faircloth. See Ans. 7. Faircloth’s first flow path 9117 does not appear to apply to the laser tool embodiments illustrated in Figures 13 and 35 because these particular embodiments do not include a flow path for purging fluid and, therefore, they do not implicate the existence of a purging nozzle. See id. As the Examiner explains in the Appeal 2021-000197 Application 16/056,669 15 Answer, admittedly absent from the various laser tools embodiments disclosed in Faircloth is the existence of both a purging knife and purging nozzle in the same embodiment. See id. at 9. As supported by the evidence of record, the Examiner’s proposed modification to Faircloth’s laser tool that operates downhole in a wellbore, which already discloses a laser tool embodiment with air knife 1301 as illustrated in Figure 13, to include Batarseh’s purging nozzle 48, properly accounts for all the limitations of independent claims 1 and 17, and effectively results in a laser tool that has both a purging knife and purging nozzle for cleaning and cooling purposes. See Final Act. 9 (citing Batarseh ¶¶ 37, 38). It follows that the Examiner has not erred in determining that the combined teachings of Faircloth and Batarseh render the subject matter of independent claims 1 and 17 obvious. Appellant does not address separately the Examiner’s findings and conclusions with respect to dependent claims 2–11, 15, 16, and 19–22. See Appeal Br. 10–13; Reply Br. 4–5. We, therefore, group these dependent claims with their underlying base claim. Consequently, dependent claims 2–11, 15, and 16 fall with independent claim 1, and dependent claims 19–22 fall with independent claim 17. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Obviousness Rejection Over Faircloth, Batarseh, and Batarseh ’778 Claim 13 The Examiner rejects dependent claim 13 as unpatentable under § 103 as being obvious over the combined teachings of Faircloth, Batarseh, and Batarseh ’778. Final Act. 14–15. Apart from its arguments with respect to the Examiner’s rationale to combine the teachings of Faircloth and Batarseh, which are not persuasive for the reasons identified above, Appellant does not Appeal 2021-000197 Application 16/056,669 16 present separate arguments for dependent claim 13. See Appeal Br. 10–15; Reply Br. 4–5. Based on the record before us, Appellant does not present arguments with respect to the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent claim 13, nor did the Examiner withdraw the obviousness rejection of this claim in the Answer. Consequently, we summarily sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent claim 13. See MPEP § 1205.02. Obviousness Rejection Over Faircloth, Batarseh, and Schultz Claim 18 The Examiner rejects dependent claim 18 as unpatentable under § 103 as being obvious over the combined teachings of Faircloth, Batarseh, and Schultz. Final Act. 16–17. Apart from its arguments with respect to the Examiner’s rationale to combine the teachings of Faircloth and Batarseh, which are not persuasive for the reasons identified above, Appellant does not present separate arguments for dependent claim 18. See Appeal Br. 10–15; Reply Br. 4–5. Based on the record before us, Appellant does not present arguments with respect to the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent claim 18, nor did the Examiner withdraw the obviousness rejection of this claim in the Answer. Consequently, we summarily sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent claim 18. See MPEP § 1205.02. IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Examiner has not erred in rejecting: (1) claims 1–22 as unpatentable under §112(b) as being indefinite for reciting the relative term “about”; (2) claims 1–11, 15–17, and 19–22 as unpatentable under § 103 as being obvious over the combined teachings of Appeal 2021-000197 Application 16/056,669 17 Faircloth and Batarseh; (3) claim 13 as unpatenable under § 103 as being obvious over the combined teachings of Faircloth, Batarseh, and Batarseh ’778; and (4) claim 18 as unpatentable under § 103 as being obvious over the combined teachings of Faircloth, Batarseh, and Schultz. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject these claims. The Examiner, however, erred in separately rejecting claims 9 and 12 as unpatentable under § 112(b) as being indefinite for reciting a range with an unbounded lower limit. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject these claims. V. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–22 112(b) Indefiniteness (for reciting the relative term “about”) 1–22 9, 12 112(b) Indefiniteness (for reciting a range with an unbounded lower limit) 9, 12 1–11, 15– 17, 19–22 103 Faircloth, Batarseh 1–11, 15–17, 19–22 13 103 Faircloth, Batarseh, Batarseh ’778 13 18 103 Faircloth, Batarseh, Schultz 18 Overall Outcome 1–22 Appeal 2021-000197 Application 16/056,669 18 VI. 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation