Chen, Tianrun et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 2, 2020

14413404 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 2, 2020)

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.
14/413,404 01/07/2015 Tianrun Chen 2013-077556 U1 US 8169
142050 7590 01/02/2020
HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC.
C/O PARKER JUSTISS, P.C.
14241 DALLAS PARKWAY
SUITE 620
DALLAS, TX 75254
EXAMINER
ALKAFAWI, EMAN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2865
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/02/2020 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 TIANRUN CHEN, YIBING ZHENG, TATIANA GILSTRAP,
ARTHUR CHUEN HON CHENG, and ROBERT ERIC EPSTEIN
Appeal 2019-002992
Application 14/413,404
Technology Center 2800
Before MONTÉ T. SQUIRE, AVELYN M. ROSS, and BRIAN D. RANGE,
Administrative Patent Judges.
RANGE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–21. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-002992
Application 14/413,404

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER2
Appellant describes the invention as relating to measuring the
thickness of a well casing of a well structure. Spec. ¶ 1. Such
measurements may help assess damage or evaluate cement bonding between
a casing and a surrounding formation. Id. at ¶ 2. The Specification
describes, for example, a system that makes use of measuring acoustic
waves to measure the casing. Id. at ¶ 38. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method comprising:
disposing a tool in a wellbore;
directing an acoustic signal towards a well casing in the
wellbore, the acoustic signal generated by an acoustic transmitter of
the tool;
accessing a measured waveform associated with an acoustic
signal returned via the well casing based on operating an acoustic
receiver of the tool within the wellbore comprising the well casing;
comparing the measured waveform to a plurality of model
waveforms, wherein each of the plurality of model waveforms
corresponds to a different thickness of the well casing;
determining, by operation of data processing apparatus, a
thickness of the well casing based on results of comparing the
measured waveform and the plurality of model waveforms;
and
assessing damage to the well casing based on the determined
thickness of the well casing.

2 In this Decision, we refer to the Final Office Action dated May 25, 2018
(“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed November 26, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”),
the Examiner’s Answer dated January 17, 2019 (“Ans.”), and the Reply
Brief filed March 5, 2019 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2019-002992
Application 14/413,404

3
Appeal Br. 28 (Claims App’x) (emphasis added to certain key recitations at
issue). The other independent claims on appeal, claims 8 and 15, recite
recitations similar to those we emphasize above.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the prior art below in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Havira
Miller et al.
(“Miller”)
Bolshakov et al.
(“Bolshakov”)
Froelich et al.
(“Froelich”)

US 4,255,798
US 5,859,811

US 2010/0263449 A1

US 2013/0155812 A1
Mar. 10, 1981
Jan. 12, 1999

Oct. 21, 2010

June 20, 2013

REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains (Ans. 3) the following rejections on appeal:
A. Claims 1–6, 8–13, and 15–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by
Miller and Havira (as incorporated by reference in Miller). Final
Act. 5.
B. Claims 1–6, 8–13, and 15–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Miller and Havira in view of Bolshakov. Id.3
C. Claims 7, 14, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Miller
and Havira in view of Bolshakov and Froelich. Id. at 18.

3 The Examiner presents this rejection as a rejection “in the alternative” to
the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Appeal 2019-002992
Application 14/413,404

4
OPINION

To resolve the issues before us on appeal, we focus on the Examiner’s
findings and determinations that relate to the error Appellant identifies.
Rejection A, anticipation. The Examiner rejects claims 1–6, 8–13,
and 15–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Miller and Havira (as
incorporated by reference in Miller). Final Act. 5. The Examiner finds that
Miller teaches each recitation of claim 1. Id. at 5–8. With respect to claim
1’s recitations “comparing the measured waveform to a plurality of model
waveforms” and “determining . . . a thickness of the well casing based on
results of comparing the measured waveform and the plurality of model
waveforms,” the Examiner finds that claim 24 of Miller teaches these
recitations. Id. at 7. The Examiner refers to claim 24’s “subtraction” and
finds “subtraction between a model waveform and the sorted waveform is a
type of comparison between the two waveforms.” Id.
Appellant argues that Miller teaches assessing the waveforms
corresponding to different physical interfaces (for example, between fluid
and the casing) and subtracting out to determine a casing thickness. Appeal
Br. 18–22. In contrast, claim 1 requires comparing a measured waveform to
model waveforms where the model waveforms correspond to different well
casing thicknesses. Appeal Br. 22; see also Spec. 58–60 (explaining
Appellant’s process for comparing measured waveforms to model
waveforms).
Appellant’s argument persuades us of error. Miller focuses on
assessing waveforms from different physical interfaces and subtracting out
waveforms that corresponding to unwanted interfaces. Miller 3:38–47
Appeal 2019-002992
Application 14/413,404

5
(explaining subtracting of waveforms in unwanted bins), 5:8–14 (“The
object is to estimate the noise so that this can be subtracted from data to get
the signal of interest.”). The preponderance of the evidence indicates that
the “subtraction” referenced by Miller’s claim 24 (id. at 14:55–15:16) refers
to removing unwanted noisy waveforms in order to obtain a desired
waveform; this subtraction is not a comparison to model waveforms to
determine thickness as claim 1 recites.
Miller incorporates Havira by reference (Miller 2:29–33). Appellant
and the Examiner present some argument regarding the teachings of Havira
(which Miller incorporates by reference). Appeal Br. 21–22; Reply Br. 5–6;
Ans. 7. We do not, however, interpret the Examiner’s position as relying on
Havira to address the “comparing” or “determining” recitations addressed
above. Final Act. 10–11 (referencing Havira without connecting any
teaching of Havira to the “comparing” or “determining” recitations); Ans. 7
(emphasizing that Miler alone reads on the argued recitations). The
Examiner’s citation to Havira, therefore, does not cure the error addressed
above.
Because the Examiner has not adequately explained how Miller (with
Havira incorporated by reference) teaches the “comparing” and
“determining” recitations of claim 1, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection. Because claims 8 and 15 include similar recitations and because
the Examiner’s treatment of other claims does not cure this error, we do not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of the other claims subject to this rejection.
Rejections B and C, obviousness. The Examiner rejects claims 1–6,
8–13, and 15–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Miller and Havira
in view of Bolshakov. Final Act. 5. The Examiner relies on Bolshakov as
Appeal 2019-002992
Application 14/413,404

6
an alternative theory of reaching the “comparing” and “determining”
recitations of claim 1 that we address above. Id. at 7–8. The Examiner finds
that Bolshakov teaches comparisons in various figures as well as paragraphs
36, 41, and 44. Id. at 7.
Appellant argues that Bolshakov does not teach comparison of a
measured waveform to model waveforms where the model waveforms
correspond to different thicknesses of well casing. Appeal Br. 23–24.
Appellant argues that, instead, Bolshakov uses mathematic formulas (for
example, formula 9) to predict casing thickness based on wave form.
Appeal Br. 23–25.
Appellant’s argument persuades us of error. The Examiner has not
adequately explained how Bolshakov teaches comparison of a measured
waveform to model waveforms where the model waveforms correspond to
different thicknesses of well casing and has not adequately explained how
Bolshakov teaches determining well casing thickness based on results of the
comparisons. Rather, Bolshakov estimates tubular thickness with
mathematical relationships. Bolshakov ¶¶ 6 (“The tubular thickness (d) may
be estimated using [a mathematic relationship]”), 25–27 (“Based on the
[math] expressions in Table 1 it was determined that casing (or tubular)
thickness is measureable based on results of a single nth mode.”), 43 (“each
model’s thickness trend was predicted by this formulae”). Where Bolshakov
refers to “models,” it is referring to physical models that were created to test
its math equations. See, e.g., Bolshakov ¶¶ 30 (“FIG 4a illustrates a test
stand 46a used for Model 1 that simulates an un-cemented free pipe 48
partially extending into water 50), 37 (“calculation of group velocity . . . was
found to be difficult and unreliable in the cemented sections of the models”);
Appeal 2019-002992
Application 14/413,404

7
see also Reply Br. 6–7. Bolshakov compares test data obtained from
experiments made with different physical models in order to test its
equations (Bolshakov ¶ 36), but the Examiner does not persuasively explain
how Bolshakov teaches comparing waveforms to model waveforms to
determine well casing thickness.
Because the Examiner has not adequately explained how any of the
cited references, including Bolshakov, teach the “comparing” and
“determining” recitations of claim 1, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection. Because claims 8 and 15 include similar recitations and because
the Examiner’s treatment of other claims does not cure this error, we also do
not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of other claims.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–6, 8–13,
15–20
102 Miller, Havira 1–6, 8–13,
15–20
1–6, 8–13,
15–20
103 Miller, Havira,
Bolshakov
1–6, 8–13,
15–20
7, 14, 21 103 Miller, Havira,
Bolshakov, Froelich
7, 14, 21
Overall
Outcome
1–21

REVERSED