Ex Parte Blankinship et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 17, 2010

11461660 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 17, 2010)

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.
11/461,660 08/01/2006 Thomas J. Blankinship 135-0043US-D 3983
90116 7590 11/17/2010
(Weatherford) Wong Cabello Lutsch Rutherford &
Brucculeri LLP
20333 Tomball Parkway, 6th floor
Houston, TX 77070
EXAMINER
KEITH, JACK W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3663
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/17/2010 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte THOMAS J. BLANKINSHIP, EDWIN K. ROBERTS, and
LUCIO N. TELLO
____________________

Appeal 2009-008601
Application 11/461,660
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: WILLIAM F. PATE, III, JENNIFER D. BAHR, and LINDA E.
HORNER, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-008601
Application 11/461,660
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Thomas J. Blankinship et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 (2002) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 5-10, and 12-
16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002).
The claims are directed to a borehole logging system for the measure
of properties and conditions of a well borehole environs. Spec. 1, para. 2.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for measuring a parameter of a borehole, the
method comprising:
recording and processing full wave acoustic responses of
a rotating scanning transducer and a reference transducer;
obtaining a measure of the parameter from the full wave
acoustic response of the rotating scanning transducer; and
correcting the measure of the parameter using the full
wave acoustic response of the reference transducer wherein
correcting the measure of the parameter using the full wave
acoustic response of the reference transducer comprises:
determining, while the tool is within the borehole,
acoustic slowness of a fluid in a tubular disposed within
the borehole from travel time in a first chamber of the
reference transducer;
using the acoustic slowness of the fluid to correct
the measure of the parameter for variations in acoustic
impedance of said fluid;
determining, while the tool is within the borehole,
free pipe response of the tool from a response of a second
chamber of the reference transducer; and
using the free pipe response of the tool to correct
the measure of the parameter for systematic variations in
the scanning transducer.

Appeal 2009-008601
Application 11/461,660
3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Dumont
Maki
US 4,685,092
US 5,874,676
Aug. 4, 1987
Feb. 23, 1999

REJECTION
Claims 1, 5-10, and 12-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Dumont and Maki. Ans. 4.

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM.

ISSUES
The issues raised in this appeal are:
1. Does Dumont teach the steps of recording and processing “full wave”
acoustic responses of a scanning transducer and a reference transducer;
obtaining a measure of the parameter from the “full wave” acoustic
response of the scanning transducer; and correcting the measure of the
parameter using the “full wave” acoustic response? App. Br. 8-9, and 12.
2. Does Dumont teach determining, “while the tool is within the borehole,”
acoustic slowness of a fluid within a tubular (casing) disposed within the
borehole? App. Br. 9-10, and 12.
3. Does Dumont teach determining “free pipe” response of the tool from a
response of a second chamber of the reference transducer? App. Br. 10-
12.
Appeal 2009-008601
Application 11/461,660
4
4. Has the Examiner articulated a reason, with rational underpinning, to
modify Dumont’s method by using a rotating scanning transducer in
place of the plurality of transducers T1 through T8? App. Br. 6-8.

DISCUSSION
Issue 1 – full wave acoustic response
Appellants process the full wave acoustic response (waveform
illustrated in fig. 7) to yield multiple parameters of interest by extracting
from that waveform measures of travel time, amplitude of first reflection,
frequency, and ring down. Spec. 14, para. 51.
Dumont teaches detecting, recording, and processing reflected full
wave acoustic signals Si (fig. 4; col. 4, ll. 30-31; col. 5, l. 61 to col. 6, l.1;
col. 11, ll. 1-3) of the scanning transducers T1 through T8 and reflected full
wave acoustic signal S9 (col. 8, ll. 66-67) of the reference transducer T9;
obtaining a measure of a parameter, such as the quality of the connection
between the cement and the casing, from the reverberation segment W2i of
the signal Si, which can be obtained after rectifying the signal Si and
integrating the rectified signal over a time interval (col. 8, ll. 40-57); and
correcting the measure of the parameter by normalizing the energy W2i to
the corresponding energy W29 of the full wave acoustic signal S9 received
by the reference transducer T9 (col. 8, ll. 61-67). We agree with the
Examiner (Ans. 10) that this satisfies the recording and processing full wave
acoustic responses, obtaining a measure of a parameter from the full wave
acoustic response of the scanning transducer, and correcting the measure
using the full wave acoustic response of the reference transducer.
Specifically, by extracting the reverberation segments W2i and W29 of the
full wave responses Si and S9 of the scanning transducers T1 through T8
Appeal 2009-008601
Application 11/461,660
5
and the reference transducer T9 in obtaining a normalized determination of
the quality of the connection, much as Appellants extract measures of travel
time, amplitude of first reflection, frequency, and ring down from the
waveform to yield multiple parameters of interest, as we found above,
Dumont obtains a measure of a parameter and corrects the measure from, or
using, the full wave responses.
Issue 2 – Acoustic slowness while the tool is in the borehole
Dumont measures the speed of propagation of acoustic waves though
the mud or fluid inside the casing by the signal S9. Col. 9, ll. 25 and 29-31.
The signal S9 is received, or detected, when the tool 10 is within the
borehole 11. Fig. 1. While other parameters of the function f, such as the
measurements of W2 and the acoustic impedance for casings of different
thicknesses, are determined experimentally (col. 9, ll. 32-35), Dumont
determines the speed of propagation of acoustic waves through the mud or
fluid within the casing (i.e., the acoustic slowness of the fluid in the casing)
from signal S9, while the tool 10 is within the borehole, thereby satisfying
the step of determining acoustic slowness called for in claims 1 and 10.
Issue 3 – “free pipe” response
Each of Appellants’ independent claims 1 and 10 calls for a step of
determining “free pipe response of the tool from a response of a second
chamber of the reference transducer.” Appellants argue that this limitation
is not satisfied by Dumont. App. Br. 10-13. Specifically, Appellants argue
that Dumont is silent as to whether the second chamber (the portion of
hollow 23 below the reflector 24) of Dumont’s reference transducer is
“dimensioned so that ring down of each acoustic energy pulse can be
measured by the reference transducer without interference from material in
Appeal 2009-008601
Application 11/461,660
6
the tool,” so as to achieve a “free pipe” response, as described in Appellants’
Specification (para. 43). App. Br. 10.
In finding that Dumont satisfies the “free pipe” response limitation,
the Examiner reasoned that because “the reflector 24 matches the casing, the
responses of the reflector (which is not bonded) are the same as for an
uncased, or free pipe, response of the casing.” Ans. 5, 7-8.
We find that Dumont teaches selecting reflectors made of material
having acoustic characteristics matching that of the casing, and having
thicknesses and curvatures matching that of the casing. Col. 6, l. 66 to col.
7, l. 27. Dumont teaches positioning and securing the selected reflector in
the appropriate slides. Col. 7, ll. 28-33. Each of the slides corresponds to a
given nominal casing diameter. Col. 6, ll. 48-49. Dumont teaches that the
distance between the front face of the reference transducer T9 and the back
face of the reflector 24 must fall within the range of 50 mm to 120 mm,
optimally between the range of 50 mm and 115 mm, to avoid degradation of
the reflected signal by multiple reflections or strong attenuation by the
borehole fluid M. Col. 8, ll. 2-13. The radial position of each of the
measuring transducers T1 to T8 is adjusted to match the distance between
the front face of the transducer and the casing outside wall with the distance
between the front face of the reference transducer T9 and the back face of
the reflector 24. Col. 8, ll. 14-39. According to Dumont, “[s]uch a
configuration represents an optimal simulation of casing 14 by the reference
reflector 24 and permits a proper environmental correction for the obtained
signals.” Col. 8, ll. 36-39. Dumont points out that by using a reference
reflector having characteristics similar to the casing itself in the reference
transducer hollow 23, the normalization is accomplished “relative to the
Appeal 2009-008601
Application 11/461,660
7
situation where the casing is surrounded by fluid.” Col. 11, ll. 4-12.2 We
find that this characterization of the disclosed embodiment as normalizing
relative to the situation where the casing is surrounded by fluid conveys that
Dumont determines a “free pipe” response of the tool.
Issue 4 – articulated reason to combine
The Examiner found that Dumont satisfies all of the limitations of
claims 1 and 10, except that Dumont does not disclose that the scanning
transducer is a rotating transducer. Ans. 5, 8. Specifically, the Examiner
found that, instead, Dumont discloses using eight transducers (T1 though
T8) disposed in a helical pattern around the tool to investigate sectors
regularly spaced around the casing. Id. Appellants have not contested this
finding.
The Examiner found that Maki teaches that a rotating transducer can
be used to measure parameters of a cased borehole along the periphery of the
borehole. Ans. 5, 8. Appellants have not contested this finding.
Appellants have not specifically pointed out any flaw in the logic of
the Examiner’s proposed reason to modify Dumont to substitute a rotating
transducer as taught by Maki instead of the helical transducer arrangement
of Dumont, namely, “in order to be able to scan the periphery at one depth
and to be able to rotate the transducer to scan any part of the bore hole
desired” (Ans. 5, 8). Rather, Appellants’ only argument contesting the
proposed combination of Dumont and Maki appears to be that the Examiner
did not use the exact language of any of the “seven non-exclusive principles”
(emphasis added) set out in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398

2 Dumont notes that the normalization could be accomplished relative to the
ideal (correct cementation) situation by using a reflector which had
characteristics similar to a well-cemented casing. Col. 11, ll. 6-10.
Appeal 2009-008601
Application 11/461,660
8
(2007) and incorporated into the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure
(MPEP) § 2143 (8th Ed., Rev. 6, Sep. 2007). See App. Br. 6-8. Thus,
inasmuch as the principles set forth in KSR are, as conceded by Appellants,
not an exhaustive list of principles that might support a conclusion of
obviousness, Appellants’ argument is not persuasive of error in the
Examiner’s proposed combination. Moreover, the Examiner’s articulated
reason for the proposed combination appears to be that the modification is
the use of a known technique (the rotating transducer as taught by Maki) to
improve similar devices (the acoustic inspection apparatus of Dumont) to
improve Dumont’s apparatus in the same way as Maki’s apparatus, or the
predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.
See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. The modification proposed by the Examiner is
nothing more than the simple substitution of one known element for another
or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for
the improvement. Id.
CONCLUSIONS
1. Dumont teaches the steps of recording and processing “full wave”
acoustic responses of a scanning transducer and a reference transducer;
obtaining a measure of the parameter from the “full wave” acoustic
response of the scanning transducer; and correcting the measure of the
parameter using the “full wave” acoustic response.
2. Dumont teaches determining, “while the tool is within the borehole,”
acoustic slowness of a fluid disposed within a tubular (casing) disposed
within the borehole.
3. Dumont teaches determining “free pipe” response of the tool from a
response of a second chamber of the reference transducer.
Appeal 2009-008601
Application 11/461,660
9
4. The Examiner articulated a reason, whose rational underpinning is not
challenged by Appellants, to modify Dumont’s method by using a
rotating scanning transducer in place of the plurality of transducers T1
through T8.
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 10, and of dependent
claims 5-9 and 12-16, which Appellants have not argued separately from
claims 1 and 10, and which thus fall with claims 1 and 10. 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(1)(vii).
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s decision is affirmed.
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

hh

(Weatherford) Wong Cabello Lutsch Rutherford &
Brucculeri, LLP
20333 Tomball Parkway, 6th floor
Houston, TX 77070