Ex Parte Childers et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 16, 2018

14525341 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 16, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/525,341 10/28/2014 Brooks A. Childers
44639 7590 07/18/2018
CANTOR COLBURN LLP-BAKER HUGHES, A GE COMPANY, LLC
20 Church Street
22nd Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
OPS4-56704-US-NP 3108
EXAMINER
HANSEN, JONATHAN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2886
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/18/2018 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):
usptopatentmail@cantorcolbum.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BROOKS A. CHILDERS and ROGER GLEN DUNCAN1
Appeal2017-009854
Application 14/525,341
Technology Center 2800
Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, MARK NAGUMO, and MICHAEL G.
McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.
GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134, Appellants appeal from the Examiner's
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of independent claims 1 and 10 as
unpatentable over Hosie (US 2004/0129424 Al published July 8, 2004) in
view ofHaroud (US 2004/0071400 Al published April 15, 2004) and of
remaining dependent claims 2-9 and 11-16 as unpatentable over these
1 BAKER HUGHES IN CORPORA TED is identified as the real party in
interest (App. Br. 1 ).
Appeal2017-009854
Application 14/525,341
references alone or in combination with an additional prior art reference.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We AFFIRM.
Appellants claim an interferometer comprising a light source 210, a
plurality of reflectors in the form of broad band fiber Bragg gratings (FBGs)
115 arranged in a fiber 110 and configured to reflect light from the light
source, the fiber being rigidly disposed within a cable that is rigidly attached
in a downhole environment, and a processor for processing a reflection
signal resulting from the reflected light (independent claim 1, Fig. 2).
Appellants also claim a corresponding method of monitoring a downhole
environment (remaining independent claim 10).
A copy of representative claim 1, taken from the Claims Appendix of
the Appeal Brief, appears below.
1. An interferometer, the interferometer comprising:
a coherent light source configured to emit pulses of light
in a fiber;
a plurality of reflectors arranged in the fiber and
configured to reflect light from the coherent light source, each
of the plurality of reflectors comprising broad band fiber Bragg
gratings (FBGs ), the fiber being rigidly disposed within a cable
that is rigidly attached in a downhole environment; and
a processor configured to process a reflection signal
resulting from the light reflected by two or more of the plurality
of reflectors.
2
Appeal2017-009854
Application 14/525,341
Appellants' arguments are directed to independent claim 1 specifically
with no additional arguments directed to remaining claims 2-16 (App. Br.
4--9). Accordingly, these remaining claims will stand or fall with claim 1.
We sustain the Examiner's rejections for the reasons expressed in the
Final Office Action, the Answer, and below.
The Examiner finds that Hosie discloses an interferometric optical
sensor system having the features of claim 1 except that Hosie' s fiber Bragg
gratings are not explicitly disclosed as being broad band (Final Action 6).
However, the Examiner finds that Haroud discloses a fiber laser sensor
system having narrowband as well as broad band fiber Bragg gratings and
concludes that it would have been obvious to provide Hosie with broad band
fiber Bragg gratings for the advantage of utilizing sensors having a linear
behavior of group delay over a large spectrum as taught by Haroud (id. at 6-
7 (citing Haroud ,r 22)).
Appellants argue that Hosie fails to teach the claim 1 feature wherein
the fiber-containing cable is rigidly attached in a downhole environment
(App. Br. 4).
Appellants' argument is not persuasive. In response to this argument,
the Examiner specifically finds that Rosie's fiber-containing cable is
encased in cement 104 of wellbore 100 (Ans. 3 ( citing Hosie ,r 60 and Fig.
8)), whereby the cable is rigidly attached in a downhole environment as
claimed. Significantly, Appellants do not dispute the Examiner's finding in
their Reply Brief.
3
Appeal2017-009854
Application 14/525,341
Appellants also contend that providing Hosie' s system with broad
band fiber Bragg gratings would render it unfit for its intended purpose, for
example, "because broad band FBGs do not reflect light at a particular
wavelength or frequency" (App. Br. 5; see also id. at 6).
However, Appellants provide no evidence or scientific reasoning in
support of their proposition that broad band fiber Bragg gratings would
render the system of Hosie unfit for its intended purpose. More specifically,
no evidence or reasoning is given as support for Appellants' unembellished
statement that such broad band gratings do not reflect light at a particular
wavelength or frequency. Under these circumstances, Appellants'
contention lacks persuasive merit.
Finally, Appellants argue that the Examiner's proffered motivation for
combining Hosie and Haroud (i.e., "for the advantage of utilizing sensors
that have a linear behavior of group delay over a large spectrum" (Final
Action 7)) lacks articulated reasoning and rational underpinning (App. Br.
7).
We do not agree. The advantage referred to in the proffered
motivation is expressly disclosed by Haroud ("In contrast to the
conventional Bragg grating the chirped [i.e., broad band] Bragg grating has a
linear behavior of its group delay over a relatively large spectrum" (Haroud
,r 22)). This express disclosure reflects that an artisan would have been
motivated to use broad band fiber Bragg gratings in Hosie' s system in order
to obtain the advantage associated with the relatively large spectrum of such
gratings.
4
Appeal2017-009854
Application 14/525,341
In summary, Appellants fail to show reversible error in the
Examiner's conclusion that it would have been obvious to provide the
system of Hosie with broad band fiber Bragg gratings in view of Haroud's
teaching that such gratings are known in the prior art as effective light
reflectors and as advantageous due to their relatively large spectrum.
The decision of the Examiner 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5