Ex Parte Steinsiek et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 15, 2018

12392487 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 15, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/392,487 02/25/2009 Roger R. Steinsiek
87884 7590 06/19/2018
Mossman, Kumar and Tyler, PC
P.O. Box 421239
Houston, TX 77242
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.
ACU4-45715-US 8948
EXAMINER
LOBO,IANJ
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3645
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/19/2018 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):
docket@mktlaw.com
tthigpen@mktlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROGER R. STEINSIEK,
DOUGLAS J. PATTERSON, CHARLES E. REDDING, and
ANJANI R. ACHANTA
Appeal2017-003263
Application 12/392,487
Technology Center 3600
Before BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and
PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
WOOD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2017-003263
Application 12/392,487
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1, 2, 5-8, 17, 18, 20, and 21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to a composite transducer for downhole
ultrasonic imaging. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. An apparatus configured to evaluate an earth
formation, the apparatus comprising:
a rotatable transducer assembly surrounded
by an acoustically transparent window and
immersed in a fluid filling a cavity defined by
the acoustically transparent window;
a composite transducer on the rotatable
transducer assembly configured to propagate
an acoustic signal through the acoustically
transparent window into a borehole filled with
borehole fluid and receive a reflection from a
wall of the borehole; and
at least one processor configured to use the
reflection obtained at a plurality of orientations
of the transducer during rotation of the
transducer assembly to provide an image of the
earth formation;
wherein the rotatable transducer assembly
comprises an impedance matching material
disposed between the composite transducer and
the fluid; and
wherein the assembly maintains a distance
greater than zero between the composite
transducer and the acoustically transparent
window during rotation of the assembly, the
assembly being configured via the distance
selected to: (i) reduce a reverberation time of a
2
Appeal2017-003263
Application 12/392,487
Clerke
Blankinship
Yogeswaren
Podany
reverberation therebetween, and (ii) improve
acoustic coupling with the acoustically
transparent window.
REFERENCES
us 4,780,862
US 2006/0067162 Al
US 7,075,215 B2
US 7,128,720 B2
REJECTIONS
Oct. 25, 1988
Mar. 30, 2006
July 11, 2006
Oct. 31, 2006
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
as unpatentable over Clerke, Y ogeswaren, and Podany.
Claims 5, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Clerke, Y ogeswaren, Podany, and Blankinship.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 20, and 21-Rejected as
Unpatentable over Clerk, Yogeswaren, and Podany
For independent claim 1, the Examiner relies on Clerke to teach, e.g.,
a rotatable transducer assembly surrounded by an acoustically transparent
window and immersed in a fluid filled-cavity defined by the acoustically
transparent window. Final Act. 4 (citing Clerke 2:33--46, 4:13--41). The
Examiner relies on Yogeswaren to teach a composite transducer and on
Podany to teach an impedance-matching material disposed between the
transducer and the window. Id. at 5 (citing Yogeswaren 2:9--34; Podany
4: 1-17). The Examiner acknowledges, however, that none of the cited
references teaches the assembly being configured, via the distance between
the assembly and the acoustically transparent window, to: (i) reduce a
reverberation time of a reverberation between the transducer and the
3
Appeal2017-003263
Application 12/392,487
window; and (ii) improve acoustic coupling with the acoustically transparent
window. Ans. 4. According to the Examiner, "such limitations are an
inherent outcome of the combination of Clerke with Y ogeswaren and
Podany." Id. In particular, the Examiner asserts that Yogeswaren's
composite transducer addresses "problems associated with transducer
ringing and poor signal-to-noise ratios," and Podany's impedance matching
material improves acoustic coupling. Ans. 3--4.
Appellants respond that the Examiner failed to establish that the
limitation at issue would inherently result from combining Clerke,
Yogeswaren, and Podany. Reply Br. 2. According to Appellants, while
Yogeswaren's composite transducer may "improve ringdown," neither
Y ogeswaren nor any of the other cited references discloses configuring the
non-zero distance between the composite transducer and the acoustically
transparent window to reduce reverberation time and improve acoustic
coupling.
We are not persuaded that the limitation at issue would inherently
result from combining Clerke, Y ogeswaren, and Podany. Even if the
combination would result in reduced reverberation time and improved
acoustic coupling over Clerke alone (i.e., due to the use of a composite
transducer in place of Clerke's transducer (Ans. 5)), none of the references
teaches configuring the distance between the composite transducer and the
acoustically transparent window to achieve these results. Indeed, none of
the references discusses configuring this distance for any reason. The
Examiner has not adequately explained how it is necessarily the distance
between the transducer and the window that is the means by which the
assembly reduces reverberation time and improves acoustic coupling.
4
Appeal2017-003263
Application 12/392,487
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 and
dependent claims 2, 6, 7, 8, 20, and 21 as unpatentable over Clerke,
Y ogeswaren, and Podany.
Claims 5, 17, and 18-Rejected as Unpatentable
over Clerke, Yogeswaren, Podany, and Blankinship
The Examiner's rejection of claims 5, 17, and 18 relies on the
erroneous finding that the limitation discussed above would have inherently
resulted from the combination of Clerke, Y ogeswaren, and Podany.
Blankinship is not relied upon to cure this deficiency. Accordingly, for the
reasons discussed above, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claims 5, 17, and 18 as unpatentable over Clerke, Yogeswaren, Podany, and
Blankinship.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-8,
17, 18, 20, and 21 is reversed.
REVERSED
5