Ex Parte Brown

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 6, 2016

12376946 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 6, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/376,946 05/21/2009
35204 7590 04/08/2016
SCHLUMBERGER ROSHARON CAMPUS
10001 Richmond
IP - Center of Excellence
Houston, TX 77042
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
George Albert Brown
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.
101.0209PCT/US 1326
EXAMINER
GAY, JENNIFER HAWKINS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3676
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/08/2016 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):
usdocketing@slb.com
jalverson@slb.com
SMarckesoni@slb.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GEORGE ALBERT BROWN
Appeal2014-000706
Application 12/376,946
Technology Center 3600
Before MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, JILL D. HILL, and ERIC C. JESCHKE,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
George Albert Brown (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from
the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3-10, 12-21, 23, and 24. 1 We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM, designating the affirmance a NEW GROUND OF
REJECTION.
1 Claims 2, 11, 22, and 25 have been canceled. See Amendment dated Sept.
28, 2011.
Appeal2014-000706
Application 12/376,946
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Independent claims 1, 10, and 18 are pending. Claim 1 illustrates the
claimed subject matter and is reproduced below with the disputed limitation
italicized.
1. A method of monitoring a well, comprising:
deploying a temperature sensor system along a wellbore
outside a wellbore commingled flow region; and
using the temperature sensor system to measure and
monitor individual reservoir layer pressures over time while the
well is producing by measuring the Joule-Thom[] son warming
or cooling caused by pressure changes along the wellbore.
Appeal Br. 13, Claims App.
REJECTION
Claims 1, 3-10, 12-21, 23, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Patel (US 2003/0221829 Al, pub. Dec. 4,
2003), Tubel (US 2003/0131990 Al, pub. July 17, 2003), Williams (US
2004/0112596 Al, pub. June 17, 2004), and Kumar (Sanjay Kumar, Gas
Production Engineering 360 (Gulf Pub. Co., Book Division 1987)). Non-
Final Act. 3.
OPINION
Claims 1, 3-10, and 12-17
Appellant argues claims 1, 3-10, and 12-17 as a group. Appeal Br. 9.
We select independent claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv)(2015). Claims 3-10 and 12-17 stand or fall with claim 1.
The Examiner finds, inter alia, that Williams teaches using a
"temperature sensor system to monitor downhole production zones" and
determining the fluid content or profile for the zones from the measured
2
Appeal2014-000706
Application 12/376,946
temperature profile using the Joule-Thomson effect. Non-Final Act. 4. The
Examiner finds that Williams thus "discloses measuring pressure based on
temperature measurements." Id. The Examiner further relies upon Kumar
to establish that the Joule-Thomson effect is old and well-known. Id.
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify
the system of Patel as combined with Tubel to use obtained temperature
profiles to measure and monitor individual reservoir layer pressures over
time, and to employ the Joule-Thomson effect as taught by Williams "to
have been able to determine the fluid located within each layer." Non-Final
Act. 5.
Patel, Tube!, and Kumar
Appellant argues that: (1) Patel does not disclose or suggest
deploying a "temperature sensor system" to measure "temperature and
pressure while the wellbore is being produced;" (2) Tubel "provides no
additional disclosure or teaching related to measuring reservoir layer
pressures by deploying a temperature sensor system to measure Joule-
Thomson changes;" and (3) Kumar "provides no teaching regarding using a
temperature sensor system along a wellbore to monitor individual reservoir
layer pressures over time by measuring the Joule-Thomson warming or
cooling along the wellbore." Appeal Br. 7-9. The Examiner responds that
these arguments fail to address the findings made regarding Patel, Tubel, and
Kumar, and that none of Patel, Tubel, and Kumar are individually required
to disclose or show all of the features of the claims (Ans. 5, 6, 10), noting
that one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually
where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re
3
Appeal2014-000706
Application 12/376,946
Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981); Jn re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091 (Fed.
Cir. 1986).
Appellant responds that, rather than attacking the references
individually, insufficiencies of the "references were discussed to
demonstrate cumulative failure of the references to show elements of the
pending claims." Reply Br. 7. We therefore tum to the arguments regarding
Williams, which is found to teach the claimed use of a temperature sensor to
measure pressure using the Joule-Thomson effect.
Williams
Appellant argues that, while Williams teaches using measured
temperature differences to identify fluid types using the Joule-Thomson
effect, such disclosure "does not teach the deployment of temperature
sensors to monitor individual reservoir layer pressures over time." Appeal
Br. 8.
The Examiner acknowledges that "Williams does not specifically use
the temperature profile and the Joule-Thom[]son effect to determine
pressures," but contends that Williams' disclosure of using the Joule-
Thomson effect, which represents a known relationship between the
temperature and pressure for a given fluid type, teaches the ability to
determine pressure from temperature, even if it instead utilized the known
relationship to determine a fluid type from a known pressure and
temperature. See Ans. 8-9.
Appellant replies that the Examiner has admitted that Williams does
not disclose using a temperature sensor to monitor reservoir layer pressures
via Joule-Thomson warming or cooling, and that the "indicated knowledge
of the Joule-Thom[] son effect provides no teaching regarding using a
4
Appeal2014-000706
Application 12/376,946
temperature sensor system along a wellbore to monitor individual reservoir
layer pressures over time by measuring Joule-Thomson warming or cooling
along the wellbore." Reply Br. 6. Appellant further disagrees with the
Examiner's determination that Williams discloses measuring the pressure at
each layer in teaching use of the Joule-Thomson effect's known relationship
between the temperature and pressure for a given fluid type. Reply Br. 7.
In Williams, a well bore is disclosed where temperature is measured
to identify fluids at a given pressure. See Williams i-fi-126-27. The Joule-
Thomson coefficient can be determined from the measured temperature and
the pressure, and used to identify the type of fluid present at varied locations
in the well bore. Id.
Regarding Joule-Thomson warming or cooling of fluids, Appellant's
Specification explains that warming or cooling of fluids entering a well is
caused by the pressure drop resulting from fluid flowing from the reservoir
boundaries to the edge of the wellbore. Spec. i-f 12. Appellant's
Specification also refers to the pressure drop of transitioning fluids as
causing warming or cooling "according to the well-defined Joule-Thomson
relationship." Id. i-f 14. Appellant states that the reservoir pressure is
obtained by multiplying the "measured change in temperature by the Joule-
Thomson coefficient for the particular fluid flowing from the reservoir.
Joule-Thomson coefficients have been established for a variety of
production fluids and are readily obtained, as known to those of ordinary
skill in the art." Id. i120. It is therefore our understanding, gleaned from
Appellant's own disclosure, that there is a known relationship among a fluid
type, its pressure, and its temperature, and that one skilled in the art would
5
Appeal2014-000706
Application 12/376,946
know how to determine (via a Joule-Thomson coefficient) a fluid type with a
known pressure and temperature.
Given this known Joule-Thomson relationship, even if Williams does
not explicitly discuss measuring pressure based on temperature
measurements and liquid type, we agree with the Examiner's determination
that, given the Joule-Thomson relationship of wellbore fluid type, pressure,
and temperature taught by Williams, it would have been obvious to use
established Joule-Thomson coefficients and a temperature measurement to
determine the pressure of a known fluid in the wellbore of Patel/Tubel. See
Non-Final Act. 5 ("This would have achieved the predictable result of
providing additional fluid flow information[,] thus allowing more accurate
control of production from each zone.").
We agree with the Examiner's conclusion that Joule-Thomson
warming or cooling, which is admitted to be known to those skilled in the art
(Spec. i-f 20) and which is disclosed by Williams as useful in determining
characteristics of various well bore layers (Williams i-fi-126-27), renders
obvious the use of Joule-Thomson warming or cooling to determine pressure
in a wellbore where the Joule-Thomson coefficient is known and the
temperature is measured. Indeed, lacking any explanation or evidence
presented by Appellant to the contrary, we agree with the Examiner's
conclusion that if one skilled in the art would know how to use Joule-
Thomson warming or cooling to determine fluid type from temperature and
pressure information, then one skilled in the art would also know how to use
Joule-Thomson warming or cooling to determine pressure based on
temperature and fluid type. Further, application of the known Joule-
Thomson technique to the known well monitoring technique of Patel as
6
Appeal2014-000706
Application 12/376,946
modified by Tubel would yield predictable results, and thus would have
been obvious. See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007)
("The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is
likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.").
We are not persuaded that the Examiner's factual findings are in error,
nor are we persuaded that the Examiner's reasoning lacks a rational
underpinning. We therefore sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3-10, and 12-
1 7. Because the reasoning set forth above provides a more detailed
explanation of, and perhaps expands upon, the Examiner's stated reasoning,
we designate our affirmance of claims 1, 3-10, and 12-17 a new ground of
rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).
Claims 18-21, 23, and 24
Appellant argues claims 18-21, 23, and 24 as a group. Appeal Br. 11.
We select independent claim 18 as representative. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Claims 19-21, 23, and 24 stand or fall with claim 18.
Claim 18 recites "utilizing the fiber optic sensor to track reservoir
layer pressures based on changes in temperature relative to the geothermal
temperature at the multiple depths along the well bore." Appeal Br. 15.
Although not reciting Joule-Thomson warming or cooling, claim 18 recites
tracking pressure via temperature, which Appellant has disclosed as being
performed using the Joule-Thomson warming or cooling. Spec. i-f 12.
Appellant again argues that Williams fails to teach using measured
temperature to determine pressure. For the reasons set forth above regarding
claim 1, we are not persuaded that the Examiner's factual findings are in
error, nor are we persuaded that the Examiner's reasoning lacks a rational
underpinning. We therefore sustain the rejection of claims 18-21, 23, and
7
Appeal2014-000706
Application 12/376,946
24. However, because the reasoning set forth above provides a more
detailed explanation of, and perhaps expands upon, the Examiner's stated
reasoning, we designate our affirmance of claims 18-21, 23, and 24 a new
ground of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).
Hindsight
Appellant alleges that the Examiner's legal conclusion of obviousness
was based on hindsight. Reply Br. 7. This argument is made for the first
time in Appellant's Reply Brief, does not appear to be responsive to any
argument raised in the Examiner's Answer, and good cause has not been
shown as to why this argument was not presented earlier. We decline to
consider these arguments without providing the Examiner with an
opportunity to respond. See 37 CPR 41.41(b)(2); MPEP 1205.02 (iv).
DECISION
We AFFIRivI the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3-10, 12-21, 23,
and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Patel, Tubel,
Williams, and Kumar, designating the affirmance a NEW GROUND OF
REJECTION.
FINALITY OF DECISION
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides "[a] new ground of
rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial
review."
8
Appeal2014-000706
Application 12/376,946
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that Appellant, WITHIN TWO
MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of
the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection to
avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims:
( 1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate
amendment of the claims so rejected or new evidence relating
to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter
reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the proceeding
will be remanded to the examiner. ...
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be
reheard under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same record ....
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED; 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)
9