Ex Parte Carvajal et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 15, 2017

13670836 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 15, 2017)

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.
13/670,836 11/07/2012 Gustavo CARVAJAL 2012-059526 U1 US 8281
142050 7590 11/17/2017
HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC.
C/O PARKER JUSTISS, P.C.
14241 DALLAS PARKWAY
SUITE 620
DALLAS, TX 75254
EXAMINER
SAXENA, AKASH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2128
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/17/2017 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 GUSTAVO CARVAJAL, DHRUV VASHISTH,
FENG WANG, ALVIN S. CULLICK,
and NURUL F. MD ADNAN
Appeal 2017-005786
Application 13/670,83 61
Technology Center 2100
Before ERIC B. CHEN, IRVIN E. BRANCH, and MICHAEL J. ENGLE,
Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Technology
The application relates to “monitoring and diagnosing reservoirs.”
Spec. Abstract.
Illustrative Claim
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below with the limitations at
issue emphasized:
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Halliburton Energy
Services, Inc. Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-005786
Application 13/670,836
1. A method for monitoring and diagnosing a reservoir that comprises:
collecting measured near-wellbore data representative of
conditions at or near a plurality of wells within the reservoir and storing
the measured near-wellbore data in one or more databases;
presenting graphically to a user simulated interwell data
generated by a reservoir simulation based at least in part on the
measured near-wellbore data;
overlaying graphically at least some of the measured near­
wellbore data over the simulated interwell data;
presenting graphically to the user one or more production
indicators calculated based at least in part on the simulated interwell
data;
determining a deviation of at least one production indicator from
a reference value;
identifying and presenting to the user a recommended action
applicable to one or more of the plurality of wells to correct the
deviation, if said deviation exceeds a threshold value; and
updating and presenting to the user the at least one production
indicator, said update being indicative of the effectiveness of the
recommended action after being implemented.
Rejections
Claims 1, 2, 6—10, 14—16, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Sequeira et al. (US 2010/0206559 Al; Aug. 19,
2010). Final Act. 3. In the alternative, these claims stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Sequeira and Hoteit et
al. (US 2004/0124009 Al; July 1, 2004). Id.
Claims 3, 4, 11, 12, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Sequeira and Karami (US
2008/0208476 Al; Aug. 28, 2008). Final Act. 8.
Claims 5,13, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over the combination of Sequeira and Hoteit. Final Act. 10.
2
Appeal 2017-005786
Application 13/670,836
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding Sequeira discloses “a recommended
action applicable to one or more of the plurality of wells” and “updating and
presenting to the user the at least one production indicator, said update being
indicative of the effectiveness of the recommended action after being
implemented,” as recited in claim 1 ?
ANALYSIS
All three independent claims (1,9, and 15) recite identifying “a
recommended action applicable to one or more of the plurality of wells” and
“updating and presenting to the user the at least one production indicator,
said update being indicative of the effectiveness of the recommended action
after being implemented.”
The Examiner relies on Sequeira for disclosing these limitations, or
alternatively the combination of Sequeira and Hoteit. Ans. 3—5. Appellants
argue “the corrections are not actually implemented in Sequeira. Rather, the
corrections affect a simulation.” App. Br. 13. Further, “the corrections are
not applicable to one or more wells in Sequeira, only models.” Id.
According to the Examiner, the broadest reasonable interpretation of
the claims applies to a scenario of “modeling/simulation of those wells and
not actual wells.” Ans. 3. Appellants have not sufficiently explained why
the Examiner’s interpretation is unreasonable. For example, “said update”
refers back to “updating ... the at least one production indicator.” The
antecedent basis for the production indicator is “presenting . . . one or more
production indicators calculated based at least in part on the simulated
interwell data.” Ans. 3 (emphasis added). Because the production indicator
is calculated based on simulated data, it is reasonable that the updated
3
Appeal 2017-005786
Application 13/670,836
production indicator also is based on updated simulated data, which takes
into account changes from the recommended action. We therefore are not
persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting these claims as anticipated.
Appellants also have not sufficiently addressed the Examiner’s
alternative determinations that Hoteit teaches “corrective action can be
applied in the field based on simulation” and “[i]t would have been obvious
to one skilled in the art to combine Hoteit with Sequeira as they are
analogous art in corrective action determination for well drilling.” Ans. 5
(citing Hoteit | 172, Fig. 9).2 Thus, we are not persuaded the Examiner
erred in rejecting the independent claims as obvious.
With respect to the remaining § 103 rejections, Appellants argue
“Karami and/or Hoteit do not cure the fundamental deficiencies in
Sequeira.” App. Br. 16; see also id. at 15. We are not persuaded, however,
that Sequeira or Hoteit is deficient for the reasons discussed above.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of independent
claims 1, 9, and 15, and their dependent claims 2—8, 10-14, and 16—20,
which Appellants argue are patentable for similar reasons. See App. Br. 15-
lb; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
For the reasons above, we affirm the decision rejecting claims 1—20.
No time for taking subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be
extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
2 See also Sequeira H 33, 35 (“Utilization of the invention . . . allows the
users to take appropriate, timely action”).
4