Ex Parte ClarkDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 27, 201712996957 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 27, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 12/996,957 12/08/2010 Brian Clark 19.0580-US-PCT 2763 93083 7590 10/31/2017 Schlumberger Technology Corporation, HPS 10001 Richmond Avenue IP Administration Center of Excellence Houston, TX 77042 EXAMINER BUTCHER, CAROLINE N ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3676 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/31/2017 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): U S Docketing @ sib. 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 BRIAN CLARK Appeal 2017-001453 Application 12/996,9571 Technology Center 3600 Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, LEE L. STEPINA, and ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges. STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Brian Clark (“Appellant”) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision in the Final Office Action (dated Dec. 10, 2015, hereinafter “Final Act.”) rejecting claims 1, 3—5, and 10-20.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). SUMMARY OF DECISION We REVERSE. 1 According to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (hereinafter “Br.”), filed May 11, 2016, the real party in interest is Schlumberger Technology Corporation. Br. 3. 2 Claims 2 and 6—9 are canceled. Br. 17 (Claims App.). Appeal 2017-001453 Application 12/996,957 INVENTION Appellant’s invention relates to a method and system for drilling and monitoring a specified spatial or geometric relationship of a second well with respect to a first well. Spec, paras. 10, 11. Claims 1, 14, 17, and 20 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention and reads as follows: 1. A method for determining a geometric relationship of a second well with respect to a first well, comprising the steps of: producing a first output from a first 3-axis magnetometer positioned in the second well, the first output responsive to a magnetic field produced by a magnetic field source positioned in the first well; producing a second output from a second 3-axis magnetometer positioned in the second well, the second output responsive to the magnetic field produced by the magnetic field source, wherein a location of the first 3-axis magnetometer and a location of the second 3-axis magnetometer relative to the magnetic field source are unknown; calculating the location for each of the first and second magnetometers in the second well with respect to the magnetic field source in the first well wherein the location of the first magnetometer and the location of the second magnetometer are determined from a plurality of magnetic field components measured by each said magnetometer; transmitting the locations of the first and second 3-axis magnetometers to surface; determining the geometric relationship of the second well with respect to the first well; and reinitiating drilling operations based on the geometric relationship between the first and second wells. THE REJECTIONS The following rejections are before us for review: I. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 4, 10, 11, 13—18, and 2 Appeal 2017-001453 Application 12/996,957 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by McElhinney (CA 2,490,953 Al, pub. June 20, 2006)). II. The Examiner rejected claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over McElhinney and Kuckes (US 5,485,089, iss. Jan. 16, 1996, hereinafter “Kuckes '089”). III. The Examiner rejected claims 12 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over McElhinney and Kuckes (US 5,589,775, iss. Dec. 31, 1996, hereinafter “Kuckes 775”). ANALYSIS Rejection I The Examiner finds that McElhinney discloses each of the limitations of the independent claims and includes a finding that McElhinney’s magnetized casing string constitutes the claimed “magnetic field source.” See Final Act. 4, 7—12. Appellant argues that because “McElhinney’s methods and associated systems measure remanent magnetic fields (or the residual magnetism left behind after an external magnetic field is removed),” McElhinney’s magnetized casing does not constitute a magnetic field source, as called for by each of the independent claims. Br. 8. According to Appellant, McElhinney specifically explains the difference between a magnetized casing for “passive ranging” using a preexisting magnetic field, and “a strong electromagnetic source in the target well” for “active ranging.” Id. at 9, n. 1 (citing McElhinney 1—2). 3 Appeal 2017-001453 Application 12/996,957 The Examiner responds that McElhinney’s magnetized casing string constitutes the claimed “magnetic field source” because it generates “an enhanced magnetic field around the target well or borehole 30f.” Examiner’s Answer 13 (dated Aug. 23, 2016, hereinafter “Ans.”) (citing McElhinney 17,11. 15—23; Fig. 6). At the outset, we note that an ordinary and customary meaning of the term “source” is “a generative force: CAUSE.” Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (10th ed. 2005). As such, because McElhinney’s magnetized casing causes a magnetic field to emanate, in a first instance, we agree with the Examiner’s interpretation that it constitutes the claimed “magnetic field source.” However, such an interpretation is contrary to the explicit disclosure of McElhinney. Specifically, McElhinney discloses that “magnetic techniques used to sense a target well” are divided into two categories, namely, active ranging and passive ranging. McElhinney 1. According to McElhinney, “active ranging” uses “an external magnetic field, for example, via a strong electromagnetic source in the target well.” Id. at 2,11. 1—2 (emphasis added). McElhinney further states that “[i]n contrast to active ranging, passive ranging techniques utilize a preexisting magnetic field emanating from magnetized components within the target borehole.” Id., 11. 7—8. McElhinney further distinguishes electromagnetic sources, such as, electromagnet 34 and magnet 27, by stating that “the remanent magnetization of the casing string ... is known to sometimes interfere with the magnetic field generated by the electromagnetic source (electromagnet 34 on FIGURE 1A and magnet 27 on FIGURE IB).” Id. at 6,11. 15-18 (emphasis added). In other words, McElhinney distinguishes between the 4 Appeal 2017-001453 Application 12/996,957 magnetic field generated (caused) by a “source,” such as electromagnet 34 or magnet 27, and the magnetic field of a magnetized casing, that is, a remanent field. In the embodiment of Figure 6 of McElhinney relied on by the Examiner (see Final Act. 4), McElhinney uses electromagnetic source 210' to magnetize a plurality of tubulars that form “a premagnetized casing string (that) results in an enhanced magnetic field[, i.e., remanent field,] around the target borehole 30',” and then uses sensor 212 “to passively measure the magnetic field about target well 30'.” McElhinney 17,1. 21—18,1. 1; 14,11. 13—24. As such, although we appreciate that McElhinney’s remanent magnetic field is caused by “a premagnetized casing string,” nonetheless, because McElhinney explicitly employs the term “source” when referring to the magnetic field generated (caused) by electromagnet 34 or magnet 27, interpreting McElhinney’s premagnetized casing string as a “magnetic field source” would be contrary to the explicit disclosure of McElhinney. We, thus, agree with Appellant’s position that McElhinney’s magnetized casing string does not constitute the claimed “magnetic field source.” Br. 8. Accordingly, as McElhinney does not disclose a “magnetic field source,” as called for by each of the independent claims, we do not sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) of claims 1, 3, 4, 10, 11, 13—18, and 20 as anticipated by McElhinney. Rejections II and III Claims 5 and 12 depend from independent claim 1, and claim 19 depends from independent claim 17. The Examiner does not rely on the disclosures of Kuckes '775 or Kuckes '089 in any manner that would remedy 5 Appeal 2017-001453 Application 12/996,957 the deficiencies in the rejection of independent claims 1 and 17 based on McElhinney discussed supra. See Final Act. 12—14. Accordingly, for the same reasons discussed above, we also do not sustain the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claim 5 as unpatentable over McElhinney and Kuckes '089, and of claims 12 and 19 as unpatentable over McElhinney and Kuckes 775. SUMMARY The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) of claims 1, 3, 4, 10, 11, 13— 18, and 20 is reversed. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 5, 12, and 19 are reversed. REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation