Ex Parte Deville et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 23, 201813176708 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 23, 2018) 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. 13/176,708 07/05/2011 JAY PAUL DEVILLE HES2010-IP-040847U1 5041 15604 7590 01/25/2018 Baker Botts L.L.P. 910 Louisiana Street, One Shell Plaza Houston, TX 77002 EXAMINER SUE-AKO, ANDREW B. ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3674 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/25/2018 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): susan.stewart@bakerbotts.com debie.hernandez @ bakerbotts. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JAY PAUL DEVILLE, KAY ANN MORRIS, and GREG PAUL PEREZ Appeal 2017-0003741 Application 13/176,708 Technology Center 3600 Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, MICHAEL W. KIM, and PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judges. CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal from the Final Rejection of claims 1 and 3—20. We have jurisdiction to review the case under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 6. The invention relates generally to “cementing wellbores in narrow fracture gradient wells.” Spec. 11. 1 The Appellants identify Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2017-000374 Application 13/176,708 Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A method for conducting drilling and completion operations in a borehole for the recovery of hydrocarbons in a subterranean formation, wherein the subterranean formation has one or more narrow fracture gradient zones, wherein the narrow fracture gradient zones are areas of the subterranean formation where the formation has a formation-fracture pressure and a pore pressure that differ by less than 1 lb/gal in equivalent weight, and the method comprises the steps of: drilling the borehole in the subterranean formation through one or more of the narrow fracture gradient zones of the formation using an oil based drilling fluid having a known density; placing a string of pipe in the borehole, such that there is an annular space in the narrow fracture gradient zone between the string of pipe and a wall of the borehole; providing a composition comprising liquid resin having a density that differs from that of the oil-based drilling fluid by less than 1 lb/gal; introducing the composition comprising liquid resin into the annular space without introducing cement into the annular space and without fracturing the narrow fracture gradient zones; and allowing the composition comprising liquid resin to harden in place in the-annular space to form an annular structure without fracturing the narrow fracture gradient zones. Claims 1, 3—7, 14, 15, 18, and 19 are rejected under pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Noik et al. (US 6,065,539, iss. May 23, 2000) Reddy et al. (US 2009/0163388 Al, published June 25, 2009), and Leuchtenberg (US 2003/0079912 Al, published May 1, 2003). 2 Appeal 2017-000374 Application 13/176,708 Claims 9, 10, 16, 17, and 20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Noik, Reddy, Leuchtenberg, and Onan et al. (US 5,969,006, issued Oct. 19, 1999). Claims 8 and 11—13 are rejected under pre-A IA 35 U .S.C. 103(a) as obvious over Noik, Reddy, Leuchtenberg, Onan, and Cowan (US 2005/0269080 Al, published Dec. 8, 2005). We AFFIRM. ANALYSIS We are not persuaded by the Appellants’ arguments that there is “no reason” to use the liquid resin cementing material of Noik, in the narrow fracture gradient zone well of Reddy, other than because such use is described by the Appellants’ own Specification and claims. Appeal Br. 3—5; see also Reply Br. 1—2. The Examiner finds that Noik discloses applicability of its resin material in “high temperature and high pressure conditions.” Final Act. 3 (citing Noik col. 1,11. 19-25). Noik also discloses applicability “in wells where the annular space between the casing and the borehole is narrow.” Noik col. 1,11. 11—14. Reddy discloses that “the temperature in the well bore, which may range from about 120° F. to about 400° F.” (Reddy 1 59), which leads Reddy to optionally utilize “variable pressure weighting material particles may be able to withstand temperatures of up to about 650° F. without degrading” (Id. 134). Both references, thus, disclose high-temperature conditions, which suggest the use of Noik’s liquid resin in Reddy’s narrow fracture gradient wells, at high temperatures, in which traditional hydraulic cements may have 3 Appeal 2017-000374 Application 13/176,708 difficulty curing. See Noik col. 1,11. 9—23 (“It is well-known that high temperature and high pressure conditions are very difficult for the success of cementing operations because notably the rheology of such slurries is difficult to control or adjustment of the setting time is very delicate.”). As such, the references themselves suggest reasons to combine the liquid resin cementing of Noik in the high-temperature, narrow fracture gradient wells of Reddy, which would have enabled the ordinary artisan “to successfully drill the wellbore and place the casing (i.e., ‘without fracturing the subterranean formation inadvertently’),” as articulated by the Examiner. Final Act. 4. The Appellants next advance arguments that are unpersuasive, because they allege shortcomings in individual references, when the rejection is instead based on a combination of references. Specifically, the Appellants argue “Noik does not disclose or suggest that its cementing material should be introduced into a formation with a narrow fracture gradient zone,” and “Reddy does not disclose ‘a composition comprising liquid resin’ at all.” Appeal Br. 5. However, the Examiner finds that Reddy, not Noik, discloses wells with narrow fracture gradient zones when drilling in “deep waters.” Final Act. 3 (citing Reddy 14) (“Drilling offshore in deep waters requires specially blended drilling fluids which must be carefully formulated to allow for, inter alia, the narrow range of pressure separating the pore pressure from the fracture gradient of the formation.”) In addition, the Examiner finds Noik, not Reddy, discloses the use of liquid resin for cementing. Final Act. 3 (citing Noik column 1,11. 29-32) (“a liquid material comprising phenol-formal resin is injected”). 4 Appeal 2017-000374 Application 13/176,708 We have also considered the Appellants’ argument related to Noik’s control of viscosity (Appeal Br. 5, Reply Br. 3), but find it unpersuasive because Reddy discloses the need to control density, as claimed. Ans. 4—5 (citing Reddy 14). We are unpersuaded by the Appellants’ argument that Reddy does not disclose liquid resin that differs in density from that of the oil-based drilling fluid by less than 1 lb/gal, because “Reddy teaches instead that the density of the treatment fluid should be variable rather than tied to any reference point such as the density of the drilling fluid.” Appeal Br. 5—6. Reddy discloses “the term ‘pore pressure’ refers to the pressure exerted on the borehole by fluids within the formation, while the term ‘fracture gradient’ refers to that pressure that will fracture the formation. Reddy 14. This is consistent with the Appellants’use of the terms. For example, the Specification describes that: the term “fracture gradient” means the hydraulic pressure per unit depth required to be exerted in a subterranean stratum to cause fractures therein. As used herein, the term “narrow fracture gradient zone” shall be understood to be an area of a subterranean formation where the formation has a formation- fracture pressure and a pore pressure that differ by less than 1 lb/gal in equivalent weight with respect to the narrow fracture gradient and less than 500 psi in other terms. Spec. 1 5. Reddy discloses the caution required as to pore pressure: During the drilling process, the drilling fluid passes down through the inside of the drill string, exits through the drill bit, and returns to the drill rig through the annulus between the drill string and well bore. The circulating drilling fluid, inter alia, lubricates the drill bit, carries drill cuttings to the surface, and balances the formation pressure exerted on the well bore. Additionally, a properly prepared drilling fluid enhances well 5 Appeal 2017-000374 Application 13/176,708 drilling safety by preventing “kicks.” A kick is an uncontrolled flow of formation fluid into the well bore from the subterranean formation typically resulting from drilling into a vane of higher- than-expected or unanticipated pressure. Reddy 13. Reddy also discloses the caution required as to fracture pressure: fracturing of the formation could result in flow of drilling fluids out of the borehole into the formation (commonly referred to as “lost circulation”), or possibly an uncontrolled blowout of the formation fluids, and in some cases, fluids and particulates. Accordingly, the weight of the drilling fluid preferably should be sufficient to balance the pore pressure (and thus provide the necessary protection against kicks) without inadvertently fracturing the sediment and rock around the drill bit. Id. 14. Reddy also discloses the caution necessary when using drilling fluids in narrow fracture gradient wells “also relates to cementing in subterranean formations penetrated by well bores.” Id. 12. Reddy further discloses adapting treatment fluids to the varying pressures within a well, at different depths: “the treatment fluids may have a lower density when located above the ocean floor, and subsequently have a higher density when located within the well bore beneath the ocean floor.” Reddy 131. However, the Examiner finds Reddy does not disclose a specific narrow fracture gradient zones range of pressures, such as the pressure gradient between pore pressure and fracture pressure. Final Act. 4. For the specific range, the Examiner cites to Feuchtenberg, which discloses “[i]n some critical cases, a difference as small as 0.2 [pounds per gallon] is found between the pore and fracture pressures.” Final Act. 5—6 (citing Feuchtenberg 125). Using the range from Feuchtenberg in the context of Reddy, one is informed that the density of both drilling fluid and cementing fluid may need to vary by less than 0.2 lb/gallon, from the pore or fracture pressures in a 6 Appeal 2017-000374 Application 13/176,708 well having a narrow fracture gradient zone. Reddy discloses that the absolute pressure in a well may vary by depth, and this leads Reddy to formulate treatment fluids with densities that vary by depth, i.e., variable density. Reddy 131. By inference, if each of the drilling and cementing fluids must remain within 0.2 lb/gallon density from both the pore pressure and fracture gradient, within the narrow fracture zones within a well, they would therefore differ from each other, at any specific depth, by less than 1 lb/gallon, as claimed. Thus, although the references do not report on the difference in pressures between drilling fluid and cementing fluid, as claimed, they nonetheless disclose situations where, to avoid known problems, the relationship of pressure would be within that range claimed, or less than 1 lb/gallon. Therefore, even though no reference explicitly relates the density of drilling fluid and resin cementing compound to each other, based on the teachings of Reddy and Leuchtenberg, the relationship would nonetheless be within the limit claimed. As a result, the Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner’s rejection. For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 1. We also sustain the rejections of dependent claims 3—20, which are not argued separately. See Appeal Br. 6. DECISION We affirm the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1 and 3— 20. 7 Appeal 2017-000374 Application 13/176,708 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 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation