Ex Parte Le et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 24, 2017

13007815 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 24, 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.
13/007,815 01/17/2011 Cam Le 140846-035400US 7540
127406 7590 03/28/2017
Phamherlain HrHlioka
EXAMINER
Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. WALLACE, KIPP CHARLES
1200 Smith St., 14th Floor
Houston, TX 77002 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3676
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/28/2017 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):
Patents @ chamberlainlaw. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CAM LE and ANGEL S. MARTINEZ
Appeal 2015-006641
Application 13/007,815
Technology Center 3600
Before ANNETTE R. REIMERS, LISA M. GUIJT, and
PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’
decision2 rejecting claims 26-43 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Ratanasirigulchai (US 2004/0231840 Al; pub. Nov. 25, 2004) and
Cuthill (US 2009/0272527 Al; pub. Nov. 5, 2009). We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Halliburton Energy
Services, Inc. Appeal Br. 3.
2 Appeal is taken from the Final Office Action dated November 26, 2014
(“Final Act.”).
Appeal 2015-006641
Application 13/007,815
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 26 and 35 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 26,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claims on appeal.
26. A method of enhancing communication between a
wellbore and an earth formation intersected by the wellbore, the
method comprising:
forming at least one fracture in the formation by increasing
pressure in the wellbore above a fracture pressure of the
formation, wherein the fracture pressure is a pressure level at
which fracturing beings in the formation;
the pressure in the wellbore decreasing as the fracture is
formed in the formation; and
then opening a low pressure volume in the wellbore when
the pressure in the wellbore decreases to substantially equal the
fracture pressure, thereby increasing a pressure differential
between the formation and the wellbore.
ANALYSIS
Regarding independent claims 26 and 353, the Examiner finds, inter
alia, that Ratanasirigulchai discloses the claim limitations, except for “the
timing claimed.” Final Act. 3,5. Indeed, the Examiner acknowledges that
neither Ratanasirigulchai nor Cuthill discloses timing the opening of the low
pressure volume (Ratanasirigulchai’s hollow carrier (Ratanasirigulchai 146)
or Cuthill’s surge canister (Cuthill, Abstract)) to when the pressure in the
wellbore decreases to substantially equal the fracture pressure4 (claim 26) or
3 The Examiner determines that claim 35 “contain[s] limitations
substantially similar to those of claim[] 26” and relies on same findings and
reasoning for the rejection of claim 35 as set forth for claim 26. Final Act. 5.
4 Claim 26 specifies that “the fracture pressure is a pressure level at which
fracturing begins in the formation.” Appeal Br. 17 (Claims App.).
2
Appeal 2015-006641
Application 13/007,815
to substantially equal to a closure pressure5 of the fracture (claim 35). Ans.
3.
The Examiner relies on Cuthill for disclosing “triggering the canister
opening on measurement of conditions which includes various pressures.”
Ans. 3 (citing Cuthill 177). In support, the Examiner refers to the “multiple
variations of when [the] canister could be opened,” as disclosed and depicted
in Cuthill. Id. at 4 (citing Cuthill | 83, Fig. 14). The Examiner determines
that Cuthill’s method seeks (i) to “ensure that full fracture length has been
achieved” (Final Act. 3 (citing Cuthill 196)); and (ii) “to create the
underbalance [that] draw[s] particulate debris . . . from the formation” (Ans.
4); which the Examiner concludes are the same results Appellants seek to
achieve, “using the same apparatus” (id.). The Examiner reasons that the
“specific timing for [the] canister opening [is] . . . made obvious by the
teaching of Cuthill.” Ans. 4. Further, the Examiner reasons that it would
have been obvious “to have tailored the delay of [Ratanasirigulchai] in order
to ensure full fracture length growth as taught by Cuthill.” Final Act. 4.
First, Appellants argue that “Cuthill specifically teaches away from
opening his surge canisters too soon to avoid a diminished stimulation effect
on the formation.” Appeal Br. 106 (citing Cuthill | 83); see also id. (citing
Cuthill 196). Thus, we understand that Appellants are arguing that opening
the low pressure volume at the claimed wellbore pressures is “too soon”
according to Cuthill.7 Further, Appellants submit that the examples
5 Claim 35 specifies that “the closure pressure is a . . . pressure level at
which the fracture begins to close.” Appeal Br. 19 (Claims App.).
6 Appellants repeat the arguments for the patentability of independent claim
26 for independent claim 35. See Appeal Br. 13—14; Reply Br. 13—16.
7 Notably, the Specification discloses that “delay device 20 provides the
3
Appeal 2015-006641
Application 13/007,815
provided in Cuthill do not disclose opening the canisters at the claimed
pressures, but rather disclose opening canisters when the wellbore pressure
is “about the initial hydrostatic pressure” or at other pressures related to
interface reflection pressure waves. Id. (citing Cuthill || 70, 75, Figs. 15—
18B).
Cuthill states that “it is noted that the surge canisters 7 may be opened
earlier or later, however, opening of the canisters 7 prior to the substantially
complete burning of a propellant can result in a diminished stimulation
effect on the formation F” (Cuthill | 83 (emphasis added)), and that
“[pjremature opening of the surge canister could result in shorter fractures
length, if fracturing was even initiated at all” {id. 196 (emphasis added)).
However, CuthilFs cautionary disclosures do not apprise us of error in the
Examiner’s reliance on Cuthill for teaching that early opening of the
canisters, i.e., prior to complete burning, is a known condition, such that
opening the canisters when the wellbore pressures equal the claimed
pressures would have been obvious to one skilled in the art.
Second, Appellants argue that because neither Ratanasirigulchai nor
Cuthill disclose opening a low pressure volume when the wellbore pressure
is equal to the claimed pressures, the Examiner has failed to state a prima
facie case of obviousness. Appeal Br. 11. We disagree. The Examiner
predetermined delay period between firing the perforator 18 and opening the
valve 22” and that “[i]t is contemplated that a delay period of a few hundred
milliseconds would be appropriate, but other delay periods can be used, if
desired.” Spec., 9,11. 13—17; cf. Ratanasirigulchai 149 (“The intervals
among the various pressure conditions illustrated in FIGS. 5-7 can be on the
order of milliseconds, seconds, or even minutes apart if timers are provided
in tools according to some embodiments . [Or if] timers are not provided,
. . . on the order of microseconds.”).
4
Appeal 2015-006641
Application 13/007,815
acknowledges that neither reference expressly discloses opening the
canisters at the claimed wellbore pressures. However, the Examiner relies
on Cuthill for teaching that canisters can be opened at various wellbore
pressures. For example, Cuthill discloses that “the triggering after a time
delay can be dynamic based upon measurements of conditions including the
initial hydrostatic pressure P0, downhole in-situ measurements of wellbore
pressures PI, P2, P3, and calculations based thereon.” Cuthill 177.8
Further, Cuthill discloses that Figure 14 “is a graph illustrating a series of
modeled pressure profiles of detonation of a stimulation gun followed by the
opening of a surge canister after a variety of time delays.” Id. 134, Fig. 14.
Thus, the Examiner’s reasoning is supported by factual underpinnings, in
that Cuthill discloses that the timing of the canister is known to depend on
in-situ wellbore pressure measurements, and that the claimed wellbore
pressures are known points on the pressure profiles depicted in Figure 14.
Third, Appellants argue that “Cuthill actually describes that the intent
is to produce an enhanced underbalance,” and therefore, “Cuthill is clearly
not seeking to avoid opening the canister before the fractures have finished
propagating.” Reply Br. 12—13 (citing Cuthill || 69, 72). However, the
stated goal of Cuthill, which is also a goal of Appellants’ invention, as
discussed supra, does not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s finding that
Cuthill discloses that the canisters may be opened at various wellbore
pressures, wherein the claimed wellbore pressures are known points on the
pressure profiles, as stated supra, and as relied on by the Examiner.
8 Cuthill identifies PI as the initial pressure event (Cuthill | 62), P2 as a
second, threshold pressure, and P3 as a third, interface reflection pressure
wave traveling through the wellbore fluid {id. 173).
5
Appeal 2015-006641
Application 13/007,815
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 26 and 35. Appellants chose not to present separate arguments for
the patentability of claims 27—34 and 36-43, and therefore, we also sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of the dependent claims. See Appeal Br. 7—14;
Reply Br. 7—16.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 26-43 is AFFIRMED.
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
6