Ex Parte Li et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 22, 201814015888 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 22, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/015,888 08/30/2013 142050 7590 08/27/2018 HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC. C/0 PARKER JUSTISS, P.C. 14241 DALLAS PARKWAY SUITE 620 DALLAS, TX 75254 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR WeimingLi 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. 2013-073281 Ul US 7719 EXAMINER NGUYEN, KATHLEENV ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2486 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/27/2018 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): docket@pj-iplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte WEIMING LI and DANDAN HU Appeal2018-002065 Application 14/015,888 1 Technology Center 2400 Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., NORMAN H. BEAMER, and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-5, 9-14, and 18-24. We have jurisdiction over the pending rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify Haliburton Energy Services, Inc. as the real party in interest. (App. Br. 3.) Appeal2018-002065 Application 14/015,888 THE INVENTION Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention is directed to digitally characterizing and simulating wormhole structures in rock. (Abstract.) Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal: 1. A method, comprising: receiving internal imaging data of a core sample of a rock formation, the internal imaging data corresponding to a non- destructive internal imaging process performed on the core sample; generating, by one or more processors of a computing system, a digital core sample model of a structure of the core sample based on the internal imaging data; analyzing, by the one or more processors, the core sample model to determine a porosity value of the core sample; determining, based at least in part on the core sample model and the porosity value, one or more parameters of a wormhole treatment profile to perform on the rock formation; performing a treatment on the rock formation according to the determined parameters of the wormhole treatment profile; after performing the treatment, imaging a newly acquired post-treatment core sample to produce a treated core sample model of the post-treatment core sample; and analyzing the treated core sample model of the post- treatment core sample to determine results of the treatment. REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite. (Final Act. 3.)2 2 Appellants filed an after-final amendment of claim 23 on Mar. 1, 2017 to correct the error, and the amendment was indicated as to be entered. (See 2 Appeal2018-002065 Application 14/015,888 The Examiner rejected claims 1-5, 9-14, 18-20, and 22-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. (US 2014/0212006 Al, pub. July 31, 2014) (hereinafter "Zhao") in view of Ciglenec et al. (US 2011/0139448 Al, pub. June 16, 2011) (hereinafter "Ciglenec"). (Final Act. 3.) The Examiner rejected claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao, Ciglenec, and Buchan et al. (US 4,882,763, iss. Nov. 21, 1989) (hereinafter "Buchan"). (Final Act. 9.) ISSUE ON APPEAL Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief present the following issue: 3 Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Zhao and Ciglenec teaches or suggests the independent claim 1 limitations of: and after performing the treatment, imaging a newly acquired post-treatment core sample to produce a treated core sample model of the post-treatment core sample, analyzing the treated core sample model of the post- treatment core sample to determine results of the treatment, Adv. Act. 1.) However, the Examiner did not reference or withdraw the rejection in the Answer. As the error previously identified by the Examiner has been corrected, we summarily reverse the Examiner's rejection of claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). 3 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the positions of the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed June 30, 2017); the Reply Brief (filed Dec. 18, 2017); the Final Office Action (mailed Dec. 1, 2016); and the Examiner's Answer ( mailed Oct. 19, 2017) for the respective details. 3 Appeal2018-002065 Application 14/015,888 and the similar limitations recited in independent claims 10 and 19. (App. Br. 6-8.) ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred. We disagree with Appellants' arguments, and we adopt as our own ( 1) the pertinent findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 3-12) and (2) the corresponding findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief. (Ans. 2--4.) We concur with the applicable findings and conclusions reached by the Examiner, and emphasize the following. In finding the combination of Zhao and Ciglenec teaches or suggests the claim 1 limitations at issue, the Examiner relies on the disclosure of Zhao of (1) a computed tomography (CT) porosity scan on a core sample, (2) including a scan of an experimental core sample that was acid treated, showing that the injection side forms a large wormhole cavity, and (3) improvements to the modeling of the acid stimulation can be utilized at any point in the life cycle of a field or formation. (Final Act. 5, Ans. 3; Zhao Fig. 3, ,r,r 34, 36, 51-53.) The Examiner further relies on the disclosure of Ciglenec of treatment on a rock formation followed by formulation testing of the treatment fluid. (Final Act. 6, Ans. 3--4; Ciglenec Fig. 3, ,r,r 34, 36.) Appellants argue that "the cited portions of Ciglenec teach analyzing reclaimed formation fluid 52 from a damaged zone" whereas claim 1 recites: 'imaging a newly acquired post-treatment core sample' ( emphasis added), not imaging a newly acquired post-treatment sample. That is, while cited portions of Ciglenec disclose a 4 Appeal2018-002065 Application 14/015,888 newly acquired post-treatment fluid sample, the cited portions of Ciglenec do not disclose a newly acquired post-treatment core sample as pending Claims 1, 10, and 19 require. (App. Br. 7, emphasis in original.) We are not persuaded of Examiner error. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Ciglenec teaches acquiring a new post-treatment sample from a treated formation for further testing. Zhao [] also teaches treatment operations may be analytically optimized using core samples for a new field before treatments begin, and with real- time feedback from the field a best practice for the field that meets the goals of the field operation can be rapidly developed. (Ans. 3--4, citing Ciglenec Fig. 3, ,r,r 34, 36, Zhao ,r 53.) Appellants do not point to any evidence of record that the resulting combination would be "uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art" or "represented an unobvious step over the prior art." Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418-19 (2007)). Here, imaging and fluid analysis are two identified, predictable solutions to performing a sample analysis. (See Advisory Act. 1.) The Examiner's findings are reasonable because the skilled artisan would "be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle" because the skilled artisan is "a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR, 550 U.S. at 420-21. We are persuaded the claimed subject matter exemplifies the principle that "[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR, 550 U.S. at 416. 5 Appeal2018-002065 Application 14/015,888 Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1, and independent claims 10 and 19 commensurate in scope, as well as all dependent claims, which are not argued separately with particularity. (See App. Br. 8-9.) CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, we 1. reverse the Examiner's indefiniteness rejection of claim 23; and 2. affirm the Examiner's obviousness rejections of claims 1-5, 9-14, and 18-24. DECISION The Examiner's decision rejecting claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) is reversed. The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-5, 9-14, and 18-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 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)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation