Ex Parte Mathieu

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2016

12742454 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121742,454 07/15/2010
23718 7590 09/28/2016
Schlumberger Technology Center
Intellectual Property Counsel
Houston Formation Evaluation Intergration
200 Gillingham Lane MD-9
Sugar Land, TX 77478
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Gilles Mathieu
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.
21.1246 5988
EXAMINER
HARCOURT, BRAD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3676
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/28/2016 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):
SMarckesoni@slb.com
jalverson@slb.com
USDOCKETING@slb.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
u-NITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GILLES MATHIEU
Appeal2015-000162
Application 12/742,454
Technology Center 3600
Before JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, MARK A. GEIER, and
BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant 1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Office Action ("Final Act.") rejecting claims 1-20, which
are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 The real party in interest is identified as Schlumberger Technology
Corporation. Br. 2.
Appeal2015-000162
Application 12/742,454
Claimed Subject Matter
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter, and is reproduced
below with disputed limitations emphasized.
1. A drilling system for drilling underground boreholes,
compnsmg:
a tool body;
a downhole motor;
a drill bit mounted on the tool body to be driven by the
motor;
a tractor mechanism for driving the tool body axially along
the borehole so as to apply weight on the drill bit when drilling;
and
an electrical cable extending from the surface to the tool
body to provide power for the drilling motor;
wherein the tool body includes a conduit connected to and
extending through the drill bit such that drilled material of the
underground borehole passes from the drill bit through the
conduit, and sensors are provided in the conduit for measuring
properties of the drilled material.
Rejections
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, and 11-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as anticipated by Krueger et al., 2 or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Krueger and Fillipov et al. 3 Final Act. 2-5.
Claims 3, 4, 7-10, 14--16, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Krueger (or Krueger in view ofFillipov) and
Castillo. 4 Final Act. 5-9. 5
2 US 2007/0278007 Al, published Dec. 6, 2007.
3 US 2007/0107941 Al, published May 17, 2007.
4 US 2009/0078467 Al, published Mar. 26, 2009.
5 Claim 20 is not included in the summary of the rejection (Final Act. 5), but
a substantive rejection is provided (Final Act. 9).
2
Appeal2015-000162
Application 12/742,454
Claims 17 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Krueger (or Krueger in view ofFillipov), Castillo, and Head et al. 6
Final Act. 9--10.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments (Br. 6-14). We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments. We
adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
action from which this appeal is taken and set forth in the Answer (see Ans.
2-3). We highlight and address specific arguments and findings for
emphasis as follows.
Rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, and 11-13 as anticipated by Krueger
Appellant argues the anticipation rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, and
11-13 as a group. Br. 7-8. We select claim 1 as representative. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Appellant contends Krueger does not anticipate claim 1 because
Krueger does not disclose that the tool body includes "a conduit connected
to and extending through the drill bit such that drilled material of the
underground borehole passes from the drill bit through the conduit," as
recited in claim 1. Br. 7-8 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner finds (Ans.
2-3), however, that Krueger explicitly discloses the claimed conduit through
the drill bit, in disclosing that a near bit fluid circulation device "provides a
local fluid velocity or flow rate that assists in drawing drilling fluid and
cuttings through the bit 112 and up towards the fluid circulation device 15 O"
6 US 2007/0144784 Al, published June 28, 2007.
3
Appeal2015-000162
Application 12/742,454
(Krueger il 57 (emphasis added)). We agree with this finding, which is
supported by Krueger's disclosure at paragraph 57, and which stands
uncontroverted by Appellant.
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above and by the Examiner,
we are not apprised of error in the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 6,
and 11-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Krueger. Thus, we
sustain the anticipation rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, and 11-13.
Rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, and 11-13 as obvious
over Krueger and Fillipov
Appellant argues the rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, and 11-13 as
obvious over Krueger and Fillipov is deficient for the same reasons argued
in relation to the anticipation rejection. Br. 10-12. For the same reasons
discussed above, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, and 11-13
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Krueger and Fillipov.
Rejections of claims 3, 4, 7-10, 14-16, 19, and 20
Appellant argues the rejections of dependent claims 3, 4, 7-10, 14,
and 15 are in error for the same reasons argued in support of independent
claims 1 and 11. Br. 12. Appellant also contends independent claim 16, like
claim 1, requires a conduit connected to and extending through a drill bit
such that drilled material passes from the drill bit through the conduit
because claim 16 recites "wherein the third central passage extends through
the bit." Br. 12. Appellant argues Krueger does not teach or suggest the
claimed conduit, and that Fillipov and Castillo do not cure the deficiencies
of Krueger and are silent with regard to a conduit that is connected to and
4
Appeal2015-000162
Application 12/742,454
extending through the drill bit and sensors provided in the conduit for
measuring properties of drilled material. Br. 12-13.
As discussed above, we agree with the Examiner that Krueger teaches
a conduit that is connected to and extending through the drill bit. Ans. 2-3
(citing Krueger i-fi-143, 57). In addition, Appellant has not challenged the
Examiner's finding that Krueger teaches the claimed sensors. Final Act. 3.
Accordingly, for the same reasons discussed above for claims 1 and
11, we sustain the rejections of claims 3, 4, 7-10, 14--16, 19, and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Krueger (or Krueger in view of Fillipov)
and Castillo.
Rejections of claims 17 and 18
Appellant argues the rejections of claims 17 and 18 are in error for the
same reasons argued in support of claim 16, and that Head does not cure the
alleged deficiencies. Br. 13. For the same reasons discussed above for
claims 1, 11, and 16, we sustain the rejections of claims 17 and 18 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Krueger (or Krueger in view ofFillipov),
Castillo, and Head.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-20.
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
5