Ex Parte Villareal et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 30, 201814149961 (P.T.A.B. May. 30, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/149,961 01/08/2014 93083 7590 06/01/2018 Schlumberger Technology Corporation, HPS 10001 Richmond Avenue IP Administration Center of Excellence Houston, TX 77042 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Steven G. Villareal 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. 24.0952-US-CNT? 1709 EXAMINER ANDRISH, SEAN D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3678 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/01/2018 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): USDocketing@slb.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 STEVEN G. VILLAREAL, REINHART CIGLENEC, MICHAEL J. STUCKER, and KHANH DUONG Appeal2017-008220 Application 14/149 ,961 Technology Center 3600 Before ANTON W. PETTING, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and MATTHEWS. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL The Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-7, 10, 16, and 19-29. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We AFFIRM. 1 "The real party in interest is Schlumberger Technology Corporation." (Appeal Br. 2.) Appeal2017-008220 Application 14/149,961 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants' invention "relates to a downhole sampling while drilling tool." (Spec. ,r 14.) Illustrative Claim 1. A sampling while drilling tool comprising: a drill collar having a first end, a second end, an outer wall extending between the first and second ends, and at least one opening extending through the outer wall to a cavity within the drill collar; a sample chamber positionable in the cavity through the at least one opening in the outer wall; and a passage for conducting a drilling fluid through the drill collar. White Follini Bolze References us 4,856,585 US 2003/0098156 Al US 6,688,390 B2 Rejections2 Aug. 15, 1989 May 29, 2003 Feb. 10,2004 The Examiner rejects claims 1---6, 10, 16, and 19-29 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Bolze and Follini. (Non-Final Action 6.) The Examiner rejects claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Bolze, Follini, and White. (Non-Final Action 11.) ANALYSIS Claims 1, 10, and 16 are the independent claims on appeal, with the rest of the claims on appeal (i.e., claims 2-6, 7, and 19-29) depending therefrom. (See Appeal Br., Claims App.) 2 The Examiner's non-statutory double patenting rejections (see Non-Final Action 2-5) have been withdrawn (see Answer 2). 2 Appeal2017-008220 Application 14/149,961 Independent claims 1 and 10 recite "[a] sampling while drilling tool" comprising "a drill collar" with "a passage for conducting a drilling fluid" therethrough. (Appeal Br., Claims App.) Independent claim 16 recites "[a] method of sampling while drilling" involving a "drill collar" and the conduction of "a drilling fluid through a passage in the drill collar." (Id.) According to the Appellants, in a while-drilling sampling operation, the sampling/measuring elements are incorporated into an assembly that is "suspended on a drillstring." (Appeal Br. 5.) More particularly, the components "obtaining samples and measurements are incorporated into the drill collars that provide the weight on bit requisite to actually drill the well." (Appeal Br. 5---6.) The Appellants explain that "[d]rill collars are thick- walled tubular pieces machined from solid bars of steel." (Id. at 6.) The Appellants also explain that "[ d]rill collars provide a passage to pump drilling fluids through the collars." (Id.) Circulation of a drilling fluid is apparently necessary, while drilling proceeds, to lubricate the drill bit and carry drill cuttings to the surface. (Id. at 8.) Also, according to the Appellants, a while-drilling sampling operation differs markedly from what is called a "wireline" sampling operation. (See Appeal Br. 5---6.) The Appellants explain that "[n]o drilling proceeds" during a wireline sampling operation, "as the drillstring is tripped out of the wellbore in order for the wireline tool to be inserted and measurements to be taken." (Id. at 5.) In other words, in a wireline sampling operation, a collar component of a sampling tool need not have the above-discussed structural features required of drillstring components. And, as no drilling occurs, there is no drill bit to lubricate and no drilling cuttings to carry to the surface. 3 Appeal2017-008220 Application 14/149,961 The Examiner's obviousness rejections rely upon the primary reference, Bolze, to teach a sampling tool comprising a collar component; and rely upon a secondary reference, Follini, to teach that, when a sampling tool is incorporated into a drillstring, a passage can be provided for conducting drilling fluid through a collar component. (See Non-Final Action 6.) The Appellants do not challenge the Examiner's finding that Bolze discloses a sampling tool having a collar component (see Appeal Br. 6-9)3; and the Appellants do not challenge the Examiner's finding that Follini teaches providing a collar component, in a drillstring, with a passage for conducting drilling fluid (see id. at 6-11 ). The Appellants' arguments are premised upon Bolze 's teachings being limited to a wireline sampling tool. (See Appeal Br. 6-9.) The Appellants contend that a collar component in a wireline sampling tool "can, in no reasonable reading, be considered as a drill collar" as it is "wholly unable to provide weight on bit or structural strength involved in support of a long drillstring." (Id. at 7.) The Appellants also contend that "in a wireline tool," there would be "no reason" to circulate a drilling fluid to lubricate a drill bit and/or carry drilling cuttings to the surface, as "no drilling is being conducted." (Id. at 7-8.) If Bolze' s teachings were truly limited to a wireline sampling operation, the Appellants' arguments might merit a much closer look. However, as pointed out by the Examiner (see Answer 3), Bolze expressly states that its invention "exhibits utility in downhole tools other than a 3 Although the Appellants contend that Bolze does not disclose a collar that can be called a "drill collar" (Appeal Br. 7, emphasis added), they do not assert that Bolze fails to disclose a "collar." 4 Appeal2017-008220 Application 14/149,961 wireline-conveyed formation testing tool, such as in drill pipe strings." (Bolze, col. 9, 11. 45--48, emphasis added.) One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate, thanks to at least this express statement, that Bolze's sampling technology could be incorporated into drillstring components. Insofar as structural alterations to Bolze' s collar component would be necessary for its incorporation into a drillstring, the record reflects that one of ordinary skill would understand what these modifications would entail. (See Appeal Br. 5---6, citing technical dictionaries and references.) The record also reflects that one of ordinary skill would recognize that, if Bolze's collar component was incorporated into a drillstring, it could, or perhaps even should, be provided with a passage for the conduction of a drilling fluid therethrough. (See id.; see also Follini ,r,r 35, 41--42.) In any event, the Appellants' briefing seems to auspiciously overlook Bolze's express teaching that its sampling technology can exhibit utility in "drill pipe strings." (Bolze, col. 9, 11. 45--48.) And, according to the Examiner, the Appellants "ha[ ve] not addressed" this express teaching by Bolze in their responses to "several" actions during prosecution. (Answer 3.) Thus, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1, 10, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bolze and Follini. The Appellants do not argue the dependent claims separately (see Appeal Br. 8, 9, 10); and thus we sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 2---6 and 19--29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bolze and Follini; and we sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bolze, Follini, and White. 5 Appeal2017-008220 Application 14/149,961 DECISION We AFFIRM the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-7, 10, 16, and 19-29. 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