GEOLOG S.r.l.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 1, 2021

2020000701 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 1, 2021)

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.
14/856,539 09/16/2015 Antonio CALLERI 23428-030 2839
81841 7590 01/01/2021
John Alumit
135 South Jackson Street, Suite 200
Glendale, CA 91205
EXAMINER
MCKENZIE, THOMAS B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1776
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/01/2021 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):
john@alumitip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANTONIO CALLERI
Appeal 2020-000701
Application 14/856,539
Technology Center 1700
Before JAMES C. HOUSEL, MICHELLE N. ANKENBRAND, and
JULIA HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–12, 15, 16, and 18–20. See Final
Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as GEOLOG S.R.L.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-000701
Application 14/856,539

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a method for the extraction of gaseous
components contained in drilling mud in a managed pressure drilling system.
Spec. ¶ 1.
Claim 1 is the sole independent claim. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for the extraction of gases contained in a drilling
mud in a managed pressure drilling system, said managed
pressure drilling system comprising a closed and pressurized
return piping connecting a closed and pressurized drilling well
with a mud gas separator, the pressure of a bottom of said closed
and pressurized drilling well being controlled by regulating
automatic valves, the method comprising:
- extracting, by an extraction duct, a quantity of said
drilling mud from the closed and pressurized return piping, said
drilling mud circulating in said closed and pressurized return
piping after rising from said closed and pressurized drilling well;
- sending said quantity of said drilling mud to a degasser
installed on said close[d] and pressurized return piping;
- extracting gases from said quantity of said drilling mud
by means of said degasser in order to analyze said gases;
wherein said method further comprises:
- monitoring of said quantity of said drilling mud extracted
by said extraction duct from the closed and pressurized return
piping, and
- a regulation of said quantity of said drilling mud to be
extracted by said extraction duct from said closed and
pressurized return piping, said regulation being performed on the
basis of said monitoring in such a way that the volumetric flow
rate of drilling mud which is sent to said degasser is constant.
Appeal 2020-000701
Application 14/856,539

3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Johnson US 4,397,189 Aug. 9, 1983
Kerherve US 2004/0265176 A1 Dec. 30, 2004
Dolson US 2006/0044207 A1 Mar. 2, 2006
Leuchtenberg US 2011/0067923 A1 Mar. 24, 2011
Guerriero US 2014/0067307 A1 Mar. 6, 2014

REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections on appeal:
1. Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the
written description requirement. Ans. 3–4.
2. Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite. Id. at 4–
5.
3. Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Leuchtenberg or the prior art system taught in the Background section of the
Specification (“prior art system”) in view of Guerriero. Id. at 5–9.
4. Claims 2–4, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Leuchtenberg or the prior art system, Guerriero, and
Kerherve. Id. at 6, 9–13.
5. Claims 5–9, 11, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Leuchtenberg or the prior art system, Guerriero, Kerherve,
and Johnson. Id. at 6, 10–13.
6. Claims 10, 12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Leuchtenberg or the prior art system, Guerriero,
Kerherve, Johnson, and Dolson. Id. at 6, 12–13.
Appeal 2020-000701
Application 14/856,539

4
OPINION
Rejection 1
In Rejection 1, the Examiner finds claim 1 lacks written description
support because, although the Specification describes a managed pressure
drilling system including a drilling well, the Specification does not teach that
the well is “closed and pressurized,” as claim 1 requires. Ans. 4.
Appellant argues “one skilled in the art would know that a managed
pressure drilling system requires that the entire well must be closed and
pressurized.” Appeal Br. 8 (emphasis added). Appellant cites Managed-
Pressure Drilling: What it is and What it is Not, Kenneth P. Malloy et al.,
Society of Petroleum Engineers (2009) (“Exhibit I”) and managed pressure
drilling, https://www.glossary.oilfield.slb.com/en/Terms/m/managed_
pressure_drilling.aspx (last visited May 29, 2019) (“Exhibit II”) to support
this argument. Id.
The test for sufficiency of a written description is whether the
disclosure “‘clearly allow[s] persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize
that [the inventor] invented what is claimed.’” Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli
Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) (alteration in
original) (quoting Vas–Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562–63
(Fed. Cir. 1991)). The disclosure must “reasonably convey[] to those skilled
in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of
the filing date.” Id. at 1351. Possession means “possession as shown in the
disclosure” and “requires an objective inquiry into the four corners of the
specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art.”
Id.
Appeal 2020-000701
Application 14/856,539

5
Appellant’s arguments, which focus on whether one of ordinary skill
in the art would understand or know that a managed drilling system requires
a well to be closed and pressurized, do not identify a reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejection. The Examiner finds the extrinsic evidence provided in
Exhibits I and II demonstrates that managed pressure drilling is “a broad
category of drilling techniques that do not necessarily require a closed and
pressurized drilling well.” Ans. 14.
Specifically, the Examiner finds Exhibit II teaches that “managed
pressure drilling overcomes problems associated with conventional methods
by ‘managing surface pressure to maintain a downhole pressure that
prevents the flow of formation fluids into the wellbore while keeping
pressure well below the fracture initiation pressure’” and the techniques a
managed pressure drilling process may use to accomplish this include
“control of back pressure, adjusting mud density, modifying fluid rheology,
adjusting annular fluid level, controlling circulating friction and
incorporating hole geometry in the well construction.” Id. at 14–15. The
Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that
techniques such as adjusting mud density, adjusting annular fluid level,
controlling circulating friction, and incorporating hole geometry in the well
construction “do not necessarily require the use of a closed and pressurized
drilling well.” Id. at 15. Although this is not the proper standard for
determining written description support, as outlined above, the Examiner
makes this finding in response to Appellant’s argument that “one skilled in
the art would know that a managed pressure drilling system requires that the
entire well must be closed and pressurized.” Appeal Br. 8. The Examiner’s
quotations from Exhibit I support the Examiner’s finding that a managed
Appeal 2020-000701
Application 14/856,539

6
pressure drilling system does not require “a closed and pressurized drilling
well.” The Examiner further finds that Exhibit II’s definition of managed
pressure drilling being “[a]n adaptive drilling method used to precisely
control the annular pressure throughout a wellbore” also does not establish
that managed pressure drilling requires a closed and pressurized drilling well
because Exhibit I discloses that conventional, open well techniques can
control the pressure throughout a wellbore. Id. at 16; Exhibit II, 1.
Appellant has not filed a Reply Brief to respond to the Examiner’s findings.
Exhibit I also states that “[p]ressures cannot be adequately monitored
until the well is shut-in and becomes a closed vessel.” Exhibit I, 2. The
Examiner finds that this fails to establish that a managed pressure drilling
system requires a closed and pressurized drilling well, especially in view of
Exhibit II’s teachings that a managed pressure drilling process may use
techniques (e.g., adjusting mud density) that do not require a closed and
pressurized drilling well. Ans. 15–16. As noted above, Appellant has not
filed a Reply Brief to respond to these findings.
Appellant further argues there are several passages in the
Specification to support a closed and pressurized well. Appeal Br. 8–9
(citing Spec. ¶¶ 3, 4, 18). The Examiner finds the passages do not imply that
a drilling well is closed and pressurized and cites Exhibit I to demonstrate
that a conventional system having an open well may control wellbore fluid
pressure. Ans. 17.
As noted above, Appellant has not filed a Reply Brief to respond to
the Examiner’s findings and explanations. Paragraphs 3, 4, and 18 of the
Specification do not expressly disclose that a managed pressure drilling
system may include a closed and pressurized drilling well. Further, the
Appeal 2020-000701
Application 14/856,539

7
disclosures of controlling bottom hole pressure and pressurizing mud in
these paragraphs are also insufficient to infer such a requirement or to
reasonably convey to those skilled in the art that Appellant had possession of
the claimed subject matter (i.e., a managed pressure drilling system that
includes a closed and pressurized drilling well) as of the filing date. Instead,
the record, including both intrinsic and extrinsic evidence, supports the
Examiner’s finding that control of bottom hole pressure may be
accomplished via techniques that do not require a closed and pressurized
well. For example, Exhibit I discusses conventional drilling operations
having wellbores open to the atmosphere, including conventional
overbalanced operations, where overbalanced is defined “as the condition
where the pressure exerted in the wellbore is greater than the pore pressure
in any part of the exposed formations.” Exhibit I, 1–2.
Furthermore, to the extent Appellant’s arguments rely on one of
ordinary skill understanding that a managed pressure drilling process is a
category or genus of a process that may use a closed and pressurized drilling
well (e.g., as a species or subcategory of that genus or category), the
evidence in the record does not support such an understanding. For instance,
as noted above, Exhibit I discloses that “[p]ressures cannot be adequately
monitored until the well is shut-in and becomes a closed vessel.” Exhibit I,
2. However, it is unclear whether this statement relates to a managed
pressure drilling process or generally describes an issue with conventional
open well processes. This sentence concludes a section under the heading
“Conventional Drilling Operations.” Id. at 1. Also, earlier sentences in the
same paragraph as this sentence describe “an open-vessel environment” and
Appeal 2020-000701
Application 14/856,539

8
state “[b]ecause the vessel is open, increased flow, not pressure, from the
wellbore is often an indicator of an imminent well control incident.” Id. at 2.
Exhibit II also discloses that “[m]anaged pressure drilling (MPD)
(yellow) overcomes drilling problems by managing surface pressure to
maintain a downhole pressure that prevents the flow of formation fluids into
the wellbore while keeping pressure well below the fracture initiation
pressure.” Exhibit II, 1. Exhibit II, however, does not define what
“managing surface pressure” means or encompasses (e.g., whether this
includes a closed and pressurized drilling well). Exhibit II also states that
managed pressure drilling is “[a]n adaptive drilling method used to precisely
control the annular pressure throughout a wellbore.” Exhibit II, 1.
However, Exhibit II does not disclose that controlling “the annular pressure”
can include using “a closed and pressurized drilling well,” as claim 1 recites.
Instead, Exhibit II discloses a list of techniques for managed pressure
drilling (e.g., “adjusting mud density”) that do not appear to use “a closed
and pressurized drilling well,” as discussed above.
As a result, a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s
rejection. The record does not reasonably convey that one of ordinary skill
in the art would have understood that managed pressure drilling includes
operations using a closed and pressurized drilling well and, therefore, one of
ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Appellant had
possession of the claimed subject matter (e.g., due to the disclosure of a
managed pressure drilling system in Appellant’s Specification).
Appeal 2020-000701
Application 14/856,539

9
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as failing
to comply with the written description requirement.2

Rejection 2
The Examiner concludes claim 1 “is indefinite because it is unclear if
the ‘drilling mud circulating in said closed and pressurized return piping’ is
the same as the ‘quantity of said drilling mud’ previously described in the
claim.” Ans. 4. The Examiner also concludes that claim 1 is indefinite
because these limitations are written out of order. Id. at 24.
Appellant does not respond to this rejection. See generally Appeal Br.
We, therefore, summarily affirm the rejection of claim 1 as indefinite.3

2 Although the Examiner only rejected claim 1 for failing to comply with the
written description requirement, claims depending from claim 1 also have
the same written description issues by virtue of their dependency.
3 For purposes of Examination, the Examiner proffered an interpretation of
claim 1. We add “said” prior to the first instance of “drilling mud” in the
Examiner’s interpretation so the interpretation more clearly refers to prior
“drilling mud” limitations:
circulating [said] drilling mud in said closed and pressurized
return piping after said drilling mud rises from said closed and
pressurized drilling well and extracting, by an extraction duct, a
quantity of said drilling mud from the closed and pressurized
return piping, said drilling mud circulating in said closed and
pressurized return piping after rising from said closed and
pressurized drilling well.
Ans. 5.
Appeal 2020-000701
Application 14/856,539

10
Rejection 3
In Rejection 3, the Examiner finds Leuchtenberg discloses a method
of operating a managed pressure drilling system that includes closed and
pressurized return piping that connects a closed and pressurized drilling well
with a mud/gas separator. Ans. 7. The Examiner finds the prior art system
described in the Background section of the Specification also discloses a
method of operating a prior art managed pressure drilling system that
comprises a closed and pressurized piping connected to a mud/gas separator.
Id. The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious for the drilling well
to be closed and pressurized because it is part of a managed pressure drilling
system. Id. at 7–8.4
The Examiner finds Leuchtenberg and the prior art system do not
disclose a degasser for analyzing the gases in drilling mud. Id. at 8. The
Examiner finds Guerriero discloses an analysis assembly for analyzing gases
contained in drilling mud. Id. The Examiner concludes it would have been
obvious to modify Leuchtenberg or the prior art system to connect
Guerriero’s analysis assembly to Leuchtenberg’s return line or to the prior

4 To the extent the Examiner’s conclusion (i.e., that a closed and pressurized
drilling well is an obvious variant of a managed pressure drilling system)
appears to be inconsistent with the rejection under § 112(a), we note it is
well established that, to provide written description support, the original
disclosure “must do more than merely disclose that which would render the
claimed invention obvious.” ICU Med., Inc. v. Alaris Med. Sys., Inc., 558
F.3d 1368, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1352 (“[A] description
that merely renders the invention obvious does not satisfy the [written
description] requirement.”). Appellant does not dispute this conclusion. See
generally Appeal Br.
Appeal 2020-000701
Application 14/856,539

11
art system’s piping so a user could analyze gases in the drilling mud and
determine the geological nature of a well, as Guerriero teaches. Id.
Appellant contends that Guerriero’s system is not a managed pressure
drilling system because its return piping is open, not closed and pressurized.
Appeal Br. 7, 9–10. Appellant asserts it would not be possible to control the
pressure of the drilling well’s bottom by regulating automatic valves and it
would not have been obvious to combine Guerriero’s system with other
managed pressure drilling systems. Id. at 7. Appellant argues that
Guerriero, therefore, teaches away from the claimed invention and
modifying a system of any of the other references in view of Guerriero
would render those systems inoperable because they would no longer
function as closed and pressurized drilling well systems. Id. at 9.
Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive because they do not address
the Examiner’s rejection. As noted above, the Examiner finds Leuchtenberg
describes a managed pressure drilling system that includes closed and
pressurized return piping that connects a closed and pressurized drilling well
with a mud/gas separator. Ans. 7. The Examiner also finds the prior art
system described in Appellant’s Specification discloses a prior art managed
pressure drilling system that comprises a closed and pressurized piping
connected to a mud/gas separator and concludes it would have been obvious
for the drilling well to be closed and pressurized. Id. at 7–8. Appellant does
not dispute these findings or conclusion.
The Examiner further finds that Guerriero discloses an analysis
assembly for analyzing gases contained in drilling mud and concludes it
would have been obvious to modify Leuchtenberg or the prior art system to
use Guerriero’s analysis assembly. Id. at 8. Thus, the Examiner relies on
Appeal 2020-000701
Application 14/856,539

12
Guerriero for the claimed extracting operation, not for a closed and
pressurized drilling well. “Non-obviousness cannot be established by
attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the
teachings of a combination of references . . . [The reference] must be read,
not in isolation, but for what it fairly teaches in combination with the prior
art as a whole.” In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986)
(citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)). Further, to the extent
Appellant argues Guerriero’s system must be bodily incorporated into
Leuchtenberg’s system or the prior art system, this is not the proper test for
obviousness. “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the
primary reference . . . . Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re
Keller, 642 F.2d at 425.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as
unpatentable over Leuchtenberg or the prior art system and Guerriero.

Rejections 4–6
Appellant does not present arguments for Rejections 4–6. See
generally Appeal Brief. Therefore, we also affirm Rejections 4–6.
CONCLUSION
The rejections are affirmed.

Appeal 2020-000701
Application 14/856,539

13
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § References/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1 112(a) Written Description 1
1 112(b) Indefiniteness 1
1 103 Leuchtenberg, prior art
system, Guerriero
1
2–4, 18, 19 103 Leuchtenberg, prior art
system, Guerriero,
Kerherve
2–4, 18, 19
5–9, 11, 15,
16
103 Leuchtenberg, prior art
system, Guerriero,
Kerherve, Johnson
5–9, 11,
15, 16

10, 12, 20 103 Leuchtenberg, prior art
system, Guerriero,
Kerherve, Johnson,
Dolson
10, 12, 20
Overall
Outcome

1–12, 15,
16, 18–20

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED