HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 30, 202014910587 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2020) Copy Citation 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. 14/910,587 02/05/2016 Ronald Johannes DIRKSEN 2013-IP-078230 U1 US 9366 142050 7590 04/30/2020 HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC. C/O PARKER JUSTISS, P.C. 14241 DALLAS PARKWAY SUITE 620 DALLAS, TX 75254 EXAMINER SABUR, ALIA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2812 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/30/2020 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 RONALD JOHANNES, IAN DAVID CAMPBELL MITCHELL, and JON TROY GOSNEY ____________ Appeal 2019-003543 Application 14/910,587 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, DONNA M. PRAISS, and BRIAN D. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges. PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 The Applicant (“Appellant”)2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Primary Examiner’s final decision to reject claims 1–23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 In this Decision, we refer to the Specification filed Feb. 5, 2016 (“Spec.”), the Final Office Action dated Apr. 17, 2018 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed Nov. 27, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer dated Jan. 31, 2019 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief filed Apr. 1, 2019 (“Reply Br.”). 2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2019-003543 Application 14/910,587 2 I. BACKGROUND The subject matter on appeal relates to a drilling method, and, more particularly, to a measurement-while-drilling (MWD) survey technique with improved accuracy. Spec. 1. According to the Specification, boreholes may stray from their intended trajectories due to the earth’s varying gravity and magnetic field. Id. The Specification discloses existing electronic survey instruments that compensate for variations in gravity by providing correct geographical location into tool software prior to commencing surveying or with manual entry of data at each drilling site to support suitable corrections for MWD survey data. Id. at 1–2. Appellant’s drilling method is said to automate waypoint or borehole path updates based on survey data corrections. Id. at 2. Independent claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief, is illustrative: 1. A drilling method that comprises: collecting survey data at a drilling site; determining a waypoint or borehole path based on the survey data; sending the survey data to a remote monitoring facility that applies corrections to the survey data; receiving from the remote monitoring facility the corrected survey data or a related correction message; and upon said receiving, automatically updating the waypoint or borehole path based on the corrected survey data or the related correction message; and adjusting a drilling trajectory based at least in part on the updated waypoint or borehole path. Appeal Br. 27 (Claims Appendix). Appeal 2019-003543 Application 14/910,587 3 Claim 12, the other independent claim in this appeal, is directed to a drilling system comprising a survey tool that collects survey data and at least one drilling site computer configured to carry out the steps of claim 1. Id. at 29. II. REJECTIONS ON APPEAL On appeal, the Examiner withdraws the rejection of claims 1–23 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and maintains the prior art rejections as follows: A. Claims 1–10, 12–18, and 21–23 under AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Marsh,3 Illfelder,4 and Boone;5 B. Claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Marsh, Illfelder, Boone, and Rasheed;6 C. Claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Marsh, Illfelder, Boone, and Reay;7 and D. Claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Marsh, Illfelder, Boone, and Brooks.8 Ans. 3; Final Act. 3–13. III. DISCUSSION Rejection A (Claims 1–10, 12–18, and 21–23). Appellant argues the rejection of claim 1 and repeats the same argument for claims 12 and 21. Accordingly, we confine our discussion to claim 1, which we select as 3 US 2010/0332175 A1, published Dec. 30, 2010. 4 US 2008/0275648 A1, published Nov. 6, 2008. 5 US 2009/0090555 A1, published Apr. 9, 2009. 6 US 2011/0247878 A1, published Oct. 13, 2011. 7 Sarah Reay et al., Improving directional drilling accuracy using magnetic referencing techniques, British Geological Survey (May 2012). 8 US 2010/0211318 A1, published Aug. 19, 2010. Appeal 2019-003543 Application 14/910,587 4 representative pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2018). Claims 2–10, 12–18, and 21–23 stand or fall with claim 1. The Examiner finds Marsh describes a method that includes every limitation recited in claim 1 except for explicitly teaching that the survey data, collected at a drilling site and sent to a remote monitoring facility that applies corrections to the survey data and automatically updates the survey data, is used to determine a waypoint or borehole path and that the waypoint or borehole path is updated automatically with corrected survey data and the drilling trajectory adjusted. Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds Boone and Illfelder teach determining a borehole path based on survey data and adjusting a drilling trajectory based on an updated borehole path that is based on corrected survey data. Id. at 3–4. The Examiner determines it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have combined the teachings of Boone and Illfelder with Marsh such that the waypoint or borehole path based on survey data is automatically updated based on corrected data and a drilling trajectory is adjusted. Id. at 4. Appellant contends that because Boone and Illfelder fail to disclose that the automated correction to the borehole path is from the remote monitoring facility, the combination fails to disclose the method claimed. Appeal Br. 15. Appellant reproduces paragraph 44 and Figure 4 of Illfelder and paragraph 117 and Figure 5A of Boone cited by the Examiner to emphasize that the disclosures do not disclose receiving corrected survey data from a remote monitoring facility. Id. at 15–17. Appellant’s arguments fail to identify any reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection. In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The Appeal 2019-003543 Application 14/910,587 5 problem with Appellant’s argument is that the rejection is based on the combination of Boone and Illfelder with Marsh’s disclosure of automatically updating upon receiving corrected data from a remote monitoring facility. Ans. 4 (citing Marsh ¶ 16). Appellant’s argument (Appeal Br. 15–17; Reply Br. 3) merely distinguishes Boone and Illfelder from claim 1’s method on the basis that they fail to disclose what the Examiner relies upon Marsh for disclosing, namely, receiving automatically corrected data from a remote monitoring facility. The Examiner does not rely on Boone and Illfelder for teaching this limitation. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). For these reasons and those given by the Examiner, we uphold the Examiner’s rejection as maintained against claim 1. Rejections B–D (Claims 11, 19, 20). Appellant asserts that the secondary references do not cure the deficiencies of the combination of Marsh, Illfelder, and Boone. Appeal Br. 24–25. Appellant refers back to the arguments made with respect to claims 1 and 12. Appeal Br. 24–25. Because we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s combination of Marsh, Illfelder, and Boone as discussed above in connection with claim 1, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 11, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the same reasons and for the reasons provided by the Examiner. CONCLUSION For these reasons, we uphold the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1– 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the cited prior art references. Appeal 2019-003543 Application 14/910,587 6 In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–10, 12–18, 21–23 103 Marsh, Illfelder, Boone 1–10, 12–18, 21–23 11 103 Marsh, Illfelder, Boone, Rasheed 11 19 103 Marsh, Illfelder, Boone, Reay 19 20 103 Marsh, Illfelder, Boone, Brooks 20 Overall Outcome 1–23 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation