Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 1, 2021

2021000123 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 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.
15/323,836 01/04/2017 Xingyong Song 164.2015-
IPM-098381 U1 US
2140
138627 7590 10/01/2021
Gilliam IP PLLC (Halliburton)
7200 N. Mopac
Suite 440
Austin, TX 78731
EXAMINER
TRAN, TONY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2894
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/01/2021 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):
uspto@gilliamip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte XINGYONG SONG, and JASON D. DYKSTRA
__________

Appeal 2021-000123
Application 15/323,836
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, JEFFREY R. SNAY, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.

COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 the final rejection of claims
9−16, 21, and 22. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appellant’s invention is directed to a system that estimates the
properties of drilling mud located downhole by using real-time data,
estimated drilling mud properties and mathematical models (Spec. ¶ 5).
Claim 9 is illustrative:

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 Halliburton
Energy Services, Inc. (Appeal Br. 3).
Appeal 2021-000123
Application 15/323,836

2
A system comprising:
a mud circulation system having a drilling mud flowing
therethrough;
a plurality of sensors including a flow metric sensor and a
drilling mud property sensor coupled to the mud circulation system;
and
a control system including a non-transitory computer-readable
medium encoded with instructions that, when executed, cause one or
more processors of the control system to:
receive a plurality of measurements acquired by the plurality of
sensors including at least one drilling mud flow dynamic and at least
one drilling mud property;
determine a set of flow dynamics values for the mud circulation
system based on a dynamics model;
determine a set of drilling mud property predictions based on
the set of determined flow dynamics values;
determine a difference between the set of drilling mud property
predictions and one or more of the plurality of measurements;
generate a fusion-determined drilling mud physical state value
based on a gain value and the difference between the set of drilling
mud property predictions and the one or more of the plurality of
measurements; and
change an operational parameter of the mud circulation system
based on the fusion-determined drilling mud physical state value.

Appellant appeals the following rejections:
1. Claims 9−16, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)–(2)
as anticipated by Hemsing (US 8,839,668 B2, iss. Sept. 23, 2014).
2. Claims 9−16, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)−(2)
as anticipated by Aldred (US 2011/0220410 Al, pub. Sept. 15, 2011).

FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS
We review the appealed rejection for reversible error based on the
arguments and evidence presented by Appellant. 37 C.F.R.
Appeal 2021-000123
Application 15/323,836

3
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv); Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential) cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed.
Cir. 2011) (explaining that even if the Examiner had failed to make a prima
facie case, “it has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to
identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections”).
Appellant argues that Hemsing’s teachings do not relate to mud
circulation (Appeal Br. 11). Appellant argues that Hemsing does not
disclose a system configured to measure properties of mud flow and
generate estimations of physical properties of the mud flow based on the
measurements (Appeal Br. 11). Appellant argues that none of the
measurement or estimation operations in Hemsing relate to drilling mud
property predictions (Appeal Br. 13). Appellant contends that it is improper
to equate Hemsing’s estimation of flow rate during build up or draw down
operations with estimation of drilling mud properties (Appeal Br. 13). We
agree.
The Examiner finds Hemsing teaches a control system where sensors
measure at least one drilling mud flow dynamic (pressure or temperature)
and at least one drilling mud property (viscosity and density) (Final Act. 5).
The Examiner finds Hemsing teaches at column 5, lines 21−35 determining
a set of flow dynamic values where sensors measure pressure, temperature,
viscosity, and density of the fluid (Final Act. 5). The Examiner further finds
Hemsing teaches at column 12, lines 20−40 changing an operational
parameter of the mud circulation system based on the fusion-determined
drilling mud physical state value (Final Act. 6).
Hemsing’s teachings relied upon by the Examiner refer to a
drawdown and build-up variable (Final Act. 4−6). Hemsing discloses that
Appeal 2021-000123
Application 15/323,836

4
the invention is directed to testing formation pressures along a wellbore with
a formation isolation device (col. 1, ll. 7-−0, 62−66). Hemsing teaches the
formation isolation device includes a probe 50 and a snorkel 54 for isolating
a portion of the borehole wall to obtain formation fluids through a port on
the tool 10 (col. 3, ll. 47−52). Hemsing discloses moving piston 52 as part
of probe 50 to create a volume expansion in the flowline 22 and permit
reservoir fluid to flow into a low pressure region (col. 4, ll. 31−37). Once
the piston is stopped, reservoir fluid continues to flow into flowline 22 and
pressure builds up in the line (i.e., the “buildups” in Hemsing) (col. 4, ll.
49−56). Hemsing discloses the importance of obtaining uncontaminated
fluids with the probe 50 by forming a good seal of the isolation device with
the borewall (col. 5, ll. 11−16). Hemsing teaches drilling mud is considered
a contaminant in the fluid and the instrument can analyze the fluid to
determine when the fluid is primarily formation fluid (i.e., fluid from the
side of the wellbore) (col. 5, ll. 14−22).
Based upon Hemsing’s teachings, we agree with Appellant that
Hemsing fails to teach a system that tests drilling mud. Hemsing, rather,
teaches to test the formation fluid acquired from the wall of the wellbore to
acquire properties of that fluid. Drilling mud according to Hemsing is a
contaminant to be avoided.
On this record, we reverse the Examiner’s § 102(a)(1)−(2) rejection of
claims 9−16, 21, and 22 over Hemsing.
Regarding Aldred, Appellant argues Aldred does not teach the data
segmentations relate to prediction of drilling mud properties (Appeal Br.
15). Appellant contends the Examiner’s rejection does not even mention
prediction or fusion in the context of Aldred’s teachings (Appeal Br. 15).
Appeal 2021-000123
Application 15/323,836

5
Appellant contends that Aldred’s estimations relate to drilling angles, not
drilling mud properties (Appeal Br. 15−16). We agree.
The Examiner finds Aldred teaches a drilling system that includes a
mud circulation system having a plurality of sensors (Final Act. 9). The
Examiner finds Aldred teaches a flow metric sensor and a drilling mud
property sensor that include measuring direction, inclination, survey data,
downhole pressure, resistivity, density, and porosity (Final Act. 9). The
Examiner finds that pressure and resistivity “could be considered” a flow
metric and density and porosity “could be considered” a drilling mud
property (Final Act. 9).
Aldred teaches a mud circulation pump is used as part of a drilling
operation (¶¶ 62−64). Aldred teaches various sensors may be placed on the
drilling rig to take measurements from the drilling equipment (¶ 65). The
sensors may include a hookload sensor, a block sensor, surface torque
sensor, and a standpipe pressure sensor (¶ 65). The standpipe pressure
sensor detects mud pulses traveling up the drill string (¶ 65). Aldred teaches
monitoring the mud pit 78 for evidence of a sudden influx of fluids (i.e., a
kick) in the system (¶ 75). Aldred discloses using a series of models to
determine a real-time determination of a changepoint rather than relying on a
retrospective analysis (¶ 87). Aldred teaches using the technique for
determining rate-of-penetration for the drilling operation and that the
technology can be used for other structures or parameters (¶160). Aldred
exemplifies that the technology may be used for roller cone bits and other
drilling processes (¶ 160).
Although the Examiner finds that Aldred’s teaching of measuring
porosity and density “could be” related to drilling mud, the Examiner does
Appeal 2021-000123
Application 15/323,836

6
not direct us to where Aldred teaches within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102
the claimed system that uses a control system as recited in claim 9. The
portions of Aldred cited by the Examiner do not teach a system that monitors
and controls drilling mud properties or values as recited by the control
system in claim 9 (Final Act. 9−10). Although, Aldred teaches using the
control technology for other structures or parameters, Aldred does not teach
that drilling mud control is one of the examples (Aldred ¶¶ 59, 160). The
Examiner has not established that Aldred’s teachings anticipate the system
of claim 9.
We reverse the Examiner’s § 102(a)(1)−(2) rejections of claims 9−16,
21, and 22 over Hemising, and Aldred.

DECISION

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
9−16, 21, 22 102(a)(1)−(2) Hemsing 9−16, 21,
22
9−16, 21, 22 102(a)(1)−(2) Aldred 9−16,
21,22

ORDER
REVERSED