Schlumberger Technology Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 18, 2022

2021001388 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 18, 2022)

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. 15/361,781 11/28/2016 Juan Jose Rojas IS16.0972-US-NP 9532 48879 7590 03/18/2022 SCHLUMBERGER INFORMATION SOLUTIONS 10001 Richmond Avenue IP Administration Center of Excellence HOUSTON, TX 77042 EXAMINER SLOMS, NICHOLAS ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2476 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/18/2022 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 USDocketing@slb.com jalverson@slb.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte JUAN JOSE ROJAS and NJÄI AARSLAND ____________________ Appeal 2021-001388 Application 15/361,781 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 3, 5 through 7, 10, 12, 14, 17, 18, and 21 through 30. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a) (2019). According to Appellant, SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2021-001388 Application 15/361,781 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant’s invention is directed to a communications network having a common data bus communicatively coupled to control devices, corresponding equipment components of a well construction system, non- control devices, and network appliances. Abs. Claim 1 is reproduced below. 1. An apparatus comprising: a communications network including a common data bus communicatively coupled to a plurality of control devices, a plurality of non-control devices, and a plurality of network appliances, wherein at least some of the control devices, the non-control devices, and the network appliances are part of a well construction system, and wherein: the control devices are configured to control corresponding ones of a plurality of equipment components of the well construction system; one or more of the network appliances are configured to implement a plurality of virtual networks within the communications network; a first virtual network of the virtual networks includes at least some of the control devices; and a second virtual network of the virtual networks includes at least some of the non-control devices and does not include the control devices. Appeal 2021-001388 Application 15/361,781 3 REJECTIONS2 The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 10, 14, 17, 21 through 23, and 26 through 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for being unpatentable over Harvey (US 6,519,568 B1; issued Feb. 11, 2003), Kalkunte (US 2015/0078200 A1; published Mar. 19, 2018), and Pratt (US 2013/0179622 A1; published July 11, 2013). Final Act. 7-12. The Examiner rejected claims 7, 12, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for being unpatentable over Harvey, Kalkunte, Pratt, and Kardashov (US 2011/0173362 A1; published July 14, 2011). Final Act. 12-13. The Examiner rejected claims 24 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for being unpatentable over Harvey, Kalkunte, Pratt, Cella (US 2018/0284735 A1; published Oct. 4, 2018), or Stevens (US 2010/00245075 A1; published Sept. 30, 2010). Final Act. 13. ANALYSIS We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief, the Examiner’s rejections, and the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments. Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 10, 14, 17, 21 through 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. However, Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7, 12, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. 2 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Appeal Brief filed July 8, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”); Appellant’s Specification (“Spec.”) filed November 28, 2016; Final Office Action mailed February 7, 2020 (“Final Act.”); and the Examiner’s Answer mailed September 25, 2020 (“Ans.”). Appeal 2021-001388 Application 15/361,781 4 Rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 10, 14, 17, 21 through 23, and 26 through 30. Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 1 over Harvey, Kalkunte, and Pratt is in error for four reasons. Appeal Br. 8-10.3 First Point Appellant’s first argument asserts the combination of Harvey, Kalkunte, and Pratt does not describe a common data bus or communications network comprising a plurality of control devices, a plurality of non-control devices and a plurality of network appliances as claimed. Appeal Br. 8. Appellant argues that Harvey and Kalkunte do not describe a plurality of devices coupled to a common bus and that the Examiner’s interpretation of the term “common bus,” as “. . . ‘at least a portion of a shared data pathway,’ is not technically precise and is not supported by any of the three references.” Appeal Br. 8. Further, Appellant argues that “Pratt discloses structure of a computer device comprising an expansion bus, but does not teach or suggest a common data bus of a communications network that connects various devices of a well construction system, as recited in claims 1, 10, and 14 of the present application.” Appeal Br. 9 (emphasis omitted). Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Harvey, Kalkunte, and Pratt teaches the claim 1 3 Appellant’s augments group claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 10, 14, 17, 21 through 23, and 26 through 30 together. We select claim 1 as representative of the group. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv). Appeal 2021-001388 Application 15/361,781 5 limitations directed to a common data bus or communications network comprising a plurality of control devices, a plurality of non-control devices and a plurality of network appliances. The Examiner finds that both Harvey and Kalkunte teach a plurality of control, non-control, and network appliances that are coupled together. Ans. 6 (citing Harvey, Figs. 1, 3, 4, 9, col. 9, lines 9-30; col. 18, lines 51-67 and Kalkunte, Figs. 1, 2 ¶¶ 3, 17-22, 48 and 49). Additionally, the Examiner finds that Harvey teaches that these elements are used with well construction equipment. Ans. 6 (citing Harvey col. 1, lines 27-28). We have reviewed the cited teachings of Harvey and Kalkunte and concur with the Examiner’s findings that both references teach plural devices networked together, and that Harvey teaches their use in the environment of well construction. The Examiner considers the term “common bus” to be a “a shared data pathway and/ or a shared medium that transfers data between computing entities.” Ans. 7. We are not persuaded of error by Appellant’s assertion that this interpretation “is not technically precise and is not supported by any of the three references.” See Appeal Br. 8. The Office “determines the scope of claims . . . not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction ‘in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.’” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Appellant has not shown nor do we find that the Examiner’s interpretation is inconsistent with Appellant’s Specification. Representative claim 1 merely identifies the bus as communicatively coupling devices. Further, Appellant’s Specification does not define the term “common bus,” and similarly describes the bus in general terms (see Specification ¶ 5, which Appeal 2021-001388 Application 15/361,781 6 discusses the common bus as communicatively coupling devices; see also ¶ 43, which discusses the bus can be based on many different physical network topologies). Further, the Examiner finds, and we concur, that Pratt explicitly teaches a common data bus that connects multiple modules. Ans. 7 (citing Pratt, Abstract and Figs. 5A, 5B, and 6). We additionally note that Pratt’s teaching is not limited to the bus connecting components internal to a computer, but rather includes the bus extending to remote devices. See Pratt ¶ 51. Although Pratt does not discuss the devices are used in the well construction environment, the Examiner relies upon the combination of the three references to reject the claim and, as discussed above, Kalkunte does teach plural networked devices, used in the environment of well construction. Accordingly, Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Harvey, Kalkunte, and Pratt teaches a common data bus or communications network comprising a plurality of control devices, a plurality of non-control devices and a plurality of network appliances as claimed. Second Point Appellant’s second argument asserts the combination of Harvey, Kalkunte, and Pratt does not describe a plurality of virtual networks. Appeal Br. 9-10. Appellant argues that Kalkunte teaches use of virtual devices such as virtual remote terminal units and virtual programable logic controllers, but “does not teach or suggest a network of devices that are logically separated by network appliances into a plurality of virtual networks, as recited in claims 1, 10, and 14.” Appeal Br 10. Similarly, Appellant argues that Harvey and Pratt do not teach a network of devices that are logically separated by network appliances into a plurality of virtual networks. Appeal Appeal 2021-001388 Application 15/361,781 7 Br. 10. Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Harvey, Kalkunte, and Pratt teaches the claim 1 limitation directed to a plurality of virtual networks. Initially, we note that Appellant’s argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claim as representative claim 1 does not recite a network of devices that are logically separated by network appliances into a plurality of virtual networks as argued. Claim 1 recites a communication network that includes a common data bus wherein “one or more of the network appliances are configured to implement a plurality of virtual networks within the communications network.” Claim 1.4 The Examiner indicates that “a ‘virtual network’ is interpreted as a grouping of logically connected entities.” Ans. 9. Appellant has not addressed or contested this claim interpretation by the Examiner and we consider it to be consistent with Appellant’s Specification (see Spec. ¶13 ,which discusses separating or grouping devices into systems using different virtual networks). Based upon this interpretation, the Examiner finds that both Harvey and Kalkunte teach use of virtual networks; Harvey in that it makes use of both physical hardware and virtual components to make a network and Kalkunte in teaching the use of virtual private networks (VPN). Ans. 9-10 (citing Kalkunte, Figs. 2, 4, 16-18, and Harvey, col. 17, ll. 34-37, col. 24, 18-21). Further, the Examiner has provided several examples of how the combination of Harvey and Kalkunte teaches the claimed plural virtual networks. See Ans. 10. Appellant’s arguments have not addressed the Examiner’s findings as they relate to Harvey or the 4 Thus, representative claim 1 does not recite that the network appliances are logically separated by network appliances. Appeal 2021-001388 Application 15/361,781 8 examples of how the references teach the claimed virtual networks, on page 10 of the Answer. Thus, we are unpersuaded of error by Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Harvey, Kalkunte, and Pratt teaches the claim 1 limitation directed to a plurality of virtual networks. Third Point Appellant’s third argument asserts the combination of Harvey, Kalkunte, and Pratt “do[es] not describe a first virtual network including at least some of the control devices nor a second virtual network including at least some of the non-control devices and not the control devices as recited in the claims.” Appeal Br. 10 (emphasis omitted). Appellant argues the Examiner does not address distinctions between different virtual networks nor devices within the different virtual networks. As described above, Kalkunte discloses virtual (i.e., software) devices stored on memories of control devices, but does not disclose a virtual network of control devices and a virtual network of non-control devices. Harvey and Pratt also do not teach or suggest a virtual network of control devices and a virtual network of non-control devices. Appeal Br. 10. Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Harvey, Kalkunte, and Pratt teaches the claim 1 limitation directed to a first virtual network including at least some of the control devices or a second virtual network including at least some of the non-control devices and not the control devices. As discussed above, Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us the Examiner erred in finding the combination of the references teaches the claimed plurality of virtual Appeal 2021-001388 Application 15/361,781 9 networks. Further, as discussed above, the Examiner, on page 10 of the Answer, has provided several examples of how the combination of Harvey and Kalkunte is found to teach the claimed plural virtual networks. In these examples, the Examiner explains how they meet the claimed virtual network of control devices of non-control devices. See Ans. 10-11. Appellant’s arguments have not addressed these findings. Accordingly, Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Harvey, Kalkunte, and Pratt teaches the claim 1 limitation directed to a first virtual network including at least some of the control devices nor a second virtual network including at least some of the non- control devices and not the control devices. Fourth Point Appellant’s fourth argument asserts that the Examiner’s rationale to combine Harvey, Kalkunte, and Pratt is “is imprecise, unrelated to the pending claim limitations, and not supported by the text of any of the three references.” Appeal Br. 11 (emphasis omitted). Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us the Examiner erred in determining the skilled artisan would combine the teaching of Harvey, Kalkunte, and Pratt. The Examiner identifies that Harvey teaches a network for use in the well construction that communicates information to and from well construction equipment but does not explicitly identify use of controllers. Ans. 13 (citing Harvey, col. 1, ll. 19-32). Further, the Examiner finds that Kalkunte discusses networked control devices used to control industrial equipment. Ans. 13 (citing Kalkunte, Figs. 1, 2). Additionally, the Examiner finds that Pratt explicitly teaches use of a common bus in a Appeal 2021-001388 Application 15/361,781 10 control system. Ans. 7 (citing Pratt, Figs. 5A, 5B. and 6). We concur with these findings by the Examiner, and note that Pratt also discusses that the environment of the control system is industrial plants. See Pratt ¶ 36. Based upon these findings, the Examiner concludes that the skilled artisan would “incorporate the features of Kalkunte, such as the control and/or network functionality, within the system of Harvey, in order to control different types of industrial equipment in a harsh environment such as underground” and “incorporate features from the system of Pratt, such as the connectivity and/ or control functionality, within the system of Harvey modified by Kalkunte, in order to provide interfacing capability between devices.” Ans. 13. We concur with the Examiner’s conclusion that the skilled artisan would combine the teachings of these references as they are all relate to networking of devices in the industrial setting and merely represent the combination of known elements to perform their known functions. “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). As such, Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s combination of Harvey, Kalkunte, and Pratt. As Appellant’s augments directed to claim 1 have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and claims 3, 5, 6, 10, 14, 17, 21 through 23, and 26 through 30 grouped with claim 1. Rejection of claims 7, 12, and 18. Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7, 12, and 18 over Harvey, Kalkunte, Pratt, and Kardashov is in error for several reasons. Appeal 2021-001388 Application 15/361,781 11 Appeal Br. 11-12. The dispositive issue presented by Appellant’s argument is did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Harvey, Kalkunte, Pratt, and Kardashov teaches “that control devices of the first virtual network are configured to transmit communications in real-time, and that the non-control devices of the second virtual network are configured to transmit communications in non-real-time.” Appeal Br. 11. The Examiner finds that Harvey teaches monitoring and control is intended to be in real-time and also teaches using non-real time applications such as e-mail. Ans. 14 (citing Harvey, col. 2, ll. 45-48, 60-62, col. 3, ll. 36-39, col. 4, ll. 45-49, col. 9, ll. 66-67, col. 12, ll. 31-34). Further, the Examiner finds that Kardashov teaches “advantages associated with the configuration and/or separation of a first and second virtual space used for real time and non-real-time applications.” Ans. 14 (citing Kardashov, abstract, ¶ 6). We have reviewed the cited teachings of Harvey and Kardashov cited by the Examiner and disagree with the Examiner’s findings that the combination of the references teaches the disputed limitation. Each of dependent claims 7, 12, and 18 recite limitations directed to control devices of the first virtual network are configured to transmit communications in real-time, and that the non-control devices of the second virtual network are configured to transmit communications in non-real-time. Thus, the claims recite that the control devices in the first virtual network transmit in real time and the non-control devices are in a second virtual network that transmit in non-real time. Although the cited teachings of Harvey demonstrate that information can be transmitted in real time (see e.g., Harvey, col. 3, ll. 36- 37) and also that information can be transmitted in a non-real-time manner Appeal 2021-001388 Application 15/361,781 12 (see e.g., e-mail or fax, Harvey, col. 12, ll. 31-34); the Examiner has not shown, nor do we find that, the control devices transmit in real-time and the non-control devices transmit in non-real-time. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7, 12, and 18. Rejection of claims 24, 25. Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 24 and 25 over Harvey, Kalkunte, Pratt, and Cella or Stephens is in error for two reasons. Appeal Br. 12-13. First, Appellant argues that as discussed above, the combination of Harvey, Kalkunte, and Pratt does not teach the limitations of the independent claims and the addition of Cella or Stephens does not remedy the deficiency in that rejection. Appeal Br. 12. Second, Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rationale to combine the references is insufficient. Appeal Br. 13. Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 24 and 25. Initially, as discussed above, Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the independent claims and thus the argument that the additional references do not make up for the deficiency is moot. These dependent claims add the limitation of the component of the well construction system including one of four tools, including a mud pump. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Cella teaches a component controlled in a well drilling system includes a mud pump. See Final Act. 13 (citing Cella ¶ 496); Ans. 16 (citing Cella ¶ 496). Further, the Examiner has identified that the mud pump in Cella is an example of a piece of network controlled equipment in a drilling system and it performs the self-evident function of pumping mud. Thus, we consider the Examiner’s combination of the teachings merely represents the Appeal 2021-001388 Application 15/361,781 13 combination of known elements to perform their known functions. “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 416. As such, Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 24 and 25. CONCLUSION In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3, 5, 6, 10, 14, 17, 21- 23, 26-30 103 Harvey, Kalkunte, Pratt 1, 3, 5, 6, 10, 14, 17, 21- 23, 26-30 7, 12, 18 103 Harvey, Kalkunte, Pratt, Kardashov 7, 12, 18 24, 25 103 Harvey, Kalkunte, Pratt, Cella or Stevens 24, 25 Overall Outcome 1, 3, 5, 6, 10, 14, 17, 21-30 7, 12, 18 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) (2018). AFFIRMED IN PART