Vetco Gray Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 3, 2021

2021000588 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 3, 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.
15/476,197 03/31/2017 Derrell Wade Bird GE315787
(302208.315787)
6481
76859 7590 08/03/2021
Hogan Lovells US LLP
Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, LLC
14990 Yorktown Plaza Dr
Houston, TX 77040
EXAMINER
WOOD, DOUGLAS S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3679
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/03/2021 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):
HLUSDocketing@hoganlovells.com
stephanie.mcdonough@hoganlovells.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DERRELL WADE BIRD and CHAD ERIC YATES
Appeal 2021-000588
Application 15/476,197
Technology Center 3600
Before KEVIN F. TURNER, LISA M. GUIJT, and LEE L. STEPINA,
Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPINA, 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 1–20. 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 Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations
LLC as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 4.
Appeal 2021-000588
Application 15/476,197

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s disclosure is directed to a monitoring system used to
monitor wellheads in oil and gas wells. Spec. ¶ 1.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
1. A system, comprising:
a wellhead monitoring system, comprising:
a processor configured to:
receive from a sensor a detection of one or more
operating parameters associated with a wellhead disposed
within a subsea environment, wherein the sensor is
coupled to a casing of the wellhead and is configured to
detect the one or more operating parameters within the
subsea environment;
store the detection of the one or more operating
parameters; and
generate an output based at least in part on the
detection of the one or more operating parameters,
wherein the output comprises an indication of an
operational fatigue or an operational health of the
wellhead.
Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App.).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Sippola US 7,451,653 B1 Nov. 18, 2008
Smedstad US 7,931,090 B2 Apr. 26, 2011
Mason US 8,950,483 B2 Feb. 10, 2015

REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1–4, 8–11, 13–17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
Appeal 2021-000588
Application 15/476,197

3
§ 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Smedstad.
II. Claims 5 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Smedstad and Mason.
III. Claims 6 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Smedstad and Sippola.
IV. Claims 7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Smedstad.

OPINION
Rejection I (Anticipation by Smedstad)
Appellant argues for the patentability of the claims subject to the first
ground of rejection, i.e., claims 1–4, 8–11, 13–17, and 20, as a group. See
Appeal Br. 9–10. We select claim 1 as representative of the group, and
claims 2–4, 8–11, 13–17, and 20 stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Finding that Smedstad discloses all of the elements recited in claim 1,
the Examiner determines that Smedstad’s processor is configured to
“[r]eceive from a sensor (46) a detection of one or more operating
parameters associated with a wellhead (30) disposed within a subsea
environment, wherein the sensor (46) is coupled to a casing (22) of the
wellhead (30).” Final Act. 2 (citing Smedstad 5:21–29).
Appellant argues the Examiner’s analysis of Smedstad’s disclosure “is
flawed because Smedstad describes only a ‘completion’ in conjunction with
Appeal 2021-000588
Application 15/476,197

4
reference numeral 22, and not a casing.”2 Appeal Br. 7; see also id. at 8
(“claim 1 recites a sensor coupled to casing of a wellbore. In contrast,
Smedstad shows only sensors attached to tubing. This is a major structural
distinction.”).
In support of a claim interpretation in which Smedstad’s “completion”
meets the requirements of the “casing of the wellhead” in claim 1, the
Examiner states, “the term ‘completion’ is commonly known in the art as a
generic term used to describe the assembly of downhole tubulars and
equipment required to enable production . . . and that the terms ‘casing’ and
‘tubing’ are often interchangeable labels for the downhole components that
perform the same or similar function.” Ans. 10 (citing
https://glossary.oilfield.slb.com/en/terms/c/completion.aspx).
The Examiner provides annotated versions of Appellant’s Figure 2
and Smedstad’s Figure 13 and finds “the ‘completion 22’ [in Smedstad],
being located in the same part of the apparatus as the appellant’s invention
(as seen in the annotated [F]igures 1 and 2 above), during the same phase of
hydrocarbon recovery (production), anticipates the limitations imposed
thereon even without possessing the same label.” Id. at 11. Thus, the
Examiner makes a component-by-component comparison to Appellant’s
disclosure, using a Figure4 that Appellant indicates discloses the structure

2 Neither Appellant nor the Examiner explicitly discusses whether claim 1
requires a sensor coupled to a casing, or, instead, requires only a wellhead
monitoring system having a processor with a particular configuration.
3 The Examiner mislabels Figure 1 of Smedstad as “Figure 2” and mislabels
Appellant’s Figure 2 as “Figure 1.” See Ans. 11; Fig. 2, Smedstad Fig. 1.
4 Appellant amended claim 1 to recite that “the sensor is coupled to a casing
of the wellhead” in an Amendment filed on June 21, 2018 (hereinafter the
“June 2018 Amendment”) and stated this change to claim 1 is “supported at
Appeal 2021-000588
Application 15/476,197

5
recited in claim 1, and the Examiner reiterates the position that completion
22 of Smedstad, to which sensors 46 are coupled, corresponds to Appellant’s
casing 44, to which sensors 32 are coupled.
In reply, Appellant argues that the broadest reasonable interpretation
of the term “casing” requires a casing to line a wellbore. Reply Br. 3–4.
Specifically, Appellant states “Figure 2 of Smedstad shows a completion 22.
The completion 22 shown in Smedstad, however, is not casing. It does not
line the wellbore, which is the purpose of casing. Instead, it is tubing.” Id.
at 4.
Appellant’s arguments do not apprise us of Examiner error because
we agree with the Examiner that Smedstad’s completion 22 corresponds to
structure identified by Appellant in the Specification and Figures as the
recited “casing of the wellhead.” We reproduce the pertinent portion of
Appellant’s Figure 2 below, with our annotations identifying sensors 32 and
wellhead casing 44.

least by Fig. 2 and paragraph [0019] of the description.” June 2018
Amendment 2, 6. The only Figure to which Appellant’s Summary of the
Claimed Subject Matter, for claim 1, refers is Figure 1. See Appeal Br. 4.
However, the Summary of the Claimed Subject Matter, for claim 1, refers to
paragraphs 15–18 and 21 of the Specification, which describe Figure 2. See
id., Spec. ¶¶ 15–18, 21, Fig. 2.
Appeal 2021-000588
Application 15/476,197

6

The reproduced portion of Appellant’s Figure 2 is a perspective view
of wellhead 28 including sensors 32 located around “casing of the wellhead”
44. See Spec. ¶ 19.
We reproduce the pertinent portion of Smedstad’s Figure 1 below,
with our annotations identifying sensors 46 and the structure the Examiner
finds corresponds to the recited casing of the wellbore, completion 22.
Appeal 2021-000588
Application 15/476,197

7

The reproduced portion of Smedstad’s Figure 1 is a cross-sectional
view of completion 22, located inside wellbore casing 28, with sensors 46
attached. See Smedstad 2:30–64. It is apparent from a comparison of
Appellant’s Figure 2 and Smedstad’s Figure 1 that Smedstad’s completion
22 and sensors 32 correspond to Appellant’s casing 44 and sensors 46.
As is further apparent from Appellant’s Figure 2, and contrary to
Appellant’s proposed claim interpretation on page 4 of the Reply Brief,
casing 44 does not “line the wellbore.” The fact that Appellant’s casing 44
does not line the wellbore (because of the presence of an annular space) is
consistent with the version of claim 1 on file before it was amended in the
June 2018 Amendment. See June 2018 Amendment 9. Specifically, the
previous version of claim 1 recited that “the sensor is disposed around a
casing of the wellhead.” See id. (emphasis added). Furthermore,
Appeal 2021-000588
Application 15/476,197

8
Appellant’s Specification describes such an “around the casing”
arrangement. See Spec. ¶ 19. Thus, Appellant’s Figure 2, previous claim
submission, and Specification are inconsistent with Appellant’s proposed
interpretation of claim 1. Notably, Appellant’s proposed claim interpretation
on pages 3–4 of the Reply Brief, requiring a casing to line a wellbore, does
not refer to Appellant’s Specification, and, instead, includes only
unsupported attorney argument.
We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments in support of the
patentability of claim 1, but find them unavailing. Accordingly, we sustain
the rejection of claim 1. Claims 2–4, 8–11, 13–17, and 20 fall with claim 1.
Rejections II–IV
(Unpatentability over Smedstad alone, or in combination with Mason or
Sippola)
Appellant does not make arguments for the patentability of claims 5–
7, 12, 18, and 19 aside from those discussed above regarding claim 1. See
Appeal Br. 9–10. Accordingly, for the same reasons, we sustain the
rejections of claims 5–7, 12, 18, and 19.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed.

Appeal 2021-000588
Application 15/476,197

9
DECISION SUMMARY

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
References/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 8–11,
13–17, 20
102(a) Smedstad 1–4, 8–11,
13–17, 20

5, 18 103 Smedstad, Mason 5, 18
6, 19 103 Smedstad, Sippola 6, 19
7, 12 103 Smedstad 7, 12
Overall
Outcome
1–20

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