Vetco Gray Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 3, 20212021000588 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 3, 2021) 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. 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation