Ahmed M. Gomaa et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJan 14, 202014199674 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 14, 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. 14/199,674 03/06/2014 Ahmed M. Gomaa 020569-31101(FRC4-54890) 1730 71762 7590 01/14/2020 JONES DELFLACHE LLP 1333 HEIGHTS BOULEVARD SUITE 300 HOUSTON, TX 77008 EXAMINER NOLD, CHARLES R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3674 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/14/2020 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte AHMED M. GOMAA, QI QU, RUSSELL L. MAHARIDGE, SCOTT G. NELSON, and TED B. REED Appeal 2018-006662 Application 14/199,674 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, JAMES A. WORTH, and KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judges. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 2–8, 16–31, and 33. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 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 “Baker Hughes, a GE Company, LLC.” Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2018-006662 Application 14/199,674 2 BACKGROUND “The disclosure relates to a method of enhancing the complexity of a fracture network during fracturing of a subterranean formation by pumping a high breakdown pressure fluid followed by a low breakdown pressure fluid in order to increase the Stimulated Reservoir Volume (SRV) within the formation.” Spec. ¶ 1. CLAIMS Claims 16, 20, 22, and 33 are on the independent claims on appeal. Claim 33 is illustrative of the appealed claims and recites: 33. A method of enhancing the complexity of a fracture network during hydraulic fracturing of a subterranean formation penetrated by a well comprising: (a) selecting a first fluid having a first viscosity; (b) pumping the first fluid into the well at a first breakdown pressure causing a first fracture within the subterranean formation; (c) selecting a second fluid having a second viscosity; and (d) pumping the second fluid into the well at a second breakdown pressure causing a second fracture within the subterranean formation, the first breakdown pressure being greater than the second breakdown pressure and the first viscosity being greater than the second viscosity, wherein a fracture network created by the first fracture is modified by the second fracture, the second fracture deviating from the orientation of the first fracture. Appeal Br. 27. Appeal 2018-006662 Application 14/199,674 3 REJECTIONS2 1. The Examiner rejects claims 33, 2–8, 16–19, and 22–31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Gu3 in view of EPA Guidance.4 2. The Examiner rejects claims 20 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Gu in view of EPA Guidance and Dusseault.5 DISCUSSION Each of the independent claims is directed to a method of enhancing the complexity of a fracture network and requires steps including using a first fluid to create a first fracture and using a second fluid to create a second fracture and wherein the first fluid has a higher viscosity than the second fluid. We are persuaded of reversible error in the rejection based on Appellant’s argument that the Examiner has not established that the art of record teaches a method using fluids with this viscosity relationship. See, e.g., Appeal Br. 9–11. With respect to claim 33, the Examiner finds that Gu teaches a method including pumping a first fluid with a first viscosity to cause a first fracture and pumping a second fluid with a second viscosity to cause a second fracture and wherein the viscosity of the first fluid is higher than the 2 The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 have been withdrawn. See Ans. 3–4. 3 Gu et al., US 2012/0125617 A1, pub. May 24, 2012. 4 United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 5 – Underground Injection Control Section Regional Guidance, “Determination of Maximum Injection Pressure for Class I Wells,” Revised Jan. 1994, available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/r5-deepwell- guidance7-determination-maximum-injection-pressure-class1-199401- 9pp.pdf 5 Dusseault et al., US 2013/0284438 A1, pub. Oct. 31, 2013. Appeal 2018-006662 Application 14/199,674 4 viscosity of the second fluid. Non-Final Act. 5–6 (citing Gu ¶¶ 4, 8, 27, 53, 54); see also Ans. 8–10. We agree with Appellant that Gu does not disclose a method in which a first fluid with a higher viscosity is used to create a first fracture followed by the use of a second fluid with a lower viscosity used to create a second fracture as required by each of the independent claims. As discussed below, we have reviewed the cited portions of Gu and find that Gu only expressly teaches the use of a first fluid with a lower viscosity than the second fluid. In the rejection, the Examiner finds that Gu paragraph 27 teaches that the second fluid has a lower viscosity than the first fluid because Gu teaches that the second fluid may be a gas. We disagree. Here, Gu teaches an embodiment that “uses a first treatment fluid that includes a fluid having optionally a low amount of a viscosifier and a second treatment fluid made of composition 106 of high solids content fluid.” Gu ¶ 27. This disclosure indicates that that the first fluid has a lower viscosity than the second, although Gu does not expressly indicate the relationship in viscosity between the fluids. Further, the Examiner relies on the last sentence of this paragraph as evidence that the second fluid may have a lower viscosity than the first. Ans. 9. This sentence states that “the first or second carrier fluid may be a gas.” Gu ¶ 27. We do not consider this to be a definitive statement regarding the relative viscosity of the first and second fluids. Additionally, the Examiner cites Gu paragraph 38 as suggesting “fluids of varying viscosity, and different reasons for varying viscosity.” Ans. 9. This paragraph discusses the use of viscosifying agents in low amounts and indicates that routine tests may be performed “to determine acceptable viscosifier amounts for a particular embodiement.” Gu ¶ 38. Appeal 2018-006662 Application 14/199,674 5 However, we see no indication in this paragraph regarding the relative viscosities of first and second fracture fluids. The Examiner also finds that Gu “teaches alternating viscous fluids with slurry fluids, which would create a high viscosity/low viscosity fluid combination covering the claims.” Ans. 9 (citing Gu ¶ 8). We disagree. As discussed above, the claims require the use of a first fluid with a higher viscosity to create a first fracture and a second fluid with a lower viscosity to create a second fracture. As background, Gu discloses that “[r]ecently a different method of creating propped fractures has been proposed in which a viscous fluid and a slurry fluid are alternated at a very high frequency, allowing for heterogeneous placement of proppant in the formation.” Gu ¶ 8. The Examiner does not point to any indication that this method of alternating fluids is employed in the invention of Gu or that such a method would create first and second fractures as required by the independent claims. The mere disclosure of alternating fluids is not sufficient to disclose the method steps at issue here. Finally, the Examiner finds that Gu paragraph 53 provides a “clear teaching to use a high viscosity fluid followed by a low viscosity fluid.” Ans. 9. We disagree. Here, Gu discloses that a second treatment fluid may be used without an added viscosifying agent. Gu ¶ 53. We are not persuaded that this provides a clear teaching of using a high viscosity fluid followed by a low viscosity fluid because Gu does not disclose the viscosity relationship between the fluids. Notably, this paragraph discusses the second treatment in comparison to a “conventional frac slurry” and without comparison to the first treatment fluid. Thus, we do not see a clear disclosure that the second treatment fluid has a lower viscosity than the first Appeal 2018-006662 Application 14/199,674 6 treatment fluid. At best, this indicates that the second treatment may have a lower viscosity than a traditional treatment fluid, and the Examiner has not explained or cited to evidence explaining that this amounts to showing the comparative viscosities of the first and second fluids used in Gu’s method. Based on the foregoing, we determine the Examiner erred in finding that Gu teaches a method of using a first fluid with a higher viscosity to create a first fracture followed by using a second fluid with a lower viscosity to create second fracture. Beyond the findings discussed above, the Examiner does not otherwise explain why the use of fluids with the claimed relative viscosities would have been obvious in view of the art of record with articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings. For this reason, we do not sustain the rejections of any of independent claims 16, 20, 22, and 33. And for the same reasons, we do not sustain the rejections of any of the dependent claims. CONCLUSION We REVERSE the rejections of claims 2–8, 16–31, and 33. In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed 33, 2–8, 16– 19, 22–31 103 Gu, EPA Guidance 33, 2–8, 16–19, 22–31 20, 21 103 Gu, EPA Guidance, Dusseault 20, 21 Overall Outcome 2–8, 16– 31, 33 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation