Ex Parte Clark

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 27, 2017

12996957 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 27, 2017)

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.
12/996,957 12/08/2010 Brian Clark 19.0580-US-PCT 2763
93083 7590 10/31/2017
Schlumberger Technology Corporation, HPS
10001 Richmond Avenue
IP Administration Center of Excellence
Houston, TX 77042
EXAMINER
BUTCHER, CAROLINE N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3676
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/31/2017 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):
U S Docketing @ sib. com
jalverson@slb.com
SMarckesoni@slb.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRIAN CLARK
Appeal 2017-001453
Application 12/996,9571
Technology Center 3600
Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, LEE L. STEPINA, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Brian Clark (“Appellant”) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s decision in the Final Office Action (dated Dec. 10, 2015,
hereinafter “Final Act.”) rejecting claims 1, 3—5, and 10-20.2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (hereinafter “Br.”), filed May 11,
2016, the real party in interest is Schlumberger Technology Corporation.
Br. 3.
2 Claims 2 and 6—9 are canceled. Br. 17 (Claims App.).
Appeal 2017-001453
Application 12/996,957
INVENTION
Appellant’s invention relates to a method and system for drilling and
monitoring a specified spatial or geometric relationship of a second well
with respect to a first well. Spec, paras. 10, 11.
Claims 1, 14, 17, and 20 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of
the claimed invention and reads as follows:
1. A method for determining a geometric relationship of a
second well with respect to a first well, comprising the steps of:
producing a first output from a first 3-axis magnetometer
positioned in the second well, the first output responsive to a
magnetic field produced by a magnetic field source positioned in
the first well;
producing a second output from a second 3-axis
magnetometer positioned in the second well, the second output
responsive to the magnetic field produced by the magnetic field
source, wherein a location of the first 3-axis magnetometer and a
location of the second 3-axis magnetometer relative to the
magnetic field source are unknown;
calculating the location for each of the first and second
magnetometers in the second well with respect to the magnetic
field source in the first well wherein the location of the first
magnetometer and the location of the second magnetometer are
determined from a plurality of magnetic field components
measured by each said magnetometer;
transmitting the locations of the first and second 3-axis
magnetometers to surface;
determining the geometric relationship of the second well
with respect to the first well; and
reinitiating drilling operations based on the geometric
relationship between the first and second wells.
THE REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review:
I. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 4, 10, 11, 13—18, and
2
Appeal 2017-001453
Application 12/996,957
20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
McElhinney (CA 2,490,953 Al, pub. June 20, 2006)).
II. The Examiner rejected claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over McElhinney and Kuckes (US
5,485,089, iss. Jan. 16, 1996, hereinafter “Kuckes '089”).
III. The Examiner rejected claims 12 and 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over McElhinney and
Kuckes (US 5,589,775, iss. Dec. 31, 1996, hereinafter
“Kuckes 775”).
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
The Examiner finds that McElhinney discloses each of the limitations
of the independent claims and includes a finding that McElhinney’s
magnetized casing string constitutes the claimed “magnetic field source.”
See Final Act. 4, 7—12.
Appellant argues that because “McElhinney’s methods and associated
systems measure remanent magnetic fields (or the residual magnetism left
behind after an external magnetic field is removed),” McElhinney’s
magnetized casing does not constitute a magnetic field source, as called for
by each of the independent claims. Br. 8. According to Appellant,
McElhinney specifically explains the difference between a magnetized
casing for “passive ranging” using a preexisting magnetic field, and “a
strong electromagnetic source in the target well” for “active ranging.” Id. at
9, n. 1 (citing McElhinney 1—2).
3
Appeal 2017-001453
Application 12/996,957
The Examiner responds that McElhinney’s magnetized casing string
constitutes the claimed “magnetic field source” because it generates “an
enhanced magnetic field around the target well or borehole 30f.”
Examiner’s Answer 13 (dated Aug. 23, 2016, hereinafter “Ans.”) (citing
McElhinney 17,11. 15—23; Fig. 6).
At the outset, we note that an ordinary and customary meaning of the
term “source” is “a generative force: CAUSE.” Merriam Webster’s
Collegiate Dictionary (10th ed. 2005). As such, because McElhinney’s
magnetized casing causes a magnetic field to emanate, in a first instance, we
agree with the Examiner’s interpretation that it constitutes the claimed
“magnetic field source.”
However, such an interpretation is contrary to the explicit disclosure
of McElhinney. Specifically, McElhinney discloses that “magnetic
techniques used to sense a target well” are divided into two categories,
namely, active ranging and passive ranging. McElhinney 1. According to
McElhinney, “active ranging” uses “an external magnetic field, for example,
via a strong electromagnetic source in the target well.” Id. at 2,11. 1—2
(emphasis added). McElhinney further states that “[i]n contrast to active
ranging, passive ranging techniques utilize a preexisting magnetic field
emanating from magnetized components within the target borehole.” Id., 11.
7—8. McElhinney further distinguishes electromagnetic sources, such as,
electromagnet 34 and magnet 27, by stating that “the remanent
magnetization of the casing string ... is known to sometimes interfere with
the magnetic field generated by the electromagnetic source (electromagnet
34 on FIGURE 1A and magnet 27 on FIGURE IB).” Id. at 6,11. 15-18
(emphasis added). In other words, McElhinney distinguishes between the
4
Appeal 2017-001453
Application 12/996,957
magnetic field generated (caused) by a “source,” such as electromagnet 34
or magnet 27, and the magnetic field of a magnetized casing, that is, a
remanent field.
In the embodiment of Figure 6 of McElhinney relied on by the
Examiner (see Final Act. 4), McElhinney uses electromagnetic source 210'
to magnetize a plurality of tubulars that form “a premagnetized casing string
(that) results in an enhanced magnetic field[, i.e., remanent field,] around the
target borehole 30',” and then uses sensor 212 “to passively measure the
magnetic field about target well 30'.” McElhinney 17,1. 21—18,1. 1; 14,11.
13—24. As such, although we appreciate that McElhinney’s remanent
magnetic field is caused by “a premagnetized casing string,” nonetheless,
because McElhinney explicitly employs the term “source” when referring to
the magnetic field generated (caused) by electromagnet 34 or magnet 27,
interpreting McElhinney’s premagnetized casing string as a “magnetic field
source” would be contrary to the explicit disclosure of McElhinney. We,
thus, agree with Appellant’s position that McElhinney’s magnetized casing
string does not constitute the claimed “magnetic field source.” Br. 8.
Accordingly, as McElhinney does not disclose a “magnetic field
source,” as called for by each of the independent claims, we do not sustain
the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) of claims 1, 3, 4, 10, 11, 13—18, and
20 as anticipated by McElhinney.
Rejections II and III
Claims 5 and 12 depend from independent claim 1, and claim 19
depends from independent claim 17. The Examiner does not rely on the
disclosures of Kuckes '775 or Kuckes '089 in any manner that would remedy
5
Appeal 2017-001453
Application 12/996,957
the deficiencies in the rejection of independent claims 1 and 17 based on
McElhinney discussed supra. See Final Act. 12—14.
Accordingly, for the same reasons discussed above, we also do not
sustain the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claim 5 as unpatentable
over McElhinney and Kuckes '089, and of claims 12 and 19 as unpatentable
over McElhinney and Kuckes 775.
SUMMARY
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) of claims 1, 3, 4, 10, 11, 13—
18, and 20 is reversed.
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 5, 12, and 19 are
reversed.
REVERSED
6