Ex Parte Leuchtenberg

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 13, 2018

14384619 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 13, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/384,619 09/11/2014 Christian Leuchtenberg
96897 7590 11/13/2018
PA TENT LAW OFFICES OF DR. NORMAN B. THOT
POSTFACH 10 17 56
RATINGEN, 40837
GERMANY
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
MPO 1614 US-PAT 6611
EXAMINER
WOOD, DOUGLAS S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3679
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/13/2018 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 CHRISTIAN LEUCHTENBERG 1
Appeal2017-010525
Application 14/3 84,619
Technology Center 3600
Before WILLIAM V. SAINDON, JAMES P. CAL VE, and
ERIC C. JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judges.
CAL VE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Office Action
finally rejecting claims 41--46 and 48-57. Appeal Br. 3. Claims 1--40 and
47 are cancelled. Id. at 3, 22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 Managed Pressure Operations Pte. Ltd. is identified as the real party in
interest (Appeal Br. 2) and also is the applicant pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.46.
Appeal2017-010525
Application 14/384,619
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 41, 49, and 57 are independent with illustrative claim 41
reproduced below.
41. A method of drilling a subterranean well bore
comprising, monitoring the well bore for influx of formation
fluid into the well bore, and, on detection of an influx:
a) stopping any pump pumping fluid into the well bore;
b) operating a first blow out preventer so that it closes
within a first period of time;
c) operating a second blow out preventer so that it closes
within a second period of time, the second blow out preventer
being located below the first blow out preventer, the second
period of time being longer than the first period of time; and
d) circulating the influx out of the well bore via a flow
line extending from below the second blow out preventer.
Appeal Br. 22 (Claims App.).
REJECTIONS
Claims 41, 42, and 57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hannegan (US 8,347,982 B2, iss. Jan. 8, 2013) and
Hollister (US 6,655,405 B2, iss. Dec. 2, 2003).
Claims 43 and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hannegan, Hollister, and Roche (US 4,832,126, iss.
May 23, 1989).
Claims 45 and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hannegan, Hollister, Roche, and Bourgoyne (US
6,913,092 B2, iss. July 5, 2005).
Claims 48-56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Hannegan and Roche.
2
Appeal2017-010525
Application 14/384,619
ANALYSIS
Claims 41, 42, and 57 Unpatentable Over Hannegan and Hollister
The Examiner finds that Hannegan discloses a method of drilling a
subterranean well bore as recited in independent claims 41 and 57 by closing
a first blow out preventer (BOP) (annular BOP 64) in a first period of time
and closing a second BOP (ram BOP 70) located below first BOP 64 in a
second period of time that is longer than the first period of time to circulate
out a kick. Final Act. 2--4 ( citing Hannegan, Fig. 2). The Examiner finds
that Hannegan uses a first annular BOP to circulate out a wellbore and also
allows for the sealing of a ram-type BOP located below the annular BOP to
circulate out a kick. Id. at 12 (citing Hannegan, 5:41-59); Ans. 4 (same).
The Examiner cites Hollister for a teaching to stop pumping fluid into the
well bore. Final Act. 3. The Examiner cites Schubert as evidence that it was
known in the art to circulate out a well kick using one or more BOPs, which
may include both annular and ram-type BOPs that are closed to circulate out
a kick. Ans. 4 (citing Schubert, US 6,474,422 B2, 3:36--41).
Appellant argues that Hannegan teaches another embodiment that
closes annular BOP seal 66 to circulate out a kick, but the lower ram-type
BOP seals 70, 74 remain open. Appeal Br. 11 (citing Hannegan, 15: 19-25).
Therefore, Appellant argues that Hannegan does not teach this embodiment
as closing a second BOP within a second period of time after the first BOP is
closed as recited in independent claims 41 and 57. Id. at 9, 11. Appellant
argues that column 5, lines 41-59 of Hannegan does not disclose this feature
either but instead "contains a standard teaching of closing a single annular
BOP or a ram type BOP to circulate out a kick." Id. at 11-12. Appellant
also argues that Schubert lacks this feature. Reply Br. 4--5.
3
Appeal2017-010525
Application 14/384,619
We agree with the Examiner that Schubert teaches that, "[ o ]nee a kick
is detected," "a well is typically shut in by closing one or more BOPs ( 42,
44, and/or 46)" and that "[t]he fluid influx is then circulated out through the
adjustable choke 50 and the choke/kill line 48." Schubert, 3:36-41, Fig. 1.
However, this disclosure does not describe multiple BOPs closing in two
different time periods such that a second BOP closes within a second period
of time that is longer than a first time period during which a first BOP
closes, as recited in independent claims 41 and 57. 2 See Reply Br. 4--5.
The Examiner also reasons that Hannegan engages an annular BOP
before heave compensation stops, when ram-type BOPs cannot be closed
(because of the danger of excessive seal wear), so an annular BOP can be
closed first when a kick is detected but before heave detection stops, and a
second ram-type BOP can be closed after heave compensation of the drill
string stops, at a second, longer period of time. Ans. 4. This reasoning is
not supported by Hannegan, which instead teaches that drilling ceases when
an annular/ram BOP is sealed/closed against a drill string. Hannegan, 5:41-
50. The drill string is lifted off the bottom when the annular BOP is closed.
Id. at 5:41--44. We find no teaching regarding a ram BOP remaining open
and sealing within a second period of time after an annular BOP closes.
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 41 and 57
or the rejection of claim 42, which depends from claim 41.
2 We understand the Examiner to cite Schubert as evidence of the prior art
understanding that more than one BOP can be closed to circulate out a well
kick as a basis for understanding Hannegan's disclosure at column 5, lines
41-59. Ans. 4. Even if the Examiner relies on Schubert as prior art for the
rejection, Appellant's decision to file a Reply Brief, instead of a petition
under 37 C.F.R. § 1.181, waives any objection to this issue. See 37 C.F.R.
§41.40(a).
4
Appeal2017-010525
Application 14/384,619
Claims 43 and 44
Unpatentable Over Hannegan, Hollister, and Roche
The Examiner relies on Roche to teach a pressure relief line and a
pressure relief valve as recited in claim 43, which depends from claim 41.
Final Act. 6. Appellant argues that Roche's teachings do not cure the failure
of Hannegan and Hollister to teach a second BOP that closes within a second
period of time that is longer than a first period of time as recited in claim 41.
Appeal Br. 13. We agree. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 43
or claim 44, which depends from claim 43.
Claims 45 and 46
Unpatentable over Hannegan, Hollister, Roche, and Bourgoyne
The Examiner relies on Bourgoyne to teach a pressure relief line that
extends from a flow spool to a mud gas separator as recited in dependent
claim 45 and to an overboard diversion point as recited in dependent claim
46. Appellant argues that Bourgoyne' s teachings do not cure the failure of
Hannegan and Hollister to teach a second BOP that closes within a second
period of time that is longer than the first period of time as recited in claim
41 from which claims 45 and 46 depend. Appeal Br. 14--15. We agree.
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 45 and 46.
Claims 48-56 Unpatentable over Hannegan and Roche
Independent claim 49 recites an apparatus for drilling a subterranean
well bore comprising first and second BOPs where the second BOP closes
within a second period of time that is longer than the first period of time it
takes to close the first BOP. The Examiner relies on Hannegan to teach this
feature as for independent claims 41 and 57. Final Act. 8. The Examiner
again relies on Roche to teach a pressure relief line and valve. Id.
5
Appeal2017-010525
Application 14/384,619
We agree with Appellant that Hannegan does not teach or suggest a
second BOP that closes within a second period of time that is longer than a
first period of time it takes a first BOP to close for the reasons discussed
above for the rejection of claims 41 and 57. Appeal Br. 17-18. We also
agree that Roche does not cure this deficiency of Hannegan. Id. at 18. Thus,
we do not sustain the rejection of claim 49 or claims 48 and 50-56, which
depend therefrom.
DECISION
We reverse the rejections of claims 41--46 and 48-57.
REVERSED
6