2020002815 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 9, 2020)

HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 9, 2020

2020002815 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 9, 2020)

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. 15/113,194 07/21/2016 Jim Basuki Surjaatmadja 164.2012-IP-054327 U1 US 9206 138627 7590 12/09/2020 Gilliam IP PLLC (Halliburton) 7200 N. Mopac Suite 440 Austin, TX 78731 EXAMINER PATEL, NEEL G ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3676 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/09/2020 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): uspto@gilliamip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JIM BASUKI SURJAATMADJA Appeal 2020-002815 Application 15/113,194 Technology Center 3600 Before EDWARD A. BROWN, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, and LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges. WOOD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the Examiner’s May 16, 2019 Final Office Action rejecting claims 1–22.1 See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 “Appellant” refers to the applicant as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-002815 Application 15/113,194 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to systems and methods for using cement slurries in hydrajetting tools to perforate casing as well as to place cement for well repair or plugging. Spec. ¶¶ 1, 13. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method comprising: providing a hydrajetting tool comprising a housing having a top end and a bottom end and having a plurality of jetting nozzles disposed thereon, the top end of the housing fluidly coupled to a tool string; positioning the hydrajetting tool adjacent to a substantially solid target; screening cement particulates from a cement slurry supplied to the hydrajetting tool; and perforating the substantially solid target using the cement slurry injected through at least one of the plurality of jetting nozzles, wherein the cement slurry erodes away the substantially solid target at a point of impact to form a hole through the substantially solid target. Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App.). REFERENCES Name Reference Date Cheung US 4,074,779 Feb. 21, 1978 Schellhorn US 6,183,166 B1 Feb. 6, 2001 Tolman US 2001/0050172 A1 Dec. 13, 2001 Jelsma US 2011/0247815 A1 Oct. 13, 2011 Surjaatmadja US 2012/0305679 A1 Dec. 6, 2012 Mccallum US 2012/0312536 A1 Dec. 13, 2012 Tomlinson US 2015/0166873 A1 June 18, 2015 Appeal 2020-002815 Application 15/113,194 3 REJECTIONS Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis 1–3, 9 103 Surjaatmadja, Cheung 4, 11, 12, 16–18, 20–22 103 Surjaatmadja, Cheung, Tomlinson 5, 6, 14 103 Surjaatmadja, Cheung, Tomlinson, McCallum 7, 8 103 Surjaatmadja, Cheung, Tomlinson, McCallum, Tolman 10 103 Surjaatmadja, Cheung, Schelhorn 13 103 Surjaatmadja, Cheung, Tomlinson, Schelhorn 15, 19 103 Surjaatmadja, Cheung, Tomlinson, Schelhorn, Jelsma OPINION Claims 1–3 and 9: Rejected As Unpatentable over Surjaatmadja and Cheung Independent claim 1 recites a method comprising, inter alia, positioning adjacent a substantially solid target a hydrajetting tool having a plurality of jet nozzles, screening cement particulates from a cement slurry supplied to the hydrajetting tool, and perforating the substantially solid target using the cement slurry injected through at least one of the hydrajetting-tool nozzles. Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App.). Independent claim 3 is similar. Id. at 14–15. The Examiner relies on Surjaatmadja to teach positioning a hydrajetting tool adjacent to a substantially solid target and perforating the substantially solid target by injecting cement slurry through Appeal 2020-002815 Application 15/113,194 4 at least one nozzle of the hydrajetting tool. Final Act. 3–4 (citing Surjaatmadja ¶¶ 6, 38–41, Fig. 1). The Examiner acknowledges that Surjaatmadja is silent regarding screening cement particulates from the cement slurry supplied to the hydrajetting tool, and therefore relies on Cheung to teach this limitation. The Examiner finds that “Cheung discloses: screening cement particulates from a cement slurry supplied to the hydrajetting tool.” Id. at 4 (citing Cheung, 3:1–57, Figs. 1–4). The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art “to modify the teachings of Surjaatmadja to include the teachings of Cheung, by modifying the jetting nozzle taught by Surjaatmadja to include for screening cement particulates taught by Cheung to provide a backwashing mode to prevent blocking of the intake for the mined materials.” Id. Appellant responds that “[t]he Examiner mischaracterizes [Cheung’s] screens as providing filtered slurry that flows through the jetting nozzle when in actuality it does not.” Appeal Br. 10. According to Appellant, “[t]he screen of Cheung does not screen particulates that are injected through a jetting nozzle,” and does not screen “cement particulates.” Id. We agree with Appellant. Contrary to the Examiner’s finding, Cheung does not teach screening cement particulates from a cement slurry supplied to a hydrajetting tool. Cheung teaches a hydraulic borehole mining device that breaks coal deposits with high-pressure water jets produced by oppositely directed jet nozzles; Cheung’s device uses a slurry jet pump to entrain the fractured coal in a slurry for transport to the surface. Cheung, 1:13–24. Screens are used over the slurry jet pump intake apertures to prevent oversized particles of coal from plugging the jet pump or slurry Appeal 2020-002815 Application 15/113,194 5 conduits. Id. at 1:25–35. Cheung does not teach screening cement slurry, and does not teach screening particulates from a fluid entering a hydrajetting tool or jet nozzle. Further, the Examiner has not directed us to any teaching in Surjaatmadja suggesting any benefit resulting from a “backwashing mode to prevent blocking of the intake for the mined materials,” which is the Examiner’s asserted reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Cheung’s teaching with Surjaatmadja. Even if we were to apply Cheung “merely for bringing in screens to allow for filtering particulates,” as the Examiner suggests in the Answer (Ans. 34), this general teaching is not sufficient to teach or suggest screening particulates from cement slurry, or screening any fluid being supplied to a hydrajetting tool. Because we are not persuaded that the combination of Surjaatmadja and Cheung teaches or suggests all of the limitations of independent claims 1 and 3, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 3, as well as claims 2 and 9, which depend therefrom, as unpatentable over Surjaatmadja and Cheung. Remaining Rejections The remaining rejections concern independent claims 11 and 20— which, like claims 1 and 3, require screening cement particulates from a cement slurry supplied to a hydrajetting tool—or to claims that ultimately depend from independent claims 1, 3, 11, and 20. Final Act. 6–31. For these rejections, the Examiner relies on the combination of Surjaatmadja and Cheung to teach all of the limitations of the independent claims, including the step of screening the cement slurry supplied to the hydrajetting tool. Because, as discussed above, we are not persuaded that the combined references teach or suggest this limitation, we do not sustain these rejections. Appeal 2020-002815 Application 15/113,194 6 CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections are reversed. Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–3, 9 103 Surjaatmadja, Cheung 1–3, 9 4, 11, 12, 16–18, 20– 22 103 Surjaatmadja, Cheung, Tomlinson 4, 11, 12, 16–18, 20– 22 5–6, 14 103 Surjaatmadja, Cheung, Tomlinson, McCallum 5–6, 14 7, 8 103 Surjaatmadja, Cheung, Tomlinson, McCallum, Tolman 7, 8 10 103 Surjaatmadja, Cheung, Schelhorn 10 13 103 Surjaatmadja, Cheung, Tomlinson, Schelhorn 13 15, 19 103 Surjaatmadja, Cheung, Tomlinson, Schelhorn, Jelsma 15, 19 Overall Outcome 1–22 REVERSED