2021000214 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2021)

Volker Peters

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 28, 2021

2021000214 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2021)

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. 14/667,026 03/24/2015 Volker Peters DDR4-58423-US-NP 2970 44639 7590 06/28/2021 CANTOR COLBURN LLP-BAKER HUGHES, A GE COMPANY, LLC 20 Church Street 22nd Floor Hartford, CT 06103 EXAMINER PATEL, NEEL G ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3676 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/28/2021 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): usptopatentmail@cantorcolburn.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte VOLKER PETERS Appeal 2021-000214 Application 14/667,026 Technology Center 3600 Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, EDWARD A. BROWN, and MICHAEL L. WOODS, Administrative Patent Judges. WOODS, 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 1–21. Appeal Br. 2. 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(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Baker Hughes Incorporated. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2021-000214 Application 14/667,026 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The application is titled “Self-Adjusting Directional Drilling Apparatus and Methods for Drilling Directional Wells.” Spec. 1. Claims 1, 10, 13, and 21 are independent. Appeal Br. 19–23 (Claims App.). We reproduce claim 1, below: 1. An apparatus for drilling curved and straight sections of a wellbore, comprising: a drilling assembly configured to include a drill bit at an end thereof that is rotatable by a drive in the drilling assembly, the drilling assembly further configured to be connected to a drill pipe that is rotatable from a surface location, wherein the drilling assembly further includes: a shaft, wherein the shaft is coupled to the drive and the drill bit; and a housing comprising: an upper section and a lower section; a bearing section in the lower section that rotatably couples the shaft to the lower section; and a pivot member between the upper section and the lower section that couples the upper section to the lower section, wherein the lower section tilts relative to the upper section about the pivot member when the drill pipe is rotationally stationary to allow drilling of a curved section of the wellbore; wherein the shaft is disposed and configured to be rotated by the drive within the upper section, the lower section, the bearing section, and the pivot member; wherein rotating the drill pipe causes a reduction of the tilt between the upper section and the lower section when the drill pipe is rotated to allow drilling of a straighter section of the wellbore. Appeal 2021-000214 Application 14/667,026 3 Claims App. (emphases and indentation added). REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Falgout US 4,811,798 Mar. 14, 1989 Menger US 2011/0308858 A1 Dec. 22, 2011 Larronde US 2013/0043076 A1 Feb. 21, 2013 Smith WO 2013/122603 A1 Aug. 22, 2013 REJECTIONS The following rejections are before us on appeal: (1) Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 19–21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Smith. Final Act. 3. (2) Claims 2 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Smith in view of Menger. Final Act. 13. (3) Claims 5 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Smith in view Falgout. Final Act. 15. (4) Claims 7, 8, 10, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Smith in view of Larronde. Final Act. 17. Appeal 2021-000214 Application 14/667,026 4 OPINION I. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 19–21 – Anticipated by Smith A. Examiner’s Rejection In rejecting independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Smith discloses the claimed apparatus, citing in-part Smith’s Figure 1, reproduced below: Figure 1 “is a representative partially cross-sectional view of a directional drilling system.” Smith 2:2–3. In particular, Figure 1 depicts directional Appeal 2021-000214 Application 14/667,026 5 drilling system 10 for drilling wellbore 12 through earth formation 14. Id. at 2:20–24. Figure 1 also depicts bottom hole assembly 30, which includes drill bit 16 and bit deflection assembly 18. Id. at 2:25–27. The Examiner finds that Smith discloses drilling assembly 10 including drill bit 16, wherein the drilling assembly includes shaft 50 coupled to the drill bit and a housing. Final Act. 3–4 (internal citations omitted). The Examiner further finds that Smith’s housing comprises an upper and lower section, as shown in Smith’s Figures 2 and 5. See id. at 4. Below, we reproduce Smith’s Figure 5: Appeal 2021-000214 Application 14/667,026 6 Figure 5 “is a representative cross-sectional view of a further example of the bit deflection assembly.” Smith 2:13–14. Smith explains that the “bit deflection assembly 18 is . . . actuated to deflect the drill bit 16 in the desired direction by a desired amount.” Id. at 6:8–10. Smith further explains that its “system 10 allows a driller to conveniently initiate changes in direction while drilling, with no need to retrieve the drill string 32 and bottom hole assembly 30 from the well to do so.” Id. at 7:6–10. Figure 5 depicts shaft angularly deflected an amount equal to angle a “between the bit axis and the drill string axis 38.” Id. at 8:9–11. Figure 5 illustrates torque-transmitting articulation 54 for connecting shaft 50 to shaft 56, which is driven by motor 24. Id. at 8:13–15. The Examiner explains that Smith discloses “pivot member depicted by alpha” and “ball joint 86.” Id.; see also Ans. 3 (“Examiner notes that the prior art rejection cited has Smith to teach the pivot member, such as the section comprising ball joint 86 (see figure 5).”). The Examiner further explains that “articulation 54 [is] another example of a pivot member in which the articulation 54 is jointed comprising of multiple elements which surround the shaft 50 for pivoting purposes.” Ans. 3–4 (citing httgs://www.merriarn-webster.com/dictionary/articulation in defining articulation as “the state of being jointed or interrelated.”). B. Analysis Appellant argues that “articulation 54 clearly is not an element ‘between the upper section (of the housing) and the lower section (of the housing) that couples the upper section to the lower section.” Appeal Br. 13. Appellant further argues that “since the pivot member (i.e., articulation 54) Appeal 2021-000214 Application 14/667,026 7 is part of the shaft assembly, it is not possible for the shaft assembly or any of shaft 50 and shaft 56 to be rotated within the pivot member.” Id. at 14. Appellant’s arguments are persuasive. Claim 1 requires the housing to comprise an upper and lower section with a pivot member “that couples the upper section to the lower section, wherein the lower section tilts relative to the upper section about the pivot member.” Appeal Br. 19. The claim further requires that “the shaft is disposed and configured to be rotated by the drive within the . . . pivot member.” Id. (emphasis added). We disagree with the Examiner’s finding that Smith discloses this structure. See Final Act. 4–5. The Examiner relies on Smith’s articulation 54 and ball joint 86 as satisfying the claimed “pivot member” (id. at 4; Ans. 3), yet this structure does not “couple[] the upper section to the lower section” of a housing, as required by claim 1. Moreover, Smith’s shaft does not rotate within this “pivot member,” as also required by claim 1. To illustrate these points, we refer to Smith’s Figure 5, reproduced above. See supra p. 6. Smith explains that “articulation 54 allows the shaft 50 (connected to the bit 16 via the connector 42) to angularly deflect relative to the shaft 56” and that “shaft 56 is maintained collinear with the drill string axis 38 by a radial bearing 58.” Smith 8:18–22. In the particular embodiment depicted in Figure 5, shaft articulation 54 comprises ball joint 86 and splines 88. Id. at 11:30–31. Smith explains that “ball joint 86 allows the bit axis 36 to angularly deflect relative to the drill string axis 38, and the splines 88 transmit torque from the shaft 56 to the shaft 50.” Id. at 11:31–12:2. As explained by Smith, articulation 54 and ball joint 86 couple shaft 50 with shaft 56. Id. at 8:18–22. We do not see how articulation 54 and Appeal 2021-000214 Application 14/667,026 8 joint 86 couple a lower and upper section of a housing—whatever those structures may be—as required by claim 1. See Appeal Br. 19 (Claims App.). Furthermore, we do not see how shafts 50, 56 rotate within a pivot member, such as articulation 54 or ball joint 86, as also required by claim 1. See id. In the Answer, the Examiner submits that “[i]t should be noted that figure 2 of Smith illustrates the articulation 54 (comprising multiple pivoting joint elements) to house/encase the shaft 50.” Ans. 4. We see no such housing or encasement, however. To illustrate, we reproduce Smith’s Figure 2, below: Appeal 2021-000214 Application 14/667,026 9 Figure 2 “is a representative enlarged scale cross-sectional view of a bit deflection assembly which may be used in the directional drilling system.” Smith 2:5–7. In particular, Figure 2 is “an enlarged scale cross-sectional view of one example of the bit deflection assembly 18.” Id. at 7:15–17. “In this example, the bit deflection assembly 18 includes a bit axis deflection mechanism 40 positioned in close proximity to a bit connector 42 used to connect the bit 16 to the bottom hole assembly 30.” Id. at 7:17–21. Housing 84 encloses deflection mechanism 40. Id. at 15:21. Cylinders 44, 46 are further illustrated and are inclined relative to the bit axis 36 and drill string Appeal 2021-000214 Application 14/667,026 10 axis 38. Id. at 7:29–30. “[W]hen inner cylinder 44 is rotated relative to the outer cylinder 46, the bit axis 36 is rotated about the cylinder axis 48, thereby angularly deflecting the bit axis.” Id. at 8:1–4. The evidence of record does not support the Examiner’s position that “figure 2 of Smith illustrates the articulation 54 (comprising of multiple pivoting elements) to house/encase the shaft 50.” Ans. 4 (emphases added). Rather, articulation 54 connects shaft 50 to shaft 56, just like in the embodiment described in Smith’s Figure 5. See supra pp. 7–8 (describing Smith’s Figure 5); see also Smith 8:13–15 (“A torque-transmitting articulation is provided for connecting the shaft 50 to another shaft 56”). If anything “houses or encases” shaft 50, it may be housing 84 or inner cylinder 44. See Smith 15:21 (describing housing 84); see also id. at 8:5–8 (“A shaft 50 is received in the inner cylinder 44. A radial bearing 52 provides radial support for the shaft 50, while allowing the shaft to rotate within the deflection mechanism 40.”). Neither “housing” 84 nor 44 however, has an upper and lower section coupled by a pivot member, let alone one that would allow the lower section to tilt relative to the upper section, as required by claim 1. See, e.g., id. at Figs. 2, 5; see also Appeal Br. 19 (Claims App.). Indeed, we find nothing in Smith to support the Examiner’s finding that articulation 54 or ball joint 86 couples anything that could reasonably be construed as the upper and lower sections of a housing. Furthermore, we find nothing in Smith to support the Examiner’s finding that its shafts 50, 56 rotate within “pivot member” 54, 86. Because the Examiner erred in finding that Smith discloses a “pivot member between the upper section and the lower section [of the housing] Appeal 2021-000214 Application 14/667,026 11 that couples the upper section to the lower section” (Appeal Br. 19 (Claims App.)), we reverse the anticipation rejection of claim 1. Furthermore, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 4, 6, 9, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 19–21 relies on this erroneous finding. See Final Act. 5–11. Accordingly, we also reverse the anticipation rejection of these claims. II. Claims 2, 5, 7, 8, 10–12, 15, and 18 as Unpatentable Over Smith and the Other Cited Art In rejecting claims 2, 5, 7, 8, 10–12, 15, and 18 as unpatentable over Smith and the other cited art, the Examiner relies on the same flawed finding discussed above. See Final Act. 13–21. For the same reason we do not affirm the rejection of claim 1, we also do not affirm the rejections of claims 2, 5, 7, 8, 10–12, 15, and 18 as unpatentable over Smith and the other cited art. CONCLUSION We reverse the rejections of claims 1–21. Appeal 2021-000214 Application 14/667,026 12 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/B asis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19– 21 102 Smith 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19–21 2, 15 103 Smith, Menger 2, 15 5, 18 103 Smith, Falgout 5, 18 7, 8, 10–12 103 Smith, Larronde 7, 8, 10–12 Overall Outcome 1–21 REVERSED