COVAR APPLIED TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 24, 2020

2019006595 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 24, 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.
15/251,940 08/30/2016 Peter A. Torrione HEL768/4-014US/58000 2400
22892 7590 08/24/2020
VINSON & ELKINS L.L.P.
1001 Fannin Street
Suite 2500
HOUSTON, TX 77002-6760
EXAMINER
BEMKO, TARAS P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3672
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/24/2020 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):
ggoel@velaw.com
iptldocket@velaw.com
sbrown@velaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte PETER A. TORRIONE

Appeal 2019-006595
Application 15/251,940
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, EDWARD A. BROWN, and
MICHAEL L. HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judges.

BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–12 and 14–16.2 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. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Covar
Applied Technologies, Inc. Appeal Br. 3.
2 Claim 13 is cancelled. Appeal Br. (Claims App.).
Appeal 2019-006595
Application 15/251,940

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 11, and 12 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below,
illustrates the claimed subject matter:
1. A system for monitoring a volume of drilling
cuttings, the system comprising:
a shaker table having an adjustable angle relative to level
and an adjustable vibration speed;
at least one processor; and
at least one camera configured to monitor said shaker
table, wherein the camera is operably connected to the
processor and wherein the processor is configured to identify
drill cuttings and estimate the volume of the cuttings, and
wherein the angle or speed of the shaker table is automatically
adjusted based on the estimated volume of the cuttings.
Appeal Br. (Claims App.).

REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1–5, 7–12, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Graves (US 2014/0333754 A1, published Nov. 13, 2014)
and Smith (US 2015/0013448 A1, published Jan. 15, 2015).
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Graves, Smith, and Aldred (US 2011/0220410 Al, published Sept. 15,
2011).

ANALYSIS
Claims 1–5, 7–12, 14, and 16 over Graves and Smith
Claims 1 and 11 are both directed to a system for monitoring a
volume of drilling (drill) cuttings, and recite the limitation, “the angle or
speed of the shaker table is automatically adjusted based on the estimated
Appeal 2019-006595
Application 15/251,940

3
volume of the cuttings.” Appeal Br. (Claims App.) (emphasis added). Claim
12 is directed to a method of estimating a volume of drill cuttings exiting a
well and recites the similar limitation of “adjusting automatically the angle
or speed of the shaker table based on the estimated volume of the cuttings.”
Id. (emphasis added). As for claims 1, 11, and 12, the Examiner finds that
Graves discloses a system for monitoring a volume of drill cuttings,
comprising, in part, a shaker table (shaker 104) and a processor (processor
130) configured to identify, and estimate the volume of the drill cuttings.
Final Act. 3 (citing Graves ¶¶ 15–20, Fig. 1). The Examiner concedes that
Graves does not disclose that “the angle or speed of the shaker table is
automatically adjusted based on the estimated volume of the cuttings.” Id. at
3–4.
The Examiner relies on Smith as teaching automatically adjusting an
angle or a speed of a shaker table based on information compiled by a
processor. Final Act. 4 (citing Smith ¶¶ 27, 29, 47, 50). The Examiner finds
that the combination of Graves and Smith discloses adjusting the angle or
speed based on the estimated volume of the cuttings, explaining that “Graves
discloses the data gathering and analysis of the estimated volume of cuttings;
Smith discloses adjustments made based on gathered data.” Id. The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art to configure Graves’s system to automatically adjust the angle or
speed of the shaker table based on information Graves compiled, as taught
by Smith, “to reduce costs by maximizing fluid reclamation.” Id.
Appellant contends that neither Graves nor Smith discloses
automatically adjusting the angle or speed of the shaker table based on the
estimated volume of the cuttings. Appeal Br. 10. Appellant also contends
Appeal 2019-006595
Application 15/251,940

4
that the Examiner’s stated motivation to combine (i.e., “maximizing fluid
reclamation”) is unrelated to the volume of the drill cuttings themselves. Id.
at 12.
Graves discloses monitoring downhole cuttings 112 deposited on a
shaker 104 with an imaging device 120. Graves ¶ 18, Fig. 1. Imaging
device 120 can be connected to a data acquisition system 152 and a
computer to “measure and determine characteristics of the cuttings 112, such
as size, volume, shape, etc. The live data can be analyzed in real-time . . . to
provide . . . the volume of the cuttings 112 coming over the shaker 104.” Id.
¶ 20 (boldface omitted).
Appellant contends that Graves fails to teach that the shaker table is
adjustable. Appeal Br. 11. Appellant also points out that Graves discloses
that the drill cuttings are monitored so that an operator may make changes
downhole. Id. at 12. We note Graves describes, “[t]he changes in . . .
volume of the [downhole] cuttings can be correlated to a number of
operational conditions.” Graves ¶ 63.
Appellant contends that Smith does not teach or suggest adjusting the
shaker table based on the volume of the drill cuttings, but instead, teaches
adjusting the shaker table in response to the drilling fluid. Appeal Br. 12–13
(citing Smith ¶ 29). Appellant also contends that “Smith, like Graves,
teaches only [downhole] adjustment in response to differences ‘between the
actual and expected weights’ of the drill cuttings.” Id. at 13 (quoting Smith
¶ 28).
Smith discloses a system in which a cuttings and drilling fluid mixture
flows into and out of a shale shaker screen 1 and the cuttings are discharged
into a trough 2. Smith ¶ 30, Fig. 3. Smith discloses estimating the amount
Appeal 2019-006595
Application 15/251,940

5
and volume of the cuttings within the trough. Id. ¶¶ 45, 48. Smith explains,
“[a] notable difference between the actual and expected weights of natural
cuttings within the trough may indicate that downhole conditions, i.e.,
geology, drilling depth, drilling speed, borehole size, etc., are not as
expected.” Id. ¶ 28. Regarding adjustment of the shaker, Smith discloses:
A percentage of fluid on the discharged cuttings within
the trough higher than an acceptable threshold could also
indicate various problems. For example, a greater than
expected amount of fluid could indicate an inefficiency of the
shakers that could be corrected by various adjustments, such as
changes to screen desk angle, vibration, G-force and cuttings
conveyance velocity. Such adjustments would reduce costs by
maximizing fluid reclamation.
Id. ¶ 29 (emphasis added).
According to the Examiner, Smith explains that shaker table
adjustments “can be necessary because of fluid levels present in the
discharge cuttings and thus the shaker table.” Ans. 5 (citing Smith ¶ 29).
The Examiner acknowledges that “Graves does not explicitly address fluid
levels with the cuttings discharge,” but, nonetheless, contends that “Smith
makes it clear that such issues do indeed occur.” Id. Therefore, the
Examiner submits, adding Smith’s shaker table adjustments to Graves is an
obvious combination, “as Smith remedies what Graves is simply not
addressing but something well-known, in the art, to occur.” Id.
However, paragraph 29 of Smith describes only that the shaker table
can be adjusted when the percentage of fluid on the cuttings within the
trough is too high. We agree with Appellant that, if Graves were modified
based on this teaching, “the combination would contemplate adjusting the
Appeal 2019-006595
Application 15/251,940

6
shaker table based on ‘amount of fluid’ as opposed to the ‘estimated volume
of cuttings,’” as claimed. Reply Br. 4.
The Examiner also submits, “[a]s both Graves and Smith teach
evaluating drilling cuttings, evaluating such by a processor, and then taking
some type of corrective action when anomalies are detected, the skilled
artisan would readily look at both references to find a better solution to all
encountered issues.” Ans. 6. The Examiner submits that the proposed
modification of Graves to include Smith’s shaker table adjustments would
not prevent Graves from functioning as taught, and would add more
flexibility to Graves’s system. Id.
However, Graves and Smith teach evaluating drill cuttings, at
different locations, both for the purpose of monitoring downhole conditions.
It is not apparent how adjusting Graves’s shaker table angle or speed would,
by itself, provide a corrective action to an undesired downhole condition. It
is also not clear how this adjustment would be desirable in the procedure
taught by Graves for determining the volume of cuttings on the shaker table.
The Examiner does not sufficiently show that it would be desirable to
somehow change the volume of cuttings on the shaker table in Graves for
any reason. To the contrary, Graves teaches that information regarding the
volume of cuttings coming over the shaker table is needed to determine
changes in the volume, which can then be correlated to downhole conditions,
which can then be corrected. See Graves ¶ 63. Nor does the Examiner
adequately show that the determined volume of drill cuttings on the shaker
table in Graves relates to any problem with the shaker table itself, let alone
that changing this volume would address such problem.
Appeal 2019-006595
Application 15/251,940

7
The Examiner also submits that Smith explains “there is a direct
relationship between the volume of drill cuttings and . . . maximizing fluid
reclamation” (Ans. 6 (citing Smith ¶ 29)) and “[b]oth Graves and Smith
analyze cuttings and explain the relationship between the cuttings data and
drilling fluid” (id. at 7).
We disagree that paragraph 29 of Smith discloses this “direct
relationship.” In fact, paragraph 29 does not mention the volume of the drill
cuttings. Furthermore, the Examiner does not establish with evidence that
the percentage of fluid on the discharged cuttings within the trough in Smith
is directly related to the volume of cuttings on the shaker. For example, the
Examiner does not show that decreasing the percentage of fluid on the
discharged cuttings within the trough would directly affect the volume of
cuttings on the shaker, much less identify this effect. Appellant states, “one
could change the angle or vibration of the shaker table such that more fluid
flows and is reclaimed as Smith teaches without the location of the heavier,
less mobile, solid volume of cuttings on the screen moving (or at least
moving much).” Reply Br. 5 (emphasis added). According to this statement,
adjusting the angle or speed of Graves’s shaker table for the purpose of
changing the percentage of fluid on the discharged cuttings within the trough
would be expected to not significantly affect the volume of cuttings on the
shaker table. This implies that there is no “direct relationship” between the
percentage of fluid on the discharged cuttings within the trough and the
volume of cuttings on the shaker. The Examiner provides no persuasive
evidence to the contrary.
For the above reasons, the Examiner has not articulated an adequate
reason with a rational underpinning to modify Graves’s system in view of
Appeal 2019-006595
Application 15/251,940

8
Smith such that either the angle or speed of the shaker table is automatically
adjusted based on the estimated volume of the cuttings on the shaker table,
as required by claims 1, 11, and 12. Thus, we do no sustain the rejection of
claims 1, 11, and 12, and dependent claims 2–5, 7–10, 14, and 16, as
unpatentable over Graves and Smith.

Claims 6 and 15 over Graves, Smith, and Aldred
The Examiner’s reliance on Aldred in rejecting claims 6 and 15 does
not cure the deficiency in the rejection of parent claims 1 and 12,
respectively. Final Act. 5. Accordingly, we do no sustain the rejection of
claims 6 and 15 as unpatentable over Graves, Smith, and Aldred for the
same reasons as for claims 1 and 12.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:

Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–5, 7–12,
14, 16
103 Graves, Smith 1–5, 7–12,
14, 16
6, 15 103 Graves, Smith,
Aldred
6, 15
Overall
Outcome
1–12, 14–16

REVERSED