Ex Parte Al-Yami et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 26, 2018

13827746 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
13/827,746
35979 7590
Bracewell LLP
P.O. Box 61389
FILING DATE
03/14/2013
03/28/2018
Houston, TX 77208-1389
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Abdullah Saleh Hussain Al-Yami
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.
0004159.005070 2975
EXAMINER
LAMARDO, VIKER ALEJANDRO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2122
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/28/2018 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):
docketing@bracewell.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ABDULLAH SALEH HUSSAIN AL-Y AMI and
JEROME SCHUBERT
Appeal 2017-011055
Application 13/827,746 1
Technology Center 2100
Before LARRY J. HUME, SCOTT E. BAIN, and JASON M. REPKO,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BAIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-3, 5-11, 13-19, 21--44, 46-52, 54---60, 62----67,
and 69-73, which constitute all claims pending in the application. Claims 4,
12, 20, 29, 36, 45, 53, 61, and 68 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify Saudi Arabian Oil Company as the real party in
interest. Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-011055
Application 13/827 ,746
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Claimed Invention
Appellants' invention relates to computer-based models of drilling
systems for the extraction of natural resources, and specifically, to
"underbalanced drilling expert systems" utilizing a Bayesian decision
network (BDN) model. Spec. i-fi-12-3. Claim 1 is representative of the
invention and the subject matter of the appeal, and reads as follows (with
disputed limitations emphasized):
1. A system, comprising:
one or more processors;
a non-transitory tangible computer-readable memory, the
memory compnsmg:
an underbalanced drilling expert system executable by the
one or more processors and
configured to provide one or more underbalanced drilling
recommendations based on one or more inputs, the
underbalanced drilling expert system comprzszng an
underbalanced drilling Bayesian decision network (BDN) model,
the underbalanced drilling BDN model comprising:
a first section, comprising:
a formation indicators uncertainty node configured
to receive one or more formation indicators from the one
or more inputs, each of the one or more formation
indicators associated with a respective one or more
formation indicator probabilities, the formation indicators
comprising an indication of depleted reservoirs, an
indication of a naturally fractured and vugular formations,
an indication of hard rock formations, an indication of
highly permeable formations and an indication of
formations susceptible to formation damage to fluid . .
mvas10n;
2
Appeal 2017-011055
Application 13/827 ,746
a formation considerations decision node
configured to receive one or more formation
considerations from the one or more inputs; and
a first consequences node dependent on the
formation indicators uncertainty node and the formation
considerations decision node and configured to output the
one or more underbalanced drilling recommendations
based on one or more Bayesian probabilities calculated
from the one or more formation indicators, the one or more
formation indicator probabilities, and the one or more
formation considerations;
a second section, comprising:
a planning phases uncertainty node configured to
receive one or more planning phases from the one or more
inputs, each of the one or more planning phases associated
with a respective one or more planning phase
probabilities;
a planning phases recommendations decision node
configured to receive one or more planning phases
recommendations from the one or more inputs; and
a second consequences node dependent on the
planning phases uncertainty node and the planning phases
recommendations decision node and configured to output
the one or more underbalanced drilling recommendations
based on one or more Bayesian probabilities calculated
from the one or more planning phases, the one or more
planning phase probabilities, and the one or more planning
phases recommendations; and
a third section, comprising:
an equipment requirements uncertainty node
configured to receive one or more equipment requirements
from the one or more inputs, each of the one or more
equipment requirements associated with a respective one
or more equipment requirement probabilities, the
equipment requirements comprising a requirement for
drill string and bottom hole assembly components, a
requirement for a rotating control device, a requirement
3
Appeal 2017-011055
Application 13/827 ,746
for a four-phase separation system, a requirement for an
emergency shutdown valve, a requirement for a secondary
flow line, and a requirement for a geologic sampler;
an equipment recommendations decision node
configured to receive one or more equipment
recommendations from the one or more inputs; and
a third consequences node dependent on the
equipment requirements uncertainty node and the
equipment recommendations decision node and
configured to output the one or more underbalanced
drilling recommendations based on one or more Bayesian
probabilities calculated from the one or more equipment
requirements, the one or more equipment requirement
probabilities, and the one or more equipment
recommendations.
Br. 32-33 (Claims App'x) (emphases added).
The Prior Art
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art:
Fertl us 4, 178,506 Dec. 11, 1979
Elson et al. us 4,460,045 July 17, 1984
(hereinafter "Elson")
Coronado et al. US 5,749,419 A May 12, 1998
(hereinafter "Coronado")
Scott US 2003/0116887 Al June 26, 2003
Valant-Spaight US 2004/0113061 Al June 1 7, 2004
Fontana et al. US 2004/0154805 Al Aug. 12, 2004
(hereinafter "Fontana")
Chitty et al. US 2005/0192855 Al Sept. 1, 2005
(hereinafter "Chitty")
Rauch et al. US 2005/0241679 Al Nov. 3, 2005
(hereinafter "Rauch")
Robichaux US 7,028,586 B2 Apr. 18, 2006
Folk US 2007 /0246264 Al Oct. 25, 2007
Reitsma et al. US 7,395,878 B2 July 8, 2008
(hereinafter "Reitsma")
4
Appeal 2017-011055
Application 13/827 ,746
Johnson et al.
(hereinafter "Johnson")
Garrido
Gray et al.
(hereinafter "Gray")
Chapman et al.
(hereinafter "Chapman")
US 2009/0076873 Al
US 2009/0182572 Al
US 2010/0008190 Al
US 2010/0084191 Al
Hoyer et al. US 2011/0024195 Al
(hereinafter "Hoyer")
Guse
Abel ow
Jin et al.
(hereinafter "Jin")
Flusche
US 2011/0127051 Al
US 2012/0069131 Al
US 8,590,627 B2
US 2013/0343858 Al
Mar. 19,2009
July 16, 2009
Jan. 14,2010
Apr. 8, 2010
Feb. 3, 2011
June 2, 2011
Mar. 22, 2012
Nov. 26, 2013
Dec. 26, 2013
Garrouch et al., Development of an expert system for underbalanced drilling
using fuzzy logic, 31 J. Petroleum Science and Engineering 23-39 (2001)
(hereinafter "Garrouch").
MacArthur, Coiled tubing provides advantages for UB operations 40-41
(July 2003), http://www.drillingcontractor.org/dcpi/2003/dc-
julyaug03/July3-coiled%20tubing.pdf
Martin, Managed Pressure Drilling Techniques and Tools (May 2006),
http://repository.tamu.edu/bitstream/handle/1969.1/3884/etd-tamu-2006A-
PETE-Martin. pdf
Muir, Managed Pressure Drilling (MPD) Systems &Applications
https://web.archive.org/web201102 l 8205844/http://drillsafe.ord.au/06-
08_pres/Dril1Safe_Forum_Jun08_KEEP _DRILLING_Ken_Muir_Managed_
Pressure_Drilling_ Talk. pdf
Al-Yami et al., Development of a Drilling Expert System for Designing and
Applying Successful Cement Jobs 1-23 (IADC/SPE 135183 SPE
International 2010) (hereinafter "Al-Yami).
5
Appeal 2017-011055
Application 13/827 ,746
The Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1-3 and 5-8 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Al-Yami, Garrido, Garrouch, Valant-Spaight,
Fertl, and Jin. Final Act. 2-17.
Claims 9-11 and 13-16 stand rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Al-Yami, Garrouch, Abelow,
Chitty, Folk, and Fontana. Final Act. 17-31.
Claims 17-19 and 21-25 stand rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Al-Yami, Garrouch,
Chapman, Chitty, and Reitsma. Final Act. 31--45.
Claims 26-28 and 30-32 stand rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Al-Yami, Garrouch, Garrido,
Elson, and Guse. Final Act. 45-56.
Claims 33-35 and 37--41 stand rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Al-Yami, Garrouch, Garrido,
Johnson, and Scott. Final Act. 56-69.
Claims 42--44 and 46--49 stand rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Al-Yami, Garrouch, Garrido,
Martin, Muir, Hoyer, and Gray. Final Act. 69-84.
Claims 50-52 and 54--57 stand rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Al-Yami, Garrouch, Garrido,
and Coronado. Final Act. 84--96.
Claims 58---60 and 62---64 stand rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Al-Yami, Garrouch, Garrido,
and MacArthur. Final Act. 96-106.
6
Appeal 2017-011055
Application 13/827 ,746
Claims 65-67 and 69-73 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Al-Yami, Garrouch, Garrido, Robichaux, Rauch,
and Flusche. Final Act. 106-122.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments presented in this appeal. Arguments which Appellants could
have made but did not make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). On the record before us, we are not persuaded
the Examiner erred. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth
in the rejections from which the appeal is taken and in the Examiner's
Answer, and provide the following discussion for highlighting and emphasis.
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as obvious
over the prior art because, according to Appellants, one of ordinary skill in
the art would have had no reason to combine Al-Yami and Garrouch. 2
Br. 26-30. Appellants contend Al-Yami's teaching of a "Bayesian decision
network (BDN) model" for a drilling expert system is fundamentally
incompatible with Garrouch's teaching of "fuzzy logic as its principle of
operation" in modeling. Br. 27-28. Appellants explain that fuzzy logic,
"sometimes referred to as 'non-Bayesian,"' essentially is the opposite of (or
at least, very different from) Bayesian probability theory. Id. at 28.
Accordingly, Appellants argue that modifying Garrouch with the teachings
of Al-Yami would change Garrouch's principle of operation (and vice
versa). Id. On this record, however, Appellants have not persuaded us of
error.
2 Appellants argue all claims on appeal as a group, Br. 29-30, and we choose
claim 1 as representative of the group. 37 C.F.R. 41.37(c)(iv).
7
Appeal 2017-011055
Application 13/827 ,746
In the Final Action, the Examiner finds that a person of ordinary skill
in the art would look to the teachings of Garrouch in order to "improve[] the
knowledge quality" of an expert system such as that described in Al-Yami.
Final Act. 5-6 (citing Garrouch 29). The Examiner provides further findings
in the Answer, explaining that Garrouch is only relied upon for its teaching
of an "underbalanced" drilling system (because Al-Yami does not explicitly
disclose an "underbalanced" drilling system). Ans. 123. The Examiner
finds that the type of modeling in Garrouch, therefore, is irrelevant to the
combination. Id. The Examiner further finds that both Al-Yami and
Garrouch are directed to the use of "expert system[s]," i.e., models
simulating decision-making processes, in drilling for natural resources. Id.
All of the Examiner's findings in the Answer are unrebutted by Appellants,
who filed no reply brief.
Appellants' sole support for their argument alleging error is the
Briefs citation to an Internet blog which, according to Appellants,
demonstrates that a "system using fuzzy logic cannot be modified to use
Bayesian probabilities without changing the fundamental principle of
operation of such a system." Br. 28 (citing Mark Chu-Carroll, Fuzzy Logic
vs Probability (February 2, 2011), http://goodmath.scientopia.org/2011/
02/02/fuzzy-logic-vs-probability/) ("Chu-Carroll blog"). The Chu-Carroll
blog, however, is not part of the record, as Appellants have submitted no
oath or declaration to offer the blog or any other evidence in support of their
argument. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.132.3 Appellants also identify no teachings or
3 We do not rely on the content of the Chu-Carroll blog in reaching our
decision, but we observe that the portion cited by Appellants states that
Bayesian probability theory and fuzzy logic are "very closely related." See
Chu-Carroll, supra (emphasis added) (last visited March 19, 2018).
8
Appeal 2017-011055
Application 13/827 ,746
suggestions in the references of record that Bayesian probability is
incompatible with fuzzy logic. Appellants' assertions, on this record,
amount to little more than attorney argument, which is not persuasive of
error. See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("'[m]ere
argument or conclusory statements in the specification does not suffice"');
In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139-40 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (holding that arguments
of counsel cannot take the place of factually supported objective evidence).
In light of the foregoing unrebutted findings by the Examiner, we
discern no error in the Examiner's "articulated reasoning" in combining the
references, and the "legal conclusion of obviousness." KSR Int'! Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Accordingly, we sustain the
obviousness rejection of claim 1. We also sustain the obviousness rejections
of the remaining claims, which were not argued separately.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-3, 5-11, 13-19,
21--44, 46-52, 54---60, 62----67, and 69-73.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
9