Ex Parte ALLISON

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 6, 2018

14278124 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 6, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/278,124 05/15/2014
28841 7590
ConocoPhillips Company
600 North Dairy Ashford
Houston, TX 77079-1175
09/10/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Joe D. ALLISON
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.
41853US01 5748
EXAMINER
DITRANI, ANGELA M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3674
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/10/2018 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):
Legal-IP@conocophillips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOE D. ALLISON
Appeal2017-010214
Application 14/278,124
Technology Center 3600
Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and
BRUCE T. WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
rejections of claims 13-17. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 "The real party in interest in this Appeal is CONOCOPHILLIPS
COMPANY." (Appeal Br. 1.)
Appeal2017-010214
Application 14/278, 124
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant's invention relates to "an electrically conductive
proppant." (Spec. ,r 2.)
Independent Claims on Appeal
13. A method for determining the geometry of a fracture in a
subterranean formation comprising:
a. injecting a proppant coated with an electrically
conductive coating into the fracture thereby producing a coated
proppant, wherein the electrically conductive coating includes a
coating material wherein the proppant is suspended in the
coating material such that the coating material is deposited
substantially uniformly on the surface of the proppant,
stabilized with an oxidizing agent, subsequently carbonized and
graphitized, wherein the coating material includes a mixture of
carbon residue forming material and a solvent or combination
of solvents, wherein the carbon residue forming material is
petroleum pitch, wherein the solvent or combination of solvents
is selected from a group consisting of toluene, xylene,
quinoline, tetrahydrofuran, tetralin, naphthalene or
combinations thereof;
b. charging the coated proppant with a time-varying
electrical signal, wherein the time-varying electrical signal is
generated at surface of the earth and transmitted downhole via
electrical connections to a well casing or mud pit;
c. detecting the electrical signal with one or more
surface antennae; and
d. determining the geometry of the fracture.
14. A method for determining the geometry of a fracture in a
subterranean formation comprising:
a. injecting a proppant coated with an electrically
conductive coating into the fracture thereby producing a coated
proppant, wherein the electrically conductive coating includes a
coating material wherein the proppant is suspended in the
coating material such that the coating material is deposited
substantially uniformly on the surface of the proppant,
stabilized with an oxidizing agent,
2
Appeal2017-010214
Application 14/278, 124
subsequently carbonized and graphitized;
b. charging the coated proppant with a time-varying
electrical signal;
c. detecting the electrical signal with one or more
surface antennae; and
d. determining the geometry of the fracture.
Thoraval
McCarthy
Mao
References
us 4,511,843
US 2006/0102345 Al
US 7,323,120 B2
Rejections
Apr. 16, 1985
May 18, 2006
Jan.29,2008
The Examiner rejects claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over McCarthy, Thoraval, and Mao. (Non-Final Action 3.)
The Examiner rejects claims 14--17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over McCarthy and Mao. (Non-Final Action 6.)
ANALYSIS
Independent claims 13 and 14 recite a method involving "a proppant
coated with an electrically conductive coating" that includes a "coating
material." (Appeal Br., Claims App.) Independent claims 13 and 14 also
contain limitations specifying certain characteristics of the coating material
and the manner in which it coats the proppant. (Id.)
The Examiner finds that McCarthy teaches a proppant coated with an
electrically conductive coating for a subterranean-fracture-associated use (see
Non-Final Action 3; see also McCarthy ,r 35); and the Examiner finds that
Mao teaches a process for the manufacture of coated particles which are
electrically conductive (see Non-Final Action 5; see also Mao, col. 3, 11. 6-8).
3
Appeal2017-010214
Application 14/278, 124
The Examiner finds that McCarthy teaches that its coated proppants
can "include carbonaceous particles such as carbon black, coke and graphitic
particles" (Answer 3, see also McCarthy ,r 31); and the Examiner finds that
Mao teaches that particles with an electrically conductive coating can
"include graphitic materials, such as cokes and various other forms of carbon
materials" (Answer 4; see also Mao, col. 3, 11. 24--26). The Examiner further
finds that Mao teaches particle sizes that are "known to one of ordinary skill
in the art of hydraulic fracturing as suitable proppant particle sizes."
(Answer 4; see also Mao, col. 3, 11. 44--46.)
Thus, according to the Examiner, the prior art teaches that 1) proppants
can be provided with electrically-conductive coating; and 2) particles, made
of proppant-appropriate materials ( e.g., coke), and having proppant-suitable
particle sizes, can be provided with electrically-conductive coating via Mao's
process. In other words, the Examiner finds that Mao "provides for an
electrically conductive coating technique on a particle similar to McCarthy"
(Answer 4); and the Examiner explains how and why the prior art supports
this finding.
The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to produce
McCarthy's proppant using Mao's process "in order to provide a high
capacity electrically conductive proppant within [a] fracture that is capable
of being transported downhole without clumping and agglomerating, thereby
preventing disruption of the fracturing process." (Non-Final Action 6.)
The Appellant argue that "[t]he cited references do not, individually
nor combined, teach the claimed invention." (Appeal Br. 3.) According to
the Appellant:
4
Appeal2017-010214
Application 14/278, 124
The problem with Mao is that the reference is related to the art
of batteries and energy storage. Mao does not explicitly disclose
coating proppants nor any other material designed to provide
structural strength/integrity. Moreover, Mao does not teach
electrically conductive coating for the purpose of temporary
excitation ( as in the recited claims) but rather for long term
energy storage. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art cannot
be reasonably expect to combine McCarthy and Mao for the
purpose of charging and measuring a temporal electrical signal.
(Appeal Br. 3.) Thus, the Appellant argues that it would not have been
obvious to produce McCarthy's proppant using Mao's process.
The Appellant's position is not persuasive. Although Mao may not
specifically mention proppants and/or temporary excitation, in the
Examiner's rejections, "McCarthy was cited for the feature of a proppant
having an electrically conductive coating" for the temporary-excitation
purpose recited in the claims. (Answer 4.) Also, as indicated above, the
Examiner supports the finding that the prior art teaches that particles, made
of proppant-appropriate materials and having proppant-suitable sizes, can be
provided with electrically-conductive coating via Mao's process.
Put another way, the Appellant's position is unpersuasive because the
Examiner establishes adequately that, despite the differences pointed out in
the Appeal Brief, it would have been reasonable for one of ordinary skill in
the art to use Mao's particle-coating process to produce McCarthy's
proppant.
Thus, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 13
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over McCarthy, Thoraval, and Mao;
and we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 14 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over McCarthy and Mao. The Appellant
5
Appeal2017-010214
Application 14/278, 124
does not argue dependent claims 15-17 separately (see Appeal Br. 3); and so
they fall with independent claim 14.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's rejections of claims 13-17.
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 )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6