Ex Parte Chen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 7, 2018

13663790 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 7, 2018)

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.
13/663,790 10/30/2012 Jinhong Chen NMR4-52930-US/INT0457US2 4981
44639 7590 03/09/2018
CANTOR COLBURN LLP- BAKER HUGHES INCORPORATED
20 Church Street
22nd Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
EXAMINER
FULLER, RODNEY EVAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2852
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/09/2018 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):
usptopatentmail@cantorcolbum.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JINHONG CHEN, JILIN ZHANG, GUODONG JIN,
TERRENCE QUINN, and ELTON FROST, JR.
Appeal 2017-007232
Application 13/663,790
Technology Center 2800
Before TERRY J. OWENS, DONNA M. PRAISS, and JANE E. INGLESE,
Administrative Patent Judges.
OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Invention
The Appellants claim an apparatus, method and computer-readable
medium for identifying a fluid and its location in a shale formation. Claim 1
is illustrative:
1. An apparatus for identifying a fluid and locations of the
fluid in a formation of shale comprising porous kerogen
material and an inorganic matrix defining pores and
micro-fractures, the apparatus comprising:
Appeal 2017-007232
Application 13/663,790
a carrier configured to be conveyed through a borehole
penetrating the shale comprising porous kerogen material and
an inorganic matrix defining pores and micro-fractures;
a nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) tool disposed at the
carrier and configured to perform NMR measurements on the
shale comprising porous kerogen material and an inorganic
matrix defining pores and micro-fractures, the NMR
measurements comprising a spectrum of transverse relaxation
times; and
a processor configured to receive NMR measurements on
the shale comprising porous kerogen material and an inorganic
matrix defining pores and micro-fractures performed by the
NMR tool and to identify the fluid and locations of the fluid in
the shale comprising porous kerogen material and an inorganic
matrix defining pores and micro-fractures using the spectrum of
transverse relaxation times.
The References
Georgi US 2006/0273788 A1 Dec. 7,2006
Minh US 2011/0068788 A1 Mar. 24,2011
The Rejections
The claims stand rejected as follows: claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 11, and 14
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Georgi, claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Georgi and claims 15-19 and 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over Georgi in view of Minh.
OPINION
We reverse the rejections over Georgi and affirm the rejection over
Georgi in view of Minh.
Rejections over Georgi
We need address only the sole independent claim among claims 1, 2,
5, 8, 11, and 14, i.e., claim 1. That claim requires a processor configured to
receive a nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) tool’s measured spectrum of
2
Appeal 2017-007232
Application 13/663,790
transverse relaxation times of shale comprising porous kerogen material and
an inorganic matrix defining pores and micro-fractures and to use the
measured spectrum of transverse relaxation times to identify the fluid and
locations of the fluid in the shale.
The Examiner has the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case
of anticipation by pointing out where all of the claim limitations appear in a
single reference. See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re
King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Georgi discloses an apparatus for evaluating an earth formation
containing clastic sediments (]fl| 10, 52).1 The apparatus comprises a
formation evaluation sensor which is conveyed downhole and can include
“nuclear magnetic resonance sensors for determining the porosity and other
petrophysical characteristics of the formation” (]f 43). The apparatus can be
used with a computer readable medium which “includes instructions which
enable a processor to define a pore-scale model of the earth formation, the
pore scale model including grains of the clastic material, simulating an NMR
response and adjusting a parameter of the pore-scale model based on the
NMR response and measurements made by the NMR sensor” (]f 11). “NMR
techniques have been employed in petroleum industry to either predict
permeability or for fluid typing” (]f 69).
The Examiner finds that Georgi discloses 1) an NMR tool configured
to perform measurements on shale containing porous kerogen material, and
2) a processor configured to receive NMR measurements on the shale
1 “The term ‘clastic’ refers to rocks made up of fragments of preexisting
rocks” (T| 7).
3
Appeal 2017-007232
Application 13/663,790
comprising porous kerogen material and to identify the fluid and locations of
the fluid in the shale (Ans. 2-3). In support of those findings the Examiner
relies upon Georgi’s paragraphs 5, 31, 42, 65, and 69 (Ans. 3).
The Examiner does not point out, and it is not apparent, where those
portions of Georgi disclose porous kerogen material-containing shale or a
processor configured to identify the fluid and locations of fluid in the shale.
The Examiner finds that the “porous kerogen material” limitation is an
intended use of the apparatus (Ans. 3).
The Appellants’ claim 1 requires a processor configured to receive
NMR measurements on shale comprising porous kerogen material and to
identify the fluid and locations of the fluid in the shale. Thus, the “porous
kerogen material” limitation is not mere intended use but, rather, is a
configurational requirement of the processor.
The Examiner, therefore, has not established a prima facie case of
anticipation by pointing out where Georgi discloses all of the Appellants’
claim limitations. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b). In the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Georgi, the
Examiner does not set forth any obviousness rationale regarding claim 1 ’s
limitations (Ans. 4-6). Hence, we also reverse that rejection.
Rejection over Georgi in view of Minh
Independent claim 15, which claims a method for using the claim 1
apparatus, and independent claim 19, which claims a non-transitory
computer-readable medium for implementing the method, contain
limitations similar to the claim 1 limitations set forth above.2
2 Claim 21 depends from claim 19.
4
Appeal 2017-007232
Application 13/663,790
Minh performs multi-dimensional NMR techniques such as relaxation
versus diffusion (e.g., D-T2 maps) using a wellbore-disposed NMR tool to
identify and/or evaluate wellbore fluids such as water, oil, gas and oil-based
mud and to estimate subsurface formation properties including porosity,
adsorbed gas volume, free gas volume, bound water volume, free water
volume, oil volume, and kerogen volume at various depths 5, 9, 27).
Minh’s “FIG. 3A illustrates that water in small pores has a shorter relaxation
time than water in large pores due to the increased surface relaxation effect.
Similarly, FIG. 3B illustrates that adsorbed gas has a shorter relaxation time
than free gas because of the increased surface relaxation effect” (]f 27).
Minh’s “FIG. 4 shows a detailed analysis of fluid volumes including bound
water, free water, oil-based mud filtrate, heavy oil, free gas, adsorbed gas,
and kerogen. Three particular portions corresponding to three different
wellbore depths are shown in the three D-T2 maps” 28). “Examples of
formations in which the disclosed method may be used include gas-bearing
or gas-adsorbed shales” (^31).
The Appellants assert that “Minh in paragraph 0009 simply teaches
estimating a volume of kerogen in the subsurface formation using the
multidimensional NMR technique” (App. Br. 12).
Minh’s paragraph 9 also discloses identifying and/or evaluating
wellbore fluids such as water, oil, gas and oil-based mud and to estimate
subsurface formation properties including porosity, adsorbed gas volume,
free gas volume, bound water volume, free water volume and oil volume at
various depths.
5
Appeal 2017-007232
Application 13/663,790
The Appellants assert that “[Minh’s] Figure 4 simply shows a graph
of an amount of kerogen disposed in fluid volumes versus depth” (App.
Br. 12).
Minh’s Figure 4 also shows a detailed analysis of fluid volumes
including bound water, free water, oil-based mud filtrate, heavy oil, free gas,
and adsorbed gas at three wellbore depths (^28).
The Appellants assert that “[wjhile Minh may teach (1) identifying
water, oil, gas, and oil-based mud in the wellbore and (2) a detailed analysis
of fluid volumes, Minh does not disclose or suggest identifying both the
fluid and locations of the fluid in the shale comprising porous kerogen
material and an inorganic matrix defining pores and micro-fractures using
the spectrum of transverse relaxation times as the Appellants claim in
claims 15 and 19” (Reply Br. 7).
The Appellants state that shale contains an inorganic matrix,
micro-fractures and porous kerogen (Spec. ^ 3). Therefore, like shale
generally, Minh’s shale meets the Appellants’ claim requirement of
comprising porous kerogen material and an inorganic matrix defining pores
and micro-fractures. Also, Minh uses an NMR spectrum of relaxation times
to identify the fluid (bound water, free water, oil-based mud filtrate, heavy
oil, free gas, and adsorbed gas) and identify fluid location (wellbore depth
and, at each depth, whether water is free or bound in small or large pores and
whether gas is free or adsorbed) (]fl| 27, 28).
For the above reasons we are not persuaded of reversible error in the
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Georgi in view of Minh.
6
Appeal 2017-007232
Application 13/663,790
DECISION/ORDER
The rejections of claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 11, and 14 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Georgi and claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Georgi are reversed. The rejection of claims
15-19 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Georgi in view of Minh is
affirmed.
It is ordered that the Examiner’s decision is affirmed-in-part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
7