Ex Parte Collins

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 29, 2018

13293295 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/293,295 11/10/2011 Brett R. Collins
44639 7590 07/03/2018
CANTOR COLBURN LLP-BAKER HUGHES, A GE COMPANY, LLC
20 Church Street
22nd Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
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.
PRF4-52266-US
(BA00860US)
CONFIRMATION NO.
1038
EXAMINER
SEBESTA, CHRISTOPHER J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3676
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07 /03/2018 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 BRETT R. COLLINS
Appeal2017-010173
Application 13/293 ,295 1
Technology Center 3600
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, ANTON W. PETTING, and
PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 4--8, 10-14, and 16-18. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
According to Appellant, the "disclosure is related to methods and
apparatus for stimulating a reservoir." Spec. i-f 1. Claims 1, 7, and 13 are the
1 According to Appellant, "[ t ]he real party in interest in this appeal is
BAKER HUGHES INCORPORATED." Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2017-010173
Application 13/293,295
independent claims on appeal. We reproduce claim 1, below, as indicative
of the appealed claims.
1. A method of stimulating a reservoir, comprising:
injecting a slurry into a work string at a surface location,
wherein the work string extends from the surface location to the
reservoir, wherein the slurry includes a proppant;
using a sensor in the work string near a downhole opening
of the work string adjacent the reservoir, the sensor configured
to measure proppant concentration, slurry pressure and slurry
injection rate of the slurry in the work string prior to delivery of
the slurry from the work string to the reservoir via the downhole
opemng;
estimating a fracture conductivity of the reservoir using
the measured proppant concentration, slurry pressure and slurry
injection rate at the reservoir; and
altering at least one of the proppant concentration, slurry
pressure and slurry injection rate at the surface location to obtain
a selected fracture conductivity at the reservoir to stimulate the
reserv01r.
REJECTION AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 4--8, 10-14, and 16-18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Abad (US 2010/0224365 Al, pub. Sept. 9,
2010) and McMechan et al. (US 7,140,437 B2, iss. Nov. 28, 2006)
(hereinafter "McMechan").
ANALYSIS
As set forth above, independent claim 1 recites, in relevant part,
using a sensor in the work string near a downhole opening of the
work string adjacent the reservoir, the sensor configured to
measure proppant concentration, slurry pressure and slurry
2
Appeal2017-010173
Application 13/293,295
injection rate of the slurry in the work string prior to delivery of
the slurry from the work string to the reservoir via the downhole
opemng.
Appeal Br., Claims App. The Examiner does not find that any reference
discloses the claimed sensor location-i.e., in a work string near a downhole
opening of the work string adjacent a reservoir. Rather, the Examiner finds
that it would have been obvious to place McMechan's sensor, which
measures proppant concentration, slurry pressure, and slurry injection rate,
at the claimed location within Abad, and that placing the sensor in this
location would provide measurement of proppant concentration, slurry
pressure, and slurry injection rate of the slurry in the work string prior to
delivery of the slurry from the work string to the reservoir via the downhole
opening. See, e.g., Answer 2--4.
Based on our review of the record, however, we do not sustain the
rejection. As set forth above, neither reference discloses placing a sensor in
a work string near a downhole opening of the work string adjacent a
reservoir. See Appeal Br. 12-17. Conversely, the Examiner's express
reason for placing the sensor in the claimed location is "to determine
fracture conductivity." Answer 4. But, the Examiner does not establish that
either reference discloses that fracture conductivity may be determined by
locating the sensor as claimed-instead, the record indicates only that
Appellant discloses that fracture conductivity may be estimating by locating
the sensor in a work string near a downhole opening of the work string
adjacent a reservoir. Thus, the Examiner does not provide an articulated
reasoning with a rational underpinning sufficient to establish that it would
have been obvious to place McMechan's sensor at the claimed location
within Abad. See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
3
Appeal2017-010173
Application 13/293,295
Instead, the Examiner's combination, in which a sensor is placed in a work
string near a downhole opening of the work string adjacent a reservoir, as
claimed, appears to result only from impermissible hindsight.
Therefore, based on the foregoing, we do not sustain claim 1 's
obviousness rejection based on McMechan and Abad. For similar reasons,
we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of independent claims 7 and 13,
which the Examiner also rejects based on McMechan and Abad. Further, we
do not sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 2, 4---6, 8, 10-12, 14,
and 16-18 that depend from claims 1, 7, and 13.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 1, 2,
4--8, 10-14, and 16-18.
REVERSED
4