Ex Parte Jiang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 17, 2018

14028039 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 17, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/028,039 09/16/2013
27452 7590 12/19/2018
SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION
10001 Richmond Avenue
IP Administration Center of Excellence
Houston, TX 77042
Li Jiang
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.
IS12.3246-US-NP 8805
EXAMINER
MILLER, CRYSTAL J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3674
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/19/2018 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):
USDocketing@slb.com
jalverson@slb.com
SMarckesoni@slb.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LI JIANG, RICHARD HUTCHINS,
MURTAZA ZIAUDDIN, J. ERNEST BROWN,
SYED A. ALI, NEIL F. HURLEY,
JOHN W. STILL, TIMOTHY G.J. JONES,
STEPHEN NIGEL DA VIES, BRUNO LECERF, and
DMITRIY USOL TSEV
Appeal2018-005132
Application 14/028,039
Technology Center 3600
Before NINA L. MEDLOCK, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2018-005132
Application 14/028,039
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants 1 appeal from the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 3-23. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
According to Appellants, "[ t ]he disclosure relates to methods for
treating subterranean formations[, and, m Jore particularly, the disclosure
relates to methods for fracturing, acidizing or otherwise stimulating a
wellbore." Spec. ,r 2. Claims 1, 22, and 23 are the independent claims on
appeal. Below, we reproduce claim 1 as representative of the appealed
claims.
1. A method comprising
injecting a treatment stage fluid into a subterranean
formation above a fracturing pressure to form a fracture in the
formation;
successively alternating reactivity modes in the treatment
stage fluid, in either order, between at least first and second
reactivity modes to react with carbonate in the formation at
different rates or times to unevenly etch surfaces of the fracture,
wherein one of the first and second reactivity modes comprises a
reactant reactive with the carbonate in the formation and the
other of the first and second reactivity modes comprises the
reactant at a lesser concentration, or in a less reactive form, or is
free of the reactant;
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Schlumberger
Technology Corporation. Appeal Br. 2 (we note that although the Appeal
Brief's pages are unnumbered, we number the pages sequentially, beginning
by numbering the page with the application-identifying information as
page 1).
2
Appeal 2018-005132
Application 14/028,039
sustaining injection of the treatment stage fluid during
each of the first and second reactivity modes for a period of time
from 5 seconds up to 2.5 minutes;
repeating the successive alternation of reactivity modes for
a plurality of cycles; and
reducing pressure to facilitate fracture closure and form
interconnected, hydraulically conductive channels between
opposing fracture surfaces.
REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects the claims as follows:
I. Claims 1, 3-11, and 14--23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Fredd (US 6,749,022 Bl, iss. June 15, 2004);
II. Claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Fredd and
Pennington (US 3,149,673, iss. Sept. 22, 1964); and
III. Claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Fredd and
Chen et al. (US 2012/0305246 Al, pub. Dec. 6, 2012)
("Chen").
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
In their Appeal Brief, Appellants argue that the Examiner errs in
determining that claims 1, 3-11, and 14--23 would have been obvious in
view of Fredd, because "[ t ]here is no disclosure in Fredd of repeated
alternation between a lower reactivity mode and a higher reactivity mode, ..
. as [ claimed], nor that the injections of such first and second reactivity
modes are sustained for a period of time from 5 seconds up to 2.5 minutes."
Appeal Br. 8. In particular, Appellants argue that "Fredd appears to disclose
3
Appeal 2018-005132
Application 14/028,039
... [only] varying the fracture stimulation fluid from a lower reactivity to a
higher reactivity." Id.
Nonetheless, the Examiner determines that it would have been
obvious to modify Fredd to render Appellants' claims obvious. Answer 4---6.
Specifically,
[the] Examiner maintains the position that it would have been
obvious ... to repeat the stages disclosed by Fredd to achieve the
result as instantly claimed, which is the same result disclosed in
Fredd: to achieve "differential etching and eventually the
formation of conductive etched flow channels" ([Fredd, c ]ol. 4,
lines 51-54). The Examiner maintains that the mere repetition
of a method step is an obvious choice well known to one of
ordinary skill in the art.
Answer 4--5. The Examiner also states the following:
Fredd does disclose that the reactivity of the stimulation fluid can
be controlled by varying the rate of reaction ([Fredd, c ]ol. 3,
lines 22-23) and optimizing etching of the carbonate formation
([Fredd, c]ol. 5, lines 13-19). As rate is a function of time, it
would have been obvious . . . to modify the range of time for
injecting the treatment fluid in Fredd to the range as claimed,
because it has been held that "where the general conditions of a
claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover
the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In
re Aller.
Id. at 5---6 ( citation omitted). The foregoing is inadequate to support the
Examiner's obviousness rejection.
Even if we agree with the Examiner "that the mere repetition of a
method step is an obvious choice well known to one of ordinary skill in the
art" (Answer 5), claim 1 's recitation of "repeating the successive alternation
of reactivity modes for a plurality of cycles" is more than repeating Fredd's
disclosure of "varying the fracture stimulation fluid from a lower reactivity
to a higher reactivity" (Appeal Br. 8), as it also would be necessary to vary
4
Appeal 2018-005132
Application 14/028,039
the fracture stimulation fluid from the higher reactivity to the lower
reactivity, which is not disclosed by Fredd (see id. at 7-8), before again
varying the reactivity from the lower to the higher reactivity (as is disclosed
by Fredd). Further, it is not clear that Fredd's discussion of "varying the rate
of reaction ... and optimizing etching of the carbonate formation" refers to
varying an injection time. See Fredd, col. 3, 11. 22-35; col. 5, 11. 13-19; see
also Appeal Br. 7-8. Accordingly, there also is no suggestion to optimize
the injection time to provide the claimed time periods.
Rejections II and III
Claims 12 and 13 depend from independent claim 1. The Examiner
does not rely on either Pennington or Chen to remedy the above-discussed
deficiency in independent claims 1 's rejection. Thus, we do not sustain the
rejections of claims 12 and 13 for the same reasons we do not sustain
claim 1 's rejection.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 3-23.
REVERSED
5