Ex Parte Schacherer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 23, 2016

13078423 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 23, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/078,423 04/01/2011 Timothy G. SCHACHERER
127406 7590 06/27/2016
Chamberlain Hrdlicka
Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.
1200 Smith St., 14th Floor
Houston, TX 77002
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.
l 40846-035800US 7437
EXAMINER
WANG, WEI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3676
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/27/2016 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):
Patents@chamberlainlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TIMOTHY G. SCHACHERER, MARVIN G. BATRES,
TOMMY THAMMAVONGSA, and RANDALL S. MOORE
Appeal2014-005343
Application 13/078,423
Technology Center 3600
Before JAMES P. CAL VE, WILLIAM A. CAPP and
LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges.
CAPP, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final
rejection of claims 6-10, 12, 14, 18, 19, and 24--28. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2014-005343
Application 13/078,423
THE INVENTION
Appellants' invention relates to explosive assemblies used in wellbore
perforating guns. Spec. 1. 1 Claim 6, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
subject matter on appeal.
6. A well tool system, comprising:
multiple explosive assemblies, each explosive assembly
compnsmg:
(a) an outer housing,
(b) at least one explosive component which rotates relative
to the outer housing when the explosive assembly is installed in
a well,
( c) a selective firing module which causes detonation of the
explosive component in response to a predetermined signal
associated with the selective firing module, and
( d) a rotary detonation coupling between the selective firing
module and the explosive component.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the follo\~1ing as evidence in support of the
rejections:
Der Mott
George
Goodman
Mc Cann
us 3,273,645
US 6,595,290 B2
US 7,762,331 B2
US 2011/0024116 Al
Sept. 20, 1966
July 22, 2003
July 27, 2010
Feb. 3, 2011
The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 6-10 and 24--28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over McCann and George.
1 The instant application is the parent application of Non-Provisional
Application number 13/750,786, which is the subject of Appeal 2014-
005352 before the Board.
2
Appeal2014-005343
Application 13/078,423
2. Claims 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over McCann, Goodman, and George.
3. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over McCann and Goodman.
4. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over McCann, Goodman, George, and DerMott.
OPINION
Unpatentability of Claims 6--10 and 24-28
over McCann and George
Appellants argue claims 6-10 and 24--28 as a group. Appeal Br. 13-
14. We select claim 6 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv)
(2015).
The Examiner finds that McCann discloses all of the elements of
claim 6 except for the limitation directed to rotation between the firing
module and the explosive component. Final Action 2-3. The Examiner
relies on George as disclosing an internally oriented perforating apparatus
where perforating charges are rotatably mounted within a housing in order to
perforate a well in a particular direction. Id. at 3. The Examiner concludes
that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the
time of the invention to modify the perforating system of McCann to make
the perforating charges rotatably mounted within the housing as taught by
George. Id. According to the Examiner, a person of ordinary skill in the art
would do this to perforate a well in a particular direction. Id.
Appellants traverse the Examiner's rejection by arguing that McCann
and George are not combinable. Appeal Br. 13. In particular, Appellants
argue that McCann teaches away from relative rotation between a firing
module and a perforating gun. Id. at 14. Appellants argue that if McCann
3
Appeal2014-005343
Application 13/078,423
was caused to rotate, the connector would become wrapped about the
components in the firing module, causing wires to break or components to
malfunction. Id.
In response, the Examiner states that George is relied on to teach
rotating perforating charges. Ans. 2. With respect to Appellants' argument
that there is no provision for relative rotational movement between
components in McCann, the Examiner directs our attention to Figures 4A,
4B, and 5A, and paragraphs 10 and 30 ofMcCann. Ans. 3--4. The
Examiner also directs our attention to the Final Action where the Examiner
stated:
As taught by McCann (paragraph 0033: 5-18), there are split
sections in rings (34 and 35) to create spring-like interference
fit between the rings (34, 35) and the sleeve (56). So even there
is interference fit between the rings (34, 35) and the sleeve (56),
the male connector and female connector are capable of rotating
relative to each other after the string bodies are attached.
Final Action 11. According to the Examiner, there is nothing to prevent the
relative rotation of connectors 30 and 50 after they are installed in a well.
Ans. 3--4.
In their Reply, Appellants essentially repeat, verbatim, their argument
section from their initial Appeal Brief. Compare Reply Br. 13-14; Appeal
Br. 13-14. Appellants add that, while McCann does not illustrate how
connectors 30 and 50 are prevented from rotating, McCann needs to avoid
such rotation to prevent wire 36 and 55 from becoming twisted. Reply Br.
at 15. Appellants argue that the lack of description as to how the connectors
are prevented from rotating should not be construed as an affirmative
disclosure that the connectors do rotate. Id. at 15-16. Appellants surmise
4
Appeal2014-005343
Application 13/078,423
that slots 42 and unnumbered pin in Fig 5A may prevent rotation of the
connectors. Id. at 16.
Appellants' arguments do not persuade us that the Examiner erred in
making the subject rejection. In particular, we are not persuaded by
Appellants' "teaching away" argument. Appellants provide no pin point cite
to any passage in McCann that purportedly supports the argument advanced
in page 14 of the Appeal Brief.
George discloses rotating supports 18 that are positioned so that
charges 12 may rotate within the gun carrier. George, col. 2, 11. 64--67.
McCann discloses an embodiment where annular contact ring 34 makes
electrical connection with circular contact sleeve 56. McCann, Fig. 4A, 4B,
iTiT 28-31.
The signal within wiring harness 36 is conducted to the inner
ring 35 and annular contact ring 34, transferred to the contact
sleeve 56 in the female connector 50 and sent further down the
string via electrical signal member 55. Accordingly, one of the
advantages of the device described herein is the capability of
providing connectivity, both electrical and detonation, between
adjacent members within a perforating string 70.
Id. at 42. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that
the electrical contact between contact ring 34 and contact sleeve 56 would
allow for rotation between connectors 30 and 50.2 We disagree with
Appellants' argument that rotation of annular ring 34 within circular contact
2 At a minimum, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood
that the contact ring and sleeve rotate relative to each other as their
associated outer housing components rotate on threaded connections during
assembly. The record admits of no facts that give us any reason to believe
that wires would become wrapped or entangled as the outer housing
components are assembled by rotating on threaded connections.
5
Appeal2014-005343
Application 13/078,423
sleeve 56 would cause wires to become wrapped around components in the
firing module and perforating gun as it lacks evidentiary support in the
record. Reply Br. 14.3
In view of the foregoing discussion, we determine that the Examiner's
findings of fact are supported by a preponderance of the evidence. In
particular, we agree with the Examiner that a person of ordinary skill in the
art would have considered it obvious to combine the teachings of McCann
and George and would have had ample reason to do so with a reasonable
expectation of success. We also determine that the Examiner's legal
conclusion ofunpatentability is well-founded. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner's unpatentability rejection of claims 6-10 and 24--28.
Claim 12
Unpatentability of Claims 12 and 18
over McCann, Goodman, and George
Claim 12 is an independent claim. Claims App. The Examiner relies
on Goodman for assembling multiple explosive assemblies at a location
remote from the well and then transporting the assembles to the well. Final
Action 6-7. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to a
person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the
assembly and transport method of Goodman with the apparatus of McCann.
Id. at 7. According to the Examiner, a person of ordinary skill in the art
3 Even if connectors 30 and 50 do not, themselves, rotate within booster
sub 72 and arming sub 76 respectively, they are capable of rotating with
respect to each other and maintaining an electrical connection. George is
relied on as teaching perforating charges that rotate within an outer housing.
Ans. 2. Thus, the Examiner's proposed combination satisfies the claim
limitation at issue.
6
Appeal2014-005343
Application 13/078,423
would have done this to provide a safe process for assembling and
transporting McCann's system. Id.
The Examiner relies on George as disclosing perforating charges that
are rotatably mounted within a house to perforate a well in a particular
direction. Id. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to a
person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to
modify McCann so that perforating charges are rotatably mounted within the
housing. Id. According to the Examiner, a person of ordinary skill in the art
would have done this to perforate a well in a particular direction. Id.
Appellants traverse the rejection by raising essentially the same
arguments that we considered and found unpersuasive with respect to
claim 6 above. Appeal Br. 15-1 7. We find those same arguments equally
unpersuasive here. Appellants raise no issues with respect to combining
McCann/George with Goodman that indicate that Goodman may not be
properly combined to achieve the subject matter of claim 12.
Thus, for essentially the same reasons discussed above with respect to
the rejection of claim 6, we sustain the unpatentability rejection of claim 12
over McCann, Goodman, and George.
Claim 18.
Claim 18 is an independent claim. Claims App. As with claim 12,
the Examiner finds that claim 18 is rendered obvious by the combination of
McCann, Goodman, and George. Final Action 7-8.
Appellants traverse the rejection by raising essentially the same
arguments that we considered and found unpersuasive with respect to
claims 6 and 12 above. Appeal Br. 17. We find those same arguments
equally unpersuasive here.
7
Appeal2014-005343
Application 13/078,423
Thus, for essentially the same reasons discussed above with respect to
the rejection of claims 6 and 12, we sustain the unpatentability rejection of
claim 18 over McCann, Goodman, and George.
Unpatentability of Claim 19
over McCann, Goodman, George, and DerMott
Claim 19 depends from claim 18 and adds the limitation: "wherein
each rotary electrical connection comprises first and second rotary electrical
couplers, at least one of the first and second rotary electrical couplers being
sealed and thereby preventing fluid flow through the respective connector."
Claims App. The Examiner relies on DerMott as disclosing this limitation.
Final Action 10-11.
Appellants do not argue for the separate patentability of claim 19
apart from arguments presented with respect to claim 18 which we have
previously considered.
Thus, for essentially the same reasons discussed above with respect to
the rejection of claim 18, we sustain the unpatentability rejection of claim 19
over McCann, Goodman, George, and DerMott.
Unpatentability of Claim 14
over McCann and Goodman
Claim 14 is an independent claim. Claims App. As with claim 12,
the Examiner relies on Goodman for assembling multiple explosive
assemblies at a location remove from the well and then transporting the
assembles to the well. Final Action 9.
Appellants traverse the rejection by arguing that neither McCann nor
Goodman discloses a connector with (1) an electrical detonator and first
explosive component and (2) a second explosive component explosively
8
Appeal2014-005343
Application 13/078,423
coupling the electrical detonator and the first explosive component. Appeal
Br. 18.
In response, the Examiner directs our attention to McCann and
specifically finds that: ( 1) McCann elements 72 and 7 6 in Figure 5 satisfy
the connector limitation; (2) elements 44, 84, and 86 of Figures 5 and 5A
satisfy the first explosive component limitation; (3) element 60 of Figure 5A
satisfies the second explosive component limitation; and ( 4) the first and
second explosive components are explosively coupled together as shown in
in Figure 5A. Ans. 17.
In reply, Appellants repeat, verbatim, the claim 14 section of their
initial Appeal Brief. Appellants do not otherwise attempt to controvert the
Examiner's findings in the Answer. Compare Reply Br. 14, Appeal Br. 18.
Appellants do not offer a proposed construction for the term
"explosively coupling." During examination of a patent application,
pending claims are given their broadest reasonable construction consistent
with the specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359,
1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation
standard, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning as
would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the
entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed.
Cir. 2007).
The Specification teaches that explosive component 22 in the outer
housing 26 is explosively coupled to the explosive component 40 in the
connector 30a by a rotary detonation coupling 58. Spec. 10. The rotary
detonation coupling 58 transfers detonation from explosive component 40 to
explosive component 22, both of which are detonating cords. Id.
9
Appeal2014-005343
Application 13/078,423
~vfcCann discloses detonator 44 and booster charge 60. See ~vfcCann,
Figs. 4A, 4B. McCann's figures further show that, upon assembly,
detonator 44 and booster charge 60 are disposed in close physical proximity
to each other through bore 58. McCann, Figs. 4A, 4B, 5A, 5B, ,-r 31. In
view of the foregoing disclosures, we determine that the Examiner's finding
that McCann discloses an explosive coupling within the meaning of claim 14
is supported by a preponderance of the evidence. See McCann ,-r 36.
We sustain the unpatentability rejection of claim 14 over McCann and
Goodman.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 6-10, 12, 14, 18, 19,
and 24--28 is affirmed.
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
10