Ex Parte Schacherer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 28, 2016

13750786 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
131750,786 01125/2013 Timothy G. SCHACHERER
127406 7590 06/30/2016
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 40846-035802US 1847
EXAMINER
WANG, WEI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3676
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/30/2016 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
Appeal2014-005352
Application 13/750,786
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 1-14 and 16-31. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2014-005352
Application 13/750,786
THE INVENTION
Appellants' invention relates to explosive assemblies used in wellbore
perforating guns. Spec. 1. 1 Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. 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, and
( c) a selective firing module which causes detonation of the
explosive component in response to a predetermined signal
associated with the selective firing module.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following 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 1-10 and 21-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over McCann and George.
2. Claims 11-14, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over McCann, Goodman, and George.
1 The instant application is a continuation of Non-Provisional Application
number 13/078,423, which is the subject of Appeal 2014-005343 before the
Board.
2
Appeal2014-005352
Application 13/750,786
3. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over McCann, Goodman, George, and DerMott.
Claims 1-10
OPINION
Unpatentability of Claims 1-10 and 21-31
over McCann and George
Appellants argue claims 1-10 as a group. Appeal Br. 11-14. We
select claim 1 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 1 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 ivicCann 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. 11. Appellants argue that
George teaches how to make perforating charges rotatable, but does not
teach how to extend electrical communication to selective firing modules on
either side of rotating charges. Id. Appellants contend that, although
McCann teaches how to connect a selective firing module to a perforating
gun, it does not teach how to extend electrical communication to selective
firing modules on either side of rotating perforating charges. Id.
3
Appeal2014-005352
Application 13/750,786
In particular, Appellants argue that ~vfcCann teaches away from
relative rotation between a firing module and a perforating gun. Id. at 12.
Appellants argue that if McCann 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. 5. 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. 6-7. The
Examiner also directs our attention to the response to arguments section of
the Final Action. Ans. 6-8.
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 12-13. 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. 6-7. The Examiner further explains that, when there is relative rotation
between male connector 30 and female connector 50, wires 37 do not break
because connector 30 can rotate with respect to sleeve 77. Ans. 8-9.
In their Reply, Appellants essentially repeat, verbatim, their argument
section from their initial Appeal Brief. Compare Reply Br. 11-12; Appeal
Br. 11-12. 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
4
Appeal2014-005352
Application 13/750,786
Br. 13. 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 13-14.
Appellants surmise that slots 42 and unnumbered pin in Fig 5A may prevent
rotation of the connectors. Id. at 14.
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
on page 12 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
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
5
Appeal2014-005352
Application 13/750,786
Appellants' argument that rotation of annular ring 34 within circular contact
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. 12.3 Moreover, "[c]ombining the teachings of references
does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures." In re
Nievelt, 482 F .2d 965, 968 (CCP A 1973). The relevant inquiry is whether
the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to those of ordinary
skill in the art in light of the combined teachings of those references. See In
re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
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 1-10.
Claims 21-31
Appellants argue claims 21-31 as a group. Appeal Br. 13-14. We
select claim 21 as representative. The Examiner finds that McCann,
that wires would become wrapped or entangled as the outer housing
components are assembled by rotating on threaded connections.
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 rotating perforating charges. Ans. 2. Thus, the
Examiner's proposed combination satisfies the claim limitation at issue.
6
Appeal2014-005352
Application 13/750,786
modified by George, discloses all of the limitations of claim 21. Final
Action 5.
In traversing the rejection, Appellants rely, in part, on the arguments
that we previously found unpersuasive with respect to claim 1 above and
which we find equally unpersuasive here. Appeal Br. 13-14. In addition,
Appellants argue that the prior art fails to teach a method by which each of
multiple perforating guns includes both a rotating charge and a selective
firing module so that firing modules can be independently selected. Id.
at 13.
The Examiner responds that a modification of McCann by George
discloses extending electrical communication to selective firing modules on
either side of the rotating perforating charges. Ans. 10. The Examiner
supports this statement with citation to connectors 30 and 50 and wire 55
and 37 in Figure 5A of McCann. Id. The Examiner also directs our
attention to elements 84 and 86 in Figure 5 of McCann. Id.
In reply, Appellants repeat their unsuccessful argument from claim 1,
that McCann does not allow relative rotation as claimed. Reply Br. 17-18.
We find that argument equally unpersuasive here.
McCann explains that its perforating system 70 includes a repeating
string of perforating guns 74, each having a booster sub 72. McCann ,-r 40.
McCann's perforating guns are selectively activated by detonating shaped
charges 80 in a particular gun 74. Id. This disclosure satisfies the limitation
in claim 21 directed to multiple perforating guns and a selective firing
module that causes detonation in response to a predetermined signal
associated with the selective firing module.
7
Appeal2014-005352
Application 13/750,786
In view of the foregoing discussion, we determine the Examiner's
findings of fact are supported by a preponderance of the evidence and that
the Examiner's legal conclusion ofunpatentability is well-founded.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's unpatentability rejection of
claims 21-31.
Unpatentability of Claims 11-14, 16--18, and 20
over McCann, Goodman, and George
Appellants argue claims 11-14, 16-18, and 20 as a group. Appeal
Br. 15-16. We select claim 11 as representative.
In traversing the rejection of claim 11, Appellants rely on the same
arguments that we previously considered in connection with claim 1
regarding explosive components that rotate within an outer housing while
allowing electrical communications across the rotating components. Appeal
Br. 15-16, Reply Br. 19-22. We find those same arguments equally
unpersuasive here. As discussed previously in connection with the rejection
of claim 1, the annular contact ring 34 and circular contact sleeve 56 of
McCann allow connectors 30 and 50 to maintain electrical contract while
allowing relative rotation. George discloses perforating charges that rotate
within the gun carrier. George, col. 2, 11. 2-7. We agree with the Examiner
that it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of McCann,
George, and Goodman to achieve the claimed invention.
We sustain the rejection of claims 11-14, 16-18, and 20.
Unpatentability of Claim 19
over McCann, Goodman, George, and DerMott
Claim 19 depends directly from claim 18 and adds the limitation:
"wherein each rotary electrical connection comprises first and second rotary
8
Appeal2014-005352
Application 13/750,786
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 11.
Claim 19 depends indirectly from claim 11. Claims App. Appellants
do not argue for the separate patentability of claim 19 apart from arguments
presented with respect to claim 11 which we have previously considered.
Thus, for essentially the same reasons discussed above with respect to
the rejection of claim 11, we sustain the unpatentability rejection of claim 19
over McCann, Goodman, George, and DerMott.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-14 and 16-31 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
9