HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 10, 2020

14653743 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 10, 2020)

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.
14/653,743 06/18/2015 Dennis J. Haggerty 140846-020102US 1550
127406 7590 06/10/2020
Chamberlain Hrdlicka
Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.
1200 Smith St., 14th Floor
Houston, TX 77002
EXAMINER
GAY, JENNIFER HAWKINS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3619
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/10/2020 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 DENNIS J. HAGGERTY
Appeal 2019-006184
Application 14/653,743
Technology Center 3600
Before MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, ERIC C. JESCHKE, and
AMANDA F. WIEKER, Administrative Patent Judges.

WIEKER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–13 and 18–29, which constitute all
pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 In this Decision, we refer to the Specification dated June 18, 2015
(“Spec.”), the Final Action dated October 9, 2018 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal
Brief dated April 16, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer dated
June 18, 2019 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief dated August 19, 2019 (“Reply
Br.”).
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Halliburton
Energy Services, Inc. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-006184
Application 14/653,743

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to methods of determining effects of
perforation on a subterranean formation sample under elevated pressure
conditions. Appeal Br. 26–30 (Claims Appx.); Spec., Abstract.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method for determining effects of perforation on
a subterranean formation sample, comprising:
selecting a formation sample;
creating a perforation tunnel in the formation
sample while the formation sample is subjected to an
elevated pressure;
flowing a fluid into the formation sample and
through the perforation tunnel while the formation
sample remains subjected to the elevated pressure; and
thereafter conducting tomographic scans of flow in
the formation sample and the perforation tunnel while the
fluid is flowing in the formation sample and the
perforation tunnel and while the formation sample
remains subjected to the elevated pressure.
Appeal Br. 26 (Claims Appx.).
Appeal 2019-006184
Application 14/653,743

3
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art:
Name Reference Dates
Haggerty et al. US 2009/0241700 A1 Filed Mar. 31, 2008
Published Oct. 1, 2009
Gilliland et al. US 5,297,420 Filed May 19, 1993
Issued Mar. 29, 1994
Blauch US 5,331,155 Filed May 8, 1992
Issued July 19, 1994
Grader et al. US 2014/0086381 A1 Filed Sept. 26, 2013
Published Mar. 27, 2014
Maucec US 2012/0223235 A1 Filed Mar. 4, 2011
Published Sept. 6, 2012
Lecerf et al. US 2014/0076544 A1 Filed Sept. 13, 2013
Published Mar. 20, 2014
Coenen US 2010/0126266 A1 Filed Apr. 24, 2008
Published May 27, 2010
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections:
1. Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, and 11–13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Haggerty and Gilliland.
2. Claims 3–5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Haggerty, Gilliland, and Blauch.
3. Claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Haggerty,
Gilliland, and Grader.
4. Claims 9 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Haggerty, Gilliland, and Maucec.
Appeal 2019-006184
Application 14/653,743

4
5. Claims 10 and 25–27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Haggerty, Gilliland, and Lecerf.
6. Claims 18–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Haggerty, Gilliland, and Coenen.
7. Claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Haggerty,
Gilliland, Maucec, and Lecerf.
8. Claims 23 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Haggerty, Gilliland, Maucec, and Blauch.
9. Claim 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Haggerty,
Gilliland, Lecerf, and Blauch.
10. Claim 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Haggerty,
Gilliland, Lecerf, Blauch, and Maucec.
OPINION
Rejection 1
Appellant presents arguments directed to independent claim 1, and
relies upon those arguments with respect to dependent claims 2, 6, 7, and
11–13. Accordingly, we treat claim 1 as representative for this Rejection.
The Examiner finds that Haggerty discloses the majority of limitations
of claim 1, including the steps of creating a perforation tunnel in a formation
sample while the sample is subjected to elevated pressure and flowing a
fluid through the sample and perforation tunnel while remaining at the
elevated pressure. Final Act. 5. The Examiner finds that Haggerty also
teaches performing tests on the perforated sample, while under pressure, but
does not disclose conducting the specific type of test that is claimed—
tomographic scans. Id. at 3, 5; Ans. 4–5, 7.
Appeal 2019-006184
Application 14/653,743

5
The Examiner finds that Gilliland teaches a method for measuring
properties of a downhole rock formation that involves placing a formation
sample into a pressurized vessel, flowing fluid through the sample, and
conducting tomographic scans of the fluid flow through the sample. Final
Act. 5. The Examiner finds that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
have found it obvious “to have modified the method of [Haggerty] to include
conducting tomographic scans of the flow through the sample, as suggested
by [Gilliland], and perforation in order to have been able to establish the
relative permeability and capillary pressure of the downhole formation.” Id.
Appellant presents three main arguments. Appeal Br. 11–16. First,
Appellant argues that Gilliland does not disclose tomographic scanning of a
perforated sample, as claimed, but only teaches scanning an unperforated
core sample. Id. at 13 (also arguing Haggerty does not disclose tomographic
scanning), 15 (“Gilliland fails to discuss . . . perforating the core sample 10
while maintaining an elevated pressure.”).
Second, Appellant argues that although Haggerty teaches maintaining
an elevated pressure while perforating a sample and while conducting flow
tests, Haggerty’s apparatus is disassembled after flow testing. Appeal
Br. 14–15. Therefore, according to Appellant, Haggerty does not teach
maintaining pressure while performing any other subsequent action, such as
tomographic scanning. Id. at 15.
Third, Appellant argues that, as disclosed in the Specification,
“[s]canning the fluid flow through the perforation tunnel enables better
analysis of the performance of a shaped charge that created the perforation
tunnel.” Appeal Br. 13. According to Appellant, “Gilliland’s sole purpose
is to better understand the properties of the reservoir based on tests
Appeal 2019-006184
Application 14/653,743

6
performed on a core sample. Gilliland does not provide any reason to
determine how the reservoir might react to any type of event, much less a
perforation event.” Id.; see also Reply Br. 5–6. Therefore, Appellant
alleges that “the proposed combination of Haggerty and Gilliland is
impermissibly based on hindsight bias.” Appeal Br. 16.
Appellant has not demonstrated error in the Examiner’s findings
regarding Haggerty. Haggerty discloses a testing apparatus substantially
similar to that of the Specification. See Ans. 10 (comparing structures).
Haggerty discloses steps of:
- creating a perforation tunnel in a formation sample while at
elevated pressure (see Haggerty ¶ 32 (“confining pressure,
wellbore pressure and pore pressure may be applied to target
core 22”), ¶ 33 (“In this configuration . . . [g]un assembly 18 may
now be used to detonate shaped charge 20 to form a perforation in
target core 22.”));
- flowing a fluid into the sample and perforation tunnel while at the
elevated pressure (id. ¶ 33 (“Once perforation 64 has been formed,
the pore pressure is maintained or adjusted to initiate flow through
target core 22.”), Figs. 3–4); and
- conducting flow tests in the sample and perforation tunnel while
the fluid is flowing and while at the elevated pressure (id. ¶¶ 33–34
(“[F]luid is allowed to flow through target core 22 until no further
change in flow rate occurs. Thereafter, any number and type of
flow tests, such as those discussed above, may be performed.
Following flow testing, apparatus 10 is disassembled and target
Appeal 2019-006184
Application 14/653,743

7
core 22 may be cut along its axial axis such that characteristics of
the perforation can be determined.”), Fig. 4).
By this method, Haggerty obtains performance data, including target core
permeabilities, perforation geometry, and differential pressure. Id. ¶ 35.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Haggerty teaches all limitations of
claim 1, except that Haggerty’s testing at elevated pressure does not involve
conducting tomographic scans. Final Act. 5; Ans. 4.
Appellant also has not demonstrated error in the Examiner’s findings
regarding Gilliland. Gilliland teaches a method of measuring properties of
rock samples, including steps of placing a sample under pressure, flowing
fluid through the sample, and conducting tomographic scans of the sample
while the fluid is flowing. Gilliland, Abstract, 3:62–68, 5:38–54. Gilliland
explains that tomographic scanning is useful for determining important
properties like relative permeability and is advantageous because of, e.g.,
“its ability to display the electron density variations within the object
scanned in a two-dimensional X-ray image.” Id. at 1:25–47, 2:40–55, 3:62–
68, 5:54–67; see also id. at 1:10–11 (importance of permeability), 1:54–60
(additional advantages of tomography). Thus, we agree with the Examiner
that Haggerty teaches conducting tomographic scans of a sample while fluid
is flowing through it, in order to determine important flow parameters like
permeability. Final Act. 5; Ans. 5.
In light of these teachings, we discern no error in the Examiner’s
finding that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious
to modify Haggerty’s teachings to conduct tomographic scans of Haggerty’s
perforated formation, such that relative permeability of the perforated
formation can be determined. Final Act. 5. Gilliland supports the
Appeal 2019-006184
Application 14/653,743

8
Examiner’s finding that tomographic scanning is useful for determining
important parameters of formation samples, such as relative permeability.
Gilliland, 2:40–41, 5:40–63. We agree with the Examiner that this
combination “would have allowed for the determination of [flow]
parameters, as well as those disclosed by Haggerty et al., along the length of
the perforation tunnel 64 of Haggerty.” Ans. 5.
We disagree with Appellant’s argument that there is no reason for the
proposed modification, apart from hindsight. See, e.g., Appeal Br. 13, 15–
16. Haggerty teaches all limitations, including the step of conducting flow
tests under pressure, except that Haggerty’s tests are not the specific type
claimed—tomographic scans. Haggerty ¶¶ 32–35. Gilliland teaches
conducting the specific type of flow test that is claimed—tomographic
scans—because tomography provides advantages in determining relative
permeability. Gilliland, 2:40–41, 5:40–63. Permeability is an important
property, and is also detected by Haggerty’s tests. Id. at 2:40–41; Haggerty
¶ 35. Thus, we discern no error in the Examiner’s conclusion that it would
have been obvious to modify Haggerty to include tomographic scanning in
order to better determine relative permeability, as taught by Gilliland.
That Gilliland teaches tomographic scanning of an unperforated
formation is not dispositive. Appeal Br. 13. The test for obviousness is
what the combined teachings of the references as a whole would have
suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art, not merely what Gilliland
discloses. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co.,
Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“Non-obviousness cannot be
established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based
upon the teachings of a combination of references.”). Here, Haggerty
Appeal 2019-006184
Application 14/653,743

9
plainly teaches performing flow tests on a perforated formation under
pressure. Haggerty ¶ 33. We agree with the Examiner that “[t]he
modification of Haggerty et al. to include the step of conducting
tomographic scans would result in [Haggerty’s] perforated formation sample
being scanned.” Ans. 6–7. We also agree with the Examiner that the use of
tomographic scanning “is the same regardless of the characteristics of the
formation sample being scanned,” i.e., whether perforated or not. Id. at 6.
Appellant has not presented any persuasive reasoning to the contrary.
It is also not dispositive that Haggerty fails to disclose tomographic
scanning at elevated pressure. Appeal Br. 14. Again, the Examiner rejected
the claim over the combination of references. Haggerty plainly teaches
performing flow tests at elevated pressure, and Gilliland plainly teaches a
specific type of testing—tomographic scanning. We agree with the
Examiner that the combination of teachings would have led a skilled artisan
to employ Gilliland’s specific testing technique—tomographic scanning—in
the process taught by Haggerty, i.e., while maintaining an elevated pressure
of a perforated sample.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we are not apprised of error in
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, which we affirm. For the same reasons,
we affirm the rejection of claims 2, 6, 7, and 11–13.
Rejections 2, 3, 4 (Claim 9 only), 5 (Claim 10 only), and 6
The Examiner finds that claims 3–5, 8–10, and 18–20, each of which
ultimately depends from claim 1, would have been obvious over the
combined teachings of Haggerty and Gilliland, in further combination with
Blauch, Grader, Maucec, or Lecerf. Final Act. 7–13. Appellant relies upon
its unpersuasive arguments made with respect to claim 1, and further
Appeal 2019-006184
Application 14/653,743

10
contends that Blauch, Grader, Maucec, and Lecerf fail to cure the purported
deficiencies argued regarding claim 1. Appeal Br. 16–18; Reply Br. 6–7.
The Examiner does not rely upon Blauch, Grader, Maucec or Lecerf
to cure the purported deficiencies in the combination of Haggerty and
Gilliland. Final Act. 7–13. Accordingly, Appellant has not apprised us of
error, and we affirm the rejections of claims 3–5, 8–10, and 18–20.
Rejection 4 (Claim 21 only)
The Examiner’s findings regarding independent claim 21 are
substantially similar to those made regarding claim 1, except that the
Examiner relies upon Maucec for the additional step of “collecting image
data . . . and, thereafter, processing the image data to create images of the
flow in the sample.” Final Act. 12–13. Appellant relies upon substantially
the same unpersuasive arguments made with respect to claim 1, and further
contends that Maucec fails to cure the purported deficiencies argued
regarding claim 1. Appeal Br. 18–20; Reply Br. 5–7. However, the
Examiner does not rely upon Maucec to cure the purported deficiencies in
the combination of Haggerty and Gilliland. Final Act. 12–13.
Appellant also contends that “Maucec is cited as allegedly teaching,
‘conducting tomographic scans of flow in the formation sample while fluid
is flowing in the sample,’” and disputes Maucec’s teachings in that regard.
Appeal Br. 19. However, the Examiner does not rely upon Maucec for this
limitation. Final Act. 12–13 (“It would have been considered obvious . . . to
have modified the method of [Haggerty] to include conducting tomographic
scans of the flow through the sample, as suggested by [Gilliland], and
perforation in order to have been able to establish the relative permeability
and capillary pressure of the downhole formation.”) (emphasis added), 13
Appeal 2019-006184
Application 14/653,743

11
(finding that “[Haggerty], as modified, discloses all of the limitations of the
above claim(s) except for the method additionally comprising collecting data
from the tomographic scans and processing the data to form images of the
fluid flow,” and finding that Maucec teaches that limitation).
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we are not apprised of error in
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 21, which we affirm.
Rejections 7 and 8
The Examiner finds that claims 22–24, each of which ultimately
depends from claim 21, would have been obvious over the combined
teachings of Haggerty, Gilliland, and Maucec, in further combination with
Blauch or Lecerf. Final Act. 14–15. Appellant relies upon its unpersuasive
arguments made with respect to claim 21, and further contends that Blauch
and Lecerf fail to cure the purported deficiencies argued regarding claim 21.
Appeal Br. 20–21; Reply Br. 6–7.
The Examiner does not rely upon Blauch or Lecerf to cure the
purported deficiencies in claim 21. Final Act. 14–15. Accordingly, we
affirm the rejection of claims 22–24.
Rejection 5 (Claim 25–27 only)
The Examiner’s findings regarding independent claim 25 are
substantially similar to those made regarding claim 1, except that the
Examiner relies upon Lecerf for the additional step of “using tomographic
scans of the sample made under the elevated pressure to make a three
dimensional image of the walls of the perforation tunnel in the formation
sample.” Final Act. 15–17. Appellant relies upon substantially the same
unpersuasive arguments made with respect to claim 1, and further contends
that Lecerf fails to cure the purported deficiencies argued regarding claim 1.
Appeal 2019-006184
Application 14/653,743

12
Appeal Br. 21–23; Reply Br. 5–7. However, the Examiner does not rely
upon Lecerf to cure the purported deficiencies in the combination of
Haggerty and Gilliland. Final Act. 15–17.
Appellant also contends that “Lecerf is cited as allegedly teaching a
method of collecting tomographic scans of a formation sample and
processing the data to form a three dimensional depiction of a ‘wormhole’ in
the sample,” and disputes Lecerf’s teachings in that regard. Appeal Br. 22.
However, the Examiner does not rely upon Lecerf for the limitation of
conducting tomographic scans while fluid is flowing in the sample. Final
Act. 16 (“It would have been considered obvious . . . to have modified the
method of [Haggerty] to include conducting tomographic scans of the flow
through the sample, as suggested by [Gilliland], and perforation in order to
have been able to establish the relative permeability and capillary pressure of
the downhole formation.”), 16–17 (finding that “[Haggerty], as modified,
discloses all of the limitations of the above claim(s) except for using the
tomographic scans to make a three dimensional image of the walls of the
perforation tunnel in the formation sample,” and finding that Lecerf teaches
that limitation).
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we are not apprised of error in
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 25–27, which we affirm.
Rejections 9 and 10
The Examiner finds that claims 28 and 29, each of which ultimately
depends from claim 25, would have been obvious over the combined
teachings of Haggerty, Gilliland, and Lecerf, in further combination with
Blauch or with Blauch and Maucec. Final Act. 17–19. Appellant relies
upon its unpersuasive arguments made with respect to claim 25, and further
Appeal 2019-006184
Application 14/653,743

13
contends that Blauch and Maucec fail to cure the purported deficiencies
argued regarding claim 25. Appeal Br. 23–24; Reply Br. 6–7.
The Examiner does not rely upon Blauch or Maucec to cure the
purported deficiencies in the combination of Haggerty, Gilliland, and Lecerf.
Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claims 28 and 29.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are AFFIRMED.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 6, 7,
11–13
103 Haggerty, Gilliland 1, 2, 6, 7,
11–13

3–5 103 Haggerty, Gilliland,
Blauch
3–5
8 103 Haggerty, Gilliland,
Grader
8
9, 21 103 Haggerty, Gilliland,
Maucec
9, 21
10, 25–27 103 Haggerty, Gilliland,
Lecerf
10, 25–
27

18–20 103 Haggerty, Gilliland,
Coenen
18–20
22 103 Haggerty, Gilliland,
Maucec, Lecerf
22
23, 24 103 Haggerty, Gilliland,
Maucec, Blauch
23, 24
28 103 Haggerty, Gilliland,
Lecerf, Blauch
28
29 103 Haggerty, Gilliland,
Lecerf, Blauch, Maucec
29
Appeal 2019-006184
Application 14/653,743

14
Overall
Outcome
1–13,
18–29

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED