HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 25, 2020

2020000328 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 25, 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.
15/100,027 05/27/2016 Aimee Kathleen Greening 140846-056912US 4092
127406 7590 06/25/2020
Chamberlain Hrdlicka
Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.
1200 Smith St., 14th Floor
Houston, TX 77002
EXAMINER
ANDREWS, DAVID L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3672
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/25/2020 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 AIMEE KATHLEEN GREENING,
ROBERT G. HOWARD, and
GIUSEPPE AMBROSI
____________________

Appeal 2020-000328
Application 15/100,027
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, NINA L. MEDLOCK, 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), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-000328
Application 15/100,027

2
According to Appellant, the “disclosure relates generally to equipment
utilized and operations performed in conjunction with a subterranean well[,]
and . . . more particularly provides a bypass system and method for use with
a fluidic oscillator downhole.” Spec. 1, ll. 10–14. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are
the independent claims on appeal. Below, we reproduce independent
claim 1 as illustrative of the appealed claims.
1. A fluidic oscillator assembly for use in a
subterranean well, the assembly comprising:
a fluidic oscillator comprising a plurality of intersecting
fluid paths formed in a structure between an inlet of the fluidic
oscillator and an outlet of the fluidic oscillator, wherein flowing
fluid through the fluidic oscillator produces oscillations in the
fluid; and
a closure that in a first position prevents fluid flow
through the fluidic oscillator to an exterior of the assembly, and
in a second position permits fluid flow through the fluidic
oscillator to the exterior of the assembly.
REJECTION AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Tschirky2 and Fripp.3
ANALYSIS
As set forth above, independent claim 1 recites, in relevant part, that
the fluidic oscillator assembly includes “a fluidic oscillator comprising a
plurality of intersecting fluid paths formed in a structure between an inlet of
the fluidic oscillator and an outlet of the fluidic oscillator, wherein flowing
fluid through the fluidic oscillator produces oscillations in the fluid.”

2 Tschirky et al., US 3,989,114, issued Nov. 2, 1976 (“Tschirky”).
3 Fripp et al., US 2011/0042092 A1, published Feb. 24, 2011 (“Fripp”).
Appeal 2020-000328
Application 15/100,027

3
Appeal Br., Claims App. The Examiner relies on Tschirky to disclose the
claimed fluidic oscillator (albeit without the claimed plurality of intersecting
fluid paths.) See, e.g., Answer 3–4; see Final Action 2–4. According to the
Examiner, it would have been obvious to modify Tschirky’s fluidic
oscillator to include Fripp’s plurality of intersecting fluid paths. See Final
Action 3–4.
In particular, the Examiner relies on Tschirky’s element “15” to
disclose the claimed fluidic oscillator. See id. Tschirky identifies
element 15 as a “port” bored in housing 3. See, e.g., Tschirky col. 3,
ll. 31–33. Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection is in error because
Tschirky does not disclose a fluidic oscillator. See, e.g., Appeal Br. 11.
Based on our review of the record, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of independent claim 1 because the Examiner does not
support adequately that Tschirky’s port 15 and/or housing 3 disclose a
fluidic oscillator.
As stated above, Tschirky names the structures under discussion as
“port” 15 and “housing” 3. See, e.g., Tschirky col. 3, ll. 31–33. Neither
name informs us that the structures are “fluidic oscillators.” Appeal Br.,
Claims App. (Claim 1). To the extent that the Examiner further explains
how Tschirky’s port 15 and housing 3 disclose the claimed fluidic oscillator,
the Examiner states the following:
To the [E]xaminer’s understanding, . . . [the claim term] would
encompass the structure of Tschirky . . . [which] provid[es] a
fluidic system where flow may occur or may not occur, via a
controlled action, thus providing a fluidic oscillation, and
therefore the structures which provide or even merely
Appeal 2020-000328
Application 15/100,027

4
accommodate such action would be considered . . . [the
claimed] “fluidic oscillator.”
Answer 3. This is inadequate to support the rejection. Without additional
explanation or evidence from the Examiner, we disagree with the Examiner
that because fluid flow may be permitted and prevented through Tschirky’s
port 15 and housing 3, these structures therefore disclose the claimed fluidic
oscillator. Further, even if we agreed with the Examiner that Tschirky’s
port 15 and housing 3 may be operated as the Examiner states—i.e., “to
provid[e] a fluidic system where flow may occur or may not occur, via a
controlled action”—and that such operation would disclose the claimed
fluidic oscillator, the Examiner still inadequately supports the rejection.
This is because the Examiner does not establish either that Tschirky provides
the Examiner-described flow by any such “controlled action,” and does not
establish that it would have been obvious to control Tschirky’s structure as
the Examiner states. Although we do not precisely delineate the scope of the
claim term “fluidic oscillator,” more than the ability to turn flow on and off
through a structure is required for the structure to disclose a “fluidic
oscillator.”
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection
of independent claim 1. We also do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of independent claims 8 and 15 that include a similar recitation as,
and the Examiner rejects with, claim 1. Further, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 2–7, 9–14, and 16–20 that
depend from the independent claims.
CONCLUSION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 1–20.
Appeal 2020-000328
Application 15/100,027

5
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis/Reference(s) Affirmed Reversed
1–20 103 Tschirky, Fripp 1–20
REVERSED