HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 20, 2020

14906511 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 20, 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.
14/906,511 01/20/2016 Mathew Dennis Rowe 2013-IP-069218P1 US 6171
15604 7590 04/20/2020
Baker Botts L.L.P.
910 Louisiana Street, One Shell Plaza
Houston, TX 77002
EXAMINER
MCCORMACK, JASON L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2881
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/20/2020 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):
debie.hernandez@bakerbotts.com
susan.stewart@bakerbotts.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MATHEW DENNIS ROWE
and DAVID KIRKPATRICK MUIRHEAD
____________

Appeal 2019-003703
Application 14/906,511
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, DEBRA L. DENNETT, and
JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.

INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 requests our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s decision to finally reject claims 1, 3–5, 9–11, 13, 14, and 17–
20.2 We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to the “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. as the
real party in interest. Appeal Brief filed January 17, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”) at
2.
2 Final Office Action entered August 13, 2018 (“Final Act.”) at 1.
Appeal 2019-003703
Application 14/906,511

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant claims a method and system for analyzing drilling fluid
used in a drilling operation within a subterranean formation. Appeal Br. 2–
3. Independent claims 1 and 11 illustrate the subject matter on appeal, and
are reproduced below:
1. A method for analyzing drilling fluid used in a drilling
operation within a subterranean formation, comprising:
receiving a drilling fluid sample from a flow of drilling
fluid at a surface of the subterranean formation;
determining a chemical composition of the drilling fluid
sample using a mass spectrometer, wherein determining a
chemical composition of the drilling fluid sample further
comprises measuring the chemical composition of an extracted
gas from the drilling fluid sample and measuring the chemical
composition of a liquid portion of the drilling fluid sample;
altering the liquid portion of the drilling fluid sample by
performing pyrolysis on the liquid portion; and
determining a formation characteristic of the
subterranean formation using the determined chemical
composition wherein determining the formation characteristic
using the determined chemical composition comprises
comparing the determined chemical composition to known
chemical compositions of subterranean formations.

11. A system for analyzing drilling fluid used in a drilling
operation within a subterranean formation, comprising:
a fluid circulation system positioned at the surface of the
subterranean formation and configured to pump a flow of
drilling fluid into and receive the flow of drilling fluid from a
borehole in the subterranean formation;
a drilling fluid analyzer in fluid communication with the
fluid circulation system to receive and analyze a drilling fluid
sample from the flow of drilling fluid; and
an information handling system comprising a processor
and a memory device containing a set of instructions that, when
executed by the processor, cause the processor to receive an
output from the drilling fluid analyzer;
Appeal 2019-003703
Application 14/906,511

3
determine a chemical composition of the drilling
fluid sample,
wherein the drilling fluid analyzer analyzes both an
extracted gas from the drilling fluid sample and a liquid portion
of the drilling fluid sample; and
the set of instructions that causes the processor to
determine the chemical composition of the drilling fluid sample
further causes the processor to measure the chemical
composition of the extracted gas and measure the chemical
composition of the liquid portion;
wherein the drilling fluid analyzer comprises a sample
preparation unit that performs pyrolysis on the liquid portion;
and
determine a formation characteristic of the subterranean
formation based, at least in part, on the determined chemical
composition of the drilling fluid sample, wherein the set of
instructions that causes the processor to determine the
formation characteristic based, at least in part, on the
determined chemical composition further causes the processor
to compare the determined chemical composition to known
chemical compositions of subterranean formations.

Appeal Br. 12–14 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis added).
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections in the Examiner’s
Answer entered March 4, 2019 (“Ans.”):
I. Claims 1, 9–11, and 17–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Pop3 in view of Vinegar;4
II. Claims 3 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Pop in view of Vinegar and Kumar;5

3 Pop et al., US 2007/0137293 A1, published June 21, 2007.
4 Vinegar et al., US 2003/0173072 A1, published September 18, 2003.
5 Kumar, US 2012/0285680 A1, published November 15, 2012.
Appeal 2019-003703
Application 14/906,511

4
III. Claims 4 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Pop in view of Vinegar, Kumar, and Evans;6 and
IV. Claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Pop in
view of Vinegar, Kumar, and Crownover.7
FACTUAL FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
Upon consideration of the evidence relied upon in this appeal and
each of Appellant’s contentions, we reverse the Examiner’s rejections of
claims 1, 3–5, 9–11, 13, 14, and 17–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, for reasons
set forth in the Appeal and Reply Briefs, and below.
Claim 1 requires the recited method for analyzing drilling fluid used
in a drilling operation within a subterranean formation to comprise, in part,
receiving a drilling fluid sample from a flow of drilling fluid at a surface of a
subterranean formation, and altering a liquid portion of the drilling fluid
sample by performing pyrolysis on the liquid portion. Claim 11 requires the
recited system for analyzing drilling fluid used in a drilling operation within
a subterranean formation to comprise, in part, a fluid circulation system
positioned at the surface of a subterranean formation and configured to
pump a flow of drilling fluid into, and receive the flow of drilling fluid from,
a borehole in the subterranean formation, and a drilling fluid analyzer in
fluid communication with the fluid circulation system to receive and analyze
a drilling fluid sample from the flow of drilling fluid, the drilling fluid
analyzer comprising a sample preparation unit that performs pyrolysis on a
liquid portion of the drilling fluid sample.

6 Evans, US 4,287,957, issued September 8, 1981.
7 Crownover, US 4,635,735, issued January 13, 1987.
Appeal 2019-003703
Application 14/906,511

5
The Examiner finds that Pop discloses a method and system for
analyzing drilling fluid used in a drilling operation within a subterranean
formation having all the features recited in claims 1 and 11, except that Pop
does not disclose altering a liquid portion of a drilling fluid sample by
performing pyrolysis on the liquid portion of the sample. Final Act. 2–4, 6–
8 (citing Pop ¶¶ 19–22). The Examiner finds, however, that Vinegar
discloses that liquid hydrocarbons in a formation may be low grade
hydrocarbons such as heavy hydrocarbons, and heat from heat sources may
mobilize and/or pyrolyze the low grade hydrocarbons. Final Act. 4, 8 (citing
Vinegar ¶ 2599). The Examiner finds that Vinegar discloses that
“[p]yrolyzation and removal of pyrolyzation products may increase the
permeability of the selected section of the formation. The increased
permeability may facilitate flow of liquid hydrocarbons originally in the
formation towards the production wells.” Final Act. 4, 8 (citing Vinegar
¶ 2598).
In view of these disclosures in Vinegar, the Examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
Appellant’s invention to modify Pop’s method and system “with the
pyrolyzation step of Vinegar in order to improve the flow of the liquid
portion of the sample in Pop [] towards an analysis location, thereby
preventing clogging and improving the reliability of measurements in the
device by stabilizing flow rate to the analyzer.” Final Act. 5, 8–9.
On the record before us, however, the Examiner does not articulate
reasoning having rational underpinning that explains why one of ordinary
skill in the art would have combined the relied-upon disclosures of Pop and
Appeal 2019-003703
Application 14/906,511

6
Vinegar to arrive at the method and system of claims 1 and 11, for reasons
expressed by Appellant and discussed below.
Pop discloses a method for determining a property of one or more
formations surrounding an earth borehole being drilled with a drill bit at the
end of a drill string, using drilling fluid that flows downward through the
drill string, exits through the drill bit, and returns toward the earth’s surface
in an annulus between the drill string and the borehole. Pop ¶ 19. Pop
discloses that the method involves obtaining, downhole near the drill bit, a
pre-bit sample of the mud in the drill string as it approaches the drill bit, and
obtaining, downhole near the drill bit, a post-bit sample of the mud in the
annulus, entrained with drilled earth formation, after its egression from the
drill bit. Id. Pop discloses performing a first extraction step on the pre-bit
and post-bit samples that “comprises extracting, from the sample[s], gases
which are present, and volatile hydrocarbon components as a gas.” Pop
¶ 53; Fig. 4. Pop discloses performing “one or more subsequent extraction
steps” on the pre-bit and post-bit samples that involve heating the samples to
extract volatile components, and extracting non-volatile liquids from the
samples by “boiling the liquids off.” Id. Pop discloses performing
compositional analysis on the extracted components of the pre-bit and post-
bit samples. Pop ¶¶ 21, 54.
Vinegar discloses an in situ process for heating a formation containing
kerogen and liquid hydrocarbons that involves providing heat from one or
more heat sources installed in the formation to a selected section of the
formation. Vinegar ¶¶ 41, 42, 2596, 2600. Vinegar discloses that the heat
mobilizes liquid hydrocarbons originally present in the selected section of
the formation to facilitate flow of the liquid hydrocarbons towards
Appeal 2019-003703
Application 14/906,511

7
production wells. Vinegar ¶ 2596. Vinegar discloses that the heat provided
to the selected portion of the formation may pyrolyze a portion of kerogen in
the formation, and may also pyrolyze low grade hydrocarbons, such as
heavy hydrocarbons, within the formation. Vinegar ¶¶ 2596, 2599. Vinegar
discloses that pyrolyzation and removal of pyrolyzation products may
increase the permeability of the selected section of the formation, which may
facilitate the flow of liquid hydrocarbons originally present in the formation
towards production wells. Vinegar ¶ 2598.
Appellant argues that, absent hindsight, one of ordinary skill in the art
would not have been motivated to use Vinegar’s in-situ downhole pyrolysis
process in Pop’s method of analyzing a drilling fluid, because Vinegar
teaches using pyrolysis to increase the permeability of a formation to
facilitate the flow of liquid hydrocarbons originally present in the formation
towards production wells. Appeal Br. 8–10.
The Examiner responds to Appellant’s arguments in the Answer by
asserting that “Pop and Vinegar are each concerned with improving the
mobility of hydrocarbons through a formation for extraction.” Ans. 6. The
Examiner contends that “Pop specifically references heating to perform
‘extraction,’” and Vinegar explicitly teaches that “[p]yrolyzation and
removal of pyrolyzation products may increase the permeability of the
selected section of the formation. The increased permeability may facilitate
flow of liquid hydrocarbons originally in the formation towards the
production wells.” Ans. 6 (citing Pop ¶ 64; Vinegar ¶ 2598). The Examiner
determines that “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the
desire for increased mobility of the drilling fluid flow, expressed in Pop, and
Appeal 2019-003703
Application 14/906,511

8
would have recognized the teachings of Vinegar as enhancing the mobility
of fluid flow.” Ans. 6.
Contrary to the Examiner’s assertions, however, as discussed above,
Pop discloses obtaining samples from a drill string near a drill bit in a
borehole (pre-bit samples), and obtaining samples from an annulus between
the drill string and the borehole (post-bit samples). The paragraph of Pop
cited by the Examiner in the Answer as expressing a “desire for increased
mobility of the drilling fluid flow” (¶ 64) discloses heating the pre-bit and
post-bit samples to extract gases, volatile components, and non-volatile
liquids from samples. We find no disclosure in this paragraph expressing a
“desire for increased mobility of the drilling fluid flow” as the Examiner
contends. The Examiner, therefore, does not identify any actual disclosure
in Pop that describes or would have suggested improving the mobility of
hydrocarbons in a formation for extraction.
Consequently, the Examiner’s assertion that Vinegar’s disclosure of
heating a formation in situ using heat sources installed in the formation to
pyrolyze kerogen and heavy hydrocarbons, and removing the pyrolyzation
products, to increase the permeability of the formation to facilitate the flow
of liquid hydrocarbons towards production wells, would have led one of
ordinary skill in the art to modify Pop’s method and system “with the
pyrolyzation step of Vinegar in order to improve the flow of the liquid
portion of the sample in Pop [] towards an analysis location” lacks rational
underpinning, and appears to be based on hindsight, as Appellant argues.
Accordingly, the Examiner does not establish that the combined
disclosures of Pop and Vinegar would have suggested receiving a drilling
fluid sample from a flow of drilling fluid at a surface of a subterranean
Appeal 2019-003703
Application 14/906,511

9
formation, and altering a liquid portion of the drilling fluid sample by
performing pyrolysis on the liquid portion, as required by claim 1. Nor does
the Examiner establish that that the combined disclosures of Pop and
Vinegar would have suggested a fluid circulation system positioned at the
surface of a subterranean formation and configured to pump a flow of
drilling fluid into, and receive the flow of drilling fluid from, a borehole in
the subterranean formation, and a drilling fluid analyzer in fluid
communication with the fluid circulation system to receive and analyze a
drilling fluid sample from the flow of drilling fluid, the drilling fluid
analyzer comprising a sample preparation unit that performs pyrolysis on a
liquid portion of the drilling fluid sample, as required by claim 11.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and
11, and claims 3–5, 9, 10, 13, 14, and 17–20, which each depend from either
claim 1 or claim 11, under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
CONCLUSION

Claims

35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 9–11, 17–20 103 Pop, Vinegar 1, 9–11, 17–20
3, 13 103 Pop, Vinegar,
Kumar
3, 13
4, 14 103 Pop, Vinegar,
Kumar, Evans
4, 14
5 103 Pop, Vinegar,
Kumar,
Crownover
5
Overall
Outcome
1, 3–5, 9–11,
13, 14, 17–20

REVERSED