CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 1, 2021

2020001540 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 1, 2021)

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.
15/152,242 05/11/2016 Hector M. KLIE 072427-609693
(42367US02)
1089
27148 7590 06/01/2021
POLSINELLI PC
900 WEST 48TH PLACE
SUITE 900
KANSAS CITY, MO 64112-1895
EXAMINER
OCHOA, JUAN CARLOS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2127
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/01/2021 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):
patentdocketing@polsinelli.com
rendsley@polsinelli.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte HECTOR M. KLIE, PHIL D. ANNO,
and STACEY C. RAMSAY
____________

Appeal 2020-001540
Application 15/152,242
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges.

MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2020-001540
Application 15/152,242
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1–20, which constitute all the claims pending in
this application; claims 6, 13, and 18 are indicated as containing allowable
subject matter. Final Act. 1, 18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to “determining real-time
drilling operations dysfunctions by measuring the power-loss of signal
propagation associated with a drill string in a wellbore” (Spec., Abstr.).
Claims 1, 8, and 14 are independent; independent claim 1, reproduced
below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A process for determining real-time dysfunctions by
measuring power-loss of signal propagation associated with a
drill string for drilling a wellbore, the process comprising:

a. acquiring a first time series from a mid-string drilling
sub sensor associated with a drill string in a wellbore in a first
well;

b. acquiring a second time series from a sensor associated
with the drill string, the sensor positioned a surface of the earth;

c. determining geometry of the wellbore;

d. determining a first model parameter, a second model
parameter, and a third model parameter for characterizing the
wellbore using the first time series, the second time series, and

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. as the
real party in interest (Appeal Br. 1).
Appeal 2020-001540
Application 15/152,242
3
the geometry of the wellbore by deriving a power loss of signal
propagation; and

e. mitigating a drilling dysfunction while drilling another
well, the drilling dysfunction determined using at least the first
model parameter and the second model parameter.
Appeal Br. 9 (Claims App.).

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is the following:
Name Reference Date
Macdonald US 2002/0120401 A1 Aug. 29, 2002
Yin US 8,731,888 B2 May 20, 2014
Hiltunen et al., “UV‐imprinted single‐mode waveguides with low loss at 
visible wavelength,” IEEE PHOTONICS TECHNOLOGY LETTERS, Vol. 25, No. 10, 
pp. 996–998 (2013)
Bang, “Wellbore Tortuosity Analysed by a Novel Method May Help to 
Improve Drilling, Completion, and Production Operations,” SPE/IADC‐
173103‐MS, pp. 1–16 (2015).

REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being
indefinite (Final Act. 3).2
Claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 10, 11, 14, 16, 17, and 19 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Macdonald and Hiltunen (Final
Act. 4).

2 Neither the Examiner nor Appellant address the indefiniteness rejection.
Accordingly, we summarily affirm this rejection.
Appeal 2020-001540
Application 15/152,242
4
Claims 2, 9, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Macdonald, Hiltunen, and Yin (Final Act. 14).
Claims 5, 7, 12, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Macdonald, Hiltunen, and Bang (Final Act. 15).

ISSUE
The pivotal issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Macdonald and Hiltunen teaches or suggests the limitation
of
d. determining a first model parameter, a second model
parameter, and a third model parameter for characterizing the
wellbore using the first time series, the second time series, and
the geometry of the wellbore by deriving a power loss of signal
propagation,

as recited in independent claim 1, and similarly recited in independent
claims 8 and 14.

ANALYSIS
We note that if Appellant failed to present arguments on a particular
rejection, we will not unilaterally review those uncontested aspects of the
rejection. See Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential); Hyatt v. Dudas, 551 F.3d 1307, 1313–14 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
(The Board may treat arguments Appellant failed to make for a given ground
of rejection as waived.).
Appellant argues that “under the plain meaning of geometry,
MacDonald fails to disclose or reasonably suggest [‘]determining the
geometry of the wellbore[’] (Reply Br. 2, citing Macdonald ¶ 42), because
Appeal 2020-001540
Application 15/152,242
5
[‘]the plain meaning of the term [“]geometry[”’] is [‘]discussed throughout
Appellant’s specification[’] (Reply Br. 2, citing Spec. ¶¶ 27–28, 38).”
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument, as Appellant’s
disclosure provides various exemplary uses of the terms “geometries,”
“geometry,” and “geometrical” (see Spec. ¶¶ 27–28, 38), none of which
serve to limit the use of the claim limitation “geometry of the wellbore” to
exclude Macdonald’s “borehole conditions, such as borehole size,
roughness, and cracks” (Macdonald ¶ 42), which describe the shape and
physical features of the borehole.
Appellant also argues that “[n]o art of record discloses or reasonably
suggests ‘determining . . . [all three] parameter[s] . . . by deriving a power
loss signal propagation’ (Appeal Br. 6 (emphasis in original)). Appellant
contends that “the Examiner’s rejection is flawed because it attempts to
break apart unfragmentable claim features into separate elements to teach
‘determining [all three] parameters’” (Reply Br. 4 (alterations in original)).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. The Examiner finds,
and we agree, that independent claim 1 “lacks specificity of the scope of
deriving” and is silent about the specificity argued by Appellant. Ans. 9–
10. Here, the limitation
d. determining a first model parameter, a second model
parameter, and a third model parameter for characterizing the
wellbore using the first time series, the second time series, and
the geometry of the wellbore by deriving a power loss of signal
propagation

provides no formatting to indicate the deriving must apply to all parameters,
rather than solely the parameter within the comma-delineated clause shared
by the term itself. The Examiner’s choice to interpret “by deriving a power
loss of signal propagation” as only applying to “the geometry of the
Appeal 2020-001540
Application 15/152,242
6
wellbore” is broad but not unreasonable, as the claim includes no explicit
enumeration to indicate the claim terms determined “by deriving a power
loss of signal propagation.”
Appellant in response argues that “MacDonald provides no disclosure
relating to ‘determining a first model parameter, a second model parameter
using the first time series [and] the second time series’” (Reply Br. 4).
Appellant contends that “the Examiner’s Answer, the Final Office Action
and Advisory Action further fail to assert any reasonable teaching of
determining a model parameter using a time series” (Reply Br. 4, citing
Ans. 7).
We agree. The Examiner finds that Macdonald teaches or suggests
the claimed “determining a first model parameter, a second model
parameter, and a third model parameter for characterizing the wellbore”
because Macdonald discloses sensors which
determine the position, inclination and direction of the drill bit
(collectively referred to herein as the “position” or “directional”
parameters) . . . determining the borehole condition, such as the
borehole size, roughness and cracks (collectively referred to as
the “borehole parameters”) . . . determining the locations of the
bed boundaries around and ahead of the BHA; and sensors for
determining other geophysical parameters (collectively referred
to as the “geophysical parameters” [])

(Ans. 7, citing Macdonald ¶ 42). While Macdonald teaches “sensors” that
determine “position or directional parameters,” “borehole parameters,” and
“geophysical parameters” (Macdonald ¶ 42), Macdonald uses the term
“parameter” to describe measured physical features of the system that are
distinct from the Appellant’s claimed “model parameter[s].” In other words,
while the parameter data acquired by Macdonald’s sensors could form a
Appeal 2020-001540
Application 15/152,242
7
time series, there is nothing in Macdonald’s cited portion that teaches or
suggests the sensors measure parameters that are part of a model.
The Examiner then finds that Macdonald teaches or suggests the
claimed “using the first time series, the second time series” because
Macdonald teaches “sensors . . . are used to obtain the values of other
parameters. A downhole analyzer 308 is used to process sensor output data
to determine characteristics” (Ans. 7, citing Macdonald ¶ 61). Again,
Macdonald’s use of “sensors” equates to acquiring data that measures
physical features of the system. This usage is further indicated by
Macdonald’s reference to “process[ing] sensor output data to determine
characteristics” (Macdonald ¶ 61), as it indicates that (unlike Macdonald’s
“parameters”), Macdonald’s “characteristics” may resemble the claimed
“model parameter[s].” However, the record is insufficient as there is no
explanation or identification of the characteristics, and the relation, if any,
among the downhole analyzer, an acquired time series, and neural network.
Accordingly, we are constrained by the record to reverse the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 1, as well as
independent claims 8 and 14 commensurate in scope, and all dependent
claims.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Macdonald and
Hiltunen teaches or suggests the limitation of
d. determining a first model parameter, a second model
parameter, and a third model parameter for characterizing the
wellbore using the first time series, the second time series, and
the geometry of the wellbore by deriving a power loss of signal
propagation,

Appeal 2020-001540
Application 15/152,242
8
as recited in independent claim 1, and similarly recited in independent
claims 8 and 14.

DECISION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35
U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Ba
sis
Affirmed Reversed
1–20 112(b) 1–20
1, 3, 4, 8, 10,
11, 14, 16,
17, 19
103 Macdonald,
Hiltunen
1, 3, 4, 8,
10, 11,
14, 16,
17, 19
2, 9, 15 103 Macdonald,
Hiltunen, Yin
2, 9, 15
5, 7, 12, 20 103 Macdonald,
Hiltunen, Bang
5, 7, 12,
20
OVERALL
OUTCOME
1–20

The Examiner’s decision is affirmed because we have affirmed at
least one ground of rejection with respect to each claim on appeal. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(1) (2017).

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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED