CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 19, 2020

2020001698 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 19, 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.
14/278,124 05/15/2014 Joe D. ALLISON 072427-606342
(41853US01)
5748
27148 7590 11/19/2020
POLSINELLI PC
900 WEST 48TH PLACE
SUITE 900
KANSAS CITY, MO 64112-1895
EXAMINER
LEFF, ANGELA MARIE DITRAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3674
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/19/2020 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):
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 JOE D. ALLISON
____________

Appeal 2020-001698
Application 14/278,124
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and
BRUCE T. WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judges.

MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 13–22 and 24–31. We have jurisdiction over this appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE.

1 The Appellant is the “applicant” as defined by 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (e.g., “the
inventor”). “The real party in interest for this Appeal is: ConocoPhillips
Company.” (Appeal Br. 2.)
Appeal 2020-001698
Application 14/278,124

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant discloses “a method for determining the geometry of a
fracture in a subterranean formation.” (Spec. ¶ 9.)
Independent Claims on Appeal
13. A method for determining geometry of a fracture in a
subterranean formation, the method comprising:
a. injecting a coated proppant into the fracture to cause
the fracture to function as an emitting antenna while opening
the fracture or holding the fracture open, the coated proppant
including a proppant suspended in an electrically-conductive
coating, the electrically-conductive coating (i) deposited on a
proppant surface of the proppant, (ii) stabilized with an
oxidizing agent, and (iii) including a mixture of carbon residue
forming material and a solvent, the coated proppant carbonized
and graphitized, the carbon residue forming material being
petroleum pitch, the solvent being toluene, xylene, quinoline,
tetrahydrofuran, tetralin, or naphthalene;
b. sending, via electrical connections, a time-varying
electrical signal into the fracture to charge the coated proppant,
the time-varying electrical signal generated at a top surface
above the fracture;
c. detecting, via a plurality of surface antennas at the top
surface, the time-varying electrical signal, the plurality of
surface antennas spaced from each other over an area above the
fracture; and
d. determining the geometry of the fracture based on the
time-varying electrical signal detected by the plurality of
surface antennas.

14. A method for determining geometry of a fracture in a
subterranean formation, the method comprising:
a. injecting a coated proppant coated [sic] into the
fracture, the coated proppant including a proppant suspended in
an electrically-conductive coating material deposited on a
surface of the proppant and stabilized with an oxidizing agent,
the coated proppant carbonized and graphitized;
Appeal 2020-001698
Application 14/278,124

3
b. sending a time-varying electrical signal into the
fracture to charge the coated proppant;
c. detecting, via a plurality of surface antennas, the time-
varying electrical signal, the plurality of surface antennas
spaced from each other over an area above the fracture; and
d. determining the geometry of the fracture based on the
time-varying electrical signal detected by the plurality of
surface antennas.
References
Thoraval US 4,511,843 Apr. 16, 1985
McCarthy US 2006/0102345 A1 May 18, 2006
Mao US 7,323,120 B2 Jan. 29, 2008
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 13–20, 22, and 24–31 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over McCarthy and Mao. (Final Action 2–8.)
The Examiner rejects claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over McCarthy, Mao, and Thoraval. (Final Action 9.)
ANALYSIS
Independent claims 13 and 14 set forth “[a] method for determining
geometry of a fracture in a subterranean formation.” (Appeal Br., Claims
App.) The claimed method comprises “sending” an electrical signal “into
the fracture to charge [a] coated proppant.” (Id.) The claimed method
further comprises “detecting” said electrical signal “via a plurality of surface
antennas” that are “spaced from each other over an area above the fracture.”
(Id.)
The Examiner’s obviousness rejection is premised upon McCarthy
disclosing the claimed detecting step. (See Final Action 2–3, 6–8.) The
Appeal 2020-001698
Application 14/278,124

4
Appellant argues that this premise is flawed (see Appeal Br. 4); and we are
persuaded by the Appellant’s argument.
McCarthy discloses “a borehole 10” that “penetrates a subsurface
formation of interest 11” (McCarthy ¶ 19) and “a logging tool 20” that “is
lowered into the borehole 10 to a position adjacent to the bottom of the
formation 11” (id. ¶ 20).2 McCarthy’s borehole 10, subsurface formation 11
(i.e., fracture), and logging tool 20 are shown in the drawing below.

The above drawing “represents an exemplary embodiment of a method of
introduction of the logging tool into the bore hole [sic] in order to determine
facture geometry.” (Id. ¶ 11.) In McCarthy’s disclosed method, a proppant
is “introduced” into the formation/fracture 11 (id. ¶ 15), and the logging

2 Our quotations to McCarthy throughout this opinion omit the bolding of
reference numerals.
Appeal 2020-001698
Application 14/278,124

5
tool 20 “is raised so as to traverse the formation 11 from bottom to top” (id.
¶ 22). “During such traversal,” the logging tool 20 “transmits” electrical
signals “into” the formation/fracture 11 and “collects” electrical signals
“from” the proppant. (Id.)
McCarthy discloses that the logging tool 20 “is provided with
antennas” to “transmit” and “receive” electrical signals. (McCarthy ¶ 20.)
Thus, according to the Examiner, McCarthy detects the recited electrical
signal (i.e., an electrical signal sent into the fracture to charge a coated
proppant) via the antennas provided on its logging tool 20.
As indicated above, independent claims 13 and 14 require the
plurality of antennas to be “spaced from each other over an area above the
fracture.” (Appeal Br., Claims App.) The Examiner explains that, when
McCarthy’s logging tool 20 “is moved from the bottom to the top of the
wellbore, the logging tool will pass the fracture at a point in time at which it
will then be positioned above the fracture.” (Final Action 10.) The
Examiner also explains that McCarthy’s antennas would be above the
fracture “at the point in time at which the logging tool is at the top of the
formation 11.” (Answer 5–6.)
The trouble with the Examiner’s explanation is that it does not address
all of the requirements of the claimed detecting step. Independent claims 13
and 14 do not just require the plurality of antennas to be positioned above
the fracture, they require “detecting” the recited electrical signal (i.e., the
electrical signal sent into the fracture to charge the coated proppant) “via”
these above-the-fracture antennas. (Appeal Br., Claims App.) The
Examiner does not maintain that, much less explain why, McCarthy’s
Appeal 2020-001698
Application 14/278,124

6
antennas detect the recited electrical signal when they are moved to a
position above the fracture.
The Examiner’s further findings and determinations with respect
to the dependent claims do not compensate for the above-discussed
shortcoming in the rejection of independent claims 13 and 14. (See Final
Action 5–6, 8–9.) Thus, on the record before us, we cannot sustain the
Examiner’s rejections.
CONCLUSION
Claims
Rejected
Basis References Affirmed Reversed
13–20, 22,
24–31
35 U.S.C.
§ 103
McCarthy,
Mao
13–20, 22,
24 –31
21 35 U.S.C.
§ 103
McCarthy,
Mao,
Thoraval
21
Overall
Outcome
13–22,
24–29
REVERSED