Ex Parte Brown

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 6, 2016

12376946 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 6, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/376,946 05/21/2009 35204 7590 04/08/2016 SCHLUMBERGER ROSHARON CAMPUS 10001 Richmond IP - Center of Excellence Houston, TX 77042 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR George Albert Brown 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 101.0209PCT/US 1326 EXAMINER GAY, JENNIFER HAWKINS ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3676 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/08/2016 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): usdocketing@slb.com jalverson@slb.com SMarckesoni@slb.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte GEORGE ALBERT BROWN Appeal2014-000706 Application 12/376,946 Technology Center 3600 Before MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, JILL D. HILL, and ERIC C. JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judges. HILL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE George Albert Brown (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3-10, 12-21, 23, and 24. 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We AFFIRM, designating the affirmance a NEW GROUND OF REJECTION. 1 Claims 2, 11, 22, and 25 have been canceled. See Amendment dated Sept. 28, 2011. Appeal2014-000706 Application 12/376,946 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Independent claims 1, 10, and 18 are pending. Claim 1 illustrates the claimed subject matter and is reproduced below with the disputed limitation italicized. 1. A method of monitoring a well, comprising: deploying a temperature sensor system along a wellbore outside a wellbore commingled flow region; and using the temperature sensor system to measure and monitor individual reservoir layer pressures over time while the well is producing by measuring the Joule-Thom[] son warming or cooling caused by pressure changes along the wellbore. Appeal Br. 13, Claims App. REJECTION Claims 1, 3-10, 12-21, 23, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Patel (US 2003/0221829 Al, pub. Dec. 4, 2003), Tubel (US 2003/0131990 Al, pub. July 17, 2003), Williams (US 2004/0112596 Al, pub. June 17, 2004), and Kumar (Sanjay Kumar, Gas Production Engineering 360 (Gulf Pub. Co., Book Division 1987)). Non- Final Act. 3. OPINION Claims 1, 3-10, and 12-17 Appellant argues claims 1, 3-10, and 12-17 as a group. Appeal Br. 9. We select independent claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv)(2015). Claims 3-10 and 12-17 stand or fall with claim 1. The Examiner finds, inter alia, that Williams teaches using a "temperature sensor system to monitor downhole production zones" and determining the fluid content or profile for the zones from the measured 2 Appeal2014-000706 Application 12/376,946 temperature profile using the Joule-Thomson effect. Non-Final Act. 4. The Examiner finds that Williams thus "discloses measuring pressure based on temperature measurements." Id. The Examiner further relies upon Kumar to establish that the Joule-Thomson effect is old and well-known. Id. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify the system of Patel as combined with Tubel to use obtained temperature profiles to measure and monitor individual reservoir layer pressures over time, and to employ the Joule-Thomson effect as taught by Williams "to have been able to determine the fluid located within each layer." Non-Final Act. 5. Patel, Tube!, and Kumar Appellant argues that: (1) Patel does not disclose or suggest deploying a "temperature sensor system" to measure "temperature and pressure while the wellbore is being produced;" (2) Tubel "provides no additional disclosure or teaching related to measuring reservoir layer pressures by deploying a temperature sensor system to measure Joule- Thomson changes;" and (3) Kumar "provides no teaching regarding using a temperature sensor system along a wellbore to monitor individual reservoir layer pressures over time by measuring the Joule-Thomson warming or cooling along the wellbore." Appeal Br. 7-9. The Examiner responds that these arguments fail to address the findings made regarding Patel, Tubel, and Kumar, and that none of Patel, Tubel, and Kumar are individually required to disclose or show all of the features of the claims (Ans. 5, 6, 10), noting that one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re 3 Appeal2014-000706 Application 12/376,946 Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981); Jn re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Appellant responds that, rather than attacking the references individually, insufficiencies of the "references were discussed to demonstrate cumulative failure of the references to show elements of the pending claims." Reply Br. 7. We therefore tum to the arguments regarding Williams, which is found to teach the claimed use of a temperature sensor to measure pressure using the Joule-Thomson effect. Williams Appellant argues that, while Williams teaches using measured temperature differences to identify fluid types using the Joule-Thomson effect, such disclosure "does not teach the deployment of temperature sensors to monitor individual reservoir layer pressures over time." Appeal Br. 8. The Examiner acknowledges that "Williams does not specifically use the temperature profile and the Joule-Thom[]son effect to determine pressures," but contends that Williams' disclosure of using the Joule- Thomson effect, which represents a known relationship between the temperature and pressure for a given fluid type, teaches the ability to determine pressure from temperature, even if it instead utilized the known relationship to determine a fluid type from a known pressure and temperature. See Ans. 8-9. Appellant replies that the Examiner has admitted that Williams does not disclose using a temperature sensor to monitor reservoir layer pressures via Joule-Thomson warming or cooling, and that the "indicated knowledge of the Joule-Thom[] son effect provides no teaching regarding using a 4 Appeal2014-000706 Application 12/376,946 temperature sensor system along a wellbore to monitor individual reservoir layer pressures over time by measuring Joule-Thomson warming or cooling along the wellbore." Reply Br. 6. Appellant further disagrees with the Examiner's determination that Williams discloses measuring the pressure at each layer in teaching use of the Joule-Thomson effect's known relationship between the temperature and pressure for a given fluid type. Reply Br. 7. In Williams, a well bore is disclosed where temperature is measured to identify fluids at a given pressure. See Williams i-fi-126-27. The Joule- Thomson coefficient can be determined from the measured temperature and the pressure, and used to identify the type of fluid present at varied locations in the well bore. Id. Regarding Joule-Thomson warming or cooling of fluids, Appellant's Specification explains that warming or cooling of fluids entering a well is caused by the pressure drop resulting from fluid flowing from the reservoir boundaries to the edge of the wellbore. Spec. i-f 12. Appellant's Specification also refers to the pressure drop of transitioning fluids as causing warming or cooling "according to the well-defined Joule-Thomson relationship." Id. i-f 14. Appellant states that the reservoir pressure is obtained by multiplying the "measured change in temperature by the Joule- Thomson coefficient for the particular fluid flowing from the reservoir. Joule-Thomson coefficients have been established for a variety of production fluids and are readily obtained, as known to those of ordinary skill in the art." Id. i120. It is therefore our understanding, gleaned from Appellant's own disclosure, that there is a known relationship among a fluid type, its pressure, and its temperature, and that one skilled in the art would 5 Appeal2014-000706 Application 12/376,946 know how to determine (via a Joule-Thomson coefficient) a fluid type with a known pressure and temperature. Given this known Joule-Thomson relationship, even if Williams does not explicitly discuss measuring pressure based on temperature measurements and liquid type, we agree with the Examiner's determination that, given the Joule-Thomson relationship of wellbore fluid type, pressure, and temperature taught by Williams, it would have been obvious to use established Joule-Thomson coefficients and a temperature measurement to determine the pressure of a known fluid in the wellbore of Patel/Tubel. See Non-Final Act. 5 ("This would have achieved the predictable result of providing additional fluid flow information[,] thus allowing more accurate control of production from each zone."). We agree with the Examiner's conclusion that Joule-Thomson warming or cooling, which is admitted to be known to those skilled in the art (Spec. i-f 20) and which is disclosed by Williams as useful in determining characteristics of various well bore layers (Williams i-fi-126-27), renders obvious the use of Joule-Thomson warming or cooling to determine pressure in a wellbore where the Joule-Thomson coefficient is known and the temperature is measured. Indeed, lacking any explanation or evidence presented by Appellant to the contrary, we agree with the Examiner's conclusion that if one skilled in the art would know how to use Joule- Thomson warming or cooling to determine fluid type from temperature and pressure information, then one skilled in the art would also know how to use Joule-Thomson warming or cooling to determine pressure based on temperature and fluid type. Further, application of the known Joule- Thomson technique to the known well monitoring technique of Patel as 6 Appeal2014-000706 Application 12/376,946 modified by Tubel would yield predictable results, and thus would have been obvious. See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) ("The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results."). We are not persuaded that the Examiner's factual findings are in error, nor are we persuaded that the Examiner's reasoning lacks a rational underpinning. We therefore sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3-10, and 12- 1 7. Because the reasoning set forth above provides a more detailed explanation of, and perhaps expands upon, the Examiner's stated reasoning, we designate our affirmance of claims 1, 3-10, and 12-17 a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.50(b). Claims 18-21, 23, and 24 Appellant argues claims 18-21, 23, and 24 as a group. Appeal Br. 11. We select independent claim 18 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Claims 19-21, 23, and 24 stand or fall with claim 18. Claim 18 recites "utilizing the fiber optic sensor to track reservoir layer pressures based on changes in temperature relative to the geothermal temperature at the multiple depths along the well bore." Appeal Br. 15. Although not reciting Joule-Thomson warming or cooling, claim 18 recites tracking pressure via temperature, which Appellant has disclosed as being performed using the Joule-Thomson warming or cooling. Spec. i-f 12. Appellant again argues that Williams fails to teach using measured temperature to determine pressure. For the reasons set forth above regarding claim 1, we are not persuaded that the Examiner's factual findings are in error, nor are we persuaded that the Examiner's reasoning lacks a rational underpinning. We therefore sustain the rejection of claims 18-21, 23, and 7 Appeal2014-000706 Application 12/376,946 24. However, because the reasoning set forth above provides a more detailed explanation of, and perhaps expands upon, the Examiner's stated reasoning, we designate our affirmance of claims 18-21, 23, and 24 a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.50(b). Hindsight Appellant alleges that the Examiner's legal conclusion of obviousness was based on hindsight. Reply Br. 7. This argument is made for the first time in Appellant's Reply Brief, does not appear to be responsive to any argument raised in the Examiner's Answer, and good cause has not been shown as to why this argument was not presented earlier. We decline to consider these arguments without providing the Examiner with an opportunity to respond. See 37 CPR 41.41(b)(2); MPEP 1205.02 (iv). DECISION We AFFIRivI the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3-10, 12-21, 23, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Patel, Tubel, Williams, and Kumar, designating the affirmance a NEW GROUND OF REJECTION. FINALITY OF DECISION This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.50(b). 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.50(b) provides "[a] new ground of rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review." 8 Appeal2014-000706 Application 12/376,946 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.50(b) also provides that Appellant, WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection to avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims: ( 1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of the claims so rejected or new evidence relating to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the proceeding will be remanded to the examiner. ... (2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard under Â§ 41.52 by the Board upon the same record .... No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED; 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.50(b) 9