Ex Parte GAJJI et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 21, 2018

14437011 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 21, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/437,0ll 04/20/2015 142050 7590 11/26/2018 HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC. C/0 PARKER JUSTISS, P.C. 14241 DALLAS PARKWAY SUITE 620 DALLAS, TX 75254 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Bhargav GAJJI 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. 2013-068179 Ul US 3244 EXAMINER TANG,SONM ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2685 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE ll/26/2018 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): docket@pj-iplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte BHARGA V GAJJI, ANKIT PUROHIT, RATISH SUHAS KADAM, and RAHUL RAMCHANDRA GAIKWAD Appeal2018-004105 Application 14/437,011 1 Technology Center 2600 Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, NABEEL U. KHAN, and DAVID J. CUTITTA II Administrative Patent Judges. CUTITTA, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) of the Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1-27, which are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. ("Appellant") is the applicant, as provided for under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.46, and is also identified in the Appeal Brief as the real party in interest. See Appeal Br. 3. Appeal2018-004105 Application 14/437,011 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Invention Appellant's invention relates to monitoring properties of down- hole tools during the construction of a well. See Spec. 1 :3--4. 2 Exemplary Claim Claims 1, 12, and 19 are independent. Claim 1 is exemplary and is reproduced below with limitation at issue italicized. 1. A system comprising: a bottom hole assembly (BHA) comprising one or more drill collars and a drill bit connected to the one or more drill collars; and a sensor system for monitoring the BHA, comprising: one or more lengths of optical fiber helically wound and extending along the one or more drill collars; a signal source module comprising an optical signal source arranged to emit an optical signal into the one or more lengths of optical fiber; a signal detection module comprising an optical receiver arranged to detect the optical signal guided from the signal source module by the one or more lengths of optical fiber; a signal processing module comprising an electronic processor in communication with the detection module; and an operator interface in communication with the signal processing module, wherein the signal processing 2 Throughout this Decision, we refer to the following documents: (1) Appellant's Specification, filed April 20, 2015 ("Spec."); (2) the Final Office Action ("Final Act."), mailed February 22, 2017; (3) the Appeal Brief filed September 21, 2017 ("Appeal Br."); (4) the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") mailed January 12, 2018; and (5) the Reply Brief filed March 8, 2018 ("Reply Br."). 2 Appeal2018-004105 Application 14/437,011 module is programmed to, during operation of the system: determine measurement information, based on the detected optical signal, about a thermomechanical property at multiple different locations on the one or more drill collars while the BHA is used to bore a well, and send a signal to the operator interface when measurement information exceeds a threshold. Appeal Br. 11. REFERENCES The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the claims on appeal: Sides III et al. ("Sides") Weirich et al. ("Weirich") Mathiszik et al. ("Mathiszik") us 5,524,937 US 6,176,323 Bl US 2008/0066960 Al REJECTIONS June 11, 1996 Jan.23,2001 Mar. 20, 2008 Claims 1---6 and 10-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Mathiszik and Weirich. Final Act. 3- 6. Claims 7-9 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Mathiszik, Weirich, and Sides. Final Act. 6-7. Our review in this appeal is limited only to the above rejections and the issues raised by Appellant. Arguments not made are waived. See MPEP Â§ 1205.02 (9th ed., Rev. 08.2017 (Jan. 2018)); 37 C.F.R. Â§Â§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) and 4I.39(a)(l). 3 Appeal2018-004105 Application 14/437,011 CONTENTIONS AND ANALYSIS Rejection of Claim 1 UnderÂ§ 103 Issue: Does the Examiner err in finding the cited combination of references teaches or suggests "determine measurement information, based on the detected optical signal, about a thermomechanical property at multiple different locations on the one or more drill collars," as recited in claim 1? The Examiner finds Mathiszik teaches the limitation at issue. See Final Act. 2-3, 9; Ans. 2-3 (citing Mathiszik ,r,r 12, 13, 21, and Fig. 3). Specifically, the Examiner finds, Mathiszik teaches optical sensor( s) such as, pressure sensors (130a---c) and temperature sensors (Tl-T3) are placed at different positions in different locations along one or more lengths of optical fiber helically wound [Fig. 3] and that the temperature sensor is used to detect the thermomechanical properly at multiple different locations on the drill collars. Final Act. 9. Appellant disputes the Examiner's factual findings. Appellant argues "Mathiszik does not teach detecting thermomechanical properties at multiple different locations on the drill collars" because "at best Mathiszik teaches monitoring the temperature of the elastomeric stator of the mud motor or drill bit-not the drill collar as is presently claimed." Appeal Br. 8; see Reply Br. 2. Appellant's argument is unpersuasive of Examiner error. The Examiner finds Mathiszik's Figure 3, reproduced below with additional markings for illustration, teaches detecting thermomechanical properties at 4 Appeal2018-004105 Application 14/437,011 multiple different locations on the drill collars. See Final Act. 9. pressure sensocrs rÂ·pc~Â·P i \? 0 r 130b ur)tical ;,.,â€¢ires120 FIG. 3 Mathiszik's Figure 3 shows pressure sensors 130a---c disposed on mandrel 112. See Mathiszik ,r 32. In describing Figure 3, Mathiszik further discloses that "[t]he mandrel can be a drill collar or other suitable structure." Mathiszik ,r 32. Accordingly, Appellant's argument that "Mathiszik does not teach detecting thermomechanical properties at multiple different locations on the drill collars" is not persuasive. Appeal Br. 8. Appellant also argues that pressure is not a thermomechanical property and so Mathiszik's pressure sensors do not teach "determin[ing] measurement information ... about a thermomechanical property," as claimed. Reply Br. 3. 5 Appeal2018-004105 Application 14/437,011 We are unpersuaded of error because Appellant's Specification discloses that thermomechanical properties include pressure. See Spec. 3: 11-13 ("a monitoring system to monitor the thermomechanical properties of the BHA (e.g., the strain, stress, and pressure experienced by the BHA 112, the shape of the BHA, or the temperature of the BHA) during operation."). For the reasons discussed, Appellant has not shown error in the Examiner's factual findings or conclusion of obviousness. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 rejection of independent claim 1, and of independent claims 12 and 19, which are not argued separately. See Appeal Br. 6. Dependent claims 2-11, 13-18, and 20-27 are also not argued separately and so the rejections of these claims are sustained for the same reasons given for independent claim 1. See Appeal Br. 9. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-27. 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)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 6