Ex Parte Garcia et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 27, 201813096541 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/096,541 04/28/2011 Gonzalo A. Garcia 44639 7590 03/29/2018 CANTOR COLBURN LLP- BAKER HUGHES INCORPORATED 20 Church Street 22nd Floor Hartford, CT 06103 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. ICD4-49471-US (BA00618US) 4766 EXAMINER CHAD,ANISS ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2123 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/29/2018 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): usptopatentmail@cantorcolbum.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte GONZALO A. GARCIA, LUIS A. GARCIA, and RONNIE D. RUSSELL Appeal2017-007165 Application 13/096,541 1 Technology Center 2100 Before THU A. DANG, MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, and SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-24, which constitute all claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We AFFIRM. 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Baker Hughes Incorporated. Br. 2. Appeal2017-007165 Application 13/096,541 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Claimed Invention Appellants' claimed invention relates to simulating fluid flow in a wellbore, in order to determine optimal geometry of flow control devices for the wellbore. Spec. 1-2. Claims 1 and 13 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and the subject matter of the appeal, and reads as follows (with disputed limitations emphasized): 1. A method of providing a production string for a wellbore formed in a formation, comprising: defining a performance criterion for flow of a fluid from a formation into a wellbore; performing a simulation using a processor, a simulation program, a parameter of the fluid, a parameter of the formation and a parameter of the wellbore to determine a first flow characteristic of the flow of the fluid from the formation into the wellbore corresponding to an initial set of flow control devices arranged in the wellbore; comparing the first flow characteristic to the performance criterion; iteratively creating a new set of flow control devices; performing one or more additional simulations using the processor, the simulation program and the parameters of formation, fluid and wellbore to determine a new flow characteristic of the flow of the fluid from the formation into the wellbore for the new set of flow control devices; iteratively creating a new flow control device geometry corresponding to at least one new flow control device of the new set of flow control devices during the one or more additional simulations in response to the parameter of the fluid, the parameter of the formation and the parameter of the well bore; comparing each of the new flow characteristics of the one or more additional simulations to the performance criterion; 2 Appeal2017-007165 Application 13/096,541 identifying a desired a flow characteristic from a group consisting of the first flow characteristic and the new flow characteristics of the one or more additional simulations that meets the performance criterion; and storing results of simulation results relating to the flow control devices in a suitable storage medium. Br. 15-16 (Claims App'x). The Rejections on Appeal Claims 1-24 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Final Act. 5-6. Claims 1-24 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Atkinson et al. (US 8,025,072 B2; Sept. 27, 2011) ("Atkinson") and Coronado et al., New Inflow Control Device Reduces Fluid Viscosity Sensitivity and Maintains Erosion Resistance, OTC, (2009) ("Coronado"). Final Act. 6-16. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' arguments presented in this appeal. Arguments which Appellants could have made but did not make in the Brief are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). On the record before us, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the rejections from which the appeal is taken and in the Examiner's Answer, and provide the following discussion for highlighting and emphasis. Rejection Under Pre-AJA 35 US.C. § 112, First Paragraph The Examiner rejects all pending claims as failing to comply with the written description requirement because the limitation "creating a new set of 3 Appeal2017-007165 Application 13/096,541 flow [control] devices" (in independent claims 1 and 13) lacks support in the Specification. Final Act. 6. Appellants argue the rejection is overcome by "amendments submitted July 26, 2016." Br. 5. The record before us indicates, however, that the amendments to which Appellants refer were not entered, and the Examiner has not withdrawn the rejection. See Advisory Action dated August 12, 2016. Appellants do not otherwise dispute the rejection or demonstrate that it is erroneous. Br. 5. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 1-24 for failure to comply with the written description requirement. Rejection Under Pre-AJA 35 US.C. § 103(a) Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding Coronado teaches or suggests "iteratively creating a new flow control device geometry corresponding to at least one new flow control device of the new set of flow control devices during the one or more additional simulations in response to the parameter of the fluid, the parameter of the formation and the parameter of the wellbore," as recited in claim 1. Br. 12-13 (emphasis added). Specifically, Appellants argue Coronado "merely contemplates ... model[ling] geometric features of several existing I CDs [inflow control devices] and is silent regarding creating an ICD geometry in response to fluid, formation, and well bore parameters." Br. 13 (emphasis added). Appellants' argument, however, does not persuade us of error. The Examiner relies not on Coronado alone, but on the combination of Coronado with Atkinson as teaching the disputed limitation. Ans. 4--8; Final Act. 7-9. As the Examiner finds, Atkinson teaches an iterative modeling, simulation, and testing process for a flow control device. Ans. 4-- 6; Atkinson Fig. 4, col. 5, 11. 31--44. This iterative modeling relies on "well 4 Appeal2017-007165 Application 13/096,541 parameters" and "profiles" of the flow control device including fluid and formation. Id. (citing Atkinson Fig. 4). As the Examiner explains in the Answer, Atkinson's model does not expressly teach creating a "new flow control device geometry," but Coronado teaches this limitation. Ans. 7-8 (citing Coronado at 3, 7). Coronado, for example, states "[t]he ICD [flow control device] geometry design and flow-resistance rating [are] based on the ... models that describe the flow performance." Coronado 5. Appellants' argument regarding Coronado alone does not address the Examiner's foregoing findings related to the combination of references. Appellants' argument, therefore, does not demonstrate error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F .2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). ("Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references."). Moreover, Appellants have filed no reply brief to rebut the Examiner's findings in the Answer. Accordingly, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 1. Appellants do not argue the remaining claims separately. Br. 14. We, therefore, also sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 2-24 DECISION We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-24. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(±). AFFIRMED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation