Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 22, 2021

2020001046 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 22, 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. 15/310,811 11/14/2016 Burkay Donderici 2013-070531 U1 US 8724 142050 7590 04/22/2021 HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC. C/O PARKER JUSTISS, P.C. 14241 DALLAS PARKWAY SUITE 620 DALLAS, TX 75254 EXAMINER BALSECA, FRANKLIN D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2685 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/22/2021 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): docket@pj-iplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte BURKAY DONDERICI and SUSHOVON SINGHA ROY Appeal 2020-001046 Application 15/310,811 Technology Center 2600 Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges. DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–5, 8–12, 14, and 16–22. See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2018). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-001046 Application 15/310,811 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a surface communication through a well tool enclosure. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method, comprising: with a well tool assembly residing outside of a well, the well tool assembly comprising a power source component and a measurement component coupled to the power source component, transmitting a status communication comprising an electromagnetic transmission of about 500 Hz or less through a metal wall of an external housing assembly of the well tool assembly using a transmitter in the external housing assembly of the well tool assembly, the status communication regarding a status of the measurement component, wherein the electromagnetic transmission is encoded as an amplitude and/or frequency modulated signal. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence is: Name Reference Date Davison US 4,736,204 Apr. 5, 1988 Heggerud US 5,651,638 July 29, 1997 Fang US 2010/0007348 A1 Jan. 14, 2010 Blanchard US 8,284,049 B2 Oct. 9, 2012 Walton US 2014/0273831 A1 Sept. 18, 2014 Chau US 9,000,940 B2 Apr. 7, 2015 Vick, Jr. US 2015/0123808 A1 May 7, 2015 Appeal 2020-001046 Application 15/310,811 3 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 4, 5, 8–10, 12, 14, and 16–22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Fang and Davison, Vick, Heggerud, and Chau. Final Act. 3. Claims 2 and 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Fang and Davison, Vick, Heggerud, and Chau as applied to claim 1, 9, and 12 above, and Walton. Final Act. 8. Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Fang and Davison, Vick, Heggerud, and Chau as applied to claim 1, 9, and 12 above, and Blanchard. Final Act. 10. OPINION We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues Appellant identifies, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) (cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”). After considering the argued claims and each of Appellant’s arguments, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the appealed rejections. Claims 1, 4, 5, 8–10, 12, 14, and 16–22 With respect to independent claims 1, 12, and 17, Appellant does not set forth separate arguments for patentability, and we select independent claim 1 as the representative claim for the group. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). As a result, claims 4, 5, 8–10, 12, 14, and 16–22 stand or fall with representative independent claim 1. Arguments which Appellant Appeal 2020-001046 Application 15/310,811 4 could have made but did not make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived/forfeited. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appellant repeats the salient claim language and contends that the cited portions of Fang, alone or in combination with Davison, Vick, and Heggerud do not teach or suggest the claimed “wherein the electromagnetic transmission is encoded as an amplitude and/or frequency modulated signal.” Appeal Br. 7–8. Appellant identifies that the Examiner relied upon the Chau reference to teach this claim limitation. Appeal Br. 8. The Examiner relies upon the Chau reference for teaching the well- known use of an electromagnetic transmission encoded as an amplitude and/or frequency modulated signal for communication of data in a drill string. Final Act. 5. The Examiner additionally relies upon the Davison reference in the rejection which teaches and suggests communicating with a downhole measurement while drilling equipment is on the surface. Davison, Title; see also Final Act. 4; Davison 2:1–24. The Examiner provides a motivation for the combination of the Chau reference with the Fang, Vick, and Heggerud references that “[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art . . . to use Chau’s teachings in the method taught by the combination because modulation increases the data rate.” Ans. 5. Appellant contends that the combination of the Chau reference with the Fang, Davison, Vick, and Heggerud references would not have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would not have taken the expensive and complex electromagnetic modulation design of Chau and included within a device that is not operated in the ground. Appeal Br. 9. Appeal 2020-001046 Application 15/310,811 5 Appellant further contends: While the electromagnetic modulation design of Chau might be helpful when transferring the information through the ground and over long distances, adding the electromagnetic modulation design of Chau would be unnecessary for a device operating above ground and over short distances. Moreover, as the electromagnetic modulation design of Chau is not necessary for a device operating above ground and over short distances, its inclusion would add nothing more than unnecessary expense and complexity. In fact, adding the electromagnetic modulation design of Chau to an otherwise working design, would simply add a new point of failure to deal with and additional cost. Appeal Br. 9–10. The Examiner disagrees with Appellant and states that “Chau was only used to show that it is well known in the art that a device transmitting data using electromagnetic signals can transmit its data using amplitude or frequency modulation.” Ans. 3. The Examiner further clarifies that the skilled artisan would have “used Chau’s teachings of amplitude or frequency modulating the transmitted data because data modulation will provide higher data rates.” Ans. 4. The Examiner also finds that the skilled artisan would have known “there are always tradeoffs in communication systems . . . . Modulation of data in general provides higher data rates, lower interference, and smaller antenna size.” Ans. 4. The Examiner further finds that other prior art relied upon also discloses using electromagnetic signals. Ans. 4. We agree with the Examiner. We disagree with Appellant’s argument and find that the Chau, Davison, and Heggerud references also disclose the use of electromagnetic signals because Davison also discloses both conductive and inductive types of data communication where an inductive type involves electromagnetic Appeal 2020-001046 Application 15/310,811 6 transmission. Davison 2:51–55; Ans. 4. The Davison reference further evidences that the “surface communicator 24 is brought to a position where the electrode/antenna of the transmitter 26 and the receiver 28 can contact or be coupled to the receiver and transmitter electrode/antenna array 20 of the equipment sub 10.” Davison 3:20–24; see also Final Act. 4. As a result, Appellant’s arguments do not show error in the Examiner’s factual findings or ultimate conclusion of obviousness of representative independent claim 1. Because Appellant has not set forth separate arguments for patentability of independent claims 12 and 17, these claims fall with representative independent claim 1. Claims 4, 5, 8–10, 14, 16, and 18–22 Appellant does not set forth separate arguments for patentability of the dependent claims and relies upon the arguments advanced with respect to independent claims 1, 12, and 17. Appeal Br. 10. Because we found no error in the Examiner’s factual findings or conclusion of obviousness of the independent claims, we group these dependent claims as falling with their respective independent claims. Claims 2 and 3 Appellant repeats the claim language of independent claims 1, 12, and 17 (although claims 2 and 3 only depend from independent claim 1) and generally contends that the Office Action only applies the Walton reference regarding the missing elements and concludes that the Office Action fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. Appeal Br. 10–11. Appellant makes no specific argument for patentability, and we interpret Appellant’s Appeal 2020-001046 Application 15/310,811 7 argument to rely upon the arguments advanced with respect to independent claim 1. Because we found no error in the Examiner’s factual findings or conclusion of obviousness of the independent claim 1, we group dependent claims 2 and 3 as falling with independent claim 1. Claim 11 Appellant repeats the claim language of independent claims 1, 12, and 17 (although claim 11 only depends from independent claim 1) and generally contends that the Office Action only applies the Blanchard reference regarding the missing elements and concludes that the Office Action fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. Appeal Br. 10–11. Appellant makes no specific argument for patentability, and we group dependent claim 11 as falling with independent claim 1. CONCLUSION We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–5, 8–12, 14, and 16–22. Appeal 2020-001046 Application 15/310,811 8 DECISION SUMMARY Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 4, 5, 8– 10, 12, 14, 16–22 103 Fang, Davison, Vick, Heggerud, Chau 1, 4, 5, 8– 10, 12, 14, 16–22 2, 3 103 Fang, Davison, Vick, Heggerud, Chau, Walton 2, 3 11 103 Fang, Davison, Vick, Heggerud, Chau, Blanchard 11 Overall Outcome 1–5, 8–12, 14, 16–22 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED