HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardNov 30, 2020

2020001457 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 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. 15/038,297 05/20/2016 Paul Alan Brown 2013-IP-075531U1 US 1075 15604 7590 11/30/2020 Baker Botts L.L.P. 910 Louisiana Street, One Shell Plaza Houston, TX 77002 EXAMINER INSLER, ELIZABETH ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1774 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/30/2020 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): debie.hernandez@bakerbotts.com susan.stewart@bakerbotts.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte PAUL ALAN BROWN, PAUL ORMAN PADGETT, and CRAIG ALLEN SNEED ____________ Appeal 2020-001457 Application 15/038,297 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, MICHAEL G. McMANUS, and JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 requests review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1 and 4–12.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to the “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. as the real party in interest. Appeal Brief filed September 5, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”) at 2. 2 Claims 13–20 have been withdrawn from consideration. Final Office Action entered June 10, 2019 (“Final Act.”) at 1. Appeal 2020-001457 Application 15/038,297 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1, the sole pending independent claim, illustrates the subject matter on appeal, and reads as follows: 1. A method, comprising: providing a mixing system, comprising: a recirculation tub comprising at least one agitator; a recirculation cement mixer fluidly connected to the recirculation tub, wherein the recirculation cement mixer has a recirculation fluid inlet, a water inlet, and a cement powder inlet; a recirculation pump fluidly connected to the recirculation tub via a recirculation manifold, wherein the recirculation manifold directs fluid towards the recirculation pump; a recirculation discharge manifold in fluid communication with the recirculation pump at a first end of the recirculation discharge manifold and the recirculation fluid inlet at a second end of the recirculation discharge manifold, wherein the recirculation pump directs fluid toward the recirculation inlet via the recirculation discharge manifold; and a sensor attached to the recirculation discharge manifold, wherein the sensor comprises an air entrainment sensor and is configured to measure a property of a fluid in the recirculation discharge manifold, wherein the property of the fluid being measured comprises an air entrainment measurement; recirculating the fluid from the recirculation tub through the recirculation pump to the recirculation cement mixer via the recirculation fluid inlet; measuring the property of the fluid in the recirculation discharge manifold with the sensor; transmitting signal representing the property being measured from the sensor to a control system; and adjusting the mixing system in response to the measurement signal, wherein the mixing system is adjusted in response to the measurement signal indicating Appeal 2020-001457 Application 15/038,297 3 that the air entrainment of the fluid is above about 6% of a volume of the fluid. Appeal Br. 12 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis added). REJECTIONS The Examiner maintains the following rejections in the Examiner’s Answer entered November 25, 2019 (“Ans.”): I. Claims 1, 4, 6–9, 11, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Allen3 in view of Patch;4 and II. Claims 5 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Allen in view of Hines.5 FACTUAL FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS Upon consideration of the evidence relied upon in this appeal and each of Appellant’s contentions, we reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 and 4–12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, for reasons set forth in the Appeal and Reply Briefs, and below. Claim 1 recites a method comprising, in part, providing a mixing system comprising a recirculation discharge manifold and an air entrainment sensor configured to measure air entrainment in the recirculation discharge manifold, and measuring air entrainment of fluid in the recirculation discharge manifold with the air entrainment sensor. 3 US 5,355,951, issued October 18, 1994. 4 US 2,668,437, issued February 9, 1954. 5 US 8,550,690 B2, issued October 8, 2013. Appeal 2020-001457 Application 15/038,297 4 The Examiner finds that Allen discloses a cementing process that includes numerous subprocesses, and discloses monitoring operating parameters or characteristics of the subprocesses using sensing or measuring devices. Final Act. 3 (citing Allen col 2., ll. 20–48; col. 2, l. 68–col. 3, l. 20; col. 4, ll. 41–44; col. 5, ll. 31–46; col. 6, ll. 35–38; Fig. 1); Ans. 11. The Examiner finds that Allen “discloses a control for an air entrainment subprocess that determines indications of air entrainment,” and the Examiner finds that, “[e]rgo, Allen discloses a sensing or measuring device for indicating air entrainment.” Ans. 11–12. The Examiner finds that Allen discloses measuring air entrainment in a recirculation discharge manifold with the air entrainment sensing or measuring device (air entrainment sensor). Final Act. 4 (citing Allen Fig. 1, reference numeral 8). Appellant argues that the Examiner’s finding that Allen discloses an air entrainment sensing or measuring device—or an air entrainment sensor— is not supported by Allen’s actual disclosures, and Appellant relies on the Declaration of inventor Craig Sneed, filed August 3, 2018, to support Appellant’s arguments. Appeal Br. 8–9 (citing Sneed Declaration ¶ 7). According to the Sneed Declaration, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood Allen’s disclosure of determining “indications of air entrainment” as teaching use of a sensor to directly measure air entrainment, because such was not possible in March 1993 when the application leading to the patent that issued as Allen was filed. Sneed Declaration ¶ 7. The Sneed Declaration indicates that instead, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Allen’s disclosure of determining “indications of air entrainment” to involve a visual inspection of the level of foam in a mixing tub, as compared to the level of fluid in the tub. Id. Appeal 2020-001457 Application 15/038,297 5 Appellant’s arguments and evidence identify reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection, for reasons that follow. Allen discloses a method for evaluating a process for mixing a cement slurry for an oil or gas well that involves monitoring operating parameters of subprocesses performed during the cement mixing process. Allen col. 1, ll. 7–10; col. 1, l. 66–col. 2, l. 23. Allen discloses a system for implementing the method that includes mixing tub 2, which receives water and cement flows that “are mixed by their own energy and by mechanical energy added by an agitator 3.” Allen col. 4, ll. 25–28; Fig. 1. Allen discloses that “[p]art of the mixing subprocess of the overall cementing process also includes recirculating at least part of the contents of the tub 2 through a recirculation circuit 4 having a pump 6 and a densimeter 8.” Allen col. 4, ll. 31–35; Fig. 1. Allen discloses that to place a cement slurry from tub 2 into a well, pump 10 pumps the slurry from tub 2 through an outlet line in which densimeter 12, flow meter 14, and pressure transducer 16 are disposed, and Allen discloses that that stroke counting device 18 is also connected to pump 10. Allen col. 4, ll. 36–40; Fig. 1. Allen discloses that “sensing or measuring devices 8, 12, 14, 16, 18 convert sensed operating parameters or characteristics of an actual cementing process into electrical signals.” Allen col. 4, ll. 41–43. Allen discloses that one of the subprocesses of the cementing process is a “control” subprocess, which Allen indicates is “defined by a number of further subprocesses,” including a control mixing rate and density subprocess, a control for air entrainment subprocess, a control pumping pressure subprocess, a control agitator speed subprocess, and a control recirculating pump subprocess. Allen col. 5, ll. 52–53; col. 6, ll. 22–47. Appeal 2020-001457 Application 15/038,297 6 Allen discloses that the control for air entrainment subprocess “determines indications of air entrainment, monitors tub level with respect to the agitator, and determines if a defoamer can be added if necessary.” Allen col. 6, ll. 35–38. Although Allen thus discloses determining “indications of air entrainment,” none of the “sensing or measuring devices 8, 12, 14, 16, 18” in Allen are disclosed as measuring or sensing air entrainment, but instead are said to measure density, flow, pressure, and strokes. And although Allen discloses that densimeter 8 is part of recirculation circuit 4, and Figure 1 of Allen shows that densimter 8 is attached to a recirculation discharge manifold, nothing in Allen identifies densimeter 8 as an air entrainment sensor. The Examiner does not identify any disclosure in Allen, or provide any other objective evidence, establishing that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Allen’s teaching of determining “indications of air entrainment” to disclose or suggest measuring air entrainment with an air entrainment sensor. Nor does the Examiner provide any objective evidence establishing that Allen’s disclosure of measuring fluid density with a densimeter in a recirculation discharge manifold would have suggested measuring air entrainment with an air entrainment sensor in an a recirculation discharge manifold. The Examiner summarily dismisses the Sneed Declaration’s statement that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that directly measuring air entrainment was not possible when the application leading to the Allen patent was filed, as “conclusory and not factually supported or accurate.” Ans. 12. The Examiner, however, does not provide any contrary Appeal 2020-001457 Application 15/038,297 7 evidence establishing that the statements in the Sneed Declaration are incorrect. Consequently, on the record before us, the Examiner does not provide a sufficient factual basis to establish that Allen discloses an air entrainment sensor, and discloses measuring air entrainment of fluid in a recirculation discharge manifold with the air entrainment sensor, as required by claim 1. A preponderance of the evidence relied upon in this appeal, therefore, weighs against the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness. We, accordingly, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and rejections of claims 4–12, which each depend from claim 1, under 35 U.S.C. § 103.6 CONCLUSION Claims 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/ Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 4, 6–9, 11, 12 103 Allen, Patch 1, 4, 6–9, 11, 12 5, 10 103 Allen, Hines 5, 10 Overall Outcome 1, 4–12 REVERSED 6 The Examiner does not rely on Patch or Hines for any disclosure that remedies the deficiencies in the Examiner’s reliance on Allen. Final Act. 4– 7.