Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 15, 20212020006181 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 15/309,125 11/04/2016 Glenn Robert McColpin 2013-082037 U1 US 1379 142050 7590 12/15/2021 HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC. C/O PARKER JUSTISS, P.C. 14241 DALLAS PARKWAY SUITE 620 DALLAS, TX 75254 EXAMINER PEREZ BERMUDEZ, YARITZA H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2864 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/15/2021 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 GLENN ROBERT MCCOLPIN, HAROLD GRAYSON WALTERS, and RONALD GLEN DUSTERHOFT ____________________ Appeal 2020-006181 Application 15/309,125 Technology Center 2800 ____________________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, DAVID M. KOHUT, and JON M. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges. DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1–5 and 7–21.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE.3 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant(s)” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The real party in interest is Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. (Appeal Br. 3.) 2 Claim 6 has been cancelled. (See Final Act. 2.) 3 Our Decision refers to the Specification (“Spec.”) filed November 4, 2016, the Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) mailed October 4, 2019, the Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) filed March 27, 2020, the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed August 5, 2020, and the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed August 28, 2020. Appeal 2020-006181 Application 15/309,125 2 The claims are directed to a method and system for fracture treatment and fracture treatment analysis of a subterranean region based on seismic detection in multiple wellbores. (Spec. ¶ 1, Title.) In accordance with Appellant’s invention, a “seismic excitation is generated in a first directional section of a first wellbore in a subterranean region,” “[s]eismic responses associated with the seismic excitation are detected in directional sections of a plurality of other wellbores in the subterranean region,” and a “fracture treatment of the subterranean region is analyzed based on the seismic responses.” (Spec. Abstract.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A seismic profiling method comprising: generating a series of seismic excitations over a time period in a subterranean region by performing perforations at discrete intervals over the time period in a first directional section of a first wellbore in the subterranean region; detecting seismic responses associated with the series of the seismic excitations in the subterranean region at directional sections of other wellbores in the subterranean region; generating an image of a fracture network, being created by the series of the seismic excitations, based on the seismic responses, wherein the image is a continuously-developing image of the fracture network over the time period; and analyzing a fracture treatment of the subterranean region using the image of the fracture network. (Appeal Br. 19 (Claims App.).) Appeal 2020-006181 Application 15/309,125 3 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Name Reference Date McGregor et al. (“McGregor”) US 2005/0257960 A1 Nov. 24, 2005 Drew (‘Drew”) US 2008/0259727 A1 Oct. 23, 2008 Uhl et al. (“Uhl”) US 2011/0141846 A1 June 16, 2011 Dutta et al. (“Dutta”) US 2012/0059633 A1 Mar. 8, 2012 Fuller et al. “Fuller”) US 2012/0116681 A1 May 10, 2012 Wills et al. (“Wills”) WO 2013/019529 A2 Feb. 7, 2013 REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: Claims 1, 7, and 12–19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Uhl in view of Fuller and McGregor. (Final Act. 3–12.) Claims 2–5 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Uhl in view of Fuller, McGregor, and Wills. (Final Act. 12–16.) Claims 9 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Uhl in view of Fuller, McGregor, and Drew. (Final Act. 16–18.) Claims 8, 11, 20, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Uhl in view of Fuller, McGregor, and Dutta. (Final Act. 19–22.) ANALYSIS With respect to independent claim 1, the Examiner finds Uhl discloses a perforating gun (38 in Figure 1) that creates perforations (40) through a Appeal 2020-006181 Application 15/309,125 4 well casing (18), thereby teaching “generating a series of seismic excitations over a time period in a subterranean region by performing perforations at discrete intervals over the time period in a first directional section of a first wellbore in the subterranean region,” as claimed. (Final Act. 3 (citing Uhl ¶¶ 4, 15–18, 20, 44–46, Fig. 1; Ans. 4.)) The Examiner further finds, with respect to claim 1, that Uhl detects seismic responses associated with the series of seismic excitations, and analyzes a fracture treatment of the subterranean region based on the seismic responses. (Final Act. 3 (citing Uhl ¶¶ 2–4, 13–15, 18–20, 28–29, 44–46; Ans. 4.)) The Examiner acknowledges Uhl (and the additional reference to Fuller) does not teach “generating an image of a fracture network, being created by the series of the seismic excitations, based on the seismic responses, wherein the image is a continuously-developing image of the fracture network over the time period” and “analyzing a fracture treatment of the subterranean region using the image of the fracture network” (as claimed). (Final Act. 3–4; Ans. 4–5.) The Examiner then finds McGregor teaches generating an image of a fracture network, being created by the series of seismic excitations, based on the seismic responses, wherein the image is a continuously- developing image of the fracture network over time period and analyzing a fracture treatment of the subterranean region using the image of the fracture network. (Final Act. 4 (citing McGregor ¶¶ 111, 113); Ans. 6–7 (citing McGregor ¶¶ 110–111, 113, 133).) We do not agree. We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not shown that Uhl, Fuller, and McGregor, alone or in combination, teach or suggest claim 1’s “generating an image of a fracture network, being created by the series of Appeal 2020-006181 Application 15/309,125 5 the seismic excitations, based on the seismic responses, wherein the image is a continuously-developing image of the fracture network over the time period” and “analyzing a fracture treatment of the subterranean region using the image of the fracture network.” (Appeal Br. 6–9; Reply Br. 2–4.) As Appellant explains, McGregor provides a real-time image of fractures created by a fracking process (not by a perforating process) by which a rock formation is pressured up by injecting a fluid, whereby “[i]f injection rates are high enough . . . [they may] materially break or induce fracture in the formation.” (See McGregor ¶¶ 110–111, 113; Appeal Br. 7, 9.) McGregor studies the fracking fracture with “an acoustic imaging device [that] can provide a real time image of the borehole” and “a porosity-type tool [that] may provide information on porosity quality at an orientation within a portion of the well at constant depth” to obtain “a real-time image of fractures intersecting the wellbore.” (See McGregor ¶ 113.) However, McGregor . . . does not teach generating an image that is continuously-developing over a time period, during which the perforations are performed. As recited earlier in Claim 1, the “time period” in the above limitation refers to a period, during which the perforations are performed (see the first step of Claim 1). The purported image of McGregor is an image that has been generated after the fractures have been created (see par. 113 of McGregor). As such, McGregor as applied fails to teach generating an image that is “continuously-developing over the time period” as recited in Claim 1. Second, McGregor . . . does not teach generating an image of a fracture network that is created by the seismic excitations. Instead, the cited portion of McGregor teaches generating an image of fractures that have been created from a fracturing operation (see, e.g., pars. 110–112 of McGregor). As recited earlier in Claim 1, the “series of the seismic excitations” in above limitation refers to the excitations generated from the perforations (see the first step of Claim 1). As such, McGregor Appeal 2020-006181 Application 15/309,125 6 as applied fails to teach generating an image of a fracture network that is created by the seismic excitations as recited in Claim 1. (Reply Br. 2.) The Examiner responds that “McGregor discuss[es] that an image of a fracture[] in the subsurface/fracture network is being produced in real-time” and “the images of the fracture network are continuously-developing” (as claimed), relying upon the assertion that: [McGregor’s] hydraulic fracturing (also known as fraccing or fracking) leads to brittle failure inside a reservoir, which is typically accompanied by microseismicity or microseismic events. By definition a microseismic event are microseismic events . . . caused when human activities such as mining or oil and gas production change the stress distribution or the volume of a rockmass. When the rock attempts to redistribute the stress within the rockmass, it will suddenly slip or shear along pre- existing zones of weakness such as along faults or fracture networks. McGregor discuss[es] fracture test by injection is being done (see para. 110–111, 113), therefore said fractures will be accompanied by microseismic events. (Ans. 6.) The Examiner’s arguments are not persuasive because, regardless of whether McGregor’s fracking leads to (micro)seismic events, McGregor does not envision using seismic responses—from a series of seismic excitations generated over a time period in a subterranean region by performing perforations—to generate a continuously-developing image of the created fracture network over the time period, and to analyze a fracture treatment using this image, as recited in claim 1. (Appeal Br. 7, 9; Reply Br. 2.) In contrast to McGregor’s generic acoustic imaging, Appellant claimed seismic profiling method consolidates two steps (performing perforations, and imaging the developing fracture network) into one operation by which Appeal 2020-006181 Application 15/309,125 7 the perforating seismic excitations are concurrently used to generate the continuously-developing image of the fracture network. (See Appeal Br. 7– 8, 19 (claim 1); Reply Br. 2–3; Spec. ¶¶ 23 (“perforation charges used to perforate a wellbore casing can be used as seismic sources” and “perforations in a fracture stimulation stage can be spaced out in time, and the seismic profiling system 101 can process data in real time to provide a continuously-developing image of a fracture network being created”), Spec. ¶¶ 74, 83, 99.) The Examiner also has not shown that the additional teachings of Uhl make up for the above-noted deficiencies of McGregor. Although Uhl performs perforations using a perforating gun (thereby “generating a seismic event”) and detects seismic responses (which Uhl calls “seismic waves”) generated by the seismic event, Uhl does not teach or suggest that the seismic responses are used to generate an image of a fracture network, as required by claim 1. (See Uhl ¶¶ 15, 19, 28; Appeal Br. 7–8; Reply Br. 3.) Rather, Uhl uses the seismic responses to detect a difference in the time of arrival (at receiver units) of acoustic waves from the seismic event, and calculates wave velocities between the perforation location and the receiver units, to “correctly locate the perforation” and enable “seismic source timing measurements for velocity calibration.” (See Uhl ¶¶ 14, 19, 36, 38, 48, 50.) Uhl does not disclose or suggest the use of the seismic responses obtained from seismic excitations generated from perforations, for generating a continuously-developing image of a fracture network, as recited in claim 1. The Examiner does not use the additional teachings of Fuller to cure the above-noted deficiencies of Uhl and McGregor. As the Examiner has not identified sufficient evidence to support the obviousness rejection of Appeal 2020-006181 Application 15/309,125 8 claim 1, we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 1, and claims 1, 7, and 12 dependent therefrom. We also do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 13 (“generating an image of a fracture network, being created by the series of the seismic excitations [generated by a seismic source system performing perforations, the seismic excitations being in connection with a fracture treatment of the subterranean region], based on the seismic responses [associated with the seismic excitations]” wherein “the image is a continuously-developing image of the fracture network over the time period”) and claim 18 (reciting “generating an image of a fracture network, being created by the series of the seismic excitations [generated by performing perforations], based on the seismic responses [associated with the series of seismic excitations], wherein the image is a continuously- developing image of the fracture network over the time period” and “analyzing, by operation of a computer system, a fracture treatment of the subterranean region using the image of the fracture network”) argued for substantially the same reasons as claim 1. (Appeal Br. 10–15.) We also do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 14–17 and 19 depending from claims 13 and 18. The Examiner does not identify how the teachings of Wills, Drew, and Dutta remedy the noted deficiency, and we cannot sustain the obviousness rejections of dependent claims 2–5, 8–11, 15, 20, and 21 for the same reasons. Appeal 2020-006181 Application 15/309,125 9 CONCLUSION The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–5 and 7–21 based upon obviousness. DECISION SUMMARY For the above reasons, we REVERSE the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1–5 and 7–21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 7, 12–19 103 Uhl, Fuller, McGregor 1, 7, 12–19 2–5, 15 103 Uhl, Fuller, McGregor, Wills 2–5, 15 9, 10 103 Uhl, Fuller, McGregor, Drew 9, 10 8, 11, 20, 21 103 Uhl, Fuller, McGregor, Dutta 8, 11, 20, 21 Overall Outcome 1–5, 7–21 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation