Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 15, 2021

2020006181 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 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.
15/309,125 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