Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 17, 2021

2021000315 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 17, 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. 15/109,928 07/06/2016 John Harrison Farrah 1560-079101 1863 112839 7590 12/17/2021 C. Tumey Law Group PLLC - HES C. Tumey Law PO Box 890226 Houston, TX 77062-9998 EXAMINER PATEL, NEEL G ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3676 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/17/2021 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): bdempsey@ctumeylawgroup.com ctumey@ctumeylawgroup.com docketing@ctumeylawgroup.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte JOHN HARRISON FARRAH and ANAND PRAKASH ____________ Appeal 2021-000315 Application 15/109,928 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before BRUCE T. WIEDER, KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, and AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s final decision to reject claims 1–3, 5, 6, 9, 11–17, and 20–25, which are all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2019). The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Halliburton Energy Services, Inc . Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2021-000315 Application 15/109,928 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The Appellant’s invention “is related to downhole measurement tools and, more particularly, to electrically isolating magnetometers used in magnetic flux receiver assemblies from electrical noise.” Spec. ¶ 16. Claims 1, 13, and 25 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 25 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below (with added lettered bracketing for reference): 25. A magnetic flux receiver assembly, comprising: [(a)] a collar that defines a central passageway extending from a first end of the collar to a second end of the collar, the collar further defining an axial collar face; [(b)] a tool insert disposable entirely within the central passageway and defining an axial insert face and a channel for providing fluid communication between the first end of the collar to the second end of the collar; [(c)] one or more magnetometers mounted to the tool insert and disposable entirely within the central passageway; and [(d)] one or more cavities positioned in the axial collar face and the axial insert face; [(e)] a plurality of insulating members interposing the axial collar and insert faces including a first set of one or more insulating members only seated within the one or more cavities of the axial collar face and a second set of one or more insulating members only seated within the one or more cavities of the axial insert face, such that an axial gap is defined at an axial interface between the axial collar face and the axial insert face to prevent electrical communication across the axial interface, wherein the first set of one or more insulating members and the second set of one or more insulating members are angularly offset. Appeal Br. 32, Claims App. Appeal 2021-000315 Application 15/109,928 3 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner are: Name Reference Date Soulier US 6,404,350 B1 June11, 2002 Dudley et al. (“Dudley”) US 2005/0194132 A1 Sept. 8, 2005 Chau et al. (“Chau”) US 2014/0055278 A1 Feb. 27, 2014 THE REJECTION Claim 25 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Chau. Claims 1–3, 5, 6, 9, 11–14, 16, 17, and 20–24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Chau and Soulier. Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Chau, Soulier, and Dudley. OPINION The Appellant contends, in relevant part, that Chau does not disclose or teach “any magnetometers mounted to the tool insert and disposable entirely within the central passageway,” as recited in limitation (c) of independent claim 25 and similarly recited in independent claims 1 and 13. Appeal Br. 10 (emphasis omitted); see also id. at 11, 28, 30; Reply Br. 3. The Examiner finds that Chau discloses and teaches “the magnetometer 522 to be a part of the electronics package 56 which is mounted to the tool insert [222].” Final Act. 3–4, 7. 12 (citing Chau ¶¶ 36, 46–50, 60, Figs. 6–18). In response to the Appellant’s arguments contending otherwise, the Examiner elaborates that “the magnetometer is linked to a tangible element (i.e. 68) within the tool. Chau illustrates Appeal 2021-000315 Application 15/109,928 4 element 68, which comprises of a magnetometer, to be mounted (whether indirectly or directly) to the tool insert and disposed entirely within the central passageway as depicted in figure 1 of Chau.” Ans. 19. The Examiner offers no further explanation, and we do not readily see, where or how Chau discloses or teaches that magnetometers 522, as part of sensor section 68 within electronics package/section 56, are mounted to extension shaft 222. Chau provides for cable 100 extending within the through passage of the drill string to electrical package 56 for electrical communication with drill string receiver 64 via electrical conductor 344 of cable 100. Chau ¶ 46, Fig. 6. The Examiner appears to find that this electrical connection between electronics package 56 and the isolator comprising extension shaft 222 meets the claimed limitation of the magnetometers mounted to the tool insert. However, the Examiner does not explain, and we do not see, where or how Chau discloses a structural or physical connection or attachment, i.e., mounting, of the magnetometers 522, sensor section 68, or electronics section 56 to the tool insert. At best, Chau teaches that cable 100 is mounted onto housing 220’, which contains extension shaft 222 within, via clamp nut 242’ of shaft 240. Chau ¶¶ 56, 57, Figs. 12, 15. Based on the record before us, the Examiner does not adequately explain where or how Chau discloses or teaches magnetometers mounted to the tool insert, as recited in claims 1, 13, and 25. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 of independent claim 25 and the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of independent claims 1 and 13. As the Examiner relies on these findings for dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, and 20–24 (see Final Act. 9–16), we also do not sustain the rejection of these claims. Appeal 2021-000315 Application 15/109,928 5 We further do not sustain the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of dependent claim 15 as we do not understand the Examiner’s reliance on Dudley to remedy the deficiency in the Examiner’s rejection of parent independent claim 13. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–3, 5, 6, 9, 11–17, and 20–25 is not sustained. In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/ Basis Affirmed Reversed 25 102(a)(1) Chau 25 1–3, 5, 6, 9, 11–14, 16, 17, 20–24 103 Chau, Soulier 1–3, 5, 6, 9, 11–14, 16, 17, 20–24 15 103 Chau, Soulier, Dudley 15 Overall Outcome 1–3, 5, 6, 9, 11–17, 20–25 REVERSED