Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 7, 2022

2021001083 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 7, 2022)

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. 15/523,216 04/28/2017 Hua Xia 7523.1029US01 6920 27683 7590 01/07/2022 HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP IP Section 2323 Victory Avenue Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75219 EXAMINER SEBESTA, CHRISTOPHER J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3676 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/07/2022 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): ipdocketing@haynesboone.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte HUA XIA, CLOVIS S. BONAVIDES, and AVINASH V. TAWARE Appeal 2021-001083 Application 15/523,216 Technology Center 3600 Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON, and ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. CHAGNON, 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 1-6 and 8-18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. 1 Appellant refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2021-001083 Application 15/523,216 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER According to the Specification, “the present disclosure relates to logging systems and methods for measuring one or more characteristics within a wellbore indicative of a fluid leak event.” Spec.2 1:5-8. The Abstract describes: A multiple parameter sensing leak detection system may include one or more multi-parameter sensing modules capable of simultaneously measuring downhole temperature, pressure, and acoustic signals. The temperature and pressure detectors may include quartz based sensing elements, and the acoustic detector may include piezoelectric based sensing elements. In one or more embodiments, a plurality of sensing modules may be carried on a caliper for allowing radial identification of leak location. In one or more embodiments, multiple calipers, each carrying a circumferential arrangement of sensing modules may be used to identify annular or inter-annular leakage beyond production tubing using triangulation techniques. A leak analysis method identifies if relative pressure and temperature variation amplitudes fall outside leak thresholds and if power spectral density from noise has anomalous frequency signatures. A leak event may be identified by relative pressure and temperature variation amplitude and verified by power spectral density variation. Spec., Abstract. 2 In this Decision, we refer to the Specification filed April 28, 2017 (“Spec.”); Final Office Action dated April 17, 2020 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief filed September 9, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer dated November 23, 2020 (“Ans.”); and Appellant’s Reply Brief filed November 30, 2020 (“Reply Br.”). Appeal 2021-001083 Application 15/523,216 3 Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A logging tool comprising: a first temperature detector; a first pressure detector disposed in proximity to said first temperature detector; a first acoustic detector disposed in proximity to said first temperature detector; data acquisition circuitry coupled to said first temperature detector, said first pressure detector, and said first acoustic detector; and a processor coupled to said data acquisition circuitry and arranged to correlate a temperature parameter, a pressure parameter, and an acoustic parameter to identify a leak source, said correlation comprising: determining expected parameter trends along said wellbore, said parameter trends being a temperature trend, pressure trend, and acoustic trend; determining threshold variations from said expected parameter trends; obtaining parameter measurements along said wellbore, said parameter measurements being a temperature, pressure and acoustic measurement; determining variations in said parameter measurements along said wellbore by comparing parameter measurements of a first zone to parameter measurements of a second zone; identifying said variations which fall outside said threshold variations; and detecting said leak source based upon said identification. Appeal Br. 9. Appeal 2021-001083 Application 15/523,216 4 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Steinsiek US 2007/0084277 A1 Apr. 19, 2007 Lie et al. (“Lie”) US 2010/0268489 A1 Oct. 21, 2010 Thompson et al. (“Thompson”) US 2012/0253680 A1 Oct. 4, 2012 Kirikera et al. (“Kirikera”) US 2014/0311235 A1 Oct. 23, 2014 REJECTIONS I. Claims 1, 2, 9, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lie.3 II. Claims 3-6 and 11-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lie and Steinsiek. III. Claims 8 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lie and Kirikera. IV. Claims 17 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lie and Thompson. 3 In the Final Rejection, claims 1, 2, 9, and 10 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lie. Final Act. 3-6. In response to Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief, the Examiner sets forth a new ground of rejection, rejecting claims 1 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lie. Ans. 3-8. Because claims 2 and 10 depend from claims 1 and 9, respectively, we consider these claims now also to be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103, rather than under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1). See also Reply Br. 2 n.1 (assuming the same). Appeal 2021-001083 Application 15/523,216 5 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 in light of each of Appellant’s arguments, we are not persuaded Appellant has identified reversible error in the appealed rejections as to claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8-10, 12, and 16-18. We are persuaded Appellant has identified reversible error in the appealed rejections as to claims 3, 5, 11, and 13-15. Obviousness in view of Lie Independent Claims 1 and 9 Claims 1 recites, inter alia, determining expected parameter trends along said wellbore, said parameter trends being a temperature trend, pressure trend, and acoustic trend; determining threshold variations from said expected parameter trends; . . . determining variations in said parameter measurements along said wellbore by comparing parameter measurements of a first zone to parameter measurements of a second zone; identifying said variations which fall outside said threshold variations; and detecting said leak source based upon said identification. Appeal 2021-001083 Application 15/523,216 6 Appeal Br. 9. Appellant’s arguments focus on these claim limitations. See Reply Br. 2-5. The Examiner finds that Lie discloses a logging tool with a first temperature sensor, a first pressure sensor, and a first acoustic sensor. Ans. 4 (citing Lie ¶¶ 83, 127-136). Lie teaches that logging tool 10 includes a “sensor element 150 . . . implemented as an acoustic transducer.” Lie ¶ 83, Fig. 2. Lie also teaches that “[o]ptionally, the tool 10 is supplemented with other apparatus,” such as “pressure sensors” and “temperature sensors.” Lie ¶¶ 127, 132, 133. Lie further teaches that “[t]hese other types of apparatus . . . are beneficially also mounted onto the tool 10 and their output signals [are] indicative of conditions with[in] the well 230.” Lie ¶ 137. The Examiner further finds that Lie teaches that “at least the acoustic sensors are used throughout the wellbore deployment to measure for abnormal conditions related to leak detection.” Ans. 4 (citing Lie ¶¶ 83-84). The Examiner finds that Lie teaches that “in order to detect the condition indicting a leak, additional measurements may be taken to determine that a change has occurred, as discussed in more detail in the detection of acoustic signals 210.” Id. at 5 (citing Lie ¶¶ 83-84). The Examiner also finds that, in Lie, “the leak is identified when the parameters fall outside the expected parameter trends,” and thus a leak source is detected. Id. (citing Lie ¶¶ 83-84, 137). In this regard, Lie teaches that “a certain category of leak is found only to occur when a region within the well 230 has a gas composition at a pressure over a defined pressure threshold.” Lie ¶ 137. The Examiner admits that Lie “does not expressly disclose that the additional temperature and pressure sensors are used at multiple locations throughout the wellbore to establish the recited parameter trends.” Ans. 5. Appeal 2021-001083 Application 15/523,216 7 The Examiner determines, however, that “it would have been obvious for a user to use the controller to collect data from the multiple additional sensors for use in conjunction with the acoustic data to determine expected parameter trends for such measured properties.” Id. This determination is based, at least in part, on Lie’s teachings that computer 300 “control[s] positioning of the tool 10 within the well 230” to “allow[] the tool 10 to collect more information a[t] preferred locations along the well 230” and that computer 300 also processes signals pertaining to the “other types of apparatus” disclosed (which include pressure sensors and temperature sensors). Lie ¶¶ 126-137; Ans. 5. The Examiner finds that collecting data from multiple sensors, in this manner, merely constitutes the use of the additional sensors in the same manner as expressly disclosed for using the added pressure sensors to detect corresponding conditions to validate the acoustic measurements in accordance with the process for detecting leaks which correspond to specific conditions which may not be determinable using only acoustic measurements. Ans. 5-6. The Examiner makes similar findings and determinations for independent claim 9. See id. at 6-8. Appellant argues Lie goes into much detail as to how acoustic frequency variations are used to determine noise trends (“noise profiles”), which are then used to locate leaks. In direct contrast, however, Lie provides no such teaching for any temperature or pressure trends or how deviations from those trends would be used in conjunction with acoustics. Appeal 2021-001083 Application 15/523,216 8 Reply Br. 3. According to Appellant, “[a]lthough the temperature and pressure sensors may arguably be used to determine trends, such a conclusion amounts to mere speculation because Lie doesn’t specifically speak to these points.” Id. (emphasis Appellant’s); see also id. at 3-5 (additional similar arguments). Appellant contends that “Lie describes that same single-parameter conventional method the present claimed invention improves upon.” Reply Br. 4. Appellant appears to ignore, however, the express disclosure in Lie that “simultaneous equations solved by the computer 300 [which are used to distinguish background noise from, for example, signals identifying leaks], as elucidated in the foregoing, also include filtered and/or unfiltered signal components and coefficients pertaining to these other types of apparatus,” such as pressure sensors and temperature sensors. Lie ¶ 137 (emphases added); see id. ¶¶ 84-90. Although the detailed discussion of Lie focuses on the signal processing details (i.e., solving the “simultaneous equations”) for only a single parameter-namely the acoustic sensor-Lie expressly teaches that multiple parameters may be used, e.g., a pressure sensor and a temperature sensor. Lie ¶¶ 127-137. Further, we agree with the Examiner that the [claimed] trend determination does not include significant steps related to the collection of data and the analysis thereof, [and] that the computer analysis as taught in Lie for the simultaneous equation solvers used with the acoustic and additional sensors would qualify as determining trends (i.e. locations in the wellbore which match the known criteria compared to locations which do not match leak criteria) in at least the generic sense recited. Ans. 6. Appeal 2021-001083 Application 15/523,216 9 We are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and 9. We, therefore, sustain the rejection. We also sustain the rejection of claims 2 and 10, which depend from claims 1 and 9, respectively, and which are not argued separately. Obviousness in view of Lie and Steinsiek Dependent Claims 3, 5, 11, and 13-154 Dependent claim 3 depends from claim 1 and further recites, inter alia, “at least second and third acoustic detectors disposed about a circumference at a same axial position as said first acoustic detector,” and that the “processor is arranged to calculate an azimuthal angle and a radial distance to said leak source with respect to a position of said logging tool.” Appeal Br. 9. Dependent claims 5, 11, and 13 include similar limitations. The Examiner relies on Steinsiek as teaching these claim limitations. See Final Act. 6-11; Ans. 8. Appellant argues that “Steinsiek makes no mention of such a calculation [of radial distance].” Appeal Br. 7; Reply Br. 5. Appellant further contends that the Examiner’s position is “mere speculation.” Appeal Br. 7; Reply Br. 5. Steinsiek teaches a downhole tool with acoustic sensors, for leak detection. Steinsiek ¶ 4. The tool of Steinsiek may use “a set of sensors arranged circumferentially . . . to obtain full coverage of measurements along the inner circumference of the wellbore.” Steinsiek ¶ 6; Fig. 2. 4 In presenting arguments as to this rejection, the Appeal Brief identifies claim 15 (see Appeal Br. 7), however it is claim 13 that includes the relevant claim limitation. We view Appellant’s listing of claim 15 as a typographical error. Claims 14 and 15 depend from claim 13. Appeal 2021-001083 Application 15/523,216 10 Steinsiek also teaches that processor 152 uses data from the sensors to detect the presence of fluid 142 entering the wellbore 110 and to provide an accurate determination of the location of the fluid entry 143. Steinsiek ¶ 17; Fig. 1. The Examiner explains that “the calculation for the distance between the tool and the leak is known by determining the circumferential location of the leak as well as the effective diameter of the tubular.” Ans. 8. We agree with the Examiner that, in Steinsiek, if the location of the leak is known, and the diameter of the wellbore is known, then the value of the radial distance likely could be determined. What is missing from Steinsiek, however, is any teaching or suggestion of the processor actually determining, or calculating the radial distance to the leak source, as claimed. And, the Examiner has not explained sufficiently why one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the references’ combined teachings to do so. Appellant has persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 5, 11, and 13-15. Therefore, this rejection is not sustained. Dependent Claims 4, 6, and 12 Claims 4 and 6 depend from claim 1. Claim 12 depends from claim 9. Appellant has not presented arguments as to these claims, apart from the arguments directed to claims 1 and 9, which are not persuasive for the reasons discussed above. We, therefore, sustain the rejection of claims 4, 6, and 12. Appeal 2021-001083 Application 15/523,216 11 Remaining Rejections Claims 8 and 17 depend from claim 1. Claims 16 and 18 depend from claim 9. Appellant has not presented arguments as to these claims, apart from the arguments directed to claims 1 and 9, which are not persuasive for the reasons discussed above. We, therefore, sustain the rejections of claims 8 and 16-18. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8-10, 12, and 16-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are affirmed. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 5, 11, and 13-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed. In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 9, 10 103 Lie 1, 2, 9, 10 3-6, 11-15 103 Lie and Steinsiek 4, 6, 12 3, 5, 11, 13-15 8, 16 103 Lie and Kirikera 8, 16 17, 18 103 Lie and Thompson 17, 18 Overall Outcome 1, 2, 4, 6, 8-10, 12, 16-18 3, 5, 11, 13-15 TIME PERIOD FOR 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART