OWEN OIL TOOLS LP

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 25, 2021

2020004631 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 25, 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. 15/253,057 08/31/2016 SHAUN M. GEERTS COR-1147-US 9723 87627 7590 03/25/2021 Mossman, Kumar & Tyler PC P.O. Box 421239 Houston, TX 77242 EXAMINER GAY, JENNIFER HAWKINS ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3619 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/25/2021 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@mktlaw.com tthigpen@mktlaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SHAUN M. GEERTS and JEFFREY D. WOOD Appeal 2020-004631 Application 15/253,057 Technology Center 3600 Before JILL D. HILL, LEE L. STEPINA, and ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges. PESLAK, 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, 3–7, and 9–13, the pending claims. See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Owen Oil Tools LP. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2020-004631 Application 15/253,057 2 THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant’s invention relates to a high shot density perforating gun. Claims 1, 10, and 13 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A perforating gun having a longitudinal axis, the perforating gun comprising: a carrier; a charge tube disposed inside the carrier; a plurality of sets of shaped charges axially distributed along the charge tube, each set of shaped charges including a plurality of shaped charges being supported at an opening in the charge tube and circumferentially arrayed along a plane transverse to the longitudinal axis, wherein adjacent sets of shaped charges have an angular offset relative to one another, and wherein a space between two shaped charges of one set is partially occupied by a shaped charge of an adjacent set of shaped charges, wherein each shaped charge is fixed to the associated opening of the charge tube and has a post extending from a closed end; an initiation tube disposed inside the charge tube, wherein each shaped charge is further supported at an associated opening in the initiation tube, and wherein each post of each shaped charge is fixed to the initiation tube; and a plurality of detonator cords, each detonator cord of the plurality of detonator cords connecting to the post of at least one shaped charge and detonating one shaped charge in each set of shaped charges. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Han US 2008/0121095 A1 May 29, 2008 Goodman US 2012/0160491 A1 June 28, 2012 Walker US 2013/0019770 A1 Jan. 24, 2013 McNelis CA 2886310 A1 Apr. 17, 2014 Appeal 2020-004631 Application 15/253,057 3 REJECTION Claims 1, 3–7, and 9–13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Goodman, Han, Walker, and McNelis.2 ANALYSIS Appellant presents arguments for independent claims 1, 10, and 13 as a group. Appeal Br. 5–7. We select claim 1 as representative and claims 3– 7 and 9–13 stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). The Examiner finds that Goodman discloses many of the limitations of claim 1, including a perforating gun comprising a plurality of shaped charges, but does not disclose the shaped charges being supported at openings in the charge tube as claimed. Final Act. 4–5. The Examiner finds that Han discloses a charge tube and an initiation tube each having openings wherein shaped charges are supported. Id. at 5 (citing Han, Figs. 4, 5A). The Examiner considers that it would have been obvious to have modified Goodman to support the shaped charges at an opening “in order to have ensured that the shaped charges maintained their orientation” as taught by Han. Id. at 5–6. The Examiner finds that Goodman does not teach certain additional limitations that are not related to supporting the shaped charges at an opening, and relies on Walker and McNelis for these additional limitations, which Appellant does not dispute. See Final Act. 6–8. See also Appeal Br. 5–7. Appellant argues that the Examiner’s stated rationale for the combination of Goodman and Han, to ensure that the shaped charges 2 If prosecution is to continue in this case, Appellant should change the dependency of claim 3–6, which currently depend from canceled claim 2. Br. 9–10 (Claims App.). Appeal 2020-004631 Application 15/253,057 4 maintain their orientation, “is improper because the Office Action relies on information gleaned solely from Applicant’s specification as a basis for the combination.” Appeal Br. 6. According to Appellant, Han does not disclose maintaining the orientation of the shaped charges, and does not suggest a solution to maintain the orientation. Id. Appellant asserts that because there is no evidence that maintaining orientation was a known problem, there is no factual basis to motivate an ordinary artisan to modify Goodman as proposed by the Examiner. Id. at 7. For the following reasons, Appellant’s arguments do not apprise us of Examiner error. As the Examiner correctly notes, a reference may provide a teaching to establish obviousness, but obviousness may also be established using the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. Ans. 5–6; see also KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Here, the Examiner finds that an ordinary artisan would understand that the orientation of the perforations and the shaped charges must be maintained for the shaped charges to “effectively penetrate the reservoir.” Ans. 4. This is supported by Han, which discloses that “shaped charges 33 firmly engage in the inner tube 32” and are kept in place by tabs. Han ¶ 33; see also Final Act. 6. The Examiner’s reasoning is also consistent with Goodman, which discloses: “[o]ne skilled in the art would appreciate that . . . the proper distances [between shaped charges] can be determined without inventive efforts,” so that activation of the shaped charge “creates openings in any surrounding casing and extends perforations into the surrounding formation.” Goodman ¶¶ 5, 29. Given that Goodman teaches providing a proper distance between shaped charges and given that Han “provides support for the charge” to “suppress[]” movement (Han ¶¶ 33, 36), a Appeal 2020-004631 Application 15/253,057 5 preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s finding that an ordinary artisan would have found it desirable to maintain the orientation of the shaped charges. Thus, the Examiner’s reasoning for the proposed modification to the perforating gun of Goodman is supported by rational underpinnings. We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments and are not apprised of Examiner error. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 1. Claims 3–7 and 9–13 fall with claim 1. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejection is affirmed. DECISION SUMMARY Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3–7, 9–13 103 Goodman, Han, Walker, McNelis 1, 3–7, 9–13 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