THRU TUBING SOLUTIONS, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardNov 30, 2020

2020003355 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2020)

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. 15/727,030 10/06/2017 Andrew M. FERGUSON TTS-14-05D1US 1002 20558 7590 11/30/2020 SMITH IP SERVICES, P.C. P.O. Box 997 Rockwall, TX 75087 EXAMINER NOLD, CHARLES R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3674 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/30/2020 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): mail@smithipservices.com sally@smithipservices.com scrawford@smithipservices.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ANDREW M. FERGUSON, STANLEY W. LOVING, ROGER L. SCHULTZ, MARK S. BRITTON, and BROCK W. WATSON Appeal 2020-003355 Application 15/727,030 Technology Center 3600 Before JILL D. HILL, LEE L. STEPINA, and ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges. HILL, 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 17 and 19–30. See Final Act. 1. 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. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Thru Tubing Solutions, Inc. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-003355 Application 15/727,030 2 BACKGROUND Appellant’s invention relates to a well completion method. Claim 17, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter: 17. A well completion method, comprising: in a single trip into a wellbore, the following steps being performed for each of multiple zones penetrated by the wellbore: a) perforating the zone using an abrasive perforator; b) then displacing the perforator in the wellbore away from the earth’s surface; c) then fracturing the zone; and d) plugging the fractured zone with a flowable plug substance, wherein the plug substance is flowed to the zone via at least one of the group consisting of the abrasive perforator and a tubing used to convey the abrasive perforator in the wellbore. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Tolman US 2002/0007949 A1 Jan. 24, 2002 Behrmann US 2004/0099418 A1 May 27, 2004 Popov US 2011/0100625 A1 May 5, 2011 REJECTIONS I. Claims 17, 19–21, 23, 24,2 and 26–30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Tolman and Behrmann. 2 The Examiner withdrew the rejection of claim 25 as unpatentable over Tolman and Behrmann. See Ans. 3. Appeal 2020-003355 Application 15/727,030 3 II. Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Tolman, Behrmann, and Popov.3 ANALYSIS Rejection I: Obviousness Based on Tolman and Behrmann The Examiner finds that Tolman discloses many of the limitations of claim 1, including an abrasive perforator connected by tubing, but does not disclose using the tubing or perforator to convey a plug substance. Final Act. 4. The Examiner finds that Behrmann discloses an apparatus 50 with a perforating gun 56 for injecting fluid, and reasons that it would have been obvious to use Behrmann’s perforating gun 56 in Tolman “because Behrmann teaches that his gun will allow ‘treatment fluids’ to be pumped through the coiled tubing and directly into the wellbore saving time and money.” Id. Appellant argues that Behrmann’s apparatus 50 includes a perforating gun 56 and a surge tool 52, and it is Behrmann’s surge tool 52 that includes ports 53 to inject fluid. Appeal Br. 13. Appellant argues that, in any event, Behrmann’s surge tool 53 admits a fluid that creates an underbalance, not a plug substance. Id.; see also Reply Br. 15. In response, the Examiner states that Tolman teaches an abrasive perforator and that Behrmann is cited for flowing a fluid through a conduit that holds the tool. Ans. 5. The Examiner provides a chart listing the fluids of Behrmann that the Examiner considers to be plug substances. Id. 3 Because claim 22 depends from claim 17, we understand the Examiner’s omission of Behrmann from the heading of the rejection to be inadvertent. Appeal 2020-003355 Application 15/727,030 4 Appellant has the better position. Even if the Examiner intended the modification to use only the tubing of Behrmann for flowing its “treatment fluids” through a conduit that holds its tool (56 or 52), the Examiner does not explain adequately why Behrmann’s “treatment fluids” would have been understood by a skilled artisan to be plug substances. See Ans. 5 (“The plug substance” is disclosed in paragraph 33 of Behrmann). A skilled artisan would have understood that a “plug substance” prevents or restricts flow from the well. See Spec. 10:10–12, 11:21–22; see also Tolman ¶ 6. By contrast, Behrmann discloses that a problem exists in perforation tunnels including loose debris and damaged regions. Behrmann addresses this problem to “improve fluid communication” (Behrmann ¶ 7 (emphasis added)) by using “treatment fluids” to, inter alia, clean out the perforation tunnel, enhance transportation of debris, and dissolve minerals. Behrmann ¶ 23. The Examiner does not provide evidence that any of Behrmann’s “treatment fluids” can prevent or restrict flow. The Examiner’s finding that Behrmann’s treatment fluids are a plug substance is, therefore, not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Although the Final Action finds that Tolman discloses a flowable plug substance (see Final Act. 4 (citing Tolman ¶¶ 9, 89)), the Examiner does not provide evidence or sound technical reasoning that either Tolman’s gun or Behrmann’s gun would work with a plug substance. See Reply Br. 15. For these reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 17 and claims 19–21, 23, 24, and 26–30 depending therefrom. Appeal 2020-003355 Application 15/727,030 5 Rejection II: Obviousness Based on Tolman, Behrmann, and Popov Claim 22 depends from claim 17. The Examiner does not rely on the additional disclosure of Popov in any manner that would remedy the conclusion set forth in the rejection of claim 17. We do not sustain Rejection II for the same reasons set forth above. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejection is reversed. DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 17, 19–21, 23, 24, 26– 30 103 Tolman, Behrmann 17, 19–21, 23, 24, 26– 30 22 103 Tolman, Behrmann, Popov 22 Overall Outcome: 17, 19–24, 26–30 REVERSED