UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`________________________________
`
`HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC.,
`
`PETITIONER,
`
`v.
`
`SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION,
`
`PATENT OWNER.
`
`________________________________
`
`Case IPR2017-01773
`Patent 8,646,529
`
`________________________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,646,529
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311 ET SEQ. AND
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ET SEQ.
`
`
`
`________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`________________________________
`
`HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC.,
`
`PETITIONER,
`
`v.
`
`SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION,
`
`PATENT OWNER.
`
`________________________________
`
`Case IPR2017-01773
`Patent 8,646,529
`
`________________________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,646,529
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311 ET SEQ. AND
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ET SEQ.
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................1
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1)..........................2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Real Party In Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1).............................2
`
`Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) .....................................2
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ..................3
`
`Service Information Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)...............................3
`
`Payment of Fees Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.15............................................4
`
`Certification of Word Count Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(d)....................4
`
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a).....................4
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR WHICH REVIEW IS
`REQUESTED UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1)..........................................4
`
`HOW THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE TO BE CONSTRUED
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) ..................................................................6
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘529 PATENT ............................................................7
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`State of Technology at Time of Alleged Invention...............................7
`
`Summary of the Disclosure of the Claimed Subject Matter ...............12
`
`Summary of the Prosecution of US 7,934,556, US 8,220,543,
`and US 8,646,529 ................................................................................15
`
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART .............................................................20
`
`A.
`
`Summary of U.S. Patent No. 7,273,104 to Wilkinson........................20
`
`i
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Summary of U.S. Patent Application Publication No.
`2005/0211439 to Willett et al..............................................................25
`
`C.
`
`Summary of U.S. Patent No. 6,543,538 to Tolman et al. ...................28
`
`VIII. HOW THE CONSTRUED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) ................................................................31
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Level of Skill in the Art.......................................................................31
`
`Claims 3, 5, 7, 13, 14, 16, and 18-20 are rendered obvious
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103 by Willett in view of Wilkinson.....................32
`
`Claims 3, 5, 7, 13, 14, 16, and 18-20 are rendered obvious
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103 by Tolman in view of Wilkinson. ..................57
`
`IX. CONCLUSION..............................................................................................72
`
`ii
`
`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit 1001 U.S. Patent No. 8,646,529 (“the ‘529 patent”).
`
`Exhibit 1002
`
`Expert Declaration of Paul Branagan.
`
`Exhibit 1003
`
`Paul Branagan CV.
`
`Exhibit 1004 U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2005/0211439 to Willett et al. (“Willett”).
`
`Exhibit 1005 U.S. Patent No. 2,838,116 to Clark et al. (“Clark”).
`
`Exhibit 1006 U.S. Patent No. 6,543,538 to Tolman et al. (“Tolman”).
`
`Exhibit 1007 U.S. Patent No. 7,273,104 to Wilkinson (“Wilkinson”).
`
`Exhibit 1008
`
`Prosecution File History of the ‘556 patent.
`
`Exhibit 1009
`
`Prosecution File History of the ‘543 patent (Divisional of the ‘556
`patent).
`
`Exhibit 1010
`
`Prosecution File History of the ‘529 patent (Divisional of the ‘543
`patent).
`
`Exhibit 1011
`
`Exhibit 1012
`
`Warpinski, N. R., Branagan, P. T., Peterson, R. E., & Wolhart, S. L.,
`“An Interpretation of M-Site Hydraulic Fracture Diagnostic Results.”
`SPE Rocky Mountain Regional/Low Permeability Reservoirs
`Symposium and Exhibition. Society of Petroleum Engineers. 1
`January 1998. Denver, CO. SPE 39950.
`Warpinski, N. R., Branagan, P. T., Peterson, R. E., Wolhart, S. L., &
`Uhl, J. E. “Mapping Hydraulic Fracture Growth and Geometry Using
`Microseismic Events Detected by a Wireline Retrievable
`Accelerometer Array.” SPE Gas Technology Symposium. Society of
`Petroleum Engineers. Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 15-18 March 1998.
`SPE 40014.
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1013
`
`Exhibit 1014
`
`Warpinski, N. R., Branagan, P. T., Peterson, R. E., Fix, J. E., Uhl, J.
`E., Engler, B. P., & Wilmer, R. “Microseismic and Deformation
`Imaging of Hydraulic Fracture Growth and Geometry in the C Sand
`Interval, GRI/DOE M-Site Project.” SPE Annual Technical
`Conference and Exhibition. Society of Petroleum Engineers. San
`Antonio, TX. 5-8 October 1997. SPE 38573.
`Branagan, P. T., Peterson, R. E., Warpinski, N. R., Wolhart, S. L., &
`Hill, R. E. “Propagation of a Hydraulic Fracture into a Remote
`Observation Wellbore Results of C-Sand Experimentation at the
`GRI/DOE M-Site Project.” SPE Annual Technical Conference and
`Exhibition. Society of Petroleum Engineers. San Antonio, TX. 5-8
`October 1997. SPE 38574.
`Warpinski, N. R., Engler, B. P., Young, C. J., Peterson, R., Branagan,
`P. T., & Fix, J. E. “Microseismic Mapping of Hydraulic Fractures
`Using Multi-Level Wireline Receivers.” SPE Annual Technical
`Conference and Exhibition. Society of Petroleum Engineers. Dallas,
`TX. 22-25 October 1995. SPE 30507.
`Ackert, D., Beardsell, M., Corrigan, M. and Newman, K. “The Coiled
`Tubing Revolution,” Oilfield Review. Vol. 1, No. 3. October 1989.pp.
`4-16.
`Exhibit 1017 U.S. Patent No. 3,313,346 to Robert V. Cross (“Cross”).
`
`Exhibit 1015
`
`Exhibit 1016
`
`Exhibit 1018 U.S. Patent No. 4,629,218 to Jon D. Dubois (“Dubois”).
`
`Exhibit 1019 U.S. Patent No. 4,515,220 to Phillip S. Sizer, et al. (“Sizer”).
`
`Exhibit 1020 U.S. Patent No. 6,367,548 to Donald L. Purvis, et al. (“Purvis”).
`Exhibit 1021 Conn, T., and Moffatt, T., “Applications of Real-Time Well
`Monitoring Systems,” Southwestern Paper, February 2000.
`S. C. Maxwell, J. Rutledge, R. Jones, and M. Fehler. “Petroleum
`reservoir characterization using downhole microseismic monitoring.”
`GEOPHYSICS, Vol. 75 No. 5, September –October 2010. pp.
`75A129-75A137. 1.3477966.
`Calvez, Le J., Malpani, R., Xu, J., Stokes, J., and Williams, M.,
`“Hydraulic Fracturing Insights from Microseismic Monitoring,”
`Oilfield Review. Vol. 28, No. 2. May 2016. pp. 16-33.
`
`Exhibit 1022
`
`Exhibit 1023
`
`iv
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1025
`
`Exhibit 1024 U.S. Patent No. 5,377,104 to Gordon G. Sorrells, et al. (“Sorrells”).
`Kew Observatory, Branagan & Associates, Inc., Sandia National
`Laboratories, Resources Engineering Systems, Gas Research Institute,
`& United States. “Results of the multi-site project experimentation in
`the B-Sand interval: Fracture diagnostics and hydraulic fracture
`intersection,” Topical Report, Gas Research Institute. Chicago, IL.
`December 1997.
`Exhibit 1026 U.S. Patent No. 5,501,275 to Card et al. (“Card”).
`Exhibit 1027 U.S. Patent Application Ser. No. 11/294,983 (“the ‘983 application”)
`published as US2006/0113077 to Dean Willberg et al.
`
`Exhibit 1028 U.S. Pat. No. 5,771,170 to Robert J. Withers et al. (“Withers”).
`
`Exhibit 1029 U.S. Pat. No. 7,028,772 to Chris Wright et al. (“Wright”).
`Exhibit 1030 U.S. Patent Application Ser. No 11/111,230 (“the ‘230 application”)
`published as US2005/0236161 to Michael Gay et al.
`
`Exhibit 1031 U.S. Pat. No. 7,055,604 to Virginia Jee et al. (“Jee”).
`Exhibit 1032 U.S. Patent Application Ser. No. 11/135,314 (“the ‘314 application”)
`published as US2005/0263281 to John Lovell et al.
`
`Exhibit 1033 U.S. Pat. No. 6,758,271 to David Randolph Smith (“Smith”).
`
`Exhibit 1034 Xanthan Gum, Material Safety Data Sheet, 24 July 2001.
`
`Exhibit 1035 U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 10/605,784 (“the ‘784 application”)
`published as US2004/0152601 to John W. Still et al.
`
`Exhibit 1036 U.S. Pat.No. 4,716,964 to Steven R. Erbstoesser et al. (“Erbstoesser”).
`
`Exhibit 1037 U.S. Pat. No. 7,506,689 to Jim B. Surjaatmadja (“Surjaatmadja”).
`
`v
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner, Halliburton Energy Services,
`
`Inc.
`
`(“Petitioner”), hereby
`
`respectfully requests Inter Partes Review pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311 et seq. and
`
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.100 et seq., of claims 3, 5, 7, 13, 14, 16, and 18-20 of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 8,646,529 (“the ‘529 patent”) filed July 12, 2012 to Clark et al. See Ex.1001.
`
`The ‘529 patent claims a method of treating a well where a target zone is
`
`treated, a diversion agent is introduced, and a wellbore parameter is measured
`
`which includes measuring microseismic activity. Treating zones in a well with a
`
`diverting agent
`
`that degrades after treatment was well known and explicitly
`
`disclosed in multiple patents issued years before the ‘529 patent was ever filed.
`
`The mere addition of measuring microseismic activity to this known prior art well
`
`treatment method does nothing to impart patentability. Measuring microseismic
`
`activity during a well treatment activity was widely used and well known at the
`
`time of the invention and had been practiced for at least 10 years before the ‘529
`
`patent. Doing so simply involves installing microseismic measuring equipment
`
`into a well or offset well. This is a classic situation where known elements are
`
`combined according to known methods to yield predictable results.
`
`As discussed below, there is nothing recited in claims 3, 5, 7, 13, 14, 16, and
`
`18-20 of the ‘529 patent that is patentable over what is disclosed and taught by the
`
`prior art.
`
`1
`
`
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1)
`Petitioner satisfies each requirement for Inter Partes Review of the ‘529
`
`patent pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1).
`
`A. Real Party In Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)
`
`The Real Party in Interest is Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., 3000 North
`
`Sam Houston Parkway, East Houston, Texas 77032.
`
`B. Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)
`
`On June 13, 2017, Petitioner filed petitions for inter partes review of the
`
`‘529 patent, and both U.S. Patent Nos. 7,934,556 (“the ‘556 patent”) and 8,220,543
`
`(“the ‘543 patent”) which are in the same family as the ‘529 patent, on the
`
`following claims:
`
`Case No.
`IPR2017-01567
`IPR2017-01569
`IPR2017-01570
`IPR2017-01571
`IPR2017-01572
`
`Patent No.
`7,934,556
`8,220,543
`8,220,543
`8,646,529
`8,646,529
`
`Claims
`1-3, 5, 7, 12, and 13
`1-4, 26, and 27
`8-10, 15, 16, 20-23, and 25
`1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 15, and 17
`9-12
`
`On July 28, 2017, Petitioner filed a petition for inter partes review of the
`
`‘556 patent on the following claims:
`
`Case No.
`IPR2017-01774
`
`Patent No.
`7,934,556
`
`Claims
`4, 6, and 8-11
`
`2
`
`
`
`Petitioner is also concurrently filing inter partes review petitions on the
`
`following claims of the ‘543 patent:
`
`Case No.
`IPR2017- 01778
`
`Patent No.
`8,220,543
`
`IPR2017- 01779
`
`8,220,543
`
`Claims
`5-7, 11-14, 17-19, 24, and
`28-31
`32-44
`
`Petitioner is not aware of any other judicial or administrative proceedings
`
`involving the ‘529 patent.
`
`C. Lead and Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)
`
`Petitioner is represented by the following counsel:
`
`Lead Counsel
`
`Backup Counsel
`
`Henry A. Petri (Reg. No. 33,063)
`Polsinelli PC
`1401 Eye (“I”) Street, N.W.,
`Suite 800
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`Telephone: 202.783.3300
`hpetri@polsinelli.com
`
`James P. Murphy (Reg. No. 55,474)
`Polsinelli PC
`1000 Louisiana Street
`Fifty-Third Floor
`Houston, Texas 77002
`Telephone: 713.374.1631
`jpmurphy@polsinelli.com
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b), a Power of Attorney has been filed with
`
`this Petition.
`
`D.
`
`Service Information Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)
`
`Service information for lead and back-up counsel is as follows:
`
`James P. Murphy
`Polsinelli PC
`1000 Louisiana Street, Fifty-Third Floor
`Houston, Texas 77002
`
`3
`
`
`
`Petitioner also consents to service by e-mail at the above e-mail addresses provided
`
`for lead and back-up counsel.
`
`E.
`
`Payment of Fees Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.15
`
`Petitioner authorizes the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office to charge Deposit
`
`Account No. 50-1662 for the fee set in 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) for this Petition and
`
`further authorizes for any additional fees to be charged to this Deposit Account.
`
`F. Certification of Word Count Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(d)
`
`Petitioner certifies that the word count in this Petition is 13,807 words, as
`
`counted by the word-processing program (Microsoft Word 2010) used to generate
`
`this Petition, where such word count excludes the table of contents, table of
`
`authorities, mandatory notices, certificate of service, appendix of exhibits, and this
`
`certificate of word count. This Petition is in compliance with the 14,000 word limit
`
`set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a)(1)(i).
`
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`Petitioner certifies that the ‘529 patent is available for inter partes review.
`
`Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting an inter partes review of the
`
`‘529 patent claims on the grounds identified in this Petition. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a).
`
`IV.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR WHICH REVIEW IS
`REQUESTED UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1)
`
`Petitioner asserts that claims 3, 5, 7, 13, 14, 16, and 18-20 of the ‘529 patent
`
`are unpatentable based on the following grounds:
`
`4
`
`
`
`Ground 1: Claims 3, 5, 7, 13, 14, 16, and 18-20 are rendered obvious
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103 by U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2005/0211439 to Willett et al.,
`
`(“Willett”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 7,273,104 to Wilkinson (“Wilkinson”).
`
`Ground 2: Claims 3, 5, 7, 13, 14, 16, and 18-20 are rendered obvious
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103 by U.S. Patent No. 6,543,538 to Tolman et al., (“Tolman”)
`
`in view of Wilkinson.
`
`While some of the above grounds for obviousness cover the same claims, the
`
`technical teachings between the different grounds are not cumulative.
`
`In particular, Wilkinson presents a method for treating a lateral section of a
`
`well with diverting material and expressly discloses using microseismic
`
`measurements during fracturing operations. With respect to Willett and Tolman,
`
`Willett’s primary embodiment relates to treatment of multiple zones in a horizontal
`
`wellbore. Tolman’s primary embodiment, however, relates to treatment of multiple
`
`zones in a vertical wellbore. A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`alleged invention (“POSITA”) would understand that
`
`the technical
`
`teaching
`
`between these two is different and non-cumulative as the treatment of multiple
`
`zones along a horizontal wellbore has different characteristics to those for treating
`
`multiple zones in a vertical wellbore. Ex.1002 at ¶¶216-217.
`
`As Petitioner’s expert explains,
`
`For example, in a horizontal embodiment, the fracture gradient (e.g.,
`the pressure required to initiate a fracture) and formation properties
`
`5
`
`
`
`are often very similar across the multiple zones. In a vertical wellbore,
`the fracture gradient and formation properties would likely be
`different at the various elevations. One reason for this difference is
`due to the increased relative weight of the rock above a target zone as
`you travel deeper into a wellbore. In a horizontal well, the weight of
`the rock above the wellbore is relatively similar as you travel along
`the wellbore. These differences mean that your treatment steps in a
`vertical wellbore would likely differ at various elevations due to the
`changes, in part, of the fracture gradient. In a horizontal wellbore,
`your treatment steps across the multiple target zones would likely be
`similar due to the relative similarity of the fracture gradient.
`Id. at ¶217.
`
`As such, the different grounds all render obvious the claims, but they do so
`
`based on different and non-cumulative teachings.
`
`V.
`
`HOW THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE TO BE CONSTRUED
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)
`In an Inter Partes Review, claim terms are to be given their broadest
`
`reasonable construction consistent with the specification (“BRI”). In re Cuozzo
`
`Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1276, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2015), aff’d, 136 S.Ct.
`
`2131, 2142 (2016); 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Official Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77
`
`Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012). “[C]laim terms need only be construed
`
`‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman
`
`Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed.Cir.2011)(quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am
`
`Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed.Cir.1999)).
`
`6
`
`
`
`Here, the claims and specification of the ‘529 patent support the proposed
`
`construction of the following limitation:
`
`“parameter indicative of diversion”
`
`The term “parameter indicative of diversion” is found in claims 1, 9, and 15.
`
`A POSITA would understand the broadest reasonable construction of “parameter
`
`indicative of diversion” to mean: pressure, temperature, tension, compression, fluid
`
`flow rate, microseisms or fluid velocity, measured either in the wellbore or in an
`
`offset well, that indicate that diversion has occurred. See Ex.1001 at 5:64-6:38; see
`
`also Ex.1002 at ¶56.
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘529 PATENT
`State of Technology at Time of Alleged Invention1
`
`A.
`
`The alleged invention of the ‘529 patent is a method for treating a well to
`
`increase productivity by temporarily plugging one target zone with a diverting
`
`fluid such that another target zone can be more effectively fractured and measuring
`
`microseismic activity. All of the steps of the claimed method were well known in
`
`the prior art at the time of the alleged invention.
`
`1 Cited references not named in a ground of rejection are cited for the purpose of
`
`showing the state of the art and the background knowledge of a POSITA. Randall
`
`Mfg. v. Rea, 733 F.3d 1355, 1362-63 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
`
`7
`
`
`
`1. Deploying Coiled Tubing for Well Treatment Was Well Known
`
`Coiled tubing was well known and widely used in the oil and gas industry
`
`since at least the mid 1960’s, including in the application of diverting agents into
`
`target zones of interest. See Ex.1002 at ¶¶41-45 (discussing a brief history of coiled
`
`tubing including a discussion of U.S. Patent No. 6,367,548 to Donald L. Purvis, et
`
`al. (Ex.1020), filed March 3, 2000, for its disclosure of using coiled tubing to inject
`
`diverting agents into a wellbore). Moreover,
`
`it was well known to use a
`
`hydrojetting tool with coiled tubing to introduce treatment fluids and degradable
`
`diverting materials to the target zone. See Ex.1037 at 2:8-18; FIG. 2.
`
`2. Treating a Well Using a Degradable Diverting Material Was
`Well Known
`
`Treating a well by temporarily plugging a target zone with a degradable
`
`diverting fluid so that another zone can be fractured has been known to those of
`
`skill in the art and used in practice since at least the 1950’s.
`
`For example, U.S. Patent No. 2,838,116 to Joseph B. Clark, Jr., et al.
`
`(“Clark”) filed on October 22, 1956, recognized that plugging existing fractures in
`
`one zone diverted fracturing fluid to a different zone,
`
`thereby increasing
`
`permeability and the production of hydrocarbons.
`
`Clark describes a process of creating “a series of fractures of any desired
`
`areal extent produced by first fracturing and then temporarily plugging the fracture
`
`so that one or more additional fractures can be produced in the same isolated zone
`
`8
`
`
`
`of a well.” Ex.1005 at 1:40-43. The process can be used to produce multiple
`
`fractures by “intermittently injecting with the fracturing liquid a quantity of
`
`bridging material which tends to plug any previously produced or existing fractures
`
`through which the fracturing liquid is entering the formation so that the fracturing
`
`liquid subsequently entering the confined zone will, by the application of high
`
`hydraulic pressure, produce another fracture.” Id. at 1:46-53.
`
`Clark describes the use of diversion agents to temporarily plug a fracture so
`
`fracturing liquid is diverted to another fracture. Clark describes the use of
`
`“bridging materials,” which are “(1) fibrous-pliable, stringy materials which tend
`
`to entangle or mat in or over a crevice; (2) granular – angular, rigid materials
`
`which tend to bridge against each other in a crevice without being distorted
`
`appreciably; and (3) lamellated – materials formed of thin sheets or flakes.” Id. at
`
`3:69-74. Clark describes a wide range of particle sizes “so that an impermeable
`
`bridge rather than a filter is formed.” Id. at 4:11-12. Clark further describes that the
`
`bridging materials are of a temporary nature, i.e., they are capable of being
`
`removed or degraded from the fractures and from a well. Id. at 4:17-21.
`
`9
`
`
`
`Id. at FIG. 2
`
`As illustrated in FIG. 2 above, the process disclosed in Clark involves first
`
`pumping fracturing liquid into the tubing and then displacing the fracturing liquid
`
`into the formation, thereby producing a first fracture. Id. at 7:48-8:38. Next, a
`
`fracture sealing agent
`
`is introduced to the tubing that contained bridging
`
`material/sealing agent. Id. Once the sealing agent was displaced into the first
`
`10
`
`
`
`fracture, it produced a second pressure peak 17 of about 2400 p.s.i. developed at
`
`the pump discharge, and produced a second fracture. Id. This second pressure peak
`
`indicated that diversion had been successful. Id. After a third pressure peak 18 at
`
`about 2600 p.s.i., the formation fractured for a third time. Id. This third pressure
`
`peak indicated that a second diversion had been successful. Id. Additionally, a
`
`fourth and fifth fracture are indicated. Id.
`
`As such, and as can be seen by the disclosure from Clark, the method for
`
`treating multiple zones within a wellbore as described in the ‘529 patent has been
`
`known for more than six decades. In fact, and as Clark shows, establishing fluid
`
`communication with multiple zones in a well, fracturing a first zone in a well,
`
`diverting a first zone in a well, and fracturing a second zone in a well have been
`
`known since the 1950’s.
`
`3. Measuring Microseismic Activity During a Well Treatment Was
`Well Known
`
`More than 10 years before the ‘529 patent, microseismic measurements of
`
`well treatment process were being performed. For example, these measurements
`
`were being made for the purpose of understanding the location and geometry of the
`
`subterranean formation and for optimizing fracturing operations by monitoring
`
`wellbore parameters, including microseismics. See Ex.1002 at ¶¶46-50 (discussing
`
`a brief history of monitoring wellbore parameters including a discussion of U.S.
`
`11
`
`
`
`Patent No. 5,377,104 to Gordon G. Sorrells et al. (Ex.1024) for its disclosure of
`
`monitoring microseismic activity to understand the propagation of fractures).
`
`Even Patent Owner acknowledges that monitoring a parameter indicative of
`
`stimulation, including microseismic measurements, was well known in the art.
`
`Ex.1001 at 7:15-22 (“Examples of methods for monitoring a parameter indicative
`
`of stimulation are disclosed in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/135,314,
`
`published as U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0263281 [Ex.1032],
`
`which is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety. Microseisms generated by
`
`hydraulic fracturing and other types of treatment may be monitored using hydraulic
`
`fracture monitoring (HFM), for example.”).
`
`In summary, each of claims 3, 5, 7, 13, 14, 16, and 18-20 would have been
`
`obvious to a POSITA in view of the prior art presented herein.
`
`B.
`
`Summary of the Disclosure of the Claimed Subject Matter
`
`The ‘529 patent “relates generally to a method and system for treating a
`
`subterranean formation using diversion.” Ex.1001 at 1:22-23. “To access
`
`hydrocarbon effectively and efficiently, it is desirable to direct the treatment fluid
`
`to target zones of interest in a subterranean formation.” Id. at 1:44-46; 1:49-65. To
`
`that end, the ‘529 patent purports to provide “a reliable method of selectively and
`
`efficiently treating target zones in a subterranean formation using a diversion agent
`
`and monitoring during the treatment.” Id. at 2:52-54.
`
`12
`
`
`
`Id. at FIG. 1.
`
`Depicted in FIG. 1, above, is a well 10 with target zones 40 in accordance
`
`with the alleged invention. A coiled tubing string 20 extends downhole into the
`
`wellbore. Id. at 3:60-62. The coiled tubing string serves to transfer fluids between
`
`the surface and one or more treatment zones in the wellbore. Id. at 3:64-4:3. For
`
`example, the well 10 may include a cutting fluid source 65, a treatment fluid
`
`source 60, and a diversion fluid source 62. Id. at 4:15-30.
`
`13
`
`
`
`After the coiled tubing string 20 has been deployed in the well 10, the
`
`surface treatment monitoring system 64 may be deployed to measure or monitor
`
`treatment of the well. Id. at 6:1-8. For example, the monitoring system may be
`
`capable of detecting and monitoring microseisms in the subterranean formation. Id.
`
`at 6:8-12. Other measurement or monitoring apparatuses may include bottom-hole
`
`pressure gauges or bottom-hole temperature gauges. Id. at 6:31-34. The monitoring
`
`system may also measure tension or compression acting upon a downhole device
`
`or fluid flow rate or velocity. Id. at 6:39-43. The ‘529 patent states that these types
`
`of measuring and monitoring were well known in the art. Id. at 6:13-43.
`
`After the monitoring system and coiled tubing string is deployed, treatment
`
`of the target zone 40 may begin by pumping treatment fluid into well 10. Id. at
`
`6:44-55. This process is referred to as the “treatment stage.” Id. at 6:55-56. The
`
`treatment fluid may be pumped into the annulus 16 between the coiled tubing
`
`string 20 and the casing string 14 (in the case of a cased well) or between the
`
`coiled tubing string 20 and the wellbore wall (in the case of an open hole well). Id.
`
`at 6:48-53.
`
`In accordance with the alleged invention, a diversion agent may be injected
`
`to facilitate in directing treatment fluids to a desired target zone. Id. at 1:41-57;
`
`7:57-65. This is referred to as the “diversion stage.” Id. at 7:66-8:2. For example,
`
`the diversion agent may be pumped into the perforations of the casing string 14 to
`
`14
`
`
`
`seal the perforations. Id. at 8:2-4. In some embodiments, the diversion agent may
`
`be pumped through the perforations and into the stimulated zone in the
`
`subterranean formation. Id. at 8:4-6.
`
`The treatment and diversion stages may be repeated to achieve efficient
`
`stimulation of one or more target zones for production of hydrocarbons. Id. at 9:57-
`
`67; 11:45-51. Moreover, the ‘529 patent states that, based on the measurements
`
`taken from the monitoring systems described above,
`
`the pumping schedule,
`
`injection rate, fluid viscosity or proppant loading, or injection of a diversion agent,
`
`for example, may be modified to provide optimal and efficient treatment of a target
`
`zone. Id. at 7:25-56.
`
`The ‘529 patent admits that diverting using either a mechanical device or
`
`chemical fluids was known in the art. Id. at 1:63-2:38. Mechanical diverting
`
`devices known in the art included ball sealers, bridge plugs, packers, down-hole
`
`valves, sliding sleeves, and baffle/plug combinations; and particulate placement.
`
`Id. at 1:67-2:27. Known chemical diverting fluids included viscous fluids, gels,
`
`foams, or other fluids. Id. at 2:31-33. In addition, it was known in the art that the
`
`diversion agent may comprise a degradable material. Id. at 8:17-23.
`
`C.
`
`Summary of the Prosecution of US 7,934,556, US 8,220,543, and
`US 8,646,529
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,934,556 (“the ‘556 patent”) was filed on May 21, 2007 as
`
`Application No. 11/751,172 (“the ‘172 application”) which claimed benefit to
`
`15
`
`
`
`provisional application No. 60/806,058 filed June 28, 2006. U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,220,543 (“the ‘543 patent”) was filed on March 10, 2011 as Application No.
`
`13/045,146 (“the ‘146 application”) and is a divisional application of the ‘556
`
`patent. U.S. Patent No. 8,646,529 (“the ‘529 patent”) was filed July 12, 2012 as
`
`Application No. 13/547,159 (“the ‘159 application”) and is a divisional application
`
`of the ‘543 patent.2
`
`Below is a summary of the prosecution histories for each of the ‘556, ‘543,
`
`and ‘529 patents, presented in the order of their filing. Since the claimed subject
`
`matter of each of the ‘556, ‘543, and ‘529 patents is very similar, the prosecution
`
`of each of their respective applications informs the overall reason for why the ‘556,
`
`‘543, and ‘529 patents were allowed – which Petitioner submits was in error.
`
`In particular, the ‘556, ‘543, and ‘529 patents gained allowance through a
`
`series of actions wherein the Applicant took advantage of a typographical error by
`
`the Examiner, as described below.
`
`US 7,934,556
`
`In a Response filed on June 23, 2008, the Applicant added claims 55-60 to
`
`the ‘172 application. Of particular note, claim 58 of the ‘172 application included
`
`2 For purposes of this Petition, Petitioner relies on the June 28, 2006 date claimed
`
`in the ‘529 patent, but reserves its right to challenge the claim to priority.
`
`16
`
`
`
`the limitation “wherein the second target zone is above the first target zone.”
`
`Ex.1008 at pg.141.
`
`Thereafter, claims 55-58 were rejected seven times, including in the Final
`
`Office action, dated December 13, 2010, utilizing essentially the same rejection
`
`language. Namely that “it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to
`
`target the zones as claimed, since applicant has not disclosed that targeting the
`
`zones in a certain order solves any stated problem or is for any particular
`
`purpose…” Id. at pg.324 (emphasis added).
`
`Despite rejecting the claims, however, on the following page of that same
`
`Final Office action, the Examiner erroneously also indicated that the claims were
`
`allowable.3 Id. at pg.325.
`
`Instead of clarifying the inconsistency, however, the Applicant instead took
`
`advantage of the Examiner’s erroneous designation and in the Response dated
`
`January 28, 2011 (Id. at pgs.330-335), the Applicant rewrote rejected independent
`
`prosecution claim 53 (that became issued claim 1 of the ‘556 patent) to include the
`
`3 Throughout much of the prosecution, the heading for the Examiner’s rejection
`
`does not match the narrative of the same. As such, it appears that the “Allowable
`
`Subject Matter” followed the language of the headings and lost sight of the actual
`
`rejection.
`
`17
`
`
`
`limitation of claim 58 which recited that “the second target zone is above the first
`
`target zone.” Id. at pg.332.
`
`Claims 59 and 60 (that became issued claims 12 and 13, respectively of the
`
`‘556 patent) were also amended to include that same limitation that “the second
`
`target zone is above the first target zone.” Id. at pgs.333-334.
`
`Despite the obvious flaw in the prosecution history, the next action by the
`
`Office was a Notice of Allowance allowing those claims without the Applicant
`
`ever informing the Office of the issue. Id. at pgs.340-342.
`
`US 8,220,543
`
`A similar mistake was made by the same Examiner in the divisional ‘146
`
`application of the ‘556 patent, and which matured into the ‘543 patent. More
`
`specifically, the Applicant submitted claim 26 in a Preliminary Amendment filed
`
`March 10, 2011 in the ‘146 application. Claim 26 included the limitation “wherein
`
`the measured wellbore parameter is indicative of diversion.” Ex.1009 at pg.30
`
`(emphasis added).
`
`In the first Non-Final Office action dated September 20, 2011, the Examiner
`
`rejected claim 26 as being obvious over US Publication 2003/0106690 to Boney et
`
`al.
`
`(“Boney”)
`
`in view of US Publication 2007/0272407 to Lehman et al.
`
`(“Lehman”). As with the ‘556 patent, the Examiner again erroneously designated
`
`claim 26 allowable subject matter on the next page of the same Non-Final Office
`
`18
`
`
`
`action. And again, instead of clarifying the inconsistency with the Examiner, the
`
`Applicant took immediate advantage of the erroneous designation and amended
`
`rejected independent claims 21, 28 and 34 (that became claims 15, 21 and 27 of the
`
`‘543 patent,
`
`respectively)
`
`to include the erroneously designated allowable
`
`limitation “the measured wellbore parameter is indicative of diversion.” Ex.1009 at
`
`pgs.128-132. Subsequently, the Office issued a Notice of Allowance allowing
`
`those claims.4
`
`US 8,646,529
`
`These Examiner mistakes and Applicant exploitations further infect the ‘529
`
`patent, issued from the ‘159 application which is a divisional of the ‘543 patent.
`
`All of the original claims of the ‘159 application, namely prosecution claims 53-
`
`72, were rejected in the first Office action, dated April 8, 2013, exclusively based
`
`on obviousness-type double patenting over claims 12, 15-26, 32 and 33 of its
`
`parent, the ‘543 patent, and were subsequently overcome via a terminal disclaimer.
`
`The subject matter of each of these claims, however, was found obvious by
`
`the Examiner during the prosecution of the ‘543 patent over Boney in view of
`
`Lehman. But for the erroneous allowance, as explained above in the ‘543 patent,
`
`4 Claims 1-4 and 27 issued after a terminal d
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
