`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`U.S. WELL SERVICES, LLC
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2021-01065
`Patent No. 9,840,901
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Petition for IPR of USP 9,840,901
`
`I.
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................ 1
`
`A. Real Party-In-Interest ................................................................................. 1
`
`B. Related Matters .......................................................................................... 1
`
`C. Lead and Back-Up Counsel ....................................................................... 3
`
`D. Service Information .................................................................................... 3
`
`II.
`
`STANDING AND FEES................................................................................ 4
`
`A. Standing ...................................................................................................... 4
`
`B. Fees............................................................................................................. 4
`
`III.
`
`OVERVIEW OF THE ’901 PATENT ........................................................... 4
`
`A. Subject Matter ............................................................................................ 4
`
`B. Prosecution History .................................................................................... 5
`
`C. Priority Date ............................................................................................... 5
`
`D. Institution Is Proper .................................................................................... 8
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL ................................................................. 10
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ......................................................................... 10
`
`A. “communication means” (claim 2) .......................................................... 11
`
`B. “silica exposure zone” (claims 9, 18) ...................................................... 11
`
`VI.
`
`SUMMARY OF PRIOR ART ..................................................................... 11
`
`A. Hardin: Ex. 1006 ...................................................................................... 12
`
`B. OSHA-Silica: Ex. 1010 ............................................................................ 13
`
`C. OSHA-3763: Ex. 1009 ............................................................................. 18
`
`D. Dykstra: Ex. 1007..................................................................................... 25
`
`E. Coli: Ex. 1008 .......................................................................................... 25
`
`VII. SUMMARY OF GROUNDS ....................................................................... 26
`
`VIII. GROUND 1: OBVIOUSNESS OVER HARDIN........................................ 26
`
`A. Claim 1 ..................................................................................................... 27
`
`B. Claims 2-12 .............................................................................................. 38
`
`C. Claim 13 ................................................................................................... 51
`
`D. Claims 14-18 ............................................................................................ 53
`
`i
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR of USP 9,840,901
`
`
`
`IX. GROUND 2: OBVIOUSNESS OVER HARDIN IN VIEW OF
`OSHA-Silica and OSHA-3763 ..................................................................... 56
`
`X.
`
`GROUND 3: OBVIOUSNESS OVER DYKSTRA IN VIEW OF
`HARDIN ....................................................................................................... 58
`
`A. Reasons to Combine ................................................................................. 58
`
`B. Disclosure of Hardin in view of Dykstra ................................................. 60
`
`XI. GROUNDS 4-6: OBVIOUSNESS IN VIEW OF COLI ............................. 77
`
`A. Reasons to Combine ................................................................................. 77
`
`B. Disclosure in view of Coli ....................................................................... 79
`
`XII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 81
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`CASES
`
`Petition for IPR of USP 9,840,901
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Advanced Bionics, LLC v. Med-El Elektromedizinische Gerate GMBH,
`IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 13, 2020) ............................................ 10
`
`Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG,
`IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 2017) ............................................. 9
`
`Dish Network L.L.C. v. Broadband iTV, Inc.,
`IPR2020-01267, Paper 15 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 21, 2021) .......................................... 28
`
`Google LLC v. AGIS Software Dev., LLC,
`IPR2018-01081, 2018 WL 6131542 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 20, 2018) ........................... 7
`
`Jazz Pharms., Inc. v. Amneal Pharms., LLC,
`895 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .................................................................... 13, 19
`
`Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Google LLC,
`948 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2020) .............................................................. 28, 32, 43
`
`KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................................................................................ 42
`
`Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc.,
`107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ............................................................................ 6
`
`Mueller Sys., LLC v. Rein Tech, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00100, 2020 WL 2478524 (P.T.A.B. May 12, 2020) ......................... 11
`
`Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co.,
`868 F.3d 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .......................................................................... 10
`
`PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
`522 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .................................................................. 6, 9, 11
`
`Studiengesellschaft Kohle, M.B.H. v. Shell Oil Co.,
`112 F.3d 1561 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ............................................................................ 8
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`STATUTES
`
`Petition for IPR of USP 9,840,901
`
`35 U.S.C. § 120 .......................................................................................................... 7
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`37 C.F.R. § 1.78(d)(1) ................................................................................................ 7
`
`FRE 803 ...........................................................................................13, 14, 18, 19, 23
`
`FRE 902 ...........................................................................................13, 14, 18, 19, 23
`
`M.P.E.P. §201.08 ....................................................................................................... 9
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR of USP 9,840,901
`
`
`
`
`Ex.
`
`Description
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`1001
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,840,901 to Oehring and Hinderliter (filed Oct. 14, 2016 and
`issued Dec. 12, 2017) (“’901 Patent” or “Challenged Patent”)
`
`1002
`
`Declaration of Dr. Robert A. Durham in Support of Petition for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,840,901, with CV attached as Appendix A
`(“Durham”)
`
`1003
`
`File History of U.S Patent No. 9,840,901 (App. No. 15/293,681) (“’901
`Patent File History”)
`
`1004
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0326854 (filed as App. No. 15/202,085 on
`July 5, 2016 and published Nov. 10, 2016) (“’085 App”)
`
`1005
`
`File History of U.S. Patent Provisional Application No. 62/242,566 (filed Oct.
`16, 2015) (“Provisional”)
`
`1006
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0144336A1 to Hardin et al. (filed Nov. 28,
`2014 and published May 28, 2015) (“Hardin”)
`
`1007
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2008/0236818A1 to Dykstra et al. (filed Mar. 27,
`2007 and published Oct. 2, 2008) (“Dykstra”)
`
`1008
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2012/0255734 to Coli et al. (filed Apr. 6, 2012
`and published Oct. 11, 2012) (“Coli”)
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, “Hydraulic Fracturing and Flowback
`Hazards Other than Respirable Silica” (OSHA 3763-12 2014) (“OSHA
`3763”), available at:
`https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/publications/OSHA3763.pdf
`
`U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA-NIOSH Hazard Alert: “Worker Exposure
`to Silica during Hydraulic Fracturing” (DSTEM 6/2012) (“OSHA-Silica”),
`available at:
`https://www.osha.gov/dts/hazardalerts/hydraulic_frac_hazard_alert.pdf
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`
`1011 RESERVED
`
`Petition for IPR of USP 9,840,901
`
`1012
`
`U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA News Release (dated June 21, 2012),
`available at: https://www.osha.gov/news/newsreleases/national/06212012
`
`1013
`
`U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA Homepage (archived July 22, 2012),
`available at:
`https://web.archive.org/web/20120722160756/https://www.osha.gov/
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA Industry/Hazard Alerts Index (archived
`August 1, 2012), available at:
`https://web.archive.org/web/20120801064838/http://www.osha.gov/hazardind
`ex.html
`
`U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA-NIOSH Hazard Alert: Worker Exposure to
`Silica during Hydraulic Fracturing (archived August 8, 2012), available at:
`https://web.archive.org/web/20120808200919/http://www.osha.gov/dts/hazar
`dalerts/hydraulic_frac_hazard_alert.html
`
`Center for Disease Control, NIOSH Numbered Publications (archived July 21,
`2012), available at:
`https://web.archive.org/web/20120721180008/http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/pubs
`/all_date_desc_nopubnumbers.html
`
`1017
`
`U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA Homepage (archived April 6, 2015),
`available at:
`https://web.archive.org/web/20150406152927/https://www.osha.gov/
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA Publications (“All”) (archived June 26,
`2015), available at:
`https://web.archive.org/web/20150626140537/https://www.osha.gov/pls/publi
`cations/publication.html
`
`U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA Publications (organized topically)
`(archived April 6, 2015), available at:
`https://web.archive.org/web/20150406054914/https://www.osha.gov/pls/publi
`cations/publication.AthruZ?pType=Industry
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR of USP 9,840,901
`
`RESERVED
`
`1020-
`1029
`
`Mary Ann Mullaney et al., “A Shift to Sand: Spotlight on Silica Use in
`Fracking,” Law360 (Aug. 2, 2012), available at:
`https://www.law360.com/articles/366057/a-shift-to-sand-spotlight-on-silica-
`use-in-fracking;
`https://www.law360.com/articles/366057/print?section=energy
`
`Bernard Goldstein et al., “The Role of Toxicological Science in Meeting the
`Challenges and Opportunities of Hydraulic Fracturing,” TOXICOLOGICAL
`SCIENCES 139(2), p. 271-283 (Apr. 4, 2014)
`
`Donna Heidel et al., “Safety and Health Management Aspects for Handling
`Silica-based Products and Engineered Nanoparticles in Sequences of Shale
`Reservoir Stimulations Operations” (SPE 18334), SPE International (2014)
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`Henry Chajet et al., “OSHA Issues Alert on Non-Silica Fracking Hazards,”
`NAT’L LAW REVIEW (Jan. 30, 2015), available at: 2015 WLNR 2899814
`
`1034
`
`1035
`
`“OSHA Issues Hazard Alert for Fracking and Drilling,” INDUSTRIAL SAFETY
`& HYGIENE NEWS (ISHN) (Jan. 6, 2015), available at:
`https://www.ishn.com/articles/100386-osha-issues-hazard-alert-for-fracking-
`and-drilling
`
`Mike Soraghan, “OSHA Issues Hazard Alert for Fracking and Drilling,”
`ENVIRONMENTAL & ENERGY NEWS: ENERGYWIRE (Dec. 10, 2014), available
`at:
`https://www.eenews.net/energywire/stories/1060010241/search?keyword=osh
`a+issues+hazard+alert+for+fracking+and+drilling
`
`1036
`
` RESERVED
`
`1037
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,410,410 to Broussard et al., entitled “System for Pumping
`Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid Using Electric Pumps” (filed as App. No.
`13/679,689)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`Other than prosecution histories, Ex. 1003 and Ex. 1005, all citations to exhibits
`
`Petition for IPR of USP 9,840,901
`
`reference original page numbers found in the underlying document, and all emphases
`
`are added.
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES
`
`A. REAL PARTY-IN-INTEREST
`
`Petition for IPR of USP 9,840,901
`
`Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. (“Halliburton” or “Petitioner”),
`
`Halliburton Company, and Halliburton Holdings LLC are the real parties in interest.
`
`B. RELATED MATTERS
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,840,901 (“’901 Patent” or “Challenged Patent”) has not
`
`been asserted in litigation.
`
`According to U.S. Patent & Trademark Office Patent Application Information
`
`Retrieval (PAIR) system, the ’901 Patent was filed as App. No. 15/293,681 (the
`
`“’681 Application”) on Oct. 14, 2016 and purports to claim priority as follows:
`
`• Continuation-in-part of U.S. Patent Application No. 15/202,0851 filed on
`July 5, 2016 (the “’085 Application”) and issued on July 2, 2019 as U.S.
`Patent No. 10,337,308, which is a:
`
`• Continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 13/679,689, filed on Nov.
`16, 2012 (the “’689 Application”) and issued on Aug. 9, 2016 as U.S.
`Patent No. 9,410,410.
`
`The ’901 Patent also claims priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No.
`
`62/242,566 (the “Provisional”), which was filed on Oct. 16, 2015.
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 9,410,410 and 10,337,308 are each currently asserted by
`
`Patent Owner against Petitioner in case no. 6:21-cv-00367 (W.D. Tex.). Both
`
`
`1 Erroneously identified on the cover of the ’901 Patent as “15/020,085” instead of
`“15/202,085”
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`patents were also previously asserted in a lawsuit entitled U.S. Well Services, LLC
`
`Petition for IPR of USP 9,840,901
`
`v. Tops Well Services, LLC, 3-19-cv-00225 (S.D. Tex.), which was filed on July 3,
`
`2019 and dismissed without prejudice shortly thereafter on July 23, 2019. Both
`
`patents are also involved in a pending lawsuit entitled U.S. Well Services, LLC v.
`
`Tops Well Services, LLC, 3-19-cv-00237 (S.D. Tex.) (“Tops Well Litigation”),
`
`which was filed on July 22, 2019. Although the Tops Well Litigation is technically
`
`still pending, the case is stayed to facilitate completion and execution of a settlement
`
`agreement.
`
`In addition, Petitioner is filing Petitions for IPR against other patents held by
`
`Patent Owner, including: IPR2021-01033 against U.S. Pat. No. 8,789,601; IPR2021-
`
`01032 against U.S. Pat. No. 9,410,410; IPR2021-01036 against U.S. Pat. No.
`
`9,611,728; IPR2021-01037 against U.S. Pat. No. 9,745,840; IPR2021-01035 against
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 9,970,278; IPR2021-01034 against U.S. Pat. No. 10,337,308; and
`
`IPR2021-01038 against U.S. Pat. No. 10,408,030.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR of USP 9,840,901
`
`C. LEAD AND BACK-UP COUNSEL
`
`LEAD COUNSEL
`Chad C. Walters
`BAKER BOTTS L.L.P
`2001 Ross Ave., Suite 900
`Dallas, TX 75201-2980
`Phone: (214) 953-6511
`Fax: (214) 661-4511
`chad.walters@bakerbotts.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 48,022
`
`BACK-UP COUNSEL
`Brian W. Oaks
`BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
`98 San Jacinto Blvd., Suite 1500
`Austin, Texas 78701-4078
`Phone: (512) 322-5470
`Fax: (512) 322-3621
`brian.oaks@bakerbotts.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 44,981
`
`David J. Tobin
`BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
`2001 Ross Ave., Suite 900
`Dallas, TX 75201-2980
`Phone: (214) 953-6869
`Fax: (214) 661-4869
`david.tobin@bakerbotts.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 60,776
`
`
`
`
`
`
`D.
`
`SERVICE INFORMATION
`
`Petitioners may be served at lead counsel’s address provided above and
`
`consent to e-mail service, provided it is made to all of the following e-mail addresses:
`
`chad.walters@bakerbotts.com,
`
`brian.oaks@bakerbotts.com,
`
`david.tobin@bakerbotts.com, and Halliburton901IPR@BakerBotts.com.
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`II.
`
`STANDING AND FEES
`
`A.
`
`STANDING
`
`Petition for IPR of USP 9,840,901
`
`Petitioner certifies under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) that the ’901 Patent is eligible
`
`for inter partes review and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting
`
`inter partes review on the grounds set forth herein.
`
`B.
`
`FEES
`
`The Office is authorized to charge the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) to
`
`Deposit Account No. 02-0384 as well as any additional fees that might be due in
`
`connection with this Petition.
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE ’901 PATENT
`
`A.
`
`SUBJECT MATTER
`
`The ’901 Patent relates to remotely monitoring a hydraulic fracturing system.
`
`Ex. 1001, 1:20-23. The Description of Prior Art discusses known constituents of a
`
`pressurized slurry—e.g., water and “proppant (such as sand or ceramic)”—that is
`
`injected “into a wellbore at a pressure sufficient to generate fissures in the formation
`
`surrounding the wellbore.” Id., 1:26-37. “Typically hydraulic fracturing fleets
`
`include a data van unit, blender unit, hydration unit, chemical additive unit, hydraulic
`
`fracturing pump unit, sand equipment, and other equipment.” Id., 1:41-44. It was
`
`known that manufacturing fracturing slurry “necessarily includes combining, such
`
`as in the blender, hydration unit, chemical additive unit, etc., the individual
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`components of the slurry. Such operation can be dangerous to operating personnel.”
`
`Petition for IPR of USP 9,840,901
`
`Id., 1:45-48. Known dangers included dust inhalation, “slick and slippery”
`
`conditions, chemical burns and explosions. Id. at 1:45-2:25. The ’901 Patent
`
`proposes viewing images of hydraulic fracturing equipment from remote locations,
`
`to mitigate these known hazards. Ex. 1002 ¶39-¶40.
`
`B.
`
`PROSECUTION HISTORY
`
`The ’901 Patent was allowed after applicants amended both independent
`
`claims to recite, “the monitoring system selectively captures and transmits real time
`
`images of an opening to a vessel, so that a level within the vessel is discernible in
`
`the images.” Ex. 1003 at 73, 75. Patent Owner did not dispute that the remaining
`
`claim limitations (including a camera) were known in the art. Id. at 77-78.
`
`Applicants characterized the benefit of the invention as taking “images where a fill
`
`level is visible in the images,” purportedly reducing hazards from “in-person
`
`inspections.” Id.; Ex. 1002 ¶42-¶46.
`
`C.
`
`PRIORITY DATE
`
`The effective filing date for the ’901 Patent claims is October 14, 2016, which
`
`is the actual filing date of Application No. 15/293,681 (“’681 Application”), which
`
`ultimately issued as the ’901 Patent. Ex. 1002 ¶47.
`
`The ’681 Application sought priority through two distinct pathways. First,
`
`the ’681 Application was filed as a continuation-in-part of Application No.
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`15/202,085 (“’085 Application”), which was a continuation of Application No.
`
`Petition for IPR of USP 9,840,901
`
`13/679,689 (“’689 Application”). Second, the ’681 Application sought direct
`
`priority from U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/242,566 (“Provisional”), filed
`
`Oct. 16, 2015. The ’085 Application and ’689 Application did not claim priority to
`
`the Provisional. Exs. 1004, 1037.
`
`The earlier-filed applications in the priority chain, however, fail to include
`
`sufficient written description, inter alia, for both independent claims: 1 and 13. Ex.
`
`1002 ¶49. Absent support in earlier-filed applications for these claims, Patent Owner
`
`cannot demonstrate an effective filing date earlier than October 14, 2016. Lockwood
`
`v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571-72 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (each application in
`
`the priority-chain must comply with the written description requirement to gain
`
`benefit of an earlier filing date).
`
`a.
`
`Requirements for Priority
`
`Patent Owner must prove that the written description of each prior application
`
`“convey[s] with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date
`
`sought, [inventor] was in possession of the invention.… Entitlement to a filing date
`
`does not extend to subject matter which is not disclosed, but would be obvious over
`
`what is expressly disclosed.” PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d
`
`1299, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1571-72 (“The question is
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`not whether a claimed invention is an obvious variant of that which is disclosed in
`
`Petition for IPR of USP 9,840,901
`
`the specification. Rather, a prior application itself must describe an invention….”).
`
`b.
`
`Patent Owner Cannot Meet Its Burden
`
`The ’901 Patent was filed as a CIP but cannot claim priority to the ’085
`
`Application. Ex. 1001, 1:7-15. “CIP applications may add, or remove, subject
`
`matter,” so it is “incumbent on Patent Owner, not Petitioner, to demonstrate …
`
`entitle[ment] to benefit from a priority date.” Google LLC v. AGIS Software Dev.,
`
`LLC, IPR2018-01081, 2018 WL 6131542, *10 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 20, 2018).
`
`The ’901 Patent is not a proper CIP application from the ’085 Application, as
`
`they do not share any common inventors. See 35 U.S.C. § 120; 37 C.F.R. §
`
`1.78(d)(1); compare Ex. 1001 with Ex. 1004 (’085 Application). Further, the
`
`specification of the ’085 Application (Ex. 1004) was rewritten upon filing the ’901
`
`Patent (Ex. 1001).
`
`Limitations from independent claims missing from the ’085 Application
`
`include:
`
`• “a monitoring system that selectively captures and transmits real time
`images” [claim 1]
`
`• “obtaining images of hydraulic fracturing components and pump
`components” [claim 13]
`
`Even the limitation added during prosecution to obtain allowance of the ’901 Patent
`
`is absent from the ’085 Application:
`
`7
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR of USP 9,840,901
`
`
`
`
`• “the monitoring system selectively captures and transmits real time
`images of an opening to a vessel, so that a level within the vessel is
`discernible in the images” [claims 1, 13]
`
`Limitations missing from the 62/242,566 Provisional include:
`
`• “a pump” [claims 1, 13]
`
`• “real time images of at least one of the hydraulic fracturing system
`components or pump components” [claim 1]
`
`• “obtaining images of hydraulic fracturing components and pump
`components” [claim 13]
`
`Ex. 1002 ¶50.
`
`Combining disclosure from the Provisional and ’085 Application to
`
`demonstrate an earlier effective filing date would be inappropriate. First, the
`
`combined disclosure is still missing limitations, as demonstrated above. Second,
`
`“35 U.S.C. 120 requires an applicant to meet the disclosure requirement of §112, ¶1
`
`in a single parent application in order to obtain an earlier filing date for individual
`
`claims.” Studiengesellschaft Kohle, M.B.H. v. Shell Oil Co., 112 F.3d 1561, 1564
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1997). “[T]he disclosures of two earlier filed applications cannot be
`
`combined to acquire an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. § 120.” Id. at 1565.
`
`D.
`
`INSTITUTION IS PROPER
`
`The Board should not deny institution under 35 U.S.C. §314(a), because the
`
`’901 Patent has not been asserted in litigation.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR of USP 9,840,901
`
`
`
`
`The Board should not deny institution under 35 U.S.C. §325(d). Dykstra,
`
`OSHA-Silica, and OSHA-3763—relied upon in Grounds 2-6, collectively against
`
`all Challenged Claims—were not considered by the Examiner during prosecution.
`
`See Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, IPR2017-01586, Paper 8
`
`at 17-18 (Dec. 15, 2017) (factors (a)-(d) indicate the same art was not presented
`
`previously to the Office).
`
`Though the ’901 Patent cites Hardin (Ex. 1006) and Coli (Ex. 1008) on the
`
`cover—among over 180 other references—the Examiner did not cite Hardin or Coli
`
`in a substantive rejection. Id. at 17-18 (factor (c)). This is not surprising, because
`
`Hardin seeks priority to November 28, 2013, whereas the ’901 Patent on its face
`
`seeks (incorrectly) priority to November 16, 2012. Hardin is prior art to the ’901
`
`Patent, however, because Patent Owner cannot demonstrate entitlement to priority
`
`before October 14, 2016. See supra §III.C. Examiners do not make findings of
`
`priority as a matter of course during prosecution, and accept applicant’s asserted
`
`priority date. PowerOasis, 522 F.3d at 1305; M.P.E.P. §201.08. Here, the Examiner
`
`did not analyze priority of the ’901 Patent to earlier applications. Instead, the
`
`Examiner applied “the pre-AIA first to invent provisions,” confirming the Examiner
`
`had mistakenly accepted applicant’s asserted priority date. Ex. 1003 at 95.
`
`Because Hardin is prior art that singlehandedly renders obvious all
`
`Challenged Claims, the Examiner erred by not rejecting claims over Hardin. Becton,
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 at 17-18 (factor (e)). As discussed in Ground 1, Hardin
`
`Petition for IPR of USP 9,840,901
`
`discloses the limitation added to achieve patent allowance—“the monitoring system
`
`selectively captures and transmits real time images of an opening to a vessel, so that
`
`a level within the vessel is discernible in the images.” Ex. 1003 at 73, 75. Ex. 1002
`
`¶52-¶53. By “overlooking specific teachings of the relevant prior art,” the Examiner
`
`committed
`
`a
`
`“material
`
`error.” Advanced Bionics, LLC
`
`v. Med-El
`
`Elektromedizinische Gerate GMBH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6, at 8-9 n. 9 (P.T.A.B.
`
`Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential).
`
`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art would have either (1) a Bachelor of
`
`Science in Mechanical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Petroleum Engineering
`
`or an equivalent field as well as at least 2 years of academic or industry experience
`
`in the oil and gas industry, including well drilling, completion, or production, or (2)
`
`at least four years of industry experience in the oil and gas industry including well
`
`drilling, completion, or production. Ex. 1002 ¶54.
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`Claim terms in IPR are construed according to their “ordinary and customary
`
`meaning” to those of skill in the art. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Constructions are
`
`proposed “only to the extent necessary.” Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad
`
`Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`
`A.
`
`“COMMUNICATION MEANS” (CLAIM 2)
`
`Petition for IPR of USP 9,840,901
`
`The term “communication means” is subject to 35 U.S.C. §112(f). The
`
`function is “communication.” The corresponding structure includes “any form of
`
`communicating data that represents images, including wireless, hard-wired, or fiber
`
`optic material.” See Ex. 1001, 7:64-67. Ex. 1002 ¶56.
`
`B.
`
`“SILICA EXPOSURE ZONE” (CLAIMS 9, 18)
`
`The ’901 specification identifies examples of components that would be
`
`within the “silica exposure zone,” and includes “silos … or any other sand storage
`
`container, sand conveyor, and dust vacuum system.” See Ex. 1001 at 8:6-11. Ex.
`
`1002 ¶57.
`
`VI. SUMMARY OF PRIOR ART
`
`The effective filing date of the ’901 Patent is October 14, 2016 (supra §III.C),
`
`so Petitioner relies on post-AIA provisions for the Asserted References. If Patent
`
`Owner contends that pre-AIA applies, then each Asserted Reference also qualifies
`
`as prior art under the pre-AIA provisions of §102.
`
`Because Petitioner has demonstrated that the Asserted References qualify as
`
`prior art before the actual filing date of the ’901 Patent, the burden shifts to Patent
`
`Owner to “argue or produce evidence … the reference is not prior art because the
`
`claims are entitled to an earlier filing date.” Mueller Sys., LLC v. Rein Tech, Inc.,
`
`IPR2020-00100, 2020 WL 2478524, at *10 (P.T.A.B. May 12, 2020); PowerOasis,
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`522 F.3d at 1304-05 (burden on Patent Owner “come forward with evidence to prove
`
`Petition for IPR of USP 9,840,901
`
`entitlement to claim priority to an earlier filing date”).
`
`A. HARDIN: EX. 1006
`
`a.
`
`Status
`
`“Hardin” refers to U.S. Patent Publication 2015/0144336A1. Hardin was filed
`
`November 28, 2014 (claiming priority to a November 28, 2013 provisional) and
`
`published May 28, 2015. Hardin is prior art to the ’901 Patent under at least 35
`
`U.S.C. §§102(a)(1)-(2).
`
`b. Overview
`
`Hardin describes hydraulic fracturing systems with a “plurality of cameras
`
`operable to generate video that can be viewed remotely,” positioned to allow remote
`
`operators to view “frac water storage containers,” pumps, and other components.
`
`Ex. 1006 claim 7; see ¶[0015]. The cameras are placed “above one or all of the
`
`plurality of water containers … to view water levels.” ¶[0065]. The cameras allow
`
`an operator “positioned at the mobile command center … to remotely view various
`
`components [and] provide an additional check or verification” that the system is
`
`functioning appropriately. ¶[0063]. Ex. 1002 ¶58-¶59.
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`
`B. OSHA-SILICA: EX. 1010
`
`a.
`
`Status
`
`Petition for IPR of USP 9,840,901
`
`“OSHA-Silica” refers to DSTEM 6/2012, published by OSHA and NIOH and
`
`entitled, “Hazard Alert: Worker Exposure to Silica during Hydraulic Fracturing.”
`
`OSHA-Silica is authentic under FRE 902(5) and admissible under FRE 803(8).
`
`OSHA-Silica is currently available, and was publicly available in 2012, through the
`
`OSHA website.2 Ex. 1002 ¶60-¶67.
`
`OSHA-Silica is prior art to the ’901 Patent under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) at least
`
`by June 21, 2012, as it qualifies as a printed publication or otherwise available to the
`
`public. See Jazz Pharms., Inc. v. Amneal Pharms., LLC, 895 F.3d 1347, 1358-359
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2018) (materials disseminated “through a hyperlink to a public FDA
`
`website where the … materials could be accessed” were publicly accessible and
`
`“were available online for a substantial time before the critical date of the patents in
`
`suit”).
`
`On June 21, 2012, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”)
`
`and National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (“NIOSH”) issued a news
`
`alert describing OSHA-Silica and providing an access link:
`
`
`2 https://www.osha.gov/dts/hazardalerts/hydraulic_frac_hazard_alert.pdf.
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Petition for IPR of USP 9,840,901
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1012 (OSHA News Release). The OSHA news release is authentic under FRE
`
`902(5) and admissible under FRE 803(8).
`
`The News Release link to access OSHA-Silica is still available, and was
`
`publicly available at least by September 16, 2012, corresponding to the archival date
`
`by Internet Archive of “20120916”).3 Petitioner requested an affidavit from Internet
`
`Archive verifying the authenticity and availability of the websites referenced in this
`
`Petition, and intends to submit the affidavit upon receipt.
`
`A POSITA would have found the article through the OSHA homepage. By
`
`July 22, 2012, the homepage for OSHA included topical links:
`
`
`
`3
`https://web.archive.org/web/20120916080113/http://www.osha.gov/dts/hazardalert
`s/hydraulic_frac_hazard_alert.pdf.
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Petition for IPR of USP 9,840,901
`
`Ex. 1013 (OSHA homepage, archived 7/22/2012).4 Clicking the “Industry/Hazards”
`
`link (bottom-left of above figure) brought viewers to the following OSHA page:
`
`
`
`
`4 https://web.archive.org/web/20120722160756/https://www.osha.gov/
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Petition for IPR of USP 9,840,901
`
`Ex. 1014 (Industry/Hazard Alerts Index, archived 8/1/2012).5 Clicking Reference 9
`
`accessed the Silica-Exposure article, Ex. 10156, which further allowed users to
`
`access a PDF version of OSHA-Silica. A POSITA would have been motivated to
`
`visit the OSHA website, and navigate to OSHA-Silica, to understand hydraulic
`
`
`
`fracturing hazards. Ex. 1002 ¶60-¶62.
`
`
`
`5
`https://web.archive.org/web/20120801064838/http://www.osha.gov/hazardindex.ht
`ml
`
`6
`https://web.archive.org/web/20120808200919/http://www.osha.gov/dts/hazardalert
`s/hydraulic_frac_hazard_alert.html
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`
`OSHA-Silica was publicly available through Center for Disease Control by
`
`July 21, 2012 (Internet Archive Date, “20120721”):
`
`Petition for IPR of USP 9,840,901
`
`
`
`Ex. 1016 p. 1 (CDC Website, archived 7/21/2021).7 Clicking the CDC link for
`
`“OSHA NIOSH Hazard Alert” brought users to OSHA-Silica.
`
`As further evidence that OSHA-Silica qualifies as prior art well in advance of
`
`the’901 Patent, it was actually received and cited by numerous periodicals from
`
`2012-2014. See, e.g., Ex. 1030 (References 30-31); Ex. 1031 p. 278; Ex1032 p. 1
`
`
`
`7
`https://web.archive.org/web/20120721180008/http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/pubs/all_
`date_desc_nopubnumbers.html
`
`17
`
`

`

`
`
`(“OSHA 2012”). Such references are admissible under FRE 803(17), 803(18) and
`
`Petition for IPR of USP 9,840,901
`
`902(6).
`
`b. Overview
`
`OSHA-Silica describes practices that were well-known in hydraulic fracturing
`
`by 2012. It was generally known that hydraulic fracturing involved “pumping large
`
`volumes of water and sand into a well at high pressure to fracture shale and other
`
`tight formations.” Ex. 1010 p. 1. Well-known ingredients in fracturing fluid
`
`included base fluid (usually water), proppant (including silica sand), an