PTAB

IPR2017-02070

Halliburton Energy Services Inc v. Schlumberger Technology Corp

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Methods for Treating an Oilfield Reservoir
  • Brief Description: The ’448 patent discloses methods for treating subterranean oilfield formations. The methods involve deploying tubing into a wellbore, loading and injecting a series of fluid stages, and using real-time sensor data to monitor well parameters and optimize the treatment process, such as by adjusting fluid volumes or injection locations.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation over Jee - Claims 1-4 and 6 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §102 by Jee.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Jee (WO 2004/018840).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Jee, a prior art international application, explicitly or inherently discloses every limitation of independent claims 1 and 6, as well as dependent claims 2-4. Petitioner asserted that Jee teaches a method for treating an oilfield reservoir using real-time monitoring of fluid placement, diverter effectiveness, and fracturing parameters. Jee’s disclosure of using coiled tubing for precise injection was mapped to the limitations of "deploying a tubing," "loading the tubing with... fluid stages," and "injecting" those stages. Jee’s teaching of monitoring temperature and pressure to make real-time adjustments (e.g., determining if additional diverter is needed or where fluid has moved) was argued to meet the limitation of "detecting well related parameters to determine the need for further injection." Furthermore, Jee’s disclosure of transmitting data from fiber optic sensors to surface equipment was argued to anticipate the limitation of "transmitting real time data... to a surface data acquisition system." For claim 6, Petitioner argued Jee discloses optimizing the treatment by altering parameters such as the volume of a fluid stage (adjusting diverter amount), the sequence of stages (going to flush), or the velocity of the tubing (re-positioning the coiled tubing injection point).

Ground 2: Obviousness over Jee and Clark - Claims 1-10 are obvious over Jee in view of Clark.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Jee (WO 2004/018840), Clark (Patent 2,838,116).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that to the extent Jee does not teach every limitation, it would have been obvious for a POSITA to combine Jee's real-time monitoring and treatment adjustment system with the fluid handling techniques taught by Clark. Jee provides the primary framework of a modern treatment method using real-time monitoring with distributed sensors. Clark, an earlier patent, was cited for its teaching of treating a well by loading and intermittently injecting a "vertically-connected series of alternate slugs or columns of fracturing liquid and fracture sealing agent" that are contained within the well tubing at one time. Clark also teaches repeating a series of fluid stages to produce a desired number of fractures. This combination was asserted to teach stacking different fluids in sequence within the tubing for injection, as recited in claims like claim 7.
    • Motivation to Combine: The primary motivation asserted was to improve operational efficiency and save time and costs. A POSITA implementing Jee's advanced monitoring system would have been motivated to pre-load or "stack" the various treatment fluids (e.g., treatment fluid and diverter) in the tubing as taught by Clark. This would avoid delays between injecting different stages of the treatment, making the overall process faster and more economical.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because combining Clark's well-known fluid stacking method with Jee's monitoring system was a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield a predictable result.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Jee and Tubel '911 - Claims 3 and 16 are obvious over Jee in view of Tubel '911.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Jee (WO 2004/018840), Tubel ’911 (Patent 6,268,911).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground argued it would have been obvious to modify Jee’s method of deploying a distributed sensor system with the alternative deployment methods taught by Tubel ’911. The challenge specifically targeted claims 3 and 16, which require "utilizing a distributed sensor system deployed along the wellbore." While Jee discloses using distributed sensors deployed via coiled tubing, Tubel ’911 discloses fiber optic sensor systems that may be installed in wellbores "before or after installing casings," such as by being wrapped on the outside of tubing or placed in a conduit.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have been motivated to modify Jee's system with the teachings of Tubel ’911 to achieve a more permanent sensor installation and to ensure the sensors do not move during treatment. This was presented as a simple substitution of one known, conventional sensor deployment method for another to obtain a predictable, more robust outcome.
    • Expectation of Success: The expectation of success was high because both references teach using fiber optic sensor systems for monitoring downhole parameters. Combining their respective teachings on sensor function (Jee) and sensor deployment (Tubel ’911) was argued to be a matter of routine design choice.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including that claims 5 and 7-17 are obvious over Jee alone, and that claim 3 is obvious over Jee in view of both Clark and Tubel ’911, relying on similar arguments regarding design choice and the combination of known elements.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-17 of the ’448 patent as unpatentable.