PTAB

IPR2017-02073

HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC. v. Schlumberger Technology Corporation

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Using Fiber Optics in Coiled Tubing
  • Brief Description: The ’873 patent describes methods and an apparatus for performing treatment operations in a wellbore. The system deploys a “fiber optic tether” within coiled tubing to optically connect downhole tools and sensors to surface equipment, enabling real-time monitoring of downhole properties and adjustment of the treatment operation based on the measured data.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-19 are obvious over Tubel in view of Head and Purvis.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Tubel (Patent 6,268,911), Head (Patent 5,996,689), and Purvis (Patent 6,367,548).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the combination of these references teaches every element of the challenged claims.
      • Tubel (’911 patent) was asserted to disclose the foundational system for wellbore treatment. It teaches using a fiber optic system deployed within coiled tubing to monitor downhole parameters (e.g., pressure, temperature) and control downhole tools (e.g., valves, chokes). Tubel discloses two-way communication between surface processors and downhole sensors/devices, allowing for real-time monitoring during remedial operations, which Petitioner equated with the claimed “stimulation” operations.
      • Head (’689 patent) was introduced to supply the missing element of slack management. The ’873 patent claims a “fiber optic tether having a degree of slack relative to the coiled tubing.” Petitioner argued that while Tubel discloses a fiber optic line in coiled tubing, it does not explicitly teach slack. Head, however, directly addresses this issue by teaching a system with a conduit arranged internally within coiled tubing, where the conduit has excess length, causing it to form a "wavy" profile. Head explicitly states this built-in slack prevents the internal fiber optic cable from being subjected to stretching. Petitioner contended this directly teaches the claimed "degree of slack" limitation.
      • Purvis (’548 patent) was argued to provide the specific teachings for real-time control of a stimulation treatment. Purvis discloses methods for stimulating well intervals, including matrix acidizing treatments, by monitoring pressure and adjusting operations based on a detailed "pressure analysis algorithm." This algorithm compares measured pressure to a model and dictates actions, such as stopping fluid injection, if a deviation occurs. This, Petitioner argued, teaches the claimed steps of obtaining a measured property related to the stimulation and adjusting an operational parameter in real-time based on that property.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Petitioner argued a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine these references to achieve a predictable and improved system. A POSITA would start with Tubel’s foundational fiber optic monitoring and control system and recognize the known problem of differential stretching between a cable and coiled tubing. To solve this, the POSITA would look to a known solution like that in Head, incorporating its slack management technique to improve the reliability and lifespan of the fiber optic line. Further, to apply this improved system to a specific, common application like well stimulation, the POSITA would incorporate the real-time feedback control logic from Purvis. This would allow for more precise, efficient, and safer stimulation treatments (e.g., acidizing) by using direct, real-time downhole data to control the operation, as taught by Purvis.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have a high expectation of success because combining the references involved applying known solutions to known problems. Each reference performed its intended function within the combined system without unexpected results. The integration of Head’s mechanical slack solution with Tubel’s optical system and Purvis’s control logic was presented as a predictable synthesis of existing technologies.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "Fiber optic tether": Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "a protective tube having one or more optical fibers disposed therein, or a cable composed of optic fibers." This broad construction, which Petitioner supported with references to the ’873 patent’s specification and prosecution history, was critical to its argument. It allowed Petitioner to argue that the conduit systems described in the Tubel and Head prior art references, which contain fiber optics, meet the "fiber optic tether" limitation of the challenged claims.
  • "Stimulation": Petitioner relied on the ordinary meaning in the oil and gas industry, defining the term as "an operation performed to increase or restore the production of desired fluids from a well." This construction includes treatments such as fluid injection. This broad definition was important for asserting that the remedial and injection operations disclosed in the prior art, particularly Tubel and Purvis, qualify as the "stimulation" operations required by the claims.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-19 of Patent 7,617,873 as unpatentable.