PTAB

PGR2021-00089

Schlumberger Technology Corp v. DynaEnergetics Europe GmbH

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Apparatus for Holding Shaped Charges
  • Brief Description: The ’696 patent relates to a holding device for shaped charges used in perforating guns for oil and gas well applications. The invention is described as an improved perforating gun assembly that can be connected without tandem adapters and includes retention mechanisms to secure shaped charges for direct initiation without a detonating cord.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-13 are obvious over Sokolove in view of Walker.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Sokolove (WO 2019/0148009) and Walker (Patent 4,621,396).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Sokolove disclosed all elements of the challenged claims except for, as the Examiner previously found, a "plurality of retention mechanisms." Sokolove taught a modular perforating gun with a shaped charge holder, radially arranged charge receptacles, and a configuration for directly initiating the charges without a detonating cord. Walker was introduced to explicitly teach the missing element: resilient retention tabs that extend from the holder body to forcibly grip and secure shaped charges.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Sokolove and Walker because both references concern modular perforating guns for oil and gas wells. It was well-known that shaped charges needed to be reliably secured for safe and effective operation. A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate Walker’s known retention tabs into Sokolove’s system to ensure proper charge alignment and prevent charges from falling out.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination was presented as a simple application of a known technique (Walker’s tabs) to a known system (Sokolove’s gun) to achieve the predictable result of a securely held shaped charge.

Ground 2: Claims 14-21 are obvious over Sokolove in view of Walker and Bradley.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Sokolove (WO 2019/0148009), Walker (Patent 4,621,396), and Bradley (Application # 2017/0211363).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the Sokolove/Walker combination from Ground 1 and targeted the perforating gun assembly claims. The combination of Sokolove and Walker supplied the core holding device features. Bradley was added primarily to teach connecting multiple perforating gun housings directly without using tandem sub adapters, a key limitation of claim 14. Bradley disclosed a gun system with male threads on one end and female threads on the other for this purpose. Bradley also taught using an alignment slot and tab to orient the holding device within the housing, as recited in claim 21.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to add Bradley’s teachings to the Sokolove/Walker system to achieve the recognized benefits of eliminating tandem adapters. This modification would reduce the number of components, simplify assembly, and reduce labor, goals explicitly mentioned in the background of the ’696 patent.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued a POSITA would have a high expectation of success in applying Bradley's conventional threaded connections to Sokolove’s gun housing to achieve a more efficient, modular assembly.

Ground 3: Claims 1-13 are obvious over Vann in view of Brooks and Von Kaenel.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Vann (Patent 4,598,775), Brooks (Patent 8,091,477), and Von Kaenel (Patent 10,731,443).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground presented an alternative invalidity theory. Vann taught a base perforating gun with a charge carrier assembly and retention tabs. Petitioner argued that to the extent Vann was seen as using a detonating cord, Brooks was added to teach direct initiation via local detonator assemblies for each charge. To the extent Vann’s retention means were insufficient, Von Kaenel was added to teach robust side-locking tabs that engage grooves on the shaped charge.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references to create an improved modular gun system. The motivation to add Brooks to Vann was to eliminate the cumbersome and debris-creating detonating cord. The motivation to add Von Kaenel was to implement a more effective and reliable retention mechanism, addressing the known need to securely orient shaped charges to increase flexibility, efficiency, and safety.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would expect success in combining these known elements from the prior art, as it involved substituting one known initiation system (detonating cord) for another (Brooks's local detonators) and one known retention system for an improved one (Von Kaenel's tabs).

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted that claims 14-21 are obvious over the combination of Vann, Brooks, Von Kaenel, and Bradley. Petitioner also asserted that claims 9-13 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §112 as indefinite due to the phrase "the one of the plurality of retention mechanisms."

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under Fintiv factors because the parallel district court litigation was at an extremely early stage. At the time of filing, no answer had been filed, no case management conference held, and no trial date set. Petitioner contended that the institution decision would occur before claim construction, investment in the parallel proceeding was minimal, and there was no overlap of invalidity contentions, all of which weighed strongly in favor of institution.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of a post-grant review and cancellation of claims 1-21 of the ’696 patent as unpatentable.