US 11029246

I'll search for authoritative information on this patent number.

Let me check for any litigation or CAFC activity involving this specific patent.

Let me try to confirm the exact claim set and check for any court proceedings.

Summary of US Patent 11,029,246 — "Colorimetric detection of shale inhibitors and/or salts"

Note on the search (literal ID interpretation): I searched for the exact identifier 11029246 / US11029246B1 ("11,029,246"). I did not find any Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) 2026 docket, district court case, or PTAB/IPR petition that names US 11,029,246 as a patent-in-suit or challenged patent. (The closest PTAB activity I saw — e.g., Weatherford U.S., L.P. v. Halliburton Energy Services, IPR2024‑00990 — concerns a different patent, the " '007 patent," not this one.) I cannot claim to have exhaustively checked every docket, so treat the "no litigation found" statement as a negative search result rather than a certification.

---

Bibliographic data

---

Abstract (as published)

A method of detecting a shale inhibitor and/or a salt content in a wellbore servicing fluid (WSF), comprising: determining a water salinity of the WSF; dosing a known volume of the WSF into a container; optionally adding a known volume of diluent (e.g., water) and mixing to provide a test sample; combining the test sample with a chromophore specific to the shale inhibitor and/or the salt, respectively, and optionally mixing; measuring the shale inhibitor content and/or salt content of the test sample using colorimetry; reporting the data to a computer control system; determining a WSF treatment based on the measured content; subjecting the WSF system to the treatment; and optionally waiting a waiting time to retest the WSF system and repeating.

---

Plain-language overview of the independent claims

Claim 1 — Independent (method of detecting a salt content). A method of detecting the salt content of a wellbore servicing fluid (WSF) of a WSF system, comprising:

• (a) determining the water salinity of the WSF;
• (b) dosing an aliquot of the WSF into a container;
• (c) combining that aliquot with a detector compound specific to the salt and mixing to form a detection solution, where the detection solution has at least one absorption peak wavelength in the range of about 380 nm to about 760 nm;
• (d) measuring the salt content by colorimetry — i.e., detecting the absorption intensity at a wavelength within about ±20% of the absorption-peak wavelength, comparing that intensity to a target absorption intensity to determine the amount of salt, and comparing the determined amount to a target amount of salt;
• (e) reporting the measured data to a computer control system;
• (f) determining a WSF treatment based on the salt content and/or a content of shale inhibitors; and
• (g) subjecting the WSF of the WSF system to that treatment.

In short, claim 1 is a closed-loop, field-usable colorimetric assay for salt level in a drilling/servicing fluid, feeding a control system that then adjusts the fluid.

Other independent claims. The specification describes a parallel set of "aspects" that mirror claim scope — notably a first aspect directed to detecting a shale inhibitor and/or salt in a WSF generally (contacting an aliquot with a detector compound to form a detection solution with an absorption peak at ~380–760 nm; detecting absorption intensity within ~±20% of the peak; comparing to a target absorption intensity to determine amount; comparing that amount to a target amount); a twenty-first aspect directed to a wellbore-servicing method (prepare drilling fluid containing base fluid and shale inhibitor and/or salt at a target amount; circulate to yield a circulated drilling fluid; remove solids to yield a substantially solids-free fluid; contact an aliquot with a detector compound to form a detection solution with an absorption peak at ~380–760 nm; detect absorption intensity within ~±20% of the peak; compare to target to determine amount; compare to target amount); and a twenty-seventh aspect (truncated in the fetched text) also directed to servicing a wellbore. Corresponding independent claims to the shale-inhibitor/servicing aspects are expected, but the fetched record did not give me an authoritative claim-by-claim listing of claims 2–20, so I cannot confirm the exact number or wording of every independent claim. I flag that as an uncertainty rather than assert it.

---

Technical context (from the specification)

• The detection chemistry relies on reacting the shale inhibitor and/or salt with a detector compound to produce a highly conjugated, colored reaction product whose absorbance (Beer–Lambert law) is proportional to analyte concentration.
• Detector compounds listed: methylene blue, ninhydrin, indane-1,2,3-trione, hydrantin, quinhydrone, Dragendorff reagent, chloranil, N-halosuccinimide, N-bromosuccinimide, N-iodosuccinimide, hydrazo compounds, diazonium salts, fluorescein/fluorescein halides, and combinations. The detector compound may be a chromophore (e.g., of the type used in a Water Lens test kit, Houston, TX).
• Salts detectible include NaCl, KCl, NaBr, CaCl₂, CaBr₂, MgCl₂, MgBr₂, ZnBr₂, acetates, formates, NH₄Cl, potassium phosphate, and cesium formate.
• Shale inhibitors may be salts, polymers/charged polymers, or amine-based (primary/secondary/tertiary amine or protonated amine) compounds.
• Workflow (FIGS. 1–2): determine water-phase salinity → dose sample → optionally dilute → add chromophore dye and mix → measure by colorimetry → report to control system → determine and apply treatment (add salt/water and/or shale inhibitor) → optionally wait and retest.
• Detection can be visual (reference color chart) or instrumental (portable colorimeter / UV-VIS spectrometer), enabling real-time/on-the-fly adjustment to reduce non-productive time. Solids removal (filtration, sedimentation, decantation, centrifugation, screening, chemical dissolution) may precede measurement; heating the detection solution is optional.

---

Related family patents (context, not part of US 11,029,246)

• US 11,401,805 B2 — "Colorimetric detection of amine-based shale inhibitors" (sister application, published as US 2021/0003002 A1).
• US 2021/0389253 A1 — "Polymer-enhanced colorimetric detection of amine-based additives."
• US 11,560,794 — "Solvent-stabilized colorimetric detection of amine-based additives."
• US 11,768,190 B2 — turbidity/precipitate-based amine shale inhibitor determination (different detection principle).

---

Confidence and open items

• High confidence on title, assignee (Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.), inventors (Dale E. Jamison; Xiangnan Ye), application number 17/110,717, filing date Dec. 3, 2020, issue date June 8, 2021, and claim 1's text.
• Moderate confidence on the total claim count (20 per a secondary aggregator) and on the exact identity/numbering of independent claims beyond claim 1; the authoritative claim set was partially truncated in the fetched record.
• Negative finding (not a certification): no CAFC 2026 appeal, district court action, or PTAB proceeding naming US 11,029,246 was located. If you need a definitive litigation clearance, that should be confirmed against USPTO PatentCenter/PTAB Portal and PACER directly.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 11029246.

Litigation search — U.S. Patent No. 11,029,246

Bottom line: I found no litigation (district court, ITC, or Federal Circuit) involving U.S. Patent No. 11,029,246. Based on the sources I was able to reach, there is no known case — pending or concluded — in which this patent has been asserted, challenged, or otherwise placed in suit.

What the sources show

Because the numeric string "11029246" is easily confused with other "‑046" patents, I checked the search results carefully and none of the litigation hits actually concerned this patent. Specifically:

• The NuCurrent invalidity contentions cited U.S. Pat. No. 9,300,046 — a different patent entirely.
• The Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. v. Weatherford International Inc. case and the Halliburton v. ReedHycalog/NOV license dispute concern drill‑bit/cutter patents (e.g., 6,861,098; 6,861,137; 6,878,447; 6,601,662), not the '246 patent.
• The PI‑International v. Hertz and Ocean Semiconductor dockets involve unrelated patents.

About the patent itself (for context)

• Patent: U.S. 11,029,246 B1 — "Colorimetric detection of shale inhibitors and/or salts"
• Assignee/Owner: Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.
• Inventors: Dale E. Jamison; Xiangnan Ye
• Priority date: 2020‑03‑20; filed: 2020‑12‑03; granted/published: 2021‑06‑08
• Status: Active (anticipated expiration 2040‑12‑03)
• Family: Corresponding foreign filings include AU2020437176A/B2, BR112022014300‑1/B1, NO20220639A, PCT/US2020/063898 (WO2021188170A1), SA522440016B1, and CO2022011161A2 — signal of a deliberately maintained portfolio, but not evidence of enforcement activity.

Important caveats

1. Scope of my search. I searched public web sources and patent‑data aggregators reachable via search, not the PACER docket system directly or Docket Navigator/Lex Machina subscriptions. PACER would be the authoritative check for any district court action filed under seal or with an abbreviated caption.
2. Timing. The patent issued in June 2021 and, as of the sources reviewed, no complaint, ITC Section 337 investigation, or PTAB petition (IPR/PGR) referencing U.S. 11,029,246 surfaced. A recently filed action might not yet be indexed in free sources.
3. Recommendation. If a definitive negative is required (e.g., for a freedom‑to‑operate or clearance opinion), I would confirm by running the patent number directly in PACER's "Search by Case Number"/party search against Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., and by checking Docket Navigator or LexisNexis PatentAdvisor for litigation and PTAB history.

If you'd like, I can also check whether any PTAB proceedings (IPR/PGR/CBM) or reexamination have been filed against 11,029,246 — that is separate from district court litigation and would be the other place a challenge to this patent would appear.

I'll verify the canonical "no proceedings" finding against the live web before writing.

No proceedings surfaced. Let me run a couple of targeted checks to be thorough before finalizing.

Let me check the patent family for related PTAB activity, since family-wide trends inform the defensive picture.

PTAB / AIA Trial Landscape — U.S. Patent No. 11,029,246

Proceedings overview

There are zero AIA trial proceedings on file against U.S. Patent No. 11,029,246. The structured ODP "PTAB proceedings on file" block for this patent is empty (no IPR, PGR, or CBM docketed as of the most recent ingest), and my independent web checks surfaced no PTAB filings against this patent either. The breakdown is therefore: 0 active / 0 claims invalidated / 0 claims sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution denied. Bottom-line defensive posture: because the patent has never been tested at the Board, no claim has been canceled and no petitioner has been estopped — which cuts both ways. The patent is un-narrowed and fully intact, but its validity is also entirely untested and no § 315(e)(2) estoppel fence exists to constrain a defendant's prior-art strategy. Any defendant is free to bring a first-challenge IPR on any ground, including art that a prior petitioner would have been barred from re-raising.

Caveat on confidence: I could not locate a PTAB docket entry, FWD, or institution decision for '246, and no reliable secondary source (RPX, Docket Alarm, Unified Patents, PatentWorth) reports one. I state "no proceedings" with high confidence for IPR/PGR/CBM, moderate confidence that nothing very recent exists that the ODP has not yet indexed (my searches were not exhaustive of PTAB E2E).

---

Proceeding-by-proceeding

None. There are no proceedings to list. Per the constraints of this task, I will not manufacture proceeding numbers or docket entries.

---

Strategic summary

Untested claims — no narrowing of any kind. No PTAB panel has construed a single term, and no claim — independent or dependent — has been canceled, disclaimed, or held unpatentable in an AIA trial. The patent issued 2021-06-08 on application 17/110,717 (filed 2020-12-03, earliest priority 2020-03-20), names Dale E. Jamison and Xiangnan Ye as inventors, and is assigned to Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. It is directed to colorimetric/spectrophotometric detection of shale inhibitors and/or salts in wellbore servicing fluids and reports roughly 20 claims (a third-party aggregator reports 20; note that the claim set itself was outside the excerpt supplied to me, so I am not characterizing individual claim scope). Anticipated expiration is 2040-12-03 — a long enforcement runway.

Estoppel landscape — wide open. Because nobody has petitioned, there is no § 315(e)(2) estoppel operating against anyone. That is the single most important defensive fact here: a defendant facing assertion today can raise any § 102/§ 103 ground, using any art, without worrying about whether an earlier petitioner "raised or reasonably could have raised" it. Conversely, a defendant who does file will be the one creating the estoppel record that binds it in co-pending district court litigation. There is also no § 325(d) baggage from the Board's perspective — only the prosecution history, where the examiner's consideration of art could still support a § 325(d) discretionary-denial argument by Halliburton if the same references reappear.

Pattern signals — the patent is in a family Halliburton is actively building, but '246 itself is quiet. No petitioner has filed more than one IPR here (nobody has filed one). No defensive aggregator (Unified Patents or similar) appears anywhere in the chain for this patent. Halliburton is a sophisticated, repeat PTAB player on both sides: as petitioner it has filed IPRs against Schlumberger (e.g., IPR2017-01771/01773/01774/01778/01779, IPR2017-01564) and U.S. Well Services (IPR2021-01037, IPR2021-01038, IPR2021-01315, IPR2021-01538); as patent owner it is currently defending Weatherford IPRs, e.g., IPR2024-00990 on U.S. Patent No. 11,333,007, tied to Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. v. Weatherford U.S., L.P., No. 24-cv-00090 (W.D. La.). It also has a dense colorimetric-detection family around the '246 subject matter, including U.S. Patent No. 11,768,190 ("Detecting amine-based inhibitors in drilling fluids," tetraphenylborate precipitation), U.S. Patent No. 11,555,787 ("Polymer-enhanced colorimetric detection of amine-based additives"), and publications US 2021/0389253, US 2021/0388719, and US 2021/0405017. Expect Halliburton to litigate and defend this family aggressively rather than abandon it — but I found no evidence that '246 itself has been asserted in litigation, and I would not represent otherwise.

---

Recommended next steps

1. Do not plan around an invalidity judgment that doesn't exist. There is no FWD to cite, no canceled claim to point at, and no prior PTAB construction of any term in '246 to leverage in a § 282 defense. Any obviousness or anticipation argument must be developed from scratch and supported by your own expert and art.

2. Treat the absence of IPRs as an opportunity, not a comfort. Well-asserted patents in active campaign families typically attract IPRs. The fact that '246 has been on issue since 2021-06-08 with no challenge suggests either that it has not been asserted broadly, or that accused parties have chosen other venues. If you are the first defendant, you are also the first mover — and you will set the estoppel for everyone behind you. Consider coordinating with co-defendants or a defensive aggregator before filing, because a single petitioner can only challenge so much in one petition.

3. Verify the claim set before you do anything else. The claim text was not in the material provided to me, and I could not confirm claim count from the authoritative source excerpt. Pull the issued claims from USPTO Patent Center / PTAB E2E before scoping a petition. Also confirm the current prosecution/terminal-disclaimer posture for the family (11,768,190; 11,555,787), since related-claim disclaimers can affect standing and obviousness-style arguments.

4. Check § 315(b) and Fintiv timing. If you have been served with a complaint asserting '246, the one-year bar under § 315(b) starts running from service, and the Board's current discretionary-denial practice (post-Fintiv Director guidance) will weigh your diligence, the district court's trial date, and your stipulated-schedule posture. If no complaint has been served, you have no statutory deadline — plan the petition on the merits rather than on the calendar.

5. Monitor PTAB E2E and CourtListener for first-filed activity. Given the family's active assertion posture elsewhere (Weatherford / W.D. La.), a filing against '246 or its siblings may appear quickly. I found no such filing as of 2026-09-29.

Nothing in this memo is legal advice or a validity opinion. All statements about the absence of proceedings are based on the structured ODP data provided and non-exhaustive web verification; confirm against PTAB E2E (https://ptacts.uspto.gov) and CourtListener (https://www.courtlistener.com) before relying on them.

I'll reconstruct the assignment chain from the authoritative sources.

Let me dig for the specific assignment record and any post-issuance transfers.

Let me try to pin down the specific assignment record and check for any post-issuance transfers.

Assignment-chain reconstruction — U.S. Patent No. 11,029,246

Method note / limitation up front (please read before relying on this). I queried the USPTO Patent Assignment Search surfaces (assignmentcenter.uspto.gov; assignment.uspto.gov) and the legacy assignment-PDF mirror via search, and I cross-checked Google Patents' legal events for US11029246. I was able to confirm that a single inventor-to-assignee conveyance exists and its recording date, but I was not able to retrieve the reel/frame number or the filed cover-sheet PDF for that record, nor did I retrieve any post-issuance assignment. I am therefore reporting the reel/frame fields as "not retrieved" rather than guessing. Fabricating a reel/frame here would be worse than the gap.

---

Inventors

Pattern assessment — no fire-sale precursor. Both inventors are Halliburton's own Baroid/drilling-fluids R&D personnel; neither has a recorded departure-linked assignment event, and there is no signal (within the sources reached) of inventors breaking away to form a spin-out entity holding this patent. This is the normal operating-company profile: employee inventors, rights assigned up front, no subsequent individual-owner link in the chain.

Caveat: employment is inferred from residential geography and repeated co-inventorship on Halliburton-assigned patents, not from an employment record I could verify. Treat the "employer" column as high-confidence but inferential.

---

Original assignee

Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. (a Delaware corporation), principal place of business 3000 N. Sam Houston Parkway East, Houston, Texas 77032-3219 — the address that appears as the receiving party on Halliburton assignment cover sheets and as the (71)/(73) address on Halliburton U.S. and PCT filings (e.g., PCT/US2013/043108 at 10200 Bellaire Blvd.; later filings at 3000 N. Sam Houston Pkwy E).

• Status: Operating. Halliburton is one of the world's largest oilfield-services companies (NYSE: HAL). Its Baroid product line is the drilling-fluids / wellbore-servicing business that would embody a method claim directed to measuring shale-inhibitor and salt content in a drilling or completion fluid.
• Product embodiment: The specification repeatedly ties the assay chemistry to a "Water Lens test kit available from Water Lens, LLC in Houston, Tex." (96-well-plate format, freeze-dried colorimetric assays, colorimeter readout). So the claimed method is commercially implemented through a third-party kit referenced in the patent itself rather than a Halliburton-branded instrument. I did not verify the exact commercial/corporate relationship between Halliburton and Water Lens, LLC (e.g., investment, partnership, or supply arrangement) — flagging that as unverified. If a product-embodiment statement is critical to your analysis, that relationship should be confirmed directly.
• Current owner: Google Patents' legal-events table shows Halliburton as both original assignee and current assignee, with an anticipated expiration of 2040-12-03 and status Active. No entity other than Halliburton appears as an assignee anywhere in the sources reached.

---

Assignment timeline

Only one conveyance is reflected in the sources I could reach. I could not obtain its reel/frame.

• 2020-12-03 (recorded) — executed date not retrieved — Reel not retrieved / Frame not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment (Assignment of Assignors' Interest) — recorded contemporaneously with the filing of application 17/110,717 on 2020-12-03.
  • Assignor: Dale E. Jamison; Xiangnan Ye (joint inventors)
  • Assignee: Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., 3000 N. Sam Houston Parkway East, Houston, TX 77032-3219
  • Correspondent: not retrieved for this patent. ⚠️ I will not substitute a name from a different property. For calibration only — and expressly not attributed to this patent — a 2022 Halliburton cover sheet I retrieved (reel 060337 / frame 0328, EFPS EPAS ID PAT7405406, docket "22-110966 U1 US HAL 1027," app. 17/809,387, title "Using converted hydrogen and solid carbon from captured methane to power wellbore equipment") lists correspondent SHERI HIGGINS LAW, PLLC, 120 Dave Hughes Road, Roan Mountain, Tennessee 37687, submitter Kristina Rayl. That is a different patent, so it establishes only Halliburton's clerical filing pattern — a "HAL ####" docket convention and use of outside correspondent firms — not this patent's attorney of record.
  • Context: Standard employee invention assignment to the operating company, recorded the same day the application was filed. Not an acquisition, not a fire-sale, not a reorg.

• No post-issuance assignment events were found. Nothing between issue (2021-06-08) and the present reflects a change of owner, security interest, license of record, or release. The foreign-family priority events shown on Google Patents (AU2020437176, BR112022014300, NO20220639, PCT/US2020/063898 → WO2021188170A1, SA522440016, CO2022011161) are national-phase/priority filings, not assignments — they do not transfer U.S. title.

If the Assignment Center's live index shows additional entries (e.g., a later internal Halliburton entity re-registration, or a security agreement tied to a corporate financing), they did not surface in the sources I could reach, and I am not asserting they are absent from the official record — only that I did not find them.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11029246
    2020 : Inventors assign to Halliburton Energy Services
         : Application 17 110717 filed 3 Dec 2020
         : PCT family filed Dec 2020
    2021 : Patent US 11029246 B1 issues 8 Jun 2021
    2022 : Foreign national phase SA and CO
    2040 : Anticipated expiration 3 Dec 2040

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Aggravating or mitigating anomalies: none found. In particular, no evidence of inventors departing within 12 months of filing, and no evidence of a portfolio divestiture.

---

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

Justification (2–3 sentences): The entire chain of title is a single filing-day conveyance — inventors Dale E. Jamison and Xiangnan Ye to Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., recorded 2020-12-03 (reel/frame not retrieved), with Halliburton shown as current assignee and the patent Active to an anticipated 2040-12-03 expiration. There is zero NPE footprint: no shell-entity or licensing-LLC assignee, no cascading transfers, no known asserter, no bankruptcy sale, and no defensive-aggregator termination, and the assignee is an operating oilfield-services company (NYSE: HAL) whose Baroid fluids business and the referred-to Water Lens kit practice the claimed colorimetric-detection method. Caveat I want to be explicit about: I found no litigation actually asserting this patent, so "assertion" here means Halliburton is a genuine operating-company owner and a demonstrated patent enforcer, not that US 11,029,246 itself has been put in suit.

Verification link (search by patent number 11029246; the live index is authoritative and may show entries I could not reach): https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ and https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html

Recommended next step to close the two open items: (1) pull the cover sheet PDF for the 2020-12-03 record to capture the reel/frame and the correspondent of record; and (2) run a Halliburton-party search in the Assignment Center to confirm no internal entity re-registration or security agreement touches this patent. Both are quick manual lookups on the live Assignment Center and would convert my "not retrieved" fields into verified entries.

I'll search for the authoritative patent record and its cited references.

I have the examiner-cited reference list from the Justia record. Let me now pull bibliographic details for each cited reference.

Prior-Art Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 11,029,246 B1 ("Colorimetric detection of shale inhibitors and/or salts")

Analyst note on ID handling (literal): I searched the exact identifier 11029246 / US11029246B1. All references below are those listed on the face of this patent; I did not substitute or "correct" any number. Where the fetched Google Patents text omitted the (56) references block, I relied on the Justia record for US 11,029,246 (https://patents.justia.com/patent/11029246), which reproduces the "Referenced Cited" list verbatim.

Important caveat up front: The record I retrieved identifies which documents were cited, and their dates, but it does not include the examiner's reasons for citation or any §102/§103 rejection. The "which claim(s) it potentially anticipates" column below is therefore my own technical mapping to the claim set, not the examiner's. I flag confidence levels for each reference. Claims are identified by the numbering/aspects established in the previously-generated sections (claim 1 = salt-detection method; the parallel aspect claims = shale-inhibitor detection method and wellbore-servicing method).

---

1. U.S. Patent Documents cited (the applicant's/examiner's "References Cited")

All ten U.S. patent documents are §102(a)(1)/(a)(2) prior art relative to the March 20, 2020 priority date, because each published or issued before that date.

Reference-by-reference analysis

Ref. 1 — US 7,022,517 B2 (McDevitt et al.), granted Apr. 4, 2006.
McDevitt's group is known for microfluidic "electronic tongue"/optical-sensor platforms that detect analytes by colorimetric or fluorescence response in an array format. If so, this reference is pertinent to the detector-compound + optical-readout + array concepts underlying claim 1(d) and the "Water Lens test kit / 96-well plate" discussion in the specification.
Potential §102 map: claim 1(d) (colorimetric measurement of an analyte in a fluid) and dependent claims directed to optical detection. Confidence that this reference alone anticipates any claim: low (it is not, on its face, a wellbore-fluid salt test).

Ref. 2 — US 8,361,804 B2 (Horton et al.), granted Jan. 29, 2013.
Potential §102 map: uncertain — I could not confirm the subject matter. Treat with caution; flagged as unverified.

Ref. 3 — US 8,379,207 B2 (DiFoggio et al.), granted Feb. 19, 2013 — "Method and apparatus for estimating a fluid property."
Confirmed from the record: an optic member containing a material responsive to a fluid property, with a detector that detects a change in that material and relates it to the fluid property; framed for downhole/subterranean use (formation evaluation tool, MWD arrangement).
Potential §102 map: the "detect a change in a responsive material indicative of a fluid property" concept is relevant to claim 1(d)'s detection step, and to the specification's theme of surface/downhole optical sensing of wellbore fluids. However, DiFoggio is directed at a responsive optic member, not a reacted colored reaction product, so it is better probative under §103 than as a §102 anticipation. Confidence of anticipation: low.

Ref. 4 — US 8,575,541 B1 (Jamison; Halliburton), granted Nov. 5, 2013 — "Systems and methods for real time monitoring and management of wellbore servicing fluids."
This is the single most consequential reference for the closed-loop claims and is by one of the same inventors. It is directed to real-time monitoring and management of a wellbore servicing fluid — i.e., the "measure a property of the WSF → report/feedback → determine a treatment → apply the treatment to the WSF system" architecture.
Potential §102 map:

• Claim 1, step (e) ("reporting the data ... to a computer control system"), step (f) ("determining a wellbore servicing fluid treatment"), and step (g) ("subjecting the wellbore servicing fluid system to the treatment").
• The aspect/claims reciting on-the-fly/in-real-time determination of a supplemental amount and preparation of the treated fluid (analogous to claim 13/aspect 13 and to claims 26/aspects 25–26 in the servicing set).
• The recycling-to-the-wellbore limitations (aspect 24) and the "wait a waiting time and retest" loop.
  Caveat: '541 is a monitoring/management disclosure and, on the face of it, does not teach the core colorimetric-chemistry limitations (mixing an aliquot with a chromophore/detector compound, ±20% of λmax, Beer–Lambert correlation). So it is highly relevant to the control-loop claims but unlikely to anticipate claim 1 in its entirety. Confidence of full-claim anticipation: low; confidence of §103 combination relevance: high.

Ref. 5 — US 2004/0098202 A1 (McNeil, III et al.), published May 20, 2004.
This same publication is cited as an examiner reference (marked "*cited by examiner" with CPC G01N 33/2823) in the related Halliburton patent US 11,768,190 ("Detecting amine-based inhibitors in drilling fluids"), where it appears in the (56) list. It therefore concerns testing/analysis of drilling fluids (G01N 33/2823 — "Raw oil, drilling fluid or polyphasic mixtures").
Potential §102 map: the general concept of testing a wellbore/drilling fluid sample to determine a component — potentially the preamble of claim 1 and the sample-handling steps (b)/(c). Confidence of anticipation: low.

Ref. 6 — US 2010/0055800 A1 (Akhavan-Tafti et al.), published Mar. 4, 2010.
Akhavan-Tafti is a prolific inventor in the chemiluminescent/colorimetric detection field. The reference is likely directed to a color/light-generating detection chemistry and its measurement, which is conceptually pertinent to claim 1(d)'s "detecting an absorption intensity ... comparing ... to a target absorption intensity."
Potential §102 map: claim 1(d) and dependent claims on color/color-intensity comparison. Confidence of anticipation: low (unlikely to be a wellbore-fluid test).

Ref. 7 — US 2012/0145376 A1 (Abad et al.), published June 14, 2012.
Date confirmed; subject matter unverified. Flagged.

Ref. 8 — US 2015/0330215 A1 (Jamison et al.; Halliburton), published Nov. 19, 2015.
By the same inventor and assignee as the patent under review; consistent with the Halliburton family on real-time servicing-fluid monitoring/analysis. This is an applicant's own prior publication and, under §102(a)(1)/(b), can be prior art against the later '246 claims.
Potential §102 map: with Ref. 4, the control/reporting/treatment steps of claim 1(e)–(g) and the servicing-method claims. Confidence of anticipation of the control-loop claims: low-to-moderate; §103 relevance: high.

Ref. 9 — US 2018/0172661 A1 (Spengler), published June 21, 2018.
Date confirmed; subject matter unverified. Flagged.

Ref. 10 — US 2019/0119563 A1 (He et al.), published Apr. 25, 2019.
The same He et al. publication appears in the (56) list of the related US 11,401,805 ("Colorimetric detection of amine-based shale inhibitors"), suggesting it was cited in the same colorimetric-amine-detection family.
Potential §102 map: the analyte-detection/optical-measurement concept feeding claim 1(d). Confidence of anticipation: low.

(No foreign patent documents are listed in the "Referenced Cited" block for US 11,029,246.)

---

2. Non-patent literature cited

(a) Hang, Pham Thi, et al., "Methylene Blue Absorption by Clay Minerals. Determination of Surface Areas and Cation Exchange Capacities (Clay-Organic Studies XVIII)," Clays and Clay Minerals, 1970, pp. 203–212, vol. 18, Pergamon Press.
This is the classic methylene-blue adsorption / cation-exchange-capacity (CEC) method for clays. It is directly relevant because (i) methylene blue is expressly one of the listed detector compounds in the '246 specification, and (ii) the patent's theory is that the shale inhibitor interacts with clay and is depleted from the fluid.
Potential §102 map: the "methylene blue as a detector compound for a clay/shale-related analyte" aspect — i.e., claim 1(c)'s "detector compound" selection and the dependent/aspect claims listing methylene blue (aspect 18). It is not a wellbore-fluid salt test, so full-claim anticipation is unlikely. Confidence: low for anticipation; high as §103 art.

(b) Kostesha, N.V., et al., "Development of the colorimetric sensor array for detection of explosives and volatile organic compounds in air," Technical University of Denmark, 9 pages.
A colorimetric sensor array paper. Relevant to the array/color-change readout concepts and the "detector compound → color change → absorption" general chemistry, but in a different application (explosives/VOC vapor detection).
Potential §102 map: generic colorimetric-detection concepts underlying claim 1(d). Confidence of anticipation: very low.

(c) Filing Receipt, Specification and Drawings for U.S. Appl. No. 62/992,619, "Colorimetric Detection of Shale Inhibitors and/or Salts," filed Mar. 20, 2020, 40 pages.
This is the applicant's own U.S. provisional application and is the source of the March 20, 2020 priority date shown for US 11,029,246. It is not prior art; it is cited as the priority/benefit document. Not a §102 reference.

(d) International Search Report and Written Opinion, PCT/US2020/063898, dated Mar. 16, 2021, 11 pages.
This is the ISR/WO for the PCT counterpart of the same application (published as WO2021188170A1). It is a prosecution/priority document, not prior art. Its listed "X/Y/A" citations, if obtained, would themselves be the most probative §102/§103 art — I could not retrieve that citation set in this session, and I flag that as an open item worth pulling directly from the WIPO/Patentscope record for PCT/US2020/063898.

---

3. Synthesis — strengths of the prior art against the '246 claims

1. No cited reference appears to disclose the full combination of the independent claims — specifically the tandem of (i) a chromophore/detector-compound reaction producing a colored product, (ii) absorption-intensity measurement within ±20% of an absorption-peak wavelength in the 380–760 nm band, and (iii) closure of the loop through a computer control system that determines and applies a treatment. Anticipation under §102 therefore looks weak on the cited record alone.

2. Best §102 candidates by claim group:

• Control/reporting/treatment claims (claim 1(e)–(g); servicing-method claims; real-time claims): US 8,575,541 B1 (Jamison) and US 2015/0330215 A1 (Jamison et al.) — same inventor/assignee, expressly "real-time monitoring and management of wellbore servicing fluids."
• Detection-measurement claims (claim 1(d) and dependents): US 8,379,207 B2 (DiFoggio et al.) for optical detection of a fluid property; US 2010/0055800 A1 (Akhavan-Tafti et al.) and the Kostesha NPL for colorimetric detection chemistry; Hang et al. for methylene-blue/clay chemistry.
• Drilling-fluid-sampling claims: US 2004/0098202 A1 (McNeil, III et al.) and US 2019/0119563 A1 (He et al.).

1. Most likely substantive challenge is §103, combining Jamison '541/'215 (wellbore-fluid real-time monitoring + control loop) with the colorimetric-detection art (Akhavan-Tafti, McDevitt, Kostesha NPL) and methylene-blue/clay art (Hang). The applicant's own earlier family members — US 11,401,805 ("Colorimetric detection of amine-based shale inhibitors"), US 2021/0389253 A1, and US 11,560,794 — are also potential §102(a)(1)/(b) art for the colorimetric-detection limitations, though they are not listed in the '246 "Referenced Cited" block.

---

4. Confidence and open items (flagged, not asserted)

• High confidence: the identity and dates of the references in the "Referenced Cited" list (taken verbatim from the Justia record), and the confirmed titles of US 8,575,541 B1 and US 8,379,207 B2.
• Moderate confidence: the subject-matter characterizations of US 2004/0098202 A1 (drilling-fluid analysis, inferred from the identical citation and CPC tag in the sister patent US 11,768,190) and of US 2010/0055800 A1 (colorimetric/chemiluminescent detection, inferred from the inventor's known field).
• Low / unverified: titles and subject matter of US 7,022,517 B2 (McDevitt), US 8,361,804 B2 (Horton), US 2012/0145376 A1 (Abad), US 2018/0172661 A1 (Spengler), and US 2019/0119563 A1 (He) — I could not independently confirm these this session, so I have not invented descriptions for them. These should be verified against the USPTO PatentCenter full text or the printed (56) listing on the patent PDF.
• Not retrieved: the ISR/WO citation set for PCT/US2020/063898 (dated Mar. 16, 2021), which would show the art the ISA actually considered most relevant and is the single best gap to close.
• No litigation/PTAB naming US 11,029,246 was located (per the earlier section), so there is no invalidity-contentions record to mine for an adversary's own prior-art mapping.

If a definitive §102/§103 mapping is required, the next step is to pull the full (56) PDF text of US 11,029,246 (which renders the examiner's exact citation list and any asterisked "*cited by examiner" flags) plus the WO2021188170A1 / PCT search report, and then confirm each reference's title from USPTO PatentCenter.

I'll research the prior-art landscape for this patent's subject matter before constructing the § 103 combinations.

Good coverage. Let me pull the front-page references and check dates for the most promising art.

I've hit my search-step limit, so I'll synthesize the § 103 analysis now from what I retrieved. Two housekeeping notes before the analysis.

Note on the "Prior Art section of this page": the fetched page for US 11,029,246 contains only a prior-art keyword block (salt, WSF, shale inhibitor, wellbore servicing, servicing fluid) — it does not reproduce the front-page "References Cited" list or the "Cited By" table. I therefore supplemented the keyword block with targeted searching and identify each reference's provenance and confidence below. Where a date or number is inferred rather than directly read, I say so.

Flagged contradiction in the previously generated sections: the Patent summary lists US 11,560,794 — "Solvent-stabilized colorimetric detection of amine-based additives," while the PTAB section lists US 11,555,787 — "Polymer-enhanced colorimetric detection of amine-based additives." My own search independently returned US 11,560,794 as "Solvent-stabilized…" (via Justia). I treat US 11,560,794 = Solvent-stabilized as correct and flag US 11,555,787 / "Polymer-enhanced" as unverified. This matters only tangentially here, since those applications post-date the '246 priority date.

---

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. 11,029,246 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

1. Legal framework and the correct hindsight baseline

Analysis proceeds under Graham v. John Deere (scope/content of claims; differences over prior art; PHOSITA level; secondary considerations) and KSR Int'l v. Teleflex, which permits combinations where the improvement is the "predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." Critically, every reference must be prior art as of the '246 effective filing date. The '246 has an earliest priority of March 20, 2020 (Google Patents lists this as an assumption; the application itself was filed Dec. 3, 2020). I therefore treat March 20, 2020 as the § 102/§ 103 cutoff and flag references whose status turns on it.

PHOSITA: a person with a bachelor's in chemistry, chemical engineering, or petroleum engineering plus 2–5 years' experience in drilling-fluid formulation, mud testing, or analytical/spectrophotometric method development — i.e., someone who runs API-standard mud checks and knows Beer–Lambert quantification. This is a low-to-moderate skill level; the invention is a method of analysis, not a new molecule.

Analogous art: two fields are properly combinable here — (i) drilling-fluid/mud testing and wellbore servicing, and (ii) analytical colorimetry/spectrophotometry. The second is "reasonably pertinent to the particular problem" (field-testable quantification of a mud additive), so In re Bigio/In re Clay would not bar it.

Caveat on the claim set: the authoritative claim text was not in the material supplied to me. As instructed, I build on the previously generated sections, which characterize claim 1 as a salt-detection method with steps (a) determining water salinity, (b) dosing an aliquot, (c) contacting with a salt-specific chromophore to form a 380–760 nm detection solution, (d) colorimetric measurement with ±20% λmax and target-intensity/target-amount comparisons, (e) reporting to a computer control system, (f) determining a treatment, (g) applying it; and identify parallel independent claims directed to shale-inhibitor detection and to a wellbore-servicing method. Verify the issued claims in Patent Center before relying on any element-by-element conclusion.

---

2. Prior art inventory

Explicitly not prior art (post-dating 2020-03-20), but admissible as context on the state of the art: AADE-24-FTCE-056 (Rady et al., 2024), which describes a turbidity-based shale-inhibitor tracker and cites the colorimetric method of May et al. (2022) — evidence that by the mid-2020s the field regarded both a colorimetric method and a precipitation/turbidity method as routine field tests, which cuts against non-obviousness of "a colorimetric field assay for a drilling-fluid additive."

---

3. Combination A — The core colorimetric detection method

Primary: PA-1 (US 2021/0003002 A1) ± PA-2 (its early-published WO); Secondary: PA-3, PA-11.

PA-1 discloses, essentially element-for-element, the detection paradigm of the '246: aliquot of WSF + amine detector compound → detection solution with λmax in 380–760 nm → measure absorbance within ±20% of λmax → compare to target absorption intensity → compare determined amount to target amount. It even recites the same detector-compound genus and the same optional features (portable colorimeter, calibration curve, color chart, solids removal, heating, on-the-fly supplementation). PA-1 is directed to amine-based shale inhibitors, and the '246 claims are directed to shale inhibitors and/or salts (shale inhibitors expressly including amine-functional compounds). To the extent the '246 claims cover amine inhibitors, PA-1 is anticipatory, not merely obvious — see § 6.

Motivation to combine (PA-1 + PA-3/PA-11): Both address the same problem (quantifying amines by a color-forming reaction) and are in the same technical field. PA-3 and the ninhydrin literature supply the chemistry and the known Beer–Lambert readout, with a reasonable expectation of success because ninhydrin colorimetry was a standard amino-acid quantification method. KSR squarely covers this: known chemistry applied to a known analyte in a known matrix with a predictable result.

Secondary considerations: Diligence by Halliburton in building a dense family (solvent-stabilized, polymer-enhanced, precipitation-based siblings) shows commercial interest, but within-family variety is not itself evidence of non-obviousness, and the near-simultaneous filings suggest an obvious design space rather than a surprising discovery.

---

4. Combination B — The automated / real-time closed loop (the "hardest" limitations)

Primary: PA-6 (US 11,466,566 B2); Secondary: PA-5, PA-9, PA-10; plus PA-1.

The features that most distinguish the '246 from a bare bench assay are: (i) reporting to a computer control system, (ii) determining a treatment for the WSF, (iii) subjecting the WSF system to the treatment, and (iv) doing so on-the-fly / in real time to avoid non-productive time.

PA-6 discloses each of these in the same technical setting. Its claim 1 recites sampling water-based mud (from a mud pit, via a mud-pit line), performing an MBT, determining an endpoint, correlating the endpoint to the active clay concentration, and "determining a treatment for the water-based drilling fluid based on the active clay concentration." Dependent claims add "sending a signal from a computer system to add clay inhibitor to the drilling fluid in response to the determined treatment." Its statement 19 recites a drilling system with a computer system in signal communication with the fluid-analysis system. PA-5 discloses the automated, computer-controlled titration implementation, validated against the API hand method — proof that automating a standard mud titration was known and successful. PA-9 and PA-8 supply the in-field optical-analysis platform; PA-10 (admitted) supplies the plate-format colorimetric analyzer + software concentration calculation.

Motivation to combine (PA-1/PA-3 + PA-6 + PA-5/PA-9/PA-10): The '246 specification itself recites the motivation almost verbatim — that "inability to accurately identify the active concentration of shale inhibitors and/or salts in drilling fluids in real-time can result in economic losses (e.g., increased incidence of non-productive time)." PA-6 identifies the same problem (loss of inhibition downhole not resolvable by adding more product; need for accurate, timely concentration data) and solves it with the same architecture (automated test → computer → add inhibitor). A POSHA would combine a known colorimetric assay with a known automated mud-testing/control loop and expect success, because both halves were independently proven.

Design-choice / routine-optimization points: the ±20% λmax window, the 380–760 nm range (simply the visible spectrum), the choice of portable colorimeter vs. UV-VIS, the threshold percentages (1%–100%), the heating range (30 °C to boiling), and the specific solid-removal techniques (filtration, centrifugation, sedimentation, decantation, screening) are each recited as open-ended ranges or lists, which are prima facie obvious as routine optimization absent a showing of criticality. The specification offers no data showing a criticality for any of these ranges.

---

5. Combination C — The salt-detection limitations

Primary: PA-7 (API chloride/salinity determination) + PA-10; Secondary: PA-1.

Claim 1's (a) "determining the water salinity of the WSF" and (c) "chromophore/detector compound specific to the salt" are the '246's most salt-centric elements. Two independent lines of art make them obvious:

1. API-standard water-phase salinity/chloride determination. The standard mud test determines chloride/salinity on a dosed volume of sample, historically by a colorimetric titration endpoint (silver-nitrate-based Mohr-type titration, or conductimetric/spectrophotometric equivalents). The '246 specification itself admits salinity "can be determined at step 20 via any available methods, such as, without limitation, conductivity, colorimetry, or the like." That is a § 103 admission that the salinity-determining step was known.
2. Spectrophotometric chloride/salinity field kits. Colorimetric reagent systems for chloride in water (e.g., mercuric-thiocyanate/ferric-based chemistries) were commercialized in portable field kits for water analysis long before 2020, establishing that a salt-specific chromophore whose absorbance scales with salt concentration is a known tool.

Motivation to combine: the drilling-fluid engineer has a standing need to know both salinity (for density/brine formulation and for WPS-based inhibition control) and inhibitor concentration, and the '246 itself recites that both were measured in the same FIG. 1/FIG. 2 workflow. Combining a known salinity assay with a known colorimetric additive assay on a shared automated platform is the predictable combination of familiar elements.

Weakest point for the patent owner: none of PA-7/PA-10 is directed to drilling-fluid salt colorimetry in the precise format claimed; if claim 1 is limited to a single chromophore specific to the salt generating the 380–760 nm detection solution with the recited comparison steps, a petitioner needs PA-7 (or the admitted conductivity/colorimetry salinity measurement) combined with PA-1/PA-10. This is a combination, not anticipation — but the motivation is strong.

---

6. Element-by-element chart for the claim-1 archetype

---

7. Motivation-to-combine — the four KSR rationales applied

1. Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Color-forming reagent + known analyte + colorimeter + Beer's law = predictable concentration value. (Combination A.)
2. Simple substitution of one known element for another. Substituting a portable colorimeter for a bench spectrophotometer, or ninhydrin for another listed chromophore, yields predictable results. (Dependent claims.)
3. Use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way. PA-6 applied the known "automate a mud titration → computer → dose the mud" loop to the MBT; applying the identical loop to a colorimetric additive assay is the same technique in the same way. (Combination B.)
4. Obvious to try. With PA-1 disclosing the detection paradigm within Halliburton's own portfolio and PA-7 supplying a standard salinity assay, there were a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (ninhydrin-type chromophores for amines; chloride-specific colorimetric chemistries for salt), with a reasonable expectation of success.

Objective indicia: I found no evidence of unexpected results, criticality of any numeric range, or long-felt-but-unmet need in the material reviewed. The '246 teaches no comparative data against prior colorimetric methods; it reports no surprising sensitivity or selectivity. Commercial uptake in Qatar/Australia (AADE-24-FTCE-056) post-dates the patent and, in any event, is directed to a different, turbidity-based product — it does not evidence nexus to the '246 claims.

---

8. Where the patent owner can plausibly resist — and the rebuttals

Owner's likely arguments:

• "No single reference teaches or suggests the combination of salinity determination + salt-specific chromophore + colorimetric readout + automated treatment." Rebuttal: § 103 permits combination; the '246's own specification describes the FIG. 1 workflow as an ordinary sequence and admits salinity measurement by "conductivity, colorimetry, or the like."
• "The 380–760 nm / ±20% window is a specific discovery." Rebuttal: 380–760 nm is the definition of the visible spectrum, recited generically; ±20% is a breadth-maximizing claim of a tolerance with no disclosed criticality; PA-1 recites both verbatim.
• "The real-time/on-the-fly feature is inventive." Rebuttal: PA-6 discloses the identical closed loop (automated mud test → computer → add inhibitor) in the identical setting, motivated by the identical problem.
• "Unexpected selectivity for particular salts/inhibitors." Rebuttal: no data in the specification supports it; and any such argument would be limited to the specific analyte/chromophore pair.

Owner's strongest fallback is not § 103 but § 102(b)(2)(C) — common ownership — if the operative reference is the U.S. publication PA-1 rather than the early WO publication PA-2. That is exactly why PA-2's publication date is the single most consequential fact in this analysis.

---

9. Anticipation overlap (§ 102) — a threshold issue to resolve first

If the '246 claims cover amine-based shale inhibitors (claim 19 permits primary/secondary/tertiary and protonated amines; the specification's detector list matches PA-1's), then:

• PA-1 as a U.S. publication (Jan. 7, 2021) is § 102(a)(2) art (effectively filed Jul. 1, 2019), but Halliburton may invoke the § 102(b)(2)(C) common-ownership exception (same assignee).
• PA-2, the corresponding PCT publication, if it published before March 20, 2020, is § 102(a)(1) prior art — a printed publication — and § 102(b)(2)(C) does not apply to § 102(a)(1). That would make the amine-shale-inhibitor claims prima facie anticipated, which subsumes the § 103 question for those claims.

I could not confirm PA-2's WO number or publication date from the sources I reached; I flag it as an inference. Verify first.

---

10. Confidence, contradictions, and verification checklist

High confidence: the chemistry and analytical-method elements are old and well documented (PA-3, PA-11, PA-7); the closed-loop mud-treatment architecture is disclosed in Halliburton's own PA-6 with priority in 2018; PA-1 discloses the λmax range, the ±20% window, the detector-compound genus, the color-chart/calibration-curve alternatives, and the on-the-fly/dosing features.

Medium confidence: exact issue dates for US 4,452,900 and US 9,011,775; PA-2's WO number and publication date.

Contradiction carried forward from earlier sections: US 11,555,787 "Polymer-enhanced" (PTAB section) vs. US 11,560,794 "Solvent-stabilized" (Patent-summary section). My independent search favors 11,560,794 = Solvent-stabilized. Neither is prior art to the '246 (both post-date March 2020), so this does not affect the § 103 conclusion.

Before acting on this analysis, verify:

1. The issued claims of US 11,029,246 (Patent Center) — the claim set was not in the supplied record, and every element-level conclusion above rests on the reconstruction.
2. PA-2's identity and publication date — dispositive for the § 102(a)(1) vs. § 102(a)(2)+common-ownership question.
3. Inventor identity/ownership for PA-1 relative to the '246 (needed for the § 102(b)(2)(C) analysis).
4. Whether the '246 has been terminally disclaimed over the family (US 11,401,805; 11,560,794; 11,768,190), which can affect how the family's overlapping disclosures are treated.

Bottom line: Every element of the '246 claim-1 archetype is disclosed or rendered obvious by the combination of (i) Halliburton's own colorimetric amine-detection disclosure PA-1/PA-2, (ii) the century-old ninhydrin/amine colorimetry art (PA-3, PA-11), (iii) the API-standard salinity and methylene-blue mud tests (PA-4, PA-5, PA-7), (iv) the admitted Water Lens plate-format colorimetric analyzer (PA-10), and (v) the automated mud-testing/-dosing control loop of PA-6. The strongest defense for the patent is not technical non-obviousness but the § 102(b)(2)(C) common-ownership exception, which fails entirely if PA-2 published before March 20, 2020.

This is a technical analysis, not legal advice or a validity opinion. All statements about the absence or content of issued claims are based on the record supplied and non-exhaustive retrieval; confirm against USPTO Patent Center before relying on them.