Ex Parte Branets et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 28, 2017

13498256 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 28, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O.Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/498,256 03/26/2012 Larisa V. Branets 2009EM250 7127
34477 7590 08/30/2017
ExxonMobil Upstream Research Company
22777 Springwoods Village Parkway
(EMHC-E2-4A-296)
Spring, TX 77389
EXAMINER
COOK, BRIAN S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2123
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/30/2017 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
urc-mail-formalities @ exxonmobil. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LARISA V. BRANETS, ELENA KARTASHEVA,
IGOR V. KRASNOGOROV, VALERIY KUBYAK, and
XIAOHUI WU
Appeal 2017-005671
Application 13/498,256
Technology Center 2100
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.
CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1—13 and 16—26. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claims 1—5, 11—13, and 17—26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over Gunasekera (D. Gunasekera, J. Cox, P. Lindsey, “The
Generation and Application of K-Orthogonal Grid Systems,” Society of
Petroleum Engineers, Inc., 1997) and Scheidt (Celine Scheidt, Jef Caers,
Appeal 2017-005671
Application 13/498,256
“Representing Spatial Uncertainty Using Distances and Kernels,”
International Association for Mathematical Geology, 2008). Final Act. 8—26.
Claims 6—10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Gunasekera, Scheidt and Heinermann (Z.E. Heinemann, G.F. Heinemann,
B.M. Tranta, “Modeling Heavily Faulted Reservoirs,” Society of Petroleum
Engineers, Inc., 1998). Final Act. 26—33.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Gunasekera, Scheidt and Wu (X. H. Wu, M. T. Stone, R. R. Parashkevov, D.
Stem, and S. L. Lyons, “Reservoir Modeling With Global Scaleup,” Society
of Petrolium Engineers, 2007). Final Act. 34—35.
We reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to “generating a grid for a reservoir
model.” Spec. 12. Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below:
1. A method of generating a three-dimensional simulation grid for
a reservoir model comprising:
a) first, providing a geological model comprising horizons, constraints
and multiple geological grid cells and a plurality of pillars, wherein the
geological model is a representation of the subsurface earth volume in three
dimensions;
b) second, constmcting a pre-image corresponding to the geological
grid cells, said pre-image comprising a two dimensional surface
representative of the areal geometry of the geological model, said modeling
constraints being mapped onto said surface;
c) third, generating a constrained two-dimensional grid on the pre­
image with a computer system, the two-dimensional grid comprising
multiple grid cells;
d) fourth, selecting simulation layer boundaries from said geological
model and projecting the constrained two-dimensional grid onto said
simulation layer boundaries, wherein the two-dimensional grid cells
2
Appeal 2017-005671
Application 13/498,256
comprise identifiers corresponding to the grid cells of the geological model,
wherein the grid cells are projected along k-direction lines of the geological
grid cells, and wherein each k-direction line is along one of the plurality of
pillars;
e) fifth, generating prismatic cells from the two-dimensional grid to
form the three-dimensional simulation grid; and
f) sixth, outputting the three-dimensional simulation grid.
ANALYSIS
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1-5,11-13, and 17-26 over
Gunasekera and Scheidt
The Examiner finds Gunasekera and Scheidt teach all limitations of
claim 1. Final Act. 9—16. The Examiner finds Gunasekera does not explicitly
disclose a “pre-image.” Final Act. 14. The Examiner finds Scheidt discloses
a “pre-image.” Final Act. 14—15 (citing Scheidt 405). The Examiner reasons:
At the time of the invention it would have been obvious to
a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of
Scheidt_2008 with those of Gunasekera such that: “b) second,
constructing a pre-image corresponding to the geological
grid cells, said pre-image comprising a two-dimensional
surface representative of the areal geometry of the geological
model said modeling constraints being mapped onto said
surface [.]”
The rationale for doing so would have been that on page 1
in the abstract Scheidt_2008 explicitly states “this method is
applied to a synthetic oil reservoir, where special uncertainties of
channel facies is modeled” which is a teaching to apply
Schedt_2008 to modeling facies in an oil reservoir and
Gunasekera is a method of modeling facies in an oil reservoir.
Therefore it would have been obvious to combine
Sche[i]dt 2008 with Gunasekera for the benefit of selection of a
subset of representative realizations containing similar properties
to the la[r]ger set without losing accuracy so that decisions and
3
Appeal 2017-005671
Application 13/498,256
strategies can then be performed (page 1 abstract) to obtain the
invention as specified in the claims.
Final Act. 15—16.
Appellants present the following principal arguments:
i.
In Scheidt, the pre-image problem appears to involve a problem
of finding reverse mapping from a feature space F back to an
input space R (Euclidean space where all different
geostatic[s]ctical realizations of geological models are
represented by points, F is obtained from R by use of kernel
methods), and is a problem of the multi-dimensional spatial
analysis in the uncertainty assessment procedure. The reference
describes the use of multiple realizations of geological models
and their classification by applying multi-dimensional data
analysis techniques. As a result, Scheidt’s pre-image is different
from the claimed pre-image, which refers to a 2-dimensional
surface representing areal geometry of a 3-dimensional grid of a
geological model.
App. Br. 12; see also Reply Br. 4.
ii.
Gunasekera describes that grids are generated by transforming
the physical space into an isotropic computational space in which
the orthogonal grids are constructed, which are then transformed
back to the physical space. That is, the reference is clearly
generating grids in a different approach that does not involve a
pre-image or a constrained two-dimensional grid, as claimed.
App. Br. 13; see also Reply Br. 3^4.
iii.
Scheidt relates to parameterizing the spatial uncertainty
represented by a large set of geostatistical realizations through a
distance function measuring dissimilarity between any two
geostatistical realizations. That is, Scheidt does not appear [to]
involve grid generation, but is related to different geostatistical
realizations. As a result, each of the references involve different
4
Appeal 2017-005671
Application 13/498,256
problems and the record remains unclear how and why these
references would be integrated to provide the claimed subject
matter.
App. Br. 15.
In response, the Examiner explains:
Gunasekera teaches (page 203 left column paragraph 4 section
titled triangulation and tetrahedralization) to generate
unstructured grids “using the model features.” Therefore
Gunasekera teaches to create 2D grids from the geometry of a
geological model and to man features from the 3D model onto
the 2D grid (see page 13 of the Final Office Action).
Ans. 7—8.
In response, the Examiner further explains, in light of Scheidt, one of
ordinary skill in the art would have recognized Gunasekera’s 2D grid to be a
pre-image. See Ans. 8; see also Ans. 9 (“[Scheidt] clarifies that a mapping
from one space to another is in fact called the pre-image problem and
produces a pre-image. This, therefore, clarifies that the teachings of
Gunasekera are properly interpreted as the pre-image problem and produce a
pre-image.”).
Appellants arguments persuade us that the Examiner erred in finding
Gunasekera and Scheidt teach the recited “pre-image.” Further, Appellants
arguments persuade us that the Examiner erred in the conclusion of
obviousness.
Appellants’ Specification defines the term “pre-image.” See Spec.
146 (“As used herein, ‘pre-image’ is a surface representative of the areal
geometry of a geological model.”). Claim 1 recites “a pre-image
corresponding to the geological grid cells, said pre-image comprising a two
dimensional surface representative of the areal geometry of the geological
model, said modeling constraints being mapped onto said surface.”
5
Appeal 2017-005671
Application 13/498,256
Gunasekera discloses:
The second stage in generating unstructured grids is the
construction of a valid triangulation or a tetrahedralization of the
point set created using the model features. If the resulting grid is
a PEBI grid the triangulation (or tetrahedralization) has to be of
Delaunay type. Therefore, we generate Delaunay tessellations of
space. The algorithm employed is a modified version of the
incremental point insertion method of Bowyer. In this method,
all points are added incrementally into a valid Delaunay
tessellation. The starting position is a rectangle or a cube larger
than the complete set of points with a known Delaunay
tessellation. Finally, all triangles or tetrahedral external to the
gridding boundary are removed.
Gunasekera 203.
Regarding point set creation, Gunasekera discloses:
The first stage in grid generation is point distribution.
Points are distributed according to the global grid type and local
grid style. The local grid style is a selectable item for each feature
in the gridding system. Example features are faults, wells,
hydraulic fractures, regions and boundaries. For 2D PEBI and 2D
TET grid generation all features are projected onto a horizontal
plane on which points are distributed. For 3D PEBI and TET grid
generation, points are distributed in 3D space. Feature
intersections are handled as special cases.
Gunasekera 202.
We agree with Appellants’ argument (ii) that Gunasekera’s grid
generation approach does not involve a pre-image as claimed. In short, we
do not readily see how Gunasekera’s point set utilizes the underlying
geological grid cell geometries as a pre-image for simulation grid
generation, as captured by claim 1 ’s recitations: “corresponding to the
geological grid cells,” “surface representative of the areal geometry of the
geological model,” and “modeling constraints being mapped onto said
surface.” That is, claim 1 ’s recitations are more specific than, and not
6
Appeal 2017-005671
Application 13/498,256
suggested by, the point set disclosed in Gunasekera. Grid generation from a
point set as described in Gunasekera is entirely different than grid generation
from a pre-image corresponding to the geological model, as claimed.
Further, we agree with Appellants’ argument (i) that Scheidt does not
cure the deficiency of Gunasekera. In particular, we agree that Scheidt’s pre­
image problem of finding a reverse mapping of a feature space back to an
input space does not teach (claim 1) “a pre-image corresponding to the
geological grid cells, said pre-image comprising a two dimensional surface
representative of the areal geometry of the geological model, said modeling
constraints being mapped onto said surface” because the claim language is
not directed to finding a reverse mapping. Finding a reverse mapping of a
feature space back to an input space is entirely different than grid generation
from a pre-image corresponding to the geological model, as claimed.
Finally, we also agree with Appellants’ argument (iii). On the record
before us, the Examiner has not provided a sufficient articulated reasoning,
with a rational underpinning, that the claimed invention would have been
obvious. The reason given by the Examiner for the combination (Final Act.
15—16 (“for the benefit of selection of a subset of representative realizations
containing similar properties to the la[r]ger set without losing accuracy so
that decisions and strategies can then be performed”)) does not explain how
or why Gunasekera would have benefited from a pre-image corresponding to
the geological model when generating a simulation grid, let alone how
Gunasekera’s grid generation technique would have been modified to
incorporate a pre-image.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, or
of claims 2—5, 11—13, and 17—19, which depend from claim 1.
7
Appeal 2017-005671
Application 13/498,256
Independent claims 20, 21, 25 and 26 also recite “a pre-image
corresponding to the geological grid cells, said pre-image comprising a two
dimensional surface representative of the areal geometry of the geological
model, said modeling constraints being mapped onto said surface.” Claims
22—24 depend from claim 21. We, therefore, also do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 20—26.
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 6-10 over Gunasekera, Scheidt
AND HEINERMANN
The Examiner does not find Heinermann cures the deficiency of
Gunasekera and Scheidt. See Final Act. 26—33.
For reasons discussed above, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 26—33.
The Obviousness Rejection of Claim 16 over Gunasekera, Scheidt
AND Wu
The Examiner does not find Wu cures the deficiency of Gunasekera
and Scheidt. See Final Act. 34—35.
For reasons discussed above, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of
claim 16.
ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—13 and 16—26 is reversed.
REVERSED
8