Ex Parte Martin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 21, 2017

11792448 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 21, 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.
11/792,448 03/17/2008 James Martin 57.0648 US PCT 3533
37003 7590 02/23/2017
SCHLUMBERGER-DOLL RESEARCH
10001 Richmond Avenue
IP Administration Center of Excellence
Houston, TX 77042
EXAMINER
MURPHY, DANIEL L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3645
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/23/2017 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):
U S Docketing @ sib. com
jalverson@slb.com
JScottl9@slb.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JAMES MARTIN, BJORN ROMMEL,
TREVOR HUGHES, and GWENOLA MICHAUD
Appeal 2015-004035
Application 11/792,448
Technology Center 3600
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, LINDA E. HORNER, and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
James Martin et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from
the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 10, 11, and 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Mathisen (Mark E. Mathisen et al., Time-lapse
crosswell seismic tomogram interpretation: Implications for heavy oil
reservoir characterization, thermal recovery process monitoring, and
tomographic imaging technology, Vol. 60, No. 3, 631—650, Geophysics
(1995)), Brygynevych (US 2004/0054478 Al, pub. Mar. 18, 2004), and
Vinegar (US 6,932,155 B2, iss. Aug. 23, 2005). We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2015-004035
Application 11/792,448
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 10, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
10. A method of monitoring heavy oil viscosity in a hydrocarbon
reservoir comprising:
obtaining a set of acoustic signals;
determining from the obtained signals both shear
and compressional velocities for at least a section of the reservoir
in which both shear and compressional waves pass through
heavy oil in the reservoir;
performing a reservoir treatment process to reduce
viscosity of the heavy oil in at least the section of the reservoir
to become producible from the reservoir;
obtaining a post-treatment set of acoustic signals;
and
determining from the post-treatment set of acoustic
signals both shear and compressional velocities for at least the
section of the reservoir and using changes in velocities of both
the shear and compressional waves passing through heavy oil in
the section of the reservoir to monitor transformation of the oil
to a state having sufficiently low viscosity to enable production.
DISCUSSION
Appellants present arguments for patentability of claim 10 and do not
assert any separate arguments for patentability of dependent claims 11 and
19. Br. 5—9. We select claim 10 as representative, with claims 11 and 19
standing or falling therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Mathisen discloses a method of monitoring
heavy oil recovery in a hydrocarbon reservoir, substantially as claimed,
including a step of “determining from the obtained signals both shear and
compressional velocities for at least a section of the reservoir ... in which
2
Appeal 2015-004035
Application 11/792,448
both shear and compressional waves pass through heavy oil in the
reservoir.” Final Act. 5 (citing Mathisen 632, 635—636). The Examiner also
finds that Mathisen discloses “performing a reservoir treatment process” {id.
(citing Mathisen 632)) and “determining from the post-treatment set of
acoustic signals both shear and compressional velocities for at least the
section of the reservoir” {id. (citing Mathisen 640-642, 644; Figs. 15, 20)).
The Examiner acknowledges that Mathisen does not disclose monitoring
viscosity of the heavy oil, performing the treatment process to reduce heavy
oil viscosity, or using changes in both compressional and shear wave
velocities to monitor a transformation of the heavy oil to a low viscosity
state that enables production from the reservoir. Id. at 6. However, the
Examiner finds that Brygynevych discloses using “compressional and shear
wave measurements to monitor viscosity,” and determines that it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine this feature with
the heavy oil monitoring method of Mathisen, “since such a combination
enables monitoring of reservoir engineering of the hydrocarbon deposits.”
Id. (citing Brygynevych, paras. 14—15). The Examiner also finds that
“Vinegar teaches monitoring heavy oil viscosity in a hydrocarbon reservoir.”
Id. at 7 (citing Vinegar, col. 1,11. 43 47). The Examiner explains that
Vinegar discloses “an in situ treatment process to alter mechanical properties
of the formation including conversion of solids and viscous liquids to vapors
. . . , which would therefore suggest conversion of solids to liquids and
conversion of viscous liquids to less viscous liquids.” Id. The Examiner
determines that it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of
Vinegar with the teachings of Mathisen and Brygynevych, “since such
3
Appeal 2015-004035
Application 11/792,448
combination enables more efficient application of resources, e.g., heat, to
enhance hydrocarbon recovery.” Id. at 8.
Appellants argue that Brygynevych does not disclose monitoring “the
viscosity of heavy oil, as required by claim 10.” Br. 7. In particular,
Appellants assert that the “term ‘dynamical viscosity’ is referring to a rock
property.” Id. (quoting Brygynevych, para. 15). We do not find this
argument persuasive because it essentially addresses Brygynevych in
isolation, rather than considering the combined teachings of the cited
references. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986)
(nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references
individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art
disclosures). As discussed supra, the Examiner relies on Mathisen for
disclosing a method that includes monitoring heavy oil in a reservoir using
shear and compressional velocity data determined from acoustic signals.
Final Act. 5. The Examiner does not rely on Brygynevych for disclosing
monitoring the viscosity of heavy oil specifically, but, rather, the Examiner
finds that Brygynevych discloses the “use of compressional and shear wave
measurements to monitor viscosity” of fluid-saturated rock. Id. at 6 (citing
Brygynevych, paras. 14—15); see Ans. 7 (the Examiner explaining that
“Brygynevych refers to the rocks as ‘fluid-saturated,’ whether with water,
oil, or gas” (citing Brygynevych, paras. 1, 2, 11, 15, 18, 19, 26—28)).
Appellants’ argument does not specifically address or point out error in the
Examiner’s findings with respect to Mathisen or Brygynevych as presented
in the rejection, nor the reasoning articulated in support of the determination
that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine
the viscosity monitoring technique of Brygynevych with the heavy oil
4
Appeal 2015-004035
Application 11/792,448
monitoring method of Mathisen. See Final Act. 6 (the Examiner explaining
that “such combination enables monitoring of reservoir engineering of the
hydrocarbon deposits”).
Appellants argue that Vinegar does not disclose “using changes in
velocities of both the shear and compressional waves passing through heavy
oil in the section of the reservoir to monitor transformation of the oil to a
state having sufficiently low viscosity to enable production,” as recited in
claim 10. See Br. 5—8. In particular, Appellants assert that Vinegar “merely
names [seismic] techniques without giving detail” and does not disclose
“that the seismic techniques include using changes in both shear and
compressional waves ... to monitor transformation of oil to a producible
state.” Id. at 7 (citing Vinegar, col. 84,11. 22—53). Appellants also assert
that Vinegar “does not mention monitoring the reduction in viscosity of
heavy oil,” and, “even if it is assumed that Vinegar contemplates monitoring
the mobilization of oil with heat, there is no teaching to do that by any
seismic technique.” Id. According to Appellants, “Vinegar does not
mention any monitoring process using changes in velocities of both the shear
and compressional waves.” Id. at 7—8.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments against Vinegar
because they are not responsive to the rejection as articulated by the
Examiner. As discussed supra, the Examiner relies on Mathisen for
disclosing a heavy oil monitoring method that includes determining
compressional and shear wave measurements from acoustic signals, and on
Brygynevych for disclosing viscosity monitoring using compressional and
shear wave measurements. See Final Act. 5—6. The Examiner relies on
Vinegar for disclosing “an in situ treatment process to alter mechanical
5
Appeal 2015-004035
Application 11/792,448
properties of the formation including conversion of solids and viscous
liquids to vapors.” Id. at 7. The Examiner explains that “the point of
Vinegar’s in situ process is to enhance producibility of the hydrocarbon,”
and, therefore, “Vinegar . . . suggests that the reservoir treatment process is
performed to reduce viscosity of the heavy oil to become producible from
the reservoir.” Id. (citing Vinegar, col. 1,11. 38-43).1 Appellants’ arguments
against Vinegar do not establish nonobviousness because they essentially
address the reference individually, where the rejection is based on the
combined teachings of Mathisen, Brygynevych, and Vinegar. See In re
Merck & Co., 800 F.2d at 1097. Furthermore, Appellants do not assert any
error in the Examiner’s reasoning articulated in support of the proposed
modification of Mathisen’s heaw oil monitoring method based on the
specific teachi ngs of Brygynevych and Vinegar, See Final Act. 6-8.
For the above reasons, Appellants’ arguments do not apprise us of
error in the Examiner’s determination that the subject matter of claim 10
would have been obvious. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim
10, and of claims 11 and 19 falling therewith, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Mathisen, Brygynevych, and Vinegar.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 10, 11, and 19 is affirmed.
1 Vinegar discloses that “[cjhemical and/or physical properties of
hydrocarbon material within a subterranean formation may need to be
changed to allow hydrocarbon material to be more easily removed from the
subterranean formation.” Vinegar, col. 1,11. 39-43. Vinegar also discloses
that “[t]he chemical and physical changes may include in situ reactions that
produce removable fluids . . . and/or viscosity changes of the hydrocarbon
material within the formation.” Id., 11. 43 47.
6
Appeal 2015-004035
Application 11/792,448
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
7