Ex Parte Pomerantz et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 28, 2017

13043773 (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.
13/043,773 03/09/2011 Andrew E. Pomerantz IS10.0938 9492
48879 7590 08/30/2017
SCHLUMBERGER INFORMATION SOLUTIONS
10001 Richmond Avenue
IP Administration Center of Excellence
HOUSTON, TX 77042
EXAMINER
SAXENA, AKASH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2128
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):
U S Docketing @ sib. com
jalverson@slb.com
SMarckesoni@slb.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANDREW E. POMERANTZ, YOUXIANG ZUO,
JOHN WAGGONER, ZULFIQUAR AIL REZA,
SOPHIE NAZIK GODEFROY, THOMAS PFEIFFER,
DENISE E. FREED, and OLIVER C. MULLINS
Appeal 2017-003580
Application 13/043,773
Technology Center 2100
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, HUNG H. BUI, and JON M. JURGOVAN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1, 3—24, and 26—53, which are all the claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appeal 2017-003580
Application 13/043,773
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention is directed to a method and system for
“modeling, evaluating and simulating hydrocarbon bearing subterranean
formations (which are commonly referred to as reservoirs)” to “allow for
reservoir compartmentalization (the presence or absence of flow barrier in
the reservoir) to be assessed more quickly and easily” (Spec. 11; Abstract).
Claims 1 and 24 are independent. Independent claim 1, reproduced
below, is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A method for evaluating a subterranean formation, the
method comprising:
deriving a first model of the formation, the first model
representing rock properties as a function of location in the
formation;
deriving a second model of the formation, the second
model representing fluid properties as a function of location in
the formation, wherein the fluid properties of the second model
characterize asphaltene concentration as a function of location
in the formation;
identifying reservoir compartments of the formation
based on the asphaltene concentration as a function of location
in the formation;
deriving a third model of the formation, the third model
including rock properties as a function of location in the
formation that are based on the rock properties of the first
model, and the third model also including fluid properties as a
function of location in the formation that are based on the fluid
properties of the second model, wherein the fluid properties of
the third model characterize asphaltene concentration as a
function of location in the formation, wherein deriving the third
model comprises interpolating the fluid properties of the second
model to grid cells of the third model, and wherein the
interpolating is performed separately for the grid cells
representing the individual reservoir compartments of the
formation; and
2
Appeal 2017-003580
Application 13/043,773
simulating fluid flow in the third model based on the
fluid properties of the second model and the rock properties of
the first model.
REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
(1) The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3—21, 23, 24, 26-43, and 45—
53 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Betancourt (US
2008/0040086 Al; published Feb. 14, 2008), Prevost, “Unstructured 3D
Gridding and Upscaling for Coarse Modeling of Geometrically Complex
Reservoirs,” 9th European Conference on the Mathematics of Oil Recovery,
1—8, (Aug. 30-Sept. 2, 2004), and Mullins (US 2009/0288881 Al; published
Nov. 26, 2009).1
(2) The Examiner rejected claims 22 and 44 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Betancourt, Prevost,
Mullins, and Freed (US 2009/0312997 Al; published Dec. 17, 2009).
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds the combination of Betancourt and Prevost
teaches deriving a third model by interpolating fluid properties to the third
model’s grid cells, the interpolating being performed separately for the grid
cells representing individual reservoir compartments that were identified, in
1 The Examiner and Appellants refer to the Mullins reference as “Mullings”
(see Final Act. 2, 12; App. Br. 7) or “Mullinas” (see Ans. 2). In addition, on
page 5 of the Final Action, the Examiner rejected claims 1, 3—6, 8, 9, 24, 26—
32, 34, 48, and 49 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of
Betancourt and Prevost; however, on page 2 of the Final Action and page 2
of the Answer, the Examiner rejected claims 1, 3—6, 8, 9, 24, 26—32, 34, 48,
and 49 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Betancourt,
Prevost, and Mullins (see Final Act. 2, 5; Ans. 2)
3
Appeal 2017-003580
Application 13/043,773
a subterranean formation, based on asphaltene concentration as claimed in
independent claim 1, and similarly recited in independent claim 24 (Final
Act. 3, 5—7; Ans. 3—5, 9-10). Particularly, the Examiner finds Betancourt
identifies a formation’s reservoir compartments containing asphaltene (Final
Act. 3 (citing Betancourt || 24, 30-32); Ans. 3). The Examiner also finds
Prevost’s gridded flow simulation and upscaling (i.e., grid coarsening)
interpolates fluid properties to a model’s grid cells, as claimed (Ans. 6—7;
Final Act. 7 (citing Prevost Figs. 1—3, 7—9)). The Examiner further finds the
grid’s “meshed volumes [in Prevost] demarcated by fault lines represent
reservoir compartments” as claimed, and Prevost’s flow simulation over
reservoir compartments’ grids teaches the claimed “interpolating is
performed separately for the grid cells representing the individual reservoir
compartments” because ‘\i\he [geological] fault geometry is honored [by
Prevost] in both the primal and the dual grid” (Ans. 4—5, 8—9 (citing Prevost
§ 2, § 6,13, Figs. 3, 8—9)). We do not agree.
Appellants assert independent claims 1 and 24 recite combining and
interpolating a fluid model and a rock model to form/derive a reservoir
model (App. Br. 8). Appellants contend neither Betancourt nor Prevost
teaches or suggests “deriving a third model by interpolating separately for
each [reservoir] compartment” of a physical formation, as required by claim
1 (Reply Br. 2; App. Br. 8). Rather, Prevost merely constructs a digital
coarse grid of optimally-sized control volumes (or dual cells centered at
nodes of a primal tetrahedral grid) over a reservoir formation “to achieve the
desired level of accuracy (based on the flow diagnostics),” and then
simulates fluid flow across these control volumes/cells to develop a “flow
simulator with (dual) cell to cell transmissibility coefficients that relate flow
4
Appeal 2017-003580
Application 13/043,773
across an interface to values of the pressure at the center of neighboring
(dual) cells” (Prevost § 2, § 6, p. 6; App. Br. 12 (citing Prevost § 4); see also
Reply Br. 2).
As recognized by Appellants, Prevost’s control volumes/cells are
merely “abstract, mathematical control volumes as part of a dual-grid
regime,” and do not correspond to reservoir compartments “of [a] formation
based on the asphaltene concentration,” as claimed. Additionally, Prevost
does not disclose deriving a model by interpolating separately for each
control volume (Reply Br. 3^4 (citing Prevost § 6, p. 5, Figs. 3, 8—9)).
Prevost’s Figure 8 shows an “Exploded view of a gridded model containing
a ‘Y’ fault” which shows “surfaces moved slightly apart (exploded) in a
formation. They are not reservoir compartments” nor are they “the control
volumes Prevost contemplates” (Reply Br. 4; Prevost p. 8, Fig. 8). Further,
as Appellants contend, even if they “could be considered reservoir
compartments, they are not delineated by asphaltene concentration” (Reply
Br. 4). Prevost merely honors fault geometry by selecting optimally-sized
control volumes for its grid; however, Prevost does not disclose interpolating
separately for each exploded portion shown in Figure 8 (Reply Br. 4; App.
Br. 12; Prevost § 6).
Betancourt does not make up for the above-noted deficiencies of
Prevost. Betancourt at most “recognizes properties within identified
compartments,” however, Betancourt “makes no mention or suggestion of
interpolating the fluid properties separately for the grid cells representing the
individual reservoir compartments,” as claimed (Reply Br. 2; App. Br. 9
(citing Betancourt || 20, 23)). The Examiner does not use the additional
5
Appeal 2017-003580
Application 13/043,773
teachings of Mullins and Freed to cure the above-noted deficiencies of
Betancourt and Prevost.
Thus, for the reasons set forth above, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and 24, and claims 3—23 and
26—53 dependent therefrom.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3—24, and 26—53 is
reversed.
REVERSED
6