Ex Parte Prange et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 23, 201712820379 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 23, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 12/820,379 06/22/2010 David Michael Prange 60.1964 2045 48879 7590 02/27/2017 SCHLUMBERGER INFORMATION SOLUTIONS 10001 Richmond Avenue IP Administration Center of Excellence HOUSTON, TX 77042 EXAMINER YANG, ANDREW GUS ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2614 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/27/2017 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 DAVID MICHAEL PRANGE, THIBAUT KLEIN, and HUGUES A. DJIKPESSE Appeal 2016-005964 Application 12/820,379 Technology Center 2600 Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, 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—23. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 1—4, 6, 7, 9-12, 15, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Frankel (US 2007/0027666 Al; Feb. 1, 2007), Dulac (US 7,711,532 B2; May 4, 2010), Vassilev (US 7,424,415 B2; Sept. 9, 2008), and Farmer (US 6,106,561; Aug. 22, 2000). Final Act. 2—10. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Frankel, Dulac, Vassilev, Farmer, Fremming (US 7,248,259 B2; July 24, 2007), and Aharon (US 7,990,379 B2; Aug. 2, 2011). Final Act. 10-11. Appeal 2016-005964 Application 12/820,379 Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Frankel, Dulac, Vassilev, Farmer, and Stam (US 7,813,903 B2; Oct. 12, 2010). Final Act. 11-12. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Frankel, Dulac, Vassilev, Farmer, and Fremming. Final Act. 12—13. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Frankel, Dulac, Vassilev, Farmer, Fremming, and Maekawa (US 8,228,329 B2; July 24, 2012). Final Act. 13—15. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Frankel, Dulac, Vassilev, Farmer, and Sfarti (US 7,295,204 B2; Nov. 13, 2007). Final Act. 15-16. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Frankel, Dulac, Farmer, and Staten (US 7,671,858 Bl; Mar. 2, 2010). Final Act. 16-21. Claims 18—21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Calvert (US 2007/0219765 Al; Sept. 20, 2007). Final Act. 22-25. Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Calvert and Farmer. Final Act. 21—22. We reverse. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention relates to “[tjechniques to aid recovery of material from a reservoir [that] include model-based simulation techniques.” Spec. 11. Claims 1 and 18 are illustrative and reproduced below: 1. One or more non-transitory computer-readable media comprising computer-executable instructions that, when executed by a 2 Appeal 2016-005964 Application 12/820,379 computing system, cause the computing system to perform operations, the operations comprising: accessing data that define a pillar grid comprising a plurality of pillar nodes, wherein the plurality of pillar nodes define logical cells of a reservoir model; converting the pillar grid to a geometric volume model comprising a plurality of partitioned subvolumes containing regions of a reservoir model, wherein the geometric volume model is not a pillar grid, and wherein converting comprises: partitioning the pillar grid into the subvolumes, the subvolumes each comprising one or more of the logical cells of the reservoir model, wherein a void is defined between a first one of the subvolumes and a second one of the subvolumes; building surfaces to define boundaries for each of the subvolumes wherein each of the surfaces comprises polygons defined by surface nodes, wherein building the surfaces eliminates the void; and generating a mesh of property nodes for each of the subvolumes wherein at least some of the property nodes comprise properties derived from properties of the reservoir model; and storing data that define the subvolumes, the surfaces and the meshes. 18. A computing system, comprising: a processor; and a memory system comprising one or more non-transitory computer- readable media comprising computer-executable instructions that, when executed, cause the computing system to perform operations, the operations comprising: accessing data that define a first model of at least a portion of a reservoir; 3 Appeal 2016-005964 Application 12/820,379 accessing data that define a second model of at least a portion of the reservoir, wherein the first model and the second model are separate models that overlap geometrically such that data associated with a common volume of the reservoir is included in both the first and second models, and wherein the first model and the second model comprise surfaces that bound and define volumes; identifying surface intersections between the first model and the second model; based on the identification of surface intersections, splitting surfaces connecting the volumes of the first model and splitting surfaces connecting the volumes of the second model; linking each volume on a boundary of the first model to a corresponding volume of the second model using at least some of the split surfaces; and storing data associated with at least the linked volumes, the data sufficient to perform a simulation of one or more physical phenomena using the linked volumes. CONTENTIONS AND ANALYSIS The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1^1,6,7,9-12,15, and 23 over Frankel, Dulac, Vassilev, and Farmer The Examiner finds Frankel, Dulac, Vassilev, and Farmer teach all limitations of claim 1. Final Act. 2—7. In particular, the Examiner finds Vassilev teaches the recited (claim 1) “wherein a void is defined between a first one of the subvolumes and a second one of the sub volumes” and “wherein building the surfaces eliminates the void.” Final Act. 5—6 (citing Vassilev col. 6,11. 30-38). In particular, the Examiner finds “Vassilev discloses a crack, or void, in the reservoir modeled by sub-volumes, and extrapolating, or extending the fault surface to eliminate the void.” Id. at 6. 4 Appeal 2016-005964 Application 12/820,379 The cited passage of Vassilev discloses the following: Given a framework of surfaces and faults representing the cracks in the reservoir, and the set of input horizon data (typically a cloud of points in the 3D Euclidean space encompassing the volume of the reservoir) as described in earlier cited U.S. patents, a partitioning of the volume of the reservoir into closed sub volumes is developed. The sub-volumes are usually known as fault blocks. The cracks in the reservoir are not necessarily connected so that the corresponding fault surfaces do not define a closed fault block partitioning. To overcome this, the following procedure to extrapolate, or extend, the fault surface is applied. Vassilev col. 6,11. 28—38. Appellants present the following principal argument: Vassilev does not teach the recited (claim 1) “wherein a void is defined between a first one of the subvolumes and a second one of the sub volumes” and “wherein building the surfaces eliminates the void.” See App. Br. 10. Appellants further argue that A geologic fault [in Vassilev] is an object of a model; it is not a void between two sub volumes [as recited in claim 1], More particularly, a geologic fault is a surface along which the opposing fault blocks have slid, thus creating a discontinuity in properties across the fault, but not a volume that is empty or otherwise outside or between two demarcated spaces (i.e., a void). In contrast, Applicant’s claim 1 is directed to eliminating a void created between two subvolumes (e.g., opposing fault blocks) when their geometrical representation is converted from a pillar grid model into a geometric volume model (e.g., a Volcan model). App. Br. 10-11; see also Vassilev col. 1,11. 22—27 (faulted geologic horizons). In response, the Examiner explains “the term [‘void’] is not limited by the Appellants’] definition in the claim language. In addition, the 5 Appeal 2016-005964 Application 12/820,379 specification does not include a specific definition of the term ‘void’ as used in the claim.” Ans. 2—3. First, then, we must construe the term “void,” as recited in claim 1. See In re Geerdes, 491 F.2d 1260, 1262 (CCPA 1974) (“Before considering the rejections . . ., we must first [determine the scope of] the claims”). In this regard, Appellants’ Specification (| 1) discloses the following: [PJillar grids can misrepresent complex geometrical structures, especially in the neighborhood of geometrical or property discontinuities. This lack of geometrical accuracy can manifest in voids and other geometrical errors. With respect to voids, in a geometrical domain, these may be viewed as “leaky” holes between two volumetric cells (e.g., where each of the cells is defined by 8 points with two points on each of four pillars). Spec. 11; see also Fig. 1 (illustrating a leaky void in a pillar grid model). We adopt the plain meaning of “void,” which a general purpose dictionary defines in the pertinent sense, as follows: “1 a : opening, gap.” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 1323 (10th ed. 1997). This construction comports with Appellants’ Specification. Given our construction, we review the Examiner’s finding that Vassilev teaches the recited (claim 1) “wherein a void is defined between a first one of the subvolumes and a second one of the sub volumes” and “wherein building the surfaces eliminates the void.” Vassilev’s reservoir is modeled by fault blocks (subvolumes). In order to define the fault block partitioning in the model, Vassilev artificially extends a fault surface. See Vassilev col. 6,11. 28—38; see also id. Fig. 6B (artificially extended reverse fault surface 680 is between fault block 650 and fault block 660). We do not see Vassilev disclosing an opening or gap (,i.e. void) defined between fault blocks (subvolumes) because the fault 6 Appeal 2016-005964 Application 12/820,379 blocks 650, 660 (subvolumes) each abut the partitioning surface 680 without defining an opening or gap. See Vassilev Fig. 6B. Further, even if Vassilev’s geometric fault 220 were deemed to be a “void” between fault blocks (subvolumes), the artificial extension of the fault surface 680 does not eliminate the geometric fault 220. See Vassilev, Fig. 6B. Thus, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding Vassilev teaches the recited language of claim 1, “wherein a void is defined between a first one of the subvolumes and a second one of the subvolumes” and “wherein building the surfaces eliminates the void.” We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, or of claims 2-4, 6, 7, 9-12, 15, and 23, which depend from claim 1. The Obviousness Rejections of Claims 5, 8,13,14, and 16 over Frankel, Dulac, Vassilev, Farmer, Fremming, Aharon, Stam, Maekawa, and Sfarti Claims 5, 8, 13, 14, and 16 depend from claim 1. The Examiner has not found Fremming, Aharon, Stam, Maekawa, or Sfarti overcomes the shortcomings of Vassilev discussed above. See Final Act. 10-16. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 5, 8, 13, 14, and 16. The Obviousness Rejection of Claim 17 over Frankel, Dulac, Farmer, and Staten The Examiner finds Frankel, Dulac, Farmer, and Staten teach all limitations of claim 17. Final Act. 16—21. In particular, the Examiner finds 7 Appeal 2016-005964 Application 12/820,379 Staten teaches the recites “wherein a void is defined between a first one of the subvolumes and a second one of the subvolumes” and “wherein building the surfaces eliminates the void,” as recited in claim 17. Final Act. 20 (citing Staten col. 8 11. 60-65; col. 9,11. 40-42); see also Staten Figs. 9 and 12. In particular, the Examiner finds “[Staten’s] Fig. 9 shows two subvolumes A and B, wherein a void, as marked by letter A and letter B, is defined between, or inside both individual subvolumes.” Final Act. 20. Staten (col. 8,11. 60—65) discloses: FIG. 9 illustrates the example surface and how it may look after several more rows are advanced. All edges on the unmeshed sub- regions A and B are less than two times the desired element size, and so one stops advancing fronts. At this point, it is time to resolve the unmeshed voids. Staten (col. 9,11. 40-42) discloses: “Traditional quadrilateral cleanup operations and smoothing can then be performed to finalize the mesh connectivity and quality as shown in FIG. 12.” Appellants argue that Staten does not teach “wherein a void is defined between a first one of the subvolumes and a second one of the subvolumes” and “wherein building the surfaces eliminates the void,” as recited in claim 17. See App. Br. 11. See also id. at 12 (“Staten discloses a void defined in the interior of each subvolume (e.g., sub-regions A and B), not a void ‘defined between a first one of the sub volumes and a second one of the subvolumes,’ as recited in claim 17”); Reply Br. 1—2 (arguing “between” is not equivalent to “inside”). In response, the Examiner explains “Subvolumes A and B have a void defined between, or inside each individual subvolume.” Ans. 3. First, we must construe the term “between,” as recited in claim 17. See Geerdes, 491 F.2d at 1262. 8 Appeal 2016-005964 Application 12/820,379 We adopt the plain meaning of “between,” which a general purpose dictionary defines, in the pertinent sense, as follows: “2 a : in the time, space, or interval that separates” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 109 (10th ed. 1997). This construction comports with Appellants’ Specification. See Spec 11 (“‘leaky’ holes between two volumetric cells”) and Fig. 1 (illustrating a leaky void in a pillar grid model). Thus, we conclude that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “a void is defined between a first one of the subvolumes and a second one of the subvolumes,” as recited in claim 17, requires a void defined in the space that separates a first subvolume and a second subvolume. Given this construction, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding Staten teaches “wherein a void is defined between a first one of the subvolumes and a second one of the subvolumes” and “wherein building the surfaces eliminates the void,” as recited in claim 17. Staten’s voids inside each of a first subvolume (Staten, sub-region A, Fig. 9) and a second subvolume (Staten, sub-region B, Fig. 9) do not correspond to “a void is defined between a first one of the subvolumes and a second one of the subvolumes,” as recited in claim 17 (emphasis added), because Staten’s voids are not in a space that separates the subvolumes. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 17. The Anticipation Rejection of Claims 18-21 by Calvert The Examiner finds Calvert describes all limitations of claim 18. Final Act. 22—24. In particular, the Examiner finds Calvert’s combining passband models teaches “linking each volume on a boundary of the first model to a corresponding volume of the second model using at least some of 9 Appeal 2016-005964 Application 12/820,379 the split surfaces,” as recited in claim 18. Final Act. 24 (citing Calvert | 52). Calvert (| 52) discloses “In operation 210, all initial frequency-passband models are combined to create the initial complete geologic model.” Appellants present the following principal argument: Calvert does not teach the following disputed limitations of claim 18: identifying surface intersections between the first model and the second model; based on the identification of surface intersections, splitting surfaces connecting the volumes of the first model and splitting surfaces connecting the volumes of the second model; linking each volume on a boundary of the first model to a corresponding volume of the second model using at least some of the split surfaces[.] App. Br. 13. In Appellants’view, Calvert discloses a method for combining multiple property models (derived from different frequency bands) to construct a single model that combines information from all frequencies. Id. See also id. at paras. [0026]—[0027]. In short, Calvert focuses on combining multiple property models, while Applicant’s claim 18 focuses on finding the surface intersections between a first (e.g., foreground) model and a second (e.g., background) model, which are then used to combine the two model geometries into a single, consistent model. Id. Appellants’ arguments persuade us that the Examiner erred (at least) in finding Calvert teaches “linking each volume on a boundary of the first model to a corresponding volume of the second model using at least some of the split surfaces,” as recited in claim 18. In making the rejection, the Examiner maps Calvert’s low-frequency model to claim 18’s recited “first model,” and maps Calvert’s medium- frequency model to claim 18’s recited “second model.” See Final Act. 22— 10 Appeal 2016-005964 Application 12/820,379 23. For claim 18’s recited “splitting surfaces connecting the volumes,” the Examiner’s mapping is unclear, but the Examiner refers to Calvert’s updating values in the models. See Final Act. 23—24 (citing Calvert 141). Thus, to the extent Calvert’s combining passband models “link[s] each volume on a boundary of the first model to a corresponding volume of the second model,” as recited in claim 18, we do not see how this linking is performed “using at least some of the split surfaces,” as further claimed. That is, we do not see how Calvert’s updated values in the models are used for the linking of the passband models together, which requires more than the mere presence of the updated values in the complete model. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 18, or of claims 19—21, which depend from claim 18. The Obviousness Rejection of Claim 22 over Calvert and Farmer Claim 22 depends from claim 18. The Examiner has not found Farmer overcomes the shortcomings of Calvert discussed above. See Final Act. 21—22. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 22. ORDER The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—23 is reversed. REVERSED 11 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation