Ex Parte Souche et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 29, 2016

13664152 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/664, 152 10/30/2012 Laurent Arnaud Souche
48879 7590 08/31/2016
SCHLUMBERGER INFORMATION SOLUTIONS
10001 Richmond Avenue
IP Administration Center of Excellence
HOUSTON, TX 77042
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
122.0054-US-CNT 4920
EXAMINER
DAY, HERNG DER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2128
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/31/2016 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):
USDocketing@slb.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 LAURENT ARNAUD SOUCHE, JOSSELIN KHERROUBI, and
MATTHIEU JEAN ROTSCHI
Appeal2015-002459
Application 13/664,152
Technology Center 2100
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., ADAM J. PYONIN, and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 19-35 and 37. Claims 1-18 have been
canceled. App. Br. 4. Claim 36 has been allowed. Final Act. 10. We have
jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Schlumberger
Technology Corporation. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2015-002459
Application 13/664,152
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' Invention
Appellants' invention generally relates to characterizing networks of
fractures in a subterranean reservoir using a statistical description derived
from logging, seismic and other well and reservoir measurements. Spec. ,-r 1.
Claims 19 and 37, which are illustrative, read as follows:
19. A method comprising:
providing data for a subterranean region that comprises a
fracture network;
describing the fracture network by a single statistical
description that comprises statistical parameters that are
represented by localized random variables according to
corresponding probability distribution laws wherein the single
statistical description provides for partitioning into a discrete
fracture network portion and a remaining portion;
partitioning the single statistical description into portions
by determining values for the localized random variables
according to the corresponding probability distribution laws
using a computer wherein the values comprise fracture geometry
parameter values and fracture density values; and
for at least one of the portions, determining homogenized
fracture property values.
37. A computation system comprising:
a computerized control program configured to
access data for a subterranean region that comprises a
fracture network;
describe the fracture network by a single statistical
description that comprises statistical parameters that are
represented by localized random variables according to
corresponding probability distribution laws wherein the single
statistical description provides for partitioning into a discrete
fracture network portion and a remaining portion;
2
Appeal2015-002459
Application 13/664,152
partition the single statistical description into portions by
determining values for the localized random variables according
to the corresponding probability distribution laws wherein the
values comprise fracture geometry parameter values and fracture
density values; and
for at least one of the portions, determine homogenized
fracture property values.
References
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims:
Li et al. ("Li") US 7 ,565,278 B2 July 21, 2009
Nam H. Tran et al., Integrated Conditional Global Optimisation for Discrete
Fracture Network Modelling, Computers Geosciences, vol. 32, iss. 1, pp.
17-27 (2006) ©Elsevier Ltd. (hereinafter "Tran").
Rejections
Claim 37 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to non-
statutory subject matter. Final Act. 2-3.
Claims 19-35 and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Li and Tran. Final Act. 3-10.
Issues on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in finding that claim 3 7 is directed to
nonstatutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101?
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Li and Tran
teaches or suggests "partitioning the single statistical description into
portions by determining values for the localized random variables according
to the corresponding probability distribution laws using a computer," as
recited in claim 19?
3
Appeal2015-002459
Application 13/664,152
ANALYSIS
§ 1 OJ Rejection
The Examiner finds that claim 37 is directed to non-statutory subject
matter. Final Act. 2-3; Ans. 2-3. The Examiner finds the broadest
reasonable interpretation of "computation system" and "computerized
control program" includes software per se and, because the claim does not
include any link to a hardware component, the claim is directed to non-
statutory subject matter. Final Act. 2-3; Ans. 2-3.
Appellants contend claim 37 is directed to a "computation system"
and, therefore, directed to one of the four statutory categories of patentable
subject matter. App. Br. 7. Appellants further contend, claim 37 does not
recite or involve a judicial exception and, therefore, is directed to eligible
subject matter. App. Br. 7. Appellants also contend claim 37 recites in part
"data for a subterranean region that comprises a fracture network;" "fracture
geometry parameter values and fracture density values;" and "homogenized
fracture property values" and, therefore, "is reduced to a particular practical
application having a real world use where the claimed practical application
is evidence that the subject matter is not abstract (e.g., not purely mental)
and does not encompass substantially all uses (preemption) of a law of
nature or a physical phenomenon." App. Br. 8. Appellants cite to
paragraphs 16 and 20 of the Specification as describing practical
applications, human operation, and means of a computerized control
program and contend that, based on the cited portions, "various bases exist
to find the subject matter of claim 37 statutory under § 101." App. Br. 8.
Appellants further contend the Specification explicitly associates the
claimed phrase "computerized control program" with storage space. Reply
4
Appeal2015-002459
Application 13/664,152
Br. 2-3 (citing Spec. iii! 9, 15, 20). Appellants contend "the instant
application and various cited references all agree that it takes a computation
system to represent a fracture network of a geologic environment.
Independent claim 3 7 is directed to such a system and includes a
computerized control program to 'access data for a subterranean region that
comprises a fracture network' and to 'describe the fracture network by a
single statistical description'." Reply Br. 4.
We do not find Appellants' contentions persuasive. A claim falls
outside§ 101 where (1) it is directed to a patent-ineligible concept, i.e., a
law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea, and (2), if so, the
particular elements of the claim, considered both individually and as an
ordered combination, do not add enough to transform the nature of the claim
into a patent-eligible application. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int 'l, 134 S. Ct.
2347, 2355 (2014); see Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs.,
Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1297-98 (2012). The first inquiry looks at the "focus"
of the claims, their "character as a whole," and the second inquiry, when
reached, looks more precisely at what the claim elements add -
specifically, whether they identify an "inventive concept" in the application
of the ineligible matter to which (by assumption at reaching the second
inquiry) the claim is directed. See Enfzsh, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d
1327, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network,
Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Regarding the first inquiry, "[t]he Supreme Court has not established
a definitive rule to determine what constitutes an 'abstract idea' sufficient to
satisfy the first step of the Mayo/Alice inquiry." Enfzsh, 822 F.3d at 1334.
5
Appeal2015-002459
Application 13/664,152
Rather, it is "sufficient to compare claims at issue to those claims already
found to be directed to an abstract idea in previous cases." Id.
Claim 37 is directed to a computerized control program configured to
access data for a subterranean region that comprises a fracture network,
describe the fracture network by a single statistical description, partition the
single statistical description into portions, and, for at least one portion,
determine homogenized fracture property values. Claim 37 is, therefore,
directed to a process of gathering and analyzing information of a specified
content and not any particular inventive technology for performing those
functions. We find claim 3 7 is therefore directed to an abstract idea. See
Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed.
Cir. 2015) (finding collecting information, including when limited to
particular content (which does not change its character as information), is
within the realm of abstract ideas); Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for
Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (finding analyzing
information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical
algorithms, without more, is essentially mental processes within the abstract-
idea category).
Regarding the second inquiry, limiting a claim to a particular
technological field is, without more, insufficient to transform the claim into
a patent-eligible application of an abstract idea. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at
2358. Further, we are not persuaded by Appellants' contention that the
phrase "computerized control program" is explicitly associated with storage
space (Reply Br. 2-3 (citing Spec. i-fi-19, 15, 20)) and that "the instant
application and various cited references all agree that it takes a computation
system to represent a fracture network of a geologic environment" (Reply
6
Appeal2015-002459
Application 13/664,152
Br. 4) because invocations of computers and networks that are not even
arguably inventive are "insufficient to pass the test of an inventive concept
in the application" of an abstract idea. buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 7 65
F.3d 1350, 1353-1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014). As such, we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred in finding claim 37 to be directed to non-statutory subject
matter.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 37 under
35 U.S.C. § 101.
§ 103 Rejection
Li relates to simulating fluid flow in subterranean reservoirs using a
three-dimensional hybrid reservoir model representative of a fractured
subterranean reservoir. Li 2:33-36. Li teaches that fractures are
characterized by statistical distribution functions for aperture size, length,
orientation, etc. Li 7:64---65. Li teaches generating, from the statistical
distribution functions, discrete fractures of multiple length scales using a
stochastic process with statistical means and variances in length and
orientation. Li. 7:66-8:2. Li further teaches each of the generated discrete
fractures can then be classified as belonging to one of three classes: ( 1) short
fractures; (2) medium (e.g., grid-block scale) fractures; and (3) long (e.g.,
extending over several grid blocks) fractures. Li 8:5-17. Li teaches that the
long fractures are modeled explicitly and that a homogenization process, to
incorporate the effect of having short and medium length fractures, is used to
calculate equivalent or effective permeability for each matrix block. Li
8:61---67.
The Examiner finds Li's generation and identification of the discrete
7
Appeal2015-002459
Application 13/664,152
fractures teaches or suggests partitioning the statistical distribution functions
into portions (e.g., a portion including long fractures to be modeled
explicitly and a portion including short and medium length fractures to be
incorporated via the homogenization process) and, therefore, that Li teaches
or suggests "partitioning the single statistical description into portions by
determining values for the localized random variables according to the
corresponding probability distribution laws using a computer," as recited in
claim 19. Ans. 5-6.
Appellants contend the combination of Li and Tran does not teach or
suggest the partitioning limitation. App. Br. 9-14; Reply Br. 5-7.
Particularly, Appellants contend Li does not teach or suggest partitioning a
single statistical description, as required by claim 19. App. Br. 13.
Appellants contend Li, instead, teaches generating all discrete fractures;
classifying the discrete fractures based on their respective lengths being
short, medium, or long; and then homogenizing some of the generated
discrete fractures based on the classifying. Id. Appellants further contend
" [a] s such, a single statistical description is not partitioned as in claim 19,
rather generated discrete fractures with corresponding lengths are classified
by those lengths." Id.
We find Appellants' contention persuasive. We agree with the
Examiner (Ans. 5---6) that Li teaches or suggests partitioning into portions.
See Li 8:61-67. However, Li does not teach or suggest partitioning a single
statistical description into portions, as recited in claim 19. Instead, Li
teaches classifying (e.g., partitioning) discrete fractures generated through a
stochastic process based on a length of each fracture. Li 7:65-8:2; 8:61---67.
The Examiner's findings fail to show how Li's classification process,
8
Appeal2015-002459
Application 13/664,152
performed on discrete fractures and not on a single statistical description
describing a fracture network, teaches or suggests partitioning the single
statistical description into portions by determining values for localized
random variables representing statistical parameters included in the single
statistical description, as required by claim 19. The Examiner does not find
Tran cures these deficiencies in the teachings of Li. As such, we are
constrained by the record to not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 19.
For the same reasons we also do not sustain the Examiner's obviousness
rejection of claims 20-35 and 37, which recite similar limitations.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 37 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101.
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 19-35 and 37 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
9