Gérard Massonnat

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 20, 2020

2020003492 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 20, 2020)

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.
14/388,546 09/26/2014 Gérard Massonnat 4229.99WOUS01 1007
24113 7590 11/20/2020
PATTERSON THUENTE PEDERSEN, P.A.
80 SOUTH 8TH STREET
4800 IDS CENTER
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-2100
EXAMINER
BROCK, ROBERT S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2128
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/20/2020 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):
efsuspto@ptslaw.com
johnson@ptslaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte GERARD MASSONNAT
____________

Appeal 2020-003492
Application 14/388,546
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JUSTIN BUSCH, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.

THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 13–20 and 22–24. Claims 1–12 and 21
are canceled. See Claims Appendix. We have jurisdiction over the appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). A telephonic Oral Hearing was held on
November 5, 2020.
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Total SA.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-003492
Application 14/388,546

2
The present invention relates generally to simulating modifications to
the mineralogical composition of soil. See Abstract.
Claim 13 is illustrative:
13. A method, realized by computer, for simulating
modifications to mineralogical compositions of a soil, comprising:
/a/ receiving a geological model for said soil, wherein the
model comprises at least one local mineralogical composition
parameter based on local coordinates in this model;
/b/ simulating a stochastic movement of a particle in the
geological model, said particle having coordinates in said model and
having an aggressiveness parameter, the aggressiveness parameter of
the particle is function of its ionic composition;
/c/ modifying the at least one local mineralogical
composition parameter while taking into account at least:
the coordinates of the particle in said model,
the aggressiveness of the particle, and
the local mineralogical composition parameter;
/d/ modifying the aggressiveness of the particle while
taking into account at least the modification of the local mineralogical
composition of step /c/; and
/e/ when an end condition is satisfied, supplying the local
mineralogical composition parameter, otherwise repeating steps /b/,
/c/, /d/ and /e/;
/f/ determining the ability of the soil to trap hydrocarbons
based on steps /b/, /c/, /d/ and /e/
wherein the aggressiveness parameter comprises a
plurality of components, each aggressiveness component being
associated with a capacity of the particle to dissolve or precipitate a
certain type of mineral in the presence of a mineralogical
composition;
wherein the modification of the mineralogical
composition is configured by a parameter selected from among: a
maximum/minimum porosity value of the model, a
maximum/minimum conduit diameter value.

Appellant appeals the following rejection:
Claims 13–20 and 22–24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
Appeal 2020-003492
Application 14/388,546

3
being unpatentable over Qinjun Kang et al., “Lattice Boltzmann Method
for Reacting Flows in Porous Media,”Adv. Appl. Math. Mech., vol. 2 no.
5, 545–563 (Oct. 2010), Syed A. Ali et al., “Diagenesis and Reservoir
Quality,” Oilfield Review, vol. 22 no. 2, 14–27 (Summer 2010), and
Hurley (US 2011/0004447 A1, published Jan. 6, 2011).
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).

ANALYSIS
We refer to, rely on, and adopt the Examiner’s findings and
conclusions set forth in the Answer. Our discussions here will be limited to
the following points of emphasis.
In the Appeal Brief, Appellant makes numerous arguments, some of
which, as shown below, hinge on claim construction. The following
headings outline our grouping of the key aspects of Appellant’s arguments:
No reason to combine arguments
Appellant contends that “Kang does not provide a geological model of
the soil, so a [person having ordinary skill in the art,] PHOSITA[,] would
have no reason to combine the teachings of Kang with Hurley.” Appeal Br.
22; see also Reply Br. 2.
The Examiner finds that “the prior art disclosures are analogous art
and that it is reasonably expected that a PHOSITA would have had reason to
combine the teachings as proposed.” Ans. 5. The Examiner further finds
that “Appellant has not particularly pointed out the distinction between the
claimed ‘geological model of said soil’ (see claim 13) and the model which
Appeal 2020-003492
Application 14/388,546

4
is indicated by the citations of the Kang disclosure.” Id. at 6. We agree with
the Examiner.
Specifically, as noted by the Examiner, “Appellant’s specification
does not provide for a particular definition of ‘geological model for said soil
. . . [rather] [a]ccording to the language in claim 13, ‘the model comprises at
least one local mineralogical composition parameter based on local
coordinates in this model.’” Ans. 7; see also claim 13. Similarly, the
Examiner finds that “Kang discloses a lattice Boltzman model having
cells/nodes . . . having coordinates.” Id. For example, as highlighted by the
Examiner, Kang discloses equations where “x” is a spatial coordinate. See
Kang 546, eq. 2.1; 550, eq. 3.2. Appellant fails to persuasively distinguish
Kang’s equations which depict spatial coordinates from the claimed
coordinates of the particles.
As such, we find unavailing Appellant contention that “[t]he cited
portion of Kang fails to propose accounting for the coordinates of the
particles, instead merely suggesting taking into account the presence of an
object” (Appeal Br. 29), given the aforementioned disclosures of Hurley,
i.e., “The lattice Boltzmann method (LBM) . . . a powerful numerical tool
for simulating complex fluid flows and modeling physics in fluids in the past
two decades. . . . In this article, we review recent developments in LBM for
reacting flows in porous media.” See Kang 546.
The Examiner further finds, and we agree, “Kang discloses the
requisite elements comprising the model, i.e., Kang discloses a ‘model’ of
‘soil’ as reasonably interpreted according to the claim language in view of
Appellant’s specification.” Ans. 9. For example, Kang teaches analyzing
Appeal 2020-003492
Application 14/388,546

5
“porous media” which includes soil. See Kang p. 554 (i.e., “limestone
rock,” “calcite, dolomite and gypsum,” and “mineral deposition”).
As such, Appellant fails to persuasively distinguish Kang’s disclosed
lattice Boltzman model and the corresponding equations from the claimed
“geological model for said soil . . . based on coordinates.” As a result, we
find unavailing Appellant’s arguments that a person having ordinary skill in
the art would have no reason to combine the teachings of Kang with Hurley,
given Kang’s aforementioned teachings.
Non-Analogous Art arguments
In an attempt to argue that Hurley is non-analogous art, Appellant
makes the following arguments:
Appellant contends that “Hurley is directed to [the] characterization of
an abstract and stable . . . 3D sample of porous media, and PHOSITA would
have no reason to consider Hurley during an attempt to simulate
modifications to mineralogical compositions of a soil.” Appeal Br. 22
(emphasis added); see also id. at 25. Appellant further contends that “[i]n
Hurley there is no teaching about variable characteristics of the sample, or
the interaction between different elements of the sample.” Id. at 23.
Appellant also contends that “Hurley’s aim is to create 3D models of very
small sample. . . . In contrast, the present invention contemplates temporal
modeling of a geological section spanning across hundreds of meters. . . .
Thus, the teachings in Hurley would not have logically commended
themselves to an inventor’s attention in considering the problem of creating
a geological model.” Id. at 24.
In essence, Appellant only present arguments regarding the second
criteria, i.e., whether the reference is reasonably pertinent to the particular
Appeal 2020-003492
Application 14/388,546

6
problem with which the inventor is involved, when arguing non-analogous
art. However, this second criteria is only necessary if the first criteria fails,
i.e., “whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the
problem addressed.” See In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658–659 (Fed. Cir.
1992) (citing Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1568 n.9
(Fed. Cir. 1987)). In the Appeal Brief, Appellant does not explicitly address
whether Hurley is from the same field of endeavor as the present invention.
In contrast, the Examiner finds that “the Hurley disclosure is from the
same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, i.e., “the Hurley disclosure
is directed to characterizing sample of ‘porous media’ including those from
‘geological formation’ . . . in the field of ‘geological modeling.’” Ans. 11,
citations omitted. This is consistent with Appellant’s “FIELD OF THE
INVENTION” section which states – “The present invention relates to the
field of geological modeling.” See Spec. 1:12–14.
As a result, we find unavailing Appellant’s contention that Hurley is
non-analogous art given the Examiner’s unrebutted determination that
Hurley is from the same field of endeavor as Appellant’s invention, which is
supported by the record.
Fails to teach Minimum/Maximum Porosity Value arguments
Appellant contends that “Hurley does not disclose [‘a
minimum/maximum porosity value of the model’] because Hurley’s use of
‘variance’ is solely in the context of statistical analysis of sub-sample
volumes to identify an REV. . . . This ‘variance’ has no correspondence with
a maximum/minimum porosity value of the model.” Appeal Br. 26.
In response, the Examiner finds, and we agree, Hurley discloses “a
maximum/minimum (e.g. plus or minus 5%) parameter value (where
Appeal 2020-003492
Application 14/388,546

7
parameter may be porosity) may be used to determine an REV.” Ans. 23;
see also Hurley ¶ 33. For example, Hurley discloses “identifying the sub-
sample volume as an REV if the variance is within verified limits, for
example, plus or minus 5% of the mean value of the determined parameters
for all sub-sample volumes of the MPS simulation.” Hurley ¶ 33 (emphasis
added). As such, we find unavailing Appellant’s contention that Hurley
does not disclose a minimum/maximum porosity value, given the
aforementioned disclosure.
Fails to teach Minimum/Maximum Conduit Diameter Value
Appellant contends that Hurley “does not even suggest including the
feature of a minimum/maximum conduit diameter value.” Appeal Br. 27.
We note that, as a matter of claim construction, representative claim 13 does
not necessarily require “a maximum/minimum conduit diameter value,” if a
maximum/minimum porosity value is used. Rather, claim 13 recites, inter
alia, “wherein the modification of the mineralogical composition is
configured by a parameter selected from among: a maximum/minimum
porosity value of the model, a maximum/minimum conduit diameter value.”
See claim 13 (emphasis added). We construe this limitation to require “at
least one of” “a maximum/minimum conduit diameter value” and “a
maximum/minimum porosity value,” not necessarily both.
Under our claim construction, because we have already found that
Hurley teaches a minimum/maximum porosity value, it is not necessary that
Hurley also teaches “a maximum/minimum conduit diameter value.”
Therefore, even if Hurley does not teach “a maximum/minimum conduit
diameter value,” as argued by Appellant, Hurley still teaches the argued
claim limitation, as properly construed. As such, we find unavailing
Appeal 2020-003492
Application 14/388,546

8
Appellant’s contention that Hurley “does not even suggest including the
feature of a minimum/maximum conduit diameter value.”
Fails to teach an aggressiveness parameter
Appellant contends that “the ‘aggressiveness’ in Kang is not a
characteristic of a particle . . . Instead, the parameter Qm is defined locally by
concentration of types of species in the solute.” Appeal Br. 30 –31.
In response, the Examiner finds that Appellant’s Specification states
“the aggressiveness of the particles does not depend solely on the particle
but also on the environment in which the particle is found’” (Ans. 35), which
“indicates that the parameters of the ‘local environment’ which impart
‘aggressiveness’ may constitute aggressiveness parameters of the particle.”
Id. at 36; see also Spec. 14–15. In other words, the Examiner highlights
that, consistent with Appellant’s Specification, the “aggressiveness of the
particle” is not limited to the character of the particle, as argued by
Appellant, but also depends on the environment in which the particle is
found.
With that in mind, we agree with the Examiner that Appellant’s
interpretation of the “aggressiveness of the particle” is “narrower than a
broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim viewed in light of the
[S]pecification” (Ans. 36), given that the aggressiveness does not depend
solely on the particle. Therefore, we find unavailing Appellant’s
aforementioned argument regarding the “aggressiveness of the particle,”
given that the Examiner’s interpretation is consistent with Appellant’s
Specification.
Accordingly, for at least the reasons noted above, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 13. Appellant’s arguments regarding the
Appeal 2020-003492
Application 14/388,546

9
Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 22–24 rely on the same
arguments as for claim 13, and Appellant does not argue separate
patentability for the dependent claims. See Generally Appeal Br. We,
therefore, also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 14–20 and 22–24.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 13–20 and 22–24 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Kang, Ali, and Hurley is affirmed.

In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
13–20, 22–24 103 Kang, Ali, Hurley 13–20,
22–24

No period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED