Naresh Sundaram. Iyer et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 30, 2020

14808636 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 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.
14/808,636 07/24/2015 Naresh Sundaram Iyer 281055-1US (551-0158US) 8315
86661 7590 04/30/2020
BAKER HUGHES COMPANY
ATTN: IP Legal
14990 Yorktown Plaza Drive
Houston, TX 77040
EXAMINER
RUNYAN, SILVANA C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3674
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/30/2020 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):
ipdocketing@bakerhughes.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte NARESH SUNDARAM IYER, STEVEN HECTOR AZZARO,
GLEN RICHARD MURRELL, and ROBERT CARL LLOYD KLENNER

Appeal 2018-009063
Application 14/808,636
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before ANTON W. FETTING, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and
JAMES A. WORTH, Administrative Patent Judges.

ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
General Electric Company. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-009063
Application 14/808,636

2

Subject Matter on Appeal
The Appellant’s invention “relate[s] to systems and methods that
extract resources from subterranean reservoirs by injecting fluids and
gases[, e.g., carbon dioxide (CO2),] into the reservoirs.” Spec. ¶¶ 2–3. The
Specification describes, in the Background section, that effective use of CO2
for tertiary oil recovery includes the water-alternating-gas (WAG) method,
which “involves periodically alternating the injection of CO2 and water into
the reservoir according to a scheme with the intent of sweeping the leftover
oil out of the reservoir.” Id. ¶ 4.
Claims 1, 12, and 16 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter.
1. A method comprising:
obtaining a group of fluid-to-gas ratio functions from a
memory, the group of fluid-to-gas ratio functions customized
for a liquid resource reservoir, the fluid-to-gas ratio functions
designating different ratios at which an amount of a fluid,
wherein the fluid is water, to an amount of a gas are injected
into the reservoir to extract a liquid resource from the reservoir,
the fluid-to-gas ratio functions designating the ratios as
continually changing and continually increasing ratios with
respect to time subsequent to a continuous gas injection time
period;
selecting a first fluid-to-gas ratio function;
repeatedly alternating between injecting the gas into the
reservoir at one or more of a rate or an amount defined by a
current ratio of the ratios designated by the first fluid-to-gas
ratio function that is selected and injecting the fluid into the
reservoir at one or more of a rate or an amount defined by the
current ratio; and
changing the ratio at which the fluid and the gas are
injected into the reservoir according to the first fluid-to-gas
ratio function as time progresses.
Appeal 2018-009063
Application 14/808,636

3

Rejections2
Claims 1–5 and 9–11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as
anticipated by Stone (US 2006/0180306 A1, pub. Aug. 17, 2006).
Claims 1–5 and 9–11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Stone.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Stone
and Graue (US 2012/0125616 A1, pub. May 24, 2012).
Claims 7, 8, and 12–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Stone and Carvajal et al. (US 2016/0177686 A1, pub.
June 23, 2016) (“Carvajal”).

ANALYSIS
Claims 1–5 and 9–11
For the anticipation rejection of claim 1, the Appellant argues that the
portions of Stone cited by the Examiner –– i.e., paragraphs 10–14, 17, 24,
25, 32, 36–39, 41, 56, 57, and 67 –– make no reference to particular features
of claim 1, specifically, “ratio function,” “fluid-to-gas ratio functions,” and
“designating the ratios as continually changing and continually increasing
ratios with respect to time subsequent to a continuous gas injection time
period.” Appeal Br. 9–10. The Appellant submits that Examiner apparently
equates these claimed features “with two occurrences of changes in the

2 The Examiner rejected claims 1–5 and 9–11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as
anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Stone. Final Act. 2–6. For purposes of this appeal only, we have separated
the 35 U.S.C. § 102/103 rejection of claims 1–5 and 9–11 into two grounds
of rejection.
Appeal 2018-009063
Application 14/808,636

4

average water-second fluid injection ratio (WAG ratio) and changes in the
vertical sweep.” Reply Br. 2–3. The Appellant’s argument is persuasive.
At the outset, we note that claim 1’s “fluid-to-gas ratio functions,” of
which “ratio function” is a part, refers to control schemes that designate
different ratios at which an amount of water to an amount of gas are injected
into a reservoir to extract a resource (e.g., oil) from the reservoir. See
Appeal Br., Claims App.; Spec ¶ 14 (describing, with added emphasis,
“methods for designing and/or implementing fluid-and-gas ratio functions
(also referred to herein as WAG schemes) that are customized to
subterranean liquid resource reservoirs in order to increase the amount of
liquid resources (e.g., oil) that are extracted from the reservoirs”).
Figure 1 is reproduced below:

Appeal 2018-009063
Application 14/808,636

5

Figure 1 shows a chart with horizontal axis 104 representing time t and
vertical axis 106 representing “a ratio of an amount of fluid injected into a
reservoir to an amount of gas injected into the reservoir.” Id. ¶ 25. The
chart shows an example of a group of fluid-and-gas ratio functions over
time. Id. ¶ 9. More specifically, the chart shows group 100 of fluid-and-gas
ratio functions 102 in which a single ratio function is depicted as 102A. Id.
¶¶ 24, 41. The total time period is time period (thorizon), which encompasses
continuous gas injection time period (tcont), ratio function time period (twag),
and chase time period (tchase). Id. ¶¶ 28–30, 35–36.
We note that the Specification describes that “continually changing
ratios” do not include those ratios having “the exact same ratio at two or
more different times,” i.e., “one or more horizontally flat portions
representative of the same ratios at different times.” Id. ¶ 28. In other
words, “continually changing ratios are represented by the smooth curve
shapes of the functions 102.” See id.
The Examiner finds that Stone discloses a series of models (i.e.,
computer simulations) for the purpose of selecting economically superior
WAG ratios and injection rates. Ans. 3–5; see also Final Act. 2–3. The
models are control schemes that include different WAG ratios, i.e., “[t]he
ratio of the volume of water injected to the volume of gas injected.” Stone
¶ 2. The control schemes may include a low WAG ratio for injecting gas in
the bottom of a reservoir, a high WAG ratio for injecting water in the upper
part the reservoir, and a decrease in the rate of gas injection. See id. ¶¶ 2,
10–12, 36–41, 57; Ans. 3–4. Although Stone discloses multiple control
schemes having low and high WAG ratios as well as a decrease in the rate of
gas injection, the Examiner does not explain how the foregoing corresponds
Appeal 2018-009063
Application 14/808,636

6

to the claim feature that requires fluid-to-gas ratio functions designating
ratios as continually changing (i.e., necessarily lacking the exact same ratio
at two or more at different times) and continually increasing ratios with
respect to time subsequent to a continuous gas injection time period.
We note that the Examiner construes claim 1’s recitation, “fluid-to-
gas ratio functions designating the ratios as continually changing and
continually increasing ratios with respect to time,” as lacking a time
boundary. Ans. 4. In other words, the Examiner construes the claim
language as “read[ing] on any length of time, whether it is one second, one
day[,] or one year.” Id. For the purposes of this appeal only, even if we
were to agree with the Examiner’s construction, we fail to understand how
the Examiner applies Stone to all of the disputed features of claim 1, which
are specific to a group of fluid-to-gas ratio functions (i.e., control schemes).
Id. In other words, it is the control schemes that are being claimed, and not a
portion of time in which the control schemes may operate.
Therefore, on this record, we determine that the Examiner fails to
adequately support the finding that Stone discloses a “group of fluid-to-gas
ratio functions . . . [in which] the fluid-to-gas ratio functions designat[e] the
ratios as continually changing and continually increasing ratios with respect
to time subsequent to a continuous gas injection time period,” as recited in
claim 1. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1 and dependent claims 2–5 and 9–11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as
anticipated by Stone.
In the alternative, the Examiner rejects independent claim 1 under
§ 103 as unpatentable over Stone. Final Act. 2–3 (citing Stone ¶¶ 10–14, 17,
36–39, 41, 57). However, the Examiner’s alternative rejection does not
Appeal 2018-009063
Application 14/808,636

7

include facts and/or reasoning that remedy the deficiency in the Examiner’s
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Stone. Thus, we do
not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 and dependent
claims 2–5 and 9–11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Stone.

Claims 6–8 and 12–20
Independent claims 12 and 16, like that of claim 1, require a group of
fluid-to-gas ratio functions, where the ratios of ratio function(s) are
continually changing and continually increasing ratios with respect to time
subsequent to a continuous gas injection time period. See Appeal Br.,
Claims App. Similar to the rejection of claim 1, the Examiner finds that
Stone teaches this requirement of claims 12 and 16. Final Act. 7, 9–10,
12–13.
The rejections of independent claims 12 and 16, and dependent claims
6–8, 13–15, and 17–20, which are based on Stone in combination with
Graue or Carvajal, rely on the same inadequately supported finding as
discussed above. See id. The inadequately supported finding is not cured by
the additional findings and/or reasoning associated with these rejections.
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 6–8 and 12–20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § References/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 3, 4,
5, 9, 10, 11
102(a)(1) Stone

1, 2, 3, 4,
5, 9, 10, 11
Appeal 2018-009063
Application 14/808,636

8

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § References/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 3, 4,
5, 9, 10, 11
103 Stone 1, 2, 3, 4,
5, 9, 10, 11
6 103 Stone, Graue 6
7, 8, 12–20 103 Stone, Carvajal 7, 8, 12–20
Overall
Outcome
1–20

REVERSED