SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 15, 2021

2020001200 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 15, 2021)

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.
14/520,716 10/22/2014 Mark Wakefield IS13.4379-US-NP 1911
48879 7590 10/15/2021
SCHLUMBERGER INFORMATION SOLUTIONS
10001 Richmond Avenue
IP Administration Center of Excellence
HOUSTON, TX 77042
EXAMINER
BURKE, TIONNA M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2176
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/15/2021 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):
SMarckesoni@slb.com
USDocketing@slb.com
jalverson@slb.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte MARK WAKEFIELD and RICHARD ASBURY
________________

Appeal 2020-001200
Application 14/520,716
Technology Center 2100
________________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JASON V. MORGAN, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.

MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
Appellant1 requests rehearing of the Decision entered June 30, 2021.
In the Decision, we affirmed the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 5–11,
21, 23–25, 27, and 28. Dec. 12. Appellant files this request pursuant to 37
C.F.R. § 41.52. Req. Reh’g 2.
We have considered Appellant’s arguments but, as detailed below, we
find them unpersuasive. Therefore, Appellant’s Request for Rehearing is
denied.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies the real party in interest as Schlumberger Technology Corporation.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-001200
Application 14/520,716

2

DISCUSSION
Appellant contends we erred by failing to designate our affirmance of
the Examiner’s rejection as setting forth a new ground of rejection under
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). Req. Reh’g 2. In particular, Appellant argues “the
Examiner explicitly stated that Chen ‘discloses’ . . . certain subject matter of
claim 1,” but that we utilized “extensive reasoning as to what Chen ‘teaches
or suggests’ while extending” the cited teachings of Chen. Id.
In ascertaining whether we erred by failing to designate our
affirmance as setting forth new grounds of rejection, we decline to exalt
form over substance. Whether the Examiner characterized Chen as
disclosing a disputed recitation, rather than teaching or suggesting the
disputed recitation, is not dispositive. The “ultimate criterion of whether a
rejection is considered ‘new’ in a decision by the Board is whether
applicants have had fair opportunity to react to the thrust of the rejection.” In
re Biedermann, 733 F.3d 329, 337 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (quoting, with some
alterations, In re Leithem, 661 F.3d 1316, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Here, the Examiner relied on what Chen “discloses” with respect to
recitation [3], “for a subdomain that includes less than the maximum number
of cells per subdomain, utilizing a number of fill indices that corresponds to
a difference between the number of cells of the subdomain and the
maximum cell number per subdomain.” Specifically, the Examiner found:
Chen discloses:
• for a subdomain that includes less than the maximum number
of cells per subdomain (see paragraphs [0026] and [0027]). Chen
teaches when the size is not equal fill indices fill the space, which
is less than the maximum number of cells.
• utilizing a number of fill indices that corresponds to a
difference between the number of cells of the subdomain and the
Appeal 2020-001200
Application 14/520,716

3

maximum cell number per subdomain (see paragraphs [0026]
and [0027]). Chen teaches calculating one or more point indices
by using z-ordering that provides a hierarchical spatial data
structure which subdivides space into small aspects. The smaller
portions of near equal size to partition the space into a more grid
arrangement. When the size is not equal fill indices fill the
space[.]
Final Act. 4–5.
The Examiner further found:
Although Chen discloses preserving spatial proximity,
Chen disclosing Z-ordering indexing in which four nearby
locations having close map coordinates when mapped on a map
which translates to Z-order indexes having calculating z-values.
The points that are proximate to one another will also have
similar calculated values but are not sequentially indexed. If
points are indexed using z-ordering then they are non-adjacent.
Figure 1A displays an indexing where there are using non-
adjacent points. The claims do not make it clear that the non-
adjacent cells are cells within two different subdomains. The
sequential index is within the subdomain of cells. The claim
requires non-adjacent cell within a domain and not across
multiple subdomains. Chen teaches calculating one or more point
indices by using z-ordering that provides a hierarchical spatial
data structure which subdivides space into small aspects. The
smaller portions of near equal size to partition the space into a
more grid arrangement. When the size is not equal fill indices fill
the space (see paragraphs [0026] and [0027]).
Id. at 19.
The Examiner also found:
Chen teaches calculating one or more point indices by
using z-ordering that provides a hierarchical spatial data structure
which subdivides space into small aspects. The smaller portions
of near equal size to partition the space into a more grid
arrangement. When the size is not equal fill indices fill the space
(see paragraphs [0026] and [0027]). Although Chen discloses
preserving spatial proximity, Chen disclosing Z-ordering
Appeal 2020-001200
Application 14/520,716

4

indexing in which four nearby locations having close map
coordinates when mapped on a map, translates to Z-order indexes
having calculating z-values. The points that are proximate to one
another will also have similar calculated values but are not
sequentially indexed. If points are indexed using z-ordering then
they are non-adjacent. Figure 1A displays an indexing where
there are using non-adjacent points. The claims do not make it
clear that the non-adjacent cells are cells within two different
subdomains. The sequential index is within the subdomain of
cells. The claim requires non-adjacent cell within a domain and
not across multiple subdomains. Thus, Chen discloses the
limitation.
Ans. 8.
The Examiner’s findings and analysis with respect to recitation [3]
relied extensively on Chen’s disclosure that:
For the present invention, point indices are determined in
relation to a traditional coordinate map identification means
(referred to as “location points”) by generating a one-
dimensional associated index. By way of example, for the
present invention, a traditional map space is further segmented
into smaller portions of near equal size (i.e., grid-like) to
essentially partition the map space into a more detailed grid
arrangement. Similar to the WGS 84 approach, coordinates under
the WGS 84 can be identified by indexing in relation to the grid
arrangement. Point indices may be determined using a
mathematical construct, such as a Peano Curve (also used as Z-
order curve or Z-curve), whose limit is a space-filling curve. FIG.
1A illustrates three iterations of a Peano curve construction (100)
ranging from a first iteration (110), to a second iteration (120)
and to a third more detailed iteration (130). The Peano Curve is
but one mathematical method or “curve-construct” method for
the present invention and it will be appreciated by those of skill
in the art that other variants, known and developed hereafter,
which are also incorporated herein. Mathematical methods and
curve-construct methods provide for spatial indexing approaches
and preferably one-dimensional spatial indexing approaches for
the present invention.
Appeal 2020-001200
Application 14/520,716

5

Another example of a mathematical method includes Z-
ordering in which locations that are close in proximity are also
close in their Z-values as determined from a Z-order
methodology (i.e. Morton Code) where latitude and longitude are
encoded via bit leaving, for instance. Z-ordering is a further
example of a method which may be used with the present
invention providing a hierarchical spatial data structure which
subdivides space into smaller aspects of grid shape. For instance,
in using Z-ordering, nearby places will often but not necessarily
present similar prefixes or Z-values (i.e., the longer a shared
prefix is, the closer the two places are) which may be well-suited
for sorting and further data investigation under the present
invention. FIG. 1B illustrates an example of Z-order indexing
(150) in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention
in which four nearby locations (160) having close map
coordinates when mapped on a map (170) which translate to Z-
order indexes having similar prefixes (180) due to their physical
proximities to one another. The prefixes produced indexes
having similar prefixes (180) provide for a one-dimensional
spatial index which is conveniently sortable and suited for range
searching (i.e., proximity searching in two-dimensions).
Chen ¶¶ 26–27.
The Examiner further cited (Final Act. 19; Ans. 8) Chen’s Figure
1A—illustrating three iterations of a Peano curve—which is reproduced
below.
Appeal 2020-001200
Application 14/520,716

6

Chen’s Figure 1A illustrates the first three iterations of a Peano curve
(110, 120, and 130). Each iteration of the illustrated Peano curve fills a
space with a larger number of smaller line segments such that the limit is a
space-filling curve. Chen ¶ 26. Such curves can determine point indices that
identify coordinates in relation to a grid arrangement. Id. The Specification
similarly teaches the use of such curves, which are characterized in the
Specification as self-similar fractal curves. Spec. ¶ 72.
Appellant argued the Examiner erred in relying on Chen with respect
to recitation [3] because “Chen lacks evidence as to any apparent need for
altering the Peano curves 110, 120 or 130 of Fig. 1A or using space filling.”
Appeal Br. 21 (cited in Dec. 7); see also id. at 22 (“evidence as to why the
system and method of Chen . . . would benefit from an approach that utilizes
fill indices is lacking”); Reply Br. 8; Req. Reh’g 2–3 (“at paras. 0026–0027,
Chen does not provide evidence sufficient to support the asserted fact:
‘When the size is not equal fill indices fill the space’”).
Appeal 2020-001200
Application 14/520,716

7

We did not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive because:
Chen teaches an approach in which “coordinates . . . can be
identified by indexing in relation to [a] grid arrangement.” Chen
¶ 26. In particular Chen teaches a Z-value calculation in which
“nearby places will often but not necessarily present similar
prefixes.” Id. ¶ 27. “The prefixes produced indexes having
similar prefixes (180) provide for a one-dimensional spatial
index which is conveniently sortable and suited for range
searching (i.e., proximity searching in two-dimensions).” Id.; see
also id. Fig. 1B (illustrating points in close proximity sharing
similar prefixes). Based on this teaching, an artisan of ordinary
skill would have recognized the benefit of preserving the
relationship between one-dimensional indices and spatial
coordinates. Using fill indices as needed to preserve such a
relationship would have been an obvious approach to preserving
such a relationship.
Dec. 7–8.
In other words, Appellant’s arguments notwithstanding, the cited
teachings of Chen provide sufficient evidence showing that the use of fill
indices in recitation [3] was obvious. Chen specifically disclosed the use of
space filling curves such as the Peano curve or Z-curve to create one-
dimensional indices (i.e., indices that follow the path of the curve) that have
a predictable relationship with spatial coordinates. We merely noted that an
artisan of ordinary skill would have recognized that using fill indices would
preserve this disclosed relationship.
Appellant does not show that we mischaracterized Chen’s cited
teachings or that we erred in ascertaining what an artisan of ordinary skill
would have understood. Rather, Appellant argues we should have entered a
new ground of rejection because we extended
what Chen teaches, hypothesizing what someone might do:
“[u]sing fill indices as needed to preserve such a relationship
would have been an obvious approach to preserving such a
Appeal 2020-001200
Application 14/520,716

8

relationship”. In contrast, the grounds of rejection set forth in the
[Final Action] and the [Examiner’s Answer] based on fact
finding, i.e., finding that, at paras. 0026–0027, Chen discloses
utilizing fill indices: “When the size is not equal fill indices fill
the space”.
Req. Reh’g 6 (first alteration in original). But it is apparent from the
Examiner’s findings and analysis that the Examiner was characterizing how
an artisan of ordinary skill would have applied Chen’s teachings when
applied to an unstructured grid. Final Act. 4 (“Chen teaches when the size is
not equal fill indices fill the space” (emphasis added)). Moreover, the
Examiner relied on Usadi to teach or suggest an unstructured simulation
grid. Dec. 7 (citing Final Act. 2–3). We “cannot be said to have presented a
new ground of rejection simply by elaborating on the examiner’s rejection or
by using different words.” Hyatt v. Doll, 576 F.3d 1246, 1276 (Fed. Cir.
2009) (citing In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445–46 (Fed. Cir. 1992)), reh’g
en banc granted, opinion vacated sub nom. Hyatt v. Kappos, 366 F. App’x
170 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Importantly, our affirmance of the Examiner’s
rejection did not deprive Appellant of the fair opportunity to react to our
basis for the affirmance, which did not change the thrust of the Examiner’s
rejection. Biedermann, 733 F.3d at 337. Therefore, we did not err by
declining to designate our affirmance as setting forth a new ground of
rejection.
Appellant further describes the contents of the Specification (Figure 9
in particular) and the purported benefits of claim 1. Req. Reh’g 5–6.
Appellant also submits “that both the Examiner and the Board may have
misapprehended the subject matter as claimed.” Id. at 6. But these
characterizations of the disclosed and claimed subject matter do not further
Appeal 2020-001200
Application 14/520,716

9

Appellant’s argument that we erred by failing to designate our affirmance as
setting forth a new ground of rejection.
For these reasons, we decline to make any modifications to the
Decision.
Appellant’s Request for Rehearing is DENIED.
SUMMARY
Outcome of Decision on Request for Rehearing:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. § References Denied Granted
1, 5, 8–10, 21,
25
103 Usadi, Zhang,
Chen
1, 5, 8–10,
21, 25

2, 6, 7, 11, 23,
24, 27, 28
103 Usadi, Zhang,
Chen, Fung
2, 6, 7, 11,
23, 24, 27, 28

Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 5–11,
21, 23–25,
27, 28

Final Outcome of Appeal after Rehearing:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed
1, 5, 8–10, 21,
25
103 Usadi, Zhang,
Chen
1, 5, 8–10,
21, 25

2, 6, 7, 11, 23,
24, 27, 28
103 Usadi, Zhang,
Chen, Fung
2, 6, 7, 11,
23, 24, 27, 28

Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 5–11,
21, 23–25,
27, 28

DENIED