Schlumberger Technology Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 29, 2021

2019005808 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 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.
14/551,667 11/24/2014 Zhenhua Li IS13.4404-US-NP 6557
28116 7590 01/29/2021
WesternGeco L.L.C.
10001 Richmond Avenue
IP Administration Center of Excellence
Houston, TX 77042
EXAMINER
SAXENA, AKASH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2128
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/29/2021 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 ZHENHUA LI, QINGRUI LI, PING XU, GUANG XIONG,
LINA XU, and PAOLO SAVERIO DAMIANI
Appeal 2019-005808
Application 14/551,667
Technology Center 2100
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–4 and 7–20. Appeal Br. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 Herein, “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Schlumberger
Technology Corporation. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-005808
Application 14/551,667

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The claimed subject matter is directed to understanding the
“composition, fluid content, extent and geometry of subsurface rocks,”
which may “assist with detection of one or more features of interest in oil
and gas exploration and production.” Spec. ¶ 2, 90. Claims 1–4 and 7–20
are pending; claims 1, 15, and 18 are independent. Appeal Br. 44–45.
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 11 are reproduced below for reference (emphases added):
1. A method comprising:
receiving information that defines a three-dimensional
subterranean structure wherein the information is at least in part
derived from seismic data of at least a portion of the three-
dimensional subterranean structure acquired via sensors and
wherein the three-dimensional subterranean structure comprises
a curved surface;
splitting the three-dimensional subterranean structure
into portions wherein the splitting generates line segments that
comprise end points;
based at least in part on the end points, generating
planar convex hulls for the portions;
generating a three-dimensional discrete fracture network
based at least in part on the planar convex hulls; and
based at least in part on the three-dimensional discrete
fracture network, positioning one or more wells.

2. The method of claim 1 further comprising simulating
phenomena associated with a subterranean formation based at
least in part on a model that comprises the discrete fracture
network.

4. The method of claim 1 wherein the splitting comprises
implementing an angular splitting parameter.

11. The method of claim 10 wherein each of the line
segments is associated with an area.
Appeal 2019-005808
Application 14/551,667

3
References and Rejections2
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Name Reference Date
Neave US 2007/0168169 A1 July 19, 2007
Narr US 2010/0250216 A1 Sept. 30, 2010
Wang US 2011/0211761 A1 Sept. 1, 2011
Williams US 2013/0144532 A1 June 6, 2013
Claims 2, 4, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being
indefinite. Final Act. 6.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7–13, 15, 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Neave in view of Williams. Final Act. 14.
Claims 2, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Neave, Williams, in further view of Narr. Final Act. 20
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Neave, Williams, in further view of Wang. Final Act. 21.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments. Arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to make
are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

Indefiniteness
Appellant argues the Examiner has not shown claims 2, 4, and 11 are
indefinite. Appeal Br. 6, 9, and 12. We discuss each of these claims, below.

2 The Examiner’s rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 has been
withdrawn. See Ans. 3.
Appeal 2019-005808
Application 14/551,667

4
The Examiner finds dependent claim 2 is indefinite for reciting
simulating phenomena, because “it’s unclear which phenomenon and to
what ends the so called phenomenon is simulated.” Final Act. 7 (emphasis
omitted). Appellant contends, “‘those skilled in the art would understand
what is claimed when the claim is read in light of the specification.’”
Appeal Br. 8. With respect to the “simulating phenomena” of claim 2,
Appellant’s Specification describes, “simulating physical phenomena in a
geologic environment,” such as “a reservoir simulator that can solve for
pressure values, saturation values, etc., which may indicate how one or more
fluids flow in the geologic environment.” Spec. ¶ 145. We agree with
Appellant that, in light of the Specification, one of ordinary skill would not
find the term to be unclear. See Appeal Br. 8; In re Packard, 751 F.3d
1307, 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (per curiam). (“[a] claim is indefinite when it
contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear.”).
The Examiner finds dependent claim 4 is indefinite for reciting
angular splitting parameter, because there is a “lack of correct identification
of which segment intersect to generate the angular splitting parameter based
in what plane.” Ans. 8. Appellant cites the Examiner’s definition of angular
splitting parameter, and contends the claimed “process is clear in that the
curved surface is being broken into pieces (e.g., line segments with end
points and then convex hulls).” Appeal Br. 8, 11. We agree: the Examiner
has not explained how the identification of a particular line segment would
affect one’s understanding of the term angular splitting parameter. See
Ans. 8. Further, we see no lack of clarity in the Examiner’s proffered
construction of “‘angular splitting parameter’ to be any parameter used in
splitting that relates to an angle.” Final Act. 7. The Examiner has not
Appeal 2019-005808
Application 14/551,667

5
identified potential constructions that would be outside the scope of this
broad but reasonable definition. See id.; Ans. 4. Thus, we find the
Examiner has not established dependent claim 4 to lack clarity.
The Examiner finds dependent claim 11 indefinite for reciting the line
segments, because “[i]t’s unclear how an area is associated with a line
segment.” Final Act. 7 (emphasis omitted). Appellant “does not see any
issues with the Examiner’s interpretation of the claim” to mean “‘that each
of the line segments is associated with an area,’” and argues the
Specification likewise shows line segments corresponding to areas. Appeal
Br. 12 (citing Final Act. 7). The Examiner and the Appellant do not appear
to disagree regarding the construction of claim 11. Appeal Br. 12; Final
Act. 7. To the extent there is a dispute on the record before us, we find the
examiner has mischaracterized the grammar of the claim: claim 11 recites
each line segment “is associated” with an area, not that the lines comprise an
area. Contra Final Act. 7. Thus, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner
has not established one of ordinary skill would find the terms of dependent
claim 11 to be unclear.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the indefiniteness rejections of claims
2, 4, and 11.
Additionally, we find the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§112(b)—of claims 2, 4, and 11—is in error for not performing the proper
analysis. “A decision on whether a claim is indefinite . . . requires a
determination of whether those skilled in the art would understand what is
claimed when the claim is read in light of the specification,” but “[i]f a
description or the enabling disclosure of a specification is not commensurate
in scope with the subject matter encompassed by a claim, that fact alone
Appeal 2019-005808
Application 14/551,667

6
does not render the claim imprecise or indefinite.” MPEP §§ 2173.02, 2174.
“[R]ather, the claim is based on an insufficient disclosure . . . and should be
rejected on that ground.” Id. at 2174. In finding the terms of claims 2, 4,
and 11 are indefinite, the Examiner has not determined whether those skilled
in the art would understand what is claimed. See Final Act. 6, 7; Ans. 4–10.
Rather, the claim terms appear to have been described pursuant to the
written description and enablement requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112.3
Compare, e.g., MPEP § 2161 (“claims may lack written description when
the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired
result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is
performed or the result is achieved”) with Final Act. 7 (“it's unclear which
phenomenon and to what ends the so called phenomenon is simulated” in
claim 2), Final Act. 6 (“is unclear what an ‘angular splitting parameter’ is,
what values are permissible, and how it is determined” in claim 4), and Final
Act. 7 (“It’s unclear how an area is associated with a line segment” in claim
11.). For this further reason, we find the Examiner has not established those
skilled in the art would not understand what is claimed in dependent claims
2, 4, and 11, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).

Obviousness
Appellant argues the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 1 is in
error, because “[n]either Neave nor Williams split a three-dimensional

3 The claims are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a); therefore, we do not
reach the issue of whether the claims are compliant with the written
description and enablement requirements. See MPEP § 1213.02 (“The
Board’s primary role is to review the adverse decision as presented by the
Examiner, and not to conduct its own separate examination of the claims.”).
Appeal 2019-005808
Application 14/551,667

7
subterranean structure that includes a curved surface into portions where
such portions are represented by planar convex hulls” as claimed. Appeal
Br. 6. Particularly, Appellant contends “Neave does not split, it truncates
with respect to a fault active area that is defined by multiple faults,” and
“[t]he polygon of Neave is an area between multiple faults; whereas, the
planar convex hulls of claim 1 are themselves part of the three-dimensional
subterranean structure.” Appeal Br. 38. Appellant contends, “Williams is
merely describing how to determine a maximum planar area from
microseismic event locations.” Appeal Br. 42.
Appellant’s arguments attack each of the references separately,
whereas the Examiner finds the disputed limitations to be obvious in view of
the combined teachings of Neave and Williams. See Final Act. 16; Ans. 15.
Further, the arguments are unpersuasive for not being responsive to the
Examiner’s specific findings and analysis. We adopt as our own the
findings and reasons set forth in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection, to the
extent consistent with our analysis below. We add the following primarily
for emphasis.
First, the Examiner finds “Neave teaches splitting the three-
dimensional subterranean structure (i.e.[,] faults) into portions (i.e.[,] ‘The
points of intersection define lines, which subdivide each fault’[)],” and
generating convex hulls “us[ing] graham scan . . . [which] shows convex
hulls is of a finite planar set.” Final Act. 15 (citing Neave ¶¶ 41, 46).
Appellant does not challenge the Examiner’s citation of Neave’s “subdivide
each fault” and “Graham scan” teachings. Neave ¶¶ 41, 46. Instead, the
Appeal Brief recites block quotes along with general descriptions of Neave
“as a whole” (Appeal Br. 31), without providing substantive analysis of the
Appeal 2019-005808
Application 14/551,667

8
particular textual portions of Neave relied on by the Examiner. See Appeal
Br. 31–42. Based on the record before us, we agree with the Examiner that
it is “unclear how [] Neave is not teaching the splitting a three-dimensional
subterranean structure that includes a curved surface” as claimed. Appeal
Br. 11.
Second, the Examiner finds “Williams teaches convex hull to planar
convex hull . . . and 3D discrete fracture network.” Final Act. 16; Williams
¶¶ 73–79. Appellant presents block quotes followed by a general description
of Williams, without persuasively arguing that the Examiner’s particular
Williams’ findings are in error. See Appeal Br. 41, 42. We find such
arguments insufficient to show error in the Examiner’s findings with respect
to Williams. Further, Appellant does not challenge the Examiner’s
reasoning based on the combined teachings of Neave and Williams. See
Appeal Br. 41, 42. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in
finding the combination of Neave and Williams renders obvious the disputed
limitations of claim 1. See Ans. 15, 16.
In the Reply Brief, Appellant presents new arguments, including that
the Examiner improperly utilizes different persons of ordinary skill in the art
in formulating the rejections, and the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
dependent claim 4 is in error. See Reply Br. 2–11. We do not find good
cause, on the record before us, for why these arguments were not raised in
the opening brief. Accordingly, Appellant’s Reply Brief arguments are
waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2).
We sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent
claim 1. Appellant does not present separate substantive arguments for the
Appeal 2019-005808
Application 14/551,667

9
remaining claims. See Appeal Br. 42, 43. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejections of these claims for the same reasons.

DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
2, 4, 11 112(b) Indefiniteness 2, 4, 11
1, 3, 4, 7–
13, 15, 17,
18, 20
103 Neave, Williams 1, 3, 4, 7–
13, 15, 17,
18, 20

2, 16, 19 103 Neave, Williams,
Narr
2, 16, 19
14 103 Neave, Williams,
Wang
14
Overall
Outcome
1–4, 7–20

The Examiner’s decision is affirmed because we have affirmed at
least one ground of rejection with respect to each claim on appeal. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(1).

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED