Ex Parte Carney et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 28, 2016

11940222 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 111940,222 11/14/2007 48879 7590 03/30/2016 SCHLUMBERGER INFORMATION SOLUTIONS 10001 Richmond Avenue IP Administration Center of Excellence HOUSTON, TX 77042 Michael Carney 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. 94.0145 7377 EXAMINER SCHEUNEMANN, RICHARD N ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3624 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/30/2016 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 MICHAEL CARNEY, PAUL S. LUNDY, RANDALL G. MCKEE, PHAL YN PAO, DAVID J. ROSSI, PETER A. SCHIPPERIJN, DAVID N. SHIPLEY, and IAN H. TRABOULA Y Appeal2013-008605 1 Application 11/940,2222 Technology Center 3600 Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, TARA L. HUTCHINGS, and ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-6, 8-14, 16-18, and 22-25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). 1 Our decision references Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed April 5, 2013) and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed June 26, 2013), and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed Apr. 26, 2013) and Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed June 5, 2012). 2 The real parties in interest, as identified by Appellants, are Schlumberger Technology Corporation and Chevron U.S.A. Inc. App. Br. 4. Appeal2013-008605 Application 11/940,222 We REVERSE. CLAIMED INVENTION Appellants' claimed invention relates to "managing a workflow of an activity, such as an oilfield activity, to resolve a problem associated with the oilfield activity." Spec. i-f 28. Claim 1, reproduced below with added bracketed notations, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal: 1. A method of managing a waterflood activity for an oilfield having at least one processing facility and at least one well site operatively connected thereto, each at least one well site having a wellbore penetrating a subterranean formation for extracting fluid from an underground reservoir therein, compnsmg: [(a)] identifying a problem in the waterflood activity involving injecting water into subsurface oil reservoirs; [ (b)] opening a first waterflood project corresponding to the problem and comprising a waterflood workflow, [(c)] wherein the waterflood workflow comprises a plurality of tasks necessary to complete the first waterflood project of a plurality of projects, [ ( d)] wherein the plurality of tasks are arranged within a plurality of workflow states associated with the waterflood activity including a surveillance state, a well identification state, a zone analysis state, a production evaluation state, and a decision process state; [ ( e)] displaying a workflow manager comprising a first column and a second column, wherein the first column comprises a plurality of regions corresponding to the plurality of workflow states; [(t)] displaying an icon corresponding to the first waterflood project within a first region corresponding to the surveillance state and a first set of the plurality of tasks corresponding to the surveillance state within the second column; 2 Appeal2013-008605 Application 11/940,222 [(g)] obtaining a solution result associated with at least one task of the first set of the plurality of tasks, [(h)] wherein the solution result is based on historical oilfield data; [(i)] receiving a drag-and-drop request from a user to relocate the icon to a second region corresponding to the zone analysis state; [U)J displaying, in response to the drag-and-drop request, the icon within the second region and a second set of the plurality of tasks corresponding to the zone analysis state within the second column; [(k)] analyzing, using a computer processor and while continuing to analyze other projects of the plurality of projects, the first waterflood project by executing the second set of the plurality of tasks based on the solution result to obtain a decision; and [(l)] resolving the problem in the waterflood activity based on the decision. REJECTIONS I. Claims 1, 3, 22, and 25 are rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) over Gurpinar (US 6,980,940 Bl, iss. Dec. 27, 2005), McNally (US 2006/0195510 Al, pub. Aug. 31, 2006), N0rgaard (US 6,895,573 B2, iss. May 17, 2005), and Dortmans (US 2003/0018512 Al, pub. Jan. 23, 2003). II. Claims 2, 16, 17, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Gurpinar, McNally, N0rgaard, Dortmans, and Tubel (US 5,732,776, iss. Mar. 31, 1998). III. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Gurpinar, McNally, N0rgaard, Dortmans, and Ciglenec (US 2003/0058125 Al, pub. Mar. 27, 2003). 3 Appeal2013-008605 Application 11/940,222 IV. Claims 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Gurpinar, McNally, N0rgaard, Dortmans, and Kohl (US 6,851,444 Bl, iss. Feb. 8, 2005). V. Claims 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Gurpinar, McNally, N0rgaard, Dortmans, and Chikirivao (US 2006/0190544 Al, pub. Aug. 24, 2006). VI. Claims 9-12 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Gurpinar, McNally, N0rgaard, Dortmans, and Rosnow (US 2003/0106039 Al, pub. June 5, 2003). VII. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Gurpinar, McNally, N0rgaard, Dortmans, Rosnow, and Ciglenec. 3 VIII. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Gurpinar, McNally, N0rgaard, Dortmans, Rosnow, and Tubel. IX. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Gurpinar, McNally, N0rgaard, Dortmans, Tubel, and Ciglenec. ANALYSIS We are persuaded by Appellants' argument that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because McNally, on which the Examiner relies, does not disclose limitations ( e ), (t), (i), and U), as recited in claim 1. See App. Br. 14--16. The Examiner relies on paragraph 65 and Figure 1 ofMcNally as disclosing each of the argued limitations. Final Act. 4--5; Ans. 5-6, 35-38. 3 We treat the Examiner's omission of the McNally reference in the rejection heading (Final Act. 32) as inadvertent error, given the claim's dependence from claim 12. 4 Appeal2013-008605 Application 11/940,222 McNally relates to an information management and synchronous communications system for generation of computerized menus for restaurants, sessions (e.g., enrollment sessions) and other applications with specialized display and synchronous communications requirements. McNally i-f 2. Figure 1 of McNally shows an intuitive GUI from which to build a menu on a desktop or other computer. Id. i-f 43. A hierarchical tree structure 2 is used to show different relationships between the menu categories 3 (e.g., soups, salads, appetizers, entrees, des[s]erts, etc.), menu items 4 (e.g., green salad, chicken Caesar salad, etc.), menu modifications 5 (e.g., dressing, meat temperature, condiments, etc.), and menu sub-modifiers 6 (e.g., Italian, French, ranch, bleu cheese, etc.). Id. A drag-and-drop approach is used to organize the tree structure 2 in the generated menu. Id. i-f 65. Customizable fonts and layouts enable users to change font (e.g., types, style, size) and resize windows, change icons and display preferences. The Examiner takes the position that the cited portions of McNally show generic elements of a window-based display that allow users to drag and drop icons into the directories to which they belong. Final Act. 35-36. The Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Gurpinar' s method of managing a gas reservoir to include "a hierarchical menu display with drag-and-drop functionality, as taught by McNally." Final Act. 6. Yet, limitations (e), (f), (i), and U) do not recite a hierarchical menu display with drag-and-drop functionality. Rather, claim 1 recites: displaying a workflow manager comprising a first column and a second column, wherein the first column comprises a plurality of regions corresponding to the plurality of workflow states [i.e., a surveillance state, a well identification state, a zone 5 Appeal2013-008605 Application 11/940,222 analysis state, a production evaluation state, and a decision process state]; displaying an icon corresponding to the first waterflood project within a first region corresponding to the surveillance state and a first set of the plurality of tasks corresponding to the surveillance state within the second column; receiving a drag-and-drop request from a user to relocate the icon to a second region corresponding to the zone analysis state; and displaying, in response to the drag-and-drop request, the icon within the second region and a second set of the plurality of tasks corresponding to the zone analysis state within the second column[,] i.e., limitations (e), (t), (i), and U). We fail to see, and the Examiner does not adequately explain, how McNally's drag-and-drop functionality in a hierarchical tree structure discloses each of these limitations. All of the remaining independent claims include limitations substantially similar to claim 1, and are rejected based on the Examiner's findings regarding McNally that we have found to be in error. In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain the Examiner's rejections of independent claims 1, 11, 16, and 22, and the claims that depend therefrom. DECISION The Examiner's rejections of claims 1---6, 8-14, 16-18, and 22-25 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) are reversed. REVERSED 6