Gérard Massonnat

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 29, 2021

2020002977 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 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. 13/876,426 03/27/2013 Gérard Massonnat 4229.56WOUS 2923 24113 7590 03/29/2021 PATTERSON THUENTE PEDERSEN, P.A. 80 SOUTH 8TH STREET 4800 IDS CENTER MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-2100 EXAMINER PIERRE LOUIS, ANDRE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2127 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/29/2021 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): 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 GÉRARD MASSONNAT Appeal 2020-002977 Application 13/876,426 Technology Center 2100 Before ERIC S. FRAHM, JUSTIN BUSCH, and JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges. BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 11–20. Oral argument was heard on March 3, 2021. A transcript of the hearing was placed in the record on March 23, 2021. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the term Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a) (2018). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as TOTAL SA. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-002977 Application 13/876,426 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claimed subject matter relates to “simulating geological phenomenon for the purposes of subsoil analysis.” Spec. 1:9–10. Claim 11, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 11. A method performed by a computer for creating a subsoil analysis by simulating a geological phenomenon which resulted in the formation of a geological region, the method comprising: a) defining a model of the geological region, b) receiving a real observation of a given parameter of the geological region, said real observation being made in a well, c) defining a relevant zone of the model, a relevant zone being a predetermined zone within a certain radius around the well; d) simulating the geological phenomenon based on the model of the geological region defined in step a), e) estimating an estimate of the given parameter for the relevant zone of the model defined in step c), using the results of the simulation, f) comparing the observation of the given parameter received in step b) with the estimate of said parameter obtained in step e), g) modifying a simulation parameter to adjust the effects of the simulation on an estimate ( K̂ ) of said parameter obtained in step e) for only the relevant zone defined in step c), based on the results of the comparison in step f) and displaying an image of the relevant zone within the geological region. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Calvert US 6,480,790 B1 Nov. 12, 2002 Edwards US 2005/0015231 A1 Jan. 20, 2005 Langlais US 2007/0156341 A1 July 5, 2007 Appeal 2020-002977 Application 13/876,426 3 REJECTION Claims 11–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Calvert, Edwards, and Langlais. Final Act. 10–15. ANALYSIS Appellant argues the rejection of independent claims 11, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as a group. See Appeal Br. 18–23; Reply Br. 1–6. Appellant presents no separate arguments for the dependent claims. See generally Appeal Br. Therefore, we select independent claim 11 as representative for these claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). The Examiner finds the combination of Calvert, Edwards, and Langlais teaches or suggests every limitation recited in claims 11–20. Final Act. 10–15. Of particular relevance to this Appeal, the Examiner finds Calvert’s geological modeling system teaches defining a model of a geological region, Final Act. 11 (citing Calvert 8:58–67), receiving a real observation made in a well of a parameter for the region, id. (citing Calvert 1:31–34, 2:15–24, 6:58), and defining a relevant zone of the model, id. (citing Calvert 4:5–14, 8:21–57, 13:32–45). The Examiner finds Calvert “does not expressly state that said relevant zone [is] a predetermined zone within a radius around the well,” but the Examiner finds Edwards teaches this feature. Final Act. 12 (citing Edwards ¶¶ 82, 340, 386–389, Figs. 1–4). The Examiner finds a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Calvert with the cited teachings from Edwards because Edwards teaches obtaining improved simulation results. Final Act. 12. Appellant argues Calvert and Edwards fail to teach or suggest the “relevant zone,” as recited in the claims. Appeal Br. 18–21; Reply Br. 2–4. Appellant acknowledges that the rejection relies on a combination to teach Appeal 2020-002977 Application 13/876,426 4 the recited “relevant zone” and, specifically, that the Examiner finds Calvert teaches “defining a relevant zone of the model” and Edwards teaches “a relevant zone being a predetermined zone within a certain radius around a well.” Appeal Br. 18 (citing Final Act. 9, 11). Appellant argues Edwards, however, does not teach the recited “relevant zone.” Appeal Br. 18–21 (quoting Edwards ¶ 82; reproducing Edwards, Fig. 35). More specifically, Appellant asserts the “relevant zone is not an arbitrary area but a specific area of interest within the radius of the well,” whereas “[t]he Examiner equates the relevant zone to any block or area within a model.” Appeal Br. 20. Appellant also contends the recited “relevant zone” is different than the blocks or zones in Calvert’s model, asserting that the blocks and zones in Calvert and Edwards are more similar to the invention’s “zones of influence” than to the recited “relevant zone.” Reply Br. 2–4. The Examiner explains that the proposed interpretation of a “relevant zone” is not “just any zone,” but is a predetermined zone consistent with the claims and the rest of the Specification, and the Examiner finds the cited art, in combination, teaches a relevant zone because the art teaches an underlying zone of interest (taught by Calvert and Edwards) and a predetermined zone within a radius around the well (taught by Edwards). Ans. 4. More specifically, the Examiner finds Calvert discloses defining zones or blocks within the model based on intervals or boundaries between two surfaces and Edwards discloses a relevant zone as a predetermined zone within a radius around a well. Ans. 4 (citing Calvert 4:5–14, 8:21–67, 13:32–45; Edwards ¶¶ 82, 340, 389–389, Figs. 1–4). Calvert relates to “constructing a three-dimensional (3-D) geologic model of a subsurface earth volume in which the positions of geologic interfaces within the model are adjusted as the model is being constructed in Appeal 2020-002977 Application 13/876,426 5 order to improve the consistency between the model and available geologic and geophysical information regarding the subsurface earth volume.” Calvert 1:10–17; see also Calvert 8:21–24 (“[T]he present invention may utilize several different types of data and information for modifying geologic interfaces while simultaneously building the geologic model.”). Modeling the earth volume may include assigning “rock properties,” which are “geologic and/or geophysical properties such as lithology, porosity, acoustic impedance, permeability, or water saturation” to the non-overlapping model blocks that represent relatively homogenous portion of the model. Calvert 1:27–40. “The goal of the geologic-modeling process is to assign rock properties to each model block in the geologic model so that the resulting model is an accurate representation of the subsurface earth volume of interest,” and the data used to assign roper properties may include “rock- property data obtained from wells.” Calvert 2:15–20; see also Calvert 8:24– 41 (describing a system that defines zones and regions with specific rock properties based on data from wells), 8:42–57 (explaining that known modeling techniques may be used to obtain or derive zones within the model using various data, including data derived from wells). Calvert explains that computer programs exist to generate “computer grids using data interpreted from wells . . . defining the volume of rock that constitutes the model” and “subintervals within the model that represent different layers (e.g., formations).” Calvert 3:60–67; see Calvert 3:43–44 (heading for the disclosure’s section titled “Geologic Interfaces that Define Zones and Regions in the Subsurface”). Typically, “rock properties differ between zones.” Calvert 4:12–14. Calvert discloses various known modeling techniques, which include constructing tentative models, simulating production to generate synthetic results, comparing the synthetic Appeal 2020-002977 Application 13/876,426 6 results “to actual field measures” and adjusting boundaries “until an objective function, measuring the difference in the real and synthetic values, is minimized.” Calvert 5:24–30. The known techniques, however, do not “ensure consistency of the fault or boundary positions with modeled rock properties or with any other data measurements or target assumptions.” Calvert 5:31–36. Similar known techniques used “well test data . . . to modify the parameters of the geologic model.” Calvert 5:37–42. Calvert describes a system addressing these shortcomings using “a procedure in which the geologic interfaces within a 3- D geologic model can be adjusted during the model-building process so that the resulting model is consistent with data measurements and target assumptions for the subsurface earth volume being modeled.” Calvert 6:37– 42. We agree with the Examiner, see Ans. 4, that the claimed “relevant zone,” read in light of the Specification, merely requires a predetermined area or “zone” that is used in a model and is within a certain radius of a well. See Spec. 7:10–12 (“A processing means allows defining a model of the geological region and defining a zone of the model, referred to as the relevant zone, for which the observation received by the receiving means is relevant.”). As noted above, the Examiner finds the combination of Calvert and Edwards teaches the recited “relevant zone being a predetermined zone within a certain radius around the well.” Calvert teaches or suggests defining relevant zones because Calvert predetermines zones or regions and assigns specific rock properties to those zones for purposes of simulating different types of subsurfaces. See, e.g., Calvert 1:10–40, 8: 21–57. Contrary to Appellant’s assertions, although Calvert contemplates circumstances in which the surfaces may initially be arbitrary, Calvert also Appeal 2020-002977 Application 13/876,426 7 explicitly discloses techniques for defining zones that are not arbitrary. Compare 8:42–53 (“Structural and stratigraphic surfaces that define zones within the model may be obtained or derived in several ways that are known to persons skilled in the art of geologic modeling or computer mapping.”), and id. 8:55–57 (“In general, best results will be obtained if the initial positions of the surfaces within the model are as correct as possible.”), with id. 8:53–55 (“Alternatively, the surfaces may be arbitrary, with the expectation that the modification process will change them into correct configurations.” (emphasis added)). Moreover, even to the extent that Calvert’s initial definitions for its zones are arbitrary, Calvert discloses improving the configurations and, therefore, the Calvert’s zones teach or suggest a relevant zone, as claimed. Regarding the fact that the zones are “within a certain radius around the well,” the Examiner finds it would have been obvious to modify Calvert in view of Edwards’s teaching that zones are defined within a radius around the well. See Final Act. 12. Edwards models “a localized area of a reservoir field which surrounds and is located near a specific wellbore,” in part, by “establish[ing] a boundary around one specific wellbore.” Edwards, Abstract. Edwards discloses that an operator of the modeling software “must first ‘define the outer radius’ 174 of the ‘zone 1’ 172a and the ‘zone 2’ 172b,” then the operator “must ‘define properties for each (tetrahedrally shaped) grid cell inside ‘zone 1’ and ‘zone 2.’’” Edwards ¶ 82; see Fig. 35 (depicting an operator-defined radius around a wellbore and multiple zones within that radius). We agree with the Examiner that modifying Calvert’s teaching of assigning rock properties to particular zones within its model with Edwards’s disclosed process for defining a radius within which properties are assigned to zones teaches or suggests “defining a relevant Appeal 2020-002977 Application 13/876,426 8 zone of the model, a relevant zone being a predetermined zone within a certain radius around the well,” as recited in the claims. Appellant also argues Calvert and Edwards fail to teach or suggest the recited “real observation . . . made in a well.” Appeal Br. 21–22; Reply Br. 5. Appellant notes the Examiner finds that Calvert teaches creating a geological model “using a number of sources including well data, seismic data, and other data types,” Reply Br. 5 (emphasis added), but Appellant argues that Edwards does not teach “receiving real observations” because Edwards’s users assign properties to grid zones. Appeal Br. 21–22. Appellant asserts that Edwards’s disclosed user input for well radii and depth, while describing all other properties as default, does not teach the recited real observation or using the real observations to control a process. Appeal Br. 21. Appellant contends that the Examiner’s findings (i.e., that Calvert’s rock properties and Edwards’s well observation teach “receiving a real observation . . . made in a well”) “answered the wrong question” because the findings do not render obvious that the “rock property . . . issued from the well may be used to control a process.” Appeal Br. 21. Appellant also asserts Calvert’s disclosed rock properties assigned to regions fail to teach or suggest “that the observation is made in a real well.” Appeal Br. 21–22. Reproducing and referring to several claimed steps, Appellant argues “[a] representative zone can be defined for an observation and the representative zone can be different from the relevant zone,” and asserts the prior art’s “macro model level comparison” does not render obvious “comparing a real observation from a well with the estimates of a given parameter in a relevant zone.” Reply Br. 5. Appeal 2020-002977 Application 13/876,426 9 The Examiner finds Calvert, not Edwards, teaches receiving a “real observation being made in a well.” Final Act. 11 (citing Calvert 1:31–34, 2:15–24, 3:60–63, 6:58, 8:21–57). The Examiner relies on Edwards for the limited teaching that the recited relevant zone is “a predetermined zone within a certain radius around the well.” Final Act. 12. Thus, to the extent Edwards teaches real observation being made in a well, such teachings are cumulative to Calvert’s teachings. Furthermore, we agree with the Examiner that Calvert teaches “receiving a real observation of a given parameter of the geological region, said real observation being made in a well,” as recited, because Calvert discloses a “geologic-modeling process” that “assign[s] rock properties to each model block in the geologic model so that the resulting model is an accurate representation of the subsurface earth volume of interest” and that the “process can use many different data types, including but not limited to rock-property data obtained from wells.” Calvert 2:15–20 (emphasis added); see also Calvert 3:60–62 (explaining that various known geologic modeling computer programs use data interpreted from wells); 8:21–57 (describing the general process “for modifying geologic interfaces” of the model using “several different types of data and information,” including using “interpreted geologic interfaces defining zones and regions with specific rock properties” and “rock property data from wells”). We also disagree with Appellant’s assertions that Calvert’s rock properties obtained from a well cannot be used “to control a process,” Appeal Br. 21, and that Calvert does not teach comparing rock properties obtained from a well with estimates of a given parameter in a relevant zone, Reply Br. 5. As discussed above and as the Examiner finds, Calvert discloses known techniques that use rock properties obtained in a well as Appeal 2020-002977 Application 13/876,426 10 initial values for a tentative model, assessing “the statistics calculated for the tentative model and the geological and geophysical criteria,” and adjusting the rock properties assigned to particular blocks “until there is a match within specified limits.” Calvert 3:20–35; see Calvert 5:23–30 (describing a technique that compares values generated in simulation to “actual field measures” and adjusting the model’s zone until the differences are minimized), 13:25–36 (disclosing determining whether modeled or simulated rock properties match the observed rock properties), 15:1–12 (disclosing that properties for individual blocks can be modified to make the model attain a better fit). For the above reasons, we find Calvert teaches or suggests “receiving a real observation of a given parameter of the geological region, said real observation being made in a well” and comparing the observation to an estimate generated using simulation results. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 10 and claims 11–20, not argued separately, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Calvert, Edwards, and Langlais. CONCLUSION We sustain the rejection of claims 11–20 as obvious over Calvert, Edwards, and Langlais. Appeal 2020-002977 Application 13/876,426 11 DECISION SUMMARY Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 11–20 103 Calvert, Edwards, Langlais 11–20 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). 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv); see 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED