Nikitav.Chugunov et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 13, 2019

13286040 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 13, 2019)

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.
13/286,040 10/31/2011 NIKITA V. CHUGUNOV IS11.0711-US-NP 1012
37003 7590 09/13/2019
SCHLUMBERGER-DOLL RESEARCH
10001 Richmond Avenue
IP Administration Center of Excellence
Houston, TX 77042
EXAMINER
BROCK, ROBERT S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2128
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/13/2019 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):
JScott19@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 NIKITA V. CHUGUNOV and
TERIZHANDUR S. RAMAKRISHNAN
____________________

Appeal 2017-010167
Application 13/286,040
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before THU A. DANG, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1–9, 11–14, and 17. Claims 10, 15, 16, 18, and 19 were previously
canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest is Schlumberger Technology
Corporation. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-010167
Application 13/286,040

2
A. INVENTION
According to Appellant, the invention relates to “quantification of
uncertainty in reservoir performance.” (Spec. ¶ 1).

B. REPRESENTATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A method for designing a monitoring program for a
formation, comprising:
(a) performing a measurement on the formation to obtain
data associated with a physical property of the formation,
wherein the measurement is made using at least one of well
logging and a formation survey;
(b) generating multiple representative realizations of a
reservoir model using the data;
(c) calculating a plurality of values for a property of at
least one individual block within a grid by performing reservoir
simulations using the realizations of the reservoir model;
(d) calculating a tool measurement response
corresponding to each realization of the reservoir model and the
plurality of values for the property for at least two moments in
time;
(e) calculating a probability distribution for the tool
measurement response of the at least one block;
(f) distributing the tool measurement response of the at
least one block and its probability distribution onto a map to
generate a probability-map representing the formation for at
least two moments in time; and
(g) designing a monitoring program for the formation the
probability-map;
wherein processes (b) to (g) are performed by a
processor.

Appeal 2017-010167
Application 13/286,040

3
C. REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 4–8, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Busby (US 2009/0043555 A1; published Feb. 12, 2009), Zhu (WO
2009/126375 A1; published Oct. 15, 2009), and Gurpinar (US 6,980,940 B1;
issued Dec. 27, 2005).
Claims 2, 3, 12–14, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Busby, and Van Bemmel (US 6,912,491 B1; issued June 28,
2005).
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Busby, and
Edwards (US 2009/0132458 A1; published May 21, 2009).

II. ISSUES
The principal issues before us are whether the Examiner erred in
finding the combination of Busby, Zhu, and Gurpinar teaches or would have
suggested a method comprising the steps of “generating multiple
representative realizations of a reservoir model” using “data associated with
a physical property of the formation,” and “calculating a tool measurement
response corresponding to each realization of the reservoir model” (Claim
1).

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Busby
1. Busby discloses a method for evaluating an underground reservoir
production scheme taking account of uncertainties, which comprises
Appeal 2017-010167
Application 13/286,040

4
constructing an approximate analytical model allowing the reservoir
responses to be predicted, and evaluating the production scheme by
analyzing the reservoir responses predicted by the approximate analytical
model. Busby, Abstract. A reservoir model is constructed describing the
spatial structure of the reservoir and property values characterizing the
reservoir (porosity, permeability, lithology, pressure, nature of the fluids,
etc.) associated therewith, wherein uncertainty has to be taken into account.
Id. at ¶ 7.
Zhu
2. Zhu discloses a method for generating anisotropic resistivity models
of a subsurface reservoir for seismic and well data, which provides for
analyzing the uncertainty associated with the prediction of the resistivity
volume. Zhu, Abstract. The method includes predicting electrical properties
by incorporating information from seismic and well log data, and using rock
physics models that link rock properties to geophysical responses. Id. at ¶ 2.
The method first “provides a model as an initial guess and then updates the
model until an acceptable match is obtained between the acquired and
predicted data.” Id. at ¶ 24.
Gurpinar
3. Gurpinar discloses a method of managing a fluid or gas reservoir
which comprises iteratively producing a reservoir development plan that is
used to optimize an overall performance of a reservoir. Gurpinar, Abstract.
The method includes monitoring a performance of the reservoir by acquiring
high rate monitoring data from a set of data measurement taken in the
reservoir and using the high rate monitor data to perform well-regional and
Appeal 2017-010167
Application 13/286,040

5
field-reservoir evaluations. Id. When necessary, the initial reservoir
development plan is updated. Id.
IV. ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
arguments presented in this appeal. Arguments which Appellant could have
made, but did not make in the Brief are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2016). On the record before us, we are unpersuaded the
Examiner erred. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in
the rejections from which the appeal is taken and in the Examiner’s Answer,
and provide the following for highlighting and emphasis.
Appellant contends that Busby “has nothing to do with calculating a
tool measurement response, let alone calculating a tool measurement
response corresponding to each realization of a reservoir model” as claimed.
Br. 5. Instead, according to Appellant, Busby “constructs an analytical
model for the output of the flow simulator by performing as few reservoir
simulations as possible.” Id. Similarly, Appellant also contends Gurpinar
fails to disclose or suggest “calculating a tool measurement response
corresponding to each realization of [a] reservoir model” as recited. Id. at 6.
Further, according to Appellant, Zhu “does not alleviate the
deficiencies” of Busby. Id. In particular, Appellant contends that Zhu fails
to disclose or suggest “a reservoir model that is used to perform reservoir
simulations,” and instead, “uses a rock physics model to convert seismic
data to resistivity data,” wherein the rock physics model “does not constitute
the reservoir model” required by claim 1. Id. at 5.
Appellant concedes that, in Busby, “actual measurements are used to
determine properties in a reservoir model.” Id. at 7. Appellant also
Appeal 2017-010167
Application 13/286,040

6
concedes that Zhu discloses a “calculation of tool measurement response,”
wherein one could “use a calculation of tool measurement response (such as
the calculation in the Zhu reference) to help determine a reservoir model
(such as the model in the Busby reference) by comparing actual tool
response to predicted tool response.” Id. However, according to Appellant,
the resulting combination “would merely use the calculation of tool
measurement response to determine a reservoir model and reservoir
properties” instead of “calculating a tool measurement response
corresponding to each realization of a reservoir model” as claimed. Id. That
is, in claim 1, “the tool measurement response is calculated after the
realization of the reservoir model are already determined,” in contrast to the
prior art. Id.
Further, Appellant contends that the rejection lacks a rational
underpinning to support the combination of Busby and Zhu. Id. at 6–7. In
particular, according to Appellant, there would be no reason for a person of
ordinary skill in the art to combine Busby and Zhu “because the references
address different problems.” Id. at 8. Appellant contends that Busby “is
directed to reservoir production” while, in contrast, Zhu “is directed to
hydrocarbon exploration” and “converting seismic data to resistivity data so
that hydrocarbons can be detected using the resistivity data.” Id. Thus,
according to Appellant, since the goal of Busby is “designing an optimized
reservoir production scheme” wherein “[o]nce the reservoir model is
determined . . . , there is no reason (or obvious benefit) to add a calculation
of tool measurement response.” Id.
We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments and evidence
presented. However, we agree with the Examiner’s findings, and find no
Appeal 2017-010167
Application 13/286,040

7
error with the Examiner’s conclusion that claim 1 would have been obvious
over the combination of the teachings and suggestions of Busby, Zhu, and
Gurpinar.
Although Appellant contends that Busby “has nothing to do with
calculating a tool measurement response,” that Gurpinar fails to disclose or
suggest “calculating a tool measurement response corresponding to each
realization of a reservoir model,” and that Zhu fails to disclose or suggest “a
reservoir model that is used to perform reservoir simulation” (App. Br. 5–6),
the Examiner rejects the claim as obvious over the combination of Busby,
Zhu, and Gurpinar. The test for obviousness is what the combination of
Busby, Zhu, and Gurpinar teaches or would have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed.
Cir. 1986). As the Examiner points out, “one cannot show nonobviousness
by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on
combinations of references.” Ans. 2 (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426
(CCPA 1981); Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097).
Thus, although Appellant contends that Zhu fails to disclose or
suggest “a reservoir model that is used to perform reservoir simulation”
(App. Br. 5–6), the Examiner relies on Busby, instead, for teaching and
suggesting the claimed reservoir model. See Final Rej. 3–5. Busby
discloses a method for evaluating an underground reservoir production
scheme taking account of uncertainties, which comprises constructing an
approximate analytical model (describing the spatial structure of the
reservoir and property values characterizing the reservoir), allowing the
reservoir responses to be predicted. FF 1. In Busby, the production scheme
Appeal 2017-010167
Application 13/286,040

8
is evaluated by analyzing the reservoir responses predicted by the
approximate analytical model. Id.
As Appellant concedes, in Busby, “actual measurements are used to
determine properties in a reservoir model.” App. Br. 7. Further, as the
Examiner finds, “[Busby] is concerned with evaluating schemes in the
presence of uncertainty” and thus is directed “to both measurements and
responses.” Ans. 4–5. Thus, although Appellant contends that Busby fails
to disclose a tool measurement response that is “calculated after the
realizations of the reservoir model are already determined” (App. Br. 7), the
Examiner finds that “Busby discloses relationships between initial
measurements (initial measures) and uncertainty in input parameters”
wherein “Busby discloses relationships between uncertainties in input
parameters and ‘global uncertainty of a response’ (final measures) for the
selection of new measurements.” Ans. 5.
Further, the Examiner relies on Zhu for teaching and suggesting the
claimed “tool measurement response.” Final Rej. 6–7; Ans. 7. Zhu
discloses a method for generating models, such as anisotropic resistivity
models, of a reservoir, which provides for analyzing the uncertainty
associated with predictions, such as predictions of the resistivity volume,
wherein the method includes predicting electrical properties and using a
model, such as a rock physics model, that links rock properties to
geophysical responses. FF 2. In Zhu, the method first “provides a model as
an initial guess and then updates the model until an acceptable match is
obtained between the acquired and predicted data.” Id. In Zhu, the tool
measurement is calculated after the model is determined. Id. Even
Appellant acknowledges that Zhu discloses a “calculation of tool
Appeal 2017-010167
Application 13/286,040

9
measurement response.” App. Br. 7. Here, the Examiner finds that Zhu
discloses “modeling for predicting responses along with the associated
uncertainties.” Ans. 7. As the Examiner finds, “Zhu[’s] methods allow for
an accounting of the uncertainties between the measurements and properties
as well as the properties and predicted measurements.” Ans. 9.
The Examiner then relies on Gurpinar for teaching and suggesting a
“monitoring program” and in particular, “Gurpinar is concerned with
uncertainties in data associated with a monitoring program used in the
context of production,” which includes “reservoir monitoring, data
assimilation and model updating.” Ans. 8. In particular, Gurpinar discloses
a method which comprises iteratively producing a reservoir development
plan that is used to optimize an overall performance of a reservoir, wherein
the method includes monitoring a performance of the reservoir by acquiring
monitoring data from data measurement taken in the reservoir. FF 3.
Gurpinar then updates the reservoir development plan. Id.
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that the
combination of Busby, Zhu, and Gurpinar teaches or at least suggests the
contested limitations.
We are also not persuaded by Appellant’s contention that there would
be no reason for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Busby and
Zhu “because the references address different problems.” Br. 8. Here, we
find no error with the Examiner’s combination of: 1) Busby’s use of actual
measurements to determine properties in a reservoir model and generating
realizations of the reservoir model using the measurements (FF 1), with 2)
Zhu’s calculation of tool measurement responses and updating a model until
an acceptable match is obtained between the acquired and predicted data, to
Appeal 2017-010167
Application 13/286,040

10
account for uncertainties (FF 2), for teaching and suggesting the contested
limitations of claim 1. That is, according to the Examiner, the references are
directed to the same field of endeavor of addressing “the propagation of
uncertainties as it relates to geological modeling” (Ans. 11), wherein Zhu
also “allow[s] for an accounting of the uncertainties between the
measurements and properties as well as the properties and predicted
measurements,” while “Busby is relating the uncertainty of the inputs with
uncertainties of the outputs by running multiple flow simulation where each
simulation includes a different realization of the input parameters.” Id. at 9.
Thus, “Zhu’s methods may be used to determine the uncertainties which are
used for each realization as found in Busby’s methods.” Id. at 10.
The Supreme Court guides that the conclusion of obviousness can be
based on the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary
skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). The
skilled artisan is “a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” Id. at
421. Here, we agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art,
upon reading Busby’s need to account of uncertainties while allowing the
reservoir responses to be predicted (FF 1), would have found it obvious to
apply Zhu’s calculating tool measurement responses and updating a
prediction model to account for uncertainties (FF 2), as well as Gurpinar’s
model updating in reservoir modeling (FF 3).
Accordingly, Appellant has not shown the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1, and claims 4–8, and 11, which are not separately argued and thus
falling therewith, over Busby, Zhu, and Gurpinar. Appellant does not
provide substantive arguments for claims 2, 3, 9, 12–14, and 17 separate
from those for claim 1. Br. 8. Accordingly, we also affirm the Examiner’s
Appeal 2017-010167
Application 13/286,040

11
rejections of: claims 2, 3, 12–14, and 17 over Busby, in further view of Van
Bemmel; and of claim 9 over Busby, in further view of Edwards.

V. DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–9, 11–14, and 17
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

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

AFFIRMED