SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 2, 2020

2020000514 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 2, 2020)

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. 14/434,735 04/09/2015 Christian Stoller IS12.3025-US-PCT 5993 120942 7590 12/02/2020 Schlumberger Princeton Technology Center 10001 Richmond Avenue IP Administration Center of Excellence HOUSTON, TX 77042 EXAMINER ASHBAHIAN, ERIC K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2891 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/02/2020 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 CHRISTIAN STOLLER, JAMES A. GRAU, and MARKUS BERHEIDE ____________ Appeal 2020-000514 Application 14/434,735 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before TERRY J. OWENS, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges. CASHION, 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 1––17, 19, 21, and 24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Schlumberger Technology Corporation as the real party. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-000514 Application 14/434,735 2 The invention relates to techniques for improving both accuracy and precision of analysis of compositions from gamma ray spectroscopic measurements of subsurface formations. Spec. ¶ 1. The Specification discloses that gamma-ray spectroscopy is used to analyze and quantify the presence of minerals such as shale (clay) in earth subsurface formations by deploying instruments in wellbores drilled through subsurface formations. Id. ¶¶ 1, 5. According to the Specification, aluminum is an excellent quantitative indicator of clay and an accurate determination of the aluminum concentration can be used to quantify the presence shale (clay) in earth formations. Id. ¶ 1. The Specification, however, discloses that aluminum is difficult to determine because it has a small cross section for neutron capture and inelastic interactions. Id. The Specification also discloses that gamma ray detectors having inadequate spectral resolution are impacted by the capture gamma-ray spectrum of aluminum because it has a strong covariance with the capture gamma ray spectrum of iron, in particular. Id. Appellant’s invention seeks to improve techniques for formation composition analysis using gamma ray spectroscopy by using a function applied to an accurate value to determine an accurate and precise value of the amount of the material in the formation composition. Id. ¶¶ 5–6. Claim 1 illustrates the invention (formatting added): 1. A method for improving precision of an accurate measurement of material composition of formations determined by gamma ray spectral analysis, comprising: in a computer, determining an accurate value of an amount of a selected material in the formations by analyzing a spectrum of gamma rays detected from the formations at a selected axial position along a wellbore using a technique that Appeal 2020-000514 Application 14/434,735 3 directly relates the gamma ray spectrum to the amount of the material; in the computer, determining a precise value of the amount of the selected material by analyzing the spectrum of detected gamma rays using a technique that indirectly relates the gamma ray spectrum to the amount of the material; in the computer, determining a function relating the accurate value to the precise value over a selected axial interval along the wellbore; in the computer, applying the function to the precise value at at least one selected axial position along the wellbore to determine an accurate and precise value of the amount of the material; and conducting an oilfield operation in the formations based on the determined accurate and precise value of the amount of the material. Independent claim 14 recites a method for well logging to determine material composition of formations using the method of claim 1. Appellant requests review of the following rejections from the Examiner’s Final Office Action mailed July 10, 2018:2, 3 I. Claims 1, 2, 8, 9, and 11–16 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Peyaud (US 2012/0084009 A1, published April 5, 2012), Herron (US 5,786,595, issued July 28, 1998), and Gilchrist (US 2005/0067563 A1, published March 31, 2005). II. Claims 3, 4, 10, 17, and 24 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Peyaud, Herron, Gilchrist, and Plasek (US 5,699,246, issued December 16, 1997). 2 We cite to the pre-AIA versions of 35 U.S.C. because the effective filing date for the application from which this appeal is taken is before the effective date of the AIA legislation of March 16, 2013. 3 The Examiner withdrew the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 and 112, 2nd paragraph. Ans. 7. Appeal 2020-000514 Application 14/434,735 4 III. Claims 5 and 6 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Peyaud, Herron, Gilchrist, Plasek, and Randall (US 2007/0284518 A1, published December 13, 2007). IV. Claims 7 and 21 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Peyaud, Herron, Gilchrist, and Randall. V. Claim 19 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Peyaud, Herron, Gilchrist, Plasek, and Randall. For Rejection I, Appellant presents arguments only for independent claims 1 and 14 and does not present arguments for dependent claims 2, 8, 9, 11–13, 15, and 16. See generally Appeal Br. In addition, Appellant relies on the arguments presented for claims 1 and 14 to address the separate rejections of claims 3–7, 10, 17, 19, 21, and 24 (Rejections II–V). See id. We note that Appellant’s line of arguments for each of claims 1 and 14 are substantially similar. See id. Accordingly, we select claim 1 as representative of the subject matter claimed and decide the appeal as to all grounds of rejection based on the arguments Appellant makes in support of the patentability of claim 1. OPINION After review of the respective positions the Appellant provides in the Appeal and Reply Briefs and the Examiner provides in the Final Action and the Answer, we affirm the Examiner’s prior art rejections of claims 1–17, 19, 21, and 24 based on the fact-finding and the reasons the Examiner provides. We add the following for emphasis. Appeal 2020-000514 Application 14/434,735 5 Independent claim 1 Claim 1 recites “a method for improving precision of an accurate measurement of material composition of formations determined by gamma ray spectral analysis” by “determining a function relating [an] accurate value to [a] precise value over a selected axial interval along the wellbore,” where the values are amounts of a selected material in formations and “applying the function to the precise value at at least one selected axial position along the wellbore to determine an accurate and precise value of the amount of the material.” The Examiner finds, and Appellant does not dispute, that the combined teachings of Peyaud and Herron suggest a method of determining precise and accurate values for amounts of a material in a subsurface formation that differs from the claimed invention in that the combined teachings do not suggest the claim limitations of “in the computer, determining a function relating the accurate value to the precise value over a selected axial interval along the wellbore” and “in the computer, applying the function to the precise value at at least one selected axial position along the wellbore to determine an accurate and precise value of the amount of the material.” Final Act. 7–8; see Appeal Br. 19. The Examiner relies on Gilchrist as teaching the missing features. Final Act. 8–9. Gilchrist is directed to “an apparatus and method for improving accuracy and precision of capture cross-section measurements” of earth formations by “improving a precision and accuracy of parameter estimation obtained from earth formations.” Gilchrist ¶¶ 3, 16. Gilchrist teaches determining a precise value (measurement) of a material in a formation using at least a short spaced (SS) detector and determining an accurate value (measurement) of a Appeal 2020-000514 Application 14/434,735 6 material in a formation using an extra large spaced (XLS) detector. Id. ¶¶ 22, 30, 41. As the Examiner explains, Gilchrist uses these two values to determine a function (normalization factor) relating a precise measurement and an accurate measurement that is then applied to the first precise value to produce a more accurate and precise value. Final Act. 8–9; Ans. 4–5; Gilchrist ¶¶ 41–42. The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combined teachings of Peyaud and Herron to incorporate Gilchrist’s steps of determining a function between an accurate value and a precise value of the amount of a material in a formation over a selected axial interval and apply the function to a precise value because it would provide a more precise and more accurate measurement of the amount of material in the formation with reasonably high resolution. Final Act. 9; Gilchrist ¶ 42. Appellant argues that the cited art does not teach or fairly suggest determining a function relating an accurate value to a precise value over a selected axial interval and applying the function to the precise value at at least one selected axial position along the wellbore to determine an accurate and precise value of the amount of a material, as claimed. Appeal Br. 19. Appellant specifically argues that Gilchrest does not teach determining a function relating the accurate value to the precise value over a selected axial interval, and applying the function to the precise value to determine an accurate and precise value. Id. Appellant’s arguments do not identify error in the Examiner’s determination of obviousness for the reasons the Examiner presents. As the Examiner explains in the Answer, Gilchrist teaches using the precise and accurate values to determine a normalization factor (function) Appeal 2020-000514 Application 14/434,735 7 that is then applied to the precise value to arrive at a more precise and more accurate measurement with reasonably high resolution. Ans. 4–5; Gilchrist ¶¶ 41–42. With respect to relating the values over a selected axial interval, Gilchrist discloses the importance of the detector’s distance from a source on the precision and accuracy of a given detector. Gilchrist ¶ 29. One skilled in the art would reasonably infer from this disclosure that Gilchrist, like Appellant, is measuring values over selected axial intervals. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264–65 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (holding that a reference stands for all of the specific teachings thereof as well as the inferences one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably been expected to draw therefrom). Moreover, Appellant’s assertion that Gilchrist combines the respective detector measurements via equation 1 without applying the result from equation 1 to any of the detector measurements does not address the Examiner’s finding that Gilchrist uses a comparison between the combined measurements with the first measurements to determine a normalization factor (function) that is then applied to the first measurements to give a normalized measurement. Appeal Br. 20; Gilchrist ¶¶ 36, 41. That is, the combined measurement result from equation 1 is not the function that Gilchrist discloses as the normalization factor. Thus, Appellant fails to explain persuasively why Gilchrist’s normalization factor is not a function that relates an accurate value to a precise value of an amount of a material. Appellant also fails to explain adequately why Gilchrist’s normalization factor is not a function that results in an accurate and precise value of the amount of the material when applied to a precise value. See Gilchrist ¶ 42. Further, given that references the Examiner relies upon in the rejection are all directed to evaluation of earth formations (Peyaud ¶ 22; Herron Abstr.; Appeal 2020-000514 Application 14/434,735 8 Gilchrist ¶¶ 10, 22), Appellant has not explained adequately why one skilled in the art, using no more than ordinary creativity, would not have been capable of modifying the combined teachings of Peyaud and Herron to incorporate Gilchrist’s normalization factor to obtain a precise and accurate value for the amount of a material in a subsurface formation for the reasons Gilchrist presents. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007) (“A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”); see also In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (presuming skill on the part of one of ordinary skill in the art). To the extent that Appellant argues that the claimed invention is distinguished from Gilchrist’s disclosure because Gilchrist uses smoothed measurements from the SS detector and/or LS detector in equation 1 to determine a function (Appeal Br. 20), we note that the claim is written using the open transitional language of “comprising,” and, thus, the claim does not exclude a step of smoothing data used to determine a function. Arguments not specifically addressed are deemed not persuasive for the reasons the Examiner presents. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s prior art rejection of claims 1– 17, 19, 21, and 24 for the reasons the Examiner presents and we give above. Appeal 2020-000514 Application 14/434,735 9 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 8, 9, 11–16 103(a) Peyaud, Herron, Gilchrist 1, 2, 8, 9, 11–16 3, 4, 10, 17, 24 103(a) Peyaud, Herron, Gilchrist, Plasek 3, 4, 10, 17, 24 5, 6 103(a) Peyaud, Herron, Gilchrist, Plasek, Randall 5, 6 7, 21 103(a) Peyaud, Herron, Gilchrist, Randall 7, 21 19 103(a) Peyaud, Herron, Gilchrist, Plasek, Randall 19 Overall Outcome 1–17, 19, 21, 24 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