SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 30, 2021

2020001200 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 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.
14/520,716 10/22/2014 Mark Wakefield IS13.4379-US-NP 1911
48879 7590 06/30/2021
SCHLUMBERGER INFORMATION SOLUTIONS
10001 Richmond Avenue
IP Administration Center of Excellence
HOUSTON, TX 77042
EXAMINER
BURKE, TIONNA M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2176
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/30/2021 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 MARK WAKEFIELD and RICHARD ASBURY
________________

Appeal 2020-001200
Application 14/520,716
Technology Center 2100
________________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JASON V. MORGAN, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.

MORGAN, 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, 2, 5–11, 21, 23–25, 27, and 28, all of
the pending claims. Final Act. 1–18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies the real party in interest as Schlumberger Technology Corporation.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-001200
Application 14/520,716

2

SUMMARY OF THE DISCLOSURE
Appellant’s claimed subject matter relates to a method that includes
receiving an unstructured grid of a multi-dimensional region;
partitioning at least a portion of the unstructured grid into
subdomains based at least in part on a cell number criterion;
generating a hierarchical representation of the at least a portion
of the unstructured grid that includes the subdomains and the
cells; indexing cells in the subdomains based at least in part on
the cell number criterion to define a data structure; and
assigning respective property values to respective indexed cells
for at least a portion of the data structure.
Abstract.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAIMS
(disputed limitations emphasized and bracketing added)
1. A method comprising:
[1] receiving an unstructured simulation grid of a multi-
dimensional, spatial region of a physical environment and
simulation property values for the unstructured simulation grid;
partitioning at least a portion of the unstructured simulation grid
into subdomains based at least in part on a cell number criterion
for cells wherein the cell number criterion comprises a maximum
cell number per subdomain;
generating a hierarchical representation of the at least a portion
of the unstructured simulation grid that comprises the subdomains
and the cells;
[2] indexing the cells in the subdomains based at least in part
on the cell number criterion to define a data structure wherein
the indexing comprises space-filling via a space-filling curve
technique that generates a sequential index by sequentially
indexing at least two non-adjacent cells and, [3] for a subdomain
that includes less than the maximum number of cells per
subdomain, utilizing a number of fill indices that corresponds
to a difference between the number of cells of the subdomain
and the maximum cell number per subdomain; and
Appeal 2020-001200
Application 14/520,716

3

assigning at least a portion of the simulation property values to
respective indexed cells for at least a portion of the data structure.
2. The method of claim 1 further comprising [4] rendering a
visualization of at least some of the simulation property values
of the respective indexed cells to a display.
5. The method of claim 1 [5] wherein the partitioning comprises
recursive partitioning wherein each recursion generates a level
of detail.
9. The method of claim 1 [6] wherein the partitioning comprises
generating a subdomain for a portion of the unstructured
simulation grid that comprises a locally refined grid.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following references:
Name Reference Date
Zhang et al. (“Zhang”) US 2010/0185692 A1 July 22, 2010
Fung et al. (“Fung”) US 2012/0059639 A1 Mar. 8, 2012
Usadi et al. (“Usadi”) US 8,437,996 B2 May 7, 2013
Chen et al. (“Chen”) US 2013/0225201 A1 Aug. 29, 2013
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 5, 8–10, 21, and 252 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as obvious over Usadi, Zhang, and Chen. Final Act. 2–12.

2 The Examiner omits claim 25 in the statement of the rejection (Final Act.
2), but includes it in the body of the rejection (id. at 10–12).
Appeal 2020-001200
Application 14/520,716

4

The Examiner rejects claims 2, 6, 7, 11, 23, 24, 27, and 28 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Usadi, Zhang, Chen3, and Fung. Final Act. 13–
18.
ADOPTION OF EXAMINER’S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner’s findings as set
forth in the Answer and in the Final Action from which this appeal was
taken, and we concur with the Examiner’s conclusions. We have considered
Appellant’s arguments, but we do not find them persuasive of error. We
provide the following explanation for emphasis.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 6–8, 10, 11, 21, and 23–25
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that Usadi’s three-dimensional
reservoir model with nodes of non-uniform size teaches or suggests recitation
[1], “receiving an unstructured simulation grid of a multi-dimensional region,
spatial region of a physical environment and simulation property values for
the unstructured simulation grid.” Final Act. 2–3 (citing Usadi 4:55–61,
5:19–34, Fig. 1); Ans. 3–4. The Examiner finds that Zhang’s space filling
curve for transforming high dimensional space into a one-dimensional spaces
teaches or suggests recitation [2], “indexing the cells in the subdomains based
at least in part on the cell number criterion to define a data structure wherein
the indexing comprises space-filling via a space-filling curve technique that

3 The Examiner omits Chen from the statement of the rejection; however, the
Examiner relies on Chen in rejecting claims from which these claims
depend. Appellant acknowledges that this is “an inadvertent error.” Appeal
Br. 26.
Appeal 2020-001200
Application 14/520,716

5

generates a sequential index by sequentially indexing at least two non-
adjacent cells.” Final Act. 3–4 (citing Zhang ¶¶ 18–20); Ans. 4. The
Examiner finds that Chen’s generation of a one-dimensional associated
index to determine point indices in relation to a traditional coordinate map
teaches or suggests recitation [3], “for a subdomain that includes less than
the maximum number of cells per subdomain, utilizing a number of fill
indices that corresponds to a difference between the number of cells of the
subdomain and the maximum cell number per subdomain.” Final Act. 4–5
(citing Chen ¶¶ 26, 27).
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding Usadi teaches or
suggests recitation [1] because “Usadi is directed to load balancing and
parallelization of a reservoir simulator – to generate simulation data,” while
claim 1 is directed to a method in which “simulation property values for the
unstructured simulation grid exist and are received.” Appeal Br. 13. The
Examiner, however, correctly finds that “Usadi also teaches receiving values
for the unstructured grid based on the reservoir model.” Ans. 3 (citing Usadi
4:55–61, 5:19–34, Fig. 1) (emphasis added). The Examiner’s finding is
supported by Usadi’s teaching that “[r]eservoir simulation is one part of
reservoir modeling which also includes the construction of the simulation
data to accurately represent the reservoir.” Usadi 5:23–25. That is,
simulation data in Usadi is received, not just generated.
Appellant further argues “Usadi is wholly unsuitable to solv[ing] the
problem addressed by the subject matter of claim 1, which tends toward a
storage/access speed related problem for visualizations, not a cost of
computations problem to be parallelized/balanced using size as an ordering
criterion.” Reply Br. 6; Appeal Br. 15. That is, Appellant argues Usadi is
Appeal 2020-001200
Application 14/520,716

6

non-analogous art because it is not reasonably pertinent to the problem with
which the inventors were involved. Appellant’s argument is not persuasive
because Usadi—which provides numerous teachings related to an
unstructured simulation grid (see, e.g., Usadi 4:55–61, Fig. 1)—is within the
same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. This is sufficient to make
Usadi analogous art. In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658–59 (Fed. Cir. 1992)
(prior art is analogous “(1) [if] the art is from the same field of endeavor,
regardless of the problem addressed, and (2) if the reference is not within the
field of the inventor’s endeavor, [if] the reference still is reasonably
pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved”).
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in relying on Zhang to teach
or suggest recitation [2] because Zhang’s 4×4 data array “is a regular,
symmetric array,” rather than “anything ‘unstructured.’” Appeal Br. 16;
Reply Br. 7. Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive because the Examiner
relies on Usadi, not Zhang, to teach or suggest receiving an unstructured
simulation grid. Final Act. 2–3. Moreover, Zhang teaches deriving a data
item’s z-address from its Cartesian address. Zhang ¶ 19. Even an
unstructured simulation grid, such as that shown in Usadi, can be
characterized by the correspondence of nodes of the grid with the Cartesian
coordinates the nodes occupy. See, e.g., Usadi 9:49–59, Figs. 1, 9.
Appellant further contends the Examiner erred because the “approach
of Zhang is unsuited to the problem addressed in Usadi because Usadi (1)
orders by size and (2) weights by computational cost, which depends
dynamically on physical phenomena in a heterogeneous reservoir.” Reply
Br. 7. Appellant argues there “is no apparent way that the approach in Zhang
could benefit parallelization and balancing as it does not account for
Appeal 2020-001200
Application 14/520,716

7

computational costs in reservoir simulation.” Id. Appellant’s argument is not
persuasive because Usadi also teaches, for example, “sorting the nodes in a
geometric direction.” Usadi 1:54. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that it
would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill to modify Usadi
using the Zhang’s transformation of high dimensional space to a one-
dimensional space that can be ordered by a z-curve. Zhang ¶ 19 (cited in
Final Act. 4).
Appellant argues “Chen describes ‘a traditional map space is further
segmented into smaller portions of near equal size (i.e., grid-like)’” and,
thus, “Chen teaches decomposition regularity, not an unstructured grid.”
Appeal Br. 20; Reply Br. 9. But the Examiner relies on Usadi, not Chen, to
teach or suggest receiving an unstructured simulation grid. Final Act. 2–3.
Appellant further argues “Chen lacks evidence as to any apparent
need for altering the Peano curves 110, 120 or 130 or Fig. 1A or using space
filling.” Appeal Br. 21; id. at 22 (arguing there is insufficient evidence
showing “why the system and method of Chen (or Usadi or Zhang) would
benefit from an approach that utilizes fill indices”); Reply Br. 8–9.
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive because Chen teaches an approach in
which “coordinates . . . can be identified by indexing in relation to [a] grid
arrangement.” Chen ¶ 26. In particular Chen teaches a Z-value calculation in
which “nearby places will often but not necessarily present similar prefixes.”
Id. ¶ 27. “The prefixes produced indexes having similar prefixes (180) provide
for a one-dimensional spatial index which is conveniently sortable and suited
for range searching (i.e., proximity searching in two-dimensions).” Id.; see
also id. Fig. 1B (illustrating points in close proximity sharing similar prefixes).
Based on this teaching, an artisan of ordinary skill would have recognized
Appeal 2020-001200
Application 14/520,716

8

the benefit of preserving the relationship between one-dimensional indices
and spatial coordinates. Using fill indices as needed to preserve such a
relationship would have been an obvious approach to preserving such a
relationship.
Appellant also argues “[t]he lines from cell to cell in Fig. 13 of the
instant application look nothing like the Peano curves of Fig. 1A of Chen.”
Appeal Br. 21. Appellant’s argument unpersuasively relies on purported
differences between a disclosure in the Specification and one of the
embodiments of Chen viewed in isolation, rather than showing how the
claimed invention distinguishes the teachings and suggestions of Chen in
combination with Usadi and Zhang. We note, for example, that Zhang’s
space-filling curve is the same as the Specification’s Z-Order curve 1312.
Compare Zhang Fig. 1 with Spec. Fig. 13. Moreover, Chen teaches that the
Peano curve of Figure 1A “is but one mathematical method or ‘curve-
construct’ method . . . and it will be appreciated by those of skill in the art
that other variants” are also applicable. Chen ¶ 26.
For these reasons, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of
Usadi, Zhang, and Chen teaches or suggests recitations [1]–[3]. Accordingly,
we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 1, and claims
6–8, 10, 11, 21, and 23–25, which are not argued separately. Appeal Br. 25,
28.
Claims 2, 27, and 28
In rejecting claim 2, which depends from claim 1, the Examiner finds
that Fung’s three-dimensional visualization of a reservoir teaches or suggests
recitation [4], “rendering a visualization of at least some of the simulation
Appeal 2020-001200
Application 14/520,716

9

property values of the respective indexed cells to a display.” Final Act. 13
(citing Fung Figs. 7–13); Ans. 11–12 (further citing Fung ¶¶ 39, 44–46).
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because “Fung pertains to
performing [a] simulation, not to [the] rendering of simulation results.”
Appeal Br. 27. But Fung explicitly discloses that “post-processing server
308 accesses simulator results . . . and generates user-friendly data displays.”
Fung ¶ 46. In particular, Fung’s “post-processing server may have software
loaded thereon that provides 3D visualizations of the reservoir.” Id. Thus,
Fung teaches or suggests not only performing a simulation, but also rendering
a three dimensional visualization of the simulation (i.e., a user-friendly data
display) as well. Id. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Fung
teaches or suggests recitation [4].
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
claim 2, and claims 27 and 28, which Appellant argues are patentable for
similar reasons. Appeal Br. 27–28.
Claim 5
In rejecting claim 5, which depends from claim 1, the Examiner finds
that hierarchically shaped space filling curve teaches or suggests recitation
[5], “wherein the partitioning comprises recursive partitioning wherein each
recursion generates a level of detail.” Final Act. 5 (citing Zhang ¶ 20); Ans. 5–6.
The Examiner also finds that Chen’s multi-iterated curve construction—one in
which subsequent iterations are more detailed than prior iterations—also
teaches or suggests recitation [5]. Ans. 6 (citing Chen ¶ 26).
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because the “concept of ‘a
level of detail’ is lacking in Zhang. Zhang merely describes an ‘hquad’
(hyperquadratic) and how it must be symmetric and must adhere to a 2n×2n
Appeal 2020-001200
Application 14/520,716

10

structure, where examples are given of n = 0, 1, 2, and 3 (i.e., 1×1, 2×2, 4×4,
8×8).” Appeal Br. 24. Appellant further argues that
the dimensions of Zhang as to types of purchases of males ages
18–25 and food to stock before the Super Bowl do not provide
context for a “level of detail” as to an unstructured grid of a
multidimensional spatial region of a physical environment as in
claim 1, from which claim 5 depends.
Id. Appellant concludes “that dependent claim 5 has not been properly
considered as a whole and that the evidence in Zhang is insufficient to
support the Examiner’s fact finding as Zhang fails to provide explicitly
evidence of ‘level of detail.’” Id. at 24–25.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive. Appellant does not provide
support for the allegation that dependent claim 5 has not been properly
considered as a whole. Rather, Appellant’s contention is conclusory. Moreover,
Appellant only attacks the Examiner’s reliance on Zhang instead of showing
error in the Examiner’s alternative reliance on Chen with respect to recitation
[5]. Ans. 6. In the Reply Brief, for example, Appellant quotes the cited
paragraph of Chen, but fails to emphasize or otherwise address the teachings
regarding more detailed iterations. Reply Br. 8. And Appellant’s analysis of
this paragraph relate to recitation [3] of claim 1, not recitation [5] of claim 5.
Id. at 9. Therefore, based at least on the Examiner’s unrebutted reliance on
the teachings of Chen with respect to recitation [5], we agree with the
Examiner that the combination of Usadi, Zhang, and Chen teaches or
suggests recitation [5]. Ans. 6.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
claim 5.
Appeal 2020-001200
Application 14/520,716

11

Claim 9
In rejecting claim 9, the Examiner finds that re-partitioning of a
generated reservoir model into a plurality of domains teaches or suggests
recitation [6], “wherein the partitioning comprises generating a subdomain
for a portion of the unstructured simulation grid that comprises a locally
refined grid.” Final Act. 6 (citing Usadi 1:25–49); Ans. 11.
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because “Usadi is directed to
partitioning for purposes of performing simulation” and the “term ‘refine’
appears in Usadi as to assessing ‘parallel performance of the partitioned
calculation’ . . . where ‘parallel performance’ and ‘calculation’ pertain to
performing simulation such as” implicit pressure explicit saturation and
coupled implicit. Appeal Br. 25. Appellant thus concludes “that the rejection
of dependent claim 9 is in error because the evidence of Usadi does not
support the Examiner’s fact finding under the preponderance of evidence
standard.” Id. In other words, Appellant argues that rather than generating a
subdomain for a portion of an existing unstructured simulation grid, Usadi
merely partitions a model to generate simulation data.
Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive because Usadi teaches that
“simulation [that] is usually part of a time consuming, iterative process to
reduce uncertainty.” Usadi 5:28–30 (cited in Final Act. 3) (emphasis added).
Usadi specifically seeks to “provide good iterative performance of a domain
decomposition based parallel solver.” Id. at 6:61–62 (emphasis added). To
this end, Usadi teaches that if “the existing partition of the model 100 . . .
become[s] improperly load balanced or otherwise inefficient for the current
state of calculations,” then “it is desirable to repartition the data of the model
100 in order to bring the operation of the simulator 200 back into proper
Appeal 2020-001200
Application 14/520,716

12

load balance and to improve the iterative convergence.” Id. 6:65–7:8. Usadi
provides further details of this iterative process, where the results 612 of one
iteration are fed back into well management step 602 for further iterations.
Id. 8:4–13, Fig. 6a. Because of the iterative nature of Usadi’s simulation
process—where prior simulation results are used as the inputs for subsequent
simulation iterations—it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary
skill that Usadi’s repartioning teachings are applicable to the partitioning of
an existing unstructured simulation grid (i.e., the results of a prior simulation
iteration) rather than just to generation of simulation results. Therefore, we
agree with the Examiner that the combination of Usadi, Zhang, and Chen
teaches or suggests recitation [6].
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
claim 9.
CONCLUSION
Claim(s)
Rejected
35
U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 5, 8–10,
21, 25
103 Usadi, Zhang,
Chen
1, 5, 8–10,
21, 25

2, 6, 7, 11, 23,
24, 27, 28
103 Usadi, Zhang,
Chen, Fung
2, 6, 7, 11, 23,
24, 27, 28

Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 5–11, 21,
23–25, 27, 28

Appeal 2020-001200
Application 14/520,716

13

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking 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