Ex Parte BourneDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 22, 201612523340 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 22, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/523,340 04/01/2010 Stephen James BOURNE 23632 7590 07/26/2016 SHELL OIL COMPANY PO BOX 2463 HOUSTON, TX 77252-2463 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. TS6869(US) 9039 EXAMINER PIERRE LOUIS, ANDRE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2123 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/26/2016 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): USPatents@Shell.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte STEPHEN JAMES BOURNE Appeal2015-002116 Application 12/523,340 Technology Center 2100 Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and ALEX S. YAP, Administrative Patent Judges. YAP, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final rejection of claims 13-20, which are all the claims pending in this application.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) We affirm. 1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Shell Oil Company. (App. Br. 2.) 2 Claims 1-12 and 21 were previously cancelled. (App. Br. 8-9.) Appeal2015-002116 Application 12/523,340 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellant's invention relates to "a method of investigating an underground formation underneath the earth's surface." (Spec. 1.) Claim 13 is illustrative, and is reproduced below: 13. A method of investigating an underground formation underneath the earth's surface, which method comprises - obtaining a first data set representing change in a predetermined seismic parameter over a period of time for a plurality of points in the underground formation, which first data set is derived from a time-lapse seismic survey of the underground formation spanning the period of time; - obtaining a second data set representing geodetic deformation over substantially the same period of time at a plurality of locations on the earth's surface, which second data set is derived from a geodetic survey spanning the period of time; - jointly processing the first and second data sets on a computer so as to obtain a map of a parameter related to volume change in the underground formation; and - postulating a geomechanical model of the underground formation, which model is used in the joint processing of the first and second data sets; - wherein the underground formation comprises a reservoir region having a temperature, and the volume change takes place in the course of production of fluid from, or injection of a fluid into, the reservoir region, or in the course of modifying the temperature of the reservoir region; and - the map of a parameter related to volume change in the underground formation is a map of one of compaction, expansion, fluid depletion, fluid enrichment, or temperature change, of the reservoir region; - wherein the method further comprises the step of obtaining from a production history a parameter related to a net change of pore volume in the reservoir region in the course of the fluid production or injection and using this parameter together with the first and second data sets to obtain the map of the 2 Appeal2015-002116 Application 12/523,340 parameter related to volume change m the underground formation. Rejections on Appeal Claims 13-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Van Den Beukel (WO 2005/040858 Al; pub. May 6, 2005) ("Van Den Beukel") in view ofRiieger (Overview of Geodetic Deformation Measurements of Dams; 2006) ("Rueger"). (See Final Office Action (mailed Dec. 16, 2013) ("Final Act.") 13-20.) ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's arguments that the Examiner has erred. We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 13-20. Claim 13 Argument One Neither Van Den Beukel Nor Rueger Teaches "Obtaining a Second Data Set Representing Geodetic Deformation" With respect to claim 13, the Examiner finds Van Den Beukel teaches the "obtaining a second data set ... "limitation: second data sets is acquired representing displacements of regions spinning [sic] the period of time at which the seismic sets of data was obtained page 6 lines 1-2; the stress/deformation data are obtained by way ofRFT [(Remote Field Test)] measurement, page 18 line 1 and lines 17-30, the Examiner respectfully notes the geodetic data is merely deformation obtained during measurement using remote field testing such as the RTF describe by Van Den Beukel, Global positioning system, sensor etc. (Final Act. 5, emphasis added; Ans. 2.) Appellant, however, contends that the Examiner erred in making these determinations. (Apr. 3, 2014 Response 3 Appeal2015-002116 Application 12/523,340 after Final Office Action ("Response") 4--5; App. Br. 3--4.) According to Appellant, "the calculated change in position of boundaries [taught in Van Den Beukel] is in the subsurface formation [and] the RFT measurements mentioned in Van Den Beukel are likely not geodetic and that there is no indication that such measurements are used to represent locations on the earth's surface." (Response 4--5; App. Br. 3--4.) With regard to Appellant's contention that the stress data obtained by RFT is not geodetic, Appellant has not persuaded us that the Examiner erred. As discussed above, the Examiner finds that geodetic data is merely deformation data (such as horizontal/vertical stress data) obtained during measurement using remote field testing (RFT) such as global position system (GPS), which Van Den Beukel suggests (see Van Den Beukel page 5 line 31-page 6 lines 2, stress distribution in the subsurface formation ... (Ans. 2; see also Final Act. 5.) Appellant's assertion that "the RFT measurements mentioned in Van Den Beukel are likely not geodetic," does not address the specific findings by the Examiner, and is mere attorney argument, which is unsupported by factual evidence. Thus, this argument is entitled to little probative value. In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[W]e hold that the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art."); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984). With regard to Appellant's contention "that there is no indication that such measurements are used to represent locations on the earth's surface," 4 Appeal2015-002116 Application 12/523,340 Appellant has also not persuaded us that the Examiner erred. (Response 4-- 5; App. Br. 3--4.) According to Appellant, there is no "obtaining a second data set ... at plurality of locations on the earth's surface" because "the calculated change in position of boundaries [taught in Van Den Beukel] is in the subsurface formation ... and that there is no indication that such measurements are used to represent locations on the earth's surface." (Response 4--5, emphasis in original; App. Br. 3--4.) The Examiner disagrees and finds that Van Den Beukel also teaches measuring stress in two or more locations on the earth's surface: . . . Van Den Beukel suggests (see Van Den Beukel page 5 line 31-page 6 lines 2, stress distribution in the subsurface formation, the representation of change in stress in the subsurface formation further suggest that the stress is measured at least in two or more locations of the model, at page 17 line 3 0-page 18 line 3, Van Den Beukel further states that the stress is estimated in both vertical and horizontal direction (i.e. non-vertical stress measurements obtained from RFT measurement, and is clearly similar that claimed by the Appellant. (Ans. 2, emphasis added.) Specifically, Van Den Beukel teaches that "[i]nitial stresses and pore pressures ... calculations ... can be estimated ... from microfrac tests, leak off tests and experienced drilling losses (horizontal initial stress)." (Van Den Beukel, 17:30-18:3.) Appellant has not persuaded us that the Examiner erred and we agree with the Examiner's finding that Van Den Beukel teaches the limitation at issue. 5 Appeal2015-002116 Application 12/523,340 With respect to Rueger, Appellant contends that "R[u]eger was not cited as providing teachings relating to 'obtaining a second data set representing geodetic deformation' prior to the Advisory Action" and therefore the Examiner has not "give[ n] Appellant reasonable time in which to respond." (App. Br. 4.) The Examiner, however, clarifies that Rueger was not used for the limitation at issue. (Ans. 2-3.) Argument Two No Rationale for Combination of Van Den Beukel and Rueger The Examiner determines that while: Van Den Beukel et al. does not expressly state that the reservoir region having temperature. R[u]eger substantially teaches the reservoir region having at least a temperature during geodetic deformation measurements (see Introduction lines 13-17). Van Den Beukel and R[u]eger are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and that the model analyzes by R[u]eger is similar to that of Van Den Beukel. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to combine the method of R[u]eger with the method of Van Den Beukel because R[u]eger teaches the improvement of geodetic deformation network (page 10 lower right paragraph). (Final Act. 7.) Appellant, however, contends that Van Den Beukel and Rueger are not analogous art and that the Examiner has provided "no rationale for modification of V[a]n Den Beukel in view of R[u]eger or vice versa." (App. Br. 4---6.) Specifically, according to Appellant, "The present invention relates to a method of investigating an underground formation underneath the earth's surface." It is unclear how R[u]eger-a paper relating to deformation measurements of dams falls within such a field. Deformation measurements relating to dams are not typically used to investigate anything "underneath the earth's surface," and certainly not "underground formations." 6 Appeal2015-002116 Application 12/523,340 (App. Br. 6.) The Examiner, on the other hand, determines that "Beukel and R[u]eger are clearly analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor reservoir/underground formation survey and deformation measurement." (Ans. 3--4.) Appellant has not persuaded us that the Examiner erred because Appellant's assertion in this regard is mere attorney argument, which is unsupported by factual evidence. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d at 1470; In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d at 705. We agree with the Examiner's finding that Van Den Beukel and Rueger are analogous art "directed to the same field of endeavor reservoir/underground formation survey and deformation measurement." (Ans. 3.) Moreover, even assuming arguendo that Van Den Beukel and Rueger relates to different fields, as Appellant suggests, "[a] reference is reasonably pertinent if, even though it may be in a different field from that of the inventor's endeavor, it is one which, because of the matter with which it deals, logically would have commended itself to an inventor's attention in considering his problem." In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659 (Fed. Cir. 1992.). Here, we agree with the Examiner's findings that a person of ordinary skill in the art would look to Rueger for "insight[ s] into the quality and safety of the reservoir model ... as accurate measurement of [geodetic] deformation caused by changes in reservoir water level and temperature." (Ans. 3.) With regard to Appellant's contention that the Examiner has provided "no rationale for modification of V[a]n Den Beukel in view of R[u]eger or vice versa," the Examiner notes that "it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to combine the method of R[u]eger with the method of Van Den Beukel because R[u]eger teaches the improvement of 7 Appeal2015-002116 Application 12/523,340 geodetic deformation network." (App. Br. 4---6; Final Act. 7.) As discussed above, we are not persuaded by Appellant's contention that "Van Den Beukel does not mention a geodetic deformation network." (App. Br. 5.) Furthermore, we agree with the Examiner's finding that one of ordinary skilled in the art would look to Rueger to improve the geodetic deformation network in Van Den Beukel because Rueger provides "insight[ s] into the quality and safety" of geodetic deformation due to "water level and temperature." (Ans. 3.) Therefore, the result of the combination is an obvious improvement over the original system of Van Den Beukel. See KSR Int'! Co., v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) ("The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results."). Here, the Examiner has set forth "'an articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness."' KSR, 550 U.S. at 415, 418. For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded of Examiner error in the rejection of claim 13. Thus, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 13, as well as dependent claims 14--17, 19, and 20, which are not argued separately. Claim 18 Claim 18 recites "wherein the geodetic deformation data includes at least one of subsidence, or non-vertical deformation of the earth's surface." Appellant contends that Van Der Beukel "fails to provide the claim features for which it was cited." (App. Br. 6.) As discussed above, however, Van Der Beukel teaches measuring non-vertical stress: "[i]nitial stresses and pore pressures ... calculations . . . can be estimated ... from microfrac tests, 8 Appeal2015-002116 Application 12/523,340 leak off tests and experienced drilling losses (horizontal initial stress)." (Van Den Beukel, 17:30-18:3; see Ans. 4.) Therefore, we are not persuaded of Examiner error in the rejection of claim 18 and sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 18. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 13-20 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 9 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation