Ex Parte Sun et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 29, 2018

14692474 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/692,474 04/21/2015
34477 7590 04/02/2018
ExxonMobil Upstream Research Company
22777 Springwoods Village Parkway
(EMHC-E2-4A-296)
Spring, TX 77389
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Tao Sun
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.
2009EM083-3 1224
EXAMINER
DAY, HERNG DER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2128
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/02/2018 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):
urc-mail-formalities@exxonmobil.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TAO SUN and DACHANG LI
Appeal2017-009388
Application 14/692,474
Technology Center 2100
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-9 and 11-21, which constitute all claims pending in this
application. App. Br. 1. Claim 10 has been canceled. Claims App'x. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). 1
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as ExxonMobil Upstream
Research Company. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2017-009388
Application 14/692,474
Introduction
According to Appellants, the claimed subject matter is directed to a
method and system for enhancing the geologic model of a subsurface region.
Spec. i-f 14. In particular, upon defining a bed topography of the subsurface
region as a plurality of cells, a computer system reconstructs the bed
topography as a spatially continuous space to thereby calculate the flux and
gravitational force between two or more cells so as to predict at least one
fluid flow deposition sediments onto the bed, and erosion of sediments
therefrom. Id.
Representative Claim
Independent claim 1 is representative, and reads as follows:
1. A method of enhancing a geologic model of a subsurface region,
compnsmg:
(a) obtaining a bed topography of the subsurface region, the bed
topography defined by a plurality of cells in a computer system, each of the
plurality of cells having an elevation associated with its cell center,
(b) representing the bed topography as a cell-centered piecewise
constant representation based on the elevations associated with the plurality
of cells;
( c) reconstructing the bed topography to produce a spatially
continuous surface;
( d) calculating, with the computer system, flux and gravitational
force-related source terms based on the reconstructed bed topography;
e) calculating fluxes between at least two of the cells, with the
computer system, taking into account variations of the bed topography
across a face between the at least two of the cells;
(t) predicting at least one of fluid flow, deposition of sediments onto
the bed, and erosion of sediments from the bed using the fluxes and
gravitational force-related source terms;
(g) inputting the predicted at least one of fluid flow, deposition and
erosion into the geologic model of the subsurface region;
(h) using the geologic model to predict characteristics of the
subsurface region; and
2
Appeal2017-009388
Application 14/692,474
(i) outputting the predicted characteristics of the subsurface region.
Sun et al. ("Sun")
Prior Art Relied upon
US 2007/0219725 Al Sept. 20, 2007
Lai, Y. (Nov. 2006) Theory and User Manual for SRH-W Version 1.1
Sedimentation and River Hydraulics-Watershed model. U.S. Dept.
of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (151 pgs) ("Lai").
US Geological Survey, "Standards for Digital Elevation Models,"
U.S. Dept. of the Interior 1998 (70 pgs) ("USGS").
Valiani, A., Caleffi, V., & Zanni, A. (1999) Finite volume scheme for
2D Shallow-Water equations: Application to a flood event in the
Toce river. The 4th CADAM Workshop, Zaragoza, Spain (pp.
185-206) ("Valiani").
Rejections on Appeal2
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-9, 11-15, and 17-21 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination Sun, Lai, and
USGS. Final Act. 5-20.
Claims 3 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination Sun, Lai, USGS, and Valiani. Final Act.
20-22.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination Sun, Lai, USGS, and Valiani. Final Act.
22-23.
2 The double patenting rejection previously entered by the Examiner has
been withdrawn. Ans. 4.
3
Appeal2017-009388
Application 14/692,474
ANALYSIS
We consider Appellants' arguments as they are presented in the
Appeal Brief, pages 5-14, and the Reply Brief, pages 2-5. 3
Appellants argue the combination of Sun and Lai does not teach or
suggest "reconstructing the bed topography to produce a spatially continuous
surface," as recited in independent claim 1. App. Br. 7. In particular,
Appellants argue Sun relates to simulating the formation of sedimentary
deposits, not reconstructing the bed topography. Id. at 8. Appellants further
argue that, although Sun discloses the calculation of inter-cell flux, such
calculation is not based on the reconstructed topography. App. Br. 9.
Likewise, Appellants argue Lai's disclosure of a well-centered scheme for
modeling rivers and watersheds does not cure the noted deficiencies of Sun.
Id. Additionally, Appellants argue USGS 's disclosure of standards for
digital elevation models (DEMs ), including that bodies must be flat with
shore lines clearly delineated, does not teach the claimed reconstruction of
bed topography. Id. at 8-9 (citing USGS section 2.2.2). More particularly,
Appellants argue the portions of USGS relied upon by the Examiner to cure
the noted deficiencies of Sun merely relate to a mechanism for editing a
DEM, and an edge-matching filter for re-contouring of local areas such as
benches, striations, and patches. Id (citing USGS 2.2.3).
3 Rather than reiterate all the arguments of Appellants and all the Examiner's
findings, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed December 27, 2017), the Reply
Brief (filed June 19, 2017), and the Answer (mailed April 18, 2017) ("Ans.")
for the respective details. We have considered in this Decision only those
arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments
Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed
to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012).
4
Appeal2017-009388
Application 14/692,474
These arguments are persuasive. We agree with the Examiner that
Sun teaches determining the initial topography of a bottom surface that can
be divided in a plurality of cells, and calculating the flux between two or
more neighboring cells. Final Act. 5-7 (citing Sun i-fi-122, 72, 95, 97). We
likewise agree with the Examiner that Lai's disclosure of a cell-centered
scheme would complement the bed topography identified in Sun. Id. at 7.
However, we do not agree with the Examiner that USGS's disclosure of
taking actions to minimize artifacts (benches, striations, patches) and editing
digital elevation models (DEMs) (2.2.2), coupled with an edge-matching
process for matching elevation values along common quadrangle edges
(2.2.3), teaches the reconstruction of bed topography to produce a spatially
continuous surface. Id. at 8. At best, Lai's proposed editing of the DEMs,
taken in combination with Sun's identification of initial topography of a
bottom surface, would teach or suggest editing or reconstructing the DEM or
the bed topography of those artifacts. Nonetheless, the proposed
combination would still fall short of teaching that the resulting or edited bed
topography produces a "spatially continuous surface," as claimed. Because
Appellants have shown at least one reversible error in the Examiner's
rejection, we need not reach Appellants' remaining arguments.
Accordingly, we are persuaded or error in the Examiner's rejection of
claim 1.
Because claims 2-9 and 11-21 recite the disputed limitations
discussed above, we do not sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of
those claims for the same reasons provided for claim 1.
5
Appeal2017-009388
Application 14/692,474
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-9 and 11-21.
REVERSED
6