13625550 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 12, 2017)

Ex Parte Taylor

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 12, 2017

13625550 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 12, 2017)

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. 13/625,550 09/24/2012 Stewart Thomas Taylor IS 11,0700-US-NP 1039 48879 7590 09/14/2017 SCHLUMBERGER INFORMATION SOLUTIONS 10001 Richmond Avenue IP Administration Center of Excellence HOUSTON, TX 77042 EXAMINER MICHENER, BLAKE E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3676 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/14/2017 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): U S Docketing @ sib. com jalverson@slb.com SMarckesoni@slb.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte STEWART THOMAS TAYLOR Appeal 2016-007763 Application 13/625,550 Technology Center 3600 Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, MARKNAGUMO, and JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—7, 9-15, and 17—22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 We cite to the Specification (“Spec.”) filed September 24, 2012; Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) dated August 5, 2015; Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) dated December 29, 2015; Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) dated June 24, 2016; and Appellant’s Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) dated August 16, 2016. 2 Appellant is Applicant, Schlumberger Technology Corporation, which, according to the Appeal Brief, also is the real party in interest. App. Br. 2. Appeal 2016-007763 Application 13/625,550 BACKGROUND The subject matter on appeal relates to seismic monitoring of a hydraulic fracture operation. Spec. H 5, 23. Hydraulic fracturing involves injecting fracturing fluid into a wellbore to initiate and extend cracks (fractures) in a subsurface formation to release trapped hydrocarbons. Id. H 1,2. As fractures develop, seismic events create seismic waves that may be received by sensors. Id. 142. Fractures containing hydrocarbons impact the spectral attributes of seismic waves passing through them. Id. 124. By selecting and analyzing seismic wave data that pertains to seismic events having wave fields determined to have passed through induced fractures, such as events located on the far side of a fracture treatment zone relative to the sensors, hydrocarbon content for the fracture zone may be predicted. Id. 45, 48, 52, 53. Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief as follows, with emphasis added to highlight the key recitation in dispute (some formatting provided): 1. A method comprising: receiving, by a computer processor, seismic data from a seismic sensor, wherein the seismic sensor is positioned proximate to a wellbore traversing a subterranean formation; selecting, by the computer processor, a subset of the seismic data comprising data of interest pertaining to one or more seismic events having wave fields that passed though [sic] fractures induced by a hydraulic fracture operation; determining, by the computer processor, a spectral estimate of the data of interest; comparing, by the computer processor, the spectral estimate of the data of interest to a predicted spectral estimate stored upon a computer database coupled to the processor; generating, by the computer processor, an estimated hydrocarbon content for at least a portion of the subterranean formation using the comparison; and 2 Appeal 2016-007763 Application 13/625,550 displaying, by the computer processor, the estimated hydrocarbon content on a graphic user interface. Claims 5 and 14 also are written in independent form and include essentially the same recitation highlighted above in claim 1. Each of the remaining claims depends from claim 1, 5, or 14. REJECTIONS The Examiner maintains the following ground of rejection:3 Claims 1—7, 9—15, and 17—22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Leaney4 and Wentland.5 DISCUSSION Relevant to Appellant’s arguments on appeal, the Examiner finds that Leaney discloses receiving seismic data by a computer processor and “selecting, by the computer processor, a subset of the seismic data comprising data of interest pertaining to one or more seismic events having wave fields that passed through fractures induced by a hydraulic fracture operation.” Final Act. 5. The Examiner relies on paragraphs 52—54, 87, and 88 in Leaney as evidence in support of that finding. Appellant argues that the cited passages in Leaney fail to disclose selection of data pertaining to seismic events having wave fields that passed through induced fractures. App. Br. 4—8. Particularly, Appellant contends that paragraphs 52—54 in Leaney describe processing microseismic 3 Final Act. 4—11; Ans. 3—14. A rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112 is withdrawn. Ans. 2. 4 US 2009/0010104 Al, published January 8, 2009 (“Leaney”). 5 US 2004/0210547 Al, published October 21, 2004 (“Wentland”). 3 Appeal 2016-007763 Application 13/625,550 waveforms “but do not include any teaching or suggestion of selecting data from the microseismic waveforms.” Id. at 5. Likewise, concerning Leaney’s paragraphs 87 and 88, Appellant contends that Leaney discloses “creating and sensing microseismic events, and receiving microseismic waveforms that are used to detect and locate the microseismic events,” but “they do not mention selecting data.'” Id. at 6. The Examiner does not dispute Appellant’s reading of Leaney. See Final Act. 2—3; Ans. 15. Rather, the Examiner posits that the recited selection of a data subset is met by conventional filtering of raw data received in Leaney’s disclosed process, which purportedly would have been required to remove interfering noise. Final Act. 2—3; see also Ans. 15 (“[T]he examiner has interpreted this step as amounting to conventional filtering or ‘pre-processing’ of raw seismic data to produce usable data and/or differentiate the desired data from undesired data/noise.”). Appellant’s claims require selecting a data subset which pertains to seismic events having wave fields that passed though fractures induced by a hydraulic fracture operation. The Examiner fails to present evidence or technical reasoning to explain how conventional filtering of data would necessarily involve selection of such a data subset. Nor does the Examiner point to any evidence of record that provides a reason to select a data subset comprising seismic wave fields have passed through induced fractures in a fracture zone. For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that Leaney discloses selecting a subset of the seismic data comprising data of interest pertaining to one or more seismic events having wave fields that passed through fractures induced by a hydraulic fracture 4 Appeal 2016-007763 Application 13/625,550 operation. The Examiner’s reliance on Wentland concerning other aspects of the claims does not cure above-identified deficiency. We do not sustain the Rejection. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—7, 9—15, and 17—22 is reversed. REVERSED 5