Schlumberger Technology Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 17, 2020

2019003996 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 17, 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.
14/016,420 09/03/2013 David John Rossi IS12.2921-US-NP 6644
48879 7590 09/17/2020
SCHLUMBERGER INFORMATION SOLUTIONS
10001 Richmond Avenue
IP Administration Center of Excellence
HOUSTON, TX 77042
EXAMINER
SAXENA, AKASH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2128
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/17/2020 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 DAVID JOHN ROSSI, RICHARD TORRENS, and ZAKI ALI
________________

Appeal 2019-003996
Application 14/016,420
Technology Center 2100
________________

Before MARC S. HOFF, JASON J. CHUNG, and
MICHAEL T. CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals the Final Rejection
of claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
INVENTION
The invention relates to performing diagnostic of hydrocarbon
production in a field. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is
reproduced below:
1. A method to perform diagnostic of hydrocarbon
production in a field, comprising:

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. According to Appellant, Schlumberger Technology
Solutions is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 4.
Appeal 2019-003996
Application 14/016,420

2
generating a thermal-hydraulic production system model
of a wellsite and a surface facility in the field;
simulating, by a computer processor, using the thermal-
hydraulic production system model, and based on a plurality of
root causes, a hydrocarbon production problem to generate a
plurality of feature vectors corresponding to the plurality of root
causes, wherein each of the plurality of feature vectors comprises
a plurality of parameter values corresponding to a plurality of
physical parameters associated with the hydrocarbon production;
configuring, using the plurality of feature vectors, a
classifier of the hydrocarbon production problem, wherein the
classifier is configured to classify the hydrocarbon production
problem according to the plurality of root causes;
detecting the hydrocarbon production problem in the field;
obtaining surveillance data, wherein the surveillance data
is from the wellsite and the surface facility, and wherein the
surveillance data comprises a plurality of measurements
corresponding to the plurality of physical parameters;
obtaining a plurality of probability density functions,
wherein each of the plurality of probability density functions
represents a probability distribution of measurement noise
associated with one of the plurality of measurements;
generating, by the computer processor, using the classifier,
and in response to detecting the hydrocarbon production
problem, a posterior probability of at least one of the plurality of
root causes by modeling each of the plurality measurements as a
sum of an actual measurement and a measurement noise
represented by a corresponding one of the plurality of probability
density functions;
identifying a root cause of the plurality of root causes
based on the posterior probability of at least one of the plurality
of root causes; and
presenting the root cause to a user.
Appeal Br. 26–27 (Claims Appendix).

Appeal 2019-003996
Application 14/016,420

3
REJECTION2
The Examiner rejects claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Sequeira (US 2010/0206559 A1;
published Aug. 19, 2010), Lafferty (US 2008/0270328 A1; published Oct.
30, 2008), Lee (US 2010/0023307 A1; published Jan. 28, 2010), and Rossi
(US 2011/0144965 A1; published June 16, 2011). Final Act. 9–15.

ANALYSIS
I. Does the Examiner Properly Assess the Differences Among the Cited
Art Considered as a Whole and the Claimed Invention Considered as a
Whole?
The Examiner finds that Lafferty teaches a well’s down hole pressure,
well head temperature, gas injection rate, or any other available data
channel, which the Examiner maps to the limitation “feature vectors” recited
in claims 1, 8, and 15. Final Act. 11 (citing Lafferty ¶ 64); Ans. 5 (citing
Spec. ¶¶ 30–32). The Examiner concludes that a person having ordinary
skill in the art (“PHOSITA”) would have combined Sequeira and Lafferty to
integrate all the data from various sources and provide a pattern recognition
engine to identify various problems. Final Act. 12 (citing Lafferty ¶¶ 61–62;
Sequeira ¶¶ 38–60).
Appellant argues the Examiner does not properly assess the
differences among the cited art and the claims because the Examiner relies
on Sequeira and Lafferty to teach “feature vectors” and fails to provide a
rational basis for why having a model driven feature vector would be

2 The rejection of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is withdrawn. Ans. 3.
Appeal 2019-003996
Application 14/016,420

4
obvious to a PHOSITA. Appeal Br. 20–22; Reply Br. 2–4. We disagree
with Appellant.
As an initial matter, the Examiner relies on paragraph 64 of Lafferty.
Appellant does not rebut Lafferty’s paragraph 64; instead, Appellant rebuts
Lafferty’s paragraph 105 only. Appeal Br. 21. Even if Appellant rebutted
Lafferty’s paragraph 64, Lafferty teaches a well’s down hole pressure, well
head temperature, gas injection rate, or any other available data channel,
which is consistent with Appellant’s Specification and, therefore, teaches the
limitation “feature vectors” recited in claims 1, 8, and 15. Final Act. 11
(citing Lafferty ¶ 64); Ans. 5 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 30–32). Moreover, the
Examiner relies on Sequeira and Lafferty as overlapping teachings of the
limitation “feature vectors”3 and introduced Lafferty because Sequeira does
not teach the configuring step. Final Act. 11.
Furthermore, the Examiner provides a rational basis in concluding that
a PHOSITA would have combined Sequeira and Lafferty to integrate all the
data from various sources and provide a pattern recognition engine to
identify various problems. Final Act. 12 (citing Lafferty ¶¶ 61–62; Sequeira
¶¶ 38–60). We, therefore, conclude the Examiner has set forth sufficient
“articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
Accordingly, Appellant does not persuade us of error in the
Examiner’s findings and conclusions.

3 We need not address whether Sequeira teaches “feature vectors” for the
reasons addressed above in this paragraph.
Appeal 2019-003996
Application 14/016,420

5
II. Does the Examiner Rely on Impermissible Hindsight?
The Examiner concludes a PHOSITA would have combined Sequeira
and Lafferty to integrate all the data from various sources and provide a
pattern recognition engine to identify various problems. Final Act. 12
(citing Lafferty ¶¶ 61–62; Sequeira ¶¶ 38–60).
Appellant argues that the Examiner relies on impermissible hindsight
because the Examiner simply substitutes words from one reference into
another reference. Appeal Br. 22–24. We disagree with Appellant.
Appellant has not provided persuasive evidence that combining the
respective teachings of the references (as concluded by the Examiner —
Final Act. 12 (citing Lafferty ¶¶ 61–62; Sequeira ¶¶ 38–60)) would have
been “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art,”
or that such a combination would have “represented an unobvious step over
the prior art.” Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157,
1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Nor has Appellant provided any objective evidence
of secondary considerations, which, as our reviewing court explains,
“operate[] as a beneficial check on hindsight.” Cheese Sys., Inc. v. Tetra
Pak Cheese & Powder Sys., Inc., 725 F.3d 1341, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2013). In
this case, the Examiner concludes a PHOSITA would have combined
Sequeira and Lafferty to integrate all the data from various sources and
provide a pattern recognition engine to identify various problems. Final Act.
12 (citing Lafferty ¶¶ 61–62; Sequeira ¶¶ 38–60). We, therefore, find the
Examiner has set forth sufficient “articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR Int’l Co.
v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 418 (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988).
Accordingly, Appellant does not persuade us of error in the
Appeal 2019-003996
Application 14/016,420

6
Examiner’s findings and conclusions.
II. Does the Examiner Ignore Claim Limitations?
The Examiner finds Lafferty teaches sand failure in an oil well and
operators are responsible for monitoring these high-value assets, which the
Examiner maps to the limitation “detecting the hydrocarbon production
problem” recited in claims 1 and 15 (and similarly recited in claim 8). Final
Act. 11 (citing Lafferty ¶ 56); Ans. 9 (citing Lafferty ¶ 56).
Appellant argues neither Lafferty nor Lee teach the limitation
“detecting the hydrocarbon production problem.” Appeal Br. 24. We
disagree with Appellant.
In order to rebut a prima facie case of unpatentability, Appellant must
point out the supposed Examiner errors distinctly and specifically, and the
specific distinctions believed to render the claims patentable over the applied
references. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2018) (“A statement which
merely points out what a claim recites will not be considered an argument
for separate patentability of the claim.”); see also 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.”); cf. In re
Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“It is not the
function of this court to examine the claims in greater detail than argued by
an appellant, looking for [patentable] distinctions over the prior art.”).
In this case, Appellant fails to rebut this finding distinctly and
specifically. Even if Appellant rebutted the Examiner’s findings distinctly
and specifically, we find the Examiner’s findings reasonable. In particular,
Appeal 2019-003996
Application 14/016,420

7
the Examiner finds Lafferty teaches sand failure in an oil well and operators
are responsible for monitoring these high-value assets, which teaches the
limitation “detecting the hydrocarbon production problem” recited in claims
1 and 15 (and similarly recited in claim 8). Final Act. 11 (citing Lafferty
¶ 56); Ans. 9 (citing Lafferty ¶ 56).
Accordingly, Appellant does not persuade us of error in the
Examiner’s findings and conclusions. Appellant does not argue claims 1–20
separately with particularity. Appeal Br. 18–24. We, therefore, sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of: (1) independent claims 1, 8, and 15; and
(2) dependent claims 2–7, 9–14, and 16–20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
We have only considered those arguments that Appellant actually
raised in the Briefs. Arguments Appellant could have made, but chose not to
make, in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

CONCLUSION

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). See
37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–20 103 Sequeira, Lafferty,
Lee, Rossi
1–20