DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after December 9, 2016, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In an Amendment filed on July 14, 2025, independent claim 1 was amended.
Claims 1-11, 13-15, and 18-23 are currently pending and under examination, of which claims 1 and 15 are independent claims.
Response to Amendment
In view of the substantive amendments made to independent claim 1, the indefiniteness rejection of claims 2-11, 12, 14, and 18-21 is now withdrawn.
Response to Arguments over Prior Art
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejection of independent claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new cited reference being used in the current rejections in response to the substantive amendments made to the claim. Dependent claims 2-3, 6-11, 13, 14, and 18-21 depend directly, or indirectly, from independent claim 1.
Regarding independent claim 15, on page 9 of the Amendment, it is argued that the cited art does not teach “providing a second pressure transmitter on a wellhead in operational communication with and coupled by piping to the pump equipment assembly;”. The Office respectfully disagrees. Yin explains that the pump may be included in a field of monitoring systems for machinery, thus, the pump may be positioned on or in communication with an oil drilling system including a wellhead. In addition, Stenshorne describes and illustrates pressure sensors in a wellhead section of an oil rig. See Figures 1-3 and corresponding description.
Additional references support that the pressure transmitters at a pump can be one for the pump and another for a monitoring system of a wellhead as provided in Yin. For instance, US Patent Publication No. 2022/0243568 A1 to AlTammar et al. describes in paragraph [0055] “In some embodiments, a hydraulic stimulation manager includes functionality for using collected data to adjust one or more flow rates and/or one or more pressures within a hydraulic stimulation operation. For example, a hydraulic stimulation manager may acquire pressure data (e.g., acquired pressure data Y (172) from wellhead pressure sensors, downhole pressure sensors throughout a wellbore, and local sensors coupled to one or more pumps in a pump system.” US Patent Publication No. 2021/0396223 A1 to Yeung et al. describes in paragraph [0031] “ In an embodiment, for a hydraulic fracturing stage, the blender unit 112 may provide an amount of slurry at a specified flow rate to the hydraulic fracturing pumps 108, the slurry to be discharged by the hydraulic fracturing pumps 108 to the wellhead 110 (as described above).” Paragraph [0037] of Yeung also provides that “The wellhead pressure transducer 128 may be disposed at the wellhead 110 to measure a pressure of the fluid at the wellhead 110. While the manifold pressure transducer 130 may be disposed at the end of the manifold 144 (as shown in FIG. 1), it will be understood by those skilled in the art, that the pressure within the manifold 144 may be substantially the same throughout the entire manifold 144 such that the manifold pressure transducer 130 may be disposed anywhere within the manifold 144 to provide a pressure of the fluid being delivered to the wellhead 110. The hydraulic fracturing pump output pressure transducer 132 may be disposed adjacent an output of one of the hydraulic fracturing pumps 108, which may be in fluid communication with the manifold 144 and thus, the fluid at the output of the hydraulic fracturing pumps 108 may be at substantially the same pressure as the fluid in the manifold 144 and the fluid being provided to the wellhead 110. Each of the hydraulic fracturing pumps 108 may include a hydraulic fracturing pump output pressure transducer 132 and the supervisory controller 124 may determine the fluid pressure provided to the wellhead 110 as an average of the fluid pressure measured by each of the hydraulic fracturing pump output pressure transducers 132.” Thus, the pressure transducers in the pump configuration of Yin placed in a monitoring system of a fracturing unit or oil rig including a wellhead would teach the pressure transducer on a wellhead. It would be reasonable for a person of ordinary skill in the art that a pump including a discharge pressure transducer of Yin can be positioned in any machinery including a wellhead of an oil rig as also evidenced in Stenshorne.
Contrary to the arguments provided on page 9 of the Amendment, submitting that the pressure transducers of Yin do not teach “gathering data readings at two different locations, namely a pump equipment assembly and a wellhead, which are coupled together by piping”, Yin does teach and illustrate that the inlet pressure transducer and the discharge pressure transducer are at two different locations which are coupled together by piping.
Broadly construed, the recitation “suggesting reducing a restriction in the piping as the remedial action; and reducing the restriction in the piping” is taught in Stenshorne. As previously indicated and explained in the Office Action, Stenshorne describes a drilling riser including pumps and pressure sensors operatively connected to the drilling riser to monitor and regulate wellbore pressure. Stenshorne provides in Paragraph [0052] “By using the present invention, the sealing element can be moved to a more relaxed state which would have less damage potential, whilst maintaining the desired pressure in the well. Subsequent to opening the by-pass and relaxing the sealing element, the level in the riser may be further changed to adjust wellbore pressures to assist in remedying the situation. With the presence of the sealing element, that can be rapidly closed, it may be permissible to reduce the downhole pressure further than what would have been permissible without the sealing element in place.” Stenshorne describes in Paragraph [0226] “FIG. 5 shows a riser outlet line 550 (which also can be denoted upper riser suction line), with an outlet from the riser 1 located above the [rotary sealing device] RSD 15. Riser outlet 550 allows the driller to reduce the riser level 505 also when the RSD 15 is in place and the bypass valve 18 is closed.” Stenshorne: Paragraph [0281] (“The level/pressure sensors 29, 30 are used to monitor the pressure both below and above the RSD 15. The allowed pressure variation below the RSD 15 is given by the operational parameters of the well, which prescribes that the pressure in the well must be kept between certain limits, such as the fracturing pressure of the formation and the pore pressure of the formation, with associated safety margins. If the pressure difference across the RSD 15 exceeds a predetermined limit, the level of mud above the RSD 15 is reduced, either by opening the by-pass isolation valve 18 in a controlled (gradual) manner, or by adjusting the RSD to increase the leakage rate until the pressure difference is again below the predetermined limit.” And in Paragraph [0039], Stenshorne describes “When operating in closed mode, the riser pressure, and by continuation the downhole pressure increases due to blockage, wrong operation of equipment or similar. In such a case, the pressure at the casing shoe may get above fracture pressure and the formation may break down, leading to severe losses. To prevent this, the RSD bypass line isolation valve, or the RSD itself if the design allows by reducing pre-load, could be used as a simple choke to allow riser pressure to be released in a controlled fashion prior to breaking down the casing shoe. The accuracy of the choking effect will not be of the quality that can be achieved with a regular drilling choke, but that will be acceptable to the driller as the main objective will be to use the choking effect to avoid breaking down the casing shoe, but to do so in a controlled fashion, rather than quickly releasing pressure, which could have detrimental effects as the pressure could get below pore pressure.”
Thus, Stenshorne teaches “suggesting reducing a restriction in the piping as the remedial action; and reducing the restriction in the piping” and the combination of the cited art teaches the features of independent claim 15.
In view of the foregoing, claims 1-11, 13-15, and 18-23 stand rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103, which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-11, 13, 14, and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being as being unpatentable over Devine et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2014/0379300 A1) (“Devine”) in view of Morman et al. (US Patent No. 5,930,315) (“Morman”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Devine teaches:
A method comprising: Devine: Paragraph [0001] (“…a system and related method for providing in-situ determinations of the performance of at least one pump…”)
providing a measurement device on a pump equipment assembly; Devine: Paragraph [0114] (“As opposed to current pumping systems and according to the herein described system, a plurality of sensors are operatively provided in order to continually monitor and measure specific characteristics of the pump 120. According to this exemplary embodiment, a total of five (5) sensors or measuring devices are disposed within the active circuit of the pump 120, these devices including a power meter 136 that is disposed and connected in relation to the electrical connection line 133 of the pump 120, a flow measuring device 138 disposed in the discharge line 128, a pump motor speed measuring device 142 connected to the output of the pump motor, and a pair of pressure transducers 146, 148 used to monitor the suction and discharge pressures, respectively, relative to the pump 120,…”)
gathering a data reading from the measurement device during operation of the pump equipment assembly; Devine: Paragraph [0114] [As described above.] Devine: Paragraph [0113] (“Referring to FIG. 2, there is set forth a schematic diagram of a pump as configured for operational use in a facility or plant, such as a pumping or processing station, and in which the pump is configured according to an exemplary version of the present pump efficiency/performance system. The pump 120 is a reciprocating type pump, or a centrifugal pump, defined by a housing that retains a plurality of components including a pump motor …”) [The sensors that continually monitor and measure specific characteristics of the pump and pump motor during operational use reads on “gathering a data reading from the measurement device during operation of the pump equipment assembly”.]
evaluating the data reading; Devine: Paragraph [0128] (“Using the above relationships, actual pump efficiency can therefore be determined using measured values for Q, H and kW…”) Devine: Paragraph [0166] (“The processing system is adapted to determine an efficiency indicator indicative of a pump operating efficiency of one or more pumps, and optionally either display the efficiency indicator or alternatively transfer the efficiency indicator or data derived therefrom to a separate remote device for additional processing, analysis or display, or take action such as halting pumping operations or the like. Accordingly, the processing system can include any suitable form of electronic processing system or device that is capable of receiving signals from the sensors and calculating a pumping efficiency.”)
determining that a remedial action needs to be taken to improve the performance of the pump equipment assembly based on the evaluation; … Devine: Paragraph [0118] (“As described herein, the foregoing measured data is used in conjunction with manufacturer-specific data and application-specific data that is stored by the SCADA system 180 to permit determinations of pump efficiency/performance and comparisons to expected pump performance.”)
Devine: Paragraph [0151] (“In one example, the SCADA system 180 is programmed to transmit various alarms/alerts depending on the results per steps 168, 176. For example, an alarm function can be automatically triggered if the value of a specific parameter (i.e., pumpeff or kW(a)) has reached or exceeded the predetermined set point. A further indication is provided in terms of action that the at least one pump may require immediate or imminent attention (e.g., replacement) based on the predetermined set point. Various other action functions step 172, FIG. 3, can be generated in response to calculated values in connection with performance. For example and in multi-pump systems, the action generated by the herein-described system could include a proposed resequencing of the pumps used for purposes of optimization of various pump running sequences. For example and if the calculated actual pump efficiency drops below a first predetermined set point, then in addition to an alarm/alert, a maintenance alert is generated automatically as well as a cost estimate of the inefficiency. If the calculated efficiency drops below a second lower predetermined set point, the pump 120 is automatically taken off line and a back-up or lag pump (not shown) is introduced.”) [The generated term or actions that may be required, other action functions and/or the resequencing of the pumps based on the comparison reads on “determining that a remedial action needs to be taken to improve the performance of the pump equipment assembly based on the evaluation”.]
Devine does not expressly teach “identifying an operational problem based on the evaluation; and suggesting one of the following remedial actions to the identified operational problem: removing a scale buildup on the pump equipment assembly, repairing or replacing a flow meter on the pump equipment assembly, repairing or replacing a bearing on the pump equipment assembly, and realigning at least a portion of the pump equipment assembly; and; and correcting the identified operational problem based on the suggested remedial action”. However, Morman describes a process management expert system where following malfunctioning of a component, such as a pump, for determining system realignment procedures such as for by-passing the malfunctioning component with on-line speeds to maintain operation of the process at full or partial capacity or to provide safe shut down of the system while isolating the malfunctioning component.
…identifying an operational problem based on the evaluation; and Morman: Column 3, lines 65-67 (“The detection and diagnosis system identifies a failed component type (mass, momentum, energy, e.g., pump, valve, heat exchanger) and its location in the plant system.”) Morman: Column 5, lines 16-20 (“1. A malfunction is signaled at step 20 by PRODIAG, or the fault detection diagnosis system, which identifies it by function type (mass, momentum or energy), loop location and, if possible, a specific component (or list of possible fault components).”)
suggesting one of the following remedial actions to the identified operational problem: removing a scale buildup on the pump equipment assembly, repairing or replacing a flow meter on the pump equipment assembly, repairing or replacing a bearing on the pump equipment assembly, and realigning at least a portion of the pump equipment assembly; and Morman: Column 3, lines 65-67 [As described above.] Morman: Column 4, lines 10-18 (“Using a modular interface to the process plant schematics, the structure of the loop with the failed component is defined by an ordered list of its components. The loops may be closed or open, and connect to other loops at junctions or tanks. Using the loop structure, the transient management module of the present invention searches for replacement components of the same function type within the affected loop. If a replacement component is identified, the program calculates (using a database or simulation routine) the capacity of the reconfigured loop to determine if it matches the thermal-hydraulic parameters of the original loop.”) Morman: Column 5, lines 36-49 (“4. If a component of the same type is found at step 26, the program branches to Subroutine A at step 28 to check the parameters of the loop with the replacement component. Subroutine A is described in detail below with reference to FIG. 2. If any of the tests in Subroutine A fail, control is returned to the main module shown in FIG. 1. 5. If there are more components in the faulty loop, the search continues at step 30, repeatedly calling Subroutine A when a component of the same function type is found. This continues until a satisfactory replacement component is found, or until no more components of that type remain in the affected loop.”) Morman: Column 13, lines 14-32 (“This knowledge base is then used to produce possible realignments of component configurations in the process system to respond to the T-H function imbalance caused by the malfunctioning component. Using the junction connectivity information in the system Piping and Instrumentation Diagram (PID) database, a component-to-component linkage search is performed using the CCD component attributes and process objectives as constraints to produce the possible component realignments. The search algorithm is governed by the IF-THEN rules of the Physical Rules Database (PRD), which is based upon first principles conservation of mass, momentum and energy so that qualitatively T-H fundamental principles are satisfied for the new system configurations. Each realignment to a new configuration produces the accompanying sequence of recommended operator actions.”)
correcting the identified operational problem based on the suggested remedial action. Morman: Column 4, lines 10-18 (“Using a modular interface to the process plant schematics, the structure of the loop with the failed component is defined by an ordered list of its components. The loops may be closed or open, and connect to other loops at junctions or tanks. Using the loop structure, the transient management module of the present invention searches for replacement components of the same function type within the affected loop. If a replacement component is identified, the program calculates (using a database or simulation routine) the capacity of the reconfigured loop to determine if it matches the thermal-hydraulic parameters of the original loop.”) Morman: Column 5, lines 36-49 (“4. If a component of the same type is found at step 26, the program branches to Subroutine A at step 28 to check the parameters of the loop with the replacement component. Subroutine A is described in detail below with reference to FIG. 2. If any of the tests in Subroutine A fail, control is returned to the main module shown in FIG. 1. 5. If there are more components in the faulty loop, the search continues at step 30, repeatedly calling Subroutine A when a component of the same function type is found. This continues until a satisfactory replacement component is found, or until no more components of that type remain in the affected loop.”) Morman: Column 10, lines 54-57 (“(4) Once the list of components serviced by the malfunctioning Qmom is available, it is prioritized by the importance of the T-H function of the components; Qeng components are the most important components.”) [The servicing of the of the malfunctioned component and/or the reconfigured loop of the replacement components reads on “correcting the identified operational problem based on the suggested solution”.]
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Devine and Saidman before them, for identifying an operational problem based on the evaluation; and suggesting one of the following remedial actions to the identified operational problem: removing a scale buildup on the pump equipment assembly, repairing or replacing a flow meter on the pump equipment assembly, repairing or replacing a bearing on the pump equipment assembly, and realigning at least a portion of the pump equipment assembly; and correcting the identified operational problem based on the suggested remedial action because the references are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and they are focused on pump operation.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to do this modification because it would allow to automatically determine the optimum recovery actions and configuration state of an operating system following a component malfunction in the system and provide rapid on-line process management of an operating system following the malfunction of a component within the system by selecting new system operating configurations to maintain system operation at full, or partial, capacity, or to safely shut down the system. Morman Column 2, lines 13-30.
Regarding claim 2, Devine and Morman teach all the claimed features of claim 1, from which claim 2 depends. Devine further teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the evaluating step comprises:
comparing the data reading to an ideal reading or to an ideal range of readings. Devine: Paragraph [0150] (“Actual pump efficiency can then be calculated, per step 158, using the relation set forth at (8), Pumpeff( a ) = Q × H × SpGr/ c × kW( a ) × Motoreff, in which the measured values for flow (Q), kW(a) and H (as converted to an Input 155) can be added along with the stored values for SpGr, Motoreff, and c the unit conversion factor. This calculated value can then be compared, as described previously in regard to the published pump efficiency value or alternatively to a predetermined set point, which is stored by the SCADA system 180 per step 160.”) [The predetermine set point reads on “an ideal reading”.]
Regarding claim 3, Devine and Morman teach all the claimed features of claim 1, from which claim 3 depends. Devine further teaches:
The method of claim 2, wherein the ideal reading or the ideal range of readings is determined based on a pump curve. Devine: Paragraph [0018] (“According to one exemplary version of the system, the pump's operating point can be compared against the pump manufacturer's published pump curve.”) Devine: Paragraph [0141] (“Using the above relationships, published pump efficiency can therefore be determined by referencing published pump performance curves that define the relationship between Pumpeff(p) and N at various flow and head conditions.”) Devine: Paragraph [0119] (“For purposes of this embodiment, the manufacturer-specific data relating to the pump 120 that is entered manually into the microprocessor of the SCADA system 180 includes the published pump efficiency (Pumpeff(p), the latter of which is measured as a function of pump speed, pump performance curves (head vs. flow, entered as tabular data or a polynomial function), and the pump motor efficiency (Motoreff), for specific applications. As noted, application-specific data is also manually entered into the non-volatile memory of the SCADA system 180, including the specific gravity of the pumped fluid (SpGr). Optionally, other application-specific data, such as the cost of power ($/kWh) and various system curve data, can also be stored for use to be utilized in conjunction with the measured pump-related parameter data obtained from the monitoring devices 136, 138, 142, 146, 148, depending on the application.”) [The various flow and head conditions of the manufacturer’s pump curve read on “the ideal reading or the ideal range of readings is determined based on a pump curve”.]
Regarding claim 4, Devine and Morman teach all the claimed features of claim 2, from which claim 4 depends. Devine further teaches:
The method of claim 2, wherein the ideal reading or the ideal range of readings is determined based on manufacturer specifications. Devine: Paragraph [0118] (“As described herein, the foregoing measured data is used in conjunction with manufacturer-specific data and application-specific data that is stored by the SCADA system 180 to permit determinations of pump efficiency/performance and comparisons to expected pump performance.”)
Regarding claim 5, Devine and Morman teach all the claimed features of claim 2, from which claim 5 depends. Devine further teaches:
The method of claim 2, wherein the evaluating step further comprises:
calculating the percent difference between the data reading and the ideal reading or the ideal range of readings. Devine: Paragraph [0118] (“The pump-related parameters that are continually monitored according to this exemplary system version are Q (flow) as measured by the flow measuring device 138, H (Head or ΔP) as measured by the pressure measuring devices 146, 148, pump motor speed (N) as measured by the pump speed measuring device 142 and power consumption (kW) as measured by the power meter 136. According to this version, information is continually or periodically collected by each of the disposed devices and transmitted on a periodic basis or on demand by the controller 152 or alternatively by the SCADA system 180. As described herein, the foregoing measured data is used in conjunction with manufacturer-specific data and application-specific data that is stored by the SCADA system 180 to permit determinations of pump efficiency/performance and comparisons to expected pump performance.”) [The measured data reads on “the data reading” and the manufactured specific data reads on “the ideal reading”. The determination of the pump efficiency reads on “calculating the percent difference”.]
Regarding claim 6, Devine and Morman teach all the claimed features of claim 5, from which claim 6 depends. Devine further teaches:
The method of claim 5, wherein the determining step comprises:
deciding that the remedial action needs to be taken based on a magnitude of the calculated percent difference. Devine: Paragraph [0118] [As described above.] Devine: Paragraph [0020] (“Hierarchically and if the pump's efficiency drops below a predetermined percentage according to one version, a warning alarm and maintenance work order can be automatically generated as well as a cost estimate relating to the inefficiency. Alternatively, an alert message can be generated by the SCADA system in lieu of a work order. If efficiency falls below a second predetermined percentage, the pump is automatically taken out of service and a back-up or lag pump can be brought into use.”)
Regarding claim 7, Devine and Morman teach all the claimed features of claim 2, from which claim 7 depends. Devine further teaches:
The method of claim 2, wherein the evaluating step further comprises:
grading the data reading based on the comparison. Devine: Paragraph [0020] (“Hierarchically and if the pump's efficiency drops below a predetermined percentage according to one version, a warning alarm and maintenance work order can be automatically generated as well as a cost estimate relating to the inefficiency. Alternatively, an alert message can be generated by the SCADA system in lieu of a work order. If efficiency falls below a second predetermined percentage, the pump is automatically taken out of service and a back-up or lag pump can be brought into use.”) Devine: Paragraph [0151] (“In one example, the SCADA system 180 is programmed to transmit various alarms/alerts depending on the results per steps 168, 176. For example, an alarm function can be automatically triggered if the value of a specific parameter (i.e., pumpeff or kW(a)) has reached or exceeded the predetermined set point… Various other action functions step 172, FIG. 3, can be generated in response to calculated values in connection with performance... For example and if the calculated actual pump efficiency drops below a first predetermined set point, then in addition to an alarm/alert, a maintenance alert is generated automatically as well as a cost estimate of the inefficiency. If the calculated efficiency drops below a second lower predetermined set point, the pump 120 is automatically taken off line and a back-up or lag pump (not shown) is introduced.”) [In response to the efficiency level being below a first percentage or below a first predetermined set point sending an alarm/alert and, in contrast, in response to the efficiency level being below a second percentage or below a second predetermined set point taking the pump off line reads on “grading the data”.]
Regarding claim 8, Devine and Morman teach all the claimed features of claim 7, from which claim 8 depends. Devine further teaches:
The method of claim 7, wherein the determining step comprises:
deciding that the remedial action needs to be taken based on the grade. Devine: Paragraphs [0020] and [0151] [As described in claim 7.] [Either transmitting an alarm/alert or taking pump off line depending on the percentage or predetermine set point level reads on “deciding that the remedial action need to be taken based on the grade”.]
Regarding claim 9, Devine and Morman teach all the claimed features of claim 7, from which claim 9 depends. Devine further teaches:
The method of claim 7, wherein the grading comprises confirming that the data reading meets expectations, or is in a warning stage, or is in an alarm stage. Devine: Paragraphs [0020] and [0151] [As described in claim 7.] [The alert reads on “a warning stage” and the alarm reads on “an alarm stage”.]
Regarding claim 10, Devine and Morman teach all the claimed features of claim 1, from which claim 10 depends. Devine further teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the evaluating step comprises:
comparing the data reading to a historical measured data reading; and identifying whether the pump equipment assembly is declining in performance based on the comparison. Devine: Paragraph [0018] (“In one version, the said processing system includes a programmable logic controller (PLC) that is programmed to receive each of the separate inputs from the above-noted sensors and to transmit the signals to the facility's existing SCADA system. The collected data is then analyzed and processed to determine the at least one pump's efficiency. According to one exemplary version of the system, the pump's operating point can be compared against the pump manufacturer's published pump curve. At predetermined intervals, the pump efficiency can further be trended based on historical data that has been previously collected, stored and processed.”) Devine: Paragraph [0020] (“Hierarchically and if the pump's efficiency drops below a predetermined percentage according to one version, a warning alarm and maintenance work order can be automatically generated as well as a cost estimate relating to the inefficiency. Alternatively, an alert message can be generated by the SCADA system in lieu of a work order. If efficiency falls below a second predetermined percentage, the pump is automatically taken out of service and a back-up or lag pump can be brought into use.”)
Regarding claim 11, Devine and Morman teach all the claimed features of claim 1, from which claim 11 depends. Devine further teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the evaluating step comprises:
using the data reading to calculate a power cost associated with operation of the pump equipment assembly. Devine: Paragraph [0119] (“Optionally, other application-specific data, such as the cost of power ($/kWh) and various system curve data, can also be stored for use to be utilized in conjunction with the measured pump-related parameter data obtained from the monitoring devices 136, 138, 142, 146, 148, depending on the application.”) Devine: Paragraph [0120] [See Table 1] Devine: Paragraph [0151] (“For example and if the calculated actual pump efficiency drops below a first predetermined set point, then in addition to an alarm/alert, a maintenance alert is generated automatically as well as a cost estimate of the inefficiency.”)
Regarding claim 13, Devine and Morman teach all the claimed features of claim 1, from which claim 13 depends. Devine further teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the providing of the measurement device on the pump equipment assembly comprises providing one of the following: a pressure transmitter, a flow meter, and a vibration transmitter. Devine: Paragraph [0114] (“… sensors or measuring devices are disposed within the active circuit of the pump 120, these devices including a power meter 136 …, a flow measuring device 138 …, a pump motor speed measuring device 142 …, and a pair of pressure transducers 146, 148 used to monitor the suction and discharge pressures, respectively, relative to the pump 120…”)
Regarding claim 14, Devine and Morman teach all the claimed features of claim 1, from which claim 14 depends. Devine further teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the gathering of the data reading from the measurement device comprises gathering one of the following: a pump intake pressure, a pump discharge pressure, a flowrate, and a thrust chamber vibration. Devine: Paragraph [0114] (“… sensors or measuring devices are disposed within the active circuit of the pump 120, these devices including a power meter 136 …, a flow measuring device 138 …, a pump motor speed measuring device 142 …, and a pair of pressure transducers 146, 148 used to monitor the suction and discharge pressures, respectively, relative to the pump 120…”)
Regarding claim 18, Devine and Morman teach all the claimed features of claim 1, from which claim 18 depends. Devine further teaches:
The method of claim 1,
wherein the gathering step and the evaluating step are performed by a computer-based system operatively coupled to the measurement device. Devine: Paragraph [0116] (“The monitoring devices 136, 138, 142, 146, 148 can be hard-wired to the controller 152 or can alternatively be linked by means of a suitable wireless connection, such as using IEEE 802.11 Standard, Bluetooth, Zigbee or other suitable linkage via an access point (not shown) provided in the facility 100. The controller 152 is configured with sufficient volatile and non-volatile memory for the storage of collected data, as well as a contained microprocessor (not shown). The controller 152 is programmed to receive input from each of the devices 136, 138, 142, 146 and 148 on a periodic basis for transmission to the facility's Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system 180, the latter having a microprocessor programmed with sufficient logic in accordance with the present system in order to calculate pump efficiency/performance, as described herein.”) [The controller and the SCADA system read on “a computer-based system”.]
Regarding claim 19, Devine and Morman teach all the claimed features of claim 18, from which claim 19 depends. Devine further teaches:
The method of claim 18, wherein the gathering step is selectively performed in real time or periodically. Devine: Paragraph [0116] [As described in claim 18.] Devine: Paragraph [0110] (“The following description relates to an exemplary embodiment of a system and related method used to determine pump efficiency/performance in real time. A single generic pumping system/application is described for purposes of this exemplary embodiment, but it will be readily understood that this system and related method is applicable to literally any form of pumping system in which various characteristics of a single or multiple-pump systems pumping incompressible fluid can be measured in situ and in which overall efficiencies of at least one pump of the facility can be determined in real time or periodically.”) Devine: Paragraph [0144] (“Moreover, the monitoring devices do not necessarily require the ability to continually monitor each of the pump-related parameters, provided that measured values can be collected for transmission to the controller 152 on either a periodic basis or alternatively on demand. More specifically and in the current system, the input signal results, shown collectively as 155 in FIG. 3 are transmitted from the controller 152 to the SCADA system 180. This transmission can take place over a wired connection, or wirelessly, wherein the data can be transmitted every 15-30 minutes or other predetermined timeframe.”)
Regarding claim 20, Devine and Morman teach all the claimed features of claim 18, from which claim 20 depends. Devine further teaches:
The method of claim 18,
wherein the computer-based system comprises a local computer and a central computer operatively coupled by a communication network; Devine: Paragraph [0116] (“The monitoring devices 136, 138, 142, 146, 148 can be hard-wired to the controller 152 or can alternatively be linked by means of a suitable wireless connection, such as using IEEE 802.11 Standard, Bluetooth, Zigbee or other suitable linkage via an access point (not shown) provided in the facility 100. The controller 152 is configured with sufficient volatile and non-volatile memory for the storage of collected data, as well as a contained microprocessor (not shown). The controller 152 is programmed to receive input from each of the devices 136, 138, 142, 146 and 148 on a periodic basis for transmission to the facility's Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system 180, the latter having a microprocessor programmed with sufficient logic in accordance with the present system in order to calculate pump efficiency/performance, as described herein.”)
wherein the gathering step is performed by the local computer that transmits the data reading to the central computer via the communication network; and Devine: Paragraph [0139] (“The controller 966 receives the process variable measurement signals from the atmospheric pressure sensor 944, the suction pressure sensor 924, the discharge pressure sensor 940, the flow sensor 938, the temperature sensor 942, the speed sensor 946, the vibration sensor 948, the power sensor 954, and other process sensors 941, together with the setpoint 910, and provides the control signal 964 to the motor drive 960 in order to operate the pump system 902 commensurate with the setpoint 910 within specified operating limits. In this regard, the controller 966 may be adapted to control the system 902 to maintain a desired fluid flow rate, outlet pressure, motor (pump) speed, torque, suction pressure, or other performance characteristic.”)
wherein the evaluating step is performed by the central computer. Devine: Paragraph [0116] [As described above.]
Regarding claim 21, Devine and Morman teach all the claimed features of claim 20, from which claim 21 depends. Devine further teaches:
The method of claim 20,
wherein the local computer selectively transmits the data reading in real time or periodically. Devine: Paragraphs [0110] and [0144] [As described in claim 19.] Devine: Paragraph [0116] [As described in claim 20.]
Claims 15 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being as being unpatentable over Yin et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2014/0255215 A1) (“Yin”) in view of Stenshorne et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2024/0044216 A1) (“Stenshorne”).
Regarding independent claim 15, Yin teaches:
A method comprising: Yin: Paragraph [0025] (“Referring to FIG. 7, a flow diagram illustrating an exemplary method of operating the pump 2 in accordance with the present disclosure is shown.”)
providing a pressure transmitter on a pump equipment assembly; Yin: Paragraph [0019] (“The system 1 may include a variety of sensors mounted at appropriate locations throughout the pump 2. For example, the sensors may include a cavitation pressure transducer 4, a discharge pressure transducer 6, an inlet pressure transducer 8,…”) [The inlet pressure transducer 8 reads on “a pressure transmitter”.]
gathering a data reading from the pressure transmitter during operation of the pump equipment assembly; Yin: Paragraph [0032] (“At step 160 of the method, one or more actual operating parameters may be determined, such as by direct measurement by the sensors 4, by calculation based on measured parameters, or by calculation based on a combination of measured and known parameters. For example, with regard to directly measured parameters, actual inlet and discharge pump pressures may be directly measured, such as by the inlet and discharge pressure transducers 6 and 8 described above.”)
providing a second pressure transmitter on a wellhead in operational communication with and coupled by piping to the pump equipment assembly; Yin: Paragraph [0019] [As described above.][The discharge pressure transducer 6 reads on “a second pressure transmitter”. FIG. 1 illustrates the discharge pressure transducer 6 coupled by piping to the pump system 1.]
gathering a second data reading from the second pressure transmitter on the wellhead during operation of the pump equipment assembly; Yin: Paragraph [0032] [As described above.]
calculating a difference between the data reading and the second data reading; Yin: Paragraph [0033] (“With regard to calculated actual operating parameters, an actual differential pump pressure may be calculated, such as by the processor 32, as the difference between the actual inlet and discharge pressures. A cavitation severity level may be calculated … the difference between the discharge pump pressure and the inlet pump pressure.”) Yin: Paragraph [0034] (“The actual pump pressures (i.e. inlet, discharge, and differential) may be compared to the predefined pump and system pressure limits.”)
determining that a remedial action needs to be taken based on a magnitude of the calculated difference; Yin: Paragraphs [0033] and [0034] [As described above.] Yin: Paragraph [0035] (“At step 180 of the method, if it was determined in step 170 that any of the actual operating parameters relating to the pump 2 did not fall within the corresponding, predefined system and pump limits, a second, corrected actuator control Y′c signal (i.e. corrected relative to the first actuator control signal Yc) may be calculated that is intended to drive the pump 2 in a manner that brings the actual operating parameters within the predefined system and pump limits. Particularly, Y′c may be calculated as a function of the processing targets (described above), the predefined system and pump limits, and the first actuator control signal Yc.”)
Yin does not expressly teach “suggesting reducing a restriction in the piping as the remedial action; and reducing the restriction in the piping.” However, Stenshorne describes a pump arrangement. Stenshorne teaches:
suggesting reducing a restriction in the piping as the remedial action; and reducing the restriction in the piping. Stenshorne: Paragraph [0052] (“By using the present invention, the sealing element can be moved to a more relaxed state which would have less damage potential, whilst maintaining the desired pressure in the well. Subsequent to opening the by-pass and relaxing the sealing element, the level in the riser may be further changed to adjust wellbore pressures to assist in remedying the situation. With the presence of the sealing element, that can be rapidly closed, it may be permissible to reduce the downhole pressure further than what would have been permissible without the sealing element in place.”) Stenshorne: Paragraph [0226] (“FIG. 5 shows a riser outlet line 550 (which also can be denoted upper riser suction line), with an outlet from the riser 1 located above the [rotary sealing device] RSD 15. Riser outlet 550 allows the driller to reduce the riser level 505 also when the RSD 15 is in place and the bypass valve 18 is closed.”) Stenshorne: Paragraph [0281] (“The level/pressure sensors 29, 30 are used to monitor the pressure both below and above the RSD 15. The allowed pressure variation below the RSD 15 is given by the operational parameters of the well, which prescribes that the pressure in the well must be kept between certain limits, such as the fracturing pressure of the formation and the pore pressure of the formation, with associated safety margins. If the pressure difference across the RSD 15 exceeds a predetermined limit, the level of mud above the RSD 15 is reduced, either by opening the by-pass isolation valve 18 in a controlled (gradual) manner, or by adjusting the RSD to increase the leakage rate until the pressure difference is again below the predetermined limit.”) Stenshorne: Paragraph [0309] (“When operating in closed mode, the riser pressure, and by continuation the downhole pressure increases due to blockage, wrong operation of equipment or similar. In such a case, the pressure at the casing shoe may get above fracture pressure and the formation may break down, leading to severe losses. To prevent this, the RSD bypass line isolation valve, or the RSD itself if the design allows by reducing pre-load, could be used as a simple choke to allow riser pressure to be released in a controlled fashion prior to breaking down the casing shoe. The accuracy of the choking effect will not be of the quality that can be achieved with a regular drilling choke, but that will be acceptable to the driller as the main objective will be to use the choking effect to avoid breaking down the casing shoe, but to do so in a controlled fashion, rather than quickly releasing pressure, which could have detrimental effects as the pressure could get below pore pressure.”) [The adjustment of the by-pass isolation valve or the RSD (the sealing element) based on the reads on “reducing a restriction”.]
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Yin and Stenshorne before them, for suggesting reducing a restriction in the piping as the remedial action; and reducing the restriction in the piping because the references are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and they are focused on pump operation.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to do this modification to reduce or control pressure levels and to maintain the correct downhole pressure with zero flow down a pipe. Stenshorne Paragraph [0069] and Paragraph [0281]
Regarding claim 22, Yin and Stenshorne teach all the claimed features of claim 15, from which claim 22 depends. Yin further teaches:
The method of claim 15,
wherein the gathering steps and the calculating step are performed by a computer-based system operatively coupled to the pressure transmitter and the second pressure transmitter. Yin: Paragraph [0020] (“FIG. 4 shows the system 1 including a controller 28 operatively coupled to the pump 2 via communications link 30. The controller 28 may be any suitable type of controller, including, but not limited to, a proportional-integral-derivative (PID) controller or a programmable logic controller (PLC). The communications link 30 is shown generically connected to the pump 2, but it will be appreciated that in practical application the communications link 30 may be coupled to the individual sensors 4, as well as to an electric actuator (not shown) that drives the pump 2 in response to an actuator control signal generated by the controller 28. The individual sensors 4 may send signals to controller 28 that are representative of one or more operating conditions of the pump 2. The controller 28 may include a processor 32 that executes software instructions for determining, from the received signals, whether the one or more operating conditions are within normal or desired limits, and for modifying the actuator control signal accordingly, as described in greater detail below.”) [The controller reads on “a computer-based system”.]
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yin, in view of Stenshorne, and further in view of Devine.
Regarding claim 23, Yin and Stenshorne teach all the claimed features of claim 22, from which claim 23 depends. Yin and Stenshorne do not expressly teach the features of claim 23, however, Devine teaches:
The method of claim 22, wherein the computer-based system comprises a local computer and a central computer operatively coupled by a communication network; Devine: Paragraph [0116] (“The monitoring devices 136, 138, 142, 146, 148 can be hard-wired to the controller 152 or can alternatively be linked by means of a suitable wireless connection, such as using IEEE 802.11 Standard, Bluetooth, Zigbee or other suitable linkage via an access point (not shown) provided in the facility 100. The controller 152 is configured with sufficient volatile and non-volatile memory for the storage of collected data, as well as a contained microprocessor (not shown). The controller 152 is programmed to receive input from each of the devices 136, 138, 142, 146 and 148 on a periodic basis for transmission to the facility's Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system 180, the latter having a microprocessor programmed with sufficient logic in accordance with the present system in order to calculate pump efficiency/performance, as described herein.”)
wherein the gathering steps are performed by the local computer that transmits the data reading and the second data reading to the central computer via the communication networks; and Devine: Paragraph [0139] (“The controller 966 receives the process variable measurement signals from the atmospheric pressure sensor 944, the suction pressure senso