Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 07/31/2025 has been entered. As directed, claims 1, 5 and 15-16 have been amended, no claim is canceled or added. Thus claims 1, 5, 7-11 and 13-20 remain pending in the application. The applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every rejection under 35 U.S.C 112(a) and 112(b) previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 07/10/2025. However, new 112(b) has been made based on the amendment.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the Applicant’s argued rejection under 35 U.S.C 101 in “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment,”:
Applicant argues:
… the interpretation of claim 1 as directed to a mathematical concept is an overbroad characterization of claim 1 that fails to consider the claim as a whole. Indeed, Applicant respectfully submits that the claimed invention cannot be performed by a set of human operators or in the human mind. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (II)(A).
Instead, the claimed invention recites an improved method performed by structured components (e.g., a "narrow beam gamma densitometer") that perform operations in the real world and have tangible and measurable impacts on the real world and simultaneously improve the functioning of the associated computing devices. Indeed, Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 is directed to an improvement to a technological process. Enfish and its progeny describe that "a technological solution to a technological problem" is directed to patent-eligible subject matter. SRI Int'l, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 930 F.3d 1295, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2019); see also Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("Software can make non-abstract improvements to computer technology just as hardware improvements can."). In Core Wireless, the Federal Circuit explains:
The asserted claims in this case are directed to an improved user interface for computing devices, not to the abstract idea of an index. .. . Although the generic idea of summarizing information certainly existed prior to the invention, these claims are directed to a particular manner of summarizing and presenting information in electronic devices. Claim 1 of the '476 patent requires "an application summary that can be reached directly from the menu," specifying a particular manner by which the summary window must be accessed. The claim further requires the application summary window list a limited set of data, "each of the data in the list being selectable to launch the respective application and enable the selected data to be seen within the respective application." This claim limitation restrains the type of data that can be displayed in the summary window. Finally, the claim recites that the summary window "is displayed while the one or more applications are in an un-launched state," a requirement that the device applications exist in a particular state. These limitations disclose a specific manner of displaying a limited set of information to the user, rather than using conventional user interface methods to display a generic index on a computer. Like the improved systems claimed in Enfish, Thales, Visual Memory, and Finjan, these claims recite a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in an improved user interface for electronic devices.
Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 880 F.3d 1356, 1362-63 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Thus, claims that are directed to a "specific manner" of performing an action are not directed to an abstract concept.
In Thales Visionix Inc. v.U.S., the Federal Circuit held that a specific arrangement of sensors and processing of the sensor data was patent eligible. 850 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The Federal Circuit explained that the
claims [at issue] specify a particular configuration of inertial sensors and a particular method of using the raw data from the sensors in order to more accurately calculate the position and orientation of an object on a moving platform. The mathematical equations are a consequence of the arrangement of the sensors and the unconventional choice of reference frame in order to calculate position and orientation. Far from claiming the equations themselves, the claims seek to protect only the application of physics to the unconventional configuration of sensors as disclosed. As such, these claims are not directed to an abstract idea and thus the claims survive Alice step one.
Id. at 1349. See also M.P.E.P. § 2106.04(a)(2) ("A claim does not recite a mathematical concept (i.e., the claim limitations do not fall within the mathematical concept grouping), if it is only based on or involves a mathematical concept.") (citing Thales); M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(a)(II)(vii) (providing the example that a "Particular configuration of inertial sensors and a particular method of using the raw data from the sensors" is "sufficient to show an improvement in existing technology include"). Thus, claims that include a specific sensor, in a specific arrangement, are directed to patent-eligible subject matter.
The claims at issue include a "narrow beam gamma densitometer" that is specifically located as "aligned with a vertical portion of the pipe." The measurements from this sensor at this location are then used to determine "a liquid velocity distribution for the liquid component" and "a gas velocity distribution for the gas component." The liquid velocity distribution and the gas velocity distribution, and the measurements, are then used to determine "a film roughness of the film between the liquid component and the gas component at least in part by balancing gravity forces and turbulent stresses." Like in Thales, this unconventional sensor arrangement results in a protection of the "application of physics to the unconventional configuration of sensors."
The description in the Application supports this interpretation. Specifically, the Application describes that
In the experiments, the liquid content in the pipe was determined using narrow beam gamma densitometers aligned with the vertical pipe diameter. It is possible to estimate corresponding holdup values using different assumptions about the liquid distribution (e.g. perfectly stratified flow, symmetric annular flow, perfectly homogeneous flow), but none of these assumptions is justified in the present context, where the liquid is distributed between a stratified layer, an annular film and a droplet field. Instead, we use the model to calculate the line fraction of liquid on a vertical diameter and compare directly with the measured line fraction.
Application ¶ [0093]. This description is in reference to the "Data Comparisons" described in paragraphs [0087]-[0013]. The "line fraction" data, and data from subsequent calculations, is used directly and indirectly, in the experiments results illustrated in FIG. 5 through FIG. 10, and the associated description. Thus, the claimed sensor type and placement facilitate the "application of physics to the unconventional configuration of sensors" of claim 1.
Accordingly, the claimed invention cannot reasonably be interpreted as merely a mathematical concept. For at least these reasons, independent claim 1, and the claims depending therefrom, do not recite a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). Independent claims 15 and 16 have been amended similarly to claim 1. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that independent claims 15 and 16, and the claims depending therefrom, are directed to patent-eligible subject matter for at least the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1. As such, the analysis under the revised § 101 guidelines may end since the claims do not recite a judicial exception and, therefore, are directed to patent-eligible subject matter, and Applicant respectfully requests that the rejection be withdrawn. However, for the sake of argument, Applicant will proceed through the analysis to further exemplify and argue the patent-eligible subject matter of claims 1, 5, 7-11 and 13-20.”
(see Response filed 7/31/2025 [pages 10-13]).
In response to applicant's argument, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
In MPEP 2106.04(II)(B): A claim may recite multiple judicial exceptions. For example, claim 4 at issue in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 95 USPQ2d 1001 (2010) recited two abstract ideas, and the claims at issue in Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 101 USPQ2d 1961 (2012) recited two laws of nature. However, these claims were analyzed by the Supreme Court in the same manner as claims reciting a single judicial exception, such as those in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. 208, 110 USPQ2d 1976.
a. The claims do recite a mental process
The newly amended limitation “identifying, responsive to the plot of the pressure drop, a water cut representative of a phase inversion for the annular three-phase fluid flow” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example a person is capable of observing a plotted pressure drop curve at various water cuts, mentally evaluate the slope of the curve, recognize a change or inflection point that corresponds to phase inversion, then identify the water cut value associated with the point (The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011).).
b. The claims do recite a mathematical concept.
The limitations “determine a liquid velocity distribution…; determine a gas velocity distribution…; determine, … a film roughness… by balancing gravity forces and turbulent stress…; generating a computational fluid flow model… based in part on the liquid velocity distribution and the gas velocity distribution and the film roughness" can be considered to represent mathematical concepts. In the specification, [0042]-[0086] and equations (1) – (29) discloses a mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations for liquid and gas velocity distribution and film roughness associate with gravity force and turbulent stresses. For example, equations (2) and (11) are used to determined liquid velocity distribution; equation (1) is used to determined gas velocity distribution; equations (14), (16) and (23) are used to determine film roughness; and all these equations collectively constitute or support the flow fluid model of the annular three-phase flow. The claim does not need to recite equations explicitly, but reciting the determination of variables and generating mathematical model using mathematical methods is a mathematical concept. – See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). Therefore, claims 1, 15 and 16 recite judicial exceptions.
With respect to applicant argument, “… the interpretation of claim 1 as directed to a mathematical concept is an overbroad characterization of claim 1 that fails to consider the claim as a whole … the claimed invention recites an improved method performed by structured components (e.g., a "narrow beam gamma densitometer") that perform operations in the real world and have tangible and measurable impacts … Indeed, Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 is directed to an improvement to a technological process.”
The examiner acknowledged that claim 1 recites a “narrow beam gamma densitometer.” However, the specification ([0093]) described as a conventional measurement device for measuring liquid content in pipes during the experiment. The claim uses this type of sensor only to collect data, which then processed to mathematical operations such as determining velocity distributions, calculating film roughness, generating a flow model, and generating fluid flow model). Although the sensor provides input, but it does not give meaningful steps that change the focus of the claim, which remains directed to mathematical modeling of fluid flow. The Federal Circuit has held that organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations, Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The patentee in Digitech claimed methods of generating first and second data by taking existing information, manipulating the data using mathematical functions, and organizing this information into a new form. The court explained that such claims were directed to an abstract idea because they described a process of organizing information through mathematical correlations. Therefore, the recitation of the densitometer perform operations in the real world and have tangible and measurable impacts on the real world does not skip the analysis of U.S.C. 101 and do not consider claim 1 as whole that integrated judicial exception into practical application.
Furthermore, Applicant cites Enfish and related cases. These cases recite computer function or technology improvement: Enfish recited a self-referential database structure that improved computer operation, Core Wireless recited a particular user interface that improved how information was displayed to users, SRI improved network monitoring for security, Finjan improved computer protection against malware, and Visual Memory improved computer memory systems. In contrast, the present claims do not recite improvements to computer architecture, functionality, security, or performance. Instead, applying mathematical modeling associated with fluid flow measurements, which is not the type of computer function or technology improvement. Applicant further cites Thales Visionix. In that case, the court found claims eligible because the specific, unconventional configuration of inertial sensors fundamentally changed how the equations were applied. The eligibility in Thales related to the novel sensor configuration, not the equations. However, claim 1 recites a conventional gamma densitometer in an ordinary arrangement, as disclosed in the specification ([0093], used for merely gathering data for further mathematical operations). The claim does not recite a new or unconventional sensor system. Therefore, each of these cited cases involved improvements to computer functionality or unconventional sensor configurations. The present claims under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite a mathematical concept. Accordingly, claim 1, 15 and 16 remain directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A, Prong 1.
With respect to the Applicant’s argued rejection under 35 U.S.C 101 in “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment,”:
Applicant argues:
… the present claims integrate such alleged abstract ideas into a practical application and are directed toward improved systems, methods, and tangible, computer- readable mediums that integrate real-world computing systems to identify the properties of an "annular three-phase fluid flow in a pipe." As explained above, the sensor is located at a particular place on a pipe, and collects specific measurements. The measurements are then used to determine the properties of the "annular three-phase fluid flow." The sensor and associated measurements are not insignificant extra-solution activity, but rather an incorporation of any alleged abstract idea into a practical application.
Thus, even if the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (which Applicant does not concede), the claimed invention provides a specific, identifiable improvement to the efficiency and accuracy of computer technology which "integrates [the] judicial exception into a practical application [that] . . . imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.;" See MPEP 2106.05(a). Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1, and the claims depending therefrom, are directed to patent-eligible subject matter, and requests that the rejection be withdrawn.”
(see Response filed 7/31/2025 [pages 13-14]).
With respect to applicant argument, “the present claims integrate such alleged abstract ideas into a practical application and are directed toward improved systems, methods, and tangible, computer-readable mediums that integrate real-world computing systems to identify the properties of an annular three-phase fluid flow in a pipe." As explained above, … The sensor and associated measurements are not insignificant extra-solution activity, but rather an incorporation of any alleged abstract idea into a practical application.”
In response to applicant's argument, the examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained above under Prong 1, the claims recite a conventional measurement device (i.e., gamma densitometer) in an ordinary arrangement to collect data, followed by mathematical operations to determine velocity distributions, film roughness and generate fluid flow model. The sensor is used only to obtain data, and the subsequent steps to build mathematical modeling of fluid flow. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. - See MPEP § 2106.05(f), Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Therefore, the additional elements do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, but instead reflect data gathering and conventional pre-solution activity. The claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2.
With respect to the Applicant’s argued rejection under 35 U.S.C 101 in “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment,”:
Applicant argues:
… independent claim 1 is at least directed to unconventional recitations that offer specific technological improvements in computer system operations and amount to "significantly more: than the judicial exception.
As explained in more detail below, independent claim 1 includes limitations, or combinations of limitations, that are missing from the cited references and are not otherwise well- understood, routine, or conventional activity in the field, thus making independent claim 1 novel and non-obvious in view of the cited references. For example, claim 1 recites "identifying, responsive to the plot of the pressure drop, a water cut representative of a phase inversion for the annular three-phase fluid flow." As such, Applicant respectfully submits that independent claim 1 does not simply recite subject matter within the judicial exceptions without significantly more and, therefore, is patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
For at least these reasons stated above, Applicant respectfully submits that independent claim 1 is subject matter eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Applicant further submits that, as claims 15 and 16 have been amended similarly to claim 1, such claims, and the claims depending therefrom, are directed to patent-eligible subject matter for at least the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection of independent claims 1, 15, and 16 and those claims depending therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 101.”
(see Response filed 7/31/2025 [pages 14-15]).
With respect to applicant argument, “independent claim 1 includes limitations, or combinations of limitations, that are missing from the cited references and are not otherwise well-understood, routine, or conventional activity in the field, thus making independent claim 1 novel … claim 1 recites "identifying, responsive to the plot of the pressure drop, a water cut representative of a phase inversion for the annular three-phase fluid flow." As such, Applicant respectfully submits that independent claim 1 does not simply recite subject matter within the judicial exceptions without significantly more and, therefore, is patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.”
In response to applicant's argument, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitation “identifying …” is a mental process, as it merely requires a person to evaluate a plot of pressure drop and make an identification or judgment for the phase inversion. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) (mental processes include observations, evaluations, and judgments). Therefore, the limitation does not add an inventive concept but instead represents another recitation of the abstract idea.
Therefore, the newly added limitations do not provide “significantly more” than the abstract idea. The claim as a whole is directed to data collection and mathematical/mental analysis of fluid flow, which is insufficient to establish an inventive concept under Step 2B. Therefore, the rejection of independent claims 1, 15, and 16 and those claims depending therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
Applicant's arguments filed under “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment” on
07/31/2025, the applicant' s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 5, 7-11 and 13-20 rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
… Johansen, individually or in combination with Chupin and/or Woods, does not disclose, teach, or fairly suggest this feature.
Johansen appears to disclose to disclose "providing estimated or measured input values describing the pipe diameter and the inclination angle of the pipeline relative to the horizontal plane, b) providing estimated or measured input values describing the axial pressure gradient and the flow geometry of the multiphase flow, where the estimated or measured input values of the flow geometry at least comprises the positions of the large scale interfaces separating the continuous fluid phases." Johansen ¶ [0021]. "It is also possible to employ the invention according to the second aspect of the invention to regulate the operation of a pipeline and/or to troubleshooting in case of reported hold-ups in the pipeline by feeding in measured flow volumes of each [of] the continuous fluid phases (which are proportional to the superficial velocities)." Id. at ¶ [0034]. But Johansen appears to, at best, measure "superficial velocities," and is silent regarding measurements with a "narrow beam gamma densitometer," as recited in amended claim 1. Johnsen further appears to be silent regarding a "phase inversion," as recited in amended claim 1.
Chupin does not correct this deficiency. Indeed, in Section 9.3, "Recommendations for future work," Chupin appears to disclose that "[a] more comprehensive three-phase one- dimensional stratified flow model is required that can extrapolate correctly to the case of small phase fractions. Such a model may include . . . in case of dispersed liquid flow, a viscosity model and a model for phase inversion." Chupin p. 282. Thus, Chupin's models explicitly do not include "a model for phase inversion." Accordingly, Chupin does not disclose, teach, or fairly suggest "identifying, responsive to the plot of the pressure drop, a water cut representative of a phase inversion for the annular three-phase fluid flow," as recited in amended claim 1.
In view of the foregoing, Applicant respectfully submits that Johansen and Chuipn, when taken individually or in combination, do not teach or suggest each and every element of independent claim 1 and those claims depending therefrom. Further, in view of the amendments to independent claims 15 and 16, Applicant respectfully submits that Johansen and Chupin, when taken individually or in combination, do not teach or suggest each and every element of independent claims 15 and 16 and those claims depending therefrom for at least the same reasoning provided above with respect to independent claim 1. Therefore, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the foregoing rejection.
(see Response filed 7/31/2025 [pages 16-17]).
In response to applicant's argument, the examiner respectfully disagrees. For the newly amended claim limitation of “plotting, using the fluid flow model, a plot of the pressure drop at a plurality of water cuts; and identifying, responsive to the plot of the pressure drop, a water cut representative of a phase inversion for the annular three-phase fluid flow.” Chupin teaches statistical analysis that predicted (i.e., model-based) pressure drop, total liquid holdup, water fraction, and oil fraction are plotted against measure values. Chupin further provides plots of pressure drop and water fraction (page.237, figure 7-31; page.199). In addition, Chupin teaches pressure gradient/pressure-drop plots for phase inversion occurs at defined water fractions (35–50%, shifting at higher gas velocities). Chupin further teaches that the phase inversion point is identified from peaks or changes in the plotted pressure-drop curve (page 193; page 227, Fig. 7-18). In addition, for the newly amended claim limitation of “the one or more sensors include a narrow beam gamma densitometer aligned with a vertical portion of the pipe.” The newly cited reference Tjugum US 2012/0087467 A1 teaches measuring photon attenuation along a narrow beam path using gamma-ray or X-ray densitometers, placed in vertical sections of multiphase pipelines ([0016], [0033] and [0042]).
Therefore, Johansen in view of Chupin and Tjugum teach all limitations of claims 1, 15 and 16, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites “the at least partially horizontally inclined portion of the pipe is oriented horizontally,” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how a portion described as “horizontally inclined” can also be “oriented horizontally.” For the purpose of substantive examination, the examiner interprets this limitation to mean that the pipe includes a portion that is at least partially horizontally inclined (i.e., substantially along a horizontal direction).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The claim(s) 1, 5, 7-11, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to judicial exception an abstract idea, it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1: Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?"
Yes, Claims 1, 5, 7-11 and 13-14 are directed to method and fall within the statutory category of process;
Yes, Claims 15, 17 and 18 are directed to system and fall within the statutory category of machine;
Yes, Claim 16, 19 and 20 are directed to non-transitory computer-readable medium and falls within the statutory category articles of manufacture.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry "Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?" we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claim 1: The limitations of “using the measurements, determining a liquid velocity distribution … of the annular three-phase fluid flow; using the measurements, determining a gas velocity distribution … of the annular three-phase fluid flow; using the measurements, … determining, … a film roughness between the liquid and gas components … in the annular three-phase fluid flow; generating a fluid flow model of the annular three-phase fluid flow in a subsurface of a three-dimensional geologic formation based in part on the liquid velocity distribution and the gas velocity distribution and the film roughness;” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) in light of specification, can be reasonably considered to represent mathematical concept, specifically:
MPEP 2106.4(a)(2)(I): “The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical
relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations”.
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A), “A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols.”
Further, MPEP recites: “For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.
The limitations “determine a liquid velocity distribution…; determine a gas velocity distribution…; determine, … a film roughness… by balancing gravity forces and turbulent stress…; generating a computational fluid flow model… based in part on the liquid velocity distribution and the gas velocity distribution and the film roughness" can be considered to represent mathematical concepts. In the specification, [0042]-[0086] and equations (1) – (29) discloses a mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations for liquid and gas velocity distribution and film roughness associate with gravity force and turbulent stresses. – MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). For example, equations (2) and (11) are used to determined liquid velocity distribution; equation (1) is used to determined gas velocity distribution; equations (14), (16) and (23) are used to determine film roughness; and all these equations collectively constitute or support the flow fluid model of the annular three-phase flow.
In MPEP 2106.04(II)(B): A claim may recite multiple judicial exceptions. For example, claim 4 at issue in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 95 USPQ2d 1001 (2010) recited two abstract ideas, and the claims at issue in Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 101 USPQ2d 1961 (2012) recited two laws of nature. However, these claims were analyzed by the Supreme Court in the same manner as claims reciting a single judicial exception, such as those in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. 208, 110 USPQ2d 1976.
Claim 1: The limitations of “identifying, responsive to the plot of the pressure drop, a water cut representative of a phase inversion for the annular three-phase fluid flow” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example a person is capable of observing a plotted pressure drop curve at various water cuts, mentally evaluate the slope of the curve, recognize a change or inflection point that corresponds to phase inversion, then identify the water cut value associated with the point (The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011).).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under step 2A Prong 1.
Claims 15 and 16 recite the similar elements as claim 1, and are rejected for the same reasons under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Therefore, claims 1, 15 and 16 recite judicial exceptions. The claims have been identified to recite judicial exceptions, Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claims as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claims 1, 15 and 16: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements - "A computing system, comprising: one or more processors; and a memory system comprising one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by at least one of the one or more processors, cause the computing system to perform operations, the operations comprising” and “A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a computing system, cause the computing system to perform operations, the operations comprising” which are mere instruction to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) with the broad reasonable interpretation, which does not integrate a judicial exception into elements.
Further, the following additional element – “receiving measurements from one or more sensors regarding the annular three-phase fluid flow through the pipe, … , the annular three-phase fluid flow including a liquid component and a gas component, the liquid component including an oil phase and a water phase, and the gas component including a gas phase, wherein the annular three-phase fluid flow is at least partially stratified and includes a film at a pipe wall of the pipe, wherein the pipe further includes an at least partially horizontally inclined” and “plotting, …, a plot of the pressure drop at a plurality of water cuts” which are merely a recitation of insignificant extra-solution data gathering (i.e., receive data from sensor) and data output (i.e., plotting data) activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) with the broad reasonable interpretation, which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application.
Further, the additional limitations “… using the fluid flow model …” which is merely adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and applying a computer component to perform plotting function by using the fluid flow model at high level of generality is simply the act of instructing a computer to perform generic functions, which is merely an instruction to apply a computer to the judicial exception or significant more- see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, the following additional limitation, “the one or more sensors include a narrow beam gamma densitometer aligned with a vertical portion of the pipe” which is merely adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and applying narrow beam gamma densitometer aligned with a vertical portion of the pipe to perform a measurement step (i.e., a sensor performing its generic function of detecting density or phase properties) at high level of generality, simply the act of using a known tool in its expected manner to supply data for the abstract calculations. The recitation does not improve the functioning of the gamma densitometer, and another technology or technical filed. It is an instruction to apply a tool to the judicial exception, which is not sufficient to amount to significantly more - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, "Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
After having evaluated the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claims 1 , 15 and 16 not only recite a judicial exception but that the claims are directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B: Claims 1, 15 and 16: The claims do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than generic computing components which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include: i. Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)); ii. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); iii. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) ; …
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, …; iii. Electronic recordkeeping, … (updating an activity log).
Other examples where the courts have found the additional elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process include: i. A commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 64, 175 USPQ 673, 674 (1972); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); ii. Generating a second menu from a first menu and sending the second menu to another location as performed by generic computer components, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1243-44, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1855-57 (Fed. Cir. 2016); iii. A process for monitoring audit log data that is executed on a general-purpose computer where the increased speed in the process comes solely from the capabilities of the general-purpose computer, FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016); iv. A method of using advertising as an exchange or currency being applied or implemented on the Internet, Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1754 (Fed. Cir. 2014); v. Requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and vi. A method of assigning hair designs to balance head shape with a final step of using a tool (scissors) to cut the hair, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential).
The additional limitation “the one or more sensors include a narrow beam gamma densitometer aligned with a vertical portion of the pipe” do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception. The recited steps merely describe a conventional function routinely performed in the art of fluid flow analysis. As disclosed in the instant specification (See [0093]), the liquid content in the pipe was determined using narrow beam gamma densitometers aligned with the vertical pipe diameter as part of an experiment, which confirm that such densitometers are well-known and conventionally applied for the measurement. The claim does not recite any specific technical improvement to the sensor technology, or any another technical field, but instead merely applies the known sensor in an expected manner. The limitation reflects the application of a known device to apply a generic measurement function, without adding any meaningful limit to the abstract idea. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Therefore, The limitation amount to no more than apply conventional devices for the well-understood operations, which is insufficient to qualify as “significantly more” under Step 2B.
Therefore, "Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, claims 1, 15 and 16 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Dependent claims 5, 7-11, 13-14 and 17-20 are also similar rejected under same rationale as cited above wherein these claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These claims are merely further elaborate the mental process itself (and/or mathematical operations) or providing additional definition of process which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 5, 7-11, 13-14 and 17-20 are also rejected for incorporating the deficiency of their independent claims 1, 15 and 16.
Claim 5 recites “the at least partially horizontally inclined portion of the pipe is oriented horizontally”
This merely further defines the pipe includes a portion that is at least partially horizontally inclined (i.e., substantially along a horizontal direction) refers to claim 1 for measurements from one or more sensors; therefore, it merely a recitation of insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Therefore, the claim 5 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 7 recites “the deviation from the vertical orientation increases as a flow rate of the annular three-phase fluid flow changes.”
This merely specifies deviation increases as the flow rate changes depending on the pipe’s orientation; therefore, it merely a mathematic concept (i.e., flow rate varies based on different angle of inclination as determined by mathematical calculations). Therefore, the claim 7 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 8 recites “the flow rate changes include a gas flow rate decrease.”
This merely specifies the flow rate changes causing a gas flow rate decrease; therefore, it merely a mathematic concept (i.e., gas flow rate decrease varies with the angle of inclination from horizontal as determined by mathematical calculations). Therefore, the claim 8 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 9 recites “the flow rate changes include a liquid flow rate increase.”
This merely specifies the flow rate changes causing a gas flow rate decrease; therefore, it merely a mathematic concept (i.e., liquid flow rate increase varies with the angle of inclination from horizontal as determined by mathematical calculations).Therefore, the claim 9 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 10 recites “determining the film roughness further includes balancing viscous forces with the gravity forces and the turbulent stresses.”
This merely specifies that the film roughness is determined by balancing viscous forces with the gravity forces and the turbulent stresses; therefore, it merely a mathematic concept (e.g., equation (23)). Therefore, the claim 10 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 11 recites “determining a film bulk velocity as part of the fluid flow model.”
This merely further defines film bulk velocity as part of the fluid flow model. therefore, it merely a mathematic concept (e.g., equations (11), (18) and (23)). Therefore, the claim 11 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 13 recites “the fluid flow model is generated in part by modelling the liquid in the film.”
This merely specifies that a portion of the fluid flow model is derived by modeling the liquid in the film; therefore, it merely a mathematical concept (e.g., equations (26)-(29)). Therefore, the claim 13 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 14 recites “the fluid flow model is generated in part by modelling the liquid in a layer as a homogeneous oil-water mixture.”
This merely specifies that a portion of the fluid flow model is derived by modeling the liquid in a layer as a homogeneous oil-water mixture; therefore, it merely a mathematical concept (e.g., equations (26)-(29)). Therefore, the claim 14 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claims 17-20 recite the similar elements as claims 7 and 10, and are rejected for the same reasons under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and
103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 7-11 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Johansen US20150286755 in view of “An Experimental Investigation of Multiphase Gas-Liquid Pipe Flow at Low Liquid Loading” by Gael Chupin, hereinafter “Chupin”, published in September 2003 and Tjugum US 20120087467 A1.
Claim 1, Johansen teaches (Currently Amended) A method for modelling an annular three-phase fluid flow in a pipe (title; abstract, “a method for one dimensional simulation of multiphase fluid flow in pipelines ...” Fig.2 illustrates liquid wall film surrounds the inner pipe wall and gas-droplet core flow in the center of pipe, which is considered as an annular three-phase fluid flow or the transition to the annular three-phase flow; [0070], “The multiphase flow within an oil and gas pipeline usually contains a mixture of oil, water and gas. Each fluid is subdivided into several fields, making it possible to distinguish the different physical appearances of one fluid. In this flow there are, as illustrated in FIG. 1, three different continuous phases; water, gas, and oil, and 12 fields; three continuous fields (water, oil, gas), dispersed water in gas, dispersed oil in gas, dispersed gas in water, dispersed gas in oil, dispersed oil in water and dispersed water in oil, liquid oil and water films on the pipe wall in the gas continuous zone, and a gas film on pipe wall in the liquid continuous zones.” See also, [0021] and [0025]. Therefore, at least some portions of pipe is an annular three-phase fluid flow in a pipe), comprising:
receiving measurements (fig.2; [0021] Thus in a first aspect, the present invention relates to a method for determination of flow parameters of a multiphase flow in a pipeline, where the multiphase flow comprises a plurality of stratified continuous fluid phases separated by large scale interfaces, wherein the method comprises: a) providing estimated or measured input values describing the pipe diameter and the inclination angle of the pipeline relative to the horizontal plane, b) providing estimated or measured input values describing the axial pressure gradient and the flow geometry of the multiphase flow, where the estimated or measured input values of the flow geometry at least comprises the positions of the large scale interfaces separating the continuous fluid phases, c) employing a numerical model based on Eulerian formulated transport equations of the multiphase flow over a vertical cross-section of the pipeline, d) solving the numerical model with the set of input values from step a) and b) to determine one or more of the flow parameters of the multiphase flow selected from of the list comprising; profiles of phase- and field velocities, profiles of phase- and field volume fractions, profiles of field droplet- and bubble sizes, and phase- and field superficial velocities. [0025], “Thus, in a second aspect, the invention relates to a method for determining flow parameters of a multiphase flows in a pipeline, wherein the method additionally comprises the following steps in the method of the first aspect of the invention:
d1) providing real world values of the superficial velocities of each of the fluid phases, …” (examiner note: measured input values related to the geometry and flow parameter are included). [0022] The flow parameters may be transmitted to a displaying device for visual representation, transmitted to a computer data storage device for later use, or transmitted to a computer memory device for use as input values for other numerical models for determination of multiphase fluid flows, such as i.e. three-dimensional models … (examiner note: received measured input values). [0034], “… according to the second aspect of the invention to regulate the operation of a pipeline and/or to troubleshooting in case of reported hold-ups in the pipeline by feeding in measured flow volumes of each the continuous fluid phases (which are proportional to the superficial velocities) ….” [0070] The multiphase flow within an oil and gas pipeline usually contains a mixture of oil, water and gas. Each fluid is subdivided into several fields, making it possible to distinguish the different physical appearances of one fluid. In this flow there are, as illustrated in FIG. 1, three different continuous phases; water, gas, and oil, and 12 fields; three continuous fields (water, oil, gas), dispersed water in gas, dispersed oil in gas, dispersed gas in water, dispersed gas in oil, dispersed oil in water and dispersed water in oil, liquid oil and water films on the pipe wall in the gas continuous zone, and a gas film on pipe wall in the liquid continuous zones (examiner note: stratified annular three-phase flow comprising oil, water, gas and films at pipe wall of pipe). [0089] The pipe has a diameter of 0.189 m, wall roughness is 20 micrometre, densities are 103 (gas), 700 (oil) and 1000 kg/m.sup.3 (water), viscosities are 0.000015 (gas), 0.00077 (oil) and 0.001 Pa s (water), and surface tensions are 0.021 (gas-oil), 0.072 (gas-water) and 0.034 N/m (oil-water). The pipe is slightly inclined upwards, with inclination relative to horizontal of 1° (examiner note: i.e., horizontally inclined portion).
using the measurements, determining a liquid velocity distribution for the liquid component of the annular three-phase fluid flow ([0021],”… d) solving the numerical model with the set of input values from step a) and b) to determine one or more of the flow parameters of the multiphase flow selected from of the list comprising; profiles of phase- and field velocities, profiles of phase- and field volume fractions, profiles of field droplet- and bubble sizes, and phase- and field superficial velocities.” [0037] – [0040], “employing an estimated or measured wall shear stress value and the wall function to determine the velocity profile for each of the stratified continuous fluid phases across the vertical cross-section of the pipeline (examiner note: i.e., velocity distribution) …”, fig.2., water and oil);
using the measurements, determining a gas velocity distribution for the gas component of the annular three-phase fluid flow (([0021],”… d) solving the numerical model with the set of input values from step a) and b) to determine one or more of the flow parameters of the multiphase flow selected from of the list comprising; profiles of phase- and field velocities, profiles of phase- and field volume fractions, profiles of field droplet- and bubble sizes, and phase- and field superficial velocities.” [0037]-[0040], “employing an estimated or measured wall shear stress value and the wall function to determine the velocity profile for each of the stratified continuous fluid phases across the vertical cross-section of the pipeline (examiner note: i.e., velocity distribution) …”fig.2, gas);
using the measurements, the liquid velocity distribution, and the gas velocity distribution, determining, at the at least partially horizontally inclined portion, a film roughness of the film between the liquid component and the gas component at least in part by balancing gravity forces and turbulent stresses so that asymmetry in the annular three-phase fluid flow increases as a deviation of the pipe from a vertical orientation increases, the film at least partially formed from a liquid of the liquid component (fig.1, large scale interface (LSI) between gas and oil; fig.2, liquid wall film; [0070], “… liquid oil and water films on the pipe wall in the gas continuous zone, and a gas film on pipe wall in the liquid continuous zones.” [0071], “… the turbulent shear stress at the LSIs, also known as the application of wall functions [3], is including the effect of interfacial waves, using the wall functions and interface wave roughness [4] from both sides of the interface.” [0035] … the flow is stratified having distinct horizontally oriented fluid layers due the gravitational effect on fluids with different densities (examiner note: gravity causes asymmetry in layer structure increases with increasing pipe inclination away from vertical as horizontally inclined portion); [0036] In one embodiment, the method according to the first aspect of the invention may include a specific method for finding the wall distance for the application of wall functions to determine the wall shear stress: The radial velocity distribution in a single phase pipe flow can be reconstructed accurately by using well established wall functions; see i.e. Ashrafian & Johansen (2007) [3]. After the pipe cross section has been cut into a set of vertical slices we use the velocity distribution given by the wall function to compute the slice averaged velocity. This is done for a significant range of flow Reynolds numbers, and slice thicknesses versus pipe diameter. Based on the slice averaged velocity and the known wall shear stress we can find the wall distance, which when put into the wall function give the now known slice averaged velocity. This method allows to find a model for a wall distance as function of i) Reynolds number, ii) relative slice thickness and iii) slice distance from the lower wall, which when used in the conjunction with the wall function will return a constant distribution of wall shear stresses along the pipe perimeter. By applying the model for the wall distance, worked out based on this procedure, we can now relate the mean velocity in each slice to the wall shear stress in the actual slice (examiner note: turbulent wall shear stress is modeled using Reynolds number as turbulent stress contributing to asymmetry). [0040] applying the averaged flow velocity for each of the stratified continuous fluid phases and the wall function to determine the distance to the wall being applied in the computation of the wall shear stresses in the Eulerian formulated transport equations for each of the stratified continuous fluid phases. Examiner note: the cited paragraphs show the film roughness is determined using the measurements, such as the liquid and gas velocity distributions. The measurements are used to calculate wall shear stress by applying wall function. The shear stress determines the film roughness. Therefore, the film roughness is based on the measured velocity data of the liquid and gas phases).
generating a fluid flow model of the annular three-phase fluid flow in a subsurface of a three-dimensional geologic formation based in part on the liquid velocity distribution and the gas velocity distribution and the film roughness ([0021], “… d) solving the numerical model with the set of input values from step a) and b) to determine one or more of the flow parameters of the multiphase flow selected from of the list comprising; profiles of phase- and field velocities, profiles of phase- and field volume fractions, profiles of field droplet- and bubble sizes, and phase- and field superficial velocities.” [0014], “…The shear forces across the interface are i.e. approximated by using wall functions for rough walls.” [0036], “…. By applying the model for the wall distance, worked out based on this procedure, we can now relate the mean velocity in each slice to the wall shear stress in the actual slice.” See also [0037]-[0040] disclose the steps of how to combine shear stress and flow velocity of each phase. [0073]-[0084], “the formation of the numerical one-dimensional profile point model of this example embodiment may be obtained by the following procedure…These zone averaged values are used as explicit momentum sources for the momentum equations. In this way the shear stresses and shear stress like terms are solved on the pipe cross section (profile) while the cross-sectional averaged transient terms, convection terms and axial gravity driven terms are explicit and constant within each zone….” The 3D model is taught in FIG. 4, described at [0086]; the pipeline transport model is connected with the geological environment as shown below the wellhead labeled by zone 1 and zone 2, and various portions of the model are shown in 3D as shown),
the fluid flow model outputting a pressure drop of the annular three-phase flow ([0088], “… pressure drops during pipeline transportation of fluids is presented in FIGS. 5 a and 5 b.” [0089], “…, respectively, while the predicted pressure gradient is −88 Pa/m.” [0092], “… Based on flow rates, fluid properties, diameter and pipe inclination, pressure drop and liquid accumulation are reported.” [0027], “… one-dimensional point model approach, is that the one-dimensional model approach employs a 1D-numerical model directly to determine the flow parameters from a given set of flow geometry values (such as i.e. positions of the large scale interfaces) and the axial pressure gradient, while the one-dimensional point model approach includes the numerical perturbation and the Jacobi-matrix to refine the flow parameters and thus allowing determination of the pressure drop and hold-up …”);
(i.e., numerical one-dimensional profile point model),
However, Johansen fails to teach one or more sensors for measurement, and at least in part by balancing gravity forces and turbulent stresses so that asymmetry in the annular three-phase fluid flow increases as a deviation of the pipe from a vertical orientation increases; plotting a plot of the pressure drop at a plurality of water cuts; and identifying, responsive to the plot of the pressure drop, a water cut representative of a phase inversion for the annular three-phase fluid flow.
Chupin teaches one or more sensors for measurements (page.325-327, e.g., FE 1.10 Vortex flow meter sensor (table B-1) for air, FE 2.11 Electro-magnetic flow meter sensor (table B-2), FE 3.13 Coriolis flow meter sensor (table B-3)); at least in part by balancing gravity forces and turbulent stresses so that asymmetry in the annular three-phase fluid flow increases as a deviation of the pipe from a vertical orientation increases, … (chapter 3 including mass and momentum conservation equations, Reynolds number, liquid-wall friction factor, turbulent friction factors (e.g., eq.3.14; eq 3.61); Chapter 5 (e.g., eq.5.57, “Hart et al’s Equation [5.57] has been proposed for thin liquid films at low liquid loading.” fig.3-1; page.42-44, “The mass and momentum balance equations for the gas and liquid phases…” and equations 3.16-3.26. page.18, 2.3.2.3, “…gravitational separation of water from oil in an inclined pipe (examiner note: i.e., horizontally inclined portion) due to the density difference between the two liquids. It usually results in a significant holdup increase in three-phase flow at equal liquid flowrate compared to two-phase gas-oil or gas-water flow. The mechanism of phase separation is described in Lunde at al. (1993). Due to gravity, water separates from oil at low points, causing the hydrostatic pressure to increase. As a result, the gas needs to increase its velocity through a reduction of its cross section to increase the drag. The total liquid holdup therefore increases.” Examiner note: A POSITA would understand that changing inclination would causing asymmetry in the fluid flow increases or decreases depend on the previous direction (e.g., horizontal or vertical direction));
plotting a plot of the pressure drop at a plurality of water cuts (page.237, figure 7-31; page.199, “2. Statistical analysis: predicted pressure drop, total liquid holdup, water and oil fractions are plotted against the measured values … 3. Detailed plots: predicted sensitivities of pressure drop and phase fractions with superficial liquid velocity, superficial gas velocity, water fraction and inclination are compared with the experimental.” Examiner note: “predicted pressure drop” values are outputs generated by the fluid flow model, and the predicted values are plotted against measured values, such as plotting pressure drop values versus water fractions (i.e., a plurality of water cuts)); and identifying, responsive to the plot of the pressure drop, a water cut representative of a phase inversion for the annular three-phase fluid flow (page.193, “Figure 7–18 shows a typical pressure gradient plot for two-phase water … The following can be said of Figure 7–18: Phase inversion occurs for input water fractions between 35% and 50% ... In the present experiments in three-phase flow, the pressure drop peak occurs first at water fraction around 70-80% and is displaced towards smaller water fractions (around 40-50%) at increasing gas velocity.” page.227, Figure 7–18; page.17, “In horizontal or slightly inclined pipes, Pan (1996) observed a clear liquid holdup peak close to the oil-water phase inversion point.”) – Examiner note: identification of the phase inversion (water cut) is made based on the peak or change observed in the pressure drop curve, which responsive to the plotted pressure drop plot).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Johansen to incorporate the teachings of Chupin and apply one or more sensors and a steady-state three-phase stratified flow model including define the film roughness with mass and momentum balance causing asymmetry in the fluid flow increases or decreases based on inclinations from previous direction and method for one dimensional simulation of multiphase fluid flow in pipelines in order to perform accurate measurements of the pressure drop and phase fractions and provide a steady-state three-phase stratified flow model to incorporate the prediction of interfacial curvature depending on the preferred wetting of the pipe wall by either one of the liquid phases (abstract). In this case, Johansen teaches a numerical model to determine flow parameters such as velocity distribution and pressure drops. Chupin teaches sensors for measuring multiphase, flow asymmetry results from balancing gravity forces and turbulent stresses, and further shows that plotting pressure drop versus water fraction allows identification of phase inversion, would provide a more complete method for predicting and analyzing multiphase flow regimes.
However, Johansen and Chupin fail to teach one or more sensors include a narrow beam gamma densitometer aligned with a vertical portion of the pipe.
Tjugum teaches one or more sensors include a narrow beam gamma densitometer aligned with a vertical portion of the pipe ([0016], “Flow composition measurement by gamma-ray and X-ray. Radioactive sources or X-ray tubes produce high energy photons that can be used in flow composition measurements. The basic measurement principle is the same independent on the origin of the photons. The attenuation of photons is measured along the narrow beam path in the flow. The beam is shaped by using a collimator that shields the radiation in other directions than that of the beam.” [0033], “In all multiphase flow tests the prototype meter body has been installed in a vertical section of the pipeline after a T-blend. This is the standard way of installing the Roxar multiphase meter. The prototype has been installed in series with a multiphase meter with a gamma-ray densitometer, so the flow goes through the prototype before passing through the multiphase meter.” [0042], “… The X-ray meter was placed under a MPFM2600 meter in a vertical section of the pipe.” Examiner note: The reference discloses both gamma-ray and X-ray based densitometers, and explains that they operate on the same principle of measuring photon attenuation along a narrow beam path in the flow. A POSITA would understand that the same arrangement applies equally to a narrow beam gamma densitometer).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Johansen and Chupin to incorporate the teachings of Tjugum and apply narrow beam gamma densitometer aligned with a vertical portion of the pipe in order to obtain accurate and reliable measurements of multiphase flow properties.
Claim 5, Johansen fails to teach, but Chupin teaches (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, wherein the at least partially horizontally inclined portion of the pipe is oriented horizontally (page 33, Figure 2–7: Three-phase flow regime map for horizontal air-oil-water flow. Page.69, Figure 3–2: Geometries for the three-layer models with flat interfaces shows a portion of pipe is horizontally inclined (i.e., substantially along a horizontal direction); See also Chapter 7 discloses pipes in horizontal orientation (e.g., Figure 7–38, Figure 7–39, Figure 7–40, Figure 7–41)).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Johansen to incorporate the teachings of Chupin and apply three-phase flow regime map for horizontal air-oil-water flow in order to improve the accuracy of flow modeling and visualization under horizontal orientation conditions and facilitate realistic simulation scenarios for pipelines.
Claim 7, Johansen further teaches (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, wherein the deviation from the vertical orientation increases as a flow rate of the annular three-phase fluid flow changes. ([0042], “These may subsequently be employed as input to solve the ensemble averaged flow equations in the vertical direction to establish the relation between fluid phase flow rates, fluid properties, pipe geometry, pipe inclination and pressure gradient; examiner note: a POSITA would understand that increasing deviation from vertical orientation causes change in flow rate, such as the inclination of pipe directly influences multiphase fluid flow behavior as the deviation from vertical orientation increases (i.e., the pipe becomes more inclined or horizontal, the gravitational and inertial forces acting on the distinct fluid phases resulting changes to the annular flow regime, including variations in flow rate.).
Claim 8, Johansen further teaches the flow rate changes include a gas flow rate decrease ([0042], “These may subsequently be employed as input to solve the ensemble averaged flow equations in the vertical direction to establish the relation between fluid phase flow rates, fluid properties, pipe geometry, pipe inclination and pressure gradient; examiner note: a POSITA would understand that increasing deviation from vertical orientation causes change in flow rate, such as the inclination of pipe directly influences multiphase fluid flow behavior as the deviation from vertical orientation increases (i.e., the pipe becomes more inclined or horizontal, the gravitational and inertial forces acting on the distinct fluid phases resulting changes to the annular flow regime, including gas flow rate decrease).
Claim 9, Johansen further teaches the flow rate changes include a liquid flow rate increase ([0042], “These may subsequently be employed as input to solve the ensemble averaged flow equations in the vertical direction to establish the relation between fluid phase flow rates, fluid properties, pipe geometry, pipe inclination and pressure gradient; examiner note: a POSITA would understand that increasing deviation from vertical orientation causes change in flow rate, such as the inclination of pipe directly influences multiphase fluid flow behavior as the deviation from vertical orientation increases (i.e., the pipe becomes more inclined or horizontal, the gravitational and inertial forces acting on the distinct fluid phases resulting changes to the annular flow regime, including liquid flow rate decrease).
Claim 10, Johansen fails to teach, but Chupin teaches determining the film roughness further includes balancing viscous forces with the gravity forces and the turbulent stresses. (chapter 3 including mass and momentum conservation equations, Reynolds number (examiner note: i.e., the ratio of inertial force to viscous force), liquid-wall friction factor, turbulent friction factors (e.g., eq.3.10 - 3.12; eq 3.61); Chapter 5 (e.g., eq.5.57, “Hart et al’s Equation [5.57] has been proposed for thin liquid films at low liquid loading.”)).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Johansen to incorporate the teachings of Chupin, and apply a steady-state three-phase stratified flow model including define the film roughness with mass and momentum balance, Reynolds number and method for one dimensional simulation of multiphase fluid flow in pipelines in order to perform accurate measurements of the pressure drop and phase fractions and provide a steady-state three-phase stratified flow model to incorporate the prediction of interfacial curvature depending on the preferred wetting of the pipe wall by either one of the liquid phases (abstract).
Claim 11, Johansen fails to teach, but Chupin teaches determining a film bulk velocity as part of the fluid flow model (fig. 3-2, oil cross sectional area Ao and water cross sectional area Aw; page.8. “The bulk of the liquid flows as a film at the pipe bottom”; Examiner note: A POSITA understand that bulk flow as a film with a certain velocity within the film and can be part of the fluid flow model).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Johansen to incorporate the teachings of Chupin, and apply the bulk of the liquid flows as a film at the pipe bottom and method for one dimensional simulation of multiphase fluid flow in pipelines in order to perform accurate measurements of the pressure drop and phase fractions and provide a steady-state three-phase stratified flow model to incorporate the prediction of interfacial curvature depending on the preferred wetting of the pipe wall by either one of the liquid phases (abstract).
Claim 13, Johansen further teaches the fluid flow model is generated in part by modelling the liquid in the film (fig.2, liquid wall film and LSI; [0021], [0073]-[0084]).
Claim 14, Johansen further teaches (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, wherein the fluid flow model is generated in part by modelling the liquid in a layer as a homogeneous oil-water mixture (fig.2, liquid wall film, [0021], [0073]-[0084], [0070] The multiphase flow within an oil and gas pipeline usually contains a mixture of oil, water and gas. Each fluid is subdivided into several fields, making it possible to distinguish the different physical appearances of one fluid. In this flow there are, as illustrated in FIG. 1, three different continuous phases; water, gas, and oil, and 12 fields; three continuous fields (water, oil, gas), dispersed water in gas, dispersed oil in gas, dispersed gas in water, dispersed gas in oil, dispersed oil in water and dispersed water in oil, liquid oil and water films on the pipe wall in the gas continuous zone, …).
The elements of claims 15 and 16 are substantially the same as those of claims 1. Further, claim 15 recites A computing system, comprising: one or more processors; and a memory system comprising one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by at least one of the one or more processors, cause the computing system to perform operations (See Johansen, [0060], “a computer, comprising a processing device and a computer memory, the computer memory is storing a computer program”. Claim 16 recites “A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a computing system, cause the computing system to perform operations” (See Johansen[0059], “a computer program, comprising processing instructions which causes a computer to perform the method according to the first and/or second aspect of the invention when the instructions are executed by a processing device in the computer.” Therefore, the elements of claims 15 and 16 are rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claim 1.
The elements of claims 17-20 are substantially the same as those of claims 7 and 10. Therefore, the elements of claims 17-20 are rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claims 7 and 10.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhang US20180210435A1 discloses A computing system includes a processor that estimates a pattern of a flow of a mixture of particles and a fluid in a tubular structure as a stationary bed flow, a dispersed flow, or a transitional flow that is relative to the stationary bed and dispersed flows. The processor estimates a plurality of parameters based on the estimated pattern. The processor determines a plurality of dimensionless parameters, based on the estimated parameters. The dimensionless parameters include a first dimensionless parameter corresponding to an effect of turbulence on the flow and a second dimensionless parameter corresponding to an effect of gravity on the flow. The processor characterizes the pattern of the flow as the stationary bed flow, the dispersed flow, or the transitional flow, based on the dimensionless parameters. The processor models the flow based on the estimated pattern if it is determined that the characterized pattern matches the estimated pattern.
A.R.W Hall, “MULTIPHASE FLOW OF OIL, WATER AND GAS IN HORIZONTAL PIPES,” Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, University of London, Oct. 1992, discloses study of the three-phase flow of a gas phase and two immiscible liquid phases in a horizontal pipe.
Wood, “THREE-PHASE OIL/WATER/AIR VERTICAL FLOW” published on 1998, discloses annular three-phase fluid flow (page.573-577, regime).
Dutta US 20120059633 A1, discloses determining whether the model is above a threshold accuracy for evaluation of the subsurface of the three-dimensional geologic formation and model in a subsurface of a three-dimensional geologic formation ([0162] It is important to recognize that geologic interpretations, rock physics templates, sets of curves, and/or velocity models may be refined in an iterative fashion; this concept is applicable to methods 1100, 1200, and 1300 as discussed herein. This can include use of feedback loops executed on an algorithmic basis, such as at a computing device (e.g., computing system 100, FIG. 1), and/or through manual control by a user who may make determinations regarding whether a given step, action, template, model, or set of curves has become sufficiently accurate for the evaluation of the subsurface three-dimensional geologic formation under consideration.
Y. Zhao et al., “Recognition and measurement in the flow pattern and void fraction of gas-liquid two-phase flow in vertical upward pipes using the gamma densitometer,” Applied Thermal Engineering 60 (2013) 398-410, July 2013, discloses The major components of a gamma densitometer are schematically shown in Fig. 4(A). … the gamma source and the detector were located a dramatically opposite to each other on the test section with collimator structures used to ensure the production of a narrow gamma rays.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YI HAO whose telephone number is (571)270-1303. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Emerson Puente can be reached at (571)272-3652. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YI . HAO/
Examiner, Art Unit 2187
/EMERSON C PUENTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187
Prosecution Insights