DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The independent claims recite “aggregating the determined virtual flow rates from the plurality of wells to determine a combined virtual flow rate into the GOSP,
comparing combined virtual flow rate against the measured flow rate of the separated fluid phase exiting the fluid output of the GOSP as measured by the at least one flow meter, and validating the determined virtual flow rates based on the comparison, and based on the validating, adjusting the generated digital twin,” but said limitation is not supported in the original disclosure.
Foremost, the Paragraph [0051] (portion reproduced below) and Fig. 3 is shown below.
PNG
media_image1.png
600
1042
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
472
1112
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In Paragraph [0051], original disclosure discloses that 310 is the simulated phase flow rates, while 312 is the separated output flows from the field measurements from the GOSP. The validation involves virtual flow rates 314 against the measured or aggregated flow rates 312. However, what is disclosed in paragraph [0051] and Fig. 3 is per well, and there is no support for aggregating the determined virtual flow rates from the plurality of wells to determine the combined virtual flow rate into the GOSP, and subsequent comparison limitation.
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.
Claims 17-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without being integrated into a practical application and do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Utilizing the two step process adopted by the Supreme Court (Alice Corp vs CLS Bank Int'l, US Supreme Court, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014) and the recent 101 guideline, Federal Register Vol. 84, No., Jan 2019)), determination of the subject matter eligibility under the 35 USC 101 is as follows: Specifically, the Step 1 requires claim belongs to one of the four statutory categories (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). If Step 1 is satisfied, then in the first part of Step 2A (Prong one), identification of any judicial recognized exceptions in the claim is made. If any limitation in the claim is identified as judicial recognized exception, then proceeding to the second part of Step 2A (Prong two), determination is made whether the identified judicial exception is being integrated into practical application. If the identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, then in Step 2B, the claim is further evaluated to see if the additional elements, individually and in combination, provide “inventive concept” that would amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. If the element and combination of elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial recognized exception itself, then the claim is ineligible under the 35 USC 101.
Looking at the claims, the claims satisfy the first part of the test 1A, namely the claims are directed to two of the four statutory class, apparatus and method. In Step 2A Prong one, we next identify any judicial exceptions in the claims. In Claim 17, we recognize that the limitations “determining a virtual flow rate….aggregating the determined virtual flow rates from the plurality of wells to determine a combined virtual flow rate into the GOSP, comparing combined virtual flow rate against the measured flow rate of the separated fluid phase exiting the fluid output of the GOSP as measured by the at least one flow meter ….validating the determined virtual flow rates based on the comparison, and based on the validating adjusting the generated digital twin” are abstract ideas, as they are directed to mental process under the BRI. Similar rejection is made for other dependent claims. NOTE: the structural limitations such as “with a plurality of water-cut meters installed….” are passively recited and are not treated as additional elements in the following. With the identification of abstract ideas, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong two, where with additional elements and taken as a whole, we evaluate whether the identified abstract idea is being integrated into a practical application.
In Step 2A, Prong two, the claims additionally recite “generating a digital twin of the plurality of wells and the pipeline network, and “based on the comparison, adjusting the generated twin” but said limitation is merely usage of general-purpose computer to generate and adjust some generic model, recited at high level of generality. The claims additionally recite “with one or more hardware processors of a control system,” but said limitations are merely directed to general-purpose computer for implementing the abstract idea. The claims also recite “storing….” But said limitation is insignificant as it is merely directed to storing of desired information. The claims do not improve any devices or sensors. The claims also do not improve other technology. At most, the claims are an improvement in the abstract idea of determining the virtual flow rate, but new or improved abstract ideas are still abstract ideas. In summary, the claims do not provide sufficient evidence to show that they are more than a drafting effort to monopolize the abstract idea. As such, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Consequently, with the identified abstract idea not being integrated into a practical application, we proceed to Step 2B and evaluate whether the additional elements provide “inventive concept” that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
In Step 2B, the claims additionally recite “generating a digital twin of the plurality of wells and the pipeline network,” but said limitation is merely usage of general-purpose computer to generate and adjust some generic model, recited at high level of generality, without particular end use. The claims additionally recite “with one or more hardware processors of a control system,” but said limitations are merely directed to general-purpose computer for implementing the abstract idea, that are well-understood, routine and conventional. The claims also recite “storing….” But said limitation is a insignificant as it is merely directed to storing of desired information, that is well-understood, routine and conventional. As such, the claims do not provide additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
In Summary, the claims recite determining a virtual flow rate using some generic digital twin, an abstract idea without being integrated into a practical application, and do not provide additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract ide. As such, taken as a whole, the claims are ineligible under the 35 USC 101.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 9-12 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Syresin et al., US-PGPUB 2021/0340869 (hereinafter Syresin) in view of portion of US-PGPUB 2024/0077348 (as indicated below) (hereinafter AAPA) and El-Bakry et al., US-PGPUB 2017/0058659 (hereinafter El-Bakry)
Regarding Claims 1, 9 and 17. Syresin discloses a multiphase well fluid system (Abstract, multiphase), comprising:
a plurality of water-cut meters configured for installation in a pipeline network and for measurement of a water cut percentage of a respective plurality of multiphase well fluids from a respective plurality of wells into the pipeline network to a gas oil separation plant (GOSP) (Paragraph [0037], Fig. 6F, measurement of a water-cut over time; Paragraph [0053]-[0054], watercut sensors; Paragraph [0004]), memory (Claim 17: Fig. 9, Paragraph [0006], [0056], storing extensive set of data related to flow rates)
at least one flow meter configured for installation on a fluid output from the GOSP to measure a flow rate of a separated fluid phase (Paragraph [0047], flow meter, into flow rates of each of the phases and components) (note: As Applicant had admitted in the US-PGPUB 2024/0077348, Paragraph [0002], flow meters are conventionally used in GOSP), a plurality of temperature sensors configured for installation in the pipeline network and for measurement of a temperature of the respective plurality of multiphase well fluid flows from the respective plurality of wells into the pipeline network to the GOSP (Paragraph [0054], temperature sensors) and a control system communicably coupled to the plurality of water-cut meters and the plurality of temperature sensors, and the at least one flow meter, the control system configured to perform operations (Fig. 1; Paragraph [0056]), comprising:
generating a digital twin of the plurality of wells and the pipeline network (Fig. 8; Paragraphs [0047]-[0048]; [0057]-[0066]; Note: digital twin, as an example, is defined as a model according to the Applicant’s Specification); and
during circulation of the respective plurality of multiphase well fluids from the respective plurality of wells, into the pipeline network, and to the GOSP (Paragraph [0065], flow rate determined in real-time), determining a virtual flow rate for at least one fluid phase of each of the plurality of multiphase well fluids from the respective plurality of wells with the generated digital twin, the plurality of measured water-cut percentages, and the plurality of measured temperatures (Paragraph [0055], Fig. 8, 180, flow rate; [0006]-[0009]; Note: Applicant defines “virtual” as “digital data” in the Paragraph [0043] in the Applicant’s Published PGPUB. This means that virtual flow rate is nothing more than digital flow rate that are derived using computers. Paragraph [0079], thus, using DSP to arrive at digital flow rate or virtual flow rate), comparing and validating the determined virtual flow rates based on the comparison and based on the validating, adjusting the generated digital twin (Paragraph [0064], comparing flow rates, and validating based on the threshold; Paragraph [0066], adjusting model).
Syresin does not disclose aggregating the determined virtual flow rates from the plurality of wells to determine a combined virtual flow rate into the GOSP,
comparing combined virtual flow rate against the measured flow rate of the separated fluid phase exiting the fluid output of the GOSP as measured by the at least one flow meter, and validating the determined virtual flow rates based on the comparison, and based on the validating, adjusting the generated digital twin.
El-Bakry discloses automated well test validation for a plurality of wells, includes comparing the combined flow rate into multiphase separator and flow out of the separator, and based on the validating, adjusting the model (Paragraphs [0077], comparing the combined flow rate into multiphase separator and flow out of the separator, [0044], [0047]; [0063]; Paragraphs [0004]-[0007])
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of El-Bakry in Syresin and aggregate the determined virtual flow rates from the plurality of wells to determine a combined virtual flow rate into the GOSP, compare combined virtual flow rate against the measured flow rate of the separated fluid phase exiting the fluid output of the GOSP as measured by the at least one flow meter, and validate the determined virtual flow rates based on the comparison, and based on the validating, adjust the generated digital twin and thereby reliably determine the quality of the well testing.
Regarding Claims 2, 10 and 18. Syresin discloses the operation of generating the digital twin of the plurality of wells and the pipeline network comprises generating the digital twin of the plurality of wells and the pipeline network based on at least one well parameter and at least one pipeline network parameter (Fig. 8; Paragraph [0047]-[0048]; [0057]-[0066];)
Regarding Claims 3, 11 and 19. Syresin discloses the at least one well parameter comprises at least one of: well completion choke settings, reservoir pressure, production index, or PVT data (Paragraph [0007], pressure); and the at least one pipeline network parameter comprises at least one of pipeline diameters, pipeline lengths, pipeline pressure losses, or flow control device pressure loss data (Paragraph [0069], diameter).
Regarding Claims 4, 12 and 20. discloses at least one flow meter configured for installation on a fluid output from the GOSP and to measure a flow rate of a fluid phase of a plurality of fluid phases of a separated well fluid output from the GOSP (Paragraph [0007], multiphase flowmeter)
Claims 5-6, 13-14 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Syresin et al., US-PGPUB 2021/0340869 and El-Bakry, US-PGPUB 2017/0058659 and further in view of Northedge, US Pat No. 4,881,412 (hereinafter Northedge)
Regarding Claims 5-6, 13-14 and 21-22. Syresin discloses a multiphase flow meter (Paragraph [0007])
Syresin does not disclose a first flow meter configured for installation on a gas output from the GOSP, and a second flow meter configured for installation on an oil output from the GOSP, a third flow meter configured for installation on a water output from the GOSP.
Northedge discloses a flow meter that can be selectively connected to the output of any of the wells to monitor flows of gas, oil and water (Col. 4, lines 6-19; Abstract; Col. 2, lines 40-43)
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Northedge in Syresin and have a first flow meter configured for installation on a gas output from the GOSP, and a second flow meter configured for installation on an oil output from the GOSP, a third flow meter configured for installation on a water output from the GOSP, so as to efficiently monitor respective flow rates.
Claims 7-8, 15-16 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Syresin et al., US-PGPUB 2021/0340869 and El-Bakry, US-PGPUB 2017/0058659 and Northedge, US Pat No. 4,881,412 as applied to Claims 6, 14 and 22 above and further in view of Willberg et al., US-PGPUB 2018/0010429 (hereinafter Willberg)
Regarding Claims 7-8, 15-16 and 23-24. Syresin discloses flow rates and model adjustments (Paragraph [0066])
The modified Syresin does not disclose comparing the plurality of determined virtual flow rates with a mass or volumetric fluid flow from the GOSP, the mass or the volumetric flow rate comprising a measured gas flow rate from the first flow meter, a measured oil flow rate from the second flow meter, and a measured water flow rate from the third flow meter; and validating the plurality of determined virtual flow rates based on the comparison, and based on comparison, adjusting the generated digital
Willberg discloses comparing the oil, water and gas flow rates with measured values to validate a simulation model and refine the flowback model (Paragraph [0015]; Abstract)
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Willberg in the modified Syresin and compare the plurality of determined virtual flow rates with a mass or volumetric fluid flow from the GOSP, the mass or the volumetric flow rate comprising a measured gas flow rate from the first flow meter, a measured oil flow rate from the second flow meter, and a measured water flow rate from the third flow meter, and validate the plurality of determined virtual flow rates based on the comparison, and based on comparison, adjusting the generated digital and thereby enhance the overall accuracy of a simulation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 HYUN D PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-7922. The examiner can normally be reached 11-4.
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, Arleen Vazquez can be reached at 571-272-2619. 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.
/HYUN D PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights