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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oliveira in view of Strobel (WO 2012115630).
Claim 1: Oliveira discloses an automated method for selecting an oil producing well from a plurality of oil producing wells to receive a subsea demulsifier injection (“a general criterion for the selection of candidate wells...” page 3). The method comprises: for each oil producing well of the plurality of oil producing well: Evaluating well production data obtained from the oil producing well (“fluid and flow characteristics” Abstract; discussed in further detail throughout). Identifying a flow regime of the oil producing well, between an injection point of the subsea demulsifier injection within the oil producing well and a surface processing plant, while the oil producing well is producing (inside the flowline and riser, see Methodology section). Simulating a steady production flow regime solely within the oil producing well to quantify oil production gain, the steady flow regime comprising separate water and oil phases, without emulsion, using the well production data (see Multiphase flow simulation discussion). Simulating flow in a transient production flow regime, solely within the oil producing well, to evaluate a gain in flow stabilization with the separate water and oil phases (see discussions in Multiphase flow simulation and Conclusions). Selecting an oil producing well from the plurality of oil producing wells to receive the subsea demulsifier injection based on the well production data and simulation results (selecting from Well A and Well B). Preparing the selected oil producing well for the subsea demulsifier injection and starting the subsea demulsifier injection; selecting a subsea demulsifier chemical for the subsea demulsifier injection and identifying an appropriate dosage (“demulsifiers were screened”, page 4). Injecting the selected subsea demulsifier chemical into the selected oil producing well (the Field Trial). Monitoring production and quality of water during a production life of the selected oil producing well (the Field Trial).
Oliveira fails to disclose using a web tool for estimating an oil gain achieved by injecting the oil producing well with the subsea demulsifier injection based on the well production data, the identified flow regime of the oil producing well, and results of simulating the steady production flow regime and the transient production flow regime; and evaluating financial viability of injecting the oil producing well with the subsea demulsifier injection by comparing an expected additional revenue realized form the estimated oil gain with a cost of the subsea demulsifier injection.
Strobel discloses method of determining viable hydraulic fracture scenarios.
Strobel discloses using a web tool (paragraph 0049) to determine the results of an action on the flow of an oil production system (paragraph 0027) and determine financial viability of an action (paragraph 0029).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Oliveira by adding the web tool of Strobel as a combination of known prior art elements with a reasonable expectation of success as the web tool would allow the user to consult the data at any location.
CLAIM 3: The oil producing wells of the plurality of oil producing wells that present the greatest potential for oil gain are those that produce a stable emulsion without free water, with water content greater than 30% (see Abstract, “The results have shown that higher oil production is observed in wells that produce stable emulsions above 30% water cut…”).
CLAIM 4: The identified flow regime of the oil producing well has a Reynolds number lower than 1x10^5 at a base of a riser (see Abstract, “The results have shown that higher oil production is observed in wells that produce stable emulsions flowing with Reynolds number lower than 10^5…”).
CLAIM 5: Selecting the subsea demulsifier chemical comprises bottle testing (see page 4).
CLAIM 6: Simulating flow in the transient regime comprises determining viscosity without emulsion (see Multiphase flow simulation, discussing “models with and without emulsion”).
CLAIM 7: Selecting the subsea demulsifier chemical for the subsea demulsifier injection comprises: collecting an emulsion sample from the selected oil producing well; injecting a candidate subsea demulsifier chemical into the emulsion sample; and determining a quality of water separated from the emulsion sample by the candidate subsea demulsifier chemical (see page 4, “Laboratory tests” which sets out this procedure).
CLAIM 8: The quality of the water separated from the emulsion sample by the candidate subsea demulsifier chemical is determined based on an oil and grease content of the water (see page 5, under “Study results” breaking down the contents).
CLAIM 9: Determining a compatibility of a candidate subsea demulsifier chemical with a product injected at the surface processing plant (see page 9, under Conclusions discussing “verified in field…).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/23/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Applicant asserts the above combination is not proper because Strobel “fails to disclose or suggest a web tool that performs the specific functions required by claim 1.” The specific data used by Strobel is not the claimed data. That analysis is taught by Oliveira. Strobel teaches one of ordinary skill what to do with that analysis, specifically using a web tool to analyze for financial viability in a oil and well system. The limitations are taught by the combination of references.
Conclusion
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 PATRICK F LAMBE whose telephone number is (571)270-1932. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10-4.
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, Tara Schimpf can be reached at (571)270-7741. 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.
/PATRICK F LAMBE/Examiner, Art Unit 3676
/TARA SCHIMPF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights