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 .
The amended claims filed 10/31/25 are acknowledged; claims 1-6 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 2, and 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oliveira.
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).
CLAIM 2: claim 1, wherein the method is automated in a web tool which reads information from an integrated production database and from a plant information system in real time, associates the information with the simulation results, makes a check list of the method requirements, and, through established calculation assumptions, informs the potential for oil gain with the subsea demulsifier injection.
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 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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oliveira in view of Al Shalabi (WO 2021/048760).
Oliveira discloses the elements of claim 1 as discussed above.
Al Shalabi discloses a method of simulating well systems.
Al Shalabi discloses the method is automated in a tool web which reads information from an integrated production database and from a plant information system in real time, associates it with the simulation results, makes a check list of the method requirements, and, through established calculation assumptions, informs the potential for oil gain with the application of the product (see paragraph 0051 discussing wireless communication with computer system 100).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 10/31/25 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The newly cited art discloses selecting wells from a plurality of wells.
Conclusion
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 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 3679
/TARA SCHIMPF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676