DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: TCA is not defined in the claim before it is used. The first time the term is used should read as “tubular casing annulus (TCA)”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 are 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.
With respect to claims 4, 11, and 18, it is unclear if P in the equation should be just pressure or if it should be the change in pressure since the description that follows lists ΔP (i.e., the change in pressure). For the purpose of examination , the limitation will be interpreted as being ΔP.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claims 1-20 are directed to a method (process), a system (machine or manufacture), and a non-transitory medium (manufacture), respectively. As such, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention.
If the claim recites a statutory category of invention, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A. Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite abstract limitations, including: “generating, based on values of the well attributes data, a relationship for predicting an annulus pressure by equating a change in volume of fluid in the well to a change in volume of a tubing casing annulus; updating the relationship based on fluid properties of the fluid; and predicting a TCA pressure for the well based on the updated relationship.”
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, represent mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and/or mathematical calculations and are therefore mathematical concepts. The mere recitation of a generic computer does not take the claim out of the mathematical concepts grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
If the claim recites a judicial exception in step 2A Prong One, the claim requires further analysis in step 2A Prong Two. In step 2A Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite the additional element of: “receiving well attributes data describing a physical configuration of a well.”
Claim 8 recites the additional element of: at least one processor and a memory.
Claim 15 recites the additional element of: one or more non-transitory computer readable media and at least one processor.
“[R]eceiving well attributes data describing a physical configuration of a well” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., activity incidental to the primary process/product that is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The functions of the processor, memory, and non-transitory computer readable media are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application in step 2A Prong Two, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, and requires further analysis under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
Receiving the well attributes data is considered insignificant extra-solution activity as the limitation of “receiving” data is considered insignificant extra-solution activities as the limitation amounts to selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated and transmitting/receiving the data. As noted in Electric Power Group, selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information for collection, analysis, and display is considered insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Additionally, the Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs. and buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere receiving or transmitting data over a network is a well-understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
As discussed above, the additional elements amount to mere instructions to apply the exception (using additional elements of the processor, memory, and non-transitory computer readable media). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
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 does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).
Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
Claims 2-4, 9-11, and 16-18 further recite:
the well attributes data comprising a casing material type, a fluid type and quantity, temperature, and diameter;
the fluid properties comprise at least one of a compressibility and a volumetric coefficient for the fluid;
the relationship is defined as:
P
=
α
f
-
α
V
∆
T
β
+
D
t
*
E
where: αf is a volumetric coefficient of thermal expansion of the fluid, αV is a volumetric coefficient of thermal expansion of the annulus, ΔT is a change in temperature; β is a compressibility factor of the fluid, -ΔP is a change in pressure of the fluid, D is a diameter of the annulus, t is a thickness of the annulus, and E is an elastic modulus of the annulus.
which merely narrows the previously recited abstract idea limitations.
With respect to claims 5, 12, and 19, the step of “based on the prediction of the TCA pressure for the well, causing one or more remedial actions for the well” merely amounts to “apply it.” The reciting of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution (i.e., remedial action) to an identified problem (i.e., anomalous annuli pressure conditions) with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result (i.e., what aspects are changed or how the change is affected by the abstract idea) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1).
Claims 6, 13, and 20, the defining so that “the remedial action comprises at least one of a as TCA refill, a TCA lubrication, and a pressure bleed-off for the well” merely amounts to “apply it.” The reciting of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution (i.e., remedial action) to an identified problem (i.e., anomalous annuli pressure conditions) with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result (i.e., what aspects are changed in relation to the abstract idea or how the change is affected by the abstract idea) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1). Specifically, the phrase “based on” does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea since it does not specifically tie the abstract idea to a specific solution/result.
With respect to claims 7 and 14, the step of “controlling a pressure in the well, based on the predicting, wherein controlling comprises causing one or more of a pressure bleed off event and generation of a notification instructing an operator to inspect the well for leakage or blockage, the notification being transmitted to the operator” merely amounts to “apply it.” The reciting of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution (i.e., controlling a pressure) to an identified problem (i.e., anomalous annuli pressure condition) with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result (i.e., what aspects are changed or how the change is affected by the abstract idea) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5, 8, 12, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu (US 2022/0290528).
With respect to claims 1, 8, and 15: Liu discloses a method for predicting a well pressure for a hydrocarbon well for controlling operation of the hydrocarbon well, the method comprising:
receiving well attributes data describing a physical configuration of a well (300, 302; ¶ [0030-31]);
generating, based on values of the well attributes data, a relationship for predicting an annulus pressure by equating a change in volume of fluid in the well to a change in volume of a tubing casing annulus (308, 310, 312; ¶ [0032-0036]);
updating the relationship based on fluid properties of the fluid (¶ [0023, 0027, 0032]; Fig. 3A); and
predicting a TCA pressure for the well based on the updated relationship (312; ¶ [0034-36]; Fig. 3A).
Liu further disclose at least one processor (¶ [0066]), a memory (i.e., a non0transitory computer readable medium) soring instructions to perform the operation when executed by the processor (¶ [0066]),
With respect to claims 5, 12, and 19: Liu further discloses based on the prediction of the TCA pressure for the well, causing one or more remedial actions for the well (¶ [0004, 0041-42]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2, 9, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of Parsons (US 2017/0096874).
With respect to claims 2, 9, and 16: Liu further discloses the well attributes data comprising a fluid type (¶ [0022, 0024]) and quantity (¶ [0022, 0024]; flow rate is a type of measurement of quantity since flow rate times time of flowing is the amount of the flowing material), and temperature (¶ [0022, 0024]).
Liu does not explicitly disclose the well attribute data comprises a casing material type and diameter.
Parsons teaches it is known in the art for input well attribute data to include casing material type (¶ [0055]) and diameter (¶ [0055]). It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the well attribute data of Parsons with the invention of Liu with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would allow for greater customization of the model/prediction since more specific data related to the wellbore would be known (i.e., having a more complete dataset).
Claims 3, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of Veeningen (US 2014/0123747).
With respect to claims 3, 10, and 17: Liu discloses all aspects of the claimed invention except for the fluid properties comprise at least one of a compressibility and a volumetric coefficient for the fluid.
Veeningen teaches it is known in the art for fluid properties to include at least one of a compressibility and a volumetric coefficient for the fluid (¶ [0041]). It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the fluid properties of Veeningen for those of Liu with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would perform the same predictable result of supplying information about the fluid.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Hoeie (US 2021/0156244).
With respect to claims 7 and 14: Liu discloses all aspects of the claimed invention except for controlling a pressure in the well, based on the predicting, wherein controlling comprises causing one or more of a pressure bleed off event and generation of a notification instructing an operator to inspect the well for leakage or blockage, the notification being transmitted to the operator.
Hoeie teaches controlling a pressure in a well, wherein controlling comprises causing one or more of a pressure bleed off event and generation of a notification instructing an operator to inspect the well for leakage or blockage, the notification being transmitted to the operator (¶ [0034]).
It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the leak checking and notification of Hoeie with the invention of Liu with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would aid operators in monitoring wells (Hoeie ¶ [0034, 0037]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 11, and 18 are allowable over the prior art but are rejected under 101 and 112(b) as discussed above.
Claims 6, 13, and 20 are allowable over the prior art but are rejected under 101 as discussed above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to claims 4, 11, and 18, the art of record does not teach or make obvious the relationship is defined as:
P
=
α
f
-
α
V
∆
T
β
+
D
t
*
E
where: αf is a volumetric coefficient of thermal expansion of the fluid, αV is a volumetric coefficient of thermal expansion of the annulus, ΔT is a change in temperature; β is a compressibility factor of the fluid, -ΔP is a change in pressure of the fluid, D is a diameter of the annulus, t is a thickness of the annulus, and E is an elastic modulus of the annulus in combination with the other claim limitations.
With respect to claims 6, 13, and 20, the art of record does not teach or make obvious the remedial action comprises at least one of a as TCA refill, a TCA lubrication, and a pressure bleed-off for the well in combination with the other claim limitations. While the remedial actions are known in the art, they cannot be combined with Liu since annuls is sealed (i.e., remedial actions involving fluid movement in an out of the annulus are not possible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mugharbil (US 2024/0229640) discloses a relationship between pressure change and the volume of the annulus and the volume of the fluid (¶ [0076-0085]). The reference is by the same inventors and has the same effective filing date.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTYN A HALL whose telephone number is (571)272-8384. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached at (571) 272-5405. 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.
/KRISTYN A HALL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
Prosecution Insights