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 .
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.
Claims 1, 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rustad et al (United States Patent Application Publication 20160115395) in view of Naier et al (United States Patent Application Publication 20110083514) in view of Chen et al (United States Patent Application Publication 20190219432), the combination of which is hereafter referred to as “RNC”.
As to claim 1, Rustad teaches a method for measuring a flux of a heavy oil-miscible phase fluid (Abstract “A system including a controller configured to receive feedback from at least one sensor configured to monitor a fluid flow of a hydrocarbon extraction system. The fluid flow includes water and an injected chemical.”), wherein the method is applicable to a device for measuring the flux of the heavy oil-miscible phase fluid installed on a pipeline (paragraph 0014 “The present disclosure is directed to embodiments of an additive management system configured to determine and monitor one or more conditions of a hydrocarbon extraction system” where flow is measured, paragraph 0026 “the measurement data may include one or more flow characteristics (e.g., flow parameters) of a fluid flow in the hydrocarbon extraction system 10, such as flow rate (e.g. mass flow rate),” and since one must know the pipe size to calculate mass flow rate, one can obviously calculate flux (flow per unit area) and it would have been obvious to do so in order to more accurately describe the flow through the pipe) and comprising [a streamlined spindle (see below)] and a multi-level light quantum-based phase separator (paragraph 0022 “multi-phase flow meters”), and the method comprises:
flowing of the heavy oil-miscible phase fluid out of an oil and gas well through the pipeline (Figure 1, paragraph 0047 “the flow meter 20 measures the flow rate of fluid exiting the well 32”), with the heavy oil-miscible phase fluid comprising at least two fluid media (paragraph 0027 “the fluid flow may include water, oil, gas, hydrogen sulfide, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, salts, and/or one or more injected chemicals (e.g., hydrate inhibitors, pH modifiers, scale inhibitors, etc.)”);
measuring a total flux of the heavy oil-miscible phase fluid flowing [through the streamlined spindle] (paragraph 0026 “the measurement data may include one or more flow characteristics (e.g., flow parameters) of a fluid flow in the hydrocarbon extraction system 10, such as flow rate (e.g. mass flow rate),” and since one must know the pipe size to calculate mass flow rate, one can obviously calculate flux (flow per unit area) and it would have been obvious to do so in order to more accurately describe the flow through the pipe);
carrying out a measurement with a light quantum on the heavy oil-miscible phase fluid (paragraph 0029 “the controller 24 may determine the amount (e.g., proportion, percentage, or concentration) of one or more components in the fluid flow relative to the total fluid flow based on feedback from one or more optical sensors 70. The optical sensors 70 may be infrared, reflectance-type sensors.”) by using the multi-level light quantum-based phase separator to obtain a linear mass of each of the at least two fluid media (paragraph 0047 “ the flow meter 20 may be a wet-gas flow meter or multi-phase flow meter capable of measuring a fluid flow rate as well as the concentration of water in the fluid flow.”); and
obtaining a flux for each of the at least two fluid media from the total flux and the linear mass of each of the at least two fluid media (and paragraph 0040 “the controller 24 may determine the mass flow of hydrate inhibitor to inject based on the mass flow of water, the concentration of the rich hydrate inhibitor, and the concentration of lean hydrate inhibitor” and since one must know the pipe size to calculate mass flow rate, one can obviously calculate flux (flow per unit area) and it would have been obvious to do so in order to more accurately describe the flow through the pipe).
Rustad does not teach a streamlined spindle. However, Rustad teaches measuring the flow (paragraph 0014 “one or several flow meters”) and a flow meter comprising a spindle is known in the art as taught by Naier. Naier teaches a flow meter (Abstract “Flow-meter device”) comprising a spindle (Figure 1, paragraph 0027 “measurement spindle 17”) and while the descriptor “streamlined” is not used, there are a limited number of shapes for a spindle-type flow meter and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2145(X)B. In this case one would use a streamlined shape, in order to reduce fluid turbulence caused by the act of measuring.
While Rustad teaches multi-phase flow meter (paragraph 0017 “flow meters 20 (e.g., wet-gas flow meter, multi-phase flow meter)”), Rustad as modified by Naier above does not teach light quantum of at least four levels, and in the range indicated by claim 4 (which is gamma radiation). However, it is known in the art as taught by Chen. Chen teaches light quantum of at least [four] levels (paragraph 0008 “the gamma rays as emitted by the radioactive source primarily have three energy levels”), and while Chen teaches three levels, Chen teaches the three levels are used to solve three variables for three phase measurements (bottom of paragraph 0008 “gas, oil and water phases”) and as Rustad teaches more than three components (paragraph 0027 “the fluid flow may include water, oil, gas, hydrogen sulfide, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, salts, and/or one or more injected chemicals”), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have more than three levels, in order to better analyze more than three components with separate phase equations.
As to claim 9, RNC teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, with the exception of wherein the step of obtaining a flux for each of the at least two fluid media from the total flux and the linear mass of each of the at least two fluid media comprises: dividing the linear mass of each of the at least two fluid media by a linear mass sum of all the at least two fluid media, to obtain a mass fraction of each of the at least two fluid media; and multiplying the mass fraction of each of the at least two fluid media by the total flux, to obtain the flux for each of the at least two fluid media. However, Rustad teaches calculating the mass flow rate of the fluid components (paragraph 0027 “the controller 24 may determine the flow rate (e.g., mass flow rate) and/or fluid density for one or more components of the fluid flow”) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to use the claimed math, in order to properly calculate the fraction of flow for each component, and since one must know the pipe size to calculate mass flow rate, one can obviously calculate flux (flow per unit area) and it would have been obvious to do so in order to more accurately describe the component flow through the pipe.
As to claim 10, RNC teaches a device for measuring a flux of a heavy oil-miscible phase fluid (see the combination of the references for the rejection of claim 1 above),
wherein the device is installed on the pipeline (Figure 1, Rustad paragraph 0017 “the additive management system 12 may determine or monitor a hydrate condition (e.g., hydrate formation) and/or a ratio or proportion of a chemical (e.g., a hydrate inhibitor) relative to water in a fluid flow”),
the device comprising: the streamlined spindle (as taught by Naier, see the rejection of claim 1) and the multi-level light quantum-based phase separator (as taught by Chen, see the rejection of claim 1),
Rustad teaches wherein the heavy oil-miscible phase fluid flows out of the oil and gas well through the pipeline (Figures 1 & 2, paragraphs 0017-0018); wherein the device is configured to carry out the method for measuring a flux of a heavy oil- miscible phase fluid according to claim 1, to obtain the flux for each of the at least two fluid media in the heavy oil-miscible phase fluid (Figures 1 & 2, paragraph 0019 “During extraction operations, additional substances (e.g., water and sediment) may flow out of the wells 32 with the hydrocarbon fluid flow. As the water moves with the hydrocarbons, water (e.g., freezing water) and natural gas components may combine to form hydrates due to high pressures and low temperatures in the hydrocarbon extraction environment. However, as described below, the additive management system 12 may monitor a hydrate condition (e.g., hydrate formation) of the hydrocarbon extraction system 10 and may reduce, block, or inhibit formation of the hydrates by injecting hydrate inhibitors (e.g., mono-ethylene glycol, methanol, kinetic hydrate inhibitors, anti-agglomerates, etc.) in the hydrocarbon extraction system 10.”).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RNC, and further in view of Chen et al (CN 106840293 hereafter referred to as “Chen93”).
As to claim 2, RNC teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, with the exception of the step of measuring a total flux of the heavy oil-miscible phase fluid flowing through the streamlined spindle comprises: measuring a temperature of the heavy oil-miscible phase fluid flowing through the streamlined spindle; obtaining a throttling density, a throttling differential pressure, and throttling parameters of the streamlined spindle, wherein the throttling differential pressure is a differential pressure between a pressure tap at an upstream inlet and a pressure tap at a throttling structure with an equivalent throat diameter of a throttler of the streamlined spindle, and the throttling density being a mixed density of the heavy oil-miscible phase fluid at the pressure tap at the throttling structure with the equivalent throat diameter of the throttler; and calculating the total flux from the temperature, the throttling parameters, the throttling density and a preset flux calculation equation.
However, it is known in the art as taught by Chen93. Chen93 teaches
measuring a temperature of the heavy oil-miscible phase fluid flowing through the streamlined spindle (paragraph 63 “TE base and holding wire constitute temperature-measuring element”);
obtaining a throttling density (paragraph 73 “2 is main measurement pipe, and 3 is density measure pipe, and 4 is density throttling element”), a throttling differential pressure (paragraph 94 “Δp It is differential pressure” and), and throttling parameters of the streamlined spindle (Chen93 teaches monitoring many parameters (paragraph 81 “multi-parameter real-time continuous monitoring” and “it can simultaneously measure density, flow, temperature, pressure information, right Measurement multi-parameter real-time continuous monitoring”) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to include the flow meter readings as part of the calculations, in order to make more accurate measurements),
wherein the throttling differential pressure is a differential pressure between a pressure tap at an upstream inlet and a pressure tap at a throttling structure with an equivalent throat diameter of a throttler of the streamlined spindle (paragraph 94 “Δp It is differential pressure” and while the claimed locations are not explicitly taught, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to measure differential pressure in the claimed locations as they are the locations between which the pressure difference affects the measurement), and
the throttling density being a mixed density of the heavy oil-miscible phase fluid at the pressure tap (Figure 1, paragraph 73 “2 is main measurement pipe, and 3 is density measure pipe, and 4 is density throttling element, and 5 is flow Throttling element, 6 is pressure connector in density, and 7 is pressure connector under density, and 8 is density capillary, and 9 is density transmitter” and paragraph 87 “density on main measurement pipe 2, density measure pipe 3, density throttling element 4, density Connector 7, density transmitter 9, density capillary 8 and the component density measuring mechanism of holding wire 17”); and
calculating the total flux from the temperature, the throttling parameters, the throttling density and a preset flux calculation equation (paragraph 93 indicates there is an equation following, but it does not appear in the machine translation, see page 4 of the original and translation paragraphs 94-99 for the variables, this equation is the total flow and since one must know the pipe size to calculate mass flow rate, one can obviously calculate flux (flow per unit area) and it would have been obvious to do so in order to more accurately describe the flow through the pipe)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the step of measuring a total flux of the heavy oil-miscible phase fluid flowing through the streamlined spindle comprises: measuring a temperature of the heavy oil-miscible phase fluid flowing through the streamlined spindle; obtaining a throttling density, a throttling differential pressure, and throttling parameters of the streamlined spindle, wherein the throttling differential pressure is a differential pressure between a pressure tap at an upstream inlet and a pressure tap at a throttling structure with an equivalent throat diameter of a throttler of the streamlined spindle, and the throttling density being a mixed density of the heavy oil-miscible phase fluid at the pressure tap at the throttling structure with the equivalent throat diameter of the throttler; and calculating the total flux from the temperature, the throttling parameters, the throttling density and a preset flux calculation equation, in order to make more accurate measurements.
RNC as modified by Chen93 does not teach a pressure tap at the throttling structure with the equivalent throat diameter of the throttler. However, while pipe size affects the pressure within it, the measurement being made is a differential pressure and it would have been obvious where one skilled in the art is choosing from a finite number of identifiable & predictable pipe sizes, with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2145(X)B.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 3, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a method for measuring a flux of a heavy oil-miscible phase fluid comprising determining a first relationship between a Reynolds number and the total flux from a preset Reynolds number calculation equation, the dynamic viscosity of the heavy oil and the inner diameter; determining a second relationship between the Reynolds number and a discharge coefficient from a preset discharge coefficient calculation equation, wherein the discharge coefficient is a ratio of an actual flux to a theoretical flux of the heavy oil-miscible phase fluid; verifying, whether the second relationship is correct, from the preset flux calculation equation, the throttling parameters, the throttling differential pressure and the throttling density; and carrying out an iterative calculation according to Newton's method based on the preset flux calculation equation, when the second relationship is correct, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim.
As to claim 4, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a method for measuring a flux of a heavy oil-miscible phase fluid comprising obtaining a ratio between medium-free transmission quantities of the light quantum of four levels, wherein the medium-free transmission quantity is a transmission quantity in an empty and medium-free pipeline; obtaining a linear mass absorption coefficient of the light quantum of first level, the light quantum of second level and the light quantum of third level for each of the at least two fluid media, and Compton scattering constant of the light quantum of fourth level, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim.
Claims 5-8 would similarly be allowable as they depend upon and incorporate claim 4.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JARREAS UNDERWOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-1536. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0600-1400 EST.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571) 2705789. 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.
/J.C.U/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877