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 .
Responsive to the communication dated 12/22/2022.
Claims 1 – 23 are presented for examination.
Priority
ADS dated 12/22/2022 claims domestic benefit of 63292826 dated 12/22/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
IDS dated 12/22/2022 has been reviewed. See attached.
Drawings
The drawings dated 12/22/2022 have been reviewed. They are accepted.
Specification
The abstract dated 12/22/2022 has 52 words, 4 lines, and no legal phraseology. The abstract is accepted.
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, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1.
STEP 1: YES, the claim recites “a method”.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES.
The claim recites “A method of estimating a flow rate of a fluid in a pipe, the method comprising: obtaining data related to a temperature of the pipe and a temperature of an environment surrounding the pipe; obtaining data related to well properties, fluid properties, heat transfer, and pump properties;
Calculating, by a flow calculation component executing on a computing system, a flow rate of the fluid through the pipe using: the data related to well properties, fluid properties, heat transfer, and pump properties; the data related to the temperature of the pipe and the temperature of the environment surrounding the pipe; and a heat transfer coefficient” which is a mathematical calculation that estimates a “rate” and, in math, a rate is a special ratio that compares two related quantities. The recited calculation uses a set of data as input and outputs a numeric value called “flow rate.”
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: NO.
While the claim recites that the calculated value is a “flow” rate “of a fluid in a pipe” this merely characterizes and/or contextualizes the mathematical calculation. At most this merely generally links the abstract idea to a technical field. Such limitations are not indicative of a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
While the claim recites “obtaining data related to a temperature of the pipe and a temperature of an environment surrounding the pipe; obtaining data related to well properties, fluid properties, heat transfer, and pump properties”, again these elements merely name and contextualize “data” (i.e., numeric values) used as input into the variables of the mathematical calculation (i.e., equation). This, at most, links the abstract idea to a field of use and linking a mathematical calculation to a field of use is not indicative of significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
While the claim recites calculating, “by a flow calculation component executing on a computing system” this merely recites to execute the mathematical calculation on a “computing system” and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer is not indicative of a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Also, MPEP 2106.05(b) indicates “that a general-purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine” and “mere recitation of concrete or tangible components is not an inventive concept” and “merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection.” The Applicant, merely recites “by a flow calculation component” which is a general recitation that indicates to program the computer with a “component” (i.e., software executing conventional functions such as, add, subtract, multiply, divide, etc.). Such elements are not a practical application.
While the claim recites “a flow rate of the fluid through the pipe using: the data related to well properties, fluid properties, heat transfer, and pump properties; the data related to the temperature of the pipe and the temperature of the environment surrounding the pipe; and a heat transfer coefficient” such elements merely contextualize and name data. This merely links the mathematical calculation to a field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Accordingly, it is found that the claim does not recite any additional elements beyond the abstract idea which rely upon or use the abstract idea in a meaningful way. Therefore, the claim does not recite a practical application.
STEP 2B: NO.
While the claim recites to gather data from various sources this is merely recited at a high degree of generality and is merely pre-solution activity. Gathering data is not indicative of significantly more than the abstract idea itself. MPEP 2106.05(g) states: “…An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of step…”
Examples of activities that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity include:
Performing clinical test on individuals to obtain input for an equation.
Testing a system for a response
Gathering statistics generated on a test
Determining the level of a biomarker in blood
The instant claim merely recites to “obtain” certain types of data and the recitation is recited at a high level of generality. Accordingly, the limitations do not impose any meaningful limitation of the claim more than merely reciting “obtaining data”. The instant claims, are similar to merely “determining the level of biomarker in blood” because the instant claim merely recite to “obtain” the values of certain named values.
Further, MPEP 2106.05(d) provides examples of pre-solution data gathering which have been found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. Examples include:
Determining biomarkers in blood by any means
Detecting DNA or enzymes in a sample
Analyzing DNA to provide sequence information.
Therefore, due to the reasons outlined above it is found that the claim, when considered individually, and as a whole, does not recite a practical application nor significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim is found NOT eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 12 recites limitations that are substantially the same as those of claim 1 and are rejected due to reasons as outlined above for claim 1. The elements which are different than claim 1 are further analyzed below.
STEP 1: YES. The claim recites “A computer system” and this is one of the statutory categories.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES. As outlined above for claim 1, the claim recites a mathematical calculation. For example, the claim recites “… a calculation node configured to calculate a flow rate… an output node configured to provide the flow rate value.” Accordingly, the claim mathematically calculates a rate using input values and output a numeric value. This is a mathematical calculation.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: NO.
While the claim recites “… comprising: a processor; a memory; and a flow rate estimation algorithm stored in the memory and configured to execute a flow rate estimation model on the processor…” this merely recites to execute the mathematical calculation on a generally recited “processor” and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer/processor is not indicative of a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Also, MPEP 2106.05(b) indicates “that a general-purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine” and “mere recitation of concrete or tangible components is not an inventive concept” and “merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection.” The Applicant, merely recites that “a flow rate estimation algorithm is stored in the memory and configured to execute” on a processor which is a general recitation of an algorithm (i.e. mathematical equation) executing conventional functions such as, add, subtract, multiply, and divide as computer instruction and Such elements are not a practical application.
While the claim recites “a first input node” and “a second input node” and “an output node” these elements merely generically recite that the processor inputs and output information at location on the system generically recites as “node.” Again, merely describing computer components that perform standard computer functions is not indicative of a practical application of the abstract idea.
STEP 2B: NO.
While the claim recites computer elements such as “a processor, a memory” and input and output “nodes”. Computers are known to have processors and memory and to store algorithms in memory that are executed on the processor. Further it is known in the art to input information into a computer and for a computer to output information. Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 2, 13 recites “Wherein the flow rate of fluid through the pipe is calculated using a thermodynamic equation as follows: Q = β(U*ΔT) Wherein Q is the flow rate to be calculated; β is derived from the data related to well properties, fluid properties, heat transfer, and pump properties; ΔT is derived from the data related to the temperature of the pipe and the temperature of the environment surrounding the pipe; and U is the heat transfer coefficient” which merely recites additional mathematical elements. While the claim characterizes the variables recited in the mathematical equation, merely naming variables is not a practical application nor is this significantly more than the abstract idea itself because naming of variables, at most, merely links the mathematical equation to a field of use and generally linking a mathematical equation to field of use is not indicative of a practical application or an inventive concept.
Claim 6, 18 recites: wherein the thermodynamic equation is further specified as
PNG
media_image1.png
243
643
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Which is a mathematical equation. The claim only includes mathematical elements and therefore there are no additional elements which rely upon or use the abstract idea recited. Accordingly, the claim does not recite a practical application. Further, there are no additional elements which might, in combination, be found to be significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim does not have significantly more/an inventive concept.
Claim 7, 19 recites “where W is equal to Bo + S and where W is calculated from information obtained from multiple wells” which merely further recites additional mathematical elements. While the claim recites that the mathematical calculation are performed using data “obtained from multiple wells” this is merely insignificant pre-solution data gathering activity that merely links the source of the data to a field of use (i.e., wells). Linking the abstract idea (i.e., mathematical calculation) to a technological field by simply reciting at a high level of generality that data is gathered from that field of use is not a recitation of elements which rely upon or use the abstract idea. Accordingly, these elements do not recite a practical application. Further, merely gathering data from a well is not significantly more because these are elements are recited at a high degree of generality and merely gathering data from wells is well understood routine and conventional activity. Indeed, Foot_2014 teaches using sensors to gather data from wells. Accordingly, gathering data from wells has been known in the art for at least 16 years.
Claim 3 recites “wherein the data related to the temperature of the pipe is obtained from a thermal photograph or a temperature monitor attached to the outside of the pipe” however, this merely describes the pre-solution data-gathering activity. Foot_2014, at COL 3 lines 42 – 45, states that “the deployment of down-hole pressure and temperature sensors has become increasingly common in recent years”. Accordingly, attaching the temperature sensor to the outside of the pipe is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Further, obtaining thermal photographs down a wellbore as been known in the art from at least 2007 which is 19 years as evidenced by Almaguer_2009. Accordingly, pre-solution activity of gathering temperature values is not a practical application nor elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 14 recites “Wherein the first input node is configured to parse a thermal photograph and return the temperature of the pipe and the temperature of the environment surrounding the pipe”, however, parsing photographs to obtain temperature values well understood and conventional activities as evidenced by Tattersall_2021 which teaches a collection of computer functions and routines have been publicly available for Windows and MacOS from at least 2015. Additionally, the Thermimage tar.gz package also includes “additional equations and providing heat transfer calculations.” Accordingly, it is found that parsing a thermal photograph and returning temperature values as part of data gathering in combination with heat transfer equations and calculation is commonly performed in the art. Therefore, there elements do not recite a practical application of the abstract idea nor do they represent additional elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 4, 15 recite “wherein the thermal photograph is obtained from a thermal camera and wherein the data related to the temperature of the environment surrounding the pipe is obtained from the thermal photograph” however, this is merely pre-solution data gathering and obtaining thermal photographs down a wellbore has been known in the art from at least 2007 which is 19 years as evidenced by Almaguer_2009. Additionally, extracting temperature values is well understood and conventional activities as evidenced by Tattersall_2021 which teaches a collection of computer functions and routines have been publicly available for Windows and MacOS from at least 2015. Additionally, the Thermimage tar.gz package also includes “additional equations and providing heat transfer calculations.” Accordingly, it is found that parsing a thermal photograph and returning temperature values as part of data gathering in combination with heat transfer equations and calculation is commonly performed in the art. Therefore, there elements do not recite a practical application of the abstract idea nor do they represent additional elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 5, 17. While the claims recite “wherein the pipe is fluidly connected to a wellhead and a pump is fluidly connected to the pipe” this merely is descriptive of the technical field. These elements do not rely upon the abstract idea and are not significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 8, 20 recites “where a plurality of flow rates is calculated at a plurality of well sites and the flow rates are overlaid on a map at locations corresponding to each well site location the map being displayed by the computing device” which is post-solution activity, however, it is insignificant application because this merely outputs the numeric value and there is nothing that depends or relies upon the calculated value. MPEP 2106.05(g) provides examples of insignificant application that include “printing or downloading generated menus” and “cutting hair after first determining the hair style.” The instant claims are analogous to printing menus. The abstract idea is merely the calculation of a numeric value from gathered data. This is similar to merely printing/displaying a menu of prices (i.e., numeric value) with (overlayed/adjacent/associated) with the items on the menu. A menu is essentially a price map with prices overlaid with menu items. Merely displaying such items on a computing device is insignificant activity.
Claim 9, 21 recite “where in a warning based on the flow rate is displayed to a user through a graphical user interface” which is found to be a practical application because the warning displayed in the graphical user interface relies on the calculated flow rate.
Claim 10, 22 recites “wherein based on the flow rate, a rpm is adjusted for the pump” which is found to be a practical application because the pump’s RPM is adjustment relies upon the calculated flow rate.
Claim 11, 23 recites “wherein based on the flow rate, a rate of water or steam injected into a wellhead is adjusted” which is found to be a practical application because the rate at which the water or steam is injected into the well relies upon the calculated flow rate.
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 1, 12, 2, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foot_2014 (US 8,788,209 B2) in view of Ramey_1962 (Society of Petroleum Engineers, March 6, 1962 36th Annual Fall Meeting of SPE Oct, 8 – 11, Dallas Texas)
Claim 1. Foot_2014 makes obvious “A method of estimating flow rate of a fluid in a pipe (COL 4 lines 35 – 50: “… this invention may be implemented into a method, computer system, or computer-readable medium storing a computer program, according to which temperature and pressure readings obtained from sensors at a well are applied to one or more predictive models that calculate fluid rate…”; FIG. 9 block 68: “output flow rate and phase results”; COL 4 lines 38: “… calculate fluid rate…”; COL 3 lines 2: “… solving for estimates of the flow rate…” COL 10 5 – 15: “… models used in connection with the preferred embodiments of the invention treat the modeled well analogously to a pipeline incorporating the physical geometry of the well… fluid flow can be modeled as a function of length and radial distance…”; COL 10 lines 27 – 35: “… models are available for use in deriving measurements of rate and phase. These hydraulic models calculate rate… one class of these hydraulic models is based on models of both inflow and the production tubing that makes up completion string…”; COL 13 lines 30: “… tubing model can be used to derive rate…”), the method comprising obtaining data related to a temperature of the pipe and a temperature of an environment surrounding the pipe (COL 3 lines 42 – 50: “… the deployment of down-hole pressure and temperature sensors has become increasingly common in recent years, because of improvements in the reliability and long-term performance of such downhole sensors…”; COL 7 lines 12 – 18: “it is contemplated that other downhole and wellhead sensors may be deployed for individual wells, or at platforms or other locations in the production field… for example, downhole temperature sensors may also be implemented if desired…”; COL 8 lines 30 – 33: “… measurements of downhole temperature…”; COL 10 lines 33: “… the measured downhole pressure…”; COL 10 lines 52 – 53: “… produce rate and phase information from a downhole pressure measurement…”); obtaining data related to well properties (COL 6 lines 54: “… as known in the art. A given completion string 4 and its associated equipment, including downhole pressure transducers PT, Wellhead pressure transducers WPT, wellhead temperature transducers WTT, flow transducers FT, and the like…”), fluid properties (COL 19 lines 34 – 42: “… according to the preferred embodiment of the invention, the measurement data collected in data collection process 48 can include data corresponding to… properties of fluid samples…”)Calculating, by a flow calculation component (FIG. 7 Calculations 35; COL 19 lines 5 – 10: “… calculation process 35 applies these received measurement data to one or more models to estimate rate and phase, and operating state…”) executing on a computing system (FIG. 1 item 8; FIG. 4; COL 5 lines 30 – 35: “… a computer system such as a server implementing that analysis system of the preferred embodiments of the invention…”; COL 9 lines 42 – 44: “… application of measurements to one or more computer-operated predictive well models…”; COL 14 lines 50 – 60: “… disk drive or other mass storage resources, and also by conventional random access memory… under the control of central processing unit 15… implemented by one or more CPU cores… executing software routines stored in program memory…”), a flow rate of the fluid through the pipe (FIG. 9 block 68: “output flow rate and phase results”; COL 4 lines 38: “… calculate fluid rate…”; COL 3 lines 2: “… solving for estimates of the flow rate…” COL 10 5 – 15: “… models used in connection with the preferred embodiments of the invention treat the modeled well analogously to a pipeline incorporating the physical geometry of the well… fluid flow can be modeled as a function of length and radial distance…”; COL 10 lines 27 – 35: “… models are available for use in deriving measurements of rate and phase. These hydraulic models calculate rate… one class of these hydraulic models is based on models of both inflow and the production tubing that makes up completion string…”; COL 13 lines 30: “… tubing model can be used to derive rate…”) using: the data related to well properties (COL 6 lines 54: “… as known in the art. A given completion string 4 and its associated equipment, including downhole pressure transducers PT, Wellhead pressure transducers WPT, wellhead temperature transducers WTT, flow transducers FT, and the like…”), fluid properties (COL 19 lines 34 – 42: “… according to the preferred embodiment of the invention, the measurement data collected in data collection process 48 can include data corresponding to… properties of fluid samples…”)and the temperature of the environment surrounding the pipe (COL 3 lines 42 – 50: “… the deployment of down-hole pressure and temperature sensors has become increasingly common in recent years, because of improvements in the reliability and long-term performance of such downhole sensors…”; COL 7 lines 12 – 18: “it is contemplated that other downhole and wellhead sensors may be deployed for individual wells, or at platforms or other locations in the production field… for example, downhole temperature sensors may also be implemented if desired…”; COL 8 lines 30 – 33: “… measurements of downhole temperature…”; COL 10 lines 33: “… the measured downhole pressure…”; COL 10 lines 52 – 53: “… produce rate and phase information from a downhole pressure measurement…”);
Foot_2014 does not explicitly teach a model that used “heat transfer, and pump properties” nor “and a heat transfer coefficient.”
Ramey_2962 makes obvious “heat transfer, and pump properties” nor “and a heat transfer coefficient.”
(abstract: “As fluids move through a wellbore, there is a transfer of heat between fluids and the earth due to the difference between fluid and geothermal temperatures… the method used may be applied to derivation of other heat problems such as flow…”; Introduction: “… hot-fluid-injection oil-recovery methods… the purpose of the present study is to investigate wellbore heat transmission to provide engineering methods useful in both production and injection operations… one purpose of this paper is to present methods which may be useful to derive approximate solutions for heat-transmission problems… a brief discussion of associated heat problems is also presented in the Appendix. Analysis of the derivation presented in the Appendix will indicate that many terms can be re-defined to modify the solution for application to other problems… it is necessary to consider the significance of the over-all heat-transfer coefficient and the time function f(t)… Briefly, the over-all coefficient U considers the net resistance to heat flow offered by fluid inside the tubing, the tubing wall, fluids or solids in the annulus, and the casing wall. The effect of radiant heat transfer from the tubing to the casing and resistance to heat flow caused by scale or wax on the tubing or casing may also be included in the over-all coefficient…” Page 2: “… the local heat-transfer coefficient appearing in Eq. 3 (h1, h2) may be found from heat-transfer correlations for the particular type of flow, i.e., turbulent, streamline, or free convection…” EXAMINER NOTE: Accordingly, the coefficient “U” is “a heat transfer coefficient” and it considers/includes the claimed “heat transfer.” Page 2 right column: “… the time function f(t) introduced in Eq.2 may be estimated from solutions for radial heat conduction… such solutions are presented in many texts on heat transmission and are analogous to transient fluid-flow solutions used in reservoir engineering…”; page 5 right column: “… many wellbore heat problems exist which involve heat effects not considered in the subject development. Examples are: expansion of gas, heat generated by friction (an oil well pump, for example) and latent heat effects from phase changes. Often such complications can be handled by proper modification of the solution…” APPENDIX PAGE 6: “lets consider the injection of a fluid… as shown in Fig. 9, W lb/day of fluid is injected in the tubing at the surface…” EXAMINER NOTE: W lb/day is mass flow rate. APPENDIX PAGE 7: “ EQUATIONS 6 – 14 specifically equations 13 and 14.
PNG
media_image2.png
182
473
media_image2.png
Greyscale
EXAMINER NOTE: In equation 13 heat transfer rate (q) is related to mass flow rate (W) which is related to 2πrU(T1 – T2). This indicates that flow rate of the mass (i.e., fluid) flowing through the tub can be calculated from change in temperature multiplied by the heat transfer coefficient which includes a variety of factors that include the ones recited in the claim.
Foot_2014 and Ramey_1962 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called oil wells. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Foot_2014 and Ramey_1962. The rationale for doing so would have been that Foot_2014 teaches to use predictive models to determine flow rate of production or injection wells. Ramey_1962 teaches a predictive model for injection wells that calculates flow rate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Foot_2014 and Ramey_1962 for the benefit of having a predictive model capable of calculating flow rate given heat-transfer rate to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 12. The limitations of claim 12 are substantially the same as those of claim 1 and are rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above.
Claim 2, 13 Ramey_1962 makes obvious “Wherein the flow rate of fluid through the pipe is calculated using a thermodynamic equation as follows: Q = β(U*ΔT) Wherein Q is the flow rate to be calculated; β is derived from the data related to well properties, fluid properties, heat transfer, and pump properties; ΔT is derived from the data related to the temperature of the pipe and the temperature of the environment surrounding the pipe; and U is the heat transfer coefficient” (abstract: “As fluids move through a wellbore, there is a transfer of heat between fluids and the earth due to the difference between fluid and geothermal temperatures… the method used may be applied to derivation of other heat problems such as flow…”; Introduction: “… hot-fluid-injection oil-recovery methods… the purpose of the present study is to investigate wellbore heat transmission to provide engineering methods useful in both production and injection operations… one purpose of this paper is to present methods which may be useful to derive approximate solutions for heat-transmission problems… a brief discussion of associated heat problems is also presented in the Appendix. Analysis of the derivation presented in the Appendix will indicate that many terms can be re-defined to modify the solution for application to other problems… it is necessary to consider the significance of the over-all heat-transfer coefficient and the time function f(t)… Briefly, the over-all coefficient U considers the net resistance to heat flow offered by fluid inside the tubing, the tubing wall, fluids or solids in the annulus, and the casing wall. The effect of radiant heat transfer from the tubing to the casing and resistance to heat flow caused by scale or wax on the tubing or casing may also be included in the over-all coefficient…” Page 2: “… the local heat-transfer coefficient appearing in Eq. 3 (h1, h2) may be found from heat-transfer correlations for the particular type of flow, i.e., turbulent, streamline, or free convection…” EXAMINER NOTE: Accordingly, the coefficient “U” is “a heat transfer coefficient” and it considers/includes the claimed “heat transfer.” Page 2 right column: “… the time function f(t) introduced in Eq.2 may be estimated from solutions for radial heat conduction… such solutions are presented in many texts on heat transmission and are analogous to transient fluid-flow solutions used in reservoir engineering…”; page 5 right column: “… many wellbore heat problems exist which involve heat effects not considered in the subject development. Examples are: expansion of gas, heat generated by friction (an oil well pump, for example) and latent heat effects from phase changes. Often such complications can be handled by proper modification of the solution…” APPENDIX PAGE 6: “lets consider the injection of a fluid… as shown in Fig. 9, W lb/day of fluid is injected in the tubing at the surface…” EXAMINER NOTE: W lb/day is mass flow rate. APPENDIX PAGE 7: “ EQUATIONS 6 – 14 specifically equations 13 and 14.
PNG
media_image2.png
182
473
media_image2.png
Greyscale
EXAMINER NOTE: In equation 13 heat transfer rate (q) is related to mass flow rate (W) which is related to 2πrU(T1 – T2). This indicates that flow rate of the mass (i.e., fluid) flowing through the tub can be calculated from change in temperature multiplied by the heat transfer coefficient which includes a variety of factors that include the ones recited in the claim. Additionally, the above citations teach that a variety of factors can be included in a scaling factor. Therefore, including many factors in U is equivalent to multiplying those factors together. Accordingly, the claimed “β” is interpreted (according to equation 13 above): β = 2πr(Other Factors of Interest). Consider the associative property U = A*B*C = B*(A*C).
Claim 9, 21. Foot_2014 also makes obvious “where in a warning based on the flow rate is displayed to a user through a graphical user interface” (FIG. 7 block 38: “ALERTS”; COL 31 lines 40 – 60: “… the reconciled rate and phase values from process 40 can be used to determine whether any alerts or actions should be triggered, in alert process 38… if the reconciled results are outside a predetermined range, an alert or other action may be triggered… results which may be analyzed to identify a pattern or trend and may trigger an alert… when an event occurs, the data can be reviewed by a human operator via web browser application…”; COL 32 lines 10 – 15: “… take corrective action if problems are observed… in response to an alert issued by alert process 38…”).
Claims 3, 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foot_2014 in view of Ramey_1962 in view of Almaguer_2009 (US 2009/0166035 A1).
Claim 3. Almaguer_2009 makes obvious “wherein the data related to the temperature of the pipe is obtained from a thermal photograph or a temperature monitor attached to the outside of the pipe” (par 13: “… a wide variety of downhole operational tools including, but not limited to… directional temperature probes… pressure, temperature, pressure and fluid samplers or test tools… a focused video camera sonde that may include a video camera, illumination source and infrared sensors for detecting thermal sources or thermal changes around the borehole…”).
Foot_2014 and Almaguer_2009 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called wells. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Foot_2014 and Almaguer_2009. The rationale for doing so would have been that Foot_2014 teaches to have a variety of sensors for gathering data including, downhole temperature, pressure, and fluid samples (COL 7 lines 12 – 18: “it is contemplated that other downhole and wellhead sensors may be deployed for individual wells, or at platforms or other locations in the production field… for example, downhole temperature sensors may also be implemented if desired…”; COL 19 lines 34 – 42: “… according to the preferred embodiment of the invention, the measurement data collected in data collection process 48 can include data corresponding to… properties of fluid samples…”). Almaguer_2009 teaches a downhole sensor that has a variety of sensors that provide data such as temperature and fluid samples. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the data collection taught by Foot_2014 with the downhole data collection tool/sensor including the thermal camera for the benefit of getting the data needed for calculating flow rate as taught by Foot_2014 to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 4. Almaguer_2009 makes obvious “wherein the thermal photograph is obtained from a thermal camera and wherein the data related to the temperature of the environment surrounding the pipe is obtained from the thermal photograph” (par 13: “… a wide variety of downhole operational tools including, but not limited to… directional temperature probes… pressure, temperature, pressure and fluid samplers or test tools… a focused video camera sonde that may include a video camera, illumination source and infrared sensors for detecting thermal sources or thermal changes around the borehole…”).
Claims 14, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foot_2014 in view of Ramey_1962 in view of Almaguer_2009 in view of Tattersall_2021 (Thermimage: Thermal Image Analysis, 9/27/2021).
Claim 14. Almaguer_2009 makes obvious “Wherein the first input node is configured to [get] a thermal photograph and return the temperature of the pipe and the temperature of the environment surrounding the pipe” (par 13: “… a wide variety of downhole operational tools including, but not limited to… directional temperature probes… pressure, temperature, pressure and fluid samplers or test tools… a focused video camera sonde that may include a video camera, illumination source and infrared sensors for detecting thermal sources or thermal changes around the borehole…”).
Foot_2014 and Almaguer_2009 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called wells. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Foot_2014 and Almaguer_2009. The rationale for doing so would have been that Foot_2014 teaches to have a variety of sensors for gathering data including, downhole temperature, pressure, and fluid samples (COL 7 lines 12 – 18: “it is contemplated that other downhole and wellhead sensors may be deployed for individual wells, or at platforms or other locations in the production field… for example, downhole temperature sensors may also be implemented if desired…”; COL 19 lines 34 – 42: “… according to the preferred embodiment of the invention, the measurement data collected in data collection process 48 can include data corresponding to… properties of fluid samples…”). Almaguer_2009 teaches a downhole sensor that has a variety of sensors that provide data such as temperature and fluid samples. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the data collection taught by Foot_2014 with the downhole data collection tool/sensor including the thermal camera for the benefit of getting the data needed for calculating flow rate as taught by Foot_2014 to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Foot_2014 and Ramey_1962 and Almaguer_2009 does not explicitly teach to “parse” the image.
Tattersall_2021; however, makes obvious to “parse” the image file to obtain temperature data (page 1: “A collection of functions and routines for inputting thermal image video file, plotting and converting binary raw data into estimates of temperature… converting thermal image binary values to temperatures…”).
Almaguer_2009 and Tattersall_2021 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called thermal images. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Almaguer_2009 and Tattersall_2021. The rationale for doing so would have been that Almaguer_20009 teaches to use a thermal camera for collecting temperature data and Tattersall_2021 teaches to process the camera image to get the temperature values from a thermal image. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Almaguer_2009 and Tattersall_2021 for the benefit of having the temperature values from a thermal image because the temperature values are needed for calculation to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 15. Almaguer_200 makes obvious “Wherein the data related to the temperature of the pipe is obtained from a thermal photograph and the data related to the temperature of the area surrounding the pipe is obtained from a thermal photograph” (par 13: “… a wide variety of downhole operational tools including, but not limited to… directional temperature probes… pressure, temperature, pressure and fluid samplers or test tools… a focused video camera sonde that may include a video camera, illumination source and infrared sensors for detecting thermal sources or thermal changes around the borehole…”).
Claims 8, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foot_2014 in view of Ramey_1962 in view of Saylor_2009 (US 2009/0105969 A1)
Claim 8, 20. Saylor_2009 makes obvious “where a plurality of flow rates is calculated at a plurality of well sites and the flow rates are overlaid on a map at locations corresponding to each well site location the map being displayed by the computing device” (FIG. 64, par 0104: “FIG. 64 is a street map with a sewer overlay and monitoring device indicators that show the position and flow rate at multiple monitoring devices”; par 102: “FIG. 62 is a street map with a sewer overlay, a flow overlay represented by symbols, and markers that show the position of multiple monitoring devices…”; par 161: “Mapping software may be used to convert the topographical map to a three dimensional image of the geographic area under study. The mapping software may also be used to overlay the sewer system piping, the street map and/or the aerial photograph (or some combination thereof) on the three dimensional image… the resulting data, shown in FIG. 66, may then be studied…”; par 162).
Foot_2014 and Saylor_2009 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called measurements in pipes. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Foot_2014 and Saylor_2009. The rationale for doing so would have been Foot_2014 teaches to monitor pipes for flow and phase and to produce alerts and to analyze to identify patterns or trends (i.e., study) the flow and phase to take corrective action (FIG. 7 block 38: “ALERTS”; COL 31 lines 40 – 60: “… the reconciled rate and phase values from process 40 can be used to determine whether any alerts or actions should be triggered, in alert process 38… if the reconciled results are outside a predetermined range, an alert or other action may be triggered… results which may be analyzed to identify a pattern or trend and may trigger an alert… when an event occurs, the data can be reviewed by a human operator via web browser application…”; COL 32 lines 10 – 15: “… take corrective action if problems are observed… in response to an alert issued by alert process 38…”).
Saylor_2009 teaches to overlay flow data and pipes with maps that may be used to “study” (i.e., analyze) and area of pipes for failure points. See par 161, 162, and 163. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Foot_2014 and Saylor_2009 for the benefit of having a visual method of indicating location for alerts along with the data causing the alert so that the operator can analyze the flow rates and determine corrective action to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claims 5, 17, 10, 22, 11, 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foot_2014 in view of Ramey_1962 in view of Leuchtenberg_2003 (US 2003/0079912 A1).
Claim 5, 17. While Ramey_1962 teaches that “an oil well pump, for example,” can add heat to the system and accordingly pumps may be handled by modifications to the disclosed equations (PAGE 5 COL 2 par 2), and while such teaching strongly implies to those of ordinary skill in the art that a pump is fluidly connected to the pipe, Ramey_1962 does not explicitly state this.
Nevertheless, Leuchtenberg_2003 makes obvious “wherein the pipe is fluidly connected to a wellhead and a pump is fluidly connected to the pipe” (FIG. 4, 5, 6, 7 EXAMINER NOTE: FIG. 7 illustrates a control loop which controls the “pumping” units. FIG. 4, 5, 6 illustrate that the pumps are fluidly connected to pipes and fluid is pumped into the well. Par 85: “the central data acquisition and control system is provided… pump pressure, pump strokes, mud flow…”; par 212: “the drilling fluid is injected with the aid of pump (6) through injection line (14) through which said fluid is made to contact flow meter (15)”; par 215: “… a pump (23) may send fluid directly to the annulus…”).
Foot_2014 and Leuchtenberg_2003 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called oil wells. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Foot_2014 and Leuchtenberg_2003. The rationale for doing so would have been that Foot_2014 teaches to measure various parameters with sensor and to operate an oil well. Leuchtenberg_2003 teaches to use sensor data to control the operation of an oil well including the operation of pumps fluidly connected to the well. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Foot_2014 and Leuchtenberg_2003 for the benefit of controlling a well to prevent hazardous situation such as blowouts (see Leuchtenberg_2003 par 260: “hazardous situations such as blowouts”; par 2: “…kick… leading to a blowout…”) to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 10, 22. Leuchtenberg_2003 makes obvious “wherein based on the flow rate, a rpm is adjusted for the pump” (FIG. 4, 5, 6, 7 EXAMINER NOTE: FIG. 7 illustrates a control loop which controls the “pumping” units. FIG. 4, 5, 6 illustrate that the pumps are fluidly connected to pipes and fluid is pumped into the well. Par 85: “the central data acquisition and control system is provided… pump pressure, pump strokes, mud flow…”; par 212: “the drilling fluid is injected with the aid of pump (6) through injection line (14) through which said fluid is made to contact flow meter (15)”; par 215: “… a pump (23) may send fluid directly to the annulus…” EXAMINER NOTE: Pump strokes (or Strokes Per Minute - SPM) represent the number of times a reciprocating pump's plunger or diaphragm completes a full cycle (one forward and one backward movement) in one minute, dictating flow rate. They relate directly to RPM (revolutions per minute) of the driver, usually on a 1:1 ratio for direct-drive pumps, where one crankshaft revolution equals one full stroke cycle.).
Claim 11, 23. Leuchtenberg_2003 makes obvious “wherein based on the flow rate, a rate of water or steam injected into a wellhead is adjusted” (FIG. 4, 5, 6, 7 EXAMINER NOTE: FIG. 7 illustrates a control loop which controls the “pumping” units. FIG. 4, 5, 6 illustrate that the pumps are fluidly connected to pipes and fluid is pumped into the well. Par 85: “the central data acquisition and control system is provided… pump pressure, pump strokes, mud flow…”).
Foot_2014 and Leuchtenberg_2003 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called oil wells. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Foot_2014 and Leuchtenberg_2003. The rationale for doing so would have been that Foot_2014 teaches to measure various parameters with sensor and to operate an oil well. Leuchtenberg_2003 teaches to use sensor data to control the operation of an oil well including the operation of pumps fluidly connected to the well. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Foot_2014 and Leuchtenberg_2003 for the benefit of controlling a well to prevent hazardous situation such as blowouts (see Leuchtenberg_2003 par 260: “hazardous situations such as blowouts”; par 2: “…kick… leading to a blowout…”) to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 7, 18, 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be potentially be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and if all other objections and rejections are properly overcome.
Reasons for indicating potentially allowable subject matter:
Claims 6 and 18. Recites a mathematical equation and the Examiner did not find an equation formatted in exactly the same way.
Claims 7 and 19 depends from claims 6 and 18 respectively. Therefore, if claims 6 and 18 are potentially allowable so are claims 7 and 19.
Relevant References
FluidFlow_2021 (Heat Transfer in Pipes and Using FluidFlow to Understand these Effect, Piping Systems & Hydraulics, August 17, 2021):
Page 2: “…Heat transfer should be combined with fluid flow analysis to achieve an accurate estimation of the fluid physical properties related to fluid flow such as density, viscosity and in two-phase flow, liquid surface tension. Also, fluid flow thermodynamics such as vapor-to-liquid ratio which is an important factor in two-phase flow of gases and liquids is a function of the fluid temperature.
Pipe heat transfer to or from the surroundings can occur by one or a combination of the following three known heat transfer processes, convection, conduction and radiation.
Convection: This refers to the transfer of heat energy by movement of fluids. Convection heat transfer is a function of the fluid physical properties, fluid velocity and system geometry (pipe diameter). Pipe flow is normally subjected to simultaneous heat transfer by convection and conduction. Convection heat transfer can be divided into two types; free (natural) or forced. Free convection refers to heat transfer which is driven by buoyancy, i.e. it occurs due to the natural movement of fluid caused by a density difference induced by a temperature difference. Forced convection arises when the fluid is forced to move by an external source such as a fan...
Accordingly, FluidFlow_2021 explicitly teaches to combine heat transfer with fluid flow analysis and explicitly teaches that heat transfer is related to fluid flow through, for example, convection and that convective flow can occur due to density differences induced by temperature differences. Further, the above citation teaches that convective flow can also be cause by forced movement and give an example of a fan. A fan, however, is analogous to a pump because a fan is simply a pump for compressible fluids while a pump is simply a fan for non-compressible fluids.
STOLI_2021 (How to Calculate Heat Transfer in Continuous Flow Application, Sep 24, 2021 STOLICCHEM.com):
Page 3: “… the driving force for the heat transfer is the temperature gradient along the reactor (ΔT)… the heat transfer increases proportionally to the contact surface area (A). The Key parameter in heat transfer calculations is the overall heat transfer coefficient (U)… the overall heat transfer coefficient depends on the properties of both fluids, on the reactor wall properties and geometry, and on the fluid velocities…
Page 4:
PNG
media_image3.png
586
557
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
337
383
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Page 5: “… depending on the fluid flow velocities and properties, we observe the overall heat transfer coefficient… (depending on fluid and flow rates)…
Accordingly, STOLI_2021 teaches a relationship between heat transfer coefficient and fluid velocity (flow) which indicates that given one, the other could be derived.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN S COOK whose telephone number is (571)272-4276. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Emerson Puente can be reached at 571-272-3652. 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.
/BRIAN S COOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2187