DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 and 22-24 are pending. Claim 21 is allowed.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-24 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 (and, similarly claim 12) is/are objected to because of the following informalities and should likely read as follow: “[...] a line connector configured to couple an electric and/or hydraulic line extending from [[a]]the topside facility into the wellbore to an aspect of the system, the line connector configured to allow...”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities and should likely read as follow: “[...] a cable interconnect coupled to the electric powered fluid end, the interconnect configured to couple to a cable to support and power the electric powered fluid end and configured to release from the cable while the electric powered fluid end is in the wellbore, the interconnect...”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 5-11, 13-20, and 22-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Massey et al. (US Publication Number 2020/0217148 A1) in view of Malone (US Patent Number 9,915,135 B1; herein after “Malone”).
In regard to claim 1, Massey discloses: An electric system (e.g., a “formation tester” as shown within the wellbore 102 in figures 1-2 | also, see at least abstract and paragraph [0029, 0037]), comprising:
a wellbore (102 — paragraphs [0025]);
an interconnect (i.e., as shown in figures 3-5) at an uphole end of the electric system (i.e., as shown in figure 1), the interconnect comprising a body (216) around a cable (202), where the cable extends from a topside facility (100 — figure 1) into the wellbore to support the system depending from the cable, the body configured to grip an exterior of the cable, and the interconnect configured to (i) couple to the cable and (ii) release from the cable while the system is residing in the wellbore (paragraphs [0025, 0058, 0065-0068] and figures 1-5); and
a line connector (374) configured to couple an electric and/or hydraulic line (206) extending from [[a]]the topside facility into the wellbore to an aspect of the system, the line connector configured to allow the electric and/or hydraulic line to release from the aspect of the system while the system is residing in the wellbore (paragraphs [0025, 0058, 0065-0068, 0102] and figures 1-5 & 12).
However, Massey is silent in regard to:
“[...] An electric submersible artificial lift system
an electric motor configured to reside in a wellbore;
a fluid end coupled to and configured to be driven by the electric motor, the fluid end configured to reside in the wellbore and configured to propel wellbore fluids through the wellbore when driven by the electric motor...”.
Nonetheless, Malone teaches a downhole electrical wireline assembly comprising a monitoring tool (comprising 2, 32), similar to that of suggested by Massey. Malone teaches that the assembly comprises the monitoring tool and an artificial lift (i.e., further comprising 16, 20) having a “fluid end” and electric motor (8, 26), as claimed (column 1, line 47- column 2, line 8; column 4, line 40- column 5, line 24; and, figures 1-2).
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), to modify the formation tester system, as taught by Massey, to include for a submersible artificial lift system, as taught by Malone, to allow for combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results of monitoring wellbore conditions and pumping wellbore fluids for production purposes, as the combination of both are known in wellbores, specifically for when it is “[...] critical to monitor the temperature of the ESP motor, because overheating of the motor can greatly affect the performance and durability of the device and can cause damage to vital electrical circuits and sensors” (column 1, lines 21-46). See MPEP 2143, section I, subsection A.
In regard to claim 5, Massey further discloses: wherein the interconnect comprises a plurality of line connectors (374, 376) each configured to couple an electric and/or hydraulic line extending from the topside facility into the wellbore to an aspect of the artificial lift system (paragraph [0102]).
In regard to claim 6, Massey further discloses: wherein the interconnect is configured to release the cable before the electric and/or hydraulic line connector allows the electric and/or hydraulic line to release from the aspect of the artificial lift system (paragraphs [0025, 0058, 0065-0068, 0102] and figures 1-5 & 12).
In regard to claim 7, Massey further discloses: wherein the cable comprises the electric and/or hydraulic line and wherein the interconnect comprises a cable connector (i.e., comprising 234, 248, 256) configured grip the exterior of the cable (paragraph [0048]).
In regard to claim 8, Massey further discloses: wherein the interconnect is configured to release from the cable in response to a specified tension applied to the cable (paragraphs [0025, 0058, 0065-0068] and figures 1-5).
In regard to claim 9, Massey further discloses: wherein the interconnect comprises: a tubular housing (210) configured to internally receive the cable;
the body comprising a wedge (i.e., comprising 234, 256) in the tubular housing moveable into gripping contact with an exterior of the cable; and
a cap (248) coupled to the tubular housing retaining the wedge in the tubular housing, the cap configured to release from the tubular housing upon a specified tension applied to the cable (paragraphs [0025, 0043, 0048, 0058, 0065-0068] and figures 1-5).
In regard to claim 10, Massey further discloses: wherein the interconnect is configured to release from the cable in response to a signal supplied to the interconnect (paragraphs [0025, 0058, 0065-0068]).
In regard to claim 11, Massey further discloses: wherein the interconnect comprises: a tubular housing (210) configured to internally receive the cable; and
an actuator (i.e., at least 286) actuable to release the interconnect from gripping the cable in response to a signal (paragraphs [0025, 0058, 0065-0068]).
In regard to claim 13, Massey further discloses: an outer housing (i.e., comprising 210, 248) extending to an uphole end of the artificial lift system, the outer housing comprising a profile adapted to engage with a corresponding profile of a retrieval tool for retrieving the artificial lift system (paragraphs [0080, 0117]).
In regard to claim 14, Massey discloses: A method (abstract and paragraphs [0032, 0070]), comprising:
supporting an electric system (e.g., a “formation tester” and/or “hydraulic power module”, as shown within the wellbore 102 in figures 1-2 | also, see at least abstract and paragraph [0029, 0037]) at an interconnect (i.e., as shown in figures 3-5) thereof by a cable (202) as the system is lowered into a wellbore (102 — paragraphs [0025, 0058, 0065-0068] and figures 1-5), the cable extending from a topside facility (100 — figure 1), the interconnect comprising a body (216) around the cable and configured to grip an exterior of the cable (paragraphs [0025, 0058, 0065-0068] and figures 1-5); and
releasing the cable from the interconnect of the system while the system is in the wellbore (paragraphs [0025, 0058, 0065-0068] and figures 1-5).
However, Massey is silent in regard to:
“[...] supporting an electric submersible artificial lift system at an interconnect thereof by a cable as the artificial lift system is lowered into a wellbore, the cable extending from a topside facility, the interconnect comprising a body around the cable and configured to grip an exterior of the cable;
powering the artificial lift system via the cable; and
releasing the cable from the interconnect of the artificial lift system while the artificial lift system is in the wellbore”.
Nonetheless, Malone teaches a downhole electrical wireline assembly comprising a monitoring tool (comprising 2, 32), similar to that of suggested by Massey. Malone teaches that the assembly comprises the monitoring tool and an artificial lift system (i.e., further comprising 16, 20) powered by the wireline cable (1 — column 1, line 47- column 2, line 8; column 4, line 40- column 5, line 24; and, figures 1-2).
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), to modify the formation tester system, as taught by Massey, to include for a submersible artificial lift system, as taught by Malone, to allow for combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results of monitoring wellbore conditions and pumping wellbore fluids for production purposes, as the combination of both are known in wellbores, specifically for when it is “[...] critical to monitor the temperature of the ESP motor, because overheating of the motor can greatly affect the performance and durability of the device and can cause damage to vital electrical circuits and sensors” (column 1, lines 21-46). See MPEP 2143, section I, subsection A.
In regard to claim 15, in view of the modification of the preceding claim, Massey discloses: sealing (i.e., via 18 — Malone) and supporting the artificial lift system (i.e., column 1, line 47- column 2, line 8; column 4, line 40- column 5, line 24; and, figures 1-2 — Malone) in a production tubing (108 — paragraph [0025] of Massey | i.e., as shown in figures 1-2 of Malone); and
wherein the releasing comprises releasing after sealing and supporting the artificial lift system in the production tubing (i.e., as taught by the modification of Massey in view of Malone).
In regard to claim 16, Massey further discloses: supplying a hydraulic signal via the cable (paragraph [0037]).
In regard to claim 17, Massey further discloses: after releasing the cable from the artificial lift system, retrieving the artificial lift system by engaging a profile in an uphole end of the artificial lift system to a retrieval tool (paragraphs [0080, 0117]).
In regard to claim 18, Massey further discloses: wherein releasing comprises releasing in response to at least one of a signal or a specified tension on the cable (paragraphs [0025, 0058, 0065-0068] and figures 1-5).
In regard to claim 19, Massey discloses: An system (e.g., a “formation tester” as shown within the wellbore 102 in figures 1-2 | also, see at least abstract and paragraph [0029, 0037]), comprising:
a wellbore (102 — paragraphs [0025]); and
a cable interconnect (i.e., as shown in figures 3-5), the interconnect configured to couple to a cable (202) configured to release from the cable the interconnect comprising a body (216) around the cable and configured to grip an exterior of the cable (paragraphs [0025, 0058, 0065-0068] and figures 1-5).
However, Massey is silent in regard to: “An artificial lift system, comprising:
an electric powered fluid end configured to propel wellbore fluids through a wellbore; and
a cable interconnect coupled to the electric powered fluid end, the interconnect configured to couple to a cable to support and power the electric powered fluid end and configured to release from the cable while the electric powered fluid end is in the wellbore, the interconnect comprising a body around the cable and configured to grip an exterior of the cable.”
Nonetheless, Malone teaches a downhole electrical wireline assembly comprising a monitoring tool (comprising 2, 32), similar to that of suggested by Massey. Malone teaches that the assembly comprises the monitoring tool and an artificial lift system (i.e., further comprising 16, 20) having a “fluid end” powered by the wireline cable (1 — column 1, line 47- column 2, line 8; column 4, line 40- column 5, line 24; and, figures 1-2).
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), to modify the formation tester system, as taught by Massey, to include for a submersible artificial lift system, as taught by Malone, to allow for combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results of monitoring wellbore conditions and pumping wellbore fluids for production purposes, as the combination of both are known in wellbores, specifically for when it is “[...] critical to monitor the temperature of the ESP motor, because overheating of the motor can greatly affect the performance and durability of the device and can cause damage to vital electrical circuits and sensors” (column 1, lines 21-46). See MPEP 2143, section I, subsection A.
In regard to claim 20, Massey further discloses: a retrieval tool profile (paragraphs [0080, 0117]).
In regard to claim 22, Massey further discloses: wherein the line connector is configured to allow the electric and/or hydraulic line to release from the aspect of the artificial lift system after release of the cable from the body of the interconnect (paragraphs [0025, 0058, 0065-0068] and figures 1-5).
In regard to claim 23, Massey further discloses: wherein the interconnect (i.e., as taught by Massey) is fixed to or integrated with a housing of the fluid end (i.e., as taught by Malone) at the uphole end of the electric submersible artificial lift system (i.e., as taught by the modification of Massey in view of Malone).
In regard to claim 24, Massey further discloses: wherein the body is configured to directly grip the exterior of the cable (paragraphs [0025, 0058, 0065-0068] and figures 1-5).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 2-4 and 12 is/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:
In regard to claim 21, Massey in view of Malone is/are the closest reference(s) (i.e., singularly and/or in combination thereof), as detail in at least the claim 1 rejection herein. However, Massey fails to teach “[...] a hydraulic piston coupled to a hydraulic line extending from a topside facility into the wellbore, the piston movable by a hydraulic signal transmitted on the hydraulic line”. The prior art of record, either singularly or in combination thereof, does not teach, nor would be obvious to modify the reference to meet the limitation(s), as such a modification would change the principle mode of operation or render the prior art nonoperative.
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 NEEL PATEL whose telephone number is (469)295-9168. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00AM-5:00PM CST.
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.
/NEEL GIRISH PATEL/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights