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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/21/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
With respect to Applicant's arguments filed 8/13/26:
Applicant’s arguments, page 15, with respect to Ochoa have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues, page 15, that Ochoa fails to teach selectively routing the drilling fluid sample to either a bypass line or an analytical path for determining a chemical composition of the drilling fluid using gas chromatography.
The examiner respectfully disagrees: Ochoa teaches obtaining extracted gas from a continuously flowing drilling fluid (sampling fluid 115a; [0005] The disclosure herein provides a system and methods for determining gas present in a continuously flowing drilling fluid received from a wellbore and the gas extraction efficiency of such system.) wherein the sample can be either passed to a gas extractor 120 and chromatograph 180 (analytical path) for determining a chemical composition of the drilling fluid using gas chromatography or to a bypass (exhaust 105) [0020-0021]. Therefore, the sample is routed to an analytical path or a bypass. Ochoa was not relied upon to teach a gas chromatography separation column or regenerative fine filter. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, beginning bottom of page 15, regarding Cartellieri failing to teach a flash column have been fully considered and are persuasive. Cartelieri is no longer relied upon for a flash column in view of applicant’s amendment to the claims.
Applicant argues that the analytical path is a specific sequence and that the Final Office Action does not identify the recited sequence, specifically Cartellieri. However, the analytical path is a new limitation which has not yet been considered. The analytical path comprises a plurality of distinct elements and the analytical path is rejected over more than one reference, and is addressed in the rejections herein.
Applicant’s arguments, beginning page 17, regarding Rowe, have been fully considered. However, the arguments are directed toward the rejection of a limitation which has been removed from the claim and the rejection no longer relies upon that teaching from Rowe, specifically the pyrolysis unit of Rowe is no longer relied upon in the rejections herein. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, beginning page 19, that Ritzmann extracts a pre-existing gas not the claimed vaporized liquid phase component. However, the arguments are directed toward new limitations which have not yet been considered. The new limitation is taught by Rowe [0029-0034].
Applicant’s arguments, beginning page 20, states that claims 5, 14, and 18 require a fixed serial sample preparation that is not taught by Fratini or DiFoggio.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Fratini teaches a filter to protect a pump, wherein the filter is regenerative, and the pump is moving multiphase oil field-related fluids ([0003-0005]). DiFoggio teaches a filter to protect a chromatograph and injector therewith when the chromatograph is analyzing downhole formation fluids. Therefore, it’s known in the art to use a filter to protect a pump from solids and to use a filter to protect a chromatograph from solids, as well as using a regenerative filter. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. The two-stage topology of the filters would effectively be achieved when they are placed to protect the respective elements (pump and injector/chromatograph).
Applicant argues, page 21, that Pelletier fails to teach to teach wherein the regenerative fine filter comprises a roll of filtration material continuously drawn into a path of the drilling fluid sample, such that a fresh section of the roll of filtration material is continuously exposed to the continuously flowing drilling fluid sample.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Pelletier [0048, 0049] the fluid flows in the direction A across the filter 1000. When the filter is plugged, new filter material is drawn from the roll 220. There is no teaching or suggestion that the fluid stops flowing when the filter regenerates by drawing new material from the roll 220. The filter needs to be regenerated when it is plugged, otherwise the filter is presumably stationary and filtering without the need to be expressly continuously drawn from the roll. A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that if the number and size of particulates, the pore size of the filter, and the flow of the fluid and the size of the conduit will affect the need to be drawn more frequently. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to regenerate the filter roll as often as necessary in order to provide effective filtering.
Applicants arguments, page 21, with respect to claim 10 have been fully considered. However, the arguments are directed toward new limitations which have not yet been considered. The new limitation is taught by Rowe [0029-0034].
Applicants arguments, page 22, with respect to claim 20 have been fully considered. Applicant argues that Ochoa fails to recite the claimed serial filtration path or valve placement.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Ochoa was not relied upon to teach a filter or an injector. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 8-9, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ritzmann et al. (US20180088096) in view of Ochoa et al. (US20200378201) further in view of Cartellieri (US20090294175) further in view of Rowe et al. (US20160160641).
Claim 1: Ritzmann teaches a method for analyzing a drilling fluid used in a drilling operation within a subterranean formation (Title), the method comprising: flowing the drilling fluid through a fluid conduit coupled to a drilling assembly (Fig. 1 shows the drilling fluid 9 flowing to the surface through a conduit to reach the drilling fluid sampler 13); flowing a drilling fluid sample (formation fluid) of the drilling fluid from the fluid conduit, wherein the drilling fluid sample comprises a liquid (formation fluid); determining a chemical composition of the drilling fluid using gas chromatography (GC) of the drilling fluid sample, wherein determining the chemical composition of the drilling fluid using GC comprises: a gaseous drilling fluid sample ([0010] gas extractor 14); and routing the gaseous drilling fluid sample to a GC system comprising a GC column (gas extractor 14 routes to gas analyzer 15 includes a chromatograph [0010]) to determine the chemical composition (composition [0010]) of the drilling fluid.
Ritzmann fails to teach selectively routing the drilling fluid sample to either a bypass line or an analytical path for determining a chemical composition of the drilling fluid using gas chromatography (GC).
However, Ochoa teaches obtaining extracted gas from a continuously flowing drilling fluid (sampling fluid 115a; [0005] The disclosure herein provides a system and methods for determining gas present in a continuously flowing drilling fluid received from a wellbore and the gas extraction efficiency of such system.) wherein the sample can be either passed to a gas extractor 120 and chromatograph 180 (analytical path) for determining a chemical composition of the drilling fluid using gas chromatography or to a bypass (exhaust 105) [0020-0021]; while the gas chromatographer 180 measures an amount of each of the hydrocarbon compounds (e.g., C1 to C5) about every 45 seconds. Because the hydrocarbon compounds (e.g., C1 to C5) are measured every 45 seconds [0037].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a continuously flowing drilling fluid sample and bypass, as taught by Ochoa, with the device of Ritzmann in order to detect an amount of gas in the drilling fluid in real time (Ochoa [0023]).
Ritzmann in view of Ochoa fails to teach wherein the analytical path comprises an injector configured to receive a sample of the drilling fluid wherein the sample comprises a liquid, a gas chromatography separation column, and a detector.
However, Cartellieri teaches downhole gas chromatography for downhole fluids including a GC 210, Fig. 2, having a gas separation column 228 [0036-0037], an injector 226, and a detector 230 [0032]; injecting, via the injector, the gaseous sample into the GC column ([0033] The injector 226 introduces the sample into the column; Fig. 2 shows the collector 208 connected to the injector connected to the column 228); separating the gas sample in the chromatography separation column ([0027] gas sample from the collector 208 is injected into the column 228, Fig. 2; [0037] The detector 230 may be any suitable detector for estimating characteristics of the separated components exiting the column 228.). The injector 226 in capable of injecting a liquid, gas, or combination [0033].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the method and order to elements as taught by Cartellieri with the method of Ritzmann in view of Ochoa in order to effectively separate different components of the downhole fluid (Cartellieri [0036]).
Ritzmann in view of Ochoa further in view of Cartellieri fails to teach a flash column upstream of the chromatography column, the flash column and the chromatography column are distinct columns arranged serially, and in the flash column, vaporizing at least a portion of at least one hydrocarbon component present in the liquid phase of the drilling fluid sample to provide a gaseous drilling fluid sample; detecting the separated at least one hydrocarbon component with the detector to determine an identity, an amount, or both, of the at least one hydrocarbon component as at least part of a chemical composition of the drilling fluid; and determining a formation characteristic using the determined chemical composition.
However, Rowe teaches obtaining a gas sample from a drilling fluid sample for gas analysis (analyzer 158) including a gas extraction mechanism includes a flash column for vaporizing at least a portion of at least one hydrocarbon present in the liquid phase of the drilling fluid ([0034] flash column allows for the separation and expansion of gas from liquids and solids; in order to provide the gas sample, the sample must first enter the flash column and then the chromatography column/analysis unit, thus they would be arranged serially); detecting the separated at least one hydrocarbon component with the detector to determine an identity, an amount, or both, of the at least one hydrocarbon component as at least part of a chemical composition of the drilling fluid (the chemical composition, including identity and amount, of the sample is determined, [0029-0030]); and determining a formation characteristic using the determined chemical composition ([0030] [T]he information handling system 160 may determine a formation characteristic using the determined chemical composition. Example downhole characteristics include, but are not limited to, the type of rock in the formation 108, the presences of hydrocarbons in the formation 108, the production potential for a strata 108a-e of the formation 108, and the movement of fluid within a strata 108a-e.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the flash column and gas analysis, as taught by Rowe, with the method of Ritzmann in view of Ochoa further in view of Cartellieri in order assess the formation for the presence of hydrocarbons in the subterranean formation, the production potential for a stratum of the subterranean formation, and the movement of fluid within the strata (Rowe [0056]).
Claim 3: Ritzmann in view of Ochoa further in view of Cartellieri further in view of Rowe teaches the method of claim 1. Ritzmann teaches wherein determining the formation characteristic using the determined chemical composition comprises comparing the determined chemical composition to a data set corresponding to known chemical compositions of subterranean formations ([0008, 0012] Once the chemical composition of each gas sample is obtained, a property of the formation fluid at the depth corresponding to each gas sample may be determined from the chemical composition of the gas sample using a correlation known in the art. Once a formation fluid property of interest is determined using a known correlation, that formation property of interest may also be entered into the computer processing system 16, which can provide a log of the formation fluid property of interest versus depth. Alternatively, the computer processing system 16 may be configured to apply the known correlation to the chemical composition of each gas sample already entered.).
Claim 4: Ritzmann in view of Ochoa further in view of Cartellieri further in view of Rowe teaches the method of claim 1. Ritzmann teaches wherein determining the chemical composition of the drilling fluid using the GC comprises receiving an output of a GC system at an information handling system coupled to the GC system; and comparing the output of the GC system to a data set corresponding to known chemical compositions ([0008, 0012] Once the chemical composition of each gas sample is obtained, a property of the formation fluid at the depth corresponding to each gas sample may be determined from the chemical composition of the gas sample using a correlation known in the art. Once a formation fluid property of interest is determined using a known correlation, that formation property of interest may also be entered into the computer processing system 16, which can provide a log of the formation fluid property of interest versus depth. Alternatively, the computer processing system 16 may be configured to apply the known correlation to the chemical composition of each gas sample already entered.).
Claim 8: Ritzmann in view of Ochoa further in view of Cartellieri further in view of Rowe teaches the method of claim 1. Ritzmann teaches wherein the fluid conduit comprises an annulus (annulus between the drill tubular 5 and the wall of the borehole 2, Fig. 1) in a wellbore or a flow conduit fluidly connected therewith.
Claim 9: Ritzmann in view of Ochoa further in view of Cartellieri further in view of Rowe teaches the method of claim 8. Ritzmann in view of Ochoa further in view of Cartellieri fails to teach wherein the fluid conduit contains the drilling fluid exiting a wellbore of the drilling operation and upstream of any bulk solids separation apparatus configured to remove one or more components from the drilling fluid.
However, Rowe teaches a shale shaker 152 and a plurality of access points 160a-g wherein samples can be taken for analysis or the analyzer can be attached to fluid channels such that the drilling fluid passes through the analyzer [0026].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to analyze the fluid upstream of the solids removal, as taught by Rowe, in order to separate formation gases from the solids and thereby determine trapped gas composition ([0034]).
Claim 22: Ritzmann in view of Ochoa further in view of Cartellieri further in view of Rowe teaches the method of claim 1. Ritzmann in view of Ochoa further in view of Cartellieri fails to teach wherein the formation characteristic comprises a type of rock in the subterranean formation, a presence of hydrocarbons in the subterranean formation, a type of hydrocarbons in the subterranean formation, a production potential for a stratum of the subterranean formation, a movement of fluid within the strata, or a combination thereof.
However, Rowe teaches wherein the formation characteristic comprises a type of rock in the subterranean formation, a presence of hydrocarbons in the subterranean formation, a type of hydrocarbons in the subterranean formation, a production potential for a stratum of the subterranean formation, a movement of fluid within the stratum, or a combination thereof ([0030] Example downhole characteristics include, but are not limited to, the type of rock in the formation 108, the presences of hydrocarbons in the formation 108, the production potential for a strata 108a-e of the formation 108, and the movement of fluid within a strata 108a-e.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to detect formation characteristics, as taught by Rowe, with the device of Ritzmann in view of Ochoa further in view of Cartellieri in order to aid in optimizing the drilling performance (Rowe [0019]).
Claims 5, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ritzmann in view of Ochoa further in view of Cartellieri further in view of Rowe in view of Fratini et al. (US20180311598) further in view of DiFoggio et al. (US8145429) in view of Horvath Szabo et al. (US20150355068).
Claim 5: Ritzmann in view of Ochoa further in view of Cartellieri further in view of Rowe teaches the method of claim 1. Ritzmann fails to teach a sample pump.
Ochoa teaches a sample pump 117 ([0023] pump 117 to pass the sampling fluid 115a at a constant flow rate through the gas trap unit 120, the sampling fluid 115a is continuously flowing.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a continuously flowing drilling fluid sample and bypass, as taught by Ochoa, with the device of Ritzmann in order to detect an amount of gas in the drilling fluid in real time (Ochoa [0023]).
Ritzmann in view of Ochoa further in view of Cartellieri further in view of Rowe fails to teach a gross filter upstream of the sample pump and a regenerative fine filter downstream from the sample pump, wherein the gross filter and the regenerative fine filter remove solids from the portion of the drilling fluid, and wherein the regenerative fine filter removes smaller particles from the portion of the drilling fluid sample than the gross filter.
It is known in the art to include a filter with a sample pump as taught by Fratini, Fig. 1A, a pump 106 which uses filters 102, 104 to protect the pump 106 from sand, wherein the filter is regenerative ([0036-0038] filters 102 and 104 are operated in parallel, see Fig. 1A, 2A, 3A). It is known in the art to use a filter with an injector as taught by DiFoggio, a filter 56 in order to prevent the entry of particulate matter or other solids from entering the injector 40 of the chromatograph (col. 5, lines 28-38). It is known in the art that a filter size (pore size) is a result effective variable, evidenced by Horvath Szabo [0029] A wide variety of other filter thicknesses and pore sizes may be used depending on the parameters of a given testing application.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a gross filter before a pump and a fine filter after a sample pump, including regenerative filters, with the method of claim 1, for the obvious benefit of protecting the equipment downstream of the respective filter and reduce the frequency for filter cleaning.
Claim 7: Ritzmann in view of Ochoa further in view of Cartellieri further in view of Rowe in view of Fratini further in view of DiFoggio further in view of Horvath Szabo teaches the method of claim 5, but fails to explicitly teach wherein a pump provides a constant flow rate of less than or equal to about 3000 mL/min to a filter.
However, Ochoa teaches that the constant flow rate of the drilling fluid through the pump 117 is known in order to correlate the depth at which a potential influx of gas occurs can be determined [0023]. Thus, the flow rate is a controlled and result-effective variable and obvious to optimize. Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use any constant flow rate, as taught by Ochoa, for the obvious benefit of correlating fluid depth to gas present.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ritzmann in view of Ochoa further in view of Cartellieri further in view of Rowe in view of Fratini further in view of DiFoggio further in view of Horvath Szabo further in view of Pelletier et al. (20210207478).
Claim 6: Ritzmann in view of Ochoa further in view of Cartellieri further in view of Rowe in view of Fratini further in view of DiFoggio further in view of Horvath Szabo teaches the method of claim 5 but fails to teach wherein the regenerative fine filter comprises a roll of filtration material continuously drawn into a path of the drilling fluid sample, such that a fresh section of the roll of filtration material is continuously exposed to the continuously flowing drilling fluid sample.
Fratini teaches wherein the filter 102 comprises multiple filters in parallel (102 and 104 are operated in parallel, see Fig. 1A, 2A, 3A), such that one of the two filters is filtering the drilling fluid sample while the other of the two filters is being regenerated ([0036-0038]). A regenerative filter comprising roll of filter material is taught by Pelletier (Fig. 4, roll assembly 202) wherein the fluid flows in the direction A across the filter 1000 [0040-0050]. When the filter is plugged, new filter material is drawn from the roll 220. There is no teaching or suggestion that the fluid stops flowing when the filter regenerates by drawing new material from the roll 220. The filter needs to be regenerated when it is plugged, otherwise the filter is always filtering without the need to be expressly continuously drawn from the roll. Taking into account the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ, the filter would need to be drawn from the roll 220 more frequently in the event the fluid is moving quickly and has a high number of particulates. Pelletier determines a plugged nature via sensors [0050]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to regenerate the filter roll as often as necessary in order to provide effective filtering.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a regenerative filter, as taught by Fratini, including one known in the art such as a roll filter taught by Pelletier, with the device of Ritzmann in view of Ochoa further in view of Cartellieri further in view of Rowe further in view of Fratini further in view of DiFoggio further in view of Horvath Szabo in order to protect the pump from ingesting entrained solids, and is automatically purged of filtered solids without requiring a low pressure destination for purged solids and purging fluid (Fratini [0010]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ritzmann in view of Ochoa further in view of Cartellieri further in view of Rowe further in view of Daniel et al. (US20120000279).
Claim 10: Ritzmann in view of Ochoa further in view of Cartellieri further in view of Rowe teaches the method of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein vaporizing the at least one hydrocarbon component in the flash column comprises increasing a temperature of the drilling fluid sample such that substantially all light liquid hydrocarbons in the drilling fluid sample are converted to gas as part of the gaseous drilling fluid sample.
However, Daniel teaches an expansion chamber 24, also called a flash chamber, for vaporizing components of a hydrocarbon mixture [0031, 0034] including light hydrocarbons (pentane, hexane, methane, ethane, propane [0050]). This includes expansion (flashing) such that the light hydrocarbons are released by controlling temperature/pressure ([0040] As the gas volume increases due to further expansion, more molecules evaporate at a rate that is proportional to the instantaneous mole fraction and the vapor pressure of each compound.). The pressure of the expansion chamber 24 is directly related to the pressure [0034]. Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would recognize that vaporizing light hydrocarbons via flashing/expansion can be done by controlling the temperature and/or pressure since they are directly related.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the method of Daniel, including vaporizing light hydrocarbons, with the method of claim 1 in order to isolate hydrocarbons of interest (Daniel [0002]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graves (US20170096893) in view of Ochoa further in view of Cartellieri further in view of Rowe.
Claim 11: Graves teaches a system (Fig. 1) for analyzing a drilling fluid used in a drilling operation within a subterranean formation, the system comprising: a gas chromatograph (GC) system (gas extractor and analyzer 158) in fluid communication with a drilling assembly (drilling system 100) and configured to produce a GC output (composition of the extracted gas [0025]); a flash column configured to destruct the fluid sample, wherein the drilling fluid comprises a liquid ([0023] Graves teaches the use of a flash column as a gas extraction mechanism 158 that allows for the separation and expansion of gas from liquids and solids.); and an information handling system (information handling system 160) communicably coupled to the GC system, wherein the information handling system comprises a processor and a memory device coupled to the processor, and the memory device contains a set of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to receive the output of the GC system; and determine a chemical composition of the drilling fluid using the GC output, wherein the chemical composition comprises an identity, an amount, or both, of the at least one hydrocarbon component; ([0025] The information handling system 160 may comprise a processor and a memory device communicably coupled to the processor containing a set of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to receive the output signals from the extractor and analyzer 158, determine the chemical composition of the extracted gas, and determine at least one downhole condition based, at least in part, on the determined chemical composition.).
Graves fails to teach a bypass line, and a sample-routing valve positioned upstream of the injector and configured to selectively direct the drilling fluid sample to the bypass line or to the GC; wherein a portion of the drilling fluid is continuously extracted from a fluid conduit coupled to the drilling assembly and a drilling fluid sample of the portion of the drilling fluid is introduced to the GC system or the bypass line.
However, Ochoa teaches obtaining extracted gas from a continuously flowing drilling fluid (sampling fluid 115a; [0005] The disclosure herein provides a system and methods for determining gas present in a continuously flowing drilling fluid received from a wellbore and the gas extraction efficiency of such system.) wherein the sample can be either passed to a gas extractor 120 and chromatograph 180 for analysis or to a bypass (exhaust 105) [0020-0021] via bypass line and sample-routing valve ([0021] A flow control device 130, such as a remotely-controlled valve, is provided to control the amount of sampling fluid 115a pumped into the gas trap unit 120. In various embodiments, the flow control device 130 is a three-way valve that allows either passing the sampling fluid 115a to the gas trap unit 120 or bypassing the gas trap unit by flowing the sampling fluid 115a directly to a mud exhaust 105.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a continuously flowing drilling fluid sample and bypass, as taught by Ochoa, with the device of Graves in order to detect an amount of gas in the drilling fluid in real time (Ochoa [0023]).
Graves in view of Ochoa fails to teach wherein the GC system comprises an injector configured to receive a drilling fluid sample comprising a liquid; a gas chromatography separation column.
However, Cartellieri teaches downhole gas chromatography for downhole fluids including a GC 210, Fig. 2, having a gas separation column 228 [0036-0037], an injector 226, and a detector 230 [0032]; injecting, via the injector, the gaseous sample into the GC column ([0033] The injector 226 introduces the sample into the column; Fig. 2 shows the collector 208 connected to the injector connected to the column 228); separating the gas sample in the chromatography separation column ([0027] gas sample from the collector 208 is injected into the column 228, Fig. 2; [0037] The detector 230 may be any suitable detector for estimating characteristics of the separated components exiting the column 228.). The injector 226 is capable of injecting a liquid, gas, or combination [0033].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the injector and separation column of Cartellieri with the device of Graves in order to effectively separate different components of the downhole fluid (Cartellieri [0036]).
Graves in view of Ochoa further in view of Cartellieri fails to teach a flash column upstream of the chromatography column, the flash column and the chromatography column are distinct columns arranged serially, wherein the flash column is configured to vaporize at least a portion of at least one hydrocarbon component present in the liquid phase of the drilling fluid sample to provide a gaseous drilling fluid sample; wherein the gas chromatography separation column is configured to receive the gaseous drilling fluid sample from the flash column and separate the at least one vaporized hydrocarbon component, and wherein the detector is configured to detect the separated at least one hydrocarbon component and produce the GC output; and determine a formation characteristic using the determined chemical composition.
Rowe teaches obtaining a gas sample from a drilling fluid sample for gas analysis (analyzer 158) including a gas extraction mechanism includes a flash column for vaporizing at least a portion of at least one hydrocarbon present in the liquid phase of the drilling fluid ([0034] flash column allows for the separation and expansion of gas from liquids and solids; in order to provide a gas sample, the sample must first enter the flash column and then the chromatography column/analysis unit, thus they would be arranged serially); detecting the separated at least one hydrocarbon component with the detector to determine an identity, an amount, or both, of the at least one hydrocarbon component as at least part of a chemical composition of the drilling fluid (the chemical composition, including identity and amount, of the sample is determined, [0029-0030]); and determining a formation characteristic using the determined chemical composition ([0030] [T]he information handling system 160 may determine a formation characteristic using the determined chemical composition. Example downhole characteristics include, but are not limited to, the type of rock in the formation 108, the presences of hydrocarbons in the formation 108, the production potential for a strata 108a-e of the formation 108, and the movement of fluid within a strata 108a-e.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to destruct the liquid portion of the sample, as taught by Rowe, with the device of Graves in view of Ochoa further in view of Cartellieri in order to thermochemically decompose organic material within the drilling fluid sample, which may aide in the analysis of the liquid portion of the drilling fluid sample (Rowe [0040]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graves in view of Ochoa further in view of Cartellieri further in view of Rowe further in view of Ritzmann.
Claim 12: Graves in view of Ochoa further in view of Cartellieri further in view of Rowe teaches the system of claim 11, but fails to teach wherein determining the chemical composition of the drilling fluid using the GC comprises receiving an output of a GC system at an information handling system coupled to the GC system; and comparing the output of the GC system to a data set corresponding to known chemical compositions.
However, Ritzmann teaches determining the chemical composition of the drilling fluid using the GC comprises receiving an output of a GC system at an information handling system coupled to the GC system; and comparing the output of the GC system to a data set corresponding to known chemical compositions ([0008, 0012] Once the chemical composition of each gas sample is obtained, a property of the formation fluid at the depth corresponding to each gas sample may be determined from the chemical composition of the gas sample using a correlation known in the art. Once a formation fluid property of interest is determined using a known correlation, that formation property of interest may also be entered into the computer processing system 16, which can provide a log of the formation fluid property of interest versus depth. Alternatively, the computer processing system 16 may be configured to apply the known correlation to the chemical composition of each gas sample already entered.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use teachings of Ritzmann with the device of Graves in view of Ochoa further in view of Cartellieri further in view of Rowe in order to improve efficiency of drilling production resources (Ritzmann [0001]).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graves in view of Ochoa further in view of Cartellieri further in view of Rowe further in view of Ritzmann further in view of Fratini further in view of DiFoggio further in view of Horvath Szabo.
Claim 14: Graves in view of Ochoa further in view of Cartellieri further in view of Rowe further in view of Ritzmann teaches the system of claim 11. Graves fails to teach a sample pump.
Ochoa teaches a sample pump 117 ([0023] pump 117 to pass the sampling fluid 115a at a constant flow rate through the gas trap unit 120, the sampling fluid 115a is continuously flowing.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a continuously flowing drilling fluid sample and bypass, as taught by Ochoa, with the device of Graves in order to detect an amount of gas in the drilling fluid in real time (Ochoa [0023]).
Graves in view of Ochoa further in view of Cartellieri further in view of Rowe further in view of Ritzmann fails to teach a gross filter upstream of the sample pump and a regenerative fine filter downstream from the sample pump, wherein the gross filter and the regenerative fine filter remove solids from the portion of the drilling fluid, and wherein the regenerative fine filter removes smaller particles from the portion of the drilling fluid sample than the gross filter.
It is known in the art to include a filter with a sample pump as taught by Fratini, Fig. 1A, a pump 106 which uses filters 102, 104 to protect the pump 106 from sand, wherein the filter is regenerative ([0036-0038] filters 102 and 104 are operated in parallel, see Fig. 1A, 2A, 3A). It is known in the art to use a filter with an injector as taught by DiFoggio, a filter 56 in order to prevent the entry of particulate matter or other solids from entering the injector 40 of the chromatograph (col. 5, lines 28-38). It is known in the art that a filter size (pore size) is a result effective variable, evidenced by Horvath Szabo [0029] A wide variety of other filter thicknesses and pore sizes may be used depending on the parameters of a given testing application.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a gross filter before a pump and a fine filter after a sample pump, including regenerative filters, with the device of claim 11, for the obvious benefit of protecting the equipment downstream of the respective filter and reduce the frequency for filter cleaning.
Claim 15: Graves in view of Ochoa further in view of Cartellieri further in view of Rowe further in view of Ritzmann further in view of Fratini further in view of DiFoggio further in view of Horvath Szabo teaches the system of claim 14. Graves teaches wherein the GC system is positioned adjacent to a wellbore of the drilling operation, and wherein the fluid conduit from which the portion of the drilling fluid is continuously extracted is upstream of a bulk solids removal of the drilling operation, wherein the bulk solids removal is configured to remove bulk solids from the drilling fluid ([0022-0023], Fig. 1) a gas extractor and analyzer 158 which is connected to a drilling fluid conduit 148 at a position upstream of a bulk solids separation (shale shaker 152)).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graves in view of Cartellieri further in view of Rowe.
Claim 16: Graves teaches an analyzer for analyzing a drilling fluid used in a drilling operation within a subterranean formation, the analyzer comprising: a gas chromatography (GC) system (gas extractor and analyzer 158, Fig. 1), wherein the GC system is in fluid communication with a fluid conduit (return line 148), wherein the fluid conduit is in fluid communication with a drilling assembly (drilling system 100) at least partially disposed within the subterranean formation (formation 108, Fig. 1) including a flash column [0023] as a gas extraction mechanism 158 that allows for the separation and expansion of gas from liquids and solids, wherein the flash column is configured to destruct a sample of the drilling fluid to provide a gaseous sample; wherein the drilling fluid comprises a liquid (Graves [0017] The terms “gas” or “fluid,” as used herein, are not limiting and are used interchangeably to describe a gas, a liquid, a solid, or some combination of a gas, a liquid, and/or a solid.)
Graves fails to teach wherein the GC system comprises an injector configured to receive a drilling fluid sample comprising a liquid; and a gas chromatography separation column.
However, Cartellieri teaches downhole gas chromatography for downhole fluids including a GC 210, Fig. 2, having a gas separation column 228 [0036-0037], an injector 226, and a detector 230 [0032]; injecting, via the injector, the gaseous sample into the GC column ([0033] The injector 226 introduces the sample into the column; Fig. 2 shows the collector 208 connected to the injector connected to the column 228); separating the gas sample in the chromatography separation column ([0027] gas sample from the collector 208 is injected into the column 228, Fig. 2; [0037] The detector 230 may be any suitable detector for estimating characteristics of the separated components exiting the column 228.). The injector 226 in capable of injecting a liquid, gas, or combination [0033]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the device of Cartellieri with the device of Graves in order to effectively separate different components of the downhole fluid (Cartellieri [0036]).
Graves in view of Cartellieri fails to teach a flash column upstream of the chromatography column, the flash column and the chromatography column are distinct columns arranged serially, wherein the flash column is configured to vaporize at least a portion of at least one hydrocarbon component present in the liquid phase of the drilling fluid sample to provide a gaseous drilling fluid sample; wherein the gas chromatography separation column is configured to receive the gaseous drilling fluid sample from the flash column and separate the at least one vaporized hydrocarbon component, and wherein the detector is configured to detect the separated at least one hydrocarbon component and produce the GC output; and determine a formation characteristic using the determined chemical composition.
Rowe teaches obtaining a gas sample from a drilling fluid sample for gas analysis (analyzer 158) including a gas extraction mechanism includes a flash column for vaporizing at least a portion of at least one hydrocarbon present in the liquid phase of the drilling fluid ([0034] flash column allows for the separation and expansion of gas from liquids and solids; in order to provide a gas sample, the sample must first enter the flash column and then the chromatography column/analysis unit, thus they would be arranged serially); detecting the separated at least one hydrocarbon component with the detector to determine an identity, an amount, or both, of the at least one hydrocarbon component as at least part of a chemical composition of the drilling fluid (the chemical composition, including identity and amount, of the sample is determined, [0029-0030]); and determining a formation characteristic using the determined chemical composition ([0030] [T]he information handling system 160 may determine a formation characteristic using the determined chemical composition. Example downhole characteristics include, but are not limited to, the type of rock in the formation 108, the presences of hydrocarbons in the formation 108, the production potential for a strata 108a-e of the formation 108, and the movement of fluid within a strata 108a-e.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to destruct the liquid portion of the sample, as taught by Rowe, with the device of Graves in view of Ochoa further in view of Cartellieri in order to thermochemically decompose organic material within the drilling fluid sample, which may aide in the analysis of the liquid portion of the drilling fluid sample (Rowe [0040]).
Claim 17: Graves in view of Cartellieri further in view of Rowe teaches the analyzer of claim 16. Graves fails to teach wherein the injector, the flash column, the gas chromatography separation column, and the detector of the GC system are positioned within a common housing.
However, Cartellieri teaches wherein the injector, the gas chromatography column, and the detector of the GC system are positioned within a common housing (downhole evaluation system 134 is shown as a single housing within the downhole sub106, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to position the injector, the flash column, the gas chromatography column, and the detector of the GC system within a common housing for the obvious benefit of protecting the analyzer from damage.
Claim 23: Graves in view of Cartellieri further in view of Rowe teaches the analyzer of claim 16. Graves teaches wherein the fluid conduit comprises an annulus in a wellbore or a flow conduit fluidly connected therewith (Graves teaches a flow conduit 148 connected to the annulus 146, Fig. 1, [0022]).
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graves in view of Cartellieri further in view of Rowe further in view of Ochoa further in view of Fratini further in view of DiFoggio further in view of Horvath Szabo.
Claim 18: Graves in view of Cartellieri further in view of Rowe teaches the analyzer of claim 17, but fails to teach a sample pump.
Ochoa teaches a sample pump 117 ([0023] pump 117 to pass the sampling fluid 115a at a constant flow rate through the gas trap unit 120, the sampling fluid 115a is continuously flowing.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a continuously flowing drilling fluid sample and bypass, as taught by Ochoa, with the device of Graves in order to detect an amount of gas in the drilling fluid in real time (Ochoa [0023]).
Graves in view of Cartellieri further in view of Rowe further in view of Ochoa fails to teach a gross filter upstream of the sample pump and a regenerative fine filter downstream from the sample pump, wherein the gross filter and the regenerative fine filter remove solids from the portion of the drilling fluid, and wherein the regenerative fine filter removes smaller particles from the portion of the drilling fluid sample than the gross filter.
It is known in the art to include a filter with a sample pump as taught by Fratini, Fig. 1A, a pump 106 which uses filters 102, 104 to protect the pump 106 from sand, wherein the filter is regenerative ([0036-0038] filters 102 and 104 are operated in parallel, see Fig. 1A, 2A, 3A). It is known in the art to use a filter with an injector as taught by DiFoggio, a filter 56 in order to prevent the entry of particulate matter or other solids from entering the injector 40 of the chromatograph (col. 5, lines 28-38). It is known in the art that a filter size (pore size) is a result effective variable, evidenced by Horvath Szabo [0029] A wide variety of other filter thicknesses and pore sizes may be used depending on the parameters of a given testing application.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a gross filter before a pump and a fine filter after a sample pump, including regenerative filters, with the device of claim 16, for the obvious benefit of protecting the equipment downstream of the respective filter and reduce the frequency for filter cleaning.
Claim 19: Graves in view of Cartellieri further in view of Rowe further in view of Ochoa further in view of Fratini further in view of DiFoggio further in view of Horvath Szabo teaches the analyzer of claim 18.
Cartellieri teaches wherein the injector, the gas chromatography separation column, and the detector of the GC system are positioned within a common housing (downhole evaluation system 134 is shown as a single housing within the downhole sub 106, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to position the injector, the flash column, the gas chromatography separation column, and the detector of the GC system within a common housing for the obvious benefit of protecting the analyzer from damage.
Graves in view of Cartellieri further in view of Rowe further in view of Ochoa further in view of Fratini further in view of DiFoggio further in view of Horvath Szabo fails to teach with sufficient specificity wherein the gross filter, the sample pump, the regenerative fine filter, or a combination thereof are together positioned inside or outside the common housing.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to not position the gross filter, the sample pump, the regenerative fine filter within the common housing with a reasonable expectation of success for the obvious benefit of maintaining access to the filter for cleaning or repair.
Claim 20: Graves in view of Cartellieri further in view of Rowe further in view of Ochoa further in view of Fratini further in view of DiFoggio further in view of Horvath Szabo teaches the analyzer of claim 18. Graves in view of Cartellieri further in view of Rowe fails to teach wherein the drilling fluid sampling apparatus is configured to continuously direct a portion of the drilling fluid from the fluid conduit through the gross filter, in that order, to produce a filtered drilling fluid sample comprising a liquid, and wherein the drilling fluid sampling apparatus further comprises a bypass valve positioned downstream of the regenerative fine filter and upstream of the injector, wherein the bypass valve comprises a first outlet fluidly coupled to a bypass line and a second outlet fluidly coupled to the injector and selectively directs the filtered drilling fluid sample to the bypass line or to the injector.
However, Ochoa teaches obtaining extracted gas from a continuously flowing drilling fluid (sampling fluid 115a) wherein the sample can be either passed to a chromatograph 180 or to a bypass (exhaust 105) [0020-0021]. Fratini, Fig. 1A, teaches the filters 102, 104 to protect the pump 106 from sand, and DiFoggio teaches the filter 56 in order to prevent the entry of particulate matter or other solids from entering the injector 40 of the chromatograph (col. 5, lines 28-38). The filters are disposed upstream of the respective components which they are placed to protect.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a continuously flowing drilling fluid sample and bypass, as taught by Ochoa, with the device of claim 18 in order to improve gas extraction efficiency (Ochoa [0006-0007]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEAN MORELLO whose telephone number is (313)446-6583. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-4.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kristina Deherrera can be reached at 303-297-4237. 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.
/JEAN F MORELLO/Examiner, Art Unit 2855 9/12/26
/KRISTINA M DEHERRERA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights