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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s argument that Newman fails to disclose using the identification information to determine an adjustment to operations and therefore fails to make the claimed limitations obvious over the combination is not persuasive. Using the identifier information to confirm the operation is being performed on the correct well, as taught by Newman, constitutes determining if an adjustment needs to be made since if the identifier indicates that it is the incorrect well a given valve will not be opened or closed and if the identifier indicates that it is the correct well the given valve will be opened or closed and a pump-down rate and wireline speed will be altered in alignment with the plan. This is also consistent with the instant application since pgphs. 82 and 84 of the instant specification fail to disclose any actions being taken in response to the identifier information beyond cross referencing the identifier information with the plan (which can be construed as confirming that the well is the correct well and thus commencing with the plan for that well).
With respect to Applicant’s argument that Newman discloses manually entering the information and not a computerized method and thus fails to make the limitations obvious, this is not persuasive as Venna discloses an automated pump-down operation and automatically incorporating the identifier information of Newman is an obvious step to take and manual entry of identifier information does not render the entire process as manual instead of automatic. Further, Newman does disclose automatic entry of identifier information (col. 6 ll. 4-8, col. 4 ll. 45-53).
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, 2, and 4-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venna (US 20210262303 A1) in light of Vann (US 3713334 A), Newman (US 7064677 B2), and Chapman (US 20200224508 A1)
With respect to claim 1, Venna discloses a computerized method for optimizing and controlling a pump-down wireline operation that is being performed on a well, the method comprising steps of: collecting operational data of the operation from a wireline data acquisition system (WDAS) (sensors to measure tension and line speed, 520 fig. 5) and from a pump-down data acquisition system (PDAS) (sensors to measure pump rate, 520 fig. 5); defining a wireline speed-and-tension threshold value (winch speed safe limit, max and min tension target pgph. 45), defining a pump-down rate threshold value (max pump rate, fig. 5, pgph. 52); analyzing the collected operational data with the defined wireline speed and tension threshold value and the defined pump-down rate threshold value in real-time (steps 960, 970) determining if an adjustment of the operation is suitable for optimizing the well operation based on the step of analyzing, wherein the adjustment comprises: changing a speed of the wireline; or (ii) changing a pump-down rate (step 980); and displaying on a client-computing device the operational data and the determined adjustment (pgph. 50).
Venna discloses perforating at a desired location but fails to disclose the specifics in determining location.
Nevertheless, Vann discloses receiving an operational plan (where to perforate and gamma ray data regarding collar location) and a step of determining a position of the toolstring within the well by analyzing the WDAS operational data an operational plan (col. 6 ll. 13-38).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used the method for location determination of Vann to locate the perforating gun of Venna in order to perforate at the precise depth as taught by Vann (col. 6 ll. 35-38).
However, Venna and Vann are silent regarding the valves and valve positions.
Nevertheless Chapman teaches a controller for a pump-down operation which receives positional information regarding if a valve is open or closed (pgphs. 41, 46, 60, 64, 76, 86) and opening and closing valves (pgphs. 41, 64, 65, 76), which requires the determination of whether or not a valve should be opened or closed, wherein fluid flows through the valves (pgph. 86).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have included a valve monitoring and control system with the functionality taught by Chapman in the system of Venna since this is the application of a known technique in a similar device to improve it in the same way with predictable and obvious results and a reasonable expectation for success.
However, Venna and Vann fail to disclose well identification information.
Nevertheless, Newman discloses a well identifier (90, 106, col. 4 ll. 31-53) physically connected to the well (shown in fig. 1) which indicates that the operation is being performed on the correct well (col. 1 ll. 20-67, col. 5 ll. 8-30). If Applicant does not agree that positioning a identifier on the surface in close proximity to the wellhead constitutes a physical connection, it would have been obvious to have provided the identifier on the upper end of the tubing 22 or cap 28 since this is merely the selection between a limited number of options with predictable results and a reasonable expectation for success.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used a well identifier with the well of Vann and Venna in order to avoid confusion over which well might be which and in order for an owner to confirm that the operations of Venn and Venna have been completed as taught by Newman (col. 1 ll. 20-52, col. 6 ll. 4-8), a pump-down operation being something a portable work-over service rig, such as that disclosed by Newman, could perform. Venna and Vann would automatically incorporate the well identifier to determine the position of the string with the plan since the plan is specific to a specific wellbore and the well identifier confirms that the wellbore is the intended wellbore to perform the operation on. Also, using the identifier information to confirm the operation is being performed on the correct well, as taught by Newman, constitutes determining if an adjustment needs to be made since if the identifier indicates that it is the incorrect well a given valve will not be opened or closed and if the identifier indicates that it is the correct well the given valve will be opened or closed and a pump-down rate and wireline speed will be altered in alignment with the plan
With respect to claim 2, Venna discloses wherein the step of displaying further comprises a step of controlling one or more tools downhole or on a surface for adjusting the pump-down wireline operation (pgph. 57).
With respect to claim 4, Venna discloses determining in real time whether the toolstring is approaching a wellbore feature that is suitable for making a further adjustment of the operation based on analyzing the position of the tool string relative to the wellbore feature, wherein the further adjustment comprises one or more of: (i) changing the speed of the wireline; (ii) changing the pump-down rate; and displaying on a client-computing device the further adjustment (pgphs. 23, 39). Chapman also discloses displaying information to a client or operator (pgphs. 43, 50, 75).
With respect to claim 5, Venna discloses automatically and in real time making the adjustment (pgph. 14).
With respect to claim 6, Venna discloses wherein the step of automatically and in real time making the adjustment comprises one or more of increasing the speed of the wireline, decreasing the speed of the wireline, increasing the pump-down rate and decreasing the pump-down rate (steps 980, 990).
With respect to claim 7, Venna discloses automatically and in real time making the further adjustment (pgph. 14).
With respect to claim 8, Venna discloses wherein the step of automatically and in real time making the further adjustment comprises increasing the pump-down rate (pgph. 39).
With respect to claim 9, Venna discloses wherein the WDAS operational data comprises one or more of wireline speed sensor information, wireline tension sensor information (520, fig. 5).
With respect to claim 10, Venna discloses wherein the PDAS operational data comprises one or more of pump rate sensor information (520 fig. 5).
With respect to claim 11, Venna discloses displaying is on a client-computing device that is remote from a wellsite where the operational data is collected (pgphs. 20, 23).
The limitations of claim 12 are substantially similar to those of claim 1, rejected supra, except for the identifier module, disclosed by Newman (62, col. 5 l. 35 – col. 6 l. 8).
With respect to claim 13, Venna discloses wherein the at least one processing structure further comprises a wireline controller and a pump-down controller (600) that is configured to define the wireline speed and tension threshold value and a pump-down rate threshold value (fig. 6).
With respect to claim 14, Venna discloses wherein the at least one processing structure further comprises a wireline automation controller (540) that is configured to receive a determined adjustment for changing the speed or direction of the wireline and for automatically and in real time changing the speed or direction of the wireline based upon the received determined adjustment (pgph. 43).
With respect to claim 15, Venna discloses wherein the at least one processing structure further comprises a pump-down automation controller (550) that is configured to receive a determined adjustment for automatically and in real time changing the pump- down rate of the pump-down pumping system based upon the received determined adjustment (pgph. 43, fig. 5).
With respect to claim 16, Venna discloses a well identifier module that is configured to transmit well identity information to the at least one processing structure (wellbore geometry is known as discussed in pgph. 17, whatever feeds this into the computational model is the identifier module, pgph. 17, also various inputs into 660, fig. 6 constitute a well identifier module).
With respect to claim 17, Venna discloses an operational plan module (whatever computes recommended job speed, pgph. 61) that is configured to transmit an operational plan to the at least one processing structure (pgph. 61, fig. 5).
With respect to claim 18, Venna further discloses a method for automatically deploying a tool upon a perforation assembly within a well, the method comprising steps of: receiving operational information (predetermined depth, pgph. 3) (b) receiving sensory information regarding the wireline system (discussed supra); (c) determining if the specific tool is in the correct position within the well (needs to be placed at predetermined depth, pgph. 3), and (i) if the specific tool is in the correct position, then sending a command to a firing panel to deploy the specific tool (actuated to perforate, pgph. 3).
With respect to claim 19, Vann also discloses determining if the tool is within a distance from a certain collar (col. 6 ll. 13-38).
With respect to claim 20, the determining whether the gun is within a distance from a certain collar by Vann also constitutes assessing whether the operational status of the perforation assembly meets a predetermined condition.
With respect to claims 21-23, Chapman teaches that the valve is one of an inlet and discharge valve (pgph. 34, fig. 1).
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 KIPP CHARLES WALLACE whose telephone number is (571)270-1162. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 12:00 PM - 8:00 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, Doug Hutton can be reached at (571) 272-4137. 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.
/KIPP C WALLACE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674 07/16/2026
Prosecution Insights