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 18 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive in regards to the prior art rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103. The Examiner will address Applicant’s arguments in the order presented in the Remarks.
The information disclosure filed 07 August 2024 has been fully considered, including the reference EP 1565709, and signed copy with all references cited initialed by the Examiner is attached to this Office Action.
Applicant has amended instant independent claims 1 and 11, removing the limitation “external,” and, as such, previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) are withdrawn.
Applicant then argues that the rejections under the prior art references Xiao et al., Gandarillas et al., Camacho Cardenas et al. and Roshdy fail to show or suggest the limitations (i) "wherein a bottom portion of the metering module is formed from a heavier material relative to a remainder portion of the metering module;" and (ii) "a vibration control mechanism disposed in a location between where the downhole sensor module connects to the metering module" recited in instant independent claims 1 and 11. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner clearly stated in the previous and current grounds of rejection why one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the instant invention, based on the overall disclosures of the prior art references, in particular, Xiao et al., Camacho Cardenas et al. and Roshdy, which are all within the same field of endeavor of ESP systems, would be motivated to modify the ESP system of Xiao et al. to reduce undesirable vibrations in the ESP system. Applicant then alleges that the ESP system of claim 1 is carefully designed to improve the accuracy of sensor measurements in a high vibration environment of a well, and refers to para 0034 of the originally-filed specification, and that pinpointing specific frequencies and designing vibration control mechanisms requires careful analysis and design considerations, and that Roshdy fails to disclose limitations (i), and that Roshdy does not explicitly disclose the specific locations of nodes and antinodes of the ESP system and how the locations of nodes and antinodes of the entire system might change if a downhole metering module is connected to the ESP motor. As a preliminary matter, the specific aspects stated in para 0034 of the originally-filed specification are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The Examiner never stated that Roshdy explicitly disclosed the limitations (i). The Examiner clearly stated that Roshdy discloses in paras 0031 and 0043-0045, that such nodes and antinodes clearly exist in an ESP system along the entire vertical axis, to address structural vibrational behavior of the ESP by employing damping elements that may be self-contained and separate from the pump and motor, or may be integrally formed within other components of the ESP, wherein the damping elements can be positioned at the lower end/bottom of the ESP assembly (see Fig. 3), and that changing/altering the positions/locations of the damping elements can reduce vibrations, since the ESP structure is very flexible due to its length-to-diameter ratio and the fact that is supported only from one location hanging vertically in the well, and that careful design of the ESP system will push vibration modes away in addition to providing general damping to the ESP system, and that positioning the damping elements at the antinodes (i.e. where the amplitude of vibration is the highest/greatest) so their vibration damping is maximized. As such, if the ESP system disclosed by Xiao et al., which clearly discloses all of the main structural elements recited in instant independent claims 1 and 11, being a motor, downhole sensor module and a metering module, experiences an antinode (i.e. high amplitudes of vibration) at a location between where the downhole sensor module contacts the metering module, or the location of an antinode/high amplitude vibration at the bottom portion of the metering module, one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the instant invention would be motivated by the teachings of Roshdy to place a damping element at those specific locations, or at any other location of the flexible ESP system structure experiencing an antinode/high amplitude of vibration to reduce the vibration at the chosen location. Applicant then alleges the Examiner stated: “wherein the vibration levels of the ESP have less to do with the bearing design of the motor driving the ESP, but more to do with factors such as distribution of mass, stiffness, and damping elements in the ESP structure” and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would allegedly recognize the applied forces due to the motor cannot be simply decoupled from the material structure as the applied forces may excite a nonlinear response (i.e. resonance) that would be desirable to dampen. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner did not state his opinion, rather, the Examiner directly quoted from para 0031 of the Roshdy reference, and there made no inference of any “decoupling” of the motor and the material structure of the overall ESP system. Applicant simply disagrees with this clear explicitly stated disclosure from Roshdy, yet fails to provide any evidence and/or specific scientific reasoning supporting any alleged exited nonlinear responses due to applied forces, or statements contradicting this clear direct disclosure by Roshdy. As such, overall, Roshdy clearly discloses to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date that distribution of mass/weight and damping elements to reduce vibrations in an ESP system, thus higher mass/greater weight (i.e. heavier) placed at a bottom portion of the metering module relative to the remainder of the ESP system, if that portion of the metering module is experiencing an antinode/high amplitude of vibration. In addition, the Examiner pointed out in §6 of the previous office action mailed on 01 June 2026, that, in addition to the teachings of Roshdy, those of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date that the beam structure of the system disclosed by Xiao et al., Gandarillas et al. and Camacho Cardenas et al. essentially acts like a pendulum, being supported/hung at/from the top portion of the pendulum-like system, wherein the center-of-gravity of the system is directly related to the stability of the entire pendulum-like system. Roshdy clearly supports this basic structural analysis in para 0045, stating: “It may be desirable to change the position of the particle damping unit because the ESP structure is very flexible due to its length-to-diameter ratio and the fact that it is supported only from one location hanging vertically in the well.” As such, adding mass to the bottom/lower portion of the pendulum-like system, would significantly increase the stability of the entire pendulum-like-system, due to the increased lower center-of-gravity created by the added mass/weight to the bottom/lower portion. In addition, the pendulum-like system, wherein the lower/bottom portion is heavier, the added weight creates a restorative torque/force, so that any external forces acting on the pendulum-like system that potentially pushed the pendulum-like system off-center, will immediately be countered by gravity pulling on the heavier bottom portion straight down in the direction of gravity, thus mitigating vibrational/motions. In addition to the above rudimentary/basic physical/mechanical analysis known by those of ordinary skill, adding mass/weight to the bottom of hanging structural beam-like systems increases overall tension in the entire beam-like system, which prevents the beam-like system from buckling or flexing under lateral external forces. Applicant has not addressed and/or refuted any of these statements made by the Examiner. As such, overall, Roshdy discloses the limitation (i) to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date.
Applicant then argues with respect to limitation (ii), that Camacho Cardenas et al. is silent with respect to measuring a flow rate within an ESP system, let alone mechanisms for reducing the impact of ESP vibrations on flow measurements. The Examiner never stated Camacho Cardenas et al. disclosed flow rate measurements or impacts of ESP vibrations on flow measurements. Xiao et al. discloses an ESP system making flow rate measurements. Camacho Cardenas et al. (as well as Roshdy) disclose reduction and/or mitigation of vibrations in ESP systems, which includes the ESP system disclosed by Xiao et al. Applicant is arguing against the references individually, in this case, the Camacho Cardenas et al. reference, and 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). Applicant then takes a single, out-of-context statement made in para 0080 of the Camacho Cardenas et al. reference, that some vibrations are considered desirable, being a vibration that might aid with clearing debris from a fluid inlet of an ESP, and that, such a vibration would interfere with the flow rate of the ESP and would bias the measurements with respect to the instant invention. Applicant ignores the other clearly relevant parts of para 0080 of Camacho Cardenas et al. which is: “Vibration may be undesirable (emphasis added), desirable or neutral. For example, a type of vibration may aid with clearing debris from a fluid inlet (e.g., a screen, openings, etc.) and thus be considered desirable. Whereas, as mentioned, other types of vibration may be undesirable and shorten lifetime of equipment, compromise performance of equipment, etc. (emphasis added). Yet other types of vibration may be considered to be neutral, for example, of a nature that do not particularly detriment or that do not particularly benefit longevity and/or operation of equipment.” Thus Camacho Cardenas et al. clearly states that some vibrations are undesirable in ESP systems, which shorten lifetime of equipment and compromise the performance of equipment, etc. As such, Camacho Cardenas et al. does not limit the reasons for mitigating undesirable vibrations in an ESP system, and, as such, if undesirable vibrations in the ESP system disclosed by Xiao et al. would compromise the flow rate measurements, or shorten the lifespan of the pressure sensors and associated metering module and/or sensor module, both of which are equipment (emphasis added) of the ESP system disclosed by Xiao et al., one of ordinary skill in the art would attempt to mitigate such undesirable vibrations based on the teachings of Camacho Cardenas et al. In addition, Camancho Cardenas et al. clearly states in para 0078: “As an example, a mechanism may be an external mechanism attached to a housing of motorized equipment or optionally other equipment that may experience undesirable vibration (emphasis added). Clearly, the metering module and the sensor module attached to motor in the ESP disclosed by Xiao et al. are “other equipment” that may experience undesirable vibration, as is commonly known in the art, since they are physically connected to the motor of the ESP, and, as such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the at as of the effective filing date to employ the vibration mitigation mechanisms disclosed by Comacho Cardenas et al. to the “other equipment,” being the metering module and/or sensor module. In addition, it has been held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, as well as applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, and "obvious to try" choosing from a finite number of predictable results (see KSR Int'l Co. V. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In the instant case, Camacho Cardenas et al. clearly teaches known prior art regarding mitigating vibrations in ESPs and other equipment associated with ESPs, and, as such, would yield to predictable results of vibration mitigation in the ESP and associated equipment/components (i.e. metering module and/or sensor module) disclosed by Xiao et al. In addition, applying a known technique of vibration mitigation in ESPs and associated equipment/components, as taught by Camacho Cardenas et al., improving the comparable ESP and components/equipment disclosed by Xiao et al., by adding vibration mitigation to various components and therebetween, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the instant invention.
Applicant further argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have no ability or motivation to combine the prior art references to obtain the claimed invention without using the instant disclosure as a guide, and that the Examiner allegedly employed improper hindsight. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Xiao et al., Comacho Cardenas et al. and Roshdy are all in the same field of endeavor, being ESP systems in the downhole/borehole art. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date would be aware of the teachings of Comacho Cardenas et al. and Roshdy, which both disclose reducing and/or mitigating undesirable vibrations in ESP systems. The Examiner provided clear teachings from the prior art references (specifically Roshdy and Comacho Cardenas et al.) along with knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art with the knowledge of basic structural engineering of mechanical systems, along with the applied prior art references to employ a heavier material at the bottom of the metering module to a remainder portion of the metering module. Furthermore, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). As such, the Examiner did not employ improper hindsight.
Applicant then argues the Examiner made arguments that were overbroad and improper application of Official Notice, and the Examiner’s conclusions of obviousness appear to be based on facts that exist only within the personal knowledge of the Examiner and are unsupported by the prior art, and the Applicant requests, if the rejection is to be maintained, that the argument be supported by an affidavit by the Examiner pursuant to rule 37 CFR §1.104(d)(2), which will then be subject to contradiction or explanation by the Applicant. As recognized by the Applicant, the Examiner did not take Official Notice, but gave clear obviousness rational and ordinary skill knowledge of structural engineering/mechanical reasoning regarding the claimed limitations, which Applicant has failed to refute or find any aspects thereof erroneous or incorrect. The Examiner directs the Applicant to Chapter 2100, §2144.03 [R-6] of the MPEP regarding Official Notice taken by an Examiner which clearly states:
To adequately traverse such a finding, an applicant must specifically point out the supposed errors in the examiner’s actions, which would include stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art. See 37 CFR 1.111(b).
According to the MPEP above, Applicant has not adequately traversed the Examiner’s finding of obviousness in the previous office action, since the Applicant has not pointed out any errors in the Examiner’s action, which would include statements regarding why the noticed facts are not considered to be common knowledge or well known to those of ordinary skill in the art, or the obviousness rationale, in combination with the teachings of the prior art references that was employed by the Examiner. As such, the Applicant’s request for the Examiner provide an affidavit and/or documentary evidence is respectfully denied.
Applicant then argues against the combination of the Gysling et al. prior art refence with Xiao et al., Gandarillas et al., Camacho Cardenas et al. and Roshdy references. Applicant argues that Gysling et al. describes a flow measurement system for measuring density of a fluid flowing in a pipe, and the acceleration compensated integrated piezoelectric quartz pressure sensor are for measuring a speed of sound in a fluid within a pipe in order to infer a gas volume fraction of the fluid, and the Examiner provided no evidence that these sensors would meet the requirements of the specific purpose of measuring a flow rate of fluid in a well in the ESP system disclosed by Xiao et al., Gandarillas et al., Camacho Cardenas et al. and Roshdy, and that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a direct connection to the motor of an ESP system would create more severe vibratory environment than a sensor that is not directly connected to a motor, and allegedly, the sensors disclosed by Gysling et al. may render Applicant’s device inoperable. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant once again arguing against the references individually, in this case, Gysling et al. reference, and 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). At a fundamental level, Gysling et al. discloses an “acceleration compensated” pressure sensor, thus employing acceleration measurements with the pressure measurements to perform the acceleration compensation. In addition, the Examiner stated that Camacho Cardenas et al. further disclose employing a plurality of types of measurement sensors (see paras 0048 and 0049), including a multi-axis accelerometer (see para 0090) which are inherently capable/configured to measuring acceleration by one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to measure acceleration in any desired direction, or all directions, based on required/desired acceleration measurements by design including in a first perpendicular direction and a second perpendicular direction of a fluid flow direction, which the Applicant did not address. In addition, Applicant did not address the Examiner’s motivation to combine, being: “It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify the dynamic pressures sensors disclosed by Xiao et al., Gandarillas et al., Camacho Cardenas et al. and Roshdy, with the Model 106B pressure sensor taught by Gysling et al., thus providing an acceleration compensated pressure measurement via the processor to compensate for an external vibration affecting the dynamic pressure sensors, as well as providing the ability for measuring low pressure acoustic phenomena in the hydraulic system, which has the unique capability to measure small pressure changes of less than 0.001 psi under high static conditions, wherein the 106B has a 300 mV/psi sensitivity and a resolution of 91 dB (0.0001 psi) (see para 0183), thus increasing the overall accuracy of the system and method for determining a flow rate disclosed by Xiao et al., Gandarillas et al., Camacho Cardenas et al. and Roshdy. As such, the rejection of instant independent claims 6 and 16 under the prior art is maintained.
Applicant then argues the rejection of instant independent claims 3, 4, 13 and 14 being unpatentable over Xiao et al., Gandarillas et al., Camacho Cardenas et al. and Roshdy, in further view of Zhang et al., stating Zhang et al. does not show or suggest a vibration control mechanism located between a downhole sensor module and a metering module. The Examiner did not state Zhang et al. taught these limitations, but the limitations recited in instant dependent claims 3, 4, 13 and 14. Camancho Cardenas et al. further teach a vibration isolating/control/reduction mechanism/mount, being mounted between any desired component of the ESP, which one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the instant invention would include sensor and sensor components/modules and the mounting thereof, especially if the sensors require isolation from vibrations to function properly/accurately, and not experience fatigue/failure due to vibrations. As such, the combination of Xiao et al., Gandarillas et al., Camacho Cardenas et al. and Roshdy taught these limitations, in combination with motivations and knowledge of one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date. Applicant once again arguing against the references individually, in this case, Zhang et al. reference, and 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). Zhang et al. clearly teach the limitations recited in instant dependent claims 3, 4, 13 and 14 for isolating a pressure sensor from vibrations, which Applicant has failed to refute. As such, the rejections of instant dependent claims 3, 4, 13 and 14 are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 10, 11, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2017/0058664 to Xiao et al., U.S. 20210010841 to Gandarillas et al., U.S. 2019/0326906 to Camacho Cardenas et al. and U.S. 2023/0304491 to Roshdy. Xiao et al. disclose a system and method for determining a flow rate of a fluid in a well (see entire reference) including an electrical submersible pump/ESP (12) disposed in the well; the ESP having a vertical axis; a motor (16) disposed/attached on/to the ESP; a downhole sensor module (22) attached/connected to the motor; a metering module/assembly (34) attached to, and extending from the downhole sensor module comprising a plurality of at least three dynamic pressure sensors (48, 50, 54, 56) (as recited in instant dependent claims 10 and 20) along a vertical axis, and connected to an outer diameter of the metering module which inherently are configured/capable of measuring pressure changes/fluctuations/dynamic measurements of the fluid; and a processor/controller (84A) (see paras 0034-0036) configured to receive pressure data from the plurality of dynamic pressure sensors, and using the processor to determine the flow rate based on the measurement of pressure fluctuations/changes in the fluid (as recited in instant independent claims 1 and 11). Xiao et al. does not explicitly disclose that the plurality of dynamic pressure sensors comprise a piezoelectric element; wherein a bottom portion of the metering module is formed from a heavier material relative to a remainder portion of the metering module or a vibration control mechanism disposed in a location between where the downhole sensor module connects to the metering module wherein the vibration control mechanism is configured to prevent an external vibration from being transmitted to the plurality of dynamic pressure sensors (as recited in instant independent claims 1 and 11); wherein the metering module is a hollow tube, flat-sided cylinder, or prism (as recited in instant dependent claims 8 and 18).
Gandarillas et al. disclose a system and method to determine flow rate of a fluid (see entire reference) having a metering module/sensing device (26) including a plurality of dynamic/unsteady pressure/strain sensors (32) associated with unsteady/dynamic pressures associated with vortical and/or other disturbances traveling in the fluid flow (22), wherein each of the dynamic pressure/strain sensors comprise a piezoelectric element (piezofibers (e.g. rectangular piezo ceramic rods) (see para 0040) which inherently are piezoelectric elements) to measure pressure/strain within a hollow tube due to the fluid flow (24) (as recited in instant dependent claims 8 and 18); wherein fluid flow parameters can be determined based on the sensor signals via a processor (28), the parameters being, but not limited to: volumetric flow rate, fluid speed of sound, mass flow rate, consistency or composition of the fluid flow, density of the fluid flow, the Mach number of the fluid flow, the size of a particle traveling within the flow, etc. (see para 0039, 0061-0063 and 0069). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the instant invention to employ the teachings of Gandarillas et al., by employing a hollow tube and measurements from dynamic/unsteady pressure/strain sensors to measure and determine a flow rate in the system/method disclosed by Xiao et al., thus providing accurate measurements of flow parameters, including flow rate, with higher accuracy, and which performs well for a variety of different velocity fluid flows traveling in a pipe (see paras 0005 and 0006), thus meeting additional limitations of instant independent claims 1 and 11, and all the limitations of instant dependent claims 8 and 18).
Comacho Cardenas et al. disclose an ESP system (see entire reference, in particular, Fig.2, Fig. 4 and Fig. 8) employing a plurality of types of measurement sensors (see paras 0048 and 0049), including a multi-axis accelerometer (see para 0090); wherein the plurality of types of measurement sensors can include a vibration sensors/equipment (430), which includes measuring vibration via pressure waves (i.e. via dynamic pressure sensors) (see paras 0075 and 0081); wherein the ESP and its associated components can include vibration control/reduction mechanisms (450) on components of the ESP, which are dimensioned/chosen with respect to a vibration type, vibration displacement, vibration velocity, vibration frequency, vibration acceleration, etc. (see para 0118); wherein the vibration control/reduction mechanisms may be self-adjusting (e.g. responsive to an external vibration to reduce overall vibration) (see paras 0070 and 0077); the vibration control/reduction mechanism can be attached to a housing, or an external mechanism attached to the housing of motorized equipment or optionally other equipment that may experience undesirable vibration (see para 0078); wherein external and/or internal vibrations are damped by one or more types of damping mechanisms can be chosen based on types of materials undergoing vibration (see para 0083-0085); and, as an example, the ESP system may include multiple vibration control/reduction mechanisms of one or more types, for example, located at one or more axial locations of the ESP, being attached to housing which is intended to be “stationary,” or external to an ESP and attached to an ESP housing (see para 0086). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the instant invention to dispose a vibration control/reduction mechanism in an axial location, or multiple axial locations along the ESP, between the motor, pump, and modules, including between the downhole sensor module connects to the metering module being configured to prevent an external and/or internal vibration from being transmitted to the plurality of dynamic pressure sensors on the metering module disclosed by Xiao et al., as taught by Camacho Cardenas et al., thus reducing vibrations of the metering module and other components of the ESP which can lead to fatigue and possible breakage/premature failure of the metering module and mounted dynamic pressure sensors, as well as components of the ESP (see para 0073 of Camacho Cardenas et al.), thus meeting some of the remaining limitations recited in instant independent claims 1 and 11.
In specific regards to the remaining limitations of instant independent claims 1 and 11, wherein a bottom portion of the metering module is formed from a heavier material relative to a remainder portion of the metering module, it is well known to those of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the instant invention, that mechanical systems have a distributed weight/mass profile, and that the weight/mass distribution will oscillated/vibrate in certain modes of vibration/oscillation when induced by forces acting on the mechanical system, and, as such, by changing/altering the mass/weight distribution in locations of the mechanical system, can reduce and/or elimination vibrational modes/oscillations, but lowering natural frequencies away from excitation frequencies, and that counter-weights/masses or balancing weights/masses can be employed to achieve reduced and/or elimination of vibrational modes/oscillations. As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to add mass/weight to a bottom portion of the metering module, or to other portions of the system including the ESP and other components, of the system disclosed by Xiao et al., Gandarillas et al. and Camacho Cardenas et al. to reduce and/or eliminate vibrations/oscillations of the metering module and/or other parts of the system. In addition, Roshdy discloses and ESP system (see entire reference) which employs dampening means to reduce vibrations of the ESP system, wherein the dampening means can be internal or external (i.e. integral and standalone) of ESP components (see paras 0014 and 0032), wherein vibration levels of the ESP have less to do with bearing design of the motor driving the ESP, but more to do with factors such as distribution of mass, stiffness and damping elements in the ESP structure, and the damping means employed by Roshdy address structural vibrations (see para 0032) the dampening means can be simply attached/placed to/at a lower/bottom end of the ESP (see paras 0043-0045); and may be positioned at other locations of the ESP assembly, since it may be desirable to change the position/location of the dampening means because the ESP structure may be highly-flexible due to its length-to-diameter ratio and the fact that it is supported only from one location hanging vertically in the well, and these factors result in a “beam” and/or “pendulum-like” structure that has multiple vibration modes in the operating range of the ESP, and the mass and the location of the dampening means is important, and careful design will push modes (notes and antinodes) of vibration away from running speed in addition to providing general damping to the ESP system, wherein the amplitude of vibration is minimal at the nodes and is highest at the antinodes, and, as such, placement of dampening means, or weight/mass at the antinodes, which will provide for maximized vibration damping (see para 0045). In addition, it is known to one having ordinary skill in the art that adding mass to the bottom/lower portion of a pendulum-like system, would significantly increase the stability of the entire pendulum-like-system, due to the increased lower center-of-gravity created by the added mass/weight to the bottom/lower portion. In addition, the pendulum-like system, wherein the lower/bottom portion is heavier, the added weight creates a restorative torque/force, so that any external forces acting on the pendulum-like system that potentially pushed the pendulum-like system off-center, will immediately be countered by gravity pulling on the heavier bottom portion straight down in the direction of gravity, thus mitigating vibrational/motions. In addition to the above rudimentary/basic physical/mechanical analysis known by those of ordinary skill, adding mass/weight to the bottom of hanging structural beam-like systems increases overall tension in the entire beam-like system, which prevents the beam-like system from buckling or flexing under lateral external forces. As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to add mass/weight to the bottom portion of the metering module relative to a remainder portion of the metering module, making it heavier, of the pendulum-like/beam ESP system/method disclosed by Xiao et al., Gandarillas et al. and Camacho Cardenas et al., as taught by Roshdy, especially if it is determined there is high vibration at the bottom end of the metering module (i.e. an antinode), thus reducing vibration of the ESP system, since effect of vibrations reduces the reliability of the metering module and ESP system in operation in the field, but also reduces expense associated with failures of factor acceptance tests and system integration tests (see para 0007 of Roshdy), thus meeting the remaining limitations recited in instant independent claims 1 and 11.
Claim(s) 6 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2017/0058664 to Xiao et al., U.S. 20210010841 to Gandarillas et al., U.S. 2019/0326906 to Camacho Cardenas et al. and U.S. 2023/0304491 to Roshdy as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of U.S. 2005/0061060 to Gysling et al. Xiao et al., Gandarillas et al., Camacho Cardenas et al. and Roshdy disclose a system and method for measuring a flow rate of a fluid in a well having all of the elements and method steps recited previously. Camacho Cardenas et al. further disclose employing a plurality of types of measurement sensors (see paras 0048 and 0049), including a multi-axis accelerometer (see para 0090) which are inherently capable/configured to measuring acceleration by one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to measure acceleration in any desired direction, or all directions, based on required/desired acceleration measurements by design including in a first perpendicular direction and a second perpendicular direction of a fluid flow direction (meeting some of the limitations recited in instant dependent claims 6 and 16). Xiao et al., Gandarillas et al., Camacho Cardenas et al. and Roshdy do not explicitly disclose the accelerometer being at a location coinciding with the plurality of dynamic pressure sensors and wherein the processor is further configured to use the acceleration to compensate for the external vibration (as further recited in instant dependent claims 6 and 16). Gysling et al. disclose a system and method for measuring a flow rate (see entire reference) employing piezoelectric dynamic pressure sensors (118-121) (see Figs. 15, 16, 19 and 20, note the similarity of instant Fig. 2 and Fig. 20 of Gysling et al.); wherein the dynamic pressure sensors are manufactured by PCB Piezotronics, specifically Model 106B, which is a high sensitivity, acceleration compensated integrated/co-located circuit piezoelectric quartz pressure sensor (see para 0183). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify the dynamic pressures sensors disclosed by Xiao et al., Gandarillas et al., Camacho Cardenas et al. and Roshdy, with the Model 106B pressure sensor taught by Gysling et al., thus providing an acceleration compensated pressure measurement via the processor to compensate for an external vibration affecting the dynamic pressure sensors, as well as providing the ability for measuring low pressure acoustic phenomena in the hydraulic system, which has the unique capability to measure small pressure changes of less than 0.001 psi under high static conditions, wherein the 106B has a 300 mV/psi sensitivity and a resolution of 91 dB (0.0001 psi) (see para 0183), thus increasing the overall accuracy of the system and method for determining a flow rate disclosed by Xiao et al., Gandarillas et al., Camacho Cardenas et al. and Roshdy, meeting all the remaining limitations recited in instant dependent claims 6 and 16.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2017/0058664 to Xiao et al., U.S. 20210010841 to Gandarillas et al., U.S. 2019/0326906 to Camacho Cardenas et al. and U.S. 2023/0304491 to Roshdy as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of CN 110108410 to Zhang et al. (see previously provided reference and English translation). Xiao et al., Gandarillas et al., Camacho Cardenas et al. and Roshdy disclose a system and method for determining/measuring flow rate of a fluid in a well having all of the recited elements and method steps stated previously. Xiao et al., Gandarillas et al., Camacho Cardenas et al. and Roshdy do not explicitly disclose providing a vibration isolating/control mount for each of the plurality of dynamic pressure sensors which are threaded into the metering module (as recited in instant dependent claims 3 and 13) or wherein the vibration isolating/control mount is an elastomer plug fitted into the metering module (as recited in instant dependent claims 4 and 14). However, based on the teachings of Camacho Cardenas et al., a vibration isolating/control/reduction mechanism/mount, being mounted between any desired component of the ESP, which one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the instant invention would include sensor and sensor components/modules and the mounting thereof, especially if the sensors require isolation from vibrations to function properly/accurately, and not experience fatigue/failure due to vibrations, thus meeting the limitations recited in instant dependent claims 3 and 13). In addition, Zhang et al. disclose a vibration control/isolating mechanism (Figs. 1-3, and entire English translation) for pressure sensors, including a vibration isolating mount/body (2, 3) is an elastomer plug/funnel-shaped barrel ring pad structure made of high-elasticity material and screw threading aspects for mounting components for isolating a pressure sensor. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to employ the teachings of Zhang et al., providing isolating mounting of the dynamic pressure sensors to the metering module disclosed by Xiao et al., Gandarillas et al., Camacho Cardenas et al. and Roshdy, thus preventing the dynamic pressure sensors from vibrations due to high-impact accelerations which cause measurement errors (see Background and Summary of Zhang et al.), thus meeting the limitations recited in instant dependent claims 4 and 14.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Primary Examiner John Fitzgerald whose telephone number is (571) 272-2843. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7:00 AM to 3:30 PM E.S.T. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor John Breene, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-4107. 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. The central 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.
/JOHN FITZGERALD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights