DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objection
2. Claims 2 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 2 and 12, please change “surface safety value” into -- surface safety valve --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 101 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
4. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under the 2019 PEG (now been incorporated into MPEP 2106), the revised procedure for determining whether a claim is "directed to" a judicial exception requires a two-prong inquiry into whether the claim recites: (1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human interactions such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and (2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim: (3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not "well-understood, routine, conventional" in the field (see MPEP § 2106.0S(d)); or (4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea of optimizing well flow rate signals.
Specifically, representative claim 20 recites:
A system, comprising:
an oil and gas field;
a flow metering device coupled, physically or virtually, to a pipeline in the oil and gas field, wherein the flow metering device measures a flow rate of a fluid in the pipeline and outputs the measured flow rate as flow rate data;
a computer communicably connected to the flow metering device and comprises: one or more computer processors, and a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions executable by a computer processor, the instructions comprising functionality for:
(S1) receiving the flow rate data comprising a plurality of data values;
(S2) receiving process variable data;
(S3) determining a plurality of delta values by taking the difference of temporally adjacent data values;
(S4) detecting discontinuities in the flow rate data by comparing the plurality of delta values to a continuity threshold;
(S5) correcting data values associated with detected discontinuities with an interpolation method;
(S6) identifying erroneous data values;
(S7) determining a condition of the pipeline associated with each identified erroneous data value by evaluating the process variable data;
(S8) correcting erroneous data values based on the condition of the pipeline; compiling unaltered data values and corrected data values into enhanced data flow rate data; and
(S9) determining a daily production of hydrocarbons in the pipeline based on the enhanced data flow rate data.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
The highlighted portion of the claim constitutes an abstract idea under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance and the additional elements are NOT sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions, as analyzed below:
Step
Analysis
1. Statutory Category ?
Yes.
System
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes.
See the bolded portion listed above.
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), each of the steps of (S3), (S4), (S6), (S7) and (S9) encompasses mental processes, namely concepts performed in the human mind using mental steps/critical thinking and/or with the aid of pen and paper. Note, the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. See CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). See also to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III.
Under its BRI, each of the steps of (S5) and (S8) encompasses mathematical concepts, namely a series of calculations leading to one or more numerical results or answers, which can be performed in the human mind using mental steps and/or with the aid of pen and paper.
Nothing in the bolded portion precludes the steps of (S3)-(S9) from practically being performed in the mind and/or using a pen and paper.
As such, the bolded portion of instant claim 20 falls within a combination of the “Mathematical Concepts” and “Mental Process” Groupings of Abstract Ideas defined by the 2019 PEG.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
The claim as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim recites “a computer … comprises: one or more computer processors, and a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions executable by a computer processor, the instructions comprising functionality for” performing the steps of (S3)-(S9). However, each or the combination of the computer-related components is recited at a high level of generality. According to the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes except for the mention of generic computer components performing computing activities via basic function of the computer, then the claim is likely considered to be directed to an ineligible abstract idea, as it essentially describes a mental process that could be performed by a human without the computer components adding any significant practical application beyond the abstract concept itself.
Under the BRI, each of the steps of (S1) and (S2) reads on merely a process of gathering the data/information necessary for performing the abstract idea identified above in 2A - Prong 1. According to MPEP 2106.05(g)(3): … that were described as mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea. As such, it represents an extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
In general, the claim as a whole does not meet any of the following criteria to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Various considerations are used to determine whether the additional elements are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. However, in all of these respects, the claim fails to recite additional elements which might possibly integrate the claim into a particular practical application. Instead, based on the above considerations, the claim would tend to monopolize the algorithm across a wide range of applications.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No.
See analysis given in 2A - Prong 2 above.
It is deemed that the focus of the claim is on a data analysis and manipulation algorithm for optimizing the well flow rate signals. The additional elements such as “an oil and gas field”, “a flow metering device coupled, physically or virtually, to a pipeline in the oil and gas field”, “the flow metering device measures a flow rate of a fluid in the pipeline and outputs the measured flow rate as flow rate data” and “a computer communicably connected to the flow metering device”, under the BRI, are all well-understood, routine, conventional in the art (see the prior art references cited in sections 5-7 below in this Office Action). They do not provide any inventive concepts or reflect a qualified improvement. See MPEP 2106.05.
The claim is therefore ineligible under 35 USC 101.
The dependent claims 2-10 inherit attributes of the independent claim 1, but do not add anything which would render the claimed invention a patent eligible application of the abstract idea. These claims merely extend (or narrow) the abstract idea which do not amount for "significant more" because they merely add details to the algorithm which forms the abstract idea as discussed above.
In particular, claim 2 recites: wherein the pipeline is configured with, at least, a surface safety value, a choke valve, and an upstream pressure transducer. Under the BRI, these additional elements are all well-understood, routine, conventional in the art (see the prior art references cited in sections 5-7 below in this Office Action). They do not provide any inventive concepts or reflect a qualified improvement.
Claims 5 and 7 recite: selecting a machine-learned model type and an architecture for use by the flow rate signal enhancement system; training the machine-learned model with a training data set comprising historical flow rate data and paired enhanced flow rate data; wherein the machine-learned model is a neural network. Under the BRI, the limitation of selecting a machine-learned model type and an architecture for use by the flow rate signal enhancement system encompasses mental processes that can be performed in the human mind. The step of training a machine-learned model with a training data set comprising historical data and/or paired data is recited at a high level of generality which may involve optimizing an AI model using a series of mathematical calculations to iteratively adjust the algorithms and/or parameter values of the AI model, therefore encompasses mathematical concepts, while the claimed details of the data for said training encompass merely data characterization which can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the relevant technological environment. Furthermore, a machine-learned model comprising a neural network is well-understood, routine, conventional in the art.
Claim 8 recites: wherein the device is a multiphase flow meter and the fluid is a multiphase fluid. A flow metering device that is a multiphase flow meter and the fluid is a multiphase fluid are all well-understood, routine, conventional in the art. At most, the limitation of instant claim 8 generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim 9 recites: consolidating the flow rate data and displaying the enhanced flow rate data and the daily production of hydrocarbons using a supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system. The step of consolidating the flow rate data is considered a part of the abstract idea identified above in 2A - Prong 1. The step of displaying the enhanced flow rate data and the daily production of hydrocarbons is not a practical application, it is treated as an insignificant post solution activity as it merely displays the results of the abstract idea. The SCADA system is recited at a high level of generality. It may be implemented by a general-purpose computer configured to perform computing activities via basic function of the computer, as such the claimed SCADA does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claims 12-19 are treated as ineligible subject matter for the same reason as for claims 2-10 discussed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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 of this title, 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.
6. Claims 1-2, 8-9, 11-12, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over UNALMIS et al. (US 20210381867 A1) in view of KITANO et al. (US 20190024891 A1) and Simpson (US 9134453 B1).
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 20, UNALMIS discloses a method and system of flowrate optimizer, including computer programs encoded on a storage device for implementing the method/system, the system comprises: an oil and gas field (Fig. 1: by inherency, the fluid mixture flow 110 must be originated from an oil and gas field); a flow metering device (130) coupled, physically or virtually, to a pipeline (105) in the oil and gas field, wherein the flow metering device measures a flow rate of a fluid in the pipeline and outputs the measured flow rate as flow rate data (para. 0030); a computer (112 Fig. 1) communicably connected to the flow metering device (para. 0034) and comprises: one or more computer processors, and a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions executable by a computer processor (para. 0090-0096), the instructions comprising functionality for: receiving the flow rate data comprising a plurality of data values (para. 0035, 0090); receiving process variable data (para. 0030, 0034, 0090); identifying erroneous data values (para. 0085: “If the difference between the WLR.sub.nonoptimized STD and the WLR.sub.WT is greater than Δ, then the flowmeter is considered as not providing accurate measures of the downhole WLR and standard WLR, and operations 300 proceed to 350”; see also para. 0112); determining a condition (e.g., the unstable phase at the measured downhole pressure (P.sub.d) and downhole temperature (T.sub.d)) of the pipeline associated with each identified erroneous data value by evaluating the process variable data (para. 0088); correcting erroneous data values based on the condition of the pipeline (para. 0088: “The updated parameters and measurements 622 of P.sub.d, T.sub.d, fluid velocity, and SoS in the pipe are used with a multiphase flow algorithm 624 at 626 to determine flow rates for the mixture at standard (STD) temperature and pressure. The flow rates for the mixture at standard temperature and pressure are used in calculating an optimized …”); compiling unaltered data values and corrected data values into enhanced data flow rate data (para. 0088: “If the difference between the WLR.sub.optimized STD and the WLR.sub.WT is less than or equal to Δ, then the flowmeter is considered to be providing accurate measures of the downhole WLR and standard WLR, no additional adjustment of measurements from the flowmeter are needed”; by inherency, the optimizer is applied to the erroneous data, as such, the output of flowrates at step 650 of Fig. 6 is a combination of unaltered data values and corrected data values); and monitoring production of hydrocarbons in the pipeline based on the enhanced data flow rate data (para. 0024, 0089).
UNALMIS does not mention explicitly: determining a plurality of delta values by taking the difference of temporally adjacent data values; detecting discontinuities in the flow rate data by comparing the plurality of delta values to a continuity threshold; correcting data values associated with detected discontinuities with an interpolation method; and determining a daily production of hydrocarbons in the pipeline based on the enhanced data flow rate data.
KITANO discloses a flow measurement device coupled to a pipeline (para. 0007), comprising: one or more computer processors, and a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions executable by a computer processor (Fig. 8), the instructions comprising functionality for: determining a plurality of delta values (e.g., D(n)=Q(n)−Q(n−1) or R(n) in Eq. (2) or Eq. (3)) by taking the difference of temporally adjacent data values (para. 0023-0024); detecting discontinuities in the flow rate data by comparing the plurality of delta values to a continuity threshold (para. 0034-0036); correcting data values associated with detected discontinuities with an interpolation method (para. 0026, 0037, 0042, 0042: “the flow rate indicating the characteristic of the gas appliance (average A(i) serving as the intermediate flow rate in the above-described example) can be more reliably acquired”).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply KITANO’s teaching of data interpolation technique to the flowrate data values in UNALMIS system/method to generate continuous timeseries of flowrate measurements. Such a modification is considered merely an intended use of a known invention/technique. It has been held that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In a claim drawn to a process of making, the intended use must result in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification of UNALMIS in view of KITANO were predictable for facilitating subsequent digital analysis of time-dependent flowrate measurements since the use of that known technique provides the rationale to arrive at a conclusion of obviousness.
The combination of UNALMIS and KITANO is silent on: determining a daily production of hydrocarbons in the pipeline based on the enhanced data flow rate data.
Simpson discloses a method/system (Fig. 4) for forecasting hydrocarbon production of a well (Abstract), comprising: determining a daily production of hydrocarbons in the pipeline based on flow rate data (col. 3, lines 24-26; col. 4, lines 4-7; col. 5, lines 63-67).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Simpson’s teaching of daily hydrocarbons production forecasting technique into the combination of UNALMIS and KITANO to arrive the claimed invention. The mere application of known technologies to a specific instance by those skilled in the art would have been obvious.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, UNALMIS discloses: wherein the pipeline is configured with, at least, a surface safety valve (by inherency, wellhead 150 must include a safety valve), a choke valve (para. 0107: “in-flow control valves (ICVs) or in-flow control devices (ICDs) so that the well production may be optimized”), and an upstream pressure transducer (para. 0030, 0032-0033).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, UNALMIS discloses: wherein the device is a multiphase flow meter (para. 0030) and the fluid is a multiphase fluid (para. 0029).
Regarding claim 9, UNALMIS discloses: consolidating (e.g., optimizing) the flow rate data and displaying the enhanced flow rate data using a supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system (para. 0086-0088; Figs. 4 and 5).
UNALMIS does not but Simpson teaches: displaying the daily production of hydrocarbons (col. 3, lines 22-24). As such, the combination of UNALMIS/KITANO/ Simpson renders the claimed invention obvious.
7. Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over UNALMIS et al. in view of KITANO et al. and Simpson, further in view of Almarhoon et al. (US 20230296005 A1).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, the combination of UNALMIS/KITANO/Simpson is silent on: determining a health of a well using a reservoir simulator based on the daily production of hydrocarbons.
Almarhoon discloses a hydrocarbon reservoir production system and method comprising: determining a health of a well using a reservoir simulator based on daily production of hydrocarbons (para. 0004: “an operator may conduct simulations of different operating scenarios to generate estimates (or “predictions”) of hydrocarbon production from the reservoir under the different scenarios … These types of assessments may be completed over the life of a reservoir, sometimes daily or weekly …”; para. 0007: “in response to receiving such a selection, generate a set of well gas performance data that includes corresponding data …”; see also para. 0008).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Almarhoon’s teaching of determining a health of a well using a reservoir simulator based on daily hydrocarbons production into the combination of UNALMIS/KITANO/Simpson to arrive the claimed invention. It has been held that the mere application of known technologies to a specific instance by those skilled in the art would have been obvious.
Examiner’s Note
8. While there are related references that discuss techniques of enhancing or optimizing well flow rate signals, the prior art of record does not specifically provide teachings for the limitations of: wherein the flow rate signal enhancement system corrects an interval of erroneous data values with a machine-learned model when the condition comprises: the surface valve being in an open state; the choke valve being in an open state; an upstream pressure measured by the upstream pressure transducer being greater than a first pressure threshold; and a duration of the interval is greater than a duration threshold (instant claims 3, 5, 7, 10, 13, 15, 17 and 19); wherein the flow rate signal enhancement system corrects an interval of erroneous data values with the interpolation method when the condition comprises: the surface valve being in an open state; the choke valve being in an open state; an upstream pressure measured by the upstream pressure transducer being greater than a first pressure threshold; and a duration of the interval is less than or equal to a duration threshold (instant claims 4 and 14). It is these limitations found in each of the claims, in combination with the rest of the limitations as recited in independent claim 1 or 11, that have not been found, taught or suggested by the prior art of record, which make these claims distinguish over the prior art of record. As such, pending claims 3-5, 7, 10, 13-15, 17 and 19 would be allowable if rewritten/amended to overcome the rejection as set forth in sections 3-4 above in this Office Action.
Contact Information
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIUQIN SUN whose telephone number is (571)272-2280. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am-6:00pm.
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, Shelby A. Turner can be reached on (571) 272-6334. 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.
/X.S/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/SHELBY A TURNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857