DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are currently presented for examination.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted has being considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 110. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
There is an extra space between interest and the period in [0011]
There is an extra space between interest and the period in [0012]
There is an extra space between interest and the period in [0013]
[0028] contains a “)” without a corresponding “(“ on page 8
[0028] contains a “(” without a corresponding “)” on page 9
[0028] has two periods after maker on page 9
[0028] has two periods after 112 on page 9
There is an extra space between interest and the period in [0037]
There is an extra space between interest and the period in [0044]
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “the wellbore” in the second line, when it is the first recitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “the wellbore” in the fifth line, when it is the first recitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “the wellbore” in the second line, when it is the first recitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
evaluator in claim 1, 8 and 16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Examiner’s Note: For the purposes of examination, the structure for the evaluator will be interpreted as a computing arrangement in accordance with Figure 1 and [0028].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed functions of "evaluator". The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitations "evaluator" invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. While the specification discloses a "computing arrangement” in Figure 1 and [0028]of the specification, it is devoid of the algorithms that provide structures to convert the generic computing arrangement into a special purpose computing arrangement to perform the claimed functions. (MPEP 2181.11.(B)) There is no disclosure of any particular algorithms, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the actions of the evaluator. The use of the term "computing arrangement" alone is not adequate structure because it does not describe a special purpose computing arrangement for performing the functions. As such, the specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure performs the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
All claims dependent on a 112 rejected base claim are rejected based on their dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
Regarding claims 1-20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-7 are directed to a method, which is a process, which is a statutory category of invention. Claims 8-15 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium, which is a manufacture, which is a statutory category of invention. Claims 16-20 are directed to a method, which is a process, which is a statutory category of invention. Therefore, claims 1-20 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claims 1, 8 and 16 recite the abstract idea of simulating a cleanup method, constituting an abstract idea based on Mental Processes based on concepts performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper. The limitation of "inputting data related to a design for clean-up of the wellbore;” covers mental processes including observing data and making a judgment about what data should be used in the design. Additionally, the limitation of “evaluating a response for the design for the inputting of the data related to the wellbore into the computer arrangement to generate results;” covers mental processes including evaluating a dataset. But for the inclusion of the computing arrangement, there is nothing that precludes operation of the claim in the human mind. This follows for each subsequent recitation. Additionally, the limitation of “evaluating the output files through the use of an evaluator, wherein the evaluating generates an objective measure of interest;” covers mental processes including evaluating a dataset to compared to an objective measure. But for the inclusion of the evaluator, there is nothing that precludes operation of the claim in the human mind. This follows for each subsequent recitation. Additionally, the limitation of “optimizing the design for clean-up of the wellbore; and” covers mental processes including evaluating a dataset and making a judgment about when an optimal solution is reached. Additionally, the limitation of “creating a new design for clean-up of the wellbore based at least in part on the optimizing of the design.” covers mental processes including making a judgement about what a new design should be. These claims are similarly recited in claims 1, 8 and 16. Thus, the claims recite the abstract idea of a mental process performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-15 and 17-20 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In Claims 1, 8 and 16 the additional elements of “inputting data related to the wellbore into a computer arrangement;”, “evaluator” and “outputting the results to output files;”, as well as “An article of manufacture comprising a non-volatile memory” in claim 8, as well as “one of a compact disk and a universal serial bus device” in claims 15, as well as “saving the new design into a non-volatile memory” in claim 18 and 20, merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)) Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-15 and 17-20 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims, and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration beyond those addressed above.
Step 2B: Claims 1, 8 and 16 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In Claims 1, 8 and 16 the additional elements of “inputting data related to the wellbore into a computer arrangement;”, “evaluator” and “outputting the results to output files;”, as well as “An article of manufacture comprising a non-volatile memory” in claim 8, as well as “one of a compact disk and a universal serial bus device” in claims 15, as well as “saving the new design into a non-volatile memory” in claim 18 and 20, merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)) Therefore, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated in Section I.B. of the December 16, 2014 101 Examination Guidelines, “[t]o be patent-eligible, a claim that is directed to a judicial exception must include additional features to ensure that the claim describes a process or product that applies the exception in a meaningful way, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.”
The dependent claims include the same abstract ideas recited as recited in the independent claims, and merely incorporate additional details that narrow the abstract ideas and fail to add significantly more to the claims.
Dependent claims 2 and 9 are directed to further defining the input data, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claims 3, 10 and 17 are directed to further defining the input data as a choke schedule, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claims 4 and 11 are directed to further defining the evaluation using the choke schedule, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claims 5 and 12 are directed to further defining the creation of new input data, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claims 6 and 13 are directed to further defining the visual depiction, including with pencil and paper, of the results, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claims 7 and 19 are directed to further defining the creation of two designs and, the visual depiction, including with pencil and paper, of the results, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes” or alternatively “Mathematical Concepts.”
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6 and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zafari et al. USPPN 2010/0274546.
Regarding claim 1, Zafari anticipates inputting data related to a design for clean-up of the wellbore; (Figures 2-5, [0041]-[0045], data for a base design is used)
inputting data related to the wellbore into a computer arrangement; (Figure 2, [0018] a cpu and memory are used)
evaluating a response for the design for the inputting of the data related to the wellbore into the computer arrangement to generate results; (Figures 3-5, [0034], [0041]-[0045], results are compared to constraints)
outputting the results to output files; (Figure 2, [0018], [0030], document files are outputted by the system)
evaluating the output files through the use of an evaluator, wherein the evaluating generates an objective measure of interest; (Figure 2, [0018], [0030], [0041]-[0045], document files are outputted by the system to the optimization algorithm; Figures 2-5, [0041]-[0045], the objectives of the optimization algorithm are evaluated)
optimizing the design for clean-up of the wellbore; and creating a new design for clean-up of the wellbore based at least in part on the optimizing of the design. (Figures 2-5, [0041]-[0045], a new optimized design is created)
Regarding claim 2, Zafari anticipates the limitations of claim 1. Zafari also anticipates wherein the inputting of the data related to the wellbore includes at least one of a length of the well bore, a width of the wellbore, a thickness of a casing of the wellbore, an anticipated amount of fluids for removal, and a density of the fluids for removal. ([0025], the density of the fluid influences the states during the cleaning operation, which influences the choke chosen in the optimization process)
Regarding claim 3, Zafari anticipates the limitations of claim 1. Zafari also anticipates where the inputting of the data related to the wellbore includes a choke schedule for opening and closing of the wellbore. ([0029], [0041]-[0045], opening degree as well as schedule and duration are used for opening and closing of the choke in the wellbore)
Regarding claim 4, Zafari anticipates the limitations of claim 1. Zafari also anticipates wherein the evaluating the response for the design is related to a choke schedule for the design. ([0029], [0042]-[0044], Figures 4 and 5, the choke duration is chosen)
Regarding claim 5, Zafari anticipates the limitations of claim 1. Zafari also anticipates wherein the creating the new design for cleanup of the wellbore based at least in part on the optimizing of the design includes creating input data for a new design as optimized. (Figure 5, [0044]-[0045], a new optimized cleanup design is created)
Regarding claim 6, Zafari anticipates the limitations of claim 1. Zafari also anticipates further comprising visually depicting results of the optimized design. (Figure 2, [0030], the results are displayed)
In regards to claim 8, it is the article of manufacture embodiment of claim 1 with similar limitations to claim 1, and is rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 1.
In regards to claim 9, it is the article of manufacture embodiment of claim 2 with similar limitations to claim 2, and is rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 2.
In regards to claim 10, it is the article of manufacture embodiment of claim 3 with similar limitations to claim 3, and is rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 3.
In regards to claim 11, it is the article of manufacture embodiment of claim 4 with similar limitations to claim 4, and is rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 4.
In regards to claim 12, it is the article of manufacture embodiment of claim 5 with similar limitations to claim 5, and is rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 5.
In regards to claim 13, it is the article of manufacture embodiment of claim 6 with similar limitations to claim 6, and is rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 6.
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.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zafari in view of Aydin et al. “Design of Electrical Submersible Pump system in geothermal wells: A case study from West Anatolia, Turkey.”
Regarding claim 7, Zafari anticipates the limitations of claim 1. Zafari teaches further comprising running the method to develop at least two optimized designs (Figure 2, [0041]-[0045] multiple optimized designs are created)
Zafari does not explicitly teach and then displaying at least one of a time of clean-up and a clean-up efficiency for each of the optimized designs.
Aydin teaches and then displaying at least one of a time of clean-up and a clean-up efficiency for each of the optimized designs. (Figure 13 and 14, Section 4, an efficiency of the pump is displayed)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Zafari with Aydin as the references deal with wellbore fluid recovery, in order to implement a system that displays clean-up efficiency. Aydin would modify Zafari by displaying clean-up efficiency. The benefit of doing so is the user can optimize the flow rate and production rate to the pump efficiency percentage. (Aydin Figures 13 and 14)
In regards to claim 14, it is the article of manufacture embodiment of claim 7 with similar limitations to claim 7, and is rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 7.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zafari in view of Burkhard et al. USPPN 2008/0035375.
Regarding claim 15, Zafari anticipates the limitations of claim 8. Zafari does not explicitly recite wherein the article of manufacture is configured as one of a compact disk and a universal serial bus device.
Buckhard teaches wherein the article of manufacture is configured as one of a compact disk and a universal serial bus device. ([0048], a CD is used)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Zafari with Buckhard as the references deal with wellbore fluid recovery, in order to implement a system that uses a CD. Buckhard would modify Zafari by using a CD. The benefit of doing so is the software of the CRM is portable.
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zafari in view of Fox et al. USPPN 2020/0175444, and in view of Gupta et al. USPPN 2020/0325766.
Regarding claim 16, Zafari teaches inputting data related to a design for clean-up of the wellbore into a computer arrangement, (Figures 2-5, [0041]-[0045], data for a base design is used; [0018] a cpu and memory are used)
inputting data related to the wellbore into the computer arrangement; (Figure 2, [0018] a cpu and memory are used)
evaluating a response for the design for the inputting of the data related to the wellbore into the computer arrangement to generate results; (Figures 3-5, [0034], [0041]-[0045], results are compared to constraints)
outputting the results to output files; (Figure 2, [0018], [0030], document files are outputted by the system)
evaluating the output files through the use of an evaluator, wherein the evaluating generates an objective measure of interest; (Figure 2, [0018], [0030], [0041]-[0045], document files are outputted by the system to the optimization algorithm; Figures 2-5, [0041]-[0045], the objectives of the optimization algorithm are evaluated)
optimizing the design for clean-up of the wellbore; and creating a new design for clean-up of the wellbore based at least in part on the optimizing of the design. (Figures 2-5, [0041]-[0045], a new optimized design is created)
Zafari does not explicitly teach wherein the data includes clean-up equipment … availability; performing evaluations of clean-up … time of clean-up calculations for the design to generate results;
Fox teaches wherein the data includes clean-up equipment … availability; ([0045], the availability of equipment is part of the planning data)
performing evaluations of clean-up … time of clean-up calculations for the design to generate results; ([0101], [0110], [0120], a time window of operational states is given with start and end times; See also [0042]-[0045])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Zafari with Fox as the references deal with wellbore fluid recovery, in order to implement a system that takes into account equipment availability and time of fluid recovery in planning operations. Fox would modify Zafari by considering equipment availability and time of fluid recovery in planning operations. The benefit of doing so is the system can determine a plan with a given schedule or determine that a plan cannot be made in the time allotted. (Fox [0045])
The combination of Zafari and Fox does not explicitly teach wherein the data includes clean-up equipment efficiency …; performing evaluations of clean-up efficiency … for the design to generate results;
Gupta teaches wherein the data includes clean-up equipment efficiency …; (Figure 18, [0015]-[0019], [0099]-[0101], pump and system efficiency is used as part of the data input into the model)
performing evaluations of clean-up efficiency … for the design to generate results; Figure 18, [0015]-[0019], [0099]-[0101], pump and system efficiency is used as part of the data input into the model and used to generate analysis results)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Zafari and Fox with Gupta as the references deal with wellbore fluid recovery, to implement a system that considers equipment efficiency and overall system efficiency. Gupta would modify Zafari and Fox by equipment efficiency and overall system efficiency. The benefit of doing so is the system can generate a robust operational model using where the system is operating in a stable region. (Gupta [0016]-[0019])
In regards to claim 17, it is the method embodiment of claim 3 with similar limitations to claim 3, and is rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 3.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Zafari, Fox and Gupta teach the limitations of claim 16. Zafari also teaches comprising saving the new design into a non-volatile memory. (Figure 2, [0018], everything is stored in non-volatile memory)
In regards to claim 19, it is the method embodiment of claim 7 with similar limitations to claim 7, and is rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 7.
In regards to claim 20, it is the method embodiment of claim 18 with similar limitations to claim 18, and is rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 18.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Theuveny et al. "Integrated approach to simulation of near-wellbore and wellbore cleanup": Also teaches a cleanup process by actively sequencing chokes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL COCCHI whose telephone number is (469)295-9079. The examiner can normally be reached 7:15 am - 5:15 pm CT Monday - Thursday.
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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at 571-272-4071. 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.
/MICHAEL EDWARD COCCHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights