DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 01/12/2026, have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 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 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Camilleri US Patent No. 9,476,742 (hereinafter Camilleri) in view of Robinson et al. US Patent No. 8,992,182 (hereinafter Robinson).
Regarding claims 1-20, the combination of Camilleri and Robinson teaches all the limitations of, as outlined above.
Regarding claim 1 and corresponding claim 15, Camilleri teaches an electric submersible pump (ESP) control system configured for operation in a hydrocarbon well, the system comprising: one or more computer processors coupled to one or more data storage devices; the computer processors adapted to, during operation of the ESP, receive live measurements of one or more operating conditions of the ESP, and compare the live measurements against preconfiqured data quality thresholds, calculate, based at least in part on the live measurements and without user intervention, one or more adjustments to one or more settings of an electric drive that generates output power which drives the ESP, thereby controlling the electric drive to modify the output power,determine, based at least in part on the live measurements, whether the ESP is operating in a stable manner, and in response to determining that the ESP is not operating in a stable manner, calculate the one or more adjustments to stabilize the ESP (C3-4 and C7).
Camilleri fails to clearly specify adjusting by incrementing an output frequency of the electric drive by a preconfigured amount.
However, Robinson teaches adjusting by incrementing an output frequency of the electric drive by a preconfigured amount (see C12).
The applied prior art is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they relate to same field of endeavor. They relate to pump control.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above ESP system, as taught by Camilleri, and incorporating the concept of time-based pump control, as taught by Robinson.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to increase pump efficiency, as suggested by Robinson ( See C12 L30-35).
Regarding claim 5 and corresponding claim 16, Robinson further teaches the control system of claim 1, wherein determining whether the ESP is operating in a stable manner comprises determining a percentage of time the electric drive spends at a frequency clamp (see C12).
Regarding claims 2-4, 6-14 and 17-20, Camilleri further teaches:
2. The control system of claim 1, wherein the one or more computer processors and the one or more data storage devices are integral to the electric drive (C3-4 and C7).
3. The control system of claim 1, wherein the control system is external to the electric drive, the control system further comprising: one or more input ports adapted to receive the live measurements from one or more corresponding sensors; and one or more output ports adapted to be coupled to the electric drive and to convey the one or more adjustments to the electric drive (C3-4 and C7).
4. The control system of claim 3, the control system further comprising one or more input ports adapted to receive user input defining one or more settings of the electric drive (C3-4 and C7).
6. The control system of claim [[5]]1, wherein the control system is adapted to make additional corrective adjustments to the one or more settings affecting stability of the ESP until the ESP is operating in a stable manner (C3-4 and C7).
7. The control system of claim [[5]]1, wherein the control system is adapted to, in response to determining that the ESP control system is operating in a stable manner, make optimizing adjustments to one or more settings affecting performance of the ESP and determine a performance improvement resulting from the optimizing adjustments (C3-4 and C7).
8. The control system of claim 7, wherein the control system is adapted to make additional optimizing adjustments to the one or more settings affecting performance of the ESP until no performance improvement results from the additional optimizing adjustments (C3-4 and C7).
9. The control system of claim 1, wherein the control system is adapted to: in a startup stage of operation: receive user input defining one or more initial settings of the electric drive, and begin operation of the electric drive using the initial settings; and in a post-startup stage of operation, receive the live measurements, and calculate the one or more adjustments to the one or more settings of the electric drive (C3-4 and C7).
10. The control system of claim 1, wherein the user input indicates an ESP operating mode and a set of parameters associated with the indicated ESP operating mode (C3-4 and C7).
11. The control system of claim 10, wherein the one or more data storage devices are adapted to store default parameters for one or more selectable ESP operating modes, and wherein the control system is adapted to, in response to receiving user input indicating a first one of the ESP operating modes, retrieve a corresponding set of the default parameters, the control system providing the first ESP operating mode and the corresponding set of default parameters to the electric drive (C3-4 and C7).
12. The control system of claim 1, wherein the control system is adapted to calculate the one or more adjustments to the one or more settings of the electric drive in response to detecting a change in the one or more operating conditions of the ESP as indicated by the live measurements (C3-4 and C7).
13. The control system of claim 1, wherein the control system is adapted to, in response to detecting a change in the one or more operating conditions of the ESP as indicated by the live measurements, generate a corresponding notification that is presented to a user (C3-4 and C7).
14. The control system of claim 1, wherein the control system is adapted to automatically adjust the one or more settings of the electric drive at configurable intervals (C3-4 and C7).
17. The method of claim [[16]]15, further comprising repeating the making corrective adjustments to the one or more settings affecting stability of the ESP until the ESP is operating in a stable manner (C3-4 and C7).
18. The method of claim [[16]]15, further comprising: in response to determining that the ESP system is operating in a stable manner, making optimizing adjustments to one or more settings affecting performance of the ESP and determining a performance improvement resulting from the adjusting; and repeating the making optimizing adjustments to the one or more settings affecting performance of the ESP until no performance improvement results from the making optimizing adjustments (C3-4 and C7).
19. The method of claim [[16]]15, further comprising generating, in response to determining that the ESP is not operating in a stable manner, one or more corresponding notifications that are presented to a user (C3-4 and C7).
20. The method of claim 15, wherein the control system is adapted to automatically adjust the one or more settings of the electric drive at configurable intervals (C3-4 and C7).
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Elsaid, Ramadan Ayman Seksak, Wael A. Mohamed, and Salah Ghazy Ramadan. "Speed control of induction motor using PLC and SCADA system." Int J Eng Res Appl 6.1 (2016): 98-104.
Mohanty, Baidyanath, Mahendra Kumar Sahoo, and Sunita Baral. "Induction Motor Speed Control Using PLC AND SCADA.". IJEMHS. 2019
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS R ORTIZ RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3766. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 10:00 am- 6:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mohammad Ali can be reached on 571-272-4105. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CARLOS R ORTIZ RODRIGUEZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights