DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Action is non-final and is in response to the claims filed June 25, 2026 via RCE. Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are currently pending, of which claims 1, 8, and 15 are currently amended. Claims 2, 9, and 16 were previously canceled.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 25, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections
Applicant has amended or canceled the claims at issue and the previous objections have therefore been withdrawn. In light of further review of the claim language, new objections have been introduced, as detailed below.
Prior Art Rejections
Applicant’s arguments regarding the previously cited art have been fully considered. Specifically, Applicant has amended the claims at issue and argues that the amendments regarding the another gas-flow-control component are not taught by the previously cited art. This argument is moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. New reference Hill has been cited to teach that an SCSSV can be held open instead of being forced closed “by a mechanism which is entirely separate from the SSCSSV mechanism” (See Hill paras. [0010-11] and [0032]).
Therefore, it is for at least these reasons, and the reasons cited below, that the claims remain rejected in this Action.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 10, and 17 is/are objected to for the following informalities:
Claim 3 recites three limitations properly separated by semi-colons (“;”). However, when listing claim limitations, the penultimate limitation should be followed by an “and”. Therefore, after the “each respective sensor sample” and prior to the “training” limitations, an “and” should be inserted to indicate the final claim limitation. Claims 10 and 17 recite similar language and are objected to for at least the same reasons therein.
Appropriate correction is required.
Examiner’s Note
The prior art rejections below cite particular paragraphs, columns, and/or line numbers in the references for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 6-8, 13-15, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmari (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0003071) and further in view of Hill et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2002/0040788; hereinafter “Hill”).
As per claim 1, Ahmari teaches a method for predicting closure of a subsurface safety valve (SCSSV) configured to shut-in a well without any sensors on the SCSSV, the method comprising:
obtaining, by a learning machine, sensor readings indicating downhole conditions in the well (See Ahmari paras. [0021] and [0038]: subsurface well conditions obtained via various sensors from the well);
predicting, by the learning machine, closure of the SCSSV based on the sensor readings indicating downhole conditions in the well; transmitting a communication predicting closure of the SCSSV (See Ahmari Fig. 4 and paras. [0035] and [0052-54]: predicting well profile and operating rates, which a choke setting corresponds to. The choke settings can be various valve positions, including fully closed. Therefore, at certain measurements the valve will be predicted to be closed).
However, while Ahmari predicts closure of the valve (See Ahmari Fig. 4 and paras. [0035]), Ahmari does not explicitly teach or suggest the valve is a subsurface safety valve (SCSSV), nor does Ahmari teach that other components are used to prevent closure of the SCSSV.
Hill teaches moving, in response to predicting closure of the SCSSV, one or more components other than the SCSSV that control gas flow in the well to prevent closure of the SCSSV (See Hill paras. [0010-11] and [0032]: closing mechanism, separate from the SCSSV, that can permanently hold open the SCSSV, in the case of an inadvertent closure).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the choke valve of Ahmari with the subsurface safety valve and separate closing mechanism of Hill. One would have been motivated to combine these references because both references controlling gas flows in wells as they relate to valve actuations. Hill further enhances the valve system of Ahmari by ensuring that emergencies are quickly addressed, preventing damage to the system or the well itself while addressing any potential malfunctions (or closure predictions of Ahmari) (See Hill para. [0005]).
As per claim 6, Ahmari/Hill teaches the method of claim 1. Ahmari further teaches wherein the prediction indicates closure of [the SCSSV] will occur one hour from a time of the prediction (See Ahmari Fig. 4 and paras. [0042-43]: “the choke valve control system 152 may assess collected production data 160 to determine whether one or more production parameters have deviated from normal (e.g., the value of a given parameter for a given point in time deviates more than 10% from its average for the one hour preceding the given point in time) and, in response to determining that a production parameter have deviated from normal, send, to the well control system 122, a corresponding observed parameter alert 190 that is indicative of the production parameter having deviated from normal” (emphasis added). Therefore, the alert can be used to predict deviations or unattainable target rates and adjust the choke settings accordingly).
However, while Ahmari teaches valve closures below the surface of the well, Ahmari does not explicitly state that this valve is a subsurface safety valve (SCSSV).
Hill teaches the subsurface safety valve (SCSSV) to which the valve actions of Ahmari would apply (See Hill para. [0010]: subsurface safety valve held open by mechanism separate from SCSSV mechanism).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Ahmari with the teachings of Hill for at least the same reasons as discussed above in claim 1.
As per claim 7, Ahmari/Hill further teaches the method of claim 1 wherein the downhole conditions in the well include flow rates inside the well (See Ahmari para. [0029]: flowrate sensors and measurements in the well)
As per claims 8, 13, and 14, the claims are directed to one or more machine-readable mediums that implement the same or similar features as the method of claims 1, 6, and 7, respectively, and are therefore rejected for at least the same reasons therein. Furthermore, Ahmari/Hill teaches one or more non-transitory machine-readable mediums including instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, predict closure of a subsurface safety valve (SCSSV) configured to shut-in a well without any sensors on the SCSSV, the instructions comprising said methods (See Ahmari paras. [0056-57]; see also Hill para. [0010]).
As per claims 15 and 20, the claims are directed to an apparatus that implements the same or similar features as the method of claims 1 and 6, respectively, and are therefore rejected for at least the same reasons therein. Furthermore, Ahmari/Hill teaches an apparatus comprising: one or more processors; one or more non-transitory machine-readable mediums including instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, predict closure of a subsurface safety valve (SCSSV) configured to shut-in a well without any sensors on the SCSSV, the instructions including said methods (See Ahmari paras. [0056-57]; see also Hill para. [0010]).
Claims 3, 5, 10, 12, 17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmari/Hill as applied above, and further in view of Al-Anazi et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0383633; hereinafter “Al-Anazi”).
As per claim 3, Ahmari/Hill further teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising storing, in a sensor data repository, sensor samples captured by sensors in the well (See Ahmari para. [0038]: various sensor data that is stored in the memory of the control system);
training, using the training data set, the learning machine to identify pre-shut-in behavior in training data set (See Ahmari para. [0041]: neural network training function, where “the production data 160 received by the choke valve control system 152 may be input to an ANN that identifies patterns in the production data 160 and generates corresponding well rate-pressure profiles 180 and well pressure-choke profiles 182 for some or all of the possible sets/combinations of well conditions”; Fig. 4 and para. [0035]: different choke valve positions based on target operating rate and determined well profile. Therefore, the data is trained on the sensors that match up to the different profiles and the choke settings, and thus their normal and/or pre-shut-in behavior are associated accordingly)
However, while Ahmari/Hill teaches training a neural network, Ahmari/Hill does not explicitly teach labeling the samples in the training data set.
Al-Anazi teaches labeling each of the sensor samples to create a training data set, the labels indicating that each respective sensor sample indicates normal well behavior or pre-shut-in behavior (See Al-Anazi paras. [0035] and [0049-50]: labelled database associated with field instruments and measurements, such as gas flow rates. This data is fed into the trained machine-learning model, such as the model of Ahmari/Hill. Where these rates/predictions can be used in management decisions, such as in the valve settings of Ahmari/Hill).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the training function(s) of Ahmari/Hill with the data labeling of Al-Anazi. One would have been motivated to combine these references because both references disclose modeling and predicting gas flows in wells as they relate to valve actuations. Al-Anazi further enhances the valve system of Ahmari/Hill by “promot[ing] robustness and generalization performance of the final machine-learned model” (See Al-Anazi para. [0035]).
As per claim 5, Ahmari/Hill/Al-Anazi teaches the method of claim 3. Ahmari further teaches identifying, in the training data set, certain of the sensor samples that contribute to the closure of [the SCSSV] (See Ahmari para. [0041]: neural network training function, where “the production data 160 received by the choke valve control system 152 may be input to an ANN that identifies patterns in the production data 160 and generates corresponding well rate-pressure profiles 180 and well pressure-choke profiles 182 for some or all of the possible sets/combinations of well conditions”; Fig. 4 and para. [0035]: different choke valve positions based on target operating rate and determined well profile. Therefore, the data is trained on the sensors that match up to the different profiles and the choke settings are associated accordingly).
However, while Ahmari teaches valve closures below the surface of the well, Ahmari does not explicitly state that this valve is a subsurface safety valve (SCSSV).
Hill teaches the subsurface safety valve (SCSSV) to which the valve actions of Ahmari would apply (See Hill para. [0010]: subsurface safety valve held open by mechanism separate from SCSSV mechanism).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Ahmari with the teachings of Hill for at least the same reasons as discussed above in claim 1.
As per claims 10 and 12, the claim is directed to one or more machine-readable mediums that implement the same or similar features as the method of claims 3 and 5, respectively, and are therefore rejected for at least the same reasons therein.
As per claims 17 and 19, the claim is directed to an apparatus that implements the same or similar features as the method of claims 3 and 5, respectively, and are therefore rejected for at least the same reasons therein.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmari/Hill/Al-Anazi as applied above, and further in view of Camp et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0255361; hereinafter, “Camp”).
As per claim 4, Ahmari/Hill/Al-Anazi further teaches the method of claim 3 further comprising: modifying the training dataset by oversampling the sensor data samples labeled to identify pre-shut-in behavior (See Al-anazi para. [0050]: updating training model and acquiring new data).
However, Ahmari/Al-Anazi does not teach or suggest that the training modifications are done by oversampling.
Camp teaches modifying the training dataset by oversampling (See Camp para. [0069-71]: augmenting data using over-sampling, where this augmented data can be included in the prediction machine learning model of Ahmari/Hill/Al-Anazi).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the training data and models of Ahmari/Hill/Al-Anazi with the oversampling of Camp. One would have been motivated to combine these references because both references disclose modeling and predicting well/borehole characteristics. Camp further enhances the training data of Ahmari/Hill/Al-Anazi by increasing model performance by creating a more balanced training data set via the increased size and robustness of a dataset that the augmented data can provide (See Camp paras. [0069-71]).
As per claim 11, the claim is directed to one or more machine-readable mediums that implement the same or similar features as the method of claims 4, and is therefore rejected for at least the same reasons therein.
As per claim 18, the claim is directed to an apparatus that implements the same or similar features as the method of claim 4, and is therefore rejected for at least the same reasons therein.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Valera et al. (U.S. Patent 10,745,994 B2) discloses a separate control mechanism for a fluid mover that can stop further closure of a valve, therefore preventing inadvertent valve closures (See Valera col. 7:39-67 to 8:1-11).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas Klicos whose telephone number is (571)270-5889. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00 AM-5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Baderman can be reached at (571) 272-3644. 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.
/NICHOLAS KLICOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights