DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are currently presented for examination. Claims 13-17 are currently withdrawn.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claim 1-12 and 18-20, are drawn to retrieving an indication for a slug, selecting a choke template and controlling the choke sizes as part of a wellbore cleanup, classified in E21B 37/00, and E21B 21/08.
II. Claims 13-17, is drawn to recording parameters, computing a superficial velocity, density and viscosity, identifying a flow regime and performing adjustments, classified in E21B 43/12.
Inventions I-II are drawn to distinct groups. The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because claims to the different groups recite mutually exclusive characteristics of such groups. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all these inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter;
the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries);
the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention;
the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected invention.
If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Applicant’s representative, Trevor Grove Reg. No. 58,586 was called and elected group 1 without traverse. As such claims 13-17 are currently withdrawn.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted have been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites choke sizes when it is not the first recitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites drilling process which is grammatically incorrect. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-12 and 18-20, 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 1-12 are directed to a method, which is a process, which is a statutory category of invention. Claims 18-20 are directed to a system, which is a machine, which is a statutory category of invention. Therefore, claims 1-12 and 18-20 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claims 1and 18 recite the abstract idea of receiving an indication to send a slug and selecting a choke template, 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 "receiving, …, an indication to send a slug through a wellbore;” covers mental processes including observing an indication to send a slug through a wellbore. But for the inclusion of “one or more processors” there is nothing that precludes operation of the claim in the human mind. Additionally, the limitation of “selecting, …, one or more choke templates indicating choke sizes of a choke for the wellbore; and” covers mental processes including making a judgement about what choke to use in a wellbore. 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 2-12 and 18-20 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 and 18, the additional element of “one or more processors”, as well as “an input device” in claim 8, as well as “one or more memory devices” in claim 18 merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) The additional limitation of “controlling, using the one or more processors, the choke to the choke sizes based on the one or more choke templates as part of a wellbore clean-up process” in claims 1, as well as “control the respective choke sizes based on the one or more choke templates to cause one or more slugs to traverse the wellbore as part of the wellbore clean-up process” in claim 18 only amounts to mere instructions to apply as it only recites the idea of a solution or outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional limitation of “one or more sensors configured to take measurements of a plurality of parameters related to a wellbore;” in claim 18, can be viewed as is insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering/output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This is akin to testing a system for a response, the response being used to determine system malfunction, which has been identified as extra solution activity. The limitation of “a choke” in claim 1 and dependent claims, “two or more chokes” in claim 9, “at least one surface choke” and “at least one sub-surface choke” in claims 10 and 19-20, as well as “one or more chokes of the wellbore configured to restrict flow through the wellbore;” in claim 18 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2-12 and 18-20 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 and 18 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In Claims 1 and 18, the additional element of “one or more processors”, as well as “an input device” in claim 8, as well as “one or more memory devices” in claim 18 merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) The additional limitation of “controlling, using the one or more processors, the choke to the choke sizes based on the one or more choke templates as part of a wellbore clean-up process” in claims 1, as well as “control the respective choke sizes based on the one or more choke templates to cause one or more slugs to traverse the wellbore as part of the wellbore clean-up process” in claim 18 only amounts to mere instructions to apply as it only recites the idea of a solution or outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional limitation of “one or more sensors configured to take measurements of a plurality of parameters related to a wellbore;” in claim 18, can be viewed as is insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering/output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This is akin to testing a system for a response, the response being used to determine system malfunction, which has been identified as extra solution activity. The limitation of “a choke” in claim 1 and dependent claims, “two or more chokes” in claim 9, “at least one surface choke” and “at least one sub-surface choke” in claims 10 and 19-20, as well as “one or more chokes of the wellbore configured to restrict flow through the wellbore;” in claim 18 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h). 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 claim 2 is directed to further defining the choke template, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 3 is directed to further defining the choke template, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 4 is directed to further defining how the choke templates are organized, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 5 is directed to further defining how choke template libraries are grouped, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 6 is directed to further defining the common characteristic for grouping, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 7 is directed to further defining an indication, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 8 is directed to further defining an indication, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 9 is directed to further defining the choke template, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 11 is directed to further defining choke templates, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 12 is directed to further defining the conditions of the wellbore, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 20 is directed to further defining choke templates, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Accordingly, claims 1-12 and 18-20 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 § 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 1-12 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zafari et al. USPPN 2010/0274546 in view of Enkababian et al. USPPN2017 / 0321548.
Regarding claim 1, Zafari teaches selecting, by the one or more processors, one or more choke templates indicating choke sizes of a choke for the wellbore; and ([0029], [0042]-[0044], Figures 4 and 5, the choke size, duration and sequence of chokes between minimum and maximum is chosen; [0018], a CPU and memory are used)
controlling, using the one or more processors, the choke to the choke sizes based on the one or more choke templates as part of a wellbore clean-up process. ([0029], [0042]-[0044], Figures 4 and 5,the choke size, duration and sequence is controlled during a wellbore cleanup process)
Zafari does not explicitly teach receiving, at one or more processors, an indication to send a slug through a wellbore;
Enkababian teaches receiving, at one or more processors, an indication to send a slug through a wellbore; ([0113], [0118], the operation of the choke is controlled to induce slug flow)
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 Enkababian as the references deal with wellbore operation, in order to implement a system that sends a slug through a wellbore and has two chokes, one of which is below the surface. Enkababian would modify Zafari by implementing a system that sends a slug through a wellbore and has two chokes, one of which is below the surface. The benefit of doing so is the system can characterize local formation properties for one or more intervals of the well. (Enkababian Abstract)
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Zafari with Enkababian teaches the limitations of claim 1. Zafari teaches wherein the one or more choke templates indicate a duration for each respective choke size of the choke sizes. ([0029], [0042]-[0044], Figures 4 and 5, the choke duration is chosen)
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Zafari with Enkababian teaches the limitations of claim 2. Zafari teaches wherein each choke template of the one or more choke templates is a sequence of choke sizes with corresponding durations and choke sizes. ([0029], [0042]-[0044], Figures 4 and 5, the choke duration and size between minimum and maximum is chosen)
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Zafari with Enkababian teaches the limitations of claim 3. Zafari teaches wherein the one or more choke templates are organized into libraries of choke templates that each comprise a sequence of choke templates. ([0029], [0042]-[0044], Figures 4 and 5, the sequence of chokes between minimum and maximum is chosen)
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Zafari with Enkababian teaches the limitations of claim 4. Zafari teaches wherein the libraries are grouped according to applicability due to a characteristic that is common among the choke templates in a respective library. ([0029], [0042]-[0044], Figures 4 and 5, they are grouped for both being a part of the well bore and being in a size sequence that is between a min and max)
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Zafari with Enkababian teaches the limitations of claim 5. Zafari teaches wherein the common characteristic comprises a height of a phase, a length of a slug unit, a volume of the phase, a tubing head pressure, a bottom hole pressure, fluid density, fluid viscosity, saturation, temperature, or a combination thereof. ([0025], the density of the fluid influences the states during the cleaning operation, which influences the choke chosen in the optimization process)
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Zafari with Enkababian teaches the limitations of claim 1. Zafari teaches wherein the indication comprises an indication to initiate the wellbore clean-up process. (Figures 4 and 5, [0042]-[0044], the optimized cleanup process is initiated)
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Zafari with Enkababian teaches the limitations of claim 7. Zafari teaches wherein the indication to initiate the wellbore clean-up process comprises an indication of completion of drilling process or receiving a manual selection via an input device. (Figures 4 and 5, [0042]-[0044], the job is complete when set criteria are reached)
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Zafari with Enkababian teaches the limitations of claim 1. Zafari does not explicitly recite wherein the one or more choke templates are applicable to two or more chokes comprising the choke.
Enkababian teaches wherein the one or more choke templates are applicable to two or more chokes comprising the choke. (Figure 1 and 8, [0111] fixed and adjustable chokes are used, including choking packers at specific intervals of the wellbore)
See motivation of claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Zafari with Enkababian teaches the limitations of claim 9. Zafari also teaches wherein the two or more chokes comprises at least one surface choke (Figure 1 , [0018]-[0019], [0042], a surface choke is used)
Zafari does not explicitly recite at least one sub-surface choke
Enkababian teaches at least one sub-surface choke (Figure 1 and 8, [0111] fixed and adjustable chokes are used, including choking packers at specific intervals of the wellbore that are below the surface)
Regarding claim11, the combination of Zafari with Enkababian teaches the limitations of claim 1. Zafari also teaches wherein selecting the one or more choke templates is based on one or more conditions of the wellbore. ([0029], [0042]-[0044], Figures 4 and 5, all of the well bore conditions are used to optimize the choke settings)
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Zafari with Enkababian teaches the limitations of claim 11. Zafari also teaches wherein the one or more conditions of the wellbore comprise slug flow region of operation, tubing head pressure, flow rates, viscosities, temperatures, or a combination thereof. (Figure 5, [0015], [0035]-[0037], [0044], flow rates are used in the well conditions)
In regards to claim 18, it is the system embodiment of claim 1 with similar limitations to claim 1, and is rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 1. Zafari also teaches one or more sensors configured to take measurements of a plurality of parameters related to a wellbore; (Figure 2, sensors are used)
one or more chokes of the wellbore configured to restrict flow through the wellbore; (Figure 1 , [0018]-[0019], [0042], a surface choke is used)
one or more memory devices storing instructions; and one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to cause the one or more processors to: ([0018], a CPU and memory are used)
select one or more choke templates for controlling respective choke sizes of the one or more chokes in a sequence over time, wherein the selection of the one or more choke templates is based at least in part on at least one of the plurality of parameters; and ([0029], [0042]-[0044], Figures 4 and 5, the choke size, duration and sequence of chokes between minimum and maximum is chosen)
control the respective choke sizes based on the one or more choke templates … as part of the wellbore clean-up process. ([0029], [0042]-[0044], Figures 4 and 5,the choke size, duration and sequence is controlled during a wellbore cleanup process)
Zafari does not explicitly teach cause one or more slugs to traverse the wellbore
Enkababian teaches cause one or more slugs to traverse the wellbore ([0113], [0118], the operation of the choke is controlled to induce slug flow)
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 Enkababian as the references deal with wellbore operation, in order to implement a system that sends a slug through a wellbore and has two chokes, one of which is below the surface. Enkababian would modify Zafari by implementing a system that sends a slug through a wellbore and has two chokes, one of which is below the surface. The benefit of doing so is the system can characterize local formation properties for one or more intervals of the well. (Enkababian Abstract)
In regard to claim 19, it is the system embodiment of claim 10 with similar limitations to claim 10, and is rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 10.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Zafari with Enkababian teaches the limitations of claim 19. Zafari also teaches wherein the one or more choke templates comprise a first set of templates for the at least one surface choke([0029], [0042]-[0044], Figures 4 and 5, all of the well bore conditions are used to optimize the choke settings)
Zafari does not explicitly teach a second set of templates for the at least one sub-surface choke.
Enkababian teaches a second set of templates for the at least one sub-surface choke. ([0104]-[0108], [0111]-[0114], the choking packer has a set of templates)
See motivation of 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