DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 06/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments on page 7, applicants argue “Chidi fails to disclose, expressly or inherently, a "supervisory" (i.e., centralized) control system for a "plurality of wells." Examiner respectfully disagree because col. 7 lines 1-15 and FIG. 1 elements 120 teaches central controller “controller 120 and/or conveyed by a control linkage 124”.
Applicant’s arguments on page 7, applicants argue “Chidi fails to disclose the steps of "receiving, by an electrical supervisory system (ESS), requests to operate from each of the plurality of wells,". Examiner respectfully disagree because Chidi col. 7 lines 1-60 teaches “controller 120 may be configured to receive the sensor signal, and hydrocarbon well 8 may include a communication linkage 114 configured to convey the sensor signal from the downhole sensor to the controller”.
Applicant’s arguments on page 7, applicants argue “evaluating, by the ESS, the requests to operate based on the operating information and the readiness state of each of the wells,". Examiner respectfully disagree because Romer (col. 2 line 15- col 4. line 25 “measurement of rod loading vs. position. These measurements are gathered at the surface and typically transformed to downhole dynagraph “cards” by using variations of the wave equation, which is a second-order linear partial differential equation for the description of waves as they occur in classical physics, such as those that occur in fluid dynamics. The downhole cards are then evaluated to determine whether the pumping system is operating properly”.
Applicant’s arguments on page 7, applicants argue “"responding, by the ESS, to the requests to operate in order to control power consumption by the plurality of wells." Examiner respectfully disagree because Chidi col 7 line 47- col 8 line 50 and col. 9 lines 27-48 “generating at 220 and the generating at 230 may be performed in any suitable order and/or with any suitable sequencing. As examples, the generating at 220 and the generating at 230 may be performed concurrently, at least partially concurrently, sequentially, and/or at least partially sequentially”.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 10-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chidi et al. USP 10, 480, 297 (hereinafter “Chidi”) in view of Romer et al. USP 11, 519,260 (hereinafter “Romer”).
As to claim 1, Chidi teaches a method of managing power consumption by a plurality of wells in a hydrocarbon field, the plurality of wells being used to extract hydrocarbons from the field (col. 7 line 64- col. 8 line 5 “controller 120 may be programmed to efficiently operate the electric pumping assembly and the gas lift assembly, to improve, or increase, production of the reservoir fluid, to improve, or decrease, energy consumption of the hydrocarbon well”), the method comprising: gathering, by a data gathering system, operating information about conditions in the hydrocarbon field (col. 7 lines 32-50 “controller 120 may be programmed to efficiently operate the electric pumping assembly and the gas lift assembly, to improve, or increase, production of the reservoir fluid, to improve, or decrease, energy consumption of the hydrocarbon well”); receiving, by an electrical supervisory system (ESS), requests to operate from each of the plurality of wells, the requests to operate including a readiness indicator that provides a readiness state (col. 7 line 48- col. 8 line 60 “controller 120 further may be adapted configured, and/or programmed to control the operation of electric pumping assembly 50 and/or of gas lift assembly 90 based, at least in part, on sensor signal 112. As an example, controller 120 may be configured to generate a control signal 122 that is based, at least in part, on the sensor signal”); and responding, by the ESS, to the requests to operate in order to control power consumption by the plurality of wells (col 7 line 47- col 8 line 50 “control the operation of the electric pumping assembly and/or of the gas lift assembly in any suitable manner. As examples, controller 120 may be programmed to efficiently operate the electric pumping assembly and the gas lift assembly, to improve, or increase, production of the reservoir fluid, to improve, or decrease, energy consumption of the hydrocarbon well, and/or to regulate a rotational speed of the ESP” and col. 9 lines 27-48).
Chidi does not explicitly teach evaluating, by the ESS, the requests to operate based on the operating information and the readiness state of each of the wells.
Romer teaches evaluating the requests to operate based on the operating information and the readiness state of each of the wells (col. 2 line 15- col 4. line 25 “measurement of rod loading vs. position. These measurements are gathered at the surface and typically transformed to downhole dynagraph “cards” by using variations of the wave equation, which is a second-order linear partial differential equation for the description of waves as they occur in classical physics, such as those that occur in fluid dynamics. The downhole cards are then evaluated to determine whether the pumping system is operating properly”).
Chidi and Romer are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and functional similarities. They both relate to Well management system.
Therefore at the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above Well management system, as taught by Chidi, and incorporating evaluating the requests to operate based on the operating information, as taught by Romer.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve monitoring, analysis has greatly benefited rod pump operation, reliability, and overall performance worldwide, as suggested by Romer (col. 2 lines 15-27).
As to claim 2, the combination of Chidi and Romer teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Chidi further teaches wherein operating information comprises a priority indication for each of the plurality of wells (col. 9 lines 30-45 “generating at 220 and the generating at 230 may be performed in any suitable order and/or with any suitable sequencing. As examples, the generating at 220 and the generating at 230 may be performed concurrently, at least partially concurrently, sequentially, and/or at least partially sequentially”).
As to claim 3, the combination of Chidi and Romer teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Chidi further teaches wherein the request to operate from a well with a high priority indication is automatically granted (col. 9 lines 30-45 “initiating the generating at 220 prior to initiating the generating at 230. Under these conditions, the generating at 230 may include injecting a lift gas stream into the annular space”).
As to claim 4, the combination of Chidi and Romer teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Romer further teaches wherein responding to the requests to operate comprise denying requests from wells for which the readiness state indicates that the well is not ready to operate (col. 4 lines 1-60).
As to claim 5, the combination of Chidi and Romer teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Chidi further teaches wherein responding to the requests to operate in order to control power consumption comprises optimizing power consumption across the plurality of wells (col. 7 line 64- col. 8 line 65).
As to claim 6, the combination of Chidi and Romer teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Chidi further teaches wherein responding to the requests to operate in order to control power consumption comprises minimizing cost of power across the plurality of wells for a given period of time (col. 8 lines 1- 60).
As to claim 10, the combination of Chidi and Romer teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Chidi further teaches wherein the requests to operate are sent from the plurality of wells at regular intervals (col. 8 lines 2-30).
As to claim 11, the combination of Chidi and Romer teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Chidi further teaches wherein each of the plurality of wells comprises a sucker rod pump (col. 8 lines 28-33).
As to claim 12, the combination of Chidi and Romer teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Chidi further teaches wherein each of the plurality of wells comprises one of a progressive cavity pump, an electric submersible pump, or a chemical injection pump (col. 6 lines 4-20).
As to claim 13, is related to claim 1 with similar limitations also rejected by same rational.
As to claim 14, is related to claim 4 with similar limitations also rejected by same rational.
As to claim 15, is related to claim 5 with similar limitations also rejected by same rational.
As to claim 16, is related to claim 6 with similar limitations also rejected by same rational.
As to claim 17, is related to claim 1 with similar limitations also rejected by same rational.
As to claim 18, is related to claim 4 with similar limitations also rejected by same rational.
As to claim 19, is related to claim 5 with similar limitations also rejected by same rational.
As to claim 20, is related to claim 6 with similar limitations also rejected by same rational.
1. Claim(s) 1-6 and 10-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chidi et al. USP 10, 480, 297 (hereinafter “Chidi”) in view of Romer et al. USP 11, 519,260 (hereinafter “Romer”) further in view of Vinegar et al. USPGPUB 2003/0173081 (hereinafter “Vinegar”).
As to claim 7, the combination of Chidi and Romer teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
The combination does not explicitly teach wherein responding to the requests to operate in order to control power consumption comprises restricting operation of one or more of the plurality of wells based on a cost of power to operate the one or more of the plurality of wells at a time the request to operate is received.
However, Vinegar teaches wherein responding to the requests to operate in order to control power consumption comprises restricting operation of one or more of the plurality of wells based on a cost of power to operate the one or more of the plurality of wells at a time the request to operate is received (paragraph 0610-0615).
Chidi, Romer and Vinegar are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and functional similarities. They both relate to Well management system.
Therefore at the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above Well management system, as taught by Chidi and Romer, and incorporating operation of one or more of the plurality of wells based on a cost of power to operate the one or more of the plurality of wells, as taught by Vinegar.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improved methods and systems for production of hydrocarbons, hydrogen, and/or other products from various oil containing formations, as suggested by Vinegar (paragraph 0021).
As to claim 8, the combination of Chidi and Romer teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
The combination does not explicitly teach wherein responding to the requests to operate in order to control power consumption comprises determining whether a requesting well may be operated in a cost effective manner based on power availability at a time the request to operate is received.
However, Vinegar teaches wherein responding to the requests to operate in order to control power consumption comprises determining whether a requesting well may be operated in a cost effective manner based on power availability at a time the request to operate is received (paragraph 0614-0616).
As to claim 9, the combination of Chidi and Romer teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
The combination does not explicitly teach wherein responding to the requests to operate in order to control power consumption comprises determining whether a threshold level of renewable energy is available at a time the request to operate is received.
However, Vinegar teaches wherein responding to the requests to operate in order to control power consumption comprises determining whether a threshold level of renewable energy is available at a time the request to operate is received (paragraph 1903-1940).
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Knight et al USPGPUB 2017/0139078 a methods, systems and processes for the utilization of microbial and related genetic information for use in the exploration, determination, production and recovery of natural resources, including energy sources, and the monitoring, control and analysis of processes and activities.
Harkless USPGPUB 20160186531 A1 teaches a method of remotely reducing downtime of an operational system includes directly accessing information from the operational system by a diagnostic computer, the information accessed from at least one prime mover controller, a user interface computer, at least one switch, at least one networking connection, and at least one sensor configured to sense and capture a measurable parameter of the operational system; transmitting the information from the diagnostic computer to an off-site operations center; using the information at the off-site operations center to monitor, review or improve status and performance of components within the operational system; using the information at the off-site operations center to assess communication status and connectivity issues of connections between the components of the operational system; and, communicating issues with the operational system from the off-site operations center to the operational system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZIAUL KARIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3279. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8:00-4:00 PM EST.
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.
/ZIAUL KARIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights