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 .
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.
Claims 1, 7-8, 10-12, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Green (U.S. 2022/0259955A1), in view of Skinner et al. (U.S. 8,733,448 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Green discloses a method, comprising:
deploying a plunger (216, fig. 2B and para 0046) from a wellhead (219; para 0068) to a downhole location of a production string (218; fig. 2B and para 0062) fluidly coupled to the wellhead (219) and disposed within a wellbore (214), the plunger (216) comprising a plunger sensor (281; fig. 3) attached to a body of the plunger (as shown in fig. 3) and the production string (218) comprising a plurality of sensors (284, figs. 2B, 3; para 0065) spaced apart and distributed along a length of the production string [para 0065: “positioned at one or more connection joints (aka collars) between tubing string portions];
sensing, by the plunger sensor (281), the plurality of sensors as the plunger moves in a downhole direction (para 0065: tubing string sensor 284 provide the location and speed of the plunger and tubing string parameters such as gas and fluid pressure; para 0066: plunger sensor also measure tubing string parameters such as gas or fluid pressure and plunger speed and location);
lifting the plunger from the downhole location of the production string to the wellhead to produce hydrocarbons (refer to para 0004);
sensing, by the plunger sensor, the plurality of sensors as the plunger moves in an uphole direction (para 0065: tubing string sensor 284 provide the location and speed of the plunger and tubing string parameters such as gas and fluid pressure; para 0066: plunger sensor also measure tubing string parameters such as gas or fluid pressure and plunger speed and location);
determining, as a function of sensor feedback from the plunger sensor, at least one parameter of the plunger (refer to para 0067); and
controlling, as a function of the parameter of the plunger, a valve (224) fluidly coupled to the wellhead (219) to control a parameter of a present or subsequent plunger lift cycle operation (refer to para 0058 and 0086-0088).
Regarding claim 7, Green, as modified by Skinner teach all the limitations of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; Green further discloses wherein the plurality of RFID tags are passive RFID tags (as modified by Skinner) attached to or near a plurality of collars (para 0065: the sensors are positioned at connection joints, (aka collars) between tubing string portions), an RFID tag attached to a bottom hole bumper spring of the production string, and an RFID tag attached to a lubricator of the wellhead, each of the plurality of collars attached to and joining two pipes of the production string (at the collar, para 0065).
Regarding claim 8, Green, as modified by Skinner teach all the limitations of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; Green further discloses wherein the controlling comprises controlling a time that the valve is open (para 0050 and 0058: the setpoint of valve 224 is continually adjusted by system controller 230 as the valve travels within the wellbore) to decrease a shut-in time of the plunger lift cycle operation with respect to a shut-in time of a plunger lift cycle operation without the RFID tags and RFID reader (since the valve 224 is adjusted for opening and closing, it will to decrease a shut-in time of the plunger lift cycle operation with respect to a shut-in time of a plunger lift cycle operation without the RFID tags and RFID reader).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Green and Skinner teach all the limitations of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; Green further discloses wherein the at least one parameter of the plunger comprises at least one of a falling velocity of the plunger (para 0066: “speed”), a falling acceleration of the plunger (para 0067: “accelerometers”), a rising velocity of the plunger (para 0066: “speed”), a rising acceleration of the plunger (para 0067: “accelerometers”), a location of the plunger along the production string, or a location of the plunger within the wellhead (para 0066: “location”).
However, Green fails to teach wherein the plunger sensor comprises a radio frequency identification (RFID) reader and the plurality of sensors comprise a plurality of RFID tags, and sensing the plurality of sensors as the plunger moves in a downhole direction comprises interrogating, by the RFID reader, each of the plurality of RFID tags as the plunger moves past each RFID tag.
Skinner teach the detection of an object (98, fig. 7) as it moves in a wellbore (fig. 7) using a signal transmitter and detection system (30, 32, see fig. 7 and refer to col. 6, lines 18-23). Skinner et al. further teaches that acoustic and RFID sensors are analogous detectors (see column 8 lines 48-52).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the sensor (acoustic, image, gyroscopic, proximity) of Green with an RFID sensor, for the predictable result of providing the functionality of sensing/detecting, as taught by Skinner et al. (see column 8 lines 48-52).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Green and Skinner teach all the limitations of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; Green further discloses wherein the valve (224, fig. 2B) comprises a control valve (refer to para 0058 and 0061) and the parameter of the subsequent plunger lift cycle operation comprises at least one of a shut-in time or an after- flow time (refer to para 0085-0086), the controlling comprising controlling a time that the control valve is open (refer to para 0085-0086 and 0090).
Regarding claim 12, Green discloses method, comprising:
receiving, by a system (230, 231, 232, 233, fig. 2A, 3, and para 0054) comprising one or more computers (232; para 0054) in one or more locations (see fig. 2A), sensor feedback (291, fig. 3) from a plunger sensor (281) attached to a plunger (216; see figs. 2B, 3, and para 0066) configured to move along a production string (218) to produce hydrocarbons during a plunger lift cycle operation (para 0004), the production string (218) fluidly coupled to a wellhead (219) comprising a valve (224) and comprising a plurality of spaced apart sensors 284; para 0065) distributed along a length of the production string [para 0065: “positioned at one or more connection joints (aka collars) between tubing string portions], the sensor feedback (291) comprising information gathered from the plurality of sensors (para 0065: tubing string sensor 284 provide the location and speed of the plunger and tubing string parameters such as gas and fluid pressure; para 0066: plunger sensor also measure tubing string parameters such as gas or fluid pressure and plunger speed and location);
determining, by the system and as a function of the sensor feedback, a parameter of the plunger along the production string (refer to para 0067); and
controlling, by the system and as a function of the determined parameter, the valve (224) to change at least one parameter of the plunger lift cycle operation (refer to para 0058 and 0086-0088).
However, Green fails to teach wherein the plunger sensor comprises a radio frequency identification (RFID) reader and the plurality of sensors comprise a plurality of RFID tags, the RFID reader configured to interrogate each of the plurality of RFID tags as the plunger passes each of the RFID tags, and the sensor feedback comprises a plurality of timestamps each associated with a time at which the plunger passes by each respective RFID tag.
Skinner teach the detection of an object (98, fig. 7) as it moves in a wellbore (fig. 7) using a signal transmitter and detection system (30, 32, see fig. 7 and refer to col. 6, lines 18-23). Skinner et al. further teaches that acoustic and RFID sensors are analogous detectors (see column 8 lines 48-52).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the sensor (acoustic, image, gyroscopic, proximity) of Green with an RFID sensor, for the predictable result of providing the functionality of sensing/detecting, as taught by Skinner et al. (see column 8 lines 48-52).
Regarding claim 19, Green discloses a plunger lift system (200. 300, figs. 2B, 3, and para 0046), comprising:
a production string (218; fig. 2B and para 0062) configured to be disposed within a wellbore (214) extending from a terranean surface of the wellbore (as shown in fig. 2B);
a wellhead (219; para 0068) configured to be fluidly coupled to the production string (218) at the terranean surface of the wellbore (as shown in fig. 2B);
a valve (224; para 0090) configured to be fluidly coupled to the wellhead (219); a plurality of sensors (284; para 0065) attached to and distributed along a length of the production string [para 0065: “positioned at one or more connection joints (aka collars) between tubing string portions];
a plunger (216) configured to move along the production string to produce hydrocarbons during a plunger lift cycle operation (refer to para 0004);
a plunger sensor (281; fig. 3) attached to the plunger (216); and
a system (230, 231, 232, 233, fig. 2A, 3, and para 0054) comprising one or more computers (232; para 0054) in one or more locations (see fig. 2A), the system configured to:
receive (via signals 291; fig. 3 and para 0067), from the plunger sensor (281), sensor feedback (291; para 0067); and
determine, as a function of the sensor feedback (291), a parameter of the plunger, the parameter comprising at least one of a speed or location of the plunger along the production string (refer to para 0067), the parameter usable to control a parameter of the plunger lift cycle operation (para 0051; “control plunger velocity by way of system valve 224”, para 0058; also refer to para 0089).
However, Green fails to teach wherein the plunger sensor comprises a radio frequency identification (RFID) reader and the plurality of sensors comprise a plurality of RFID tags, the RFID reader configured to interrogate each of the plurality of RFID tags as the plunger passes each of the RFID tags, and the sensor feedback comprises a plurality of timestamps each associated with a time at which the plunger passes by each respective RFID tag.
Skinner teach the detection of an object (98, fig. 7) as it moves in a wellbore (fig. 7) using a signal transmitter and detection system (30, 32, see fig. 7 and refer to col. 6, lines 18-23). Skinner et al. further teaches that acoustic and RFID sensors are analogous detectors (see column 8 lines 48-52).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the sensor (acoustic, image, gyroscopic, proximity) of Green with an RFID sensor, for the predictable result of providing the functionality of sensing/detecting, as taught by Skinner et al. (see column 8 lines 48-52).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Green and Skinner teach all the limitations of this claim as applied to claim 19 above; Green further discloses wherein the system (230, 231, 232, 233, fig. 2A, 3, and para 0054) is further configured to control, as a function of the determined speed, the valve (224) to change at least one parameter of the plunger lift cycle operation (refer to para 0058 and 0086-0088).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6, 9, and 14-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Mericas et al. (U.S. 2016/0160632A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YANICK A AKARAGWE whose telephone number is (469)295-9298. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 7:30-5:30.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached at (571) 272-5405. 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.
/YANICK A AKARAGWE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672