DETAILED ACTION
Claim(s) 1-2 and 5-21 is/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 on 04/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s representative argued the following:
“Specifically, Claim 1 recites a pump located downstream of the wellbore for drawing water out of the wellbore. Such a feature is not shown in Onodera. In fact, the Examiner equates the ESP of Onodera to the pump of Claim 1. The ESP, however, is by design located in the well. Indeed, the ESP of Onodera only functions as intended if it is positioned in the well because its purpose is to pump a gas and water mixture from within the well "to the surface," (see, e.g., Onodera at paragraph [0031]). The pump of Claim 1, in contrast, is located downstream of the wellbore, and positioned so that it could not possibly pump a gas and water mixture from within a well to the surface.
In an effort to overcome this problem with the prior art, the Examiner in the present Office Action combines Onodera with Zupanick, which shows and describes pumps located downstream of the wellbore. Applicant respectfully submits that such combination is erroneous because if the downhole ESP of Onodera were modified to be downstream of the wellbore, the Onodera ESP would not be able to function as intended. This is because an ESP, whose purpose is to lift gas and water to the surface from within a wellbore, cannot do so if it is not positioned in the wellbore.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, Examiner notes that Applicant’s representative argues the modification of repositioning the pump to essentially render Onodera to be nonoperative, without any context or factual evidence which indicates that the operation of Onodera would be nonoperative. Examiner notes that the pump “74” in Onodera is positioned below and proximate to the water level “72”, as disclosed in paragraph [0033] and figure 3 of Onodera. The function of the pump is essentially to move a water/gas mixture uphole to surface from an opening in the conduit “76” adjacent to or coupled to the pump, as disclosed in paragraphs [0035, 0037] and figure 3. To cure the deficiencies of Onodera not teaching the claimed positioning of the pump (i.e., being downstream of the wellbore), Zupanick was introduced, as Zupanick teaches a similar type of wellbore system where a pump (e.g., 55) is used to suction well fluid (which include water, gas, and particles from the subterranean formation) — see at least paragraphs [0035-0036] and figure 2 of Zupanick. Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), to modify the location of the pump, as taught by Onodera, to be downstream of the wellbore, as taught by Zupanick, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention in a manner which does not alter its operation involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. If Applicant’s representative is stating that the combination of both the references are incompatible due to one teaching away from another (or, something of the like), then detailed arguments (including factual evidence/teachings) need to be presented by the Applicant’s representative, as Examiner respectfully fails to see why the pump (as taught by Onodera) cannot be repositioned to be downstream of the wellbore, as taught by Zupanick, to meet the same end-result.
Additionally, Applicant’s representative argued the following:
“In addition, Claim 5 further specifies that the pump be a single-phase pump. Use of such a single-phase pump downstream from the wellbore and the flow meter is possible because the phase separation occurs in the wellbore. Use of such a single-phase pump is advantageous because it offers greater control over the fluid flow through the first flow line.
In the Office Action, the Examiner admits that the ESP of Onodera is not a single phase pump. To account for this deficiency, the Examiner combines Onodera with Nguete, alleging that Nguete describes a single-phase pump and that, combined with the ESP of Onodera, these pumps are equivalent to the pump of Claim 5. Applicant respectfully disagrees. The ESP of Onodera is necessarily a two phase pump because it is pumping a mixture of gas and water to the surface. If modified to a single-phase pump it could not function as intended. Accordingly, the combination of Onodera and Nguete to reject Claim 5 is erroneous.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that the at least page 18, lines 4-10 teach that a single-phase pump can merely be a pump configured to handle single-phase fluid. With that being said, claim 5 does not support the claimed “single-phase pump” to be only capable of producing a single-phase (in keeping with the instant specification). And, after consideration, since Onodera’s pump “74” is already primarily used for suctioning wellbore water, and since there is no restrictions for producing only water (or, other single-phase fluid), Onodera’s pump would intrinsically be considered a “single-phase pump”, in light of Examiner’s broadest reasonable interpretation in keeping with the instant specification. If there is a critical feature in the claims that have a certain degree of importance, it is advised to include that language in the claim(s) in keeping with the instant specification for purposes of overcoming the most recent prior art rejection.
Specification
Though most of the most recent specification amendments are proper and overcome the most recent specification objections, one specification objection still stands (as detailed hereinafter) as it is improperly amended.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The most recent specification amendment corresponding to original page 24 citing “Figure by #” is improperly amended, as the most recent specification amendment should be “Figure 7[[ by #]]”, rather than “FIG. 7[[ by #]]”, for consistency purposes.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-2, 5-7, 11, 15-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onodera et al. (US Publication Number 2012/0120769 A1; hereinafter “Onodera”) in view of Zupanick et al. (US Publication Number 2004/0244974 A1; hereinafter “Zupanick”).
In regard to claim 1, Onodera discloses: A system for hydrate production (abstract, paragraph [0030] and figure 3), wherein the system is configured to separate (i.e., via 76, 92) a water component from a multi-phase gas and water mixture (70) present in a wellbore (60 — paragraphs [0031, 0033, 0036]), the system being configured such that said separation occurs within the wellbore (paragraphs [0031, 0036]), wherein the system comprises:
a first flow line (76) disposed in the wellbore (paragraph [0031] and figure 3), the first flow line arranged such that an inlet (i.e., bottom end portion of 76) of the first flow line is disposed in and receives the water component of said multi-phase gas and water mixture, so as to separate the water component from said multi-phase gas and water mixture (paragraphs [0031, 0033, 0036]);
a flow control device (i.e., 82 or 86) provided on or operatively associated with the first flow line (paragraph [0033] and figure 3);
a pump (74) provided on or operatively associated with the first flow line (figure 3) and configured to draw the water component from the wellbore through the first flow line (paragraph [0031]);
a sensor (i.e., system indication(s) of low drawdown pressure) configured to detect a water level (72) of said water component in the wellbore and output an output signal indicative of said water level (paragraphs [0030, 0033-0034]); and,
a control system (i.e., via at least the automated feedback loop and ESP 74) configured to receive the output signal indicative of said water level from the sensor arrangement and control the flow control device based on said water level so as to control the flow of the water component through the first flow line (Examiner notes that Onodera discloses a desire/need of having a particular water level 72 in the wellbore 60 via some pressure sensing feature(s) “to maintain the drawdown pressure necessary for continuous dissociation” and “to maintain at least a minimum level of water 72 within the well casing for efficient operation of the ESP 74”. This process of maintaining an optimum water level is done via the ESP 74 and an “automated feedback loop maintains a constant drawdown pressure by re-circulating some amount of produced water” — paragraphs [0030, 0033-0035]).
However, Onodera is silent in regard to: “[...] a pump provided on or operatively associated with the first flow line downstream of the wellbore”.
Furthermore, though Onodera implicitly teaches sensor(s)/sensing mechanisms about the system to detect the water level, Onodera is explicitly silent in regard to: a sensor arrangement comprising one or more sensors configured to detect a water level of said water component in the wellbore and output an output signal indicative of said water level.
Nonetheless, Zupanick introduces a surface system for recirculating fluid in a well system (abstract), similar to that of Onodera. Zupanick teaches a pump “[...] may be located at the surface or down-hole” to allow for removing fluid from the wellbore (paragraphs [0032-0036, 0041] and figures 2-3).
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), to modify the location of the pump, as taught by Onodera, to be downstream of the wellbore, as taught by Zupanick, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention in a manner which does not alter its operation involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Furthermore, Onodera is explicitly silent in regard to: a sensor arrangement comprising one or more sensors configured to detect a water level of said water component in the wellbore and output an output signal indicative of said water level.
Nonetheless, Zupanick introduces a surface system for recirculating fluid in a well system (abstract), similar to that of Onodera. Zupanick teaches: a sensor arrangement comprising one or more sensors (i.e., a water level or pressure sensor) configured to detect a water level of said water component in the wellbore and output an output signal indicative of said water level (paragraphs [0032-0033, 0041] and figures 2-3).
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), to modify the well system comprising a sensor feature, as taught by Onodera, to include for a sensor arrangement comprising one or more sensors configured to detect a water level of said water component in the wellbore and output an output signal indicative of said water level, as taught by Zupanick, to allow for combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results of providing an additional well control system sensor “[ ] …that determines how much water to recirculate based on readings from a water level or pressure sensor and that controls the rate of the pump…”, e.g., for purposes of increasing “[...] production of formation gases and fluids”. (paragraphs [0004, 0032] of Zupanick). See MPEP 2143, section I, subsection A.
In regard to claim 2, Onodera further discloses: wherein the flow control device comprises or takes the form of a variable (i.e., open/close) flow control device (paragraph [0033]).
In regard to claim 5, Onodera further discloses: where the pump is a single-phase pump (Examiner notes that the at least page 18, lines 4-10 teach that a single-phase pump can merely be a pump configured to handle single-phase fluid. With that being said, claim 5 does not support the claimed “single-phase pump” to be only capable of producing a single-phase. And, since Onodera’s pump “74” is primarily used for suctioning wellbore water, and there is no restrictions for producing only water, Onodera’s pump would intrinsically be considered a “single-phase pump”, in light of Examiner’s broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the instant specification).
In regard to claim 6, Onodera further discloses: wherein the control system is configured to control the pump (paragraphs [0030-0031, 0033-0034]).
In regard to claim 7, Onodera further discloses: a second flow line (92) disposed in the wellbore (figure 3), the second flow line arranged such that an inlet of the second flow line is disposed in and receives the gas component of said multi-phase gas and water mixture (paragraph [0036]).
In regard to claim 11, Onodera further discloses: wherein the sensor arrangement further comprises one or more pressure and/or temperature sensors (paragraphs [0030, 0033-0034]).
In regard to claim 15, Onodera further discloses: wherein the control system is coupled to or communicates with a pump control system (paragraph [0034]).
In regard to claim 16, Onodera further discloses: wherein the system comprises or takes the form of a system for natural gas hydrate production, wherein the system is configured to separate the water component from a multi-phase natural gas and water mixture present in the wellbore (paragraphs [0031, 0033, 0036, 0038]).
In regard to claim 17, Onodera further discloses: wherein the system comprises or takes the form of a system for methane hydrate production, wherein the system is configured to separate the water component from a multi-phase methane gas and water mixture present in the wellbore (paragraphs [0031, 0033, 0036, 0038]).
In regard to claim 18, Onodera further discloses: A well system (as shown in figure 3) comprising the system for hydrate production (abstract).
In regard to claim 20, Onodera further discloses: Use of the system for hydrate production according to claim 1 or a well system (as shown in figure 3) having the system for hydrate production to separate (i.e., via 76, 92) the water component from the multi-phase gas and water mixture present in the wellbore, the system being configured such that said separation occurs within the wellbore (paragraphs [0031, 0036]).
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onodera et al. (US Publication Number 2012/0120769 A1; hereinafter “Onodera”) in view of Zupanick et al. (US Publication Number 2004/0244974 A1; hereinafter “Zupanick”) in further view of Fossli et al. (US Publication Number 2012/0227978 A1; “Fossli”).
In regard to claim 8, Onodera in view of Zupanick discloses preceding claims above.
However, Onodera in view of Zupanick appear to be silent in regard to: a second flow control device provided on or operatively associated with the second flow line.
Nonetheless, Fossli teaches a well system which separates the wellbore fluids via a gas line (17) and liquid line (12 — paragraphs [0044-0045]), similar to that of Onodera. Fossli teaches that the gas line (17) comprises of flow control devices (21, 22 — paragraphs [0044-0045, 0058]).
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), to modify the second flow line, as taught by Onodera, to include for a second flow control device, as taught by Fossli, to allow for combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results of providing a gas control mechanism on well surface flow line(s) (paragraph [0058] — Fossli). See MPEP 2143, section I, subsection A.
In regard to claim 9, Fossli further discloses: wherein the second flow control device comprises or takes the form of a variable (i.e., open/close) flow control device (paragraphs [0044-0045, 0058]).
In regard to claim 10, Fossli further discloses: wherein the second flow control device comprises or takes the form of a choke (paragraphs [0044-0045, 0058]).
Claim(s) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onodera et al. (US Publication Number 2012/0120769 A1; hereinafter “Onodera”) in view of Zupanick et al. (US Publication Number 2004/0244974 A1; hereinafter “Zupanick”) in further view of Babcock et al. (US Publication Number 2018/0058182 A1; hereinafter “Babcock”).
In regard to claim 12, in view of the preceding claim(s), Onodera further discloses: wherein the control system comprises a control module (Onodera teaches a control module to regulate a desire/need of having a particular water level 72 in the wellbore 60 via some pressure sensing feature(s). This process of maintaining an optimum water level is done via the control module comprising at least ESP 74 and an “automated feedback loop maintains a constant drawdown pressure by re-circulating some amount of produced water” — paragraphs [0030, 0033-0035]. Furthermore, Zupanick teaches a control module to regulate a desire/need of having a particular water level with the combination of at least a pump 72 and sensor(s) — paragraphs [0032-0033, 0041] and figures 2-3), wherein the control module is configured to:
process sensor data received from the at least one of the sensors (as taught by both Onodera and Zupanick) of the sensor arrangement (i.e., “one or more sensors”, as taught by Zupanick); and at least one of:
output one or more command signals to a actuation mechanism of the flow control device provided on or operatively associated with the first flow line, so as to control the position of said flow control device (paragraph [0030, 0033-0035] — Onodera).
However, Onodera in view of Zupanick are explicitly silent in regard to having a control system comprising a control module.
Nonetheless, Babcock teaches a surface control system to regulate wellbore fluids, similar to that of Onodera and Zupanick. Babcock teaches that the surface control system comprising control module (103) “[...] is configured to continuously measure, monitor, and control the injection of fluids into the injection well 200 via one or more lines 120” (paragraph [0030]). Furthermore, “[...] the control module 103 can monitor and measure fluid levels, flow rates, pressures, and/or temperatures of the fluids going into and out of the control module 103” (paragraph [0034)].
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), to modify the control system(s), as taught by Onodera in view of Zupanick, to include for a control module, as taught by Babcock, to allow for combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results of continuously adjusting fluids that are injected into the injection well as needed to ensure optimum fluid recovery from the hydrocarbon bearing reservoir (paragraph [0034] of Babcock). See MPEP 2143, section I, subsection A.
In regard to claim 13, in view of the preceding claim(s), Onodera further discloses: wherein the control system is coupled to or communicates with a module (Onodera teaches a control module to regulate a desire/need of having a particular water level 72 in the wellbore 60 via some pressure sensing feature(s). This process of maintaining an optimum water level is done via the control module comprising at least ESP 74 and an “automated feedback loop maintains a constant drawdown pressure by re-circulating some amount of produced water” — paragraphs [0030, 0033-0035]. Furthermore, Zupanick teaches a control module to regulate a desire/need of having a particular water level with the combination of at least a pump 72 and sensor(s) — paragraphs [0032-0033, 0041] and figures 2-3).
However, Onodera in view of Zupanick are explicitly silent in regard to having a control system comprising a module.
Nonetheless, Babcock teaches a surface control system to regulate wellbore fluids, similar to that of Onodera and Zupanick. Babcock teaches that the surface control system (comprising 103, 120 — figure 2) comprising control module (103) “[...] is configured to continuously measure, monitor, and control the injection of fluids into the injection well 200 via one or more lines 120” (paragraph [0030]). Furthermore, “[...] the control module 103 can monitor and measure fluid levels, flow rates, pressures, and/or temperatures of the fluids going into and out of the control module 103” via the pumps (paragraph [0031-0034)].
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), to modify the control system(s), as taught by Onodera in view of Zupanick, to include for a “control module”, as taught by Babcock, to allow for combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results of continuously adjusting fluids that are injected into the injection well as needed to ensure optimum fluid recovery from the hydrocarbon bearing reservoir (paragraph [0034] of Babcock). See MPEP 2143, section I, subsection A.
In regard to claim 14, in view of modification of the preceding claim(s), Onodera further discloses: wherein the module is configured to: process information from at least one topside system or the module; and output one or more command signals to a controller of the pump (see paragraphs [0030, 0033-0035] of Onodera; paragraphs [0032-0033, 0041] of Zupanick; and, paragraphs [0030-0034] of Babcock).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onodera et al. (US Publication Number 2012/0120769 A1; hereinafter “Onodera”) in view of Zupanick et al. (US Publication Number 2004/0244974 A1; hereinafter “Zupanick”) in further view of Cho et al. (US Publication Number 2007/0144741 A1; hereinafter “Cho”).
In regard to claim 19, Onodera in view of Zupanick disclose the preceding claim(s) above.
However, Onodera in view of Zupanick are silent in regard to: the well system comprising a plurality of wellbores.
Nonetheless, Cho teaches a well system which comprises recovering natural gas, i.e., methane gas, from a hydrate zone comprising multiple wells (paragraph [0031-0032]).
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), to modify the well system, as taught by Onodera, to include for a plurality of wellbores, as taught by Cho, to allow for combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results of recovering methane gas from large hydrate zone (paragraphs [0031-0032]). See MPEP 2143, section I, subsection A.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onodera et al. (US Publication Number 2012/0120769 A1; hereinafter “Onodera”) in view of Zupanick et al. (US Publication Number 2004/0244974 A1; hereinafter “Zupanick”) in further view of Wheeler et al. (US Publication Number 2016/0369622 A1; hereinafter “Wheeler”).
In regard to claim 21, Onodera in view of Zupanick disclose claim 1.
However, Onodera in view of Zupanick are silent in regard to: wherein the flow control device is positioned within the wellbore.
Nonetheless, Wheeler cites: “In hydrocarbon exploration operations, subsea and land-based systems are used to explore formations, drill boreholes, perform formation measurements and perform various other operations. A variety of tools or devices, such as sensors, fluid flow control devices and electronic units are typically deployed at surface and/or borehole locations to facilitate such operations” (paragraph [0002]).
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), to modify the flow control device(s) of the system, as taught by Onodera, to be within the wellbore, as taught by Wheeler, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention in a manner which does not alter its operation involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEEL PATEL whose telephone number is (469)295-9168. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00AM-5:00PM CST.
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, Tara Schimpf can be reached at (571) 270-7741. 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.
/NEEL GIRISH PATEL/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights