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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/08/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Examiner notes that specification objections (previously not presented) are introduced herein.
Examiner notes that the amendments to claim 1 change the scope the claims, in which a new interpretation of the prior art rejection is presented herein as it relates to obviousness.
Lastly, claim 21 was not previously introduced, in which Examiner notes that “[...] the status of every claim must be indicated after its claim number by using one of the following identifiers in a parenthetical expression: (Original), (Currently amended), (Canceled), (Withdrawn), (Previously presented), (New), and (Not entered)” — see MPEP 714.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Reference numeral “28” is indicated as both a “flow line” and “pump”.
Page 22 cites “112a,b,#”, which is confusing.
Page 24 cites “Figure by #”, which is confusing.
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, 6-7, 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 regards 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 regards 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 regards 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 for 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 regards 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 regards 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 regards to claim 6, Onodera further discloses: wherein the control system is configured to control the pump (paragraphs [0030-0031, 0033-0034]).
In regards 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 regards 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 regards to claim 15, Onodera further discloses: wherein the control system is coupled to or communicates with a pump control system (paragraph [0034]).
In regards 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 regards 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 regards to claim 18, Onodera further discloses: A well system (as shown in figure 3) comprising the system for hydrate production (abstract).
In regards 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) 5 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 Toguem Nguete et al. (US Publication Number 2010/0200224 A1; “Toguem Nguete”).
In regards to claim 5, Onodera in view Zupanick discloses claim 1 above.
However, Onodera in view Zupanick are silent in regards to: where the pump is a single-phase pump.
Nonetheless, Toguem Nguete teaches that the pumping system(s) associated with wellbore production “[...] may comprise a single pump 20 or preferably two pumps in series, particularly suitable when a multi-phase fluid is involved” (paragraph [0053]).
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 simply substitute the pump, as taught by Onodera, with that of Toguem Nguete, to yield the predictable result of moving wellbore fluid(s). See MPEP 2143, section I, subsection B.
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 regards to claim 8, Onodera in view of Zupanick discloses preceding claims above.
However, Onodera in view of Zupanick appear to be silent in regards 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 regards 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 regards 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 regards 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 regards 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 regards 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 regards 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 regards 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 regards to claim 19, Onodera in view of Zupanick disclose the preceding claim(s) above.
However, Onodera in view of Zupanick are silent in regards 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 regards to claim 21, Onodera in view of Zupanick disclose claim 1.
However, Onodera in view of Zupanick are silent in regards 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
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/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676