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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The following is a FINAL office action in response to the amendment dated 06/04/2026. Claims 1, 18, 19, and 20-24 were amended and claims 25-26 were added. Claims 1-4, 7, 9-11, 16, and 18-26 are pending of which claims 3, 4, 7, and 9-11 remain withdrawn as directed to a non-elected invention. Claims 1, 2, 16, and 18-26 are rejected.
Claim Objection
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following grammatical informalities: Claim 18 recites “based at least in part on the mixture permittivity or the mixture conductivity and on the on a water salinity” however --based at least in part on the mixture permittivity or the mixture conductivity and water salinity-- is recommended.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 16, and 18-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1, 19, and 20 recite “control one or more pieces of equipment in a flow network based on the determined gas hold-up to block hydrate formation or pipeline corrosion” however the only mention of preventing hydrate formation or pipeline corrosion is in [0005] of the original specification which states that it is desirable to determine properties of the multiphase mixture such as gas hold-up “as this provides information about produced and/or injected water in the mixture, about the (subsea) flow-assurances measures needed to prevent hydrate formation and/or pipeline corrosion, etc.” However, this discussion of how the properties are useful for providing information about measures needed does not draw a correlation with the mentions of “control” of equipment in [0045] and [0116]. Further there does not appear to be any description of what equipment is controlled or how such control is performed such that it “prevents hydrate formation or pipeline corrosion”. Therefore the claims are found to recite new matter. Claims 2, 16, 18 and 21-26 are rejected by virtue of their dependency.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 16, 18, 21, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “wherein, for determining the gas hold-up when the type of flow is determined to be a mist flow” however the claim previously recites “wherein the type of the multiphase fluid is one of a plurality of types comprising a water continuous flow, a gas continuous flow, and an oil continuous flow, wherein the multiphase fluid is a three-phase fluid that comprises the liquid water phase, the gaseous phase, and a liquid oil phase” and it is unclear if or how the “mist flow” relates to the types of flow previously defined. Dependent claims 2, 16, 18, 21, 23, and 24 are rejected by virtue of their dependency.
Claim 18 recites “The system of claim 1, wherein the multiphase fluid is a two-phase fluid that comprises the liquid water phase and a steam phase as the gaseous phase” however parent claim 1 recites that the “the multiphase fluid is a three-phase fluid” comprising water, gas, and oil. Therefore claim 18 conflicts with parent claim 1 and renders the claim indefinite.
35 U.S.C. 101 Considerations
Regarding subject matter eligibility, independent claims 1, 19, and 20 now recite additional elements that, when viewing the claim(s) as a whole, integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application. Specifically, the claims recite elements of "control one or more pieces of equipment in a flow network based on the determined gas hold-up to block hydrate formation or pipeline corrosion" which, when considered in combination with the other elements in the claims, uses any recited abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking it to a particular technological environment (MPEP 2106.05(e)).
Examiner notes that although the current 101 rejection is withdrawn, the elements found to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as identified above are not supported by the original disclosure as indicated in the 112(a) rejection. Therefore, any amendments to overcome the 112(a) rejection may re-necessitate the 101 rejection for the reasons set forth in the prior office action(s).
Prior Art Considerations
Regarding the prior art, none of the prior art of record, taken individually or in combination, reasonably teach or suggest the combination of elements in independent claims 1, 19, and 20. Specifically for claim 1, the prior art fails to reasonably teach or suggest the specific steps performed for determining the gas hold-up when the type of flow is determined to be a mist flow including:
PNG
media_image1.png
511
787
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Specifically for claims 19 and 20, the prior art fails to reasonably teach or suggest in response to the multiphase fluid being the water continuous flow, calculating the gas hold-up according to:
PNG
media_image2.png
143
783
media_image2.png
Greyscale
And further fails to reasonably teach or suggest in response to the multiphase fluid being the gas continuous flow, calculating the gas hold-up according to:
PNG
media_image3.png
153
777
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In combination with the other elements in the claim.
The prior art references most closely resembling Applicant’s claimed invention include those previously made of record and further including:
US 20070006727 A1 describes calculating oil cut for an oil/water mixture based on the relationship, [0094]:
PNG
media_image4.png
233
656
media_image4.png
Greyscale
And calculating water cut according to the following equation based on measured gas concentration:
PNG
media_image5.png
545
659
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Additionally, ‘727 discusses the typical form of liquid carry-over in the gas outlet is a mist [0010].
US 20090204346 A1 describes oil/water dielectric mixing models for water-continuous and oil-continuous flows (see Figure 3, [0051]-[0052]).
GB 2430493 A describes Ramu-Rao and Bruggeman mixing laws for continuous water mixtures and oil continuous mixtures, respectively.
WO 2013084183 A2 describes calculating liquid holdup according to (noting it is well known:
PNG
media_image6.png
86
410
media_image6.png
Greyscale
EP 1893952 B1 describes the calculation of water cut according to Bruggeman equation:
PNG
media_image7.png
150
427
media_image7.png
Greyscale
US 20130144548 A1 describing “the values of permittivity, conductivity, magnetic permeability and/or complex-permittivity/conductivity may be used to compute phase holdups (or fractions) such as the gas fraction, the water fraction and the water-in-liquid ratio (WLR) of a multiphase flow. This may for example, be an oil-continuous flow, a water-continuous flow, or a gas-continuous flow, or a flow which is a combination of oil-continuous, water-continuous and/or gas-continuous flow.” [0016] and utilizing Ramu-Rao mixing models. See Fig. 5:
PNG
media_image8.png
157
395
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SHELBY A TURNER whose telephone number is (571)272-6334. (via email: Shelby.Turner1@uspto.gov “without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via internet e-mail to an Internet correspondence” MPEP 502.02 II). The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10-6 ET.
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, Technology Center Director Allana Bidder can be reached at (571) 272-5560. 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.
/SHELBY A TURNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights