Detailed Action
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 18 has/have been considered but are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by the amendments.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed September 11, 2025 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.98(a)(4) because it lacks the appropriate size fee assertion. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim(s) 23 is/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.
In regards to claim 23, the amendment of the claim has deleted all the limitations of the claim. Therefore, it is unclear if the claim has been cancelled or if the limitations of the claim are missing. For this reason, the claim is indefinite.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6-10, 12-15,18, 24-28, 30-33 and 36-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Algeroy et al. (US-8,839,850) in view of Thomas et al. (US-8,794,337) and Richards (US-9,103,207).
In regards to claim 1, Algeroy teaches a well system, comprising a lower completion string located within a wellbore extending through one or more subterranean formations [fig. 1, col. 3 L. 23-30]. Furthermore, Algeroy teaches that the lower completion string has a downhole half energy transfer mechanism [col. 6 L. 28-29 and L. 41-45]. Also, Algeroy teaches that the system comprises a plurality of discrete sensors positioned on a downhole discrete sensor cable and distributed along at least a portion of the lower completion string [fig. 1 elements 113, 114 and 115 (sensors) and 116 (cable), col. 3 L. 42-44 and L. 44-51]. Also, Algeroy teaches that the system comprises one or more distributed fibers positioned along at least a portion of the lower completion string [col. 5 L. 10-11 and L. 19-22, col. 7 L. 28-39]. Algeroy further teaches that the plurality of discrete sensors positioned on the downhole discrete sensor cable and the one or more distributed fibers terminate at the downhole half energy transfer mechanism [col. 3 L. 42-43 and L. 46-55 (discrete sensors and discrete cable), col. 5 L. 19-20 (distributed fibers), col. 6 L. 28-29 and L. 41-50 (half energy transfer mechanism connected to discrete cable), col. 7 L. 28-39 (half energy transfer mechanism connected to distributed fibers)]. Algeroy also teaches that the system comprises a service string coupled with and uphole of the lower completion string, the service string having an uphole half energy transfer mechanism [col. 6 L. 34-37]. Furthermore, Algeroy teaches that the system comprises a logging cable with wet connectors (uphole discrete sensor cable) along at least a portion of the service string [col. 6 L. 67, col. 7 L. 1-14]. Algeroy teaches that the logging cable is connected to the uphole half energy mechanism via wet connectors to provide power and communications to the lower completion string [fig. 3 elements 212, 213, 210 and 208, col. 6 L. 60-67, col. 7 L. 1-14]. This teaching means that the logging cable together with the wet connectors form the uphole discrete sensor cable that will provide power and communications to the lower completion string via the uphole half energy mechanism. In other words, the logging cable and the wet connectors (uphole discrete sensor cable) terminate at the uphole half energy transfer mechanism. Also, Algeroy teaches that the downhole half energy transfer mechanism and the uphole half energy transfer mechanism are coupled together, such that the plurality of discrete sensors positioned on the downhole discrete sensor cable are coupled with the uphole discrete sensor cable positioned along at least a portion of the service string to transfer discrete sensor information obtained from the plurality of discrete sensors positioned on a downhole discrete sensor cable through the downhole half energy transfer mechanism and the uphole half energy transfer mechanism as the service string is coupled with the lower completion string [fig. 3 elements 212, 213, 210, 204 and 208, col. 6 L. 34-50 and L. 60-67, col. 7 L. 1-14 and L. 51-60].
Algeroy teaches that the lower completion string can comprises one or more distributed fibers that can communicate sensor data via the downhole and uphole energy transfer mechanisms [col. 5 L. 19-20, col. 7 L. 28-39 and L. 51-60]. However, Algeroy does not teach that the system comprises one or more uphole distributed fiber cables positioned along at least a portion of the service string.
On the other hand, Thomas teaches that the system can comprise one or more uphole distributed fiber cables positioned along at least a portion of the service string [col. 10 L. 45-53].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Thomas’ teachings of having one or more distributed fiber cables at the servicing string in the system taught by Algeroy because it will permit the one or more distributed fibers located at the lower completion string to communicate their data to the surface via fiber optic cables located at the service string.
The combination of Algeroy and Thomas teaches that the one or more uphole distributed fiber cables when coupled to the one or more distributed fibers of the lower completion string permit the one or more distributed fibers of the lower completion string to communicate sensor data to the surface [see Thomas col. 7 L. 14-20, col. 10 L. 45-53]. This teaching means that the one or more distributed fibers positioned along the at least the portion of the lower completion string are coupled with the one or more uphole distributed fiber cables positioned along at least a portion of the service string to transfer distributed fiber sensor information obtained from the one or more distributed fibers positioned along the at least the portion of the lower completion string as the service string is coupled with the lower completion string. However, the combination does not teach that the upper and lower half energy mechanisms are used to couple the one or more uphole distributed fiber cables with the one or more distributed fibers of the lower completion string.
On the other hand, Richards teaches the downhole and uphole half energy transfer mechanisms can connect fiber cables of a completion string with fiber cables of the service string in addition to coupling other type of cables in order to transmit sensor data [col. 2 L. 24-26, col. 4 L. 44-47, col. 5 L. 37-46 and L. 56-62].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Richards’ teachings of using the uphole and downhole energy transfer mechanisms to couple different types of cables including fiber cables in the system taught by the combination because it will permit the system the same energy transfer mechanisms to connect the fiber cables and the sensor cables.
The combination of Algeroy, Thomas and Richards teaches that the one or more uphole distributed fiber cables are coupled to the one or more distributed fibers of the lower completion string [see Thomas col. 7 L. 14-20, col. 10 L. 45-53]. The combination also teaches that the fiber cables of the service string are coupled to the fiber cables of the completion string using the uphole and downhole energy transfer mechanisms to permit the communication of sensor data [see Richards col. 5 L. 37-46 and L. 56-62]. These teachings means that the one or more uphole distributed fiber cables terminate at the uphole half energy transfer mechanism, and that the one or more distributed fibers positioned along the at least the portion of the lower completion string are coupled with the one or more uphole distributed fiber cables positioned along at least a portion of the service string to transfer distributed fiber sensor information obtained from the one or more distributed fibers positioned along the at least the portion of the lower completion string through the downhole half energy transfer mechanism and the uphole half energy transfer mechanism as the service string is coupled with the lower completion string.
In regards to claims 6-10, the combination of Algeroy, Thomas and Richards, as applied in the rejection of claim 5 above, teaches that the plurality of discrete sensors are discrete sensors distributed along the lower completion string [see Algeroy fig. 1 elements 113, 114 and 115]. The combination does not explicitly teach that the sensors are distributed at the claimed distances. However, it is clear from the combination’s teaching that the system can be modified based on the application. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have modified the system to place the sensors at the claimed distances, because it will permit the system to capture more data or less data at different locations of the wellbore and system depending on how much data the user of the system or the system needs.
In regards to claim 12, the combination of Algeroy, Thomas and Richards, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that the downhole half energy transfer mechanism is a permanent downhole half wet mate connector [see Algeroy col. 6 L. 28-29 , see Richards col. 5 L. 41-46 and L. 56-62, col. 11 L. 65-67, col. 12 L. 1-6].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Richards’ teachings of using wet connectors in the system taught by the combination because wet connectors will not get damaged by the wellbore environment.
In regards to claim 13, the combination of Algeroy, Thomas and Richards, as applied in the rejection of claim 12 above, further teaches that the uphole half energy transfer mechanism is a retrievable uphole half wet mate connector [see Algeroy col. 6 L. 34-36 , see Richards col. 5 L. 41-46 and L. 56-62, col. 11 L. 65-67, col. 12 L. 1-6].
In regards to claim 14, the combination of Algeroy, Thomas and Richards, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that wherein the uphole half energy transfer mechanism and the downhole half energy transfer mechanism are configured to send power down the service string to the lower completion string [see Algeroy col. 6 L. 42-50, col. 7 L. 4-9].
In regards to claim 15, the combination of Algeroy, Thomas and Richards, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that the uphole half energy transfer mechanism and the downhole half energy transfer mechanism are configured to send data down the service string to the lower completion string [see Algeroy col. 6 L. 42-50, col. 7 L. 9-14 and L. 51-57].
In regards to claim 18, the combination of Algeroy, Thomas and Richards, as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above, teaches a system performing the claimed functionality of the method. Therefore, the combination also teaches the claimed method.
In regards to claim 24-28, the combination of Algeroy, Thomas and Richards, as shown in the rejection of claims 6-10 above, teaches the claimed limitations.
In regards to claim 30, the combination of Algeroy, Thomas and Richards, as shown in the rejection of claim 12 above, teaches the claimed limitations.
In regards to claim 31, the combination of Algeroy, Thomas and Richards, as shown in the rejection of claim 13 above, teaches the claimed limitations.
In regards to claim 32, the combination of Algeroy, Thomas and Richards, as applied in the rejection of claim 31 above, further teaches disconnecting the service string and retrievable uphole half wet mate connector from the lower completion string and permanent downhole half wet mate connector [see Algeroy col. 8 L. 58-62, see Richards col. 11 L. 65-67, col. 12 L. 1-6].
In regards to claim 33, the combination of Algeroy, Thomas and Richards, as applied in the rejection of claim 32 above, further teaches connecting an upper completion string having a second uphole half wet mate connector with the lower completion string and permanent downhole half wet mate connector [see Algeroy col. 3 L. 63-65, col. 4 L. 25-36, col. 6 L. 34-36, col. 8 L. 58-62, see Richards col. 11 L. 65-67, col. 12 L. 1-6].
In regards to claim 36, the combination of Algeroy, Thomas and Richards, as shown in the rejection of claim 14 above, teaches the claimed limitations.
In regards to claim 37, the combination of Algeroy, Thomas and Richards, as shown in the rejection of claim 15 above, teaches the claimed limitations.
Claim(s) 2 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Algeroy et al. (US-8,839,850) in view of Thomas et al. (US-8,794,337) and Richards (US-9,103,207) as applied to claim(s) 1 and 18 above, and further in view of in view of Samuelson et al (US-9,624,763).
In regards to claim 2, the combination Algeroy, Thomas and Richards, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, does not teach that at least one of the discrete sensors or of the distributed fibers is a completion task sensor.
On the other hand, Samuelson teaches that at least one of the sensors in a lower completion string can be a completion task sensor [col. 2 L. 32-36, L. 48-52 and L. 63-67, col. 3 L. 1-3 and L. 62-65].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Samuelson’ teachings of including a completion task sensor in the system taught by the combination because it will permit the system that a task has been completed.
The combination of Algeroy, Thomas, Richards and Samuelson teaches that at least one of the discrete sensors or of the distributed fibers is a completion task sensor [see Samuelson col. 2 L. 32-36, L. 48-52 and L. 63-67, col. 3 L. 1-3 and L. 62-65]. Also, the combination teaches that the sensor data is communicated using the downhole and uphole energy transfer mechanisms [see Algeroy col. 6 L. 34-36 and L. 41-46, col. 7 L. 51-60]. These teaching means that the downhole half energy transfer mechanism and the uphole half energy transfer mechanism are configured to transfer completion task sensor information obtained as the service string is coupled with the lower completion string.
In regards to claim 19, the combination of Algeroy, Thomas, Richards and Samuelson, as shown in the rejection of claim 2 above, teaches the claimed limitations.
In regards to claim 20, the combination of Algeroy, Thomas, Richards and Samuelson, as shown in the rejection of claim 2 above, teaches the claimed limitations.
Claim(s) 3 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Algeroy et al. (US-8,839,850) in view of Thomas et al. (US-8,794,337), Richards (US-9,103,207) and Samuelson et al (US-9,624,763) as applied to claim(s) 2 and 19 above, and further in view of Wassouf et al. (US-2012/0043079).
In regards to claim 3, the combination of Algeroy, Thomas, Richards and Samuelson, as applied in the rejection of claim 2 above, does not teach that at least one of the discrete sensors or of the distributed fibers is a gravel pack sensor.
On the other hand, Wassouf teaches that a lower completion string can comprise a sand control system comprising sensors to monitor a gravel pack assembly [par. 0026 L. 1-3, par. 0041 L. 1-4, par. 0044 L. 5-15, par. 0046 L. 1-7]. This teaching means that at least one of the sensors is a gravel pack sensor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Wassouf’s teachings of including gravel pack sensor in the system taught by the combination because it will permit the system to monitor the condition of the gravel pack assembly.
In regards to claim 21, the combination of Algeroy, Thomas, Richards, Samuelson and Wassouf, as shown in the rejection of claim 3 above, teaches the claimed limitations.
Claim(s) 4 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Algeroy et al. (US-8,839,850) in view of Thomas et al. (US-8,794,337), Richards (US-9,103,207) and Samuelson et al (US-9,624,763) as applied to claim(s) 2 and 19 above, and further in view of Joubran et al. (US-2020/0386073) and Martysevich et al. (US-10,989,033).
In regards to claim 4, the combination of Algeroy, Thomas, Richards and Samuelson, as applied in the rejection of claim 2 above, does not teach that at least one of the discrete sensors or of the distributed fibers is a frac pack sensor.
On the other hand, Joubran teaches that the lower completion string can comprise a frac pack [par. 0016 L. 18-24].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Joubran’s teachings of including a frack pack in the system taught by the combination because it will permit the system to perform sand control.
The combination of Algeroy, Thomas, Richards, Samuelson and Joubran teaches that the lower completion comprises a frack pack [see Joubran par. 0016 L. 18-24]. However, the combination does not teach that at least one of the discrete sensors or of the distributed fibers is a frac pack sensor.
On the other hand, Martysevich teaches that a frac pack system can comprises frac pack sensors [col. 4 L. 37-44].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Martysevich’s teachings of including frac pack sensors in the system taught by the combination because it will permit the system to monitor the condition of the frac pack process.
In regards to claim 22, the combination of Algeroy, Thomas, Richards, Samuelson, Joubran and Martysevich, as shown in the rejection of claim 4 above, teaches the claimed limitations.
Claim(s) 34-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Algeroy et al. (US-8,839,850) in view of Thomas et al. (US-8,794,337) and Richards (US-9,103,207)as applied to claim(s) 33 above, and further in view of Patel et al. (US-8,056,619).
In regards to claim 34, the combination of Algeroy, Thomas and Richards, as applied in the rejection of claim 33 above, does not teach that at least one of the discrete sensors or of the distributed fibers is a production task sensor.
On the other hand, Patel teaches when the upper completion string is coupled with the lower completion string, sensor data from production task sensors at the lower completion string can be transmitted to the surface [col. 4 L. 32-43 and L. 65-67, col. 5 L. 1-7 and L. 13-17, col. 7 L. 7-12]. This teaching means that at least one of the sensors is a production task sensor, and that the method includes obtaining production task sensor information from the production task sensor as the upper completion string is coupled with the lower completion string
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Patel’s teachings of transmitting production task sensor data when the upper completion string is connected in the method taught by the combination because it will permit the system to monitor a task when the lower and upper completion strings are deployed.
In regards to claim 35, the combination of Algeroy, Thomas, Richards and Patel, as applied in the rejection of claim 34 above, teaches transferring the production task sensor information uphole as the upper completion string is coupled with the lower completion string [see Patel col. 4 L. 32-43 and L. 65-67, col. 5 L. 1-7 and L. 13-17, col. 7 L. 7-12].
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 FRANKLIN D BALSECA whose telephone number is (571)270-5966. The examiner can normally be reached 6AM-4PM EST M-F.
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, STEVEN LIM can be reached at 571-270-1210. 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.
/FRANKLIN D BALSECA/Examiner, Art Unit 2688