DETAILED ACTION
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 30 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that
In response to applicant's argument that it would not be obvious to combine Manin and Jarvis since they are nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, both arts are related to sensors and their placement. Furthermore, Jarvis is merely used to teach sensor spacing. The sensors of Jarvis are not being incorporated into Manin, merely the fact that sensors can have a spacing of less than 3m apart.
Applicant further argues that neither Manin or Jarvis teach one or more half energy transfer mechanisms. However, Saldanha does as discussed in the rejection below.
In response to applicant's argument that it would not be obvious to combine Saldanha and Jarvis since they are nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, both arts are related to sensors and their placement. Furthermore, Jarvis is merely used to teach sensor spacing. The sensors of Jarvis are not being incorporated into Saldanha, merely the fact that sensors can have a spacing of less than 3m apart. Selecting a specific range is within the ordinary skill of the art as discussed below.
Applicant further argues that neither Saldanha or Jarvis teach one or more half energy transfer mechanisms. Examiner respectfully disagrees, Saldanha does as discussed in the rejection below.
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, 6-7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manin (US 2019/0153854) in view of Jarvis (US 2019/0292902) and Saldanha (US 2018/0030810).
With respect to claim 1: Manin discloses a well system (Figs. 1-2), comprising:
a wellbore (14) extending through one or more subterranean formations (¶ [0022]; Figs. 1-2); and
a lower completion string (26) located within the wellbore (Figs. 1-2), the lower completion string having a plurality of sensors (36) distributed along at least a portion thereof (Fig. 2), wherein the plurality of sensors are a plurality of discrete sensors (¶ [0026]; Fig. 2) distributed along at least a portion of the lower completion string (¶ [0026]; Fig. 2). Manin further discloses the sensors can be “spaced apart from one another by any suitable distance.” (Manin ¶ [0026]). However, Manin does not explicitly disclose the plurality of discrete sensors are a plurality of discrete sensors distributed less than 3m apart along at least a portion of the lower completion string or the plurality of discrete sensors configured to connect and disconnect with an uphole tubular string via one or more downhole half energy transfer mechanisms coupled with the plurality of sensors to transfer lower completion string sensor information uphole.
Jarvis teaches it is known in the art for discrete sensors (120a-n) to be less than 3m apart (¶ [0029, 0119]). It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the sensor spacing distance of Jarvis for the sensor spacing distance of Manin since doing so would perform the same predictable result of collecting data along the length and Manin discloses the sensors can be “spaced apart from one another by any suitable distance.” (Manin ¶ [0026]) which would include the spacing of Jarvis.
The combination of Manin and Jarvis does not teach the plurality of discrete sensors configured to connect and disconnect with an uphole tubular string via one or more downhole half energy transfer mechanisms coupled with the plurality of sensors to transfer lower completion string sensor information uphole.
Saldanha teaches a plurality of discrete sensors (105, 110) configured to connect and disconnect with an uphole tubular string (135) via one or more downhole half energy transfer mechanism (155; ¶ [0028]) coupled with the plurality of sensors to transfer lower completion string (95, 150) sensor information uphole (¶ [0028, 0036]; Figs. 2A, 2B show 190, 195 uphole of the sensors 105, 110 and Fig. 3 shows the connections). It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the downhole half energy transfer mechanism and related structures of Saldanha with the invention of Manin and Jarvis with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would allow detachable coupling between the upper and lower completion strings while still allowing information transfer (Saldanha ¶ [0028, 0036]).
With respect to claim 6: Jarvis from the combination of Manin, Jarvis, and Saldanha further teaches the plurality of discrete sensors are a plurality of discrete sensors distributed less than 0.25m apart along at least a portion of the lower completion string (¶ [0029]).
With respect to claim 7: Manin further teaches the sensors can be “spaced apart from one another by any suitable distance.” (Manin ¶ [0026]). However, The combination of Manin, Jarvis, and Saldanha does not explicitly teach the plurality of discrete sensors are a plurality of discrete sensors distributed less than 1 mm apart along at least a portion of the lower completion string. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to contrive any number of desirable ranges/values for the distribution distance of the sensors limitation disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges/value involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Further, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977).
With respect to claim 10: Manin from the combination of Manin, Jarvis, and Saldanha further teaches the plurality of sensors are positioned outside of the lower completion string (¶ [0026, 0029]; Fig. 2).
Claims 1, 6, 9, 11, 13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saldanha (US 2018/0030810) in view of Jarvis (US 2019/0292902).
With respect to claim 1: Saldanha discloses a well system (Figs. 1-2A), comprising:
a wellbore (80) extending through one or more subterranean formations (20; Figs. 1-2A); and
a lower completion string (95, 150) located within the wellbore (Figs. 1-2A), the lower completion string having a plurality of sensors (105, 110) distributed along at least a portion thereof (Figs. 1-2A), wherein the plurality of sensors are a plurality of discrete sensors (Figs. 1-2A show the discrete sensors 105, 110) distributed along at least a portion of the lower completion string (Figs. 1-2A), the plurality of discrete sensors configured to connect and disconnect with an uphole tubular string (135) via one or more downhole half energy transfer mechanism (155; ¶ [0028]; half of the “inductive coupler” coupled to 160) coupled with the plurality of sensors to transfer lower completion string (95, 150) sensor information uphole (¶ [0028, 0036]; Figs. 2A, 2B show 190, 195 uphole of the sensors 105, 110 and Fig. 3 shows the connections).
Saldanha does not disclose the plurality of discrete sensors are a plurality of discrete sensors distributed less than 3m apart along at least a portion of the lower completion string.
Jarvis teaches it is known in the art for discrete sensors (120a-n) to be less than 3m apart (¶ [0029, 0119]). It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the sensor spacing distance of Jarvis for the sensor spacing distance of Saldanha since doing so would perform the same predictable result of collecting data along the length of the completion string. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to contrive any number of desirable ranges/values for the distribution distance of the sensors limitation disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges/value involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Further, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977).
With respect to claim 6: Jarvis from the combination of Saldanha and Jarvis further teaches the plurality of discrete sensors are a plurality of discrete sensors distributed less than 0.25m apart along at least a portion of the lower completion string (¶ [0029]).
With respect to claim 9: Saldanha from the combination of Saldanha and Jarvis further teaches the plurality of sensors are positioned inside the lower completion string (105 and 110 are shown in the sidewall of 150 in Figs. 2A and 5B and 5C). Therefore, the sensors are “inside” of some part of the lower completion string. Applicant has not defined the sensors being inside a central bore of the lower completion string.
With respect to claim 11: Saldanha from the combination of Saldanha and Jarvis further teaches the plurality of sensors are positioned within a sidewall of the lower completion string (105 and 110 are shown in the sidewall of 150 in Figs. 2A and 5B and 5C).
With respect to claim 13: Saldanha from the combination of Saldanha and Jarvis further teaches the tubing string (135) is coupled with the lower completion string (Figs. 1-2A), the tubing string having one or more uphole half energy transfer mechanism connectors (155; ¶ [0028]; half of the “inductive coupler” coupled to 200) coupled with the one or more downhole half energy transfer mechanism of the lower completion string (¶ [0028, 0036]; Figs. 1-2A).
With respect to claim 15: Saldanha from the combination of Saldanha and Jarvis further teaches the tubing string is an upper completion string (135; ¶ [0027]).
With respect to claim 16: Saldanha from the combination of Saldanha and Jarvis further teaches the lower completion string further includes one or more adjustable devices, the one or more adjustable devices (115, 120) configured to be adjusted based upon sensor information obtained by the plurality of sensors (¶ [0031, 0043]).
With respect to claim 17: Saldanha from the combination of Saldanha and Jarvis further teaches the one or more adjustable devices are one or more control valves (¶ [0031, 0043]).
With respect to claim 18: Saldanha from the combination of Saldanha and Jarvis further teaches the one or more adjustable devices are configured to receive power from a remote location (405; ¶ [0052, 0056]).
With respect to claim 19: Saldanha from the combination of Saldanha and Jarvis further teaches the one or more adjustable devices are configured to receive power from a surface of the wellbore (¶ [0036]; Fig. 3).
With respect to claim 20: Saldanha from the combination of Saldanha and Jarvis further teaches the one or more adjustable devices are configured to receive power through an energy transfer mechanism (¶ [0028, 0036]; Figs. 1-2A).
Claims 21, 26-27 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manin (US 2019/0153854) in view of Jarvis (US 2019/0292902), Samuelson (US 2016/0090833), and Saldanha (US 2018/0030810).
With respect to claim 21: Manin discloses a method, comprising:
forming a wellbore (14) through one or more subterranean formations (¶ [0022]; Figs. 1-2); and
positioning a lower completion string (26) within the wellbore (Figs. 1-2), the lower completion string having a plurality of sensors (36) distributed along at least a portion thereof (Fig. 2), wherein the plurality of sensors are a plurality of discrete sensors (¶ [0026]; Fig. 2) distributed along at least a portion of the lower completion string (¶ [0026]; Fig. 2). Manin further discloses the sensors can be “spaced apart from one another by any suitable distance.” (Manin ¶ [0026]). However, Manin does not explicitly disclose the plurality of discrete sensors are a plurality of discrete sensors distributed less than 3m apart along at least a portion of the lower completion string, how the lower completion string is installed, i.e., that the lower completion string is position in the wellbore using a service string, or the plurality of discrete sensors are configured to connect and disconnect with an uphole tubular string via one or more downhole half energy transfer mechanisms coupled with the plurality of sensors to transfer lower completion string sensor information uphole.
Jarvis teaches it is known in the art for discrete sensors (120a-n) to be less than 3m apart (¶ [0029, 0119]). It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the sensor spacing distance of Jarvis for the sensor spacing distance of Manin since doing so would perform the same predictable result of collecting data along the length and Manin discloses the sensors can be “spaced apart from one another by any suitable distance.” (Manin ¶ [0026]) which would include the spacing of Jarvis.
The combination of Manin and Jarvis does not explicitly teach how the lower completion string is installed, i.e., that the lower completion string is position in the wellbore using a service string or that the plurality of discrete sensors are configured to connect and disconnect with an uphole tubular string via one or more downhole half energy transfer mechanisms coupled with the plurality of sensors to transfer lower completion string sensor information uphole.
Samuelson teaches it is known in the art to position a lower completion string (14) in a wellbore (¶ [0013]; Fig. 1) using a service string (12; ¶ [0013]). It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the positioning step using the service string step of Samuelson with the invention for the generic positioning of Manin and Jarvis since doing so would perform the same predictable result of allowing a lower completion string to be places in a wellbore.
The combination of Manin, Jarvis, and Samuelson does not teach the plurality of discrete sensors are configured to connect and disconnect with an uphole tubular string via one or more downhole half energy transfer mechanisms coupled with the plurality of sensors to transfer lower completion string sensor information uphole.
Saldanha teaches a plurality of discrete sensors (105, 110) configured to connect and disconnect with an uphole tubular string (135) via one or more downhole half energy transfer mechanism (155; ¶ [0028]) coupled with the plurality of sensors to transfer lower completion string (95, 150) sensor information uphole (¶ [0028, 0036]; Figs. 2A, 2B show 190, 195 uphole of the sensors 105, 110 and Fig. 3 shows the connections). It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the downhole half energy transfer mechanism and related structures of Saldanha with the invention of Manin, Jarvis, and Samuelson with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would allow detachable coupling between the upper and lower completion strings while still allowing information transfer (Saldanha ¶ [0028, 0036]).
With respect to claim 26: Jarvis from the combination of Manin, Jarvis, Samuelson, and Saldanha further teaches the plurality of discrete sensors are a plurality of discrete sensors distributed less than 0.25m apart along at least a portion of the lower completion string (¶ [0029]).
With respect to claim 27: Manin further teaches the sensors can be “spaced apart from one another by any suitable distance.” (Manin ¶ [0026]). However, The combination of Manin, Jarvis, Samuelson, and Saldanha does not explicitly teach the plurality of discrete sensors are a plurality of discrete sensors distributed less than 1 mm apart along at least a portion of the lower completion string. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to contrive any number of desirable ranges/values for the distribution distance of the sensors limitation disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges/value involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Further, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977).
With respect to claim 30: All aspects of the claimed invention are taught as discussed in the rejection of claim 10 above.
Claims 21, 26, 29, 31, and 33-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saldanha (US 2018/0030810) in view of Jarvis (US 2019/0292902) and Samuelson (2016/0090833) and claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Saldanha and Jarvis as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Samuelson.
With respect to claim 14: The combination of Saldanha and Jarvis teaches all aspects of the claimed invention except for the tubing string is a service string. Samuelson teaches it is known in the art to have a lower completion string (14) attached to a service string (12; ¶ [0013]) through a connector (48; ¶ [0016]). It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the service string Samuelson with the invention for the generic service tool of Saldanha and Jarvis since doing so would perform the same predictable result of allowing a lower completion string to be places in a wellbore while still providing a connection between the different tubular sections.
With respect to claim 21: Saldanha discloses a method, comprising:
forming a wellbore (80) through one or more subterranean formations (20; Figs. 1-2); and
positioning a lower completion string (95, 150) within the wellbore (Figs. 1-2) using a service tool (¶ [0039]), the lower completion string having a plurality of sensors (105, 110) distributed along at least a portion thereof (Figs. 1-2), wherein the plurality of sensors are a plurality of discrete sensors (Figs. 1-2A show the discrete sensors 105, 110) distributed along at least a portion of the lower completion string (Figs. 1-2A), the plurality of discrete sensors configured to connect and disconnect with an uphole tubular string (135) via one or more downhole half energy transfer mechanism (155; ¶ [0028]; half of the “inductive coupler” coupled to 160) coupled with the plurality of sensors to transfer lower completion string (95, 150) sensor information uphole (¶ [0028, 0036]; Figs. 2A, 2B show 190, 195 uphole of the sensors 105, 110 and Fig. 3 shows the connections).
Saldanha does not explicitly disclose the plurality of discrete sensors are a plurality of discrete sensors distributed less than 3m apart along at least a portion of the lower completion string or the service tool is a service string.
Jarvis teaches it is known in the art for discrete sensors (120a-n) to be less than 3m apart (¶ [0029, 0119]). It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the sensor spacing distance of Jarvis for the sensor spacing distance of Saldanha since doing so would perform the same predictable result of collecting data along the length of the completion string. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to contrive any number of desirable ranges/values for the distribution distance of the sensors limitation disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges/value involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Further, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977).
The combination of Saldanha and Jarvis does not teach the service tool is a service string.
Samuelson teaches it is known in the art to position a lower completion string (14) in a wellbore (¶ [0013]; Fig. 1) using a service string (12; ¶ [0013]). It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the service string Samuelson with the invention for the generic service tool of Saldanha and Jarvis since doing so would perform the same predictable result of allowing a lower completion string to be places in a wellbore.
With respect to claim 26: Jarvis from the combination of Saldanha, Jarvis, and Samuelson further teaches the plurality of discrete sensors are a plurality of discrete sensors distributed less than 0.25m apart along at least a portion of the lower completion string (¶ [0029]).
With respect to claim 29: All aspects of the claimed invention are taught as discussed in the rejection of claim 9 above.
With respect to claim 31: All aspects of the claimed invention are taught as discussed in the rejection of claim 11 above.
With respect to claim 33: All aspects of the claimed invention are taught as discussed in the rejection of claim 13 above.
With respect to claim 34: All aspects of the claimed invention are taught as discussed in the rejection of claim 14 above.
With respect to claim 35: All aspects of the claimed invention are taught as discussed in the rejection of claim 15 above.
With respect to claim 36: All aspects of the claimed invention are taught as discussed in the rejection of claim 16 above.
With respect to claim 37: All aspects of the claimed invention are taught as discussed in the rejection of claim 17 above.
With respect to claim 38: All aspects of the claimed invention are taught as discussed in the rejection of claim 18 above.
With respect to claim 39: All aspects of the claimed invention are taught as discussed in the rejection of claim 19 above.
With respect to claim 40: All aspects of the claimed invention are taught as discussed in the rejection of claim 20 above.
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 KRISTYN A HALL whose telephone number is (571)272-8384. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00.
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.
/KRISTYN A HALL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
Prosecution Insights