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
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed 01/27/2026, with respect to claim(s) 1-35 have been considered but are not persuasive.
With regards to Applicant's argument that the new mapping of Patel is technically incorrect, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claim 1 requires a generic 'lower completion string', 'a service string', and 'one or more completion task sensors'.
Patel, Column 11, Lines 3-46 at least, discusses wherein a service tool (164, mapped as analogous to the generic service string) provides either sensors 62 or control line 60; "In one embodiment, the service tool 164 comprises a fiber optic line 60 extending along at least a portion of the length of the service tool 164." In light of this, the service tool of Patel is understood to read on the claimed generic 'service string'.
Therefore, Patel is understood to anticipate the claimed service string with sensors.
With regards to Applicant's argument that Patel's sensors are completion-side sensors and not service string sensors, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As disclosed in the recited excerpt below, Patel discloses wherein "…the service tool 164 comprises a fiber optic line 60 extending along at least a portion of the length of the service tool 164…", and further wherein "fiber optic lines 60 may comprise or be replaced by one or more sensors 62", finally noting that "the control line 60 or sensor 62 may be placed in other positions within the service tool 164".
Nothing within the claimed "completion task sensors positioned along the service string" prohibits anticipation by Patel, in view of the disclosure (see Column 11, Lines 17-46 provided below). Furthermore, Applicant provides no special definition in the specification to distinguish the claimed completion task sensors from any downhole sensor used for the accomplishment of any downhole task.
As such, the cited portions of Patel are found to anticipate Applicant's claimed "on or along a service string".
(Patel - Column 11, Lines 17-46 recites:
“As shown in the figures, a control line 60 extends along the outside of the completion. Note that other control line routing may be used as previously described. In addition, a control line 60 or intelligent completions device 62 is positioned in the service tool 164. In one embodiment, the service tool 164 comprises a fiber optic line 60 extending along at least a portion of the length of the service tool 164. As with the routing of the control line 60 in a screen 28, the control line 60 may extend along a helical or other non-linear path along the service tool 164. FIG. 17C illustrates an exemplary cross section of the service tool 164 showing a control line 60 provided in a passageway of a wall thereof. The figure also shows an alternative embodiment in which the service tool 164 has a sensor 62 therein. Note that the control line 60 or sensor 62 may be placed in other positions within the service tool 164.
In one embodiment the fiber optic line in the service tool 164 is used to measure the temperature during the gravel packing operation. As an example, this measurement may be compared to a measurement of a fiber optic line 60 positioned in the completion to better determine the placement of the gravel pack. The fiber optic lines 60 may comprise or be replaced by one or more sensors 62. For example, the service tool 164 may have a temperature sensor at the outlet 168 that provides a temperature reading of the gravel slurry as it exits the service tool. Other types of service tools (e.g., a service tool for fracturing, delivering a proppant, delivering a chemical treatment, cement, etc.) may also employ a fiber optic line or sensor therein as described in connection with the gravel pack service tool 164."
With regards to Applicant's argument that Patel's 'service tool 164 is not a service string bearing sensors, and that the claimed structure is fundamentally different from that of Patel, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
It appears that the language or concepts being argued are not in the claim.
In particular Applicant has raised concerns that Patel fails to anticipate:
a “service string”;
an "array of sensors";
wherein that sensor or sensors is/are 'distributed along" the length of the service string;
the claimed "completion task sensors";
"reading conditions along the tool body"; and finally
"service-string-based longitudinal sensing architectures".
"service-string-based longitudinal sensing architectures".
For reference, Claim 1 positively recites:"A well system, comprising:
a wellbore extending through one or more subterranean formations;
a lower completion string located within the wellbore; and
a service string coupled with the lower completion string, the service string having one or more completion task sensors positioned along its length."
Upon thoroughly reviewing Applicants' specification, the following points are noted:
The term "service string" is further described as a "work string" according to Applicant's specification. Patel, in comparison, illustrates in at least Figures 17a and 17b wherein service tool 164 is a tubular string. Such a string is considered analogous to and thus applicable to both the terms ‘work string’ and ‘service string’ as element 164 of Patel both performs work and provides a service. Applicant's specification on the other hand does not further define the claimed service string to preclude being anticipated by the service tool of Patel.
An array of sensors is not positively recited in the claims.
Said sensor or sensors are not required to be ‘distributed along’ the length but rather need to exist at some point along the length to anticipate the claim.
There is no special definition for what "completion task sensor" means, beyond the broadest reasonable interpretation which is a sensor which provides information about a task. As such, the sensor(s) 60/62 of Patel which may be placed within the service tool 164 are found to anticipate the broadly recited "one or more completion task sensors positioned along its length".
“Reading conditions along the body” is also not a requirement of the claims.
Finally, "service-string-based longitudinal sensing architectures" are not required by the claimed invention.
In light of the careful consideration of Claims 1-35 in view of Patel, the rejection stands.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8, 14-25 and 31-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Patel et al (US 7,222,676).
As concerns claim 1, Patel et al (US 7,222,676) discloses a well system, comprising:
a wellbore extending through one or more subterranean formations;
a lower completion string (160 - new interpretation) located within the wellbore; and
a service string (164 - new interpretation) coupled with the lower completion string, the service string having one or more completion task sensors (62) positioned along its length. (Column 9, Line 60 – Column 11, Line 2)
As concerns claim 2, Patel discloses the well system as recited in Claim 1, wherein the lower completion string (160 - new interpretation) has a downhole energy transfer mechanism, and the service string has an uphole energy transfer mechanism coupled with the downhole energy transfer mechanism of the lower completion string. (Figure 16) (The terms “downhole” and “uphole” are being treated as arbitrary names until further detail or distinction is recited.)
As concerns claim 3, Patel discloses the well system as recited in Claim 1, wherein the downhole energy transfer mechanism is a permanent downhole half wet mate connector. (Figure 16)
As concerns claim 4, Patel discloses the well system as recited in Claim 3, wherein the uphole energy transfer mechanism is a retrievable uphole half wet mate connector. (Figure 16)
As concerns claim 5, Patel discloses the well system as recited in Claim 1, wherein the one or more sensors are one or more gravel pack sensors. (Column 9, Line 60 – Column 11, Line 2)
As concerns claim 6, Patel discloses the well system as recited in Claim 1, wherein the one or more sensors are one or more frac pack sensors. (Column 7, Line 60 – Line 64)
As concerns claim 7, Patel discloses the well system as recited in Claim 1, wherein the one or more sensors are one or more cement sensors. (Column 7, Line 60 – Line 64)
As concerns claim 8, Patel discloses the well system as recited in Claim 1, wherein the one or more sensors are a plurality of discrete sensors distributed along at least a portion of the lower completion string. (Column 9, Line 60 – Column 11, Line 2)
As concerns claim 14, Patel discloses the well system as recited in Claim 1, wherein the one or more sensors (62) are one or more distributed fibers positioned along at least a portion of the service string. (Column 9, Line 60 – Column 11, Line 2)
As concerns claim 15, Patel discloses the well system as recited in Claim 1, further including one or more production task sensors (62) positioned along the lower completion string, and further including obtaining production task sensor information from the production task sensors as the service string is coupled with the lower completion string. (Column 9, Line 60 – Column 11, Line 2)
As concerns claim 16, Patel discloses a method, comprising:
forming a wellbore through one or more subterranean formations; and
positioning a lower completion string (160 - new interpretation) within the wellbore along with a service string (164 - new interpretation) coupled thereto, the service string having one or more completion task sensors (62) positioned along its length. (Column 9, Line 60 – Column 11, Line 2)
As concerns claim 17, Patel discloses the method as recited in Claim 16, further including obtaining completion task sensor information from the completion task sensors (62) as the service string (164) is coupled with the lower completion string (160). (Column 9, Line 60 – Column 11, Line 2)
As concerns claim 18, Patel discloses the method as recited in Claim 17, further including transferring the completion task sensor information uphole as the service string is coupled with the lower completion string. (Column 9, Line 60 – Column 11, Line 2)
As concerns claim 19, Patel discloses the method as recited in Claim 16, wherein the lower completion string has a downhole energy transfer mechanism, and the service string has an uphole energy transfer mechanism coupled with the downhole energy transfer mechanism of the lower completion string. (Column 9, Line 60 – Column 11, Line 2)
As concerns claim 20, Patel discloses the method as recited in Claim 19, wherein the downhole energy transfer mechanism is a permanent downhole half wet mate connector. (Figure 16)
As concerns claim 21, Patel discloses the method as recited in Claim 20, wherein the uphole energy transfer mechanism is a retrievable uphole half wet mate connector. (Figure 16)
As concerns claim 22, Patel discloses the method as recited in Claim 16, wherein the one or more sensors are one or more gravel pack sensors. (Column 9, Line 60 – Column 11, Line 2)
As concerns claim 23, Patel discloses the method as recited in Claim 16, wherein the one or more sensors are one or more frac pack sensors. (Column 7, Line 60 – Line 64)
As concerns claim 24, Patel discloses the method as recited in Claim 16, wherein the one or more sensors are one or more cement sensors. (Column 7, Line 60 – Line 64)
As concerns claim 25, Patel discloses the method as recited in Claim 16, wherein the one or more sensors are a plurality of discrete sensors distributed along at least a portion of the lower completion string. (Column 9, Line 60 – Column 11, Line 2)
As concerns claim 31, Patel discloses the method as recited in Claim 16, wherein the one or more sensors are one or more distributed fibers positioned along at least a portion of the service string.
As concerns claim 32, Patel discloses the method as recited in Claim 16, further including disconnecting the service string having a retrievable uphole half wet mate connector from the lower completion string having a permanent downhole half wet mate connector.
As concerns claim 33, Patel discloses the method as recited in Claim 32, further including connecting an upper completion string having a second uphole half wet mate connector with the lower completion string having the permanent downhole half wet mate connector.
As concerns claim 34, Patel discloses the method as recited in Claim 33, further including one or more production task sensors positioned along the lower completion string, and further including obtaining production task sensor information from the production task sensors as the upper completion string is coupled with the lower completion string.
As concerns claim 35, Patel discloses the method as recited in Claim 34, further including transferring the production task sensor information uphole as the upper completion string is coupled with the lower completion string.
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 of this title, 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 9-13 and 26-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel alone.
As concerns claims 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13, Patel discloses the well system as recited in Claim 8, however fails to specify wherein the plurality of discrete sensors are a plurality of discrete sensors distributed less than 500m, 50m, 3m, .25m or 1mm apart along at least a portion of the lower completion string.
The examiner takes official notice that it is old and well known in the art to space sensors at a given distance that best benefits the conditions being monitored in the wellbore.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a spacing of the sensors less than the claimed distance for the expected benefit of providing substantial data across the entire length of a fracture zone in a borehole.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that using a distribution distance of less than the claimed number would have provided predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Patel as taught by Official Notice to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
As concerns claims 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30, Patel discloses the method as recited in Claim 25, however fails to specify wherein the plurality of discrete sensors are a plurality of discrete sensors distributed less than 500m, 50m, 3m, .25m or 1mm apart along at least a portion of the lower completion string.
The examiner takes official notice that it is old and well known in the art to space sensors at a given distance that best benefits the conditions being monitored in the wellbore.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a spacing of the sensors less than the claimed distance for the expected benefit of providing substantial data across the entire length of a fracture zone in a borehole.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that using a distribution distance of less than the claimed number would have provided predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Patel as taught by Official Notice to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON L LEMBO whose telephone number is (571)270-3065. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7am-4pm.
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 on (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.
/AARON L LEMBO/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3672
Prosecution Insights