DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 6/18/2025 & 3/14/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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 3, 5 & 9 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.
Regarding claim 3 the recitation “…such that the first permittivity sensor may be fed from a downstream edge of the flowmeter..”, is ambiguous and overly broad. With emphasis on the phrase “maybe be”, this is an indefinite and / or relative phrase and raises the question as to whether the claimed first permittivity sensor is fed from a downstream edge of the flowmeter or not?
Suggested recitation: “..such that the first permittivity sensor is fed from a downstream edge of the flowmeter.
Regarding claim 5 the recitation”…. the first and second permittivity sensors extend axially at a generally constant distance from the flow axis..”, is ambiguous and overly broad. With emphasis on the term “generally”, this is relative and does not clearly define the distance from the flow axis. The limitation raises the question as to whether the permittivity sensors are at a constant distance or not?
Suggested recitation: “the first and second permittivity sensors extend axially at a constant distance from the flow axis”.
Regarding claim 9 the recitation”…. the first and second permittivity sensors are disposed along a generally constant outer diameter of the inserts.”, is ambiguous and overly broad. With emphasis on the term “generally”, this is relative and does not clearly define the outer diameter of the dielectric inserts. The limitation raises the question as to whether the inserts are at a constant diameter or not?
Suggested recitation: “the first and second permittivity sensors are disposed along a constant outer diameter of the inserts.”.
Regarding claim 16 the recitation”.…. the dielectric inserts have a generally constant outer diameter over an axial length of the dielectric inserts,.”, is ambiguous and overly broad. With emphasis on the term “generally”, this is relative and does not clearly define the outer diameter of the dielectric inserts. The limitation raises the question as to whether the inserts are at a constant diameter or not?
Suggested recitation: “the dielectric inserts have a constant outer diameter over an axial length of the dielectric inserts”.
Claim 17 is rejected based on its dependency of claim 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 6, 7, 10-12 & 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Arsalan et al. (US 10648841 B1)
Regarding claims 1 & 11 Arsalan et al teaches an inlet (implied entrance end to venturi convergence element 20 120 220 fig. 1-3) for (Intended use recitation) receiving a wellbore fluid into the flowmeter 10, the inlet (implied entrance end to venturi convergence element 20 120 220 fig. 1-3) defining an inlet diameter (See circumferential entrance end of 20 120 220 (fig. 1-3) ; an outlet (implied exit end to venturi convergence element 40 140 240 fig. 1-3) for (Intended use recitation) discharging the wellbore fluid (Abstract) from the flowmeter 10, the outlet defining an outlet diameter (See circumferential exit end of 20 120 220 (fig. 1-3); a flow path (inherent fig. 1 -3) extending between the inlet and the outlet along a longitudinal flow axis, the flow path (inherent) including a converging section 20 120 220 downstream of the inlet (Entrance end figs. 1-3) and narrowing 22 122 from the inlet diameter to a throat diameter 30 130 230, and a diverging section 40 140 240 downstream of the converging section 40 140 240 and widening from the throat diameter 30 130 230 (figs. 1-3) to the outlet diameter (exit end (figs. 1-3); at least one sensor 1 2 operable to detect a parameter indicative of the pressures of the wellbore fluid at the inlet diameter and at the throat diameter 30 130 230; and first and second permittivity sensors 50a 50b extending axially along the diverging 40 140 240 and converging sections 20 120 220, respectively, the first and second permittivity sensors 50a 50b being operable to measure parameters indicative of multiphase volume fractions of the wellbore fluid within the diverging 40 140 240 and converging sections 20 120 220.
Regarding claim 2 Arsalan et al teaches the first and second permittivity sensors 50a 50b are mutually orthogonal (col. 6 lines 1-20)(figs. 1-3) microwave resonance sensors (Col. 3 lines 60-62).
Regarding claim 3 Arsalan et al teaches the first and second permittivity sensors 50a 50b 150a 150b 250a 250b each include a connector (Col. 6 lines 25-35) for (Intended use recitation) microwave resonance feed lines at a downstream end thereof such that the first permittivity sensor may be fed from a downstream edge of the flowmeter 10 and the first permittivity sensor 50a 150a 250a may be fed from a midsection of the flowmeter 10.
Regarding claim 4 Arsalan et al teaches the first and second permittivity sensors 50a 50b 150a 150b 250a 250b extend helically (Col. 6 lines 1-20) (fig. 3 & 4) from the connector in an upstream direction around the diverging and converging sections.
Regarding claim 6 Arsalan et al teaches the first and second permittivity sensors 50a 50b 150a 150b 250a 250b are operable to measure a resonant frequency (Col. 3 lines 58-68-Col. 4 lines 1-65)(Col. 6 lines 1-40) and a quality factor of the wellbore fluid (Col. 3 lines 58-68-Col. 4 lines 1-65)(Col. 6 lines 1-40).
Regarding claim 7 Arsalan et al teaches the first and second permittivity sensors 50a 50b 150a 150b 250a 250b extending axially along the diverging section 40 140 240 and the converging 20 120 220 section have differing axial lengths and differing operating frequency bands (figs. 1-4).
Regarding claim 10 Arsalan et al teaches an X-ray source operable to provide X-ray radiation and an X-ray detector array operable to measure the X-ray radiation, the X-ray source and X-ray detector array being disposed on opposite circumferential sides of the flow path such that a first portion of the X-ray radiation passes through flow path and is measured by the X-ray detector array and a second portion of the X-ray radiation passes directly from the X-ray source to the X-ray detector array (Col. 1 lines 30-40).
Regarding claim 12 Arsalan et al teaches the wellbore conduit includes a surface conduit extending from a wellhead disposed over the wellbore (Claim 10 infers the flow meter system utilized at a wellsite).
Regarding claim 14 Arsalan et al teaches a controller operatively coupled to the first and second permittivity sensors to receive the parameters indicative of multiphase volume fractions and to compare the parameters indicative of multiphase volume fractions to predetermined values tabulated within look-up tables to determine the multiphase volume fraction (Col. 8 lines 22-67).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 13 & 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arsalan et al. (US 10648841 B1) in view of Least et al (US 10208574 B2).
Regarding claims 13 & 18 Arsalan et al. teaches all of the basic features of the claimed invention. Arsalan et al. However, Arsalan et al discloses managing a fluid flow of a wellbore but does not explicitly disclose a wellbore conduit that includes a downhole completion string having one or more inflow control devices therein for (Intended use recitation) receiving the wellbore fluid from a geologic formation around the wellbore. Least et al teaches a wellbore flow control system that comprises a wellbore conduit that includes a downhole completion string having one or more inflow control devices therein (Col. 5 lines 14-29).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art of venturi structured wellbore flow systems before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the wellsite venturi flow system as taught by Arsalan et al. with a wellbore flow control system that comprises a wellbore conduit that includes a downhole completion string having one or more inflow control devices therein as taught by Least et al for the purpose of monitoring and minimizing non-uniformity in flow rate with respect to through production.
Regarding claim 19 Arsalan et al. teaches detecting a parameter indicative of pressures of the wellbore fluid at the inlet diameter and at the throat diameter (col. 4 lines 34-45)(Col. 6 lines 25-40)[Claim 8].
Regarding claim 20 Arsalan et al. teaches edge feeding the first permittivity sensor 50a 50b 150a from a connector (Col. 6 lines 25-35) where a wall thickness interposing the first permittivity sensor 50a 50b 150a and the wellbore fluid is at a minimum along the flow path and mid-feeding the second permittivity sensor 50b 150b 250b from a connector (Col. 6 lines 25-35) where a wall thickness interposing the second permittivity sensor and the wellbore fluid is greatest along the flow path (figs. 1-3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 5 the cited prior art does not anticipate nor render obvious diverging and converging sections arranged as an inverted Venturi structure such that a wall thickness of the diverging and converging sections varies in an axial direction and wherein first and second permittivity sensors extend axially at a constant distance from the flow axis along the diverging and converging sections.
Claims 8 &15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 8 the cited prior art does not anticipate nor render obvious an outer housing defining an inlet and the outlet, and first and second dielectric inserts within the outer housing defining diverging and converging sections, and wherein first and second permittivity sensors are disposed radially between the dielectric sensors and the outer housing.
Regarding claim 15 the cited prior art does not anticipate nor render obvious first and second permittivity sensors mutually orthogonal microwave resonance sensors arranged in a helix around dielectric inserts defining diverging and converging sections.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 12405140 B1 Adjustable venturi for multiphase flowmeter
US 20250116541 A1 DYNAMIC VENTURI FOR MULTIPHASE FLOW METERS
US 20230105634 A1 Multiphase flowmeter for realizing accurate measurements of flowrate of e.g. oil, in pipeline in oil industry, has processor for determining flow rate and cut data of components of fluid mixture that is flowing through chamber based on position data and pressure data
US 20220090947 A1 WIDE RANGE MULTI-PHASE FLOW METER
CA 2964381 C INFLOW CONTROL SYSTEM FOR USE IN A WELLBORE
US 8322228 B2 Method of measuring flow properties of a multiphase fluid
US 20110185805 A1 VARIABLE THROAT VENTURI FLOW METER
US 7107860 B2 Flow meter using an expanded tube section and sensitive differential pressure measurement
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRE J ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2174. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 9am-5PM.
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, Kristina M Deherrera can be reached at (303) 297-4237. 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.
/ANDRE J ALLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855