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 .
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.
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, 4, 6, 16, 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elsaadi et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0370205) in view of Du et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0034973) and Rendusara et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0290126).
In reference to claim 1, Elsaadi discloses a method for downhole analysis at an analysis enabled gauge 204 associated with an electric submersible pump 110, ESP, the method comprising:
receiving instructions from a gauge surface readout 201 for (1) measuring downhole a given parameter (par. 0029, measured by sensors 116) of the ESP 110 as a function of a variable (par. 0025, “the surface computing device may send commands to the base gauge to poll various sensors”), and (2) processing the given parameter for a first range of the variable (par. 0032);
measuring the given parameter and generating associated raw data (par. 0029, with sensors 116);
downhole processing the raw data associated with the given parameter, for the first range of the variable, to generate processed results (par. 0032, “the processing device 190 is able to receive data from ESP sensors 116”); and
transmitting the processed results to the gauge surface readout 201 (par. 0033, “the base gauge 204 receives power and data from a surface power drive and computing device 201 and transmits data to the same”).
Elsaadi discloses transmitting power downhole to the analysis enabled gauge 204 and data uphole to the gauge surface readout 201 (par. 0033) but does not make clear if this is done on the same cable. In the event par. 0033 is not a proper teaching of this, Elsaadi also discloses that a single cable 208 can transmit both power and data (par. 0033). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to transmit the results to the surface using a power cable of the ESP with a reasonable expectation of success to reduce the number of cables required to operate the system.
Elsaadi also fails to disclose processing the raw data to generate displayable results which have a smaller digital footprint than the raw data.
Du discloses processing data to generate displayable results (Fig. 8 shows various displayable results) so that it has a smaller digital footprint prior to transmission (par. 0170, sensor data is “compressed”, implying it has a smaller footprint after compression). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to process the data so that it has a smaller digital footprint with a reasonable expectation of success so that the data can be more easily transmitted or stored.
Elsaadi also fails to disclose that the parameter is measured with a frequency up to 1 MHz and transmitting data in bits per second. Rendusara discloses that a given parameter is measured at 1 kHz (par. 0058; the term “up to 1 MHz” is interpreted as “between zero and 1 MHz”, see MPEP 2173.05(c)) and transmitting data at bits per second (par. 0041). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take measurements at kHz and communicate at bits per second with a reasonable expectation of success as both of these are known in the art to be effective for conducting measurements and transmitting data from those measurements.
In reference to claim 4, Elsaadi discloses that the given parameter is a vibration level (par. 0029).
In reference to claim 6, Elsaadi discloses adjusting an operation of the ESP based on the processed results (pars. 0031 and 0032).
In reference to claim 16, Elsaadi discloses a downhole analysis system comprising:
an analysis enabled gauge 204 configured to work with an electric submersible pump, ESP 110;
a gauge surface readout 201 in communication with the analysis enabled gauge 204; and
wherein the analysis enabled gauge 204 is configured to,
receive instructions from the gauge surface readout 201 for (1) measuring downhole a given parameter of the ESP 110 (par. 0029, measured by sensors 116) as a function of a variable (par. 0025, “the surface computing device may send commands to the base gauge to poll various sensors”), and (2) processing the given parameter for a first range of the variable (par. 0032);
measure the given parameter (par. 0029, measured by sensors 116) with a frequency to generate associated raw data;
downhole process the given parameter, within a first range of the variable, to generate processed results (par. 0032, “the processing device 190 is able to receive data from ESP sensors 116”); and
transmit the processed results to the gauge surface readout 201 (par. 0033, “the base gauge 204 receives power and data from a surface power drive and computing device 201 and transmits data to the same”).
Elsaadi discloses transmitting power downhole to the analysis enabled gauge 204 and data uphole to the gauge surface readout 201 (par. 0033) but does not make clear if this is done on the same cable. In the event par. 0033 is not a proper teaching of this, Elsaadi also discloses that a single cable 208 can transmit both power and data (par. 0033). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to transmit the results to the surface using a power cable of the ESP with a reasonable expectation of success to reduce the number of cables required to operate the system.
Elsaadi also fails to disclose processing the raw data to generate results which have a smaller digital footprint than the raw data.
Du discloses processing data to generate displayable results (Fig. 8 shows various displayable results) so that it has a smaller digital footprint prior (par. 0170, sensor data is “compressed”, implying it has a smaller footprint after compression). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to process the data so that it has a smaller digital footprint with a reasonable expectation of success so that the data can be more easily transmitted or stored.
Elsaadi fails to disclose that the given parameter is measured with a frequency in up to 1 MHz while a communication between the analysis enabled gauge and the surface gauge readout is at bits per second.
Rendusara discloses that a given parameter is measured at 1 kHz (par. 0058; the term “up to 1 MHz” is interpreted as “between zero and 1 MHz”, see MPEP 2173.05(c)) and transmitting data at bits per second (par. 0041). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take measurements at kHz and communicate at bits per second with a reasonable expectation of success as both of these are known in the art to be effective for conducting measurements and transmitting data from those measurements.
In reference to claim 19, Elsaadi discloses that the given parameter is a vibration level (par. 0029).
In reference to claim 21, Rendusara discloses that the parameter has a frequency of 1 kHz (par. 0058).
Claims 2, 3, 10, 11, 13, 15, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elsaadi et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0370205) in view of Du et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0034973) and Rendusara et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0290126) as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, and further in view of Deacon et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0128085).
In reference to claim 2, Elsaadi discloses sending instructions for the analysis enabled gauge to measure a parameter but not the given parameter for a second range of the variable, which is different from the first range. Deacon discloses that sensor arrangements 130a and 130b can measure a parameter over a first range and a second range (par. 0090). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to measure a parameter over first and second ranges with a reasonable expectation of success so that more accurate measurements of the parameter can be acquired.
In reference to claim 3, Deacon discloses that one range is narrower than the other range (par. 0015, “The first range may lie within the second range”).
In reference to claim 10, Elsaadi discloses a method for downhole analysis at a gauge surface readout associated with an electric submersible pump, ESP 110, the method comprising:
transmitting instructions to an analysis enabled gauge 204 for (1) measuring downhole a given parameter of the ESP 110 as a function of a variable (par. 0029, measured by sensors 116) of the ESP 110 as a function of a variable (par. 0025, “the surface computing device may send commands to the base gauge to poll various sensors”) and (2) processing the given parameter for a first range of the variable (par. 0032);
receiving processed results processed by the analysis enabled gauge 204, based on measurements performed downhole on the ESP 110 (par. 0029, with sensors 116) with a frequency.
Elsaadi discloses transmitting power downhole to the analysis enabled gauge 204 and data uphole to the gauge surface readout 201 (par. 0033) but does not make clear if this is done on the same cable. In the event par. 0033 is not a proper teaching of this, Elsaadi also discloses that a single cable 208 can transmit both power and data (par. 0033). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to transmit the results to the surface using a power cable of the ESP with a reasonable expectation of success to reduce the number of cables required to operate the system.
Elsaadi discloses sending instructions for the analysis enabled gauge to measure a parameter but not the given parameter for a second range of the variable, which is different from the first range. Deacon discloses that sensor arrangements 130a and 130b can measure a parameter over a first range and a second range (par. 0090). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to measure a parameter over first and second ranges with a reasonable expectation of success so that more accurate measurements of the parameter can be acquired.
Elsaadi also fails to disclose processing the raw data to generate results which have a smaller digital footprint than the raw data.
Du discloses processing data to generate displayable results (Fig. 8 shows various displayable results) that have a smaller digital footprint prior (par. 0170, sensor data is “compressed”, implying it has a smaller footprint after compression). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to process the data so that it has a smaller digital footprint with a reasonable expectation of success so that the data can be more easily transmitted or stored.
Elsaadi fails to disclose that the given parameter is measured at a frequency up to 1 MHz while a communication between the analysis enabled gauge and the surface gauge readout is at bits per second.
Rendusara discloses that a given parameter is measured at 1 kHz (par. 0058; the term “up to 1 MHz” is interpreted as “between zero and 1 MHz”, see MPEP 2173.05(c)) and transmitting data at bits per second (par. 0041). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take measurements at kHz and communicate at bits per second with a reasonable expectation of success as both of these are known in the art to be effective for conducting measurements and transmitting data from those measurements.
In reference to claim 11, Deacon discloses that one range is narrower than the other range (par. 0015, “The first range may lie within the second range”).
In reference to claim 13, Elsaadi discloses that the given parameter is a vibration level (par. 0029).
In reference to claim 15, Elsaadi discloses adjusting an operation of the ESP based on the results (pars. 0031 and 0032).
In reference to claim 17, Elsaadi discloses sending instructions for the analysis enabled gauge to measure a parameter but not the given parameter for a second range of the variable, which is different from the first range. Deacon discloses that sensor arrangements 130a and 130b can measure a parameter over a first range and a second range (par. 0090). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to measure a parameter over first and second ranges with a reasonable expectation of success so that more accurate measurements of the parameter can be acquired.
In reference to claim 18, Deacon discloses that one range is narrower than the other range (par. 0015, “The first range may lie within the second range”).
Claims 5 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elsaadi et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0370205) in view of Du et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0034973), Rendusara et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0290126) and Deacon et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0128085) as applied to claims 4 and 19 above, and further in view of Toh et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0272898).
In reference to claims 5 and 20, Elsaadi fails to disclose that the variable is a rotation frequency.
Toh discloses that a sensor on an ESP can measure rotation frequency (par. 0003, “shaft RPM”). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to measure rotation frequency with a reasonable expectation of success so that the rotational speed of the pump can be determined.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elsaadi et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0370205) in view of Du et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0034973) and Rendusara et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0290126) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Blanckaert et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0096889).
In reference to claim 7, Elsaadi fails to disclose that the step of measuring the given parameter includes measuring a vibration of the ESP with a sensing device including one or more of an accelerometer, a MEMS, or an acoustic sensor.
Blanckaert discloses measuring a vibration of an ESP 241 (par. 0182) with an accelerometer (pars. 0183). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to measure vibration with an accelerometer with a reasonable expectation of success as it amounts to a substitution of a specific vibration sensing means for the generic vibration sensing means disclosed by Elsaadi.
In reference to claims 8 and 9, Elsaadi discloses sensors 116 and 120 (Figs. 2a) but it is unclear where each of the sensors are located. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to directly locate the sensors on the analysis enabled gauge or on the ESP with a reasonable expectation of success so that parameters can be measured at those locations. Further, it has been held that rearranging the parts of an invention without altering their function is an obvious design choice. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elsaadi et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0370205) in view of Du et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0034973), Rendusara et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0290126) and Deacon et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0128085) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Toh et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0272898).
In reference to claim 14, Elsaadi fails to disclose that the variable is a rotation frequency.
Toh discloses that a sensor on an ESP can measure rotation frequency (par. 0003, “shaft RPM”). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to measure rotation frequency with a reasonable expectation of success so that the rotational speed of the pump can be determined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Applicant's arguments in reference to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In reference to claims 1 and 16, Applicant argues that the combination of Elsaadi and Du would be improper as the combination would exacerbate the problem that Elsaadi is addressing, which is power consumption of the downhole device and that this renders Elsaadi unsatisfactory for its intended purpose (MPEP 2143.01(V)). The examiner finds this unpersuasive as reducing power consumption is one factor of Elsaadi and not the intended purpose of Elsaadi. The intended purpose of Elsaadi is to provide a downhole ESP with gauges to monitor the ESP. While incorporating the downhole processing of Du into Elsaadi would certainly increase power consumption, it also provides the benefit compressing data to relieve other concerns related to data transmission.
In reference to claims 2, 3, 10, 11, 17 and 18, Applicant argues that the rejection should be withdrawn as the cited prior art does not disclose features such as bidirectional interactivity, fine tuning of analysis for specific points of interest, root cause analysis functionality and identification of specific component failures. The examiner does not dispute whether or not Applicant’s invention is capable of these features, but none of them are recited in the claims so it is not clear how any of these arguments are related to patentability of the claims.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRAD HARCOURT whose telephone number is (571)272-7303. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9am to 6pm.
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, Doug Hutton can be reached at (571)272-4137. 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.
/BRAD HARCOURT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674
4/08/26
Prosecution Insights