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 .
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-10, 12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carrahoglu et al. (WO 2021/037586) in view of Godfrey (U.S. Pub. 2013/0298635).
Regarding claims 1 and 18, Carrahoglu discloses (Figs. 1-7) a method comprising:
positioning a fiber optic sensor 162 (see par. [0039]) along a length of a wellbore or a wellbore structure positioned within the wellbore (as shown in Fig. 1), wherein the fiber optic sensor 162 comprises an optical cable [0039];
obtaining, by a computing device 160 [0041], fiber optic sensing data [0039]-[0041] acquired by the fiber optic sensor 162 and an optical interrogator 164 [0041];
processing, by the computing device 160, the fiber optic sensing data [0039]-[0041] to identify a multiphase fluid flow or a gas signature of gas within the wellbore (see pars. [0037]-[0038] and [0067]);
tracking, by the computing device 160, a movement of the gas along the length of the optical cable 162 by determining a flow velocity of the moving gas [0037]-[0038]; wherein the tracking indicates movement of the gas towards a surface of the wellbore or a surface of the wellbore structure (i.e. the fluids/gas that enter the tubular 120 flow to the surface: [0035]);
detecting, by the computing device 160, a presence of the moving gas towards a surface of the wellbore or a surface of the wellbore structure (i.e. at surface sensor system 152: [0043]; in addition, the system 160/162 detects gas that is moving toward the surface: [0035], [0037]-[0038]); and
transmitting, by the computing device 160, a control signal to a controller of machinery operating in the wellbore after detecting the presence of the moving gas (see pars. [0030], [0067], [0089], etc.).
Regarding claims 1 and 18, Carrahoglu does not disclose identifying, from the fiber optic sensing data, respective locations of the gas at a plurality of times and determining a flow velocity of the moving gas.
Godfrey discloses identifying, from the fiber optic sensing data, respective locations [0016] of the gas at a plurality of times (see pars. [0009], [0019], [0027], and [0055]) and determining a flow velocity of the moving gas (see pars. [0005], [0010], and [0052]-[0055]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Carrahoglu’s method/system to include identifying, from the fiber optic sensing data, respective locations of the gas at a plurality of times and determining a flow velocity of the moving gas.
The method of Carrahoglu in view of Godfrey, as applied above in the rejection of claim 1, is performed by the apparatus (and meets the limitations of) claim 18.
Regarding claims 2 and 19, Carrahoglu discloses (Figs. 1-7) the fiber optic sensor comprises a distributed acoustic sensor [0031].
Regarding claims 3 and 20, Carrahoglu discloses (Figs. 1-7) the fiber optic sensor comprises a distributed temperature sensor [0031].
Regarding claim 4, Carrahoglu discloses (Figs. 1-7) predicting, by the computing device 160, an arrival time that the gas will reach the surface of the wellbore (at sensor 152: [0043]) based on the determined flow velocity [0043]-[0044].
Regarding claim 5, Carrahoglu discloses (Figs. 1-7) the flow velocity is determined using a numerical model [0094] that simulates a bullheading operation occurring in the wellbore (which includes injecting a fluid into the wellbore: [0086]).
Regarding claim 6, Carrahoglu discloses (Figs. 1-7) the flow velocity is determined using a numerical model [0094] that simulates an injection line operation occurring in the wellbore [0086].
Regarding claim 7, Carrahoglu discloses (Figs. 1-7) the flow velocity is determined using a numerical model [0094] that simulates a migration condition occurring in the wellbore (i.e. fluid leaks, etc. [0038], [0046]).
Regarding claim 8, Carrahoglu discloses (Figs. 1-7) the flow velocity is determined using signal-to-noise analysis of the fiber optic sensing data (see pars. [0065], [0071]), wherein the fiber optic sensing data comprises distributed acoustic sensor data [0031].
Regarding claim 9, Carrahoglu discloses (Figs. 1-7) the flow velocity is determined using an analysis of an energy spectrum of the fiber optic sensing data [0067], wherein the fiber optic sensing data comprises distributed acoustic sensor data [0031].
Regarding claim 10, Carrahoglu discloses (Figs. 1-7) the flow velocity is determined using a frequency-wavenumber transform [0087] of a gradient of a frequency band energy of distributed acoustic sensor data over time (see pars. [0031] and [0086]-[0087]).
Regarding claim 12, Carrahoglu discloses (Figs. 1-7) the flow velocity is determined using a 1D continuous wavelet transform [0081]-[0082] of the energy spectrum (see pars. [0067] and [0081]-[0082]).
Regarding claim 14, Carrahoglu discloses (Figs. 1-7) the flow velocity is determined using an analysis of a difference plots for a temperature of the moving gas [0096], wherein the fiber optic sensing data comprises distributed temperature sensor data [0031].
Regarding claim 15, Carrahoglu discloses (Figs. 1-7) the controller 160 is part of a control system for drilling operations of the wellbore (see pars. [0034], [0041], and [0099]).
Regarding claim 16, Carrahoglu discloses (Figs. 1-7) the controller 160 is part of a control system for managed pressure drilling operations of the wellbore (see pars. [0019], [0043], and [0099]).
Regarding claim 17, Carrahoglu discloses (Figs. 1-7) the control signal directs the controller 160 to adjust an operational parameter of the machinery operating in the wellbore (see pars. [0016], [0034], and [0090]).
Claims 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carrahoglu et al. (WO 2021/037586) in view of Godfrey (U.S. Pub. 2013/0298635), and further in view of Vincelette et al. (U.S. Pub. 2018/0320505).
Regarding claims 11 and 13, Carrahoglu’s modified method is applied as above, but does not disclose a frequency of the distributed acoustic sensor data is between 0 and 2 Hz; and a frequency of the distributed acoustic sensor data is between 2 and 5000 Hz.
Vincelette discloses a frequency of the distributed acoustic sensor data is between 2 and 5000 Hz (i.e. can be 20 Hz: [0038]). Vincelette also disclose that the DAS system may be capable of sensing in the sub-acoustic range (i.e., <20 Hz: [0038]).
Thus, since Vincelette discloses that the frequency of the DAS sensor system is a results-effective variable that can be optimized to produce the desired spatial resolution – see MPEP 2144.05(II) – it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Carrahoglu’s method so that a frequency of the distributed acoustic sensor data is between 0 and 2 Hz; and a frequency of the distributed acoustic sensor data is between 2 and 5000 Hz, as taught by Vincelette.
Such a modification would be the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results – see MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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 Benjamin Schmitt, whose telephone number is (571) 270-7930. The examiner can normally be reached M-F | 8:30-5:00.
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at (571) 272-1674. 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.
/BENJAMIN R SCHMITT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights