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 Objections
Claims 6, 7, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 recites “the apparent density of component of the representative gas” which should read “components” for consistency with the preceding “components of the representative gas.”
Claims 7 and 15 each recite “an interative computation,” which should read “an iterative computation.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 5, 6, 8, 13, 14, and 16 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.
Claims 5, 6, and 8 depend from claim 3, and claims 13, 14, and 16 depend from claim 11, each reciting the phrase “determining the linear attenuation coefficient[s] for [the] components of the gas.” Claims 3 and 11 recite two different gases, “a gas mixture” whose composition is being determined and “a representative gas of known composition” in which the coefficients are measured. The phrase “the gas” lacks antecedent basis in the claims and it cannot be determined which gas is referenced. For the purposes of examination, the phrase will be interpreted as the “reference gas”.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-14, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ATKINSON (US 20070144268 A1) in view of PINGUET et al. (US 20100140496 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 9 and 17, ATKINSON discloses a method, comprising:
measuring attenuation of gamma photons in a gas mixture (densitometer 120 with a radioactive source 121 generating a low-energy beam with a peak energy at 30 keV and high-energy beam at 356 keV and a receiver 122 that measures attenuation of the beams as an oil/gas fluid mixture flows through the pipe; [0010, 0023-0024, 0030]); and
determining composition of the gas mixture using the measured attenuation and determined linear attenuation coefficients (the mass attenuation coefficient is a composition sensitive method comprising solving for component fractions; [0024, 0030, 0036-0042, 0049]).
ATKINSON discloses the mixture containing oil, water, in addition to hydrocarbon gas and H2S. ATKINSON discloses that the model accommodates any number of additional components by adding energies ([0053]), but does not specify the mixture further consisting of CO2, or measuring the temperature and pressure of the gas and using them in the determination step.
PNG
media_image1.png
296
786
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3 of ATKINSON
In the same field of endeavor, PINGUET discloses a method of multi-energy gamma fraction metering for well fluid ([0006, 0032]), comprising measuring pressure and temperature to determine gas density ([0006]), and identifying CO2 as a heavy-atom component of that a same gamma attenuation measurement detects ([0078]). The application of a known technique (composition analysis through multi-energy gamma fractioning) to a known fluid (well fluid) with predictable results, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing.
PNG
media_image2.png
541
734
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4 of PINGUET
Regarding claims 2, 10, and 18, ATKINSON discloses photons at two energy levels (30 and 356 KeV; [0024, 0050]).
Regarding claims 3 and 11, ATKINSON discloses determining linear attenuation coefficients for components of the gas by measuring attenuation of the gamma photons at two energy levels ([0024, 0050]). ATKINSON does not disclose the calibration measurement is made in a representative gas of known composition consisting essentially of hydrocarbons, CO2, and H2S. PINGUET discloses that gamma fraction measurements are set at the beginning with the introduction of the mass attenuation of each component expected to flow through the fraction meter which can be done manually based on the composition of each fluid known a prior of the measurement ([0008]), and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the reasons set forth in claims 1 and 9 above.
Regarding claims 4, 12, and 19, ATKINSON discloses that n energies resolve n+1 components ([0053]), so that a mixture of 2 unknown fractions summing to one is resolved with one energy ([0035]).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, ATKINSON requires a single phase densities as input ([0038]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to compute the hydrocarbon density in the representative gas from the measurement temperature and pressure using an equation of state as a conventional means of obtaining a gas density from temperature and pressure that PINQUET’s teachings calls for, with predictable results.
Regarding claims 6 and 14, ATKINSON discloses that the attenuation at each energy is A = D v p ([0030]) with v available from NIST tables for a component of known composition ([0032]), so that given a measured attenuation of a calibration fluid and its density, the density term for each component follows from the measured attenuation, the fluid density, and the tabulated mass attenuation coefficients. PINQUET teaches obtaining the fluid density from pressure and temperature ([0006]). It would have been obvious to determine the component densities of the representative gas in this way for the reasons given above regarding claims 3 and 5.
Regarding claims 8 and 16, ATKINSON discloses treating the hydrocarbon gas as a single component with single mass attenuation coefficient and fraction ([0033, 0037]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 15 and 20 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: the prior art fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other steps, wherein the method further comprises determining the apparent density of component of the representative gas is performed using an iterative computation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASEY BRYANT whose telephone number is (571)270-7329. The examiner can normally be reached M-F // 7-3P EST.
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, UZMA ALAM can be reached at 571-272-3995. 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.
CASEY BRYANT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/CASEY BRYANT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights