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 Objections
Claims 36 and 37 are objected to because of the following informalities: it appears that these claims should depend from claim 5, which is a method claim. Otherwise, there would be numerous issues with antecedent basis since claim 1 is an apparatus claim and does not have basis for most of the limitations found in claims 36 and 37. 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 40 and 45 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.
Claim 40 recites the limitation "bottom wiper plug" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because claim 38 only discloses a top wiper plug. It is noted that claim 39 provides proper antecedent basis for a bottom wiper plug.
Claim 45 recites the limitation "the velocity of tube wave propagation" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because claim 38 provides basis for pressure pulse propagation velocity, but not the velocity of tube wave propagation. Perhaps this claim should depend from claim 41?
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by US 20210148219 to Mericas.
Regarding claim 1, Mericas discloses an apparatus, comprising: a droppable object 55; and a casing joint 10 that comprises at least two positive upsets 15 and 20 (figs. 1 and 3).
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210148219 to Mericas.
Mericas teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one positive upset has a size that is smaller than that which would prevent passage of the droppable object through an interior of a casing string (casing joint 10 includes first series of restrictions 15 and second series of restrictions 20 [upsets] having a size allowing for downhole device 55 [droppable object] to pass, Fig. 1 and 3, and, restrictions may comprise any length or depth within the tubular, Para. [0014]). However, Mericas fails to explicitly disclose a positive upset that has a size of at least 3 mm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a positive upset that has a size of at least 3 mm, since discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to provide an upset size that makes a significant pressure change within the casing joint in order to locate the droppable object.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mericas in view of US 20180334881 to Dallas.
Mericas teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the casing joint 10 has a length (fig. 1). However, it is not expressly taught that the length is between 3m and 12m.
Dallas teaches a casing joint 30a similar to that of Mericas (fig. 4a), wherein it is further taught that the length can be 12m or less (paragraph 0027). It would have been considered obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have the length be 12m or less, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). The motivation for doing so would be to provide sufficient distance between upsets in order to distinctly sense the location of the droppable object.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mericas in view of US 2232593 to Diescher.
Mericas teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the casing joint 10 has an inside diameter (fig. 1). However, it is not expressly taught that the diameter is between 3in and 36in.
Diescher teaches a casing joint similar to that of Mericas (fig. 1), wherein it is further taught that the inside diameter can be 6in (page 2, lines 57-61). It would have been considered obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have the diameter be 6in, or between 3 and 36in, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). The motivation for doing so would be to provide sufficient distance between upsets in order to provide clearance for the droppable object used in a variety of drill string sizes.
Claim(s) 5-6 and 32-45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210062640 to Demidov et al in view of US 20210148219 to Mericas (applied to claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 5, Demidov teaches a method for determining a position of a droppable object 107 inside a casing string, comprising: (i) installing the casing string into a liquid filled borehole, wherein the casing string comprises at least one casing joint that comprises a positive upset 502; (ii) installing a pressure data acquisition system 702 at a wellsite, and a pressure transducer 701 at a wellhead; (iii) placing the droppable object inside the casing string; (iv) pumping a fluid behind the droppable object, causing the droppable object to travel through the interior of the casing string and pass through the at least one casing joint that comprises the positive upset having a size, but smaller than that which would prevent passage of the droppable object through the inside of the casing string, thereby generating a pressure pulse; (v) recording the pressure data with a pressure transducer, and transmitting the pressure data to the pressure data acquisition system; and (vi) processing the pressure data mathematically by obtaining the pressure pulses, pulse reflections or both, and determining the position of the droppable object (figs. 5-10; claim 1; and at least paragraphs 0024-0030).
However, Demidov does not expressly teach that there are at least two upsets in the casing joint, or that the size of the upset is at least 3mm.
Mericas teaches a casing joint 10 similar to that of Demidov, wherein it is further taught that there at least two positive upsets 15 and 20 (figs. 1 and 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Demidov and Mericas before him prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the casing joint taught by Demidov to include the at least two positive upsets of Mericas, in order to obtain the predictable result of having a known pressure signature for the specific set of upsets from Mericas so that an operator will then know that the downhole device passed through that specific series of restrictions at the time the pattern of pressure change was observed (paragraph 0011 or Mericas). However, Demidov and Mericas fail to explicitly disclose a positive upset that has a size of at least 3 mm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a positive upset that has a size of at least 3 mm, since discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to provide an upset size that makes a significant pressure change within the casing joint in order to locate the droppable object.
Regarding claim 6, the method of claim 5, wherein the droppable object is a top cementing plug, or a bottom cementing plug, or a drill pipe dart (claim 2 of Demidov).
Regarding claim 32, the method of claim 5, wherein the mathematical processing of the pressure pulses and pulse reflections comprises cepstral analysis, comprising producing a pressure cepstrogram in coordinates of quefrency and time, and calculating the pressure pulse reflection time from the droppable object traveling through the casing string (claim 5 of Demidov).
Regarding claim 33, the method of claim 5, wherein the mathematical processing further comprises determination of a tube wave velocity, based on the pressure pulse reflection time from a stationary object with a known position in the wellbore (claim 6 of Demidov).
Regarding claim 34, the method of claim 5, where the reflection time from the droppable object is converted to the position of droppable object by multiplication by tube wave velocity (claim 7 of Demidov).
Regarding claim 35, the method of claim 5, wherein the mathematical processing comprises at least one of analyzing a pressure spectrogram and determination of pressure pulses or analyzing a normalized energy spectral density of the pressure data, wherein the normalized energy spectral density is computed by integrating the pressure spectrogram along the frequency axis followed by normalization or a correlation between anticipated pressure pulses based on casing tally information and pressure pulses from the pressure spectrogram or normalized energy spectral density (claims 8-11 of Demidov).
Regarding claim 36, under the assumption that this should be a method claim dependent on claim 5, wherein the locating of the droppable object is performed in real time during pumping, allowing an operator to control movement of the droppable object (claim 12 of Demidov).
Regarding claim 37, under the assumption that this should be a method claim dependent on claim 5, wherein the fluid is a displacement fluid (paragraph 0029 of Demidov).
Regarding claim 38, Demidov teaches a method for cementing a borehole penetrating a subterranean formation, comprising: (i) installing a casing string into the borehole, wherein the borehole is liquid-filled, wherein the casing string comprises at least one casing joint that comprises a positive upset 502; (ii) installing a pressure data acquisition system 702 at a wellsite, and at least one pressure transducer 701 at a wellhead; (iii) placing a top cementing plug 107 inside the casing string; (iv) pumping a displacement fluid behind the top cementing plug, causing the top cementing plug to travel through the interior of the casing string and pass through the positive upset having a size, but smaller than that which would prevent passage of the top cementing plug through the casing string, thereby generating a pressure pulse; (v) using the at least one pressure transducer to detect the pressure pulse and transmit pressure data to the pressure data acquisition system, the pressure data comprising pressure pulse propagation velocity and reflection time; and (vi) processing the pressure data mathematically and determining the position of the top cementing plug (figs. 5-10; claim 14; and at least paragraphs 0024-0050).
However, Demidov does not expressly teach that there are at least two upsets in the casing joint, or that the size of the upset is at least 3mm.
Mericas teaches a casing joint 10 similar to that of Demidov, wherein it is further taught that there at least two positive upsets 15 and 20 (figs. 1 and 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Demidov and Mericas before him prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the casing joint taught by Demidov to include the at least two positive upsets of Mericas, in order to obtain the predictable result of having a known pressure signature for the specific set of upsets from Mericas so that an operator will then know that the downhole device passed through that specific series of restrictions at the time the pattern of pressure change was observed (paragraph 0011 or Mericas). However, Demidov and Mericas fail to explicitly disclose a positive upset that has a size of at least 3 mm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a positive upset that has a size of at least 3 mm, since discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to provide an upset size that makes a significant pressure change within the casing joint in order to locate the droppable object.
Regarding claim 39, the method of claim 38, further comprising: (a) placing a bottom cementing plug inside the casing string; (b) pumping a cement slurry behind the bottom cementing plug, causing the bottom cementing plug to travel through the interior of the casing string and pass through the at least one region with a negative or a positive change of inner cross-sectional dimension, thereby generating a pressure pulse; (c) using the at least one pressure transducer to detect the pressure pulse and transmit pressure data to the pressure data acquisition system, the pressure data comprising a pressure pulse propagation velocity and a reflection time; and (d) processing the pressure data mathematically and determining the position of the bottom cementing plug (paragraph 0041 of Demidov).
Regarding claim 40, as best understood to depend from claim 39, wherein the mathematical processing of the pressure pulses and pulse reflections comprises cepstral analysis, comprising producing a pressure cepstrogram in coordinates of quefrency and time, and calculating the pressure pulse reflection time from the top or bottom wiper plug (claim 5 of Demidov).
Regarding claim 41, the method of claim 38, wherein the mathematical processing further comprises determination of a tube wave velocity, based on the pressure pulse reflection time from a stationary object with a known position in the wellbore (claim 6 of Demidov).
Regarding claim 42, the method of claim 38, where the reflection time from the droppable object is converted to the position of droppable object by multiplication by tube wave velocity (claim 7 of Demidov).
Regarding claim 43, the method of claim 38, wherein the mathematical processing comprises at least one of analyzing a pressure spectrogram and determination of pressure pulses or analyzing a normalized energy spectral density of the pressure data, wherein the normalized energy spectral density is computed by integrating the pressure spectrogram along the frequency axis followed by normalization or a correlation between anticipated pressure pulses based on casing tally information and pressure pulses from the pressure spectrogram or normalized energy spectral density (claims 8-11 of Demidov).
Regarding claim 44, the method of claim 38, wherein the locating of the cementing plug is performed in real time during pumping, allowing an operator to make instant decisions concerning treatment progress (claim 24 of Demidov).
Regarding claim 45, as best understood to depend from claim 41, wherein the velocity of tube wave propagation is taken from measurements recorded while cementing a previous section or a neighbouring well with similar characteristics (claim 25 of Demidov).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on form 892 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 SHANE BOMAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7026. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am-3:30pm EST M-Th.
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.
/SHANE BOMAR/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3674