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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 9-20 are hereby withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on December 30th, 2025.
Claims 1-8 will be examined herein.
Claim Objections
Claims 4 & 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4, line 1 should read “wherein the one or more optimal control actions determined for the”
Claim 5, line 1 should read “wherein the step of determining the one or more optimal control”
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 1-8 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 1 recites the limitation "the electric submersible pump" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this case, while the claim provides antecedent basis for “an electric submersible pump startup”, this startup procedure does not implicitly provide antecedent basis for an electric submersible pump itself. Thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be discerned, and thus, the claim is rendered indefinite. For examination purposes herein, the examiner has interpreted this limitation as “an electric submersible pump”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the control algorithm" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be discerned, and thus, the claim is rendered indefinite. For examination purposes herein, the examiner has interpreted this limitation as “a control algorithm”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the startup schedule" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this case, while the claim provides antecedent basis for “an electric submersible pump startup”, this phrase does not provide antecedent basis for an electric submersible pump startup schedule. Thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be discerned, and thus, the claim is rendered indefinite. For examination purposes herein, the examiner has interpreted this limitation as “a startup schedule”.
Claim 1, lines 7-8 recite the limitation “the constraints for the startup operational parameters”; this limitation renders the claim indefinite for multiple reasons. In this case, while the claim provides antecedent basis for “constraints” (in general) in line 6, this phrase does not provide clear antecedent basis for “constraints for the startup operational parameters” as recited in lines 7-8. In other words, this difference claim language introduces ambiguity as to whether the limitation in lines 7-8 is 1) attempting to refer back to the “constraints” recited in line 6 or 2) introducing additional “constraints” altogether. Thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be discerned, and thus, the claim is rendered indefinite. For examination purposes herein, the examiner has applied the first interpretation.
Claim 1, line 8 recites the limitation “a processor”; this renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear whether this limitation 1) is attempting to refer back to the “processor” recited earlier in the claim or 2) introducing another processor altogether. Thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be discerned, and thus, the claim is rendered indefinite. For examination purposes herein, the examiner has applied the first interpretation.
Claim 1, line 9 recites the limitation “the processor”; this renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear whether this limitation referring back to 1) the “processor” recited in line 2 or 2) the “processor” recited in line 8. Thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be discerned, and thus, the claim is rendered indefinite. For examination purposes herein, the examiner has applied the first interpretation.
Claim 5, lines 1-2 recite “wherein the step of determining the optimal control actions occurs at every time-step”; this limitation renders the claim indefinite for multiple reasons. At the outset, the phrase “time-step” is ambiguous as it is not clear what length of time is being required by this language. Additionally, as far as the examiner understands the invention, it appears that the phrasing “every time-step” is of similar scope to the phrasing “real-time” (i.e. occurring continuously). If this is the case, it is not clear how (or if) the scope of Claim 5 actually comports with the scope of Claim 1. This is because Claim 1 appears to require step (d) to occur after steps (a) and (b) have occurred, rendering it impossible for step (d) to occur at every moment in time. Thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be discerned, and thus, the claim is rendered indefinite. For examination purposes herein, the examiner has interpreted “occurs at every time-step” as simply “occurs repeatedly”.
Appropriate corrections are required.
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.
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) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0066501 to Chidiac et al. in view of US 2016/0290077 to Aske et al.
In regards to independent Claim 1, and with particular reference to Figures 1-7, Chidiac et al. (Chidiac hereinafter) discloses:
1. A method (Figs. 2-9) of using an electric submersible pump startup using model-predictive control (“modeling effects of operational procedures during startup of a fluid production or injection system at a field”; Abstract; see also “Subsea production systems may transport hydrocarbons from a subsea reservoir up to a delivery point (e.g., on or near the water surface or onshore earth surface” at para. 3), the electric submersible pump (10, 18, 20; Fig. 1) having a processor (14; Fig. 1; para. 25; “multiple microprocessors”), the method comprising the steps of: (a) defining an objective of the control algorithm (“The overall workflow incorporates equipment, field design, control systems, and simulation to generate a complete system capable of handling quick efficient field startups throughout the field life”; para. 5; see also “design the production system in view of the anticipated operations of the production system for the life of the field” at para. 23 and “identify effective and efficient startup equipment and procedures for the field or well production system(s)” at para. 24); (b) develop a model-based offline startup schedule (Figs. 2-8; paras. 5, 23; “a dynamic integrated asset model that incorporates predictive and/or optimization modeling of the operation of fluid production and/or injection equipment connected to a reservoir (e.g., a subsea hydrocarbon reservoir)”) based on startup operational parameters (para. 23; “design parameters in a startup sequence(s) for a well”; para. 45; steps 134-136 of Fig. 7), constraints (para. 23; “a flow rate(s) limit per well”; para. 56; “desired or target values”; “new set points”; steps 132-148 of Fig. 7; the “integrated dynamic model” provides constraints for the operational parameters), and a physical model (“integrated workflow 12” of Fig. 1, which encompasses the “reservoir model”, “dynamic network model”, and “integrated dynamic model” in Figs. 2-6; see also step 136 of Fig. 7) and entering the startup operational parameters, the constraints for the startup operational parameters, and the physical model into a processor (Fig. 1; para. 25; “a microprocessor(s)) that may execute software programs or computer-executable instructions to generate and/or implement the integrated workflow 12”; this step is encompassed by Figs. 6-7; see also para. 2; “using integrated modeling to accurately assess and effectively adjust a startup time schedule of a fluid production and/or injection system”); (c) simulating system responses with the processor (“simulating startups of the fluid production or injection system based on the initial conditions”; Abstract; see also “The productivity (also referred to as a potential) of the field and of each individual well therein may be simulated using a reservoir model. These productivities may be input to (i.e., fed into) a production network model, which may be determined using a transient multiphase flow simulator, to identify flow assurance and operational issues that may affect the startup of the production system” at para. 24); (d) determining one or more optimal control actions (“determining operational procedures for starting up the fluid production or injection system based on the simulated startups”; Abstract; see also “the integrated workflow of the present disclosure may identify potential inefficiencies that may occur during startup and provide mitigation and/or operational procedures to be performed based on changing reservoir productivity and/or constraints imposed by a processing facility (e.g., a fixed or floating facility or an onshore installation), a hydrocarbon well, a network of hydrocarbon wells, and the like. The mitigation and/or operational procedures may include, as non-limiting examples, design parameters in a startup sequence(s) for a well(s)”; para. 23); and (e) controlling the electric submersible pump based on the optimal control actions determined (encompassed by step 138 of Fig. 7).
Although Chidiac discloses much of Applicant’s recited invention, he does not further disclose:
1) the operational parameters comprise an intake pressure to achieve by an end of the startup schedule (although Chidiac generally discloses “set points (e.g., desired or target values) of a live fluid production” (para. 56), he does not specify that these target values comprise an intake pressure to achieve by an end of the startup schedule), or
2) translating the objective into a cost function that mathematically describes the objective and optimizing the cost function (Chidiac does not detail a cost function or optimization thereof, as it relates to a pump startup procedure).
However, Aske et al. (Aske) discloses another electrical submersible pump monitoring/control system in which the objective is optimized operation, start-up, and shutdown of an electric submersible pump at minimized cost (paras. 24-25, 28) through use of a numerical predictive models (Abstract; paras. 4-12, 26-29). To begin, Aske discloses “a more advanced control system that avoids ESP shutdown by keeping the ESP within its operational constraints. The control system maintains the production process within its constraints and at the same time maximizes production and minimizes cost under varying operational conditions”. Aske discloses that physical models are used to predict future well and pump behavior and optimize the changes on the manipulated variables (using linear or quadratic programming algorithms) to keep the controlled variables at their set points or optimization targets and at the same time within given constraints (para. 29). Aske goes on to disclose that typical constraints include intake- and discharge pressure for the pump (para. 29). Aske specifically discloses that the ESP intake pressure (6) within the well below the ESP is kept above a specified limit to avoid solids production (para. 37). Aske further teaches that physical models can be used to keep the ESP lifted well system within its operational constraints to achieve safe operation of the system. This includes keeping pumps within its operational envelope and pressures, temperatures, flow rates and viscosities within acceptable range (para. 31). In each of these disclosures, Aske clearly discloses defining/constraining various pump startup operational parameters (including pump intake pressure) that ensure the pump intake pressure remains within defined constraints (i.e. above a lower threshold to avoid solids production) throughout pump operation (i.e. by an end of the startup schedule, as claimed). Furthermore, similar to Chidiac, Aske discloses the use of model-predictive control that uses predictive numerical models to predict/simulate future pump behavior (paras. 7, 10, 26), and based on these models, calculate optimal control actions (paras. 24-29) and apply the optimized control actions before any constraint is violated in order to avoid improve well production and reduce operating costs (paras. 24-26, 29, 32). In other words, Aske makes clear that the numerical predictive models effectively translate the above-noted objective into a cost function that mathematically describes the objective, and that the optimal control actions are in part determined so as to optimize the cost function (“The control system maintains the production process within its constraints and at the same time maximizes production and minimizes cost under varying operational conditions costs”; “optimization targets according to the specified optimization criteria”; paras. 24, 26). Therefore, to one of ordinary skill desiring an electrical submersible pump that avoids solids production throughout pump operation while minimizing operating costs, it would have been obvious to utilize the techniques disclosed in Aske in combination with those seen in Chidiac in order to obtain such a result. Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have 1) modified Chidiac’s objective to further include Aske’s pump intake pressure (i.e. an intake pressure that does not drop below a minimum threshold throughout pump operation, and thus, by the end of any startup schedule) and 2) modified Chidiac’s model-based startup optimizations to have includes an optimized cost function in order to obtain predictable results; those results being a well-controlled ESP that prevents the undesirable production of solids throughout pump startup while ensuring maximum well production and minimum cost (as taught in Aske).
In regards to Claim 2, Chidiac discloses that the electric submersible pump has a wellhead choke (paras. 29-30, 38; “valves and/or chokes”) and the step of controlling the electric submersible pump comprises varying a pump frequency of the electric submersible pump (“set points (e.g., desired or target values)”; “set points may relate to…pump speed”; para. 56) and a choke position of the wellhead choke (para. 29; “chokes which can be controlled for valve and choke opening setting…by the computer system 10”; para. 56; “call for a valve in a well head tree to be opened to 50% of full opening”).
In regards to Claim 3, Chidiac discloses that the pump frequency and the choke position are adjusted in real-time (“dynamically adjusting the operational commands to the fluid production and/or injection system 20 accordingly. In other words, and as described further in the paragraphs below, the computer system 10 simulates the operational procedure, events from the simulation trigger actions on the control elements on the actual fluid production and/or injection system 20, and the computer system 10 monitors and responds in simulation to real time conditions of the system”; para. 57).
In regards to Claim 4, Chidiac discloses that the optimal control actions determined for the electric submersible pump and the wellhead choke are deliberately perturbed in a controlled fashion (i.e. the numerical model is periodically updated) to achieve an improved system response (“determining whether there is a new field measurement(s) available may occur on a periodic basis (e.g., monthly, quarterly, and the like) to update the operational procedures based on changes in the field that may not have been accounted for earlier”)
In regards to Claim 5, Chidiac discloses that the step of determining the optimal control actions (i.e. optimizing the numerical model) occurs at every time-step (“method 110 shown in FIG. 6 may be repeated periodically (e.g., monthly, quarterly, and the like) to update operational procedures based on changes in the field that may not have been accounted for during initial design of models of the integrated workflow 12”; para. 55; see also para. 63).
In regards to Claim 6, Chidiac discloses that the method is applied to a multi-well system (24; Fig. 1) having multiple electric submersible pumps (paras. 3, 29-30, 34).
In regards to Claim 7, Chidiac discloses that the same startup schedule (i.e. integrated workflow 12; Fig. 1) is applied to all of the electric submersible pumps (22) in the multi-well system (24; Fig. 1; “The mitigation and/or operational procedures may include, as non-limiting examples, design parameters in a startup sequence(s) for a well(s)”; para. 23, which clearly implies the ability to provide a single (or multiple) startup sequence(s) for a single (or multiple) well(s)).
In regards to Claim 8, individual startup schedules are developed and applied to the individual electric submersible pumps (22) in the multi-well system (24; Fig. 1; “The mitigation and/or operational procedures may include, as non-limiting examples, design parameters in a startup sequence(s) for a well(s)”; para. 23, which clearly implies the ability to provide a single (or multiple) startup sequence(s) for a single (or multiple) well(s)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See also US 2016/0265341 to Subervie et al. and US 2014/0039836 to Moricca et al., which disclose other electric submersible pump optimization methods.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER BRYANT COMLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3772. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-6PM CST.
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, Mark Laurenzi can be reached at 571-270-7878. 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.
/ALEXANDER B COMLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
ABC