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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s filing of 2/9/26 has been entered. Applicant has persuasively addressed the previously presented 112 issues.
Applicant’s amendments have necessitated the new grounds of rejection below. A new reference has been cited to teach the amended features of the claim.
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) 1, 3-4, 12, and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thigpen (US 20080262736 A1), in view of McMullen (US 20220003087 A1), in view of Nguyen (US 20220221826 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Thigpen teaches a fluid recovery system for recovering hydrocarbon fluids from a well, the fluid recovery system comprising:
an electric submersible pumping system (Fig 1A, 1B, pump 30)
a chemical injection system (Fig 1A, 1B, systems including 122, 118, and 116); and
an integrated control system (Fig 1A,1B, controller 80, 150 and “other controllers”), wherein the integrated control system is configured to automatically control the operation of the chemical injection system in response to the determination of a sand event impacting the electric submersible pumping system.
Thigpen is silent on the structural particulars of the pump and the event being a sand slugging event.
McMullen teaches the event being a sand slugging event (Para 0036, “transient events, such as gas slugs, sand slugs”)
wherein the electric submersible pumping system (Fig 2B, ESP) comprises:
an electric motor deployed in the well (Fig 2B, motor 260, note this is an electric submersible pump):
a pump deployed in the well and driven by the electric motor (Fig 2B, pump 220);
a motor drive configured to supply a drive current to the electric motor (Para 0065, motor “receiv[es] power”; there is inherently a source for that power)
a signal processing module that identifies the presence of a sand slugging event (Fig 2B of McMullen, controller 230/270).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Thigpen by 1) applying Thigpen’s system to a situation where the event is a sand slugging event and 2) having the structural particulars of the ESP including the controller and its accompanying diagnostic mean as disclosed by McMullen because regarding the first modification Thigpen is broadly applicable to a variant of events including issues with sand production and sand particle issues. McMullen teaches that sand slugging events are known issues which are in need of ‘risk mitigation’ in a wellbore system (Para 0036) and regarding the second modification it would have been obvious because Thigpen is silent on the structural particulars of the ESP required to implement the system of Thigpen. McMullen’s ESP additionally has diagnostic capabilities to identify adverse events to allow for risk mitigation (Para 0036).
Thigpen as modified is silent on comparing the drive current against a known sand slugging signature derived from a test data set.
Nguyen teaches comparing the drive current against a known sand slugging signature derived from a test data set (Para 0020, motor current data is received and compared with a machine learning model and matched “based on training provided to the machine learning model” to identify an event, “patterns in the measurements” are used. Note this is a modification to Thigpen, as modified, which teaches the recited event).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Thigpen, as modified, by having the configuration which processes the data against a test data set, including a retrained data set, as disclosed by Nguyen because it would allow the system “to more accurately identify events occurring at the ESP 102.”
Regarding claim 3, Thigpen as modified teaches wherein the(Para 0020, motor current data is received and compared with a machine learning model and matched “based on training provided to the machine learning model” to identify an event. Note this is a modification to Thigpen, as modified, which teaches the recited event).
Regarding claim 4, Thigpen teaches wherein the chemical injection system comprises: a chemical tank (Fig 1B, 116); an injection pump connected between the chemical tank and the well (Fig 1B, 118); and an injection pump drive configured to control the operation of the injection pump (Fig 1B, 122).
Regarding claim 12, Thigpen teaches a fluid recovery system for recovering hydrocarbon fluids from a well, the fluid recovery system comprising:
an electric submersible pumping system (Fig 1A, 1B, pump 30),
a chemical injection system (Fig 1A, 1B, systems including 122, 118, and 116), wherein the chemical injection system comprises:
a chemical tank that contains a treatment chemical (Fig 1B, 116 with additive 113a);
an injection pump connected between the well and the chemical tank (Fig 1B, 118); and
an injection pump drive configured to control the operation of the injection pump (Fig 1B, 122); and
an integrated control system (Fig 1A,1B, controller 80, 150 and “other controllers”), wherein the integrated control system is configured to automatically control the operation of the chemical injection system in response to the detection of a sand event by the signal processing module (Para 0033, “controller 150 may utilize any of the above described information, such as information relating to sand production, particle size of solids in the fluid […] and may take actions in response such determination.”).
Thigpen is silent on the electric submersible pumping system’s particulars and the event being a sand slugging event.
McMullen teaches the event being a sand slugging event (Para 0036, “transient events, such as gas slugs, sand slugs”)
wherein the electric submersible pumping system (Fig 2B, ESP) comprises:
a primary pump (Fig 2B, pump 220);
an electric motor configured to actuate the primary pump (Fig 2B, motor 260, note this is an electric submersible pump);
a motor drive configured to provide the electric motor with a drive current (Para 0065, motor “receiv[es] power”; there is inherently a source for that power);
and
a signal processing module configured to detect a sand slugging event (Fig 2B of McMullen, controller 230/270).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Thigpen by 1) applying Thigpen’s system to a situation where the event is a sand slugging event and 2) having the structural particulars of the ESP including the controller and its accompanying diagnostic mean as disclosed by McMullen because regarding the first modification Thigpen is broadly applicable to a variant of events including issues with sand production and sand particle issues. McMullen teaches that sand slugging events are known issues which are in need of ‘risk mitigation’ in a wellbore system (Para 0036) and regarding the second modification it would have been obvious because Thigpen is silent on the structural particulars of the ESP required to implement the system of Thigpen. McMullen’s ESP additionally has diagnostic capabilities to identify adverse events to allow for risk mitigation (Para 0036).
Thigpen as modified is silent on comparing the drive current against a known sand slugging signature derived from a test data set.
Nguyen teaches identifying a sand slugging signature from features derived from the electric submersible pumping system (Para 0020, data is received and compared with a machine learning model and matched “based on training provided to the machine learning model” to identify an event. Note this is a modification to Thigpen, as modified, which teaches the recited event), wherein such features include fluctuating drive current drawn by the electric motor, fluctuating intake pressure at the primary pump, and fluctuating discharge pressure at the primary pump (Para 0020, “event detection system coupled to an electrical submersible pump (ESP) analyzes motor voltage, motor current, motor temperature, pump intake pressure, pump discharge pressure”, “patterns in the measurements”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Thigpen, as modified, by having the configuration which processes the data against a test data set, including a retrained data set, as disclosed by Nguyen because it would allow the system “to more accurately identify events occurring at the ESP 102.”
Regarding claim 14, Thigpen teaches a fluid recovery system for recovering hydrocarbon fluids from a well, the fluid recovery system comprising:
an electric submersible pumping system (Fig 1A, 1B, pump 30)
a chemical injection system (Fig 1A, 1B, systems including 122, 118, and 116); and
an integrated control system (Fig 1A,1B, controller 80, 150 and “other controllers”), wherein the integrated control system is configured to automatically control the operation of the chemical injection system in response to the determination of a sand event impacting the electric submersible pumping system (Para 0033, “controller 150 may utilize any of the above described information, such as information relating to sand production, particle size of solids in the fluid […] and may take actions in response such determination.”).
Thigpen is silent on the electric submersible pumping system’s particulars and the event being a sand slugging event.
McMullen teaches the event being a sand slugging event (Para 0036, “transient events, such as gas slugs, sand slugs”)
wherein the electric submersible pumping system (Fig 2B, ESP) comprises:
an electric motor deployed in the well (Fig 2B, motor 260, note this is an electric submersible pump);
a pump deployed in the well and driven by the electric motor (Fig 2B, pump 220), wherein the pump has a pump intake pressure (PIP);
a motor drive configured to supply a drive current to the electric motor (Para 0065, motor “receiv[es] power”; there is inherently a source for that power); and
a signal processing module that identifies a sand slugging event at the electric submersible pumping system (Fig 2B of McMullen, controller 230/270).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Thigpen by 1) applying Thigpen’s system to a situation where the event is a sand slugging event and 2) having the structural particulars of the ESP including the controller and its accompanying diagnostic mean as disclosed by McMullen because regarding the first modification Thigpen is broadly applicable to a variant of events including issues with sand production and sand particle issues. McMullen teaches that sand slugging events are known issues which are in need of ‘risk mitigation’ in a wellbore system (Para 0036) and regarding the second modification it would have been obvious because Thigpen is silent on the structural particulars of the ESP required to implement the system of Thigpen. McMullen’s ESP additionally has diagnostic capabilities to identify adverse events to allow for risk mitigation (Para 0036).
Thigpen as modified is silent on identifying fluctuations in the drive current or fluctuations in the pump intake pressure (PIP).
Nguyen teaches identifying fluctuations in the drive current or fluctuations in the pump intake pressure (PIP) (Para 0020, data is received and compared with a machine learning model and matched “based on training provided to the machine learning model” to identify an event. Note this is a modification to Thigpen, as modified, which teaches the recited event; “event detection system coupled to an electrical submersible pump (ESP) analyzes motor voltage, motor current, motor temperature, pump intake pressure, pump discharge pressure”, “patterns in the measurements”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Thigpen, as modified, by having the configuration which processes the data against a test data set, including a retrained data set, as disclosed by Nguyen because it would allow the system “to more accurately identify events occurring at the ESP 102.”
Regarding claim 15, Thigpen teaches wherein the chemical injection system comprises: a chemical tank that includes a treatment chemical (Fig 1B, 116 with additive 113a); an injection pump connected between the chemical tank and the well (Fig 1B, 118); and an injection pump drive configured to control the operation of the injection pump (Fig 1B, 122).
Claim(s) 13 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thigpen (US 20080262736 A1), in view of McMullen (US 20220003087 A1), in view of Nguyen (US 20220221826 A1), further in view of Applicant Admitted Prior Art.
Regarding claim 13, Thigpen is silent on wherein the treatment chemical is selected from the group consisting of surfactants, wetting agents, and sand dispersants.
Applicant Admitted Prior Art the treatment chemical is selected from the group consisting of surfactants, wetting agents, and sand dispersants (Background, Para 0004, “well operators can inject surfactants into the well to “wet” the sand particles, which reduces the ability of the sand to bind together”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Thigpen by having the chemical as disclosed by Applicant Admitted Prior Art because it is “generally effective” at addressing sand issues (Background, Para 0004).
Regarding claim 16, Thigpen is silent on wherein the treatment chemical is selected from the group consisting of surfactants, wetting agents, and sand dispersants.
Applicant Admitted Prior Art the treatment chemical is selected from the group consisting of surfactants, wetting agents, and sand dispersants (Background, Para 0004, “well operators can inject surfactants into the well to “wet” the sand particles, which reduces the ability of the sand to bind together”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Thigpen by having the chemical as disclosed by Applicant Admitted Prior Art because it is “generally effective” at addressing sand issues (Background, Para 0004).
Claim(s) 13 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thigpen (US 20080262736 A1), in view of McMullen (US 20220003087 A1), in view of Nguyen (US 20220221826 A1), further in view of Shevelev (IPTC-22138-MS).
Regarding claim 13, Thigpen is silent on wherein the treatment chemical is selected from the group consisting of surfactants, wetting agents, and sand dispersants.
Shevelev teaches the treatment chemical is selected from the group consisting of surfactants, wetting agents, and sand dispersants (Technology description starting at the bottom of page 2 extending throughout page 3; see also Figs 2 and 3).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Thigpen by having the chemical as disclosed by Shevelev because it is “effective” at addressing sand issues and helps with “extended ESP run life” (top of page 2).
Regarding claim 16, Thigpen is silent on wherein the treatment chemical is selected from the group consisting of surfactants, wetting agents, and sand dispersants.
Shevelev teaches the treatment chemical is selected from the group consisting of surfactants, wetting agents, and sand dispersants (Technology description starting at the bottom of page 2 extending throughout page 3; see also Figs 2 and 3).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Thigpen by having the chemical as disclosed by Shevelev because it is “effective” at addressing sand issues and helps with “extended ESP run life” (top of page 2).
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 THEODORE N YAO whose telephone number is (571)272-8745. The examiner can normally be reached typically 8am-4pm ET.
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, TARA SCHIMPF can be reached at (571) 270-7741. 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.
/THEODORE N YAO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights