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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 of the USPTO’s eligibility analysis entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claims 1-18 are directed to a system (machine or manufacture). As such, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention.
If the claim recites a statutory category of invention, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A. Step 2A of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Regarding claim 10, the claim(s) recite(s) “wherein the controller calculates the pressure using the well casing gas flow rate, the fluid level, and the fluid gradient correction factor,” and “determine a fluid level in the casing annulus… determine a fluid gradient correction factor…” Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these are mental processes of a mathematical calculation. Nothing in the claim precludes these limitations from being performed in the human mind, or by a human with pen and paper. As discussed in MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), claims directed toward a mental process include claims to “‘collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,’ where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 199 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
If the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two. In Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim does not use the calculated pressure to made any change in the system. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations of “determine a well casing gas flow rate by measuring…” is mere data gathering steps used to obtain the data required for the mathematical calculation; the physical limitations of the valves, and pressure sensor are well known physical elements of well systems that are found in a typical production well, and the physical limitation of the controller is just the application of the mental process.
Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, and requires further analysis under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. The controller is described as a generic “local controller or processor” (paragraph 0025) or “any combination of local and remote control or processing elements” (paragraph 0026). There is nothing novel or non-obvious discussed. The steps the controller is configured to do are basic determinations that any controller could handle. Further, the specification fails to disclose any non-obvious means of making the determinations.
Regarding claims 11-18, the dependent claims do not offer any additional limitations that are not mere data gathering or changing the placement of the known physical elements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 10-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Brewer (CA2203446) (cited in parent application).
CLAIM 10: Brewer discloses a system for determining a pressure in a producing well having a well casing gas and a well fluid therein. The system comprises: a controller associated with the producing well (“flow computer or controller 11”); one or more valves connected to pipes collecting the well casing gas produced from a casing annulus of the producing well (such as the gas lift valves), the one or more valves controlled by the controller (computer 11 receives information and controls valves). A pressure sensor (such as sensor 3) configured to measure the pressure of the well casing gas in the casing annulus. Wherein the controller is further configured to: determine a well casing gas flow rate by measuring a build-up pressure of the well casing gas in the casing annulus when a valve to the casing annulus is closed (see page 9, line 11 – page 10, line 14), determine a fluid level in the casing annulus of the producing well from using a pressure wave caused in the well casing gas using the controller and the one or more valves (see page 10, line 15 – page 11, line 2 discussing sending pressure information to the “flow computer” to calculate fluid levels among other things; discussion of “pulses” as waves), and the system further determines determine a fluid gradient correction factor using a measured fluid level in the casing annulus; and wherein the controller calculates the pressure using the well casing gas flow rate, the fluid level, and the fluid gradient correction factor (see claims 1-4 comparing the actual to the predefined levels).
CLAIM 11: The pressure is a pump intake pressure (“progressive cavity pumps and pumping units”).
CLAIM 12: The pressure is at any datum in the producing well (see Figure 1 showing system working with entire well).
CLAIM 13: The well casing gas flow rate is determined from a plurality of well casing gas flow rate measurements taken over a period of time (data stored in flow computer).
CLAIM 14: The controller is remote from the producing well (see Fig. 1 showing computer mounted remotely).
CLAIM 15: A combination of valves and the controller are permanently mounted to the well (see Fig. 1).
CLAIM 16: The combination of valves and the controller are on a mobile platform (subsea platform, so inherently mobile).
CLAIM 17: A factor K is used to calculate the well casing gas flow rate of the well casing gas (factor is the ratio calculated in claim 1).
CLAIM 18: The actual fluid level is a fluid level determined without adding gas in a fluid column below the fluid level (see Fig. 1).
CLAIMS 19 and 20: These methods are inherent to the above structures.
CLAIMS 21-26: These elements are discussed above with respect to the system of claim 10 and its dependents.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited art show similar systems that determine well pressures.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK F LAMBE whose telephone number is (571)270-1932. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10-4.
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, Amber Anderson can be reached at (571)270-5281. 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.
/PATRICK F LAMBE/Examiner, Art Unit 3676
/TARA SCHIMPF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676