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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,221,867. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are broader than those in the ‘867 patent and are fully encompassed by the ‘867 claims.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 4, the phrase “or most a positive reward value” is grammatically incorrect. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 1, the word “determine” should be changed to --determining--. 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 1-20 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.
With regard to claim 1, the terms “drilling, pipeline, or power quality equipment” and “fluid transfer device” are confusing. In the claim, the drilling, pipeline, or power quality equipment experiences an “event condition.” Then, a fluid transfer device is commanded to change “a drive frequency,” a “choke position,” or “reversing a rotational direction,” and in turn, this change causes an impact to the event condition experienced by the drilling, pipeline, or power quality equipment. The specification only discusses a small number of event conditions, which are all associated with pumps (see Table 2, paragraph 0157). The recited corrective actions, as well, relate to pumps (e.g. paragraph 0133, “speed and choke position of an ESP,” and paragraph 0158, “a frequency change or a choke position change for the ESP”). Thus, it seems that the device commanded with the corrective action is the same device that is experiencing the event condition. However, the claim lists them separately, as “drilling/pipeline/power quality equipment” or “a fluid transfer device.” Furthermore, it is unclear how a pump for producing oil and gas is considered “drilling,” “pipeline,” or “power quality equipment.”
With regard to claims 10 and 17, in a similar manner as discussed in the paragraph above, these claims recite “electrical or mechanical oil and gas production equipment” as the element that experiences the event condition, and then “a fluid transfer device” as the element that is commanded in order to alleviate the condition. Again, it seems that both elements are a pump, rather than being two separate components.
With regard to claims 1, 10, and 17, these claims recite “generating one or more potential corrective actions” and then “identifying a first corrective action of the one or more potential corrective actions.” Thus, claim 1 covers a scenario in which only one corrective action is generated, and then that same corrective action is later identified. It is unclear what is added by the identification step in this particular scenario. For examination purposes, these two steps are being treated as essentially the same step, given that the “identifying” step has no content by which a corrective action could be selected from the group of generated corrective actions.
With regard to claims 4 and 12, each of these claims recites “the first corrective action is identified based on the first corrective action having a largest or most positive reward value.” However, there are “one or more potential corrective actions.” Thus, it is unclear if these claims require generating more than one potential corrective action, in order for a comparison to be possible.
With regard to claim 5, it is unclear how the “second data” relates to the “subsequent data” recited in claim 1. These claim elements appear to be referring to the same thing.
With regard to claims 9, 16, and 19, each of these claims involves “comparing the likelihood for the one or more event conditions.” Thus, it is unclear if there must be more than one event condition in order for a comparison to be possible.
Claims 2, 3, 6-8, 11, 13-15, 18, and 20 are rejected based on their dependence upon rejected claims.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the following steps, which can be considered mental processes.
determining whether the drilling, pipeline, or power quality equipment is experiencing an event condition based on the first data;
generating one or more potential corrective actions comprising controlling operation of a fluid transfer device resulting in a change to the parameter of the drilling, pipeline, or power quality equipment;
identifying a first corrective action of the one or more potential corrective actions;
determining whether the drilling, pipeline, or power quality equipment is experiencing a subsequent event condition; and
controlling the fluid transfer device to implement a subsequent corrective action comprising sending a second control signal to the fluid transfer device, the subsequent corrective action based on at least a set of subsequent data received from the sensor and the first corrective action.
(Unique to independent claim 17): determine a reward value for the first corrective action based on the second data
The “determining” steps are clearly mental processes, as there is no structure recited that performs this step, and no criteria identified for how the data would indicate an “event condition” has occurred. Additionally, the term “event condition” is so broad as to encompass all possible operating states of the equipment, including “on” or “off” states, which are easily identifiable by a human.
The “generating” step can encompass an operator’s decision to take any particular action based on their experience.
The “identifying” step is considered to be essentially the same as the “generating” step, given the 112 rejection set forth above. The claim does not recite any particular manipulation of the data or criteria upon which a corrective action is “identified” from the list that has been generated.
The step of “controlling the fluid transfer device to implement a subsequent corrective action” does not involve a concrete physical change, as does the previously-recited “first corrective action.” The generic term “corrective action” can include such things as “checking a valve lineup” and “drive frequency closed-loop control” (see paragraph 0149 of the specification). These actions do not necessarily involve any concrete physical change to the equipment, and thus are abstract.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, while the method does require a physical change to the fluid transfer device in the first controlling step, the claim does not provide any way to assess whether that change actually follows from the data that is received. The “determining,” “generating,” and “identifying” steps do not recite any particular comparison or manipulation of the data that leads to the corrective action. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the terms “drilling, pipeline, or power quality equipment” (claim 1), “oil and gas production equipment” (claim 10), and “electrical or mechanical oil and gas production equipment” (claim 17), and “fluid transfer device” (all claims) are generic recitations that cover essentially any equipment on a well site. Applicant admits such equipment is well-understood, routine, and conventional (see paragraphs 0002 and 0003 of the specification). Also, a generic “sensor associated with the…equipment” is notoriously well-known and cannot amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 2-9, 11-16, and 18-20 do not contain any subject matter that renders the claims eligible. The dependent claims merely recite additional mental steps.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 10, 12, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen et al. (US 2017/0363088, hereinafter Nguyen).
With regard to claims 1 and 10, (note that claim 10 is not addressed separately, given that it contains essentially the same structure and steps as claim 1), as best understood, Nguyen discloses a system for oil and gas production, the system comprising:
a piece of drilling, pipeline, or power quality equipment (“equipment” shown in Fig. 1);
a sensor (116) associated with the drilling, pipeline, or power quality equipment; and
a storage device having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by one or more processors (see 150, 130, 190, 170, 105 in Fig. 1), cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
receiving first data from the sensor, the first data indicating a parameter of the drilling, pipeline, or power quality equipment (block 402 in Fig. 4, for example, “read ESP telemetry”);
determining whether the drilling, pipeline, or power quality equipment is experiencing an event condition based on the first data (Fig. 4 provides a detailed explanation of how telemetry data is used to determine whether Low Flow, Insufficient Lift, or Gas Interference events are occurring, i.e. “LF-IL” or “LF-GI,” see paragraphs 0080-0087);
generating one or more potential corrective actions comprising controlling operation of a fluid transfer device resulting in a change to the parameter of the drilling, pipeline, or power quality equipment (paragraph 0100, “the method 600 may also identify a root cause of the detected event and provide a suggested operation to a user”);
identifying a first corrective action of the one or more potential corrective actions (as discussed above in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), the identifying step does not add to the generating step. Therefore, in Nguyen, one corrective action is generated, and one corrective action is identified);
controlling the fluid transfer device to implement the first corrective action comprising sending a first control signal to the fluid transfer device, wherein the first corrective action comprises at least one of increasing a drive frequency of the fluid transfer device, adjusting a choke position of the fluid transfer device, or reversing a rotational direction of an impeller of the fluid transfer device (paragraph 0100, “the operation suggested to the user may include a number of remedial actions, for example, such as increase the drive frequency, adjust a choke, check various valve positions, lower the drive frequency, apply a closed-loop control to the frequency…”); and
determining whether the drilling, pipeline, or power quality equipment is experiencing a subsequent event condition (paragraph 0100, “if opening the choke does not solve the low flow condition…”).
Nguyen does not explicitly teach generating a second corrective action based on a determination that the drilling, pipeline, or power quality equipment is still experiencing the event condition (i.e. returning to the “root cause” analysis of paragraph 0100 and re-performing the sequence); and
controlling the fluid transfer device based on the second corrective action.
However, Nguyen does teach that the system can detect an event condition, propose a corrective action, and then analyze the result of the corrective action to determine if the even condition was corrected (paragraph 0100). The only difference is that Nguyen fails to explicitly state that the process is iterated to eventually overcome the condition.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Nguyen by performing the “root cause/recommended action” analysis a second time after the initial corrective action, in order to fully correct a persistent condition.
With regard to claims 4 and 12, Nguyen discloses calculating a reward value for each of the one or more potential corrective actions (paragraph 0100, Nguyen determines the “reward” of the action, i.e. whether the condition is solved);
wherein the first corrective action is identified based on the first corrective action having a largest or most a positive reward value (as discussed above in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112, the claim only requires one potential corrective action. Thus, since Nguyen generates one potential corrective action, it is by default the corrective action with the highest reward).
With regard to claim 5, as best understood, Nguyen teaches receiving second data from the sensor associated with the drilling, pipeline, or power quality equipment, the second data received after controlling the fluid transfer device based on the first corrective action (paragraph 0100, “if opening the choke does not solve the low flow condition,” indicating that data continues to be received after the initial action is taken), wherein the reward value for the first corrective action is based in part on the second data (a high “reward” would be the solving of the problem, and a low “reward” would be the worsening of the problem, paragraph 0100); and
determining whether the drilling, pipeline, or power quality equipment is still experiencing the event condition based on the second data (paragraph 0100, “if opening the choke does not solve the low flow condition”).
Nguyen does not explicitly teach generating a second corrective action based on a determination that the drilling, pipeline, or power quality equipment is still experiencing the event condition (i.e. returning to the “root cause” analysis of paragraph 0100 and re-performing the sequence); and
controlling the fluid transfer device based on the second corrective action.
However, Nguyen does teach that the system can detect an event condition, propose a corrective action, and then analyze the result of the corrective action to determine if the even condition was corrected (paragraph 0100). The only difference is that Nguyen fails to explicitly state that the process is iterated to eventually overcome the condition.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Nguyen by performing the “root cause/recommended action” analysis a second time after the initial corrective action, in order to fully correct a persistent condition.
With regard to claim 17, Nguyen discloses a system comprising:
electrical or mechanical oil and gas production equipment (Fig. 1); and
a controller (130) configured to:
receive first data from a sensor (116) associated with the electrical or mechanical oil and gas production equipment (Fig. 4, “read telemetry data”), the first data indicating a parameter of the electrical or mechanical oil and gas production equipment (“sensors 116, 120 may be used to measure various parameters disclosed above, such as drive current, motor temperature, pump intake pressure, pump discharge pressure, static intake pressure, drive frequency, pump flow rate,” paragraph 0052);
determine whether the electrical or mechanical oil and gas production equipment is experiencing an event condition based on the first data (i.e. perform “root cause” analysis as discussed in paragraphs 0080-0087, where the root cause is the claimed event condition);
generate a first corrective action comprising controlling operation of a fluid transfer device resulting in a change to the parameter of the electrical or mechanical oil and gas production equipment (paragraph 0100, “the operation suggested to the user may include a number of remedial actions”);
control the fluid transfer device to implement the first corrective action comprising sending a first control signal to the fluid transfer device, wherein the first corrective action comprises at least one of increasing a drive frequency of the fluid transfer device, adjusting a choke position of the fluid transfer device, or reversing a rotational direction of an impeller of the fluid transfer device (paragraph 0100, “the operation suggested to the user may include a number of remedial actions, for example, such as increase the drive frequency, adjust a choke, check various valve positions, lower the drive frequency, apply a closed-loop control to the frequency…”);
receive second data from the sensor associated with the equipment, the second data received after controlling the fluid transfer device based on the first corrective action (paragraph 0100, “if opening the choke does not solve the low flow condition,” implying that data continues to be taken after the corrective action is implemented); and
determine a reward value for the first corrective action based on the second data (the corrective action implicitly has a good reward value if the event condition has been ameliorated, and a low reward value if the even condition has not been ameliorated, paragraph 0100).
Nguyen fails to explicitly teach that the fluid transfer device continues to implement the first corrective action until the equipment is no longer experiencing the event condition.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Nguyen such that the corrective action continues to be applied until the root cause is eliminated and the system has completely “rectified the situation” (paragraph 0064, last line).
Claim(s) 8 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen.
With regard to claims 8 and 15, Nguyen is not explicit that the one or more potential corrective actions are generated according to a constraint that limits the change to the parameter of the drilling, pipeline, or power quality equipment.
However, Nguyen’s ESP has inherent physical constraints and design capacities, as does any engineered device.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Nguyen such that the corrective actions were constrained within the designed capacities of the ESP, in order to avoid damage and costly repairs to the ESP.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT E FULLER whose telephone number is (571)272-6300. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM - 5:30PM.
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.
/ROBERT E FULLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676