DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This Action is in response to the applicant's reply of 4/13/2026. In view of the applicant's amendments, the previously presented objection to the claim been withdrawn.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/11/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Beginning at page 6, the applicant argues, for each of independent claims 1, 11, and 16, that the Section 103 rejection is not appropriate. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner’s rejection deems flowmeter 66 as the flowmeter in the main line and flowmeter 64 as the flowmeter in the bypass line.
At page 7, the applicant indicates that the examiner incorrectly states in the rejection that the flowmeters are not mass flowmeters. The examiner respectfully disagrees. It is undisputed that Coriolis flowmeters are mass flowmeters. Although Bernard indicates that the flowmeter 58 is a Coriolis flowmeter, he is careful to list only flowmeter 58 as a Coriolis flowmeter per paragraph [0022]. The applicant’s cited support (paragraph [0026]) does not refer to flowmeters 64,66, but instead offers the general statement that “ another Coriolis flowmeter (not shown) could be interconnected directly upstream or downstream of a rig mud pump 68, etc.” Assuming, arguendo, that Bernard’s stated option is relevant to the rejection, the examiner, in light of Bernard’s Fig. 1, notes that neither of flowmeters 64,66 appear to be directly upstream or downstream of the pump 68, both flowmeters 64,66 being downstream of structures 81 and 62 which are positioned between the pump and flowmeters 64,66.
The examiner’s combination includes Northam to support substituting mass flowmeters for flowmeters 64,66. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, at least Northam uses a mass flowmeter in a flow measurement device having a pump and a standpipe which suggests mass flowmeters are appropriate for such installations. The applicant argues, in opposition to the combination, that Northam does not disclose the claimed bypass line positioning of the mass flowmeter. However, the examiner’s combination does not rely on Northam for such positioning, the positioning being provided explicitly by Bernard. The applicant further argues in opposition to the combination that Bernard knew of mass flowmeters and chose not to use one in the bypass line, as claimed. The examiner notes that Bernard does not disclose any basis for that choice, thus, the unexplained choice of a different type of flowmeter is not a basis to overcome the examiner’s fully supported combination.
All remaining claims are dependent and were not argued individually.
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 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernard (US20120285744), in view of Northam et al. (US202300325370) [Northam].
Claim 1 Bernard discloses a method for use with a subterranean well 12 [Figs. 1-4,9,10; abstract; para. 0013], the method comprising:
connecting a flow measurement and diversion apparatus between a pump 68 and a standpipe 26 [Figs. 1,2; para. 0018,0026];
pumping fluid from the pump to the standpipe through a main flow line [e.g., from the pump 68 to the RCD 22; Figs. 1,2; para. 0029] of the flow measurement and diversion apparatus, the main flow line having a first flowmeter 66 connected therein [para. 0022]; and
pumping the fluid from the pump through a bypass flow line 72,75 [Figs. 1,2; para. 0032] of the flow measurement and diversion apparatus to a return flow line 73,30 [para. 0032,0033] upstream of a choke manifold 32, without the fluid flowing through the standpipe 26 [Figs. 1,2], the bypass flow line having a second flowmeter 64 connected therein [para. 0022].
Bernard further discloses that the flowmeters 66 and 64 sense pressure and that additional pressure sensors may be desired [para. 0022-0027], and otherwise discloses all the limitations of this claim, but does not explicitly disclose that the flowmeters are mass flowmeters.
Northam discloses a flow measurement apparatus 34 between a pump 18 and a standpipe 22, with flow passages 36,38, the apparatus 34 having a mass flowmeter 40 for one flow passage, the mass flowmeter having a differential pressure sensor 50 for sensing a difference in pressure between an upstream side of the mass flowmeter and a downstream side of the mass flowmeter [Figs. 1-3; para. 0010,0013,0017,0023,0024].
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the apparatus and methods of Bernard to replace and/or supplement either and/or both of the flow meters 66,64 with mass flowmeters having the differential pressure sensor, such mass flowmeters with differential pressure sensors being disclosed by Northam for analogous purposes and additional pressure sensors being suggested by Bernard. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected that this combination of prior art elements and techniques would have been within the skill of the art and would successfully yield and achieve the expected and predictable result that valuable information as to flow, rheological parameters of the fluid, and pressures would be obtained in a well-known manner.
Claim 2 Bernard, as modified with respect to claim 1, discloses measuring differential pressure across the first mass flowmeter while the fluid is pumped from the pump to the standpipe [the manner of use suggested by Northam when fluid is flowing through the mass flowmeter (such flow occurring at Bernard’s 66 location); Northam para. 0023].
Claim 3 Bernard, as modified with respect to claim 1, discloses measuring differential pressure across the second mass flowmeter while the fluid is pumped from the pump to the return flow line [the manner of use suggested by Northam when fluid is flowing through the mass flowmeter (such flow occurring at Bernard’s 64 location); Northam para. 0023].
Claim 4 Bernard, as modified with respect to claim 1, discloses closing a valve 76 connected in the main flow line after the pumping the fluid from the pump through the bypass flow line [Bernard Fig. 4 discloses opening 109 the bypass 74 and then closing 114 the standpipe valve 76 (para. 0061-0067), which is consistent with the avoidance of undesirably closing both the main and the bypass while the pump is running].
Claim 5 Bernard, as modified with respect to claim 4, discloses closing a choke connected in the bypass flow line after the pumping the fluid from the pump through the main flow line [Bernard Fig. 4 discloses opening 122-128 the standpipe valve 76 and then closing 130 the bypass choke 78 (para. 0071-0075,0043), which is consistent with the avoidance of undesirably closing both the main and the bypass while the pump is running].
Claim 6 Bernard, as modified with respect to claim 1, discloses that the main flow line and the bypass flow line are not connected directly to each other downstream of the first and second mass flowmeters [the connection is upstream from both 66 and 64 [Fig. 1].
Claim 7 Bernard, as modified with respect to claim 1, discloses that the connecting comprises connecting the bypass flow line to well equipment comprising a rotating control device 22 [Figs. 1,2; para. 0018].
Claim 8 Bernard, as modified with respect to claim 1, discloses that the standpipe 26 is connected to a drill string 16 in the pumping the fluid from the pump to the standpipe [Figs. 1,2; para. 0013,0029].
Claim 9 Bernard, as modified with respect to claim 8, discloses making up a threaded connection in the drill string after the pumping the fluid from the pump through the bypass flow line [Fig. 4 discloses making up such a connection 118 after opening 109 the bypass choke 76 (para. 0061-0069) which is consistent with bypassing the standpipe while making up a connection].
Claim 10 Bernard, as modified with respect to claim 8, discloses breaking out a threaded connection in the drill string after the pumping the fluid from the pump through the bypass flow line [Fig. 4 discloses breaking out such a connection 118 after opening 109 the bypass choke 76 (para. 0061-0069) which is consistent with bypassing the standpipe while breaking out a connection].
Claim 11 As discussed with respect to claim 1, Bernard discloses a system for use with a subterranean well 12 [Figs. 1-4,9,10; abstract; para. 0013], the system comprising:
a flow measurement and diversion apparatus comprising an inlet [e.g., where flowmeter 62 receives fluid from the main flow line, thereby being connected to the pump 68; Figs. 1,2] connected to a pump 68, a first outlet [e.g., where flowmeter 66 discharges into the main flowline toward the standpipe; Figs. 1,2] connected to a standpipe 26, and a second outlet [e.g., at the discharge from the flow control device/choke 78 into the bypass flow line 72,75; Figs. 1,2; para. 0032] connected to a return flow line 73,30 [Figs. 1,2; para. 0018,0026,0032,0033];
the flow measurement and diversion apparatus further comprising a main flow line [e.g., from the pump 68 to the RCD 22; Figs. 1,2; para. 0029] connected between the inlet and the first outlet, and a first flowmeter 66 connected in the main flow line [para. 0022]; and
the flow measurement and diversion apparatus further comprising a bypass flow line 72,75 [Figs. 1,2; para. 0032] connected between the inlet and the second outlet, and a second flowmeter 64 connected in the bypass flow line [para. 0022].
Bernard further discloses that the flowmeters 66 and 64 sense pressure and that additional pressure sensors may be desired [para. 0022-0027], and otherwise discloses all the limitations of this claim, but does not explicitly disclose that the flowmeters are mass flowmeters.
Northam discloses a flow measurement apparatus 34 between a pump 18 and a standpipe 22, with flow passages 36,38, the apparatus 34 having a mass flowmeter 40 for one flow passage, the mass flowmeter having a differential pressure sensor 50 for sensing a difference in pressure between an upstream side of the mass flowmeter and a downstream side of the mass flowmeter [Figs. 1-3; para. 0010,0013,0017,0023,0024].
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the apparatus and methods of Bernard to replace and/or supplement either and/or both of the flow meters 66,64 with mass flowmeters having the differential pressure sensor, such mass flowmeters with differential pressure sensors being disclosed by Northam for analogous purposes and additional pressure sensors being suggested by Bernard. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected that this combination of prior art elements and techniques would have been within the skill of the art and would successfully yield and achieve the expected and predictable result that valuable information as to flow, rheological parameters of the fluid, and pressures would be obtained in a well-known manner.
Claim 12 Bernard, as modified with respect to claim 11, discloses that the second outlet is connected to the return flow line upstream of a choke manifold 32 [Figs. 1,2].
Claim 13 Bernard, as modified with respect to claim 11, discloses that the second outlet is connected to the return flow line between a choke manifold 32 and a well equipment comprising a rotating control device 22,28 [Figs. 1,2; para. 0019].
Claim 14 Bernard, as modified with respect to claim 11, discloses at least one pressure sensor Northam 50 configured to measure differential pressure across the second mass flowmeter Northam 40 [the Northam sensor and mass flowmeter being part of the claim 11 combination herein].
Claim 15 Bernard, as modified with respect to claim 11, discloses a choke 78 [Figs. 1,2; para. 0043] connected in the bypass flow line, and in which the first outlet is free of any direct connection to the second outlet downstream of the choke [the first outlet never directly connects to the second outlet; Figs. 1,2].
Claim 16 As discussed with respect to claims 1 and 11, Bernard discloses a flow measurement and diversion apparatus for use with a subterranean well 12 [Figs. 1-4,9,10; abstract; para. 0013], the apparatus comprising:
an inlet [e.g., where flowmeter 62 receives fluid from the main flow line, thereby being connected to the pump 68; Figs. 1,2]configured for connection to a pump 68, a first outlet configured for connection to a standpipe [e.g., where flowmeter 66 discharges into the main flowline toward the standpipe; Figs. 1,2], and a second outlet [e.g., at the discharge from the flow control device/choke 78 into the bypass flow line 72,75; Figs. 1,2; para. 0032]configured for connection to a return flow line 73,30 [Figs. 1,2; para. 0018,0026,0032,0033];
a main flow line [e.g., from the pump 68 to the RCD 22; Figs. 1,2; para. 0029] connected between the inlet and the first outlet, and a first flowmeter 66 connected in the main flow line [para. 0022]; and
a bypass flow line 72,75 [Figs. 1,2; para. 0032] connected between the inlet and the second outlet, and a second flowmeter 64 connected in the bypass flow line [para. 0022].
Bernard further discloses that the flowmeters 66 and 64 sense pressure and that additional pressure sensors may be desired [para. 0022-0027], and otherwise discloses all the limitations of this claim, but does not explicitly disclose that the flowmeters are mass flowmeters.
Northam discloses a flow measurement apparatus 34 between a pump 18 and a standpipe 22, with flow passages 36,38, the apparatus 34 having a mass flowmeter 40 for one flow passage, the mass flowmeter having a differential pressure sensor 50 for sensing a difference in pressure between an upstream side of the mass flowmeter and a downstream side of the mass flowmeter [Figs. 1-3; para. 0010,0013,0017,0023,0024].
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the apparatus and methods of Bernard to replace and/or supplement either and/or both of the flow meters 66,64 with mass flowmeters having the differential pressure sensor, such mass flowmeters with differential pressure sensors being disclosed by Northam for analogous purposes and additional pressure sensors being suggested by Bernard. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected that this combination of prior art elements and techniques would have been within the skill of the art and would successfully yield and achieve the expected and predictable result that valuable information as to flow, rheological parameters of the fluid, and pressures would be obtained in a well-known manner.
Claim 17 Bernard, as modified with respect to claim 16, discloses at least one first pressure sensor Northam 50 configured to measure differential pressure across the first mass flowmeter Northam 40 [the Northam sensor and mass flowmeter being part of the claim 16 combination herein].
Claim 18 Bernard, as modified with respect to claim 17, discloses at least one second pressure sensor Northam 50 configured to measure differential pressure across the second mass flowmeter Northam 40 [the Northam sensor and mass flowmeter being part of the claim 16 combination herein].
Claim 19 Bernard, as modified with respect to claim 16, discloses a choke 78 [Figs. 1,2; para. 0043] connected in the bypass flow line [Figs. 1,2].
Claim 20 Bernard, as modified with respect to claim 19 [the first outlet never directly connects to the second outlet; Figs. 1,2].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Brana et al. (US20200386066) discloses a main flow line 165a and a bypass flow line 165a between a mud pump 150 and a well [Fig. 1; para. 0054].
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 GEORGE STERLING GRAY whose telephone number is (313)446-4820. The examiner can normally be reached 7-4 Eastern - M-F.
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.
/GEORGE S GRAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights