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 .
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.
Claim is 3 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 3 recites “ 3. The method of claim 2 further comprising switching the well pump off, moving the well pump to a second selected depth in the production tubing, operating the well pump and while operating the well pump, measuring the at least one property of the fluid entering the protective pipe using the at least one production logging sensor.”, where as the parent claims also recites “moving the well pump to a second selected depth in the production tubing.” This makes the claim unclear.
The claim will be examined as if it were “ another selected depth”
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 4 recites “4. The method of claim 1 wherein deploying the well pump at the first selected depth comprises engaging the resettable annular seal between the well pump and the production tubing” whereas the parent claims recites ” engaging a resettable annular seal between the well pump and the production tubing at the first selected depth.” While not identical, it is not clear what additional limitations are required.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 3, 4, 5, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20090277628 A1 to Watson in view of US 20190106948 A1 to O’Grady and US 12215579 B1 to Cochran.
Regarding claim 1: Watson discloses 1. A method for characterizing fluid production into a well during pumping fluid from the well (Abstract), comprising:
deploying a well pump 100 on an electrical cable 112 [0014] to a first selected depth (Figure 1) with production tubing [0018] within a protective pipe in the well (“casing”, [0015]), the well pump having suspended therefrom an extension line (130,[0022, 0024], Claim 9) the extension line in communication with at least one production logging sensor 140, the extension line having a fixed length (Figure 1, 130 is interpreted as being a fixed length), the at least one production logging sensor 140 supported by the extension line and disposed in the protective pipe (Figure 1); below a bottom of the production tubing (This is interpreted as being met, as Watson discloses using production tubing connected to the outlet of the pump, and thus the sensors would be blow the bottom.);
while operating the well pump at the first selected depth, measuring at least one property of fluid entering the protective pipe using the at least one production logging sensor.([0015-0016])
However Watson fails to disclose in a production tubing nested, or explicitly the sensor is below a bottom of the production tubing, engaging a resettable annular seal between the well pump and the production tubing at the first selected depth; operating the well pump at the first selected depth; switching the well pump off; releasing the resettable annular seal from the production tubing; moving the well pump to a second selected depth in the production tubing, the moving of the well pump causing re-positioning of the at least one production logging sensor; re-engaging the resettable annular seal between the well pump and the production tubing at the second selected depth; operating the well pump at the second selected depth; and while operating the well pump at the second selected depth, measuring the at least one property of the fluid entering the protective pipe using the at least one production logging sensor.
O’Grady teaches an ESP for wellbore use where it is operated to flow fluids [0018,0020] into a production tube 13 nested in a casing 11.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date (AIA ) to have modified Watson, and to perform the step of operating the well pump, in view of O’Grady, so as to flow fluids from the formation and into the production tubing to the surface. [0018,0020]
Furthermore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date (AIA ) to have modified Watson, and to place his pump into production tubing nested within casing, in view of O’Grady, as this would amount to no more than combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Cochran teaches an BHA with an ESP pump 124, a resettable multi-set packer 126 and sensors 128 (see also the Abstract) wherein the BHA is conveyed into a wellbore, the packer set, turn on the pump, make measurements of fluid property, stop the pump, unset the packer from the production tubing, move the BHA to a second location as a different depth, re-set the packer and, turn the pump on, make measurements at the second location with the sensor.(See at least Figure 9, Col 4, line 36- Col 5, line 15; Col 14, line 39- Col 15, line 41)
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date (AIA ) to have modified Watson to have a resettable packer and performed the steps of engaging a resettable annular seal between the well pump and the production tubing at the first selected depth; operating the well pump at the first selected depth; switching the well pump off; releasing the resettable annular seal from the production tubing; moving the well pump to a second selected depth in the production tubing, the moving of the well pump causing re-positioning of the at least one production logging sensor; re-engaging the resettable annular seal between the well pump and the production tubing at the second selected depth; operating the well pump at the second selected depth; and while operating the well pump at the second selected depth, measuring the at least one property of the fluid entering the protective pipe using the at least one production logging sensor, in view of Cochran, to initiating natural production flow on wells that have been killed with a workover fluid (Abstract). Furthermore, modifying Watson to perform the claimed steps would amount to no more than Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Additionally, if one were to argue about the location of the sensors with regard to the bottom of the production pipe in the modification, It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date (AIA ) to have modified Watson, such that when using nested production tube and casing system as taught by O’Grady, to have his sensors be below the end of the production tubing as "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (Sensor below the end, at the end, or above the end), with a reasonable expectation of success;
Regarding claim 3: Watson discloses the claimed invention except 3. The method of claim 2 further comprising switching the well pump off, moving the well pump to a second selected depth in the production tubing, operating the well pump and while operating the well pump, measuring the at least one property of the fluid entering the protective pipe using the at least one production logging sensor.
Cochran teaches an BHA with an ESP pump 124, a resettable multi-set packer 126 and sensors 128 (see also the Abstract) wherein the BHA is conveyed into a wellbore, the packer set, turn on the pump, make measurements of fluid property, stop the pump, unset the packer from the production tubing, move the BHA to a second location as a different depth, re-set the packer and, turn the pump on, make measurements at the second location with the sensor.(See at least Figure 9, Col 4, line 36- Col 5, line 15; Col 14, line 39- Col 15, line 41)
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date (AIA ) to have modified Watson to have performed the steps of switching the well pump off, moving the well pump to a another selected depth in the production tubing, operating the well pump and while operating the well pump, measuring the at least one property of the fluid entering the protective pipe using the at least one production logging sensor, , in view of Cochran, to initiating natural production flow on wells that have been killed with a workover fluid (Abstract). Furthermore, modifying Watson to perform the claimed steps would amount to no more than Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 4: Watson discloses the pump having packers [0018] however does not explicitly disclose 4. The method of claim 1 wherein deploying the well pump at the first selected depth comprises engaging the resettable annular seal between the well pump and the production tubing.
Cochran teaches an BHA with an ESP pump 124, a resettable multi-set packer 126 and sensors 128 (see also the Abstract) wherein the BHA is conveyed into a wellbore, the packer set, turn on the pump, make measurements of fluid property, stop the pump, unset the packer from the production tubing, move the BHA to a second location as a different depth, re-set the packer and, turn the pump on, make measurements at the second location with the sensor.(See at least Figure 9, Col 4, line 36- Col 5, line 15; Col 14, line 39- Col 15, line 41)
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date (AIA ) to have modified Watson to have performed the steps of setting the resettable packer and form an annular seal between the well pump and the production tubing, in view of Cochran, in order to form a seal at the desired location and perform pumping to initiating natural production flow on wells that have been killed with a workover fluid (Abstract). Furthermore, modifying Watson to perform the claimed steps would amount to no more than Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 5: Watson discloses 5. The method of claim 1 wherein the at least one production logging sensor comprises a flow meter.[0006]
Regarding claim 7: Watson discloses 7. The method of claim 1 wherein the first selected depth and a length of the extension line are chosen such that the at least one production logging sensor is located above a set of perforations 10 in the protective pipe 12 (Figure 1).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20090277628 A1 to Watson, US 20190106948 A1 to O’Grady and US 12215579 B1 to Cochran, further in view of US 20090084543 A1 to Fitzgerald.
Regarding claim 6: Watson discloses the claimed invention except 6. The method of claim 1 wherein the at least one production logging sensor comprises a holdup meter.
Fitzgerald teaches a similar logging and pumping device with a holdup meter (Abstract,[0049])
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date (AIA ) to have modified Watson and incorporated a holdup meter into his sensors, in view of Fitzgerald, so as to measure the fraction of water, oil and gas present in the wellbore at a given depth [0049].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 is allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments dated 3/26/26 have been fully considered and have overcome the previous rejections. The rejections have been modified and now include US 12215579 B1 to Cochran to teach the amended limitations.
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 STEVEN MACDONALD whose telephone number is (571)272-8763. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30 EST.
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, Doug Hutton can be reached at (571) 272-4137. 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.
/STEVEN A MACDONALD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674