DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-16 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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following:
Figures 1-3 are objected to for having the incorrect cross-hatching, as the subterranean formation should be cross-hatched as “Earth”, per MPEP 608.02, section IX. See also 37 CFR 1.84(h)(3).
Figure 3 should likely show the opening within “56” in which the gas leads into from duct “54”, similar to that as shown in figure 2.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities and should likely read as follows: “[...] wherein the mechanical decoupler comprises a non-Newtonian fluid, an epicyclical gear [[[or/and]]and/or a magnetic coupler inserted between the turbine rotor and the pump rotor”. Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In light of the 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejections herein corresponding to the term “motorless”, Examiner notes that the specification disclosing the limitation of the “fluid pump” being “motorless” is problematic and contradictory.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 2 recites: “[...] wherein the fluid pump is motorless, the rotation of the pump rotor being driven exclusively by rotation of the turbine rotor.” Examiner notes that the instant specification defines it’s system to be operated as a pneumatic motor, where compressed gas is used to create mechanical motion. Therefore, the instant specification lacks support for the system/apparatus to be completely motorless. “An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved…”. Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 2010). See MPEP 2163.03, subsection V.
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 2 is 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 2 recites: “[...] wherein the fluid pump is motorless, the rotation of the pump rotor being driven exclusively by rotation of the turbine rotor.” One skilled in the art would be confused as to how the apparatus/system, as previously introduced in the parent claim, can be motorless, if the system is essentially operated as a pneumatic motor, where compressed gas is used to create mechanical motion. It appears as if the “fluid pump” being “motorless” is contradicting the parent claim 1. For examination purposes, the Examiner will take its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the instant specification and will assume for the claim to not be completely motorless.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities and should likely read as follows: “[...] the turbine rotor being rotatable around the longitudinal rotation axis, the turbine rotor and the pump rotor being mechanically coupled such that the rotation of the turbine rotor produced by gas injection from the gas injection duct drives in rotation the pump rotor, and...”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 6-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matic (US Publication Number 2005/0135944 A1; herein “Matic”) in view of Riachentsev (US Publication Number 2021/0372244 A1; herein “Riachentsev”).
In regard to claim 1, Matic discloses: A fluid lifting system to be placed in a fluid production well (abstract and figure 1), comprising:
a fluid pump (as shown in figures 1-2), having a pump stator (32) and a pump rotor (25) defining an intermediate fluid pumping space (paragraphs [0014-0017] and figures 1-2), the pump rotor having received in the intermediate fluid pumping space the pump rotor being rotatable around a longitudinal rotation axis (i.e., central longitudinal axis of apparatus | see paragraphs [0014-0017] and figures 1-2),
a gas turbine (as shown in figures 1-2) comprising a turbine rotor (24) having blades and a turbine stator (9) defining a gas expansion chamber (i.e., space within chamber comprising 24) with the turbine rotor (paragraphs [0014-0017] and figures 1-2),
a gas injection duct (20), configured to receive a gas flow from an external gas source (i.e., gas flow source introduced in “7”) and to introduce the gas flow in the gas expansion chamber to drive the turbine rotor in rotation around the longitudinal rotation axis (paragraphs [0014-0017] and figures 1-2),
the turbine rotor being rotatable around the longitudinal rotation axis, the turbine rotor and the pump rotor being mechanically coupled such that the rotation of the turbine rotor produced by gas injection from the gas injection duct drives in rotation the pump rotor (paragraphs [0014-0017] and figures 1-2), and
wherein the turbine rotor and the pump rotor are at least partly in longitudinal overlap in projection on the rotation axis (paragraphs [0014-0017] and figures 1-2).
However, Matic is silent in regard to: the pump rotor having an impeller received in the intermediate fluid pumping space.
Nonetheless, Riachentsev teaches downhole pump system(s) (abstract), similar to that of Matic. Riachentsev cites: “The pump rotor includes at least one impeller connected to the motor rotor” (abstract). Furthermore, see paragraphs [0008, 0011].
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), to simply substitute the pump rotor, as taught by Matic, with that of Riachentsev, to yield the predictable result of lifting well fluids to the surface (paragraph [0025] of Riachentsev). See MPEP 2143, section I, subsection B.
In regard to claim 2, Matic further discloses: wherein the fluid pump is motorless, the rotation of the pump rotor being driven exclusively by rotation of the turbine rotor (paragraphs [0014-0017] and figures 1-2).
In regard to claim 3, Matic further discloses: wherein the turbine rotor and the pump rotor are directly mechanically coupled such that rotation of the turbine rotor at a given angular rotation speed (i.e., arbitrary rotational speed) around the longitudinal rotation axis drives the pump rotor in rotation at the same angular rotation speed around the rotation axis (paragraphs [0014-0017] and figures 1-2).
In regard to claim 4, Matic further discloses: a mechanical decoupler (i.e., “decoupler” comprising bearings 22, 26), inserted between the pump rotor and the turbine rotor (paragraphs [0014-0017] and figure 2), the rotation of the turbine rotor at a first given angular rotation speed driving in rotation the pump rotor at a second given angular rotation speed, different from the first angular rotation speed (Examiner notes that this true for when the gas is introduced in the turbine system to start/actuate the pump system during the beginning stage of the pump system functioning to operate to lift the fluid where the rotational speed of the turbine will be intrinsically faster, i.e., different, than the pump rotor as it serves the purpose of increasing pump rotor from undesired state).
In regard to claim 6, Matic further discloses: a radial gas passage fluidly connecting the expansion chamber to the intermediate fluid pumping space (paragraphs [0014-0017] and figures 1-2).
In regard to claim 7, Matic further discloses: wherein the impeller of the pump rotor defines gas mixing through holes (i.e., openings | paragraphs [0014-0017] and figures 1-2).
In regard to claim 8, Matic further discloses: wherein the turbine rotor and the pump rotor have a full longitudinal overlap in projection on the rotation axis (paragraphs [0014-0017] and figures 1-2).
In regard to claim 9, Matic further discloses: wherein the pump rotor is received within the turbine rotor (paragraphs [0014-0017] and figures 1-2).
In regard to claim 10, Matic further discloses: wherein the turbine stator receives the turbine rotor, the turbine rotor receiving the pump rotor and being mechanically coupled to the pump rotor, the pump rotor receiving the pump stator (paragraphs [0014-0017] and figures 1-2).
In regard to claim 11, Matic further discloses: wherein the impeller of the pump rotor has vanes protruding radially towards the longitudinal rotation axis, the blades of the pump rotor protruding radially apart from the rotation axis (paragraphs [0014-0017] and figures 1-2).
In regard to claim 12, Matic discloses: A fluid production installation, comprising a fluid production well (1) comprising: a production tubing (17) inwardly defining an inner production canal (i.e., space/passage therein) and outwardly defining an outer annular space (i.e., space between 17 and 1 — figure 1) being connected to a gas source (i.e., source from surface introducing gas into 7) at the surface of the well, the production tubing delimiting a gas injection inlet (as shown in figure 1) extending between the outer annular space and the production canal, and a fluid lifting system according to claim 1, the gas injection duct being connected to the gas injection inlet (paragraphs [0014-0017] and figures 1-2).
In regard to claim 13, Matic further discloses: providing a fluid lifting system (as shown in figure 1) according to claim 1 in a fluid production well (1); providing a gas flow from an external gas source (i.e., source from surface introducing gas into 7) to the gas injection duct, and introducing the gas flow in the gas expansion chamber to drive the turbine rotor in rotation around the longitudinal rotation axis, and jointly driving the pump rotor with the turbine rotor to pump fluid through the intermediate fluid pumping space (paragraphs [0014-0017] and figures 1-2).
In regard to claim 14, Matic further discloses: transferring expanded gas from the expansion chamber to the intermediate fluid pumping space to mix the expanded gas with the pumped liquid (paragraphs [0014-0017] and figures 1-2).
In regard to claim 15, Matic further discloses: The fluid lifting process according to claim 13, comprising producing a first negative thermal power in the gas turbine by expansion of gas in the gas chamber and producing a second positive thermal power in the fluid pump by pumping fluid through the intermediate pumping space, and providing heat exchange between the gas turbine and the fluid pump to at least partly compensate the second thermal power with the first thermal power (Examiner notes that negative and positive thermal powers are met, absent specific detail, as Matic teaches the structural and functional limitations).
In regard to claim 16, Matic further discloses: wherein the rotation of the turbine rotor at a first given angular rotation speed drives in rotation the pump rotor at a second given angular rotation speed smaller than the first angular rotation speed (Examiner notes that this true for when the gas is introduced in the turbine system to start/actuate the pump system during the beginning stage of the pump system functioning to operate to lift the fluid where the rotational speed of the turbine will be intrinsically faster than the pump rotor as it serves the purpose of increasing pump rotor from undesired state).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matic (US Publication Number 2005/0135944 A1; herein “Matic”) in view of Riachentsev (US Publication Number 2021/0372244 A1; herein “Riachentsev”) in further view of Mayer et al. (US Publication Number 2019/0040691 A1; herein “Mayer”).
In regard to claim 5, Matic in view of Riachentsev disclose the preceding claim(s).
However, Matic in view of Riachentsev is/are silent in regard to: wherein the mechanical decoupler comprises a non-Newtonian fluid, an epicyclical gear [[[or/and]]and/or a magnetic coupler inserted between the turbine rotor and the pump rotor.
Nonetheless, Mayer teaches using non-Newtonian fluid in its downhole bearing assembly (paragraphs [0053-0056] and figure 8).
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), to modify the bearing assembly (located between the turbine rotor and the pump rotor), as taught by Matic, to include for non-Newtonian fluid, as taught by Mayer, to “[...] provide greater resistance against a rapid and sudden application of stress and a lesser resistance against a slow and continuous application of stress” (paragraph [0056] of Mayer).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references in the PTO-892 relate to downhole fluid lifting systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEEL PATEL whose telephone number is (469)295-9168. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00AM-5:00PM CST.
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.
/NEEL GIRISH PATEL/ Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676