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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/27/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Meyer fails to disclose the operational data in a form of a change in noise emanating from the spinning feature.
The Examiner disagrees. Myers senses vibrational noise created by “rotation of a pump” [0078]. Rotation of a pump is interpreted as a spinning feature and it is clear that this is a source of the noise measured.
Applicant argues that Myers does not disclose the sensor is proximate the spinning feature.
The Examiner disagrees. See figure 2, the sensors 128 are “proximate” the pump 146.
Applicant argues that Myers does not disclose the data is from the spinning feature.
The Examiner disagrees. See [0078], where rotation of a pump is a source of the noise.
The Examiner notes that the applicant argues that Myers does not isolate the noise from the spinning feature. The examiner does not find “isolating” in the claims.
Applicant argues that Myers does not disclose “ a change in noise emanating from that spinning feature”.
The examiner disagrees. It should be noted that noise signal by its very nature comprises changing signal, otherwise it would be a constant and not noise. Furthermore, Myers performs analysis for signatures and changes in vibration/ noise signatures with acceptable limits [0033][0037]. This is interpreted as meeting the claim limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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) 1, 5-7, 9-11, 15-17, 19, 21 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 a1 as being anticipated by US 20120046866 A1 to Meyer.
(Note independent claims are addressed first and like dependent claims grouped together for brevity)
Regarding claim 1: Meyer discloses 1. A downhole tool, comprising:
a downhole device (ESP pump 146,[0080]), the downhole device including a spinning feature associated therewith ([0078]); and
a sensor (120 with 128) positioned proximate the spinning feature of the downhole device (Figure 2), the sensor configured to sense for and send uphole operational data originating from the spinning feature of the downhole device, the operational data in a form of a change in noise emanating from the spinning feature of the downhole device.([0008, 0031] , the system is configured to send data to the surface via 120 to 122 and further analysis by 126)
Regarding claim 11: Meyer discloses 11. A well system, comprising:
a wellbore 100 extending through one or more subterranean formations (Figure 2);
a tubing string104 located in the wellbore; and
a downhole tool positioned in the wellbore, the downhole tool including:
a downhole device (ESP pump 146,[0080]), the downhole device including a spinning feature associated therewith ([0078]); and
a sensor (120 with 128) positioned proximate the spinning feature of the downhole device (Figure 2), the sensor configured to sense for and send uphole operational data originating from the spinning feature of the downhole device, the operational data in a form of a change in noise emanating from the spinning feature of the downhole device.([0008, 0031] , the system is configured to send data to the surface via 120 to 122 and further analysis by 126)
Regarding claim 23: Meyer discloses 23. A method, comprising:
positioning a downhole tool within a wellbore 100 having a tubing string 104, the downhole tool including:
a downhole device (ESP pump 146,[0080]), the downhole device including a spinning feature associated therewith ([0078]); and
a sensor (120 with 128) positioned proximate the spinning feature of the downhole device (Figure 2), and sensing for and sending uphole operation data originating from the spinning feature of the downhole device, the operational data in a form of a change in noise emanating from the spinning feature of the downhole device. (Claim 1 and [0008, 0031, 0033] , the system sends sensor data to the surface via 120 to 122 and further analysis by 126).
Regarding claims 5 and 15: Meyer discloses wherein the change in noise is a change in acoustic noise, a change in vibration noise, a change in electronic noise, or a change in mechanical noise emanating from the spinning feature. [0008], [0078]
Regarding claims 6 and 16: Meyer discloses wherein the change in noise is a change in fluidic noise emanating from the spinning feature. [0078]
Regarding claims 7 and 17: Meyer discloses wherein the operational data is a health of the spinning feature [0078 and 0081], type of fluid driving the spinning feature, composition of fluid driving the spinning feature, density of fluid driving the spinning feature, viscosity of fluid driving the spinning feature, volume of fluid driving the spinning feature, or flow rate of fluid driving the spinning feature.
Regarding claims 9 and 19: Meyer discloses wherein the sensor is a distributed acoustic sensor (DAS) cable.[0049-0050], as best understood the system disclosed is distributed acoustic sensor (DAS) cable.)
Regarding claims 10 and 21: Meyer discloses wherein the sensor is a distributed fiber optic sensor (DFOS) cable 120.([0010], [0048], as best understood the system disclosed is a distributed fiber optic sensor cable)
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) 2, 12 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20120046866 A1 to Meyer in view of US 20230167692 A1 Al-Mousa and US 20180058209 A1 to Song.
Regarding claims 2, 12 and 24: Meyer discloses the claimed invention except wherein the spinning feature is a spinning turbine.
However, in the embodiment of figure 4, Meyer teaches downhole control valves, that can be operated by hydraulic or electrical means [0102] that can be monitor by fiber optic cable 520 [0106]
Al-Mouasa teaches downhole flow control valves that include one or more sensors, including a flow meter [0006].
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 Meyer to include with his flow control valve, one or more sensors, including a flow meter, in view of Al-Mousa, so as to monitor the status of the downhole control valve and it’s operating conditions, such as flow rate etc. This would amount to no more than combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Al-Mouasa is not specific as to the details of the sensors, including the flow meter.
Song teaches that a downhole flow meter in a wellbore can be a “spinner” or “axial turbine flow meter” [0160].
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, when modifying Meyer with Al-Mousa, to use for the flow meter, a “spinner” or “axial turbine flow meter”, in view of Song, as these type of flow meters are notoriously conventional and would amount to no more than combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
The above combination is interpreted as teaching the limitation of “wherein the spinning feature is a spinning turbine”.
Claim(s) 3-4, 13-14 and 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20120046866 A1 to Meyer in view of US 20230167692 A1 Al-Mousa and US 20180058209 A1 to Song further in evidence of or alternatively in view of EP 0744527 A1 to OPPELT and US 20200295640 A1 to Tegeler
Regarding claims 3-4, 13-14 and 25-26: Meyer discloses the claimed invention except wherein the spinning turbine is a spinning power turbine of a downhole power source.
However, in the embodiment of figure 4, Meyer teaches downhole control valves, that can be operated by hydraulic or electrical means [0102] that can be monitor by fiber optic cable 520 [0106]
Al-Mouasa teaches downhole flow control valves that include one or more sensors, including a flow meter [0006].
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 Meyer to include with his flow control valve, one or more sensors, including a flow meter, in view of Al-Mousa, so as to monitor the status of the downhole control valve and it’s operating conditions, such as flow rate etc. This would amount to no more than combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Al-Mouasa is not specific as to the details of the sensors, including the flow meter.
Song teaches that a downhole flow meter in a wellbore can be a “spinner” or “axial turbine flow meter” [0160].
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, when modifying Meyer with Al-Mousa, to use for the flow meter, a “spinner” or “axial turbine flow meter”, in view of Song, as these type of flow meters are notoriously conventional and would amount to no more than combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
The above combination is interpreted as teaching the limitation of “wherein the spinning feature is a spinning turbine”.
Oppelt teaches that a turbine flow meter acts by driving a generator to produce a voltage which can be used by other components.(Col 2, lines 14-27).
As such, the axial turbine flow meter, taught by Song is interpreted as being a downhole power source.
If one were to argue, 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
Meyer and use the axial turbine flow meter to generate power downhole, in view of Oppelt, so that other components could be powered by the flow of fluid.
Furthermore, it is well known that power generators involve spinning rotors within a stationary stator.
Tegeler gives evidence that downhole power generation by fluid flow can involve rotating a turbine by flow to turn a rotor to generate power [0028][0048].
It is interpreted that in the axial turbine flow meter of Song includes a rotor attached to the turbine, and thus the combination teaches the claimed limitations.
Claim(s) 8 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20120046866 A1 to Meyer in view of US 20160084062 A1 to NEGRE.
Regarding claims 8 and 18: Meyer discloses wherein the sensor is a hydrophone [0035-0036], however fails to disclose an electric cable employing an electronic hydrophone
NEGRE teaches a downhole monitoring system with hydrophones connected via electric cable 105 [0005].
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 and used electric hydrophone sensors with an electric cable, in view of NEGRE, so as to perform monitoring of a wellbore and allow for the replacement of a failed sensor [0010]
Claim(s) 20 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20120046866 A1 to Meyer.
Regarding claims 20 and 22: Meyer discloses further including an upper completion and a lower completion associated with the tubing string (Figure 2, above and below packer 116), a junction being formed between the upper completion and the lower completion (at packer 116, though the junction appears to be arbitrary), and further wherein the distributed acoustic sensor (DAS) cable extends from a surface of the wellbore to an annulus between the spinning feature and the wellbore.(Figure 2)
However Meyer does not explicitly disclose where the spinning feature is below the junction.
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 Meyes and moved his pump to a location below the junction to and upper and lower completion, in view of Meyer, as no more than a design choice for the location of the pump with regard to a junction.
Conclusion
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 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
Prosecution Insights