DETAILED ACTION
The present application is a Divisional (DIV) of U.S. Application No. 18/317,633.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Federative Republic of Brazil on May 16, 2022.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers of the BR10 2022 009474 8 application required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (Claims 1-9) in the reply filed on June 26, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 10-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: inconsistent terminology.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a producing well” in line 3.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the well” in line 4.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the producing well” in line 6.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the production well” in line 16.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the production well” in line 17.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the well” in line 18.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: typographical error. Claim 2 recites the limitation “monitoring variations in in a pressure differential” in line 3. The claim recites “in” twice in a row. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: parenthetical error. Claim 2 recites the limitation “monitoring variations in in a pressure differential between a string PDG (permanent downhole gauge)” in line 3. However, the first use of the acronym should be within the parenthesis instead (i.e., monitoring variations in in a pressure differential between a string permanent downhole gauge (PDG)). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for injecting a chemical sequence comprising a scale inhibitor, does not reasonably provide enablement for injecting any and/or all chemical sequences. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
Per In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988), the following Undue Experimentation factors support a determination that the disclosure satisfies the Enablement requirement for the Full claim Scope:
(B) The nature of the invention;
(C) The state of the prior art;
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill;
(G) The existence of working examples;
However, the following Undue Experimentation factors do not support a determination that the disclosure satisfies the Enablement requirement for the full claim Scope:
(A) The breadth of the claims;
(E) The level of predictability in the art;
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor;
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make and/or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
That is, four of the Wands factors support Enablement, while four factors do not support Enablement, one of which relates directly to the current claim scope (A). Therefore, there exists a Scope of Enablement deficiency for the current claims.
The Examiner suggests the following amendment to Claims 1 and 9:
1. (Currently Amended) An autonomous treatment process on pre-salt production platforms comprising:
identifying signs of scaling in a producing well;
conducting a first test of a production of the producing well to determine a pre-treatment reference condition;
shutting down the producing well;
executing a scale removal and inhibition procedure comprising:
pumping a treatment volume of desulphated water ranging from 500 bbl to 4500 bbl into the producing well;
injecting a chemical sequence comprising a scale inhibitor into the treatment volume;
aligning a production and an injection train;
maintaining a log of pressure gauges of a production well system within a range of 80 to 220 kgf/cm2 and a flow rate range of diesel injection and of a treatment solution injection within a range from 2 bpm to 30 bpm; and
restarting the producing well;
collecting samples from the producing well;
conducting a second test of the production of the producing well to determine an efficiency of the treatment.
9. (Currently Amended) The autonomous treatment process of claim 5, wherein injecting a chemical sequence into the treatment volume comprises injecting [[a] the scale inhibitor into the producing well line via a triplex chemical injection pump.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-9 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “pumping a treatment volume of desulphated water ranging from 500 bbl to 4500 bbl” in lines 8-9. Claim 1 is incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: the location at/to which the treatment volume is pumped.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “injecting a chemical sequence” in line 10. It is unclear what chemical composition(s) and/or component(s) are required to meet the claimed invention, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Thus, Claim 1 is incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: chemical sequence composition(s) / component(s).
Claim 1 recites the limitation “maintaining a log of pressure gauges of a production well system within a range of 80 to 220 kgf/cm2 and a flow rate range of diesel injection and of a treatment solution injection within a range from 2 bpm to 30 bpm” in lines 12-14. Claim 1 is incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: diesel injection method step; treatment solution injection method step. Moreover, “a production well system” has not been previously introduced into the claims prior to the recitation further limiting the log of pressure gauges. It is unclear how the other components of the autonomous treatment process are configured within this system, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “conducting a first test of a production of the well to determine a pre-treatment reference condition” in lines 4-5; then Claim 1 recites the limitation “collecting samples from the production well; conducting a second test of the production of the well to determine an efficiency of the treatment.” In lines 17-19; however, it is unclear what condition(s) is required to meet the claimed invention, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Moreover, there is no direct nexus between the limitations linking how the first test and second test are used in combination to determine an efficiency of the treatment and/or how the pre-treatment reference condition is used within the process.
Claims 1-9 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the well" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the production well" in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the production well" in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the well" in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 3-4 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the production well" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freiman et al. (BR 102020016720 A2) in view of Wang et al. (US 2023/0313644).
Claim 1. An autonomous treatment process on pre-salt production platforms comprising:
identifying signs of scaling in a producing well;
conducting a first test of a production of the well (See rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)) to determine a pre-treatment reference condition;
shutting down the producing well;
executing a scale removal and inhibition procedure comprising:
pumping a treatment volume of desulphated water ranging from 500 bbl to 4500 bbl (See rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b));
injecting a chemical sequence into the treatment volume (See rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a); See rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b));
aligning a production and an injection train;
maintaining a log of pressure gauges of a production well system within a range of 80 to 220 kgf/cm2 and a flow rate range of diesel injection and of a treatment solution injection within a range from 2 bpm to 30 bpm (See rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)); and
restarting the production well (See rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b));
collecting samples from the production well (See rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b));
conducting a second test of the production of the well (See rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)) to determine an efficiency of the treatment.
Freiman et al. (BR 102020016720 A2) discloses an autonomous method of removing and inhibiting scale on offshore platforms, wherein the method uses industrial or desulfated water mattresses to remove soluble inorganic deposits (i.e. scale) in the production column (Abstract; [0020]). Freiman discloses that the method comprises: injecting a volume of industrial or desulfated water, and of inhibitor added to this water, into the production column, reaching the reservoir; performing a soaking for a period of about 4 hours (i.e. shutting down the production column); facilitating a start-up sequence by injecting diesel oil to displace the water to avoid the formation of hydrate inside the production line; bullheading; and emptying the production line for the distribution of the well ([0023] – [0029]). Freiman further discloses that with the opening of the well for production and, after stabilizing the flow of the well, temperature and pressure measurements are carried out to evaluate the efficiency of the scale removal ([0030]).
Freiman does not expressly disclose conducting a first test of a production of the well to determine a pre-treatment reference condition; collecting samples from the production well; and conducting a second test of the production of the well to determine an efficiency of the treatment.
However, Wang teaches a method and system of treatment with scale inhibitor, including adding scale inhibitor to source water to give injection water, conveying the injection water in a surface conduit to an injection well for injection into an oil reservoir in a subterranean formation, pumping the injection water through a wellbore of the injection well into the oil reservoir, obtaining a sample of the injection water (including suspended solids), and analyzing the suspended solids (Abstract; [0003] – [0005]); wherein scale tests with and without scale inhibitors are performed to compare predetermined critical conditions, such as scale inhibitor concentration, with secondary analyses of collected samples to optimize the effectiveness of the inhibitor treatment ([0017]; [0030] – [0031]; [0051]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the process in Freiman with scale tests and sampling, as taught by Wang, in order to more accurately determine the efficiency of the scale inhibitor treatment of a system.
Claims 2-4. Freiman discloses that with the opening of the well for production and, after stabilizing the flow of the well, temperature and pressure measurements are carried out to evaluate the efficiency of the scale removal ([0030]). Wang teaches monitoring flow rate and production rate to determine whether performance of the scale-inhibitor treatment is effective. ([0022]; [0049] – [0051]).
Claims 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freiman et al. (BR 102020016720 A2) in view of Wang et al. (US 2023/0313644), further in view of Fowler (US 8,919,445).
Claims 5-9. Freiman does not disclose: aligning a production and an injection train with at least a second alignment valve of an assisted autonomous treatment system at least by: closing a first shut down valve of a water and gas (WAG) portion of the assisted autonomous treatment system, opening a first choke valve the WAG portion, opening a second alignment valve of a producing portion of the assisted autonomous treatment system, and activating the water pump to pump desulphated water through the first choke valve and into a WAG injection well line, into a first PIG receiver header and a test header, into a second PIG receiver by-pass, into a producing well line, and into a producing well.
However, Wang does teach that the system may include a flow control valve at the feed pump or disposed along the scale-inhibitor supply conduit to control flow rate of the scale inhibitor ([0049]); the solids (e.g., scale) may be collected during pigging of the surface conduit ([0052]); and the solids from scraping/pigging operation are analyzed via instrument(s) ([0053]; [0080]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the process in Freiman with a pigging operation and testing apparatus, as taught by Wang, in order to collect solids (e.g., scale) within the system to be analyzed thereafter.
Moreover, Fowler teaches a method of managing hydrates in a subsea production system that includes a host production facility, one or more producers, one or more water injectors, a water injection line, and a single production line for directing production fluids from the producers to the host production facility (Abstract); wherein the method comprises: placing a PIG in the subsea production system, shutting in production from the producers, and injecting a displacement fluid (e.g., dead crude or diesel) into the subsea production system in order to displace production fluids in the production line (Fig. 14; Col. 3, line 15 – Col. 6, line 27; Col. 17, lines 44-45). Fowler further teaches operating valves in connection with the system’s water injection manifold, production manifold, and PIG line(s) (Col. 10, line 60 – Col. 12, line 48). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the process in Freiman with valving connected to a water injection system, production system, and PIG line(s), in order to control fluid flow and improve flow efficiency through flowline(s).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Bader (US 10,995,027) discloses a descaling method and system using de-oiled and/or cooled down produced water (Col. 11, line 25 – Col. 12, line 21).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Crystal J. Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-6242. The examiner can normally be reached M-F from 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Sally Merkling can be reached at (571) 272-6297. 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.
/CRYSTAL J LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights