DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This Action is in response to the applicant's reply of 3/10/2026. In view of the applicant's amendments, the previously presented objections to the drawings and specification, as well as all previously presented 35 USC 112(b) rejections, have been withdrawn. The double patenting rejection has been withdrawn. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s arguments are persuasive regarding the specification objection, now withdrawn, but otherwise not persuasive.
Beginning at page 16, the applicant argues that the combination of Tunkiel and Mathiesen does not disclose the limitations of claim 1, the applicant initiating the argument with the statement: “the claimed invention, which is directed to a system-level configuration in which multiple autonomous inflow control devices (AICDs) are intentionally tuned to operate at different viscosity thresholds by selecting different pressure-signal tap locations along secondary fluid pathways. The Examiner's rejections improperly treat the claims as directed to a mere aggregation of known AICDs, rather than to the claimed coordinated tuning mechanism that is the core of the invention.” The examiner notes that the “selecting different pressure-signal tap locations along secondary fluid pathways” is not claimed until dependent claim 6 and has no bearing on the merits of the examiner’s combination with respect to claim 1. As to the tap locations being different, Tunkiel discloses two different AICD configurations that have such differing tap locations, as indicated at claim 6. It is also noted that the “coordinated tuning mechanism” is not claimed as such and suggests much more complexity than the actual limitations of claim 1, which essentially requires two or more AICDs, each being opened or closed based on different pressure differentials arising from the presence of produced fluids having different viscosities. In this regard, and as indicated in the claim 1 rejection, Tunkiel discloses tuning each of multiple AICDs according to anticipated fluid viscosities (e.g., para. [0025]), but does not explicitly disclose a single embodiment with the AICDs tuned to different viscosities. Such an embodiment was made obvious by the secondary reference, Mathiesen, as indicated in the claim 1 rejection.
Beginning at (a) on page 16, the applicant, at (3) again emphasizes the “different pressure-signal tap locations”, and such locations are not claimed until dependent claim 6. The applicant continues this emphasis, at the last paragraph beginning on page 16, by indicating that “tuning” requires “selecting where along the secondary fluid pathway the pressure signal is obtained (e.g., upstream or downstream of a viscosity sensitive channel, or from different locations along a non-viscosity sensitive channel),” although neither the tap locations nor the viscosity sensitive channels are claimed prior to claim 6, and the non-viscosity sensitive channels are not claimed until claims 8 and 9, both depending from claim 6.
At (b), on page 17, the applicant argues that the primary reference, Tunkiel, does not disclose an embodiment using two AICDs tuned to different fluid viscosities (required in claim 1). As indicated in the foregoing, the examiner’s combination does not rely on Tunkiel for as to different fluid viscosities, but instead relies on the teachings of Mathiesen. At (c), the applicant argues that adding Mathiesen does not address this requirement, suggesting that the examiner used Mathiesen only with regard to using AICDs in different zones. The examiner respectfully disagrees. As specifically indicated in the claim 1 rejection, the examiner references Mathiesen’s recognition of differing fluid viscosities in different zones, with such differences requiring differing AICD designs for different zones. The applicant also contends that Mathiesen does not address such requirement because Mathiesen does not teach or suggest the “claimed tuning mechanism” with respect to which, at (c)(1), the applicant again emphasizes “selecting different pressure-signal tap locations along secondary fluid pathways as a mechanism for tuning viscosity response,” which is not claimed until claim 6. At (c)(2), the applicant indicates that Mathiesen does not disclose multiple AICDs in the same flow control system that have different viscosity thresholds. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Fig. 2 depicts multiple AICDs 25a,b,c,d in the same system, and as discussed above and indicated in the claim 1 rejection, Mathiesen discloses designing each AICD’s threshold in light of the anticipated fluid viscosity for the zone served by the AICD. The applicant is correct that Mathiesen’s AICD designs are not based on “different pressure-signal pickoff locations,” but that is not claimed until dependent claim 6.
In response to applicant's argument, at the end of (c) and at (f), that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In this case, Tunkiel and Mathiesen merely disclose well known aspects concerning AICDs and produced fluid properties and the handling thereof, such aspects including all the claim 1 limitations. In this regard, it is noted that in (c) and (f), the applicant is again relying on the different tap locations which is not claimed until dependent claim 6.
At (d), on page 18, the applicant’s argument is based entirely on the different pressure-signal tap locations, which is not claimed until claim 6. It is noted again (1) that Mathiesen is only present in the combination with regard to having the first AICD trigger on a different fluid viscosity than the second AICD, and (2) as to the pressure signal tap locations being different, Tunkiel discloses two different AICD configurations that have such differing tap locations, as indicated at claim 6.
At (e), on page 18, the applicant argues that Veit does not validate the Tunkiel and Mathiesen combination. The examiner notes that Veit is only relevant to claim 13.
In response to applicant’s argument, at the top of page 19, 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, Tunkiel explicitly teaches designing each AICD to address the anticipated fluid viscosity in the zone in which it is to be used, and also the use of multiple AICDs. Although, Tunkiel did not explicitly stop and discuss the notoriously well known fact that different zones can produce fluids with different viscosities, that fact is mentioned by Mathiesen, thus its inclusion and relatively minor contribution to the combination for which Tunkiel had already disclosed AICDs having the claim 1 pressure differential switches and the claim 6 different pressure-signal tap locations.
The second paragraph beginning on page 19 is merely conclusory and again based solely on limitations not claimed until claim 6.
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.
Claims 9-13 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 9 This claim recites “a first viscosity sensitive channel” and “a second viscosity sensitive channel” and depends from claim 6 which recites “a first viscosity sensitive channel” and “a second viscosity sensitive channel,” making it unclear whether an additional first viscosity sensitive channel and an additional second viscosity sensitive channel is required. Claims 10-13 depend from claim 9.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 1-12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tunkiel et al. (US20160061004) [Tunkiel], in view of Mathiesen et al. (US20140216733) [Mathiesen733].
Claim 1 Tunkiel discloses a downhole fluid flow control system [Figs. 1-4,13; abstract; para. 0003; claims 1-5] comprising:
at least one flow control tubular [e.g., a base pipe 26 for one or more of the autonomous inflow control devices (“AICD”); Figs. 1-3,13; para. 0023,0027-0029; claim 3]; and
a plurality of autonomous inflow control devices 32 [at least the embodiments of Figs. 2-4 and Fig. 13; para. 0003,0020,0021,0029,0039] coupled to the at least one flow control tubular through which a fluid flows from an exterior to an interior of the at least one flow control tubular [e.g., through base pipe port 34; Figs. 1,2; para. 0028], the plurality of autonomous inflow control devices including a first autonomous inflow control device [Figs. 2-4] having a first valve element 46,48 [para. 0029,0030] and a first differential pressure switch [e.g., the pressure differential between the pressure on the leftward end of piston 48 and the pressure proximate 54; Figs. 2-4; para. 0026] that is operable to shift the first valve element 46,48 between open and closed positions [e.g., the lower viscosity of the undesired fluid creating a negative pressure differential across the piston 48, such that the piston is drawn to the right to close the main flow path; Figs. 2,3; para. 0026,0031-0033] and a second autonomous inflow control device [Fig. 13] having a second valve element 46,48 and a second differential pressure switch [e.g., the pressure differential between the pressure on the lower end of piston 48 (exerted by the main flow 44 in main flow path 42) and the pressure proximate the joinder of passage 68 to the piston chamber above the piston 48; Fig. 13; para. 0026,0039] that is operable to shift the second valve element between open and closed positions by [e.g., the lower viscosity of the undesired fluid creating a negative pressure differential across the piston 48, such that the piston is drawn upwardly to close the main flow path 42; Fig. 13; para. 0026,0039-0041];
that the first differential pressure switch is configured to open the first valve element responsive to a fluid flowing through the first autonomous inflow control device having at least a first viscosity and is configured to close the first valve element responsive to the fluid flowing through the first autonomous inflow control device that has less than the first viscosity [e.g., the lower viscosity of the undesired fluid creating a negative pressure differential across the piston 48, such that the piston is drawn to the right to close the main flow path; Figs. 2; para. 0026,0031-0033];
that the second differential pressure switch is configured to open the second valve element responsive to the fluid flowing through the second autonomous inflow control device having at least a second viscosity and is configured to close the second valve element responsive to the fluid flowing through the second autonomous inflow control device having less than the second viscosity [e.g., the lower viscosity of the undesired fluid creating a negative pressure differential across the piston 48, such that the piston is drawn upwardly to close the main flow path 42; Fig. 13; para. 0026,0039-0041].
Tunkiel further discloses selecting dimensions of the main flow path, the control line path, and the flow regulation element to optimize reservoir depletion and production of well fluids [para. 0025], and otherwise discloses all the limitations of this claim, but does not explicitly disclose that the second viscosity is different from the first viscosity.
Mathiesen discloses that different production zones may have fluids with different viscosities, such that optimizing efficiency and flow through the involved AICD for each zone requires that the AICDs will need different designs, e.g., establishing desired differential pressures, that take into account the different properties and physical conditions, e.g., viscosity [para. 0065,0060-0064].
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 Tunkiel to configure the first AICD to address a first viscosity of a first produced fluid, and to configure the second AICD to address a second viscosity of a second produced fluid having a different viscosity, the need for addressing different first and second viscosities arising from the differences in viscosity among production zones in the well, such differences and the need to design each AICD differently being disclosed by Mathiesen. 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 the different viscosities of the fluids from the different zones would be specifically addressed by an AICD for each zone.
Claim 2 Tunkiel, as modified with respect to claim 1, discloses that the at least one flow control tubular further comprises a plurality of flow control tubulars [e.g., one base pipe for each AICD, as discussed with respect to claim 1, herein].
Claim 3 Tunkiel, as modified with respect to claim 1, discloses that the at least one flow control tubular further comprises at least one flow control screen 22,24 [para. 0006,0027].
Claim 4 Tunkiel, as modified with respect to claim 1, discloses that the at least one flow control tubular further comprises a plurality of flow control screens 22,24 [para. 0006,0027].
Claim 5 Tunkiel, as modified with respect to claim 1, discloses that the first autonomous inflow control device [Figs. 2-4] has a first upstream side [entering the first AICD] and a first downstream side [exiting the first AICD into the base pipe 26] with a first main fluid pathway 42 in parallel with a first secondary fluid pathway 38 each extending between the first upstream and first downstream sides [Figs. 2,3; para. 0029], the first valve element 46,48 configured to allow fluid flow through the first main fluid pathway in the open position [shown in Fig. 3] and configured to prevent fluid flow through the first main fluid pathway in the closed position [e.g., after moving rightwardly; para. 0030,0033]; and
that the second autonomous inflow control device [Fig. 13] has a second upstream side [entering the second AICD] and a second downstream side [exiting the second AICD into the base pipe 26] with a second main fluid pathway 42 in parallel with a second secondary fluid pathway 38 each extending between the second upstream and second downstream sides [Fig. 13; para. 0039], the second valve element configured to allow fluid flow through the second main fluid pathway in the open position [shown in Fig. 13] and configured to prevent fluid flow through the second main fluid pathway in the closed position [e.g., after moving upwardly; para. 0039-0041].
Claim 6 Tunkiel, as modified with respect to claim 5, discloses that the first differential pressure switch is configured to receive a first pressure signal from a first location [Figs. 2-5; proximate 54] along the first secondary fluid pathway that biases the first valve element toward the closed position [e.g., when the lower viscosity of the undesired fluid creates a negative pressure differential across the piston; para. 0026, 0031-0033];
that the second differential pressure switch is configured to receive a second pressure signal from a second location [Fig. 13; the pressure proximate point “c” which is communicated to proximate the joinder of passage 68 to the piston chamber above the piston 48]along the second secondary fluid pathway that biases the second valve element toward the closed position [e.g., when the lower viscosity of the undesired fluid creates a negative pressure differential across the piston; para. 0026,0039]; and
that the first location is positioned relative to a first viscosity sensitive channel in the first secondary fluid pathway and the second location is positioned relative to a second viscosity sensitive channel in the second secondary fluid pathway, such that the first location and the second location are at different positions relative to their respective viscosity sensitive channels [i.e., in the Fig. 2,3 configuration of the first AICD, the first location 54 is at the discharge of flow regulation element 56, such element separating the first location from the first viscosity sensitive channel 38, whereas, in the Fig. 13 configuration of the second AICD, the second location c is directly on the second viscosity sensitive channel 38 and is not separated from the second viscosity sensitive channel 38 by the flow regulation element f, d, e, and further the first location being downstream of a diffuser of the flow regulation element 56 (Figs. 2,3), unlike the second location, which is upstream from a diffuser of the flow regulation element 56 (Fig. 13)].
Claim 9 Tunkiel, as modified with respect to claim 6, discloses that the first secondary fluid pathway includes a first viscosity sensitive channel [Figs. 2,3; e.g., the flow regulation element 56 in path 38] and a first non-viscosity sensitive channel [Figs. 2,3; e.g., either of the portions of path 38 upstream or downstream of the flow regulation element 56]; and
that the second secondary fluid pathway includes a second viscosity sensitive channel [Fig. 13; e.g., the chamfer f in path 38] and a second non-viscosity sensitive channel [Fig. 13; e.g., the portion of path 38 having no flow regulation element, and positioned downstream of second location c].
Claim 10 Tunkiel, as modified with respect to claim 9, discloses that the first location along the first secondary fluid pathway [38 Figs. 2,3] is an upstream location along the first non-viscosity sensitive channel [e.g., at least upstream from the outlet end of 38]; and
that the second location along the second secondary fluid pathway [38 Fig. 13] is a downstream location along the second non-viscosity sensitive channel [e.g., downstream from the inlet end of 38].
Claim 11 Tunkiel, as modified with respect to claim 9, discloses that the first location along the first secondary fluid pathway [38 Figs. 2,3] is a midstream location along the first non-viscosity sensitive channel [e.g., midstream along the length of 38]; and
that the second location along the second secondary fluid pathway [38 Fig. 13] is a downstream location along the second non-viscosity sensitive channel [e.g., downstream from the inlet end of 38].
Claim 12 Tunkiel, as modified with respect to claim 9, discloses that the first location along the first secondary fluid pathway [38 Figs. 2,3] is a midstream location along the first non-viscosity sensitive channel [e.g., midstream along the length of 38]; and
that the second location along the second secondary fluid pathway [38 Fig. 13] is an upstream location along the second non-viscosity sensitive channel [e.g., upstream from the outlet end of 38].
Claim 14 Tunkiel, as modified with respect to claim 5, discloses that the first differential pressure switch is configured to receive a first upstream pressure signal from the first upstream side [proximate entry to flowpath 42; Figs. 2,3], a first downstream pressure signal from the first downstream side [proximate exit from flowpath 42; Figs. 2,3] and a first secondary pressure signal from the first secondary fluid pathway [proximate 56; Figs. 2,3], the first upstream pressure signal and the first downstream pressure signal biasing the first valve element toward the open position, the first secondary pressure signal biasing the first valve element toward the closed position [e.g., the lower viscosity of the undesired fluid creating a negative pressure differential across the piston 48, such that the piston is drawn to the right to close the main flow path, i.e., biased to the right by such pressure in the flow path 42; Figs. 2,3; para. 0026,0031-0033]; and
that the second differential pressure switch is configured to receive a second upstream pressure signal from the second upstream side [proximate entry to flowpath 42; Fig. 13], a second downstream pressure signal from the second downstream side [proximate exit from flowpath 42; Fig. 13] and a second secondary pressure signal from the second secondary fluid pathway [proximate “c”; Fig. 13], the second upstream pressure signal and the second downstream pressure signal biasing the second valve element toward the open position, the second secondary pressure signal biasing the second valve element toward the closed position [e.g., the lower viscosity of the undesired fluid creating a negative pressure differential across the piston 48, such that the piston is drawn upwardly to close the main flow path 42, i.e., biased to downwardly by such pressure in the flow path 42; Fig. 13; para. 0026,0039-0041].
Claim 15 Tunkiel, as modified with respect to claim 14, discloses that a magnitude of the first secondary pressure signal is dependent upon the viscosity of the fluid flowing through the first secondary fluid pathway [as discussed at claim 1 herein with regard to the negative pressure differential proximate 56; Figs. 2-4]; and that a magnitude of the second secondary pressure signal is dependent upon the viscosity of the fluid flow through the second secondary fluid pathway [as discussed at claim 1 herein with regard to the negative pressure differential proximate “c” caused by the lower viscosity undesired fluid; Fig. 13].
Claim 16 Tunkiel, as modified with respect to claim 15, discloses that the magnitude of the first secondary pressure signal increases with decreasing viscosity of the fluid flowing through the first secondary fluid pathway [as discussed at claim 1 herein with regard to the negative pressure differential proximate 56, the magnitude of such negative pressure differential increasing as the viscosity of the fluid decreases; Figs. 2-4]; and that the magnitude of the second secondary pressure signal increases with decreasing viscosity of the fluid flowing through the second secondary fluid pathway [as discussed at claim 1 herein with regard to the negative pressure differential proximate “c”, the magnitude of such negative pressure differential increasing as the viscosity of the fluid decreases; Fig. 13].
Claim 17 Tunkiel, as modified with respect to claim 15, discloses that the first differential pressure switch is configured to open the first valve element responsive to the fluid flowing through the first secondary fluid pathway having at least the first viscosity and is configured to close the first valve element responsive to the fluid flowing through the first secondary fluid pathway having less than the first viscosity [as discussed at claim 1 herein with regard to the negative pressure differential proximate 56, the viscosity of the initial desired fluid creating a pressure sufficient to keep the piston 48 to the left, the viscosity of the later undesired fluid creating the negative pressure differential that biases the piston to the closed, rightward position; Figs. 2-4]; and that the second differential pressure switch is configured to open the second valve element responsive to the fluid flowing through the second secondary fluid pathway having at least the second viscosity and is configured to close the second valve element responsive to the fluid flowing through the second secondary fluid pathway having less than the second viscosity [as discussed at claim 1 herein with regard to the negative pressure differential proximate “c”, the viscosity of the initial desired fluid creating a pressure sufficient to keep the piston 48 downwardly, the viscosity of the later undesired fluid creating the negative pressure differential that biases the piston to the closed, upward position; Fig. 13].
Claim 18 As discussed with respect to claim 1, Tunkiel discloses a downhole fluid flow control system [Figs. 1-4,13; abstract; para. 0003; claims 1-5] comprising:
a tubular string including first and second flow control tubulars [e.g., a base pipe 26 for each of the autonomous inflow control devices (“AICD”); Figs. 1-3,13; para. 0023,0027-0029; claim 3];
a plurality of autonomous inflow control devices 32 [at least the embodiments of Figs. 2-4 and Fig. 13; para. para. 0003,0020,0021,0029,0039] including a first autonomous inflow control device [Figs. 2-4] coupled to the first flow control tubular through which a fluid flows from an exterior to an interior of the first flow control tubular [e.g., through base pipe port 34; Figs. 1,2; para. 0028], and a second autonomous inflow control device coupled to the second flow control tubular, through which the fluid flows from an exterior to an interior of the second flow control tubular [e.g., through base pipe port 34; Fig. 13; para. 0028], the first autonomous inflow control device having a first valve element 46,48 [para. 0029,0030] and a first differential pressure switch [e.g., the pressure differential between the pressure on the leftward end of piston 48 and the pressure proximate 54; Figs. 2-4; para. 0026] that is operable to shift the first valve element 46,48 between open and closed positions [e.g., the lower viscosity of the undesired fluid creating a negative pressure differential across the piston 48, such that the piston is drawn to the right to close the main flow path; Figs. 2,3; para. 0026,0031-0033] and a second autonomous inflow control device [Fig. 13; para. 0039] having a second valve element 46,48 and a second differential pressure switch [e.g., the pressure differential between the pressure on the lower end of piston 48 (exerted by the main flow 44 in main flow path 42) and the pressure proximate the joinder of passage 68 to the piston chamber above the piston 48; Fig. 13; para. 0026,0039] that is operable to shift the second valve element between open and closed positions by [e.g., the lower viscosity of the undesired fluid creating a negative pressure differential across the piston 48, such that the piston is drawn upwardly to close the main flow path 42; Fig. 13; para. 0026,0039-0041];
that the first differential pressure switch is configured to open the first valve element responsive to the fluid flowing through the first autonomous inflow control device having at least a first viscosity and is configured to close the first valve element responsive to the fluid flowing through the first autonomous inflow control device having less than the first viscosity [e.g., the lower viscosity of the undesired fluid creating a negative pressure differential across the piston 48, such that the piston is drawn to the right to close the main flow path; Figs. 2; para. 0026,0031-0033];
that the second differential pressure switch is configured to open the second valve element responsive to the fluid flowing through the second autonomous inflow control device having at least a second viscosity and is configured to close the second valve element responsive to the fluid flowing through the second autonomous inflow control device having less than the second viscosity [e.g., the lower viscosity of the undesired fluid creating a negative pressure differential across the piston 48, such that the piston is drawn upwardly to close the main flow path 42; Fig. 13; para. 0026,0039-0041].
Tunkiel further discloses selecting dimensions of the main flow path, the control line path, and the flow regulation element to optimize reservoir depletion and production of well fluids [para. 0025], and otherwise discloses all the limitations of this claim, but does not explicitly disclose that the second viscosity is different from the first viscosity.
Mathiesen discloses that different production zones may have fluids with different viscosities, such that optimizing efficiency and flow through the involved AICD for each zone requires that the AICDs will need different designs, e.g., establishing desired differential pressures, that take into account the different properties and physical conditions, e.g., viscosity [para. 0065,0060-0064].
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 Tunkiel to configure the first AICD to address a first viscosity of a first produced fluid, and to configure the second AICD to address a second viscosity of a second produced fluid having a different viscosity, the need for addressing different first and second viscosities arising from the differences in viscosity among production zones in the well, such differences and the need to design each AICD differently being disclosed by Mathiesen. 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 the different viscosities of the fluids from the different zones would be specifically addressed by the AICD for that zone.
Claim 19 As discussed with respect to claim 1, Tunkiel discloses a downhole fluid flow control system [Figs. 1-4,13; abstract; para. 0003; claims 1-5] comprising:
a flow control tubular [e.g., a base pipe 26 for more than one of the autonomous inflow control devices (“AICD”); Figs. 1-3,13; para. 0023,0027-0029; claim 3];
a plurality of autonomous inflow control devices 32 [at least the embodiments of Figs. 2-4 and Fig. 13; para. 0003,0020,0021,0029,0039] coupled to the flow control tubular, through which a fluid flows from an exterior to an interior of the flow control tubular [e.g., through base pipe port 34; Figs. 1,2; para. 0028], the plurality of autonomous inflow control devices including a first autonomous inflow control device [Figs. 2-4] having a first valve element 46,48 [para. 0029,0030] and a first differential pressure switch [e.g., the pressure differential between the pressure on the leftward end of piston 48 and the pressure proximate 54; Figs. 2-4; para. 0026] that is operable to shift the first valve element 46,48 between open and closed positions [e.g., the lower viscosity of the undesired fluid creating a negative pressure differential across the piston 48, such that the piston is drawn to the right to close the main flow path; Figs. 2,3; para. 0026,0031-0033] and a second autonomous inflow control device [Fig. 13; para. 0039] having a second valve element 46,48 and a second differential pressure switch [e.g., the pressure differential between the pressure on the lower end of piston 48 (exerted by the main flow 44 in main flow path 42) and the pressure proximate the joinder of passage 68 to the piston chamber above the piston 48; Fig. 13; para. 0026,0039] that is operable to shift the second valve element between open and closed positions by [e.g., the lower viscosity of the undesired fluid creating a negative pressure differential across the piston 48, such that the piston is drawn upwardly to close the main flow path 42; Fig. 13; para. 0026,0039-0041];
that the first differential pressure switch is configured to open the first valve element responsive to the fluid flowing through the first autonomous inflow control device having at least a first viscosity and is configured to close the first valve element responsive to the fluid flowing through the first autonomous inflow control device having less than the first viscosity [e.g., the lower viscosity of the undesired fluid creating a negative pressure differential across the piston 48, such that the piston is drawn to the right to close the main flow path; Figs. 2; para. 0026,0031-0033];
that the second differential pressure switch is configured to open the second valve element responsive to the fluid flowing through the second autonomous inflow control device having at least a second viscosity and is configured to close the second valve element responsive to the fluid flowing through the second autonomous inflow control device having less than the second viscosity [e.g., the lower viscosity of the undesired fluid creating a negative pressure differential across the piston 48, such that the piston is drawn upwardly to close the main flow path 42; Fig. 13; para. 0026,0039-0041].
Tunkiel further discloses selecting dimensions of the main flow path, the control line path, and the flow regulation element to optimize reservoir depletion and production of well fluids [para. 0025], and otherwise discloses all the limitations of this claim, but does not explicitly disclose that the second viscosity is different from the first viscosity.
Mathiesen discloses that different production zones may have fluids with different viscosities, such that optimizing efficiency and flow through the involved AICD for each zone requires that the AICDs will need different designs, e.g., establishing desired differential pressures, that take into account the different properties and physical conditions, e.g., viscosity [para. 0065,0060-0064].
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 Tunkiel to configure the first AICD to address a first viscosity of a first produced fluid, and to configure the second AICD to address a second viscosity of a second produced fluid having a different viscosity, the need for addressing different first and second viscosities arising from the differences in viscosity among production zones in the well, such differences and the need to design each AICD differently being disclosed by Mathiesen. 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 the different viscosities of the fluids from the different zones would be specifically addressed by the AICD for that zone.
Claim 20 Tunkiel, as modified with respect to claim 19, discloses that the flow control tubular further comprises a flow control screen 22,24 [para. 0006,0027].
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tunkiel, in view of Mathiesen, and further in view of Veit (US20150021019).
Claim 13 Tunkiel, as modified with respect to claim 9, discloses that the flow regulation element 56 may be in various forms, and otherwise discloses all the limitations of this claim, but does not explicitly disclose that the first viscosity sensitive channel further comprises a first tortuous path; and that the second viscosity sensitive channel further comprises a second tortuous path.
Veit discloses an AICD 126 responding to changing fluid viscosity using a tortuous path [Figs. 1-3,4B; para. 0032,0033].
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 Tunkiel, as modified, to configure the respective control lines 38 of each of the Figs. 2-4 and Fig. 13 embodiments to utilize a tortuous path, that type of pressure drop configuration being suggested for AICDs by Veit. 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 an appropriate pressure drop would be provided for the first and second differential pressure requirements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Subject to the foregoing Section 112(b) rejections, claims 7 and 8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: In combination with the other limitations of each of claims 1, 5, and 6, the following limitations were not located in one reference, or a reasonable combination of references, i.e., (1) the requirement that the first location be upstream of the first viscosity sensitive channel in the first secondary fluid pathway, since, in the Tunkiel configuration of Figs. 2,3, the first location 54 is downstream of the flow regulation element 56 that acts as the first viscosity sensitive channel within such first secondary fluid pathway, such a location resulting in a total pressure signal instead of the required static pressure signal, and, analogously, the configuration of Fig. 13 does not provide such an upstream position for the pressure signal location (claim 7), and (2) the requirement that a total pressure signal is obtained from a first one of an upstream location, a midstream location or a downstream location along a first non-viscosity sensitive channel positioned downstream of the first viscosity sensitive channel, i.e., the total pressure signal in the Tunkiel Fig. 2,3 configuration is from 54 after discharge from the first viscosity sensitive channel, thus, it is not obtained from a location on a non-viscosity sensitive channel, there being no non-viscosity sensitive channel downstream of the first viscosity sensitive channel (claim 8).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Mathiesen et al. (US20150040990) discloses a downhole fluid flow control system [Fig. 6] comprising: an autonomous inflow control device having a valve element 4f and a first differential pressure switch [A1P1, A2P2, etc.] that is operable to shift the first valve element between open and closed positions; wherein, the first differential pressure switch is configured to open the first valve element responsive to a fluid flowing through the first autonomous inflow control device that has at least a first viscosity and is configured to close the first valve element responsive to a fluid flowing through the first autonomous inflow control device that has less than the first viscosity [para. 0091].
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