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 .
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claim 1-10, drawn to a method for reducing surface pressure of casing string, classified in E21B19/00.
II. Claims 11-20, drawn to a well system, classified in E21B43/12.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as product and process of use. The inventions can be shown to be distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) the process for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product or (2) the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product. See MPEP § 806.05(h). In the instant case, the product requires a pump fluidically coupled to a supply tank and a pressure switch coupled to the pump. However, the pump and pressure switch can be used with a materially different process.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
a. the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of theirdifferent classification;b. the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to theirrecognized divergent subject matter;c. the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching differentclasses/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different strategies orsearch queries); and d. the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable toanother invention.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Barry Blount on 12/18/2025 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of I, claims 1-10. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 9, “the second brine” lacks proper antecedent basis because claim 9 depend from claim 1 and not claim 5. For the purpose of rejection, it would be assumed that claim 9 depend from claim 5.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 1-3, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muraikhi (U.S. 2021/0332652A1), in view of Khouzin (U.S. 2019/0017339A1).
Regarding claim 1, Muraikhi discloses a method for reducing surface pressure of casing strings (refer to tile and abstract), comprising:
bleeding off a volume of annuli fluid (para 0043: “to bleed excess fluid from the well annulus into reservoir 410) from a casing string (428; see figs. 4-5 and refer to para 0043) of a well (400); and
subsequently injecting a first fluid into the casing string (para 0043: “supply the fluid stored in the reservoir 410 back into the well annulus”).
However, Muraikhi is silent to the injected fluid being brine.
Khouzin generally teach that it is known to inject brine into an annulus of a wellbore to control or eliminate sustained casing pressure (refer to para 0001 and 0018).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the generic fluid of Muraikhi with brine to achieve the predictable result of controlling or eliminating sustained casing pressure, as taught by Khouzin (refer to para 0001 and 0018).
Regarding claim 2, Muraikhi, as modified by Khouzin teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; Muraikhi further discloses iteratively bleeding off and injecting additional amounts of the first brine into the casing string until a target pressure is reached (para 0044 and 0050: the process of bleeding the annulus and injecting the brine into the annulus happens automatically. The process is continuous; para 0022 and 0024: the process occurs during the lifecycle of the well indicating that the pressure control occurs repeatedly during the lifecycle).
Regarding claim 3, Muraikhi, as modified by Khouzin teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 2 above; Muraikhi further discloses wherein the target pressure is below a maximum allowed working operation pressure (para 0044: “if the controller determines that the pressure in the well annulus as gone below the cut-off (e.g., pressure goes below 900 psi…), the controller determines that no pressure release or bleed operation needs to be performed”).
Regarding claim 8, Muraikhi, as modified by Khouzin teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; Muraikhi further discloses wherein bleeding off the volume of the annuli fluid comprises iteratively bleeding off the annuli fluid volumes until a target lower pressure is reached (refer to para 0043-0044).
Regarding claim 10, Muraikhi, as modified by Khouzin teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; Muraikhi further discloses before bleeding off a volume of annuli fluid (para 0043: “to bleed excess fluid from the well annulus into reservoir 410), detecting an elevated surface pressure of the casing strings (refer to para 0044).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muraikhi (U.S. 2021/0332652A1), in view of Khouzin (U.S. 2019/0017339A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Smithson (U.S. 2007/0012455A1).
Regarding claim 4, Muraikhi, as modified by Khouzin, teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 2 above; Muraikhi further discloses automatically shutting off a pump (416) in response to detecting that a pressure threshold is reached (para 0046: “the controller may be configured to automatically shut off pump” in response to “higher than the set threshold value”; also refer to para 0044 connecting controller 250 with the embodiment of figs. 4-5).
However, Muraikhi, as modified by Khouzin, is silent to shutting off the pump via a pressure switch.
Smithson teaches the use of a pressure switch for shotting on and off a valve and pump when a threshold pressure has been reached (refer to para 0029).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Muraikhi, as modified by Khouzin, to include a pressure switch for shutting off the pump when a threshold pressure has been reached, as taught by Smithson (refer to para 0029).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muraikhi (U.S. 2021/0332652A1), in view of Khouzin (U.S. 2019/0017339A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of De Wolf et al. (U.S 2013/0264060A1).
Regarding claim 7, Muraikhi, as modified by Khouzin, teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; however, Muraikhi, as modified by Khouzin, is silent to the first brine comprises sodium chloride, potassium chloride, zinc chloride, sodium bromide, potassium bromide, zinc bromide, or mixtures thereof.
De Wolf et al. generally teach that suitable brines that can be used in wellbore operations include sodium chloride, potassium chloride, sodium bromide, potassium bromide, zinc bromide, or mixtures thereof (refer to para 0060).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the generic brine of Muraikhi, as modified by Khouzin, with sodium chloride, potassium chloride, sodium bromide, potassium bromide, zinc bromide, or mixtures thereof (refer to para 0060), as taught by De Wolf et al., to achieve the predictable result of controlling casing pressure.
Claims 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muraikhi (U.S. 2021/0332652A1), in view of Khouzin (U.S. 2019/0017339A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Todd et al. (U.S. 2009/0236144A1).
Regarding claim 5, Muraikhi, as modified by Khouzin, teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; however, Muraikhi, as modified by Khouzin, fail to disclose injecting a second brine that is denser than the first brine into the casing string following a subsequent bleeding off of annuli fluid in response to detecting that a stable surface pressure using the first brine exceeds a target pressure threshold.
Todd et al. generally teach that it is known to vary fluid density in well operations in order to control annulus pressure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Muraikhi, as modified by Khouzin, to vary the fluid density (i.e., injecting a second brine that is denser than the first brine into the casing string during the pressure management process involving bleeding off of annuli fluid in response to detecting that a stable surface pressure, based on target pressure thresholds), as taught by Todd et al., for the purpose of controlling the annulus pressure.
Regarding claim 9, Muraikhi, as modified by Khouzin and Todd et al. teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 5 above; however, the combination of Muraikhi, Khouzin, and Todd et al. is silent to the first brine has a density at room temperature of from 1.1 to 2.0 g-cm-3, and the second brine has a density at room temperature from 1.3 to 3.0 g-cm- 3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Muraikhi, as modified by Khouzin and Todd et al., to have the first brine with a density at room temperature of from 1.1 to 2.0 g-cm-3, and the second brine with a density at room temperature from 1.3 to 3.0 g-cm- 3 because it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In other words, narrowing a general condition taught by the prior art to a specific numerical value has been held to be an obvious variation thereof. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.04.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muraikhi (U.S. 2021/0332652A1), in view of Khouzin (U.S. 2019/0017339A1) and Todd et al. (U.S. 2009/0236144A1), as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of De Wolf et al. (U.S 2013/0264060A1).
Regarding claim 6, Muraikhi, as modified by Khouzin and Todd et al. teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 5 above; however, the combination of Muraikhi, Khouzin, and Todd et al. is silent to the second brine comprises sodium bromide, potassium bromide, zinc bromide, or mixtures thereof.
De Wolf et al. generally teach that suitable brines that can be used in wellbore operations include sodium bromide, potassium bromide, zinc bromide, or mixtures thereof (refer to para 0060).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the generic brine of Muraikhi, as modified by Khouzin and Todd et al., with sodium bromide, potassium bromide, zinc bromide, or mixtures thereof (refer to para 0060), as taught by De Wolf et al., to achieve the predictable result of controlling casing pressure.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Douglas et al. (U.S. 2019/0153821A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YANICK A AKARAGWE whose telephone number is (469)295-9298. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 7:30-5:30.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached at (571) 272-5405. 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.
/YANICK A AKARAGWE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672