DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 2-5 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.
With respect to claim 2, the recitation of “every surface valve” implies that there are multiple surface valves but claim 1 only requires at least one surface valve. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as there only needing to be one surface valve.
With respect to claim 3, it is unclear if “at least one failed surface valve” is one of the “at least one surface valves” or if it is an additional valve. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as the failed surface valve is one of the at least one surface valves.
Claim 4 recites “applying the predetermined pressure to the at least one failed surface valve.” It is unclear if this is the same applying of a predetermined pressure as recited in claim 1, from which claim 4 depends, and analyzing the pressure loss when the predetermined pressure is applied or if it an additional application of pressure after the at least one failed surface valve has been injected with sealant. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as any application of the predetermined pressure to a valve, that is determined to have failed during any point of the operation, and then analyzing the pressure loss.
Claim 5 is rejected for depending from a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, and 21-22 are directed to a method (process), a system (machine or manufacture), and a non-transitory medium (manufacture), respectively. As such, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention.
If the claim recites a statutory category of invention, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A. Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Claim 1 recites abstract limitations, including: “analyzing a pressure loss across the at least one surface valve” and “classifying the well as operable or inoperable based on the pressure loss across the at least one surface valve and the functionality of the surface controlled sub-surface safety valve”.
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind, or by a human using pen and paper, and therefore recite mental processes. Claims recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. More specifically, as there is no recitation of a processing structure (i.e., processor, etc.) nothing in the claim element precludes the aforementioned steps from practically being performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. The mere recitation of a generic computer does not take the claim out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
If the claim recites a judicial exception in step 2A Prong One, the claim requires further analysis in step 2A Prong Two. In step 2A Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The claim recites the additional elements of: a surface valve; a surface controlled sub-surface safety valve; closing the at least one surface valve; applying a predetermined pressure to the at least one surface valve; and testing the surface controlled sub-surface safety valve for functionality wherein the functionality comprises opening and closing the surface controlled sub-surface safety valve using a control panel.
The functions of the control panel are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Closing at least one surface valve and applying a predetermined pressure to the at least one surface valve amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., activity incidental to the primary process that is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Testing (i.e., opening and closing) the surface controlled subsurface safety valve amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., activity incidental to the primary process that is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application in step 2A Prong Two, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, and requires further analysis under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
As discussed above, the additional element of the control panel amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception (using additional element of the control panel). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
As discussed above, the recited step of closing at least one surface valve and applying a predetermined pressure to the at least one surface valve is considered insignificant extra-solution activity as Flanders (US 2011/0061861 see ¶ [0006]) and Coronado (US 5,265,679 see Col. 1, lines 52-66) both disclose closing a surface valve (i.e., SSV) and applying a predetermined pressure (i.e., wellhead pressure) is well-known, routine, and conventional in the art.
As discussed above, the recited step of testing (i.e., opening and closing) a surface controlled subsurface safety valve for functionality wherein the functionality comprises opening and closing the surface controlled sub-surface safety valve is considered insignificant extra-solution activity as Douglas (US 2003/0230190 see ¶ [0005]) discloses opening and closing a subsurface valve from the surface is well-known, routine, and conventional in the art.
Claims 2, 4-5, and 22 further recite:
“the well is operable when the pressure loss is equal to zero across every surface valve, and when the well is under full functionality of the surface controlled sub-surface safety valve”;
“analyzing the pressure loss across the at least one surface valve further comprises applying the predetermined pressure to the at least one failed surface valve to analyze a subsequent pressure loss”;
“the well is inoperable when the subsequent pressure loss is greater than zero across the at least one failed surface valve or when there is a loss in the functionality of the surface controlled sub-surface safety valve”; and
“visually inspecting the at least one surface valve to determine a state of the at least one surface valve” which merely narrows the previously recited abstract idea limitations.
With respect to claim 21, “the well is a gas lift well comprising a gas lift mandrel” amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
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.
Claims 1-2 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al Muailu (SPE 164425 – “Systemic Approach to Integrate a Comprehensive Surface and Subsurface Well Integrity Management System) in view of Franklin (US 2015/0128693).
With respect to claim 1: Al Muailu discloses a method for well integrity management on a well having at least one surface valve (valve discloses on pg. 3 section “Wellhead Integrity Test”) and a surface controlled sub-surface safety valve (SSSV disclosed on pg. 3 section “ESD System Surface and Subsurface Safety Valve Testing”), the method comprising:
closing the at least one surface valve (pg. 3 section “Wellhead Integrity Test”);
applying a predetermined pressure to the at least one surface valve (pg. 3 section “Wellhead Integrity Test”);
analyzing a pressure loss across the at least one surface valve (pg. 3 section “Wellhead Integrity Test”);
testing the surface controlled sub-surface safety valve for functionality wherein the functionality comprises opening and closing the surface controlled sub-surface safety valve using a controller (pg. 3 section “ESD System Surface and Subsurface Safety Valve Testing”; controller is the device that allows manual or automatic control of the system); and
classifying the well as operable or inoperable based on the functionality of the surface controlled sub-surface safety valve (pg. 3 section “ESD System Surface and Subsurface Safety Valve Testing” discloses when there is a problem then the well is shut-in, i.e., inoperable, which means if it is not shut in the well is operable; pg. 2 para. 1 discusses shut-in the well when there are abnormal circumstances).
Al Muailu does not disclose the controller is a control panel or that the classifying the well as operable or inoperable is also based on the pressure loss across the at least one surface valve.
Franklin teaches a controller is a control panel (15, 25, 35, 28; ¶ [0027-28]) and it is known to classify a well as operable or inoperable based on the pressure loss during a pressure test (¶ [0034]; the need for repairs classifies the well as inoperable while not failing the test classifies the well as operable).
It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the control panel of Franklin for the controller of Al Muailu with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would perform the same predictable result of controlling the system and having the additional equipment (i.e., display) would make it easier for operators to determine what was occurring during operations. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the consideration of well status classification and repair based on a pressure test and the analysis of said pressure test with the invention of Al Muailu with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would allow remediation to occur (Franklin ¶ [0034]).
With respect to claim 2: Al Muailu from the combination of Al Muailu and Franklin further teaches the well is operable when the pressure loss is equal to zero across every surface valve (pg. 3 section “Wellhead Integrity Test” teaches the desired results of the test, i.e., normal operations for an operable well, are when pressure is holding, i.e., not changing), and when the well is under full functionality of the surface controlled sub-surface safety valve (pg. 3 section “ESD System Surface and Subsurface Safety Valve Testing” teaches if the valve is not opening/closing then repairs must be made).
With respect to claim 22: Al Muailu from the combination of Al Muailu and Franklin further teaches visually inspecting the at least one surface valve to determine a state of the at least one surface valve (pg. 3 section “Wellhead Integrity Test” teaches “internal inspection to the valve components”).
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Al Muailu and Franklin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sorensen (US 2019/0389038).
With respect to claim 3: Al Muailu from the combination of Al Muailu and Franklin further teaches maintaining all valves in good condition. Franklin form the combination of Al Muailu and Franklin further teaches analyzing the pressure loss across the at least one surface valve further comprises detecting at least one failed equipment/surface valve (¶ [0034]) and repairing the equipment/valve (¶ [0034]). The combination of Al Muailu and Franklin does not teach the repair is injecting the at least one failed surface valve with sealant. Sorensen teaches it is known in the art to inject sealant into the equipment to repair a leak (¶ [0011]). It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the sealant injection of Sorensen for the generic repair of Al Muailu and Franklin with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would perform the predictable result of stopping the leak (Sorensen ¶ [0011]).
With respect to claim 4: Franklin from the combination of Al Muailu , Franklin, and Sorensen further teaches analyzing the pressure loss across the at least one surface valve further comprises applying the predetermined pressure to the at least one failed surface valve to analyze a subsequent pressure loss (¶ [0004, 0030, 0034).
With respect to claim 5: Franklin from the combination of Al Muailu , Franklin, and Sorensen further teaches the well is inoperable when the subsequent pressure loss is greater than zero across the at least one failed surface valve (¶ [0034]). Al Muailu from the combination of Al Muailu, Franklin, and Sorensen further teaches the well is inoperable when there is a loss in the functionality of the surface controlled sub-surface safety valve (pg. 3 section “ESD System Surface and Subsurface Safety Valve Testing”; pg. 2 para. 1 discusses shut-in the well when there are abnormal circumstances).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Al Muailu and Franklin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rae (US 2013/0220599).
With respect to claim 21: Al Muailu from the combination of Al Muailu and Franklin further teaches a well is monitored though its entire life for any issues (pg. 2 para. 1) The combination of Al Muailu does not explicitly teach the well is a gas lift well comprising a gas lift mandrel. Rae teaches it is known in the art that during the life of a well will be a gas lift well comprising a gas lift mandrel (30; ¶ [0020]; Abstract). It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the gas lift well of Rae with the invention of Al Muailu and Franklin with a reasonable expectation of success since Rae teaches needing gas lift during the life of a well (Rae ¶ [0020]) and Al Muailu teaches monitoring operations during the entire life of a well (Al Muailu pg. 2 para. 1). Furthermore, combining the gas lift equipment would aid in increasing production from the well as gas lift equipment is designed to do.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTYN A HALL whose telephone number is (571)272-8384. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00.
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.
/KRISTYN A HALL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
06 January 2026