DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Claim 8, 10, 12-14 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.
Claims 8, 13-14 include, or depend from claims that include, the limitation(s): "the downhole separator" in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if claim 7 contains a scrivener’s error and should have included a downhole separator with the limitation ‘configured to… separated fluid’ or if claim 8 is introducing a downhole separator.
Claims 8, 13-14 include, or depend from claims that include, the limitation(s): “wherein the outer tubular member is spaced from the casing to form a third annulus” Claim 8 depends from claim 7. Claim 7 includes the limitation “the outer tubular member supported below the tubing string to form a first annulus between the outer tubular member and the casing”. It is unclear what the third annulus is. Claim 8 defines the third annulus as the same structure that was defined as the first annulus in claim 7. It is unclear what difference exist between the first annulus and the third annulus.
Claims 10, 12 include, or depend from claims that include, the limitation(s): "wherein the inner tubular member includes a funnel-shaped bore spaced a distance below the lower end of the inner tubular member.” It is unclear what structure is required by the claim. As written the claim requires the inner tubular member to be spaced below itself.
Clarification and/or correction are required. No new matter may be entered. The claims will be read and examined as best understood.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 8 include the limitation(s): "The combination of claim 7, wherein the tubing string and the downhole separator are disposed in a wellbore lined with a casing, and wherein the outer tubular member is spaced from the casing to form a third annulus, and wherein a lower end and an upper end of the third annulus are sealed.”
Claim 7 already includes wherein the tubing string and the downhole separator “wherein the lower end of the inner tubular member is sealed to define a solids collection chamber below the lower end of the dip tube, and wherein the at least one aperture is configured to direct fluid from the intermediate annulus into the inner annulus such that heavier particles gravitate toward the solids collection chamber, and separated fluid enters the third bore via the lower end of the dip tube” are disposed in a wellbore lined with a casing “a wellbore lined with a casing”, and wherein the outer tubular member is spaced from the casing to form a third annulus “the outer tubular member supported below the tubing string to form a first annulus between the outer tubular member and the casing”, and wherein a lower end and an upper end of the third annulus are sealed “wherein the first annulus is sealed at an upper end and a lower end thereof”. Claim 8 appears to rename the first annulus as a third annulus.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 7 is/are, as best understood, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skinner (US 4653586) in view of Patterson (US 5662167).
Regarding claim 1, Skinner teaches: An artificial lift system in combination with a tubing string (Skinner comprising 24/32) positioned in a wellbore lined with a casing (Skinner 12), the artificial lift system comprising:
an outer tubular member (Skinner comprising 29) having an upper end (Skinner near 34), a lower end (Skinner near 36), and a sidewall (Skinner near 29) defining a first bore extending between the upper end and the lower end, the upper end of the outer tubular member supported (Skinner via unlabeled tubing above 58 Fig. 2, dashed lines to near 32 Fig. 1) below the tubing string and in the casing to form a first annulus (Skinner 38) between the outer tubular member and the casing,
wherein an upper end (Skinner near 37) and a lower end (Skinner near 36) of the first annulus are sealed; and
an inner tubular member (Skinner 54) having an upper end (Skinner near 60), a lower end (Skinner near 57), and a sidewall defining a second bore (Skinner near 55) extending between the upper end of the inner tubular member and the lower end of the inner tubular member,
the inner tubular member having at least one aperture (Skinner 60) extending therethrough in fluid communication with the second bore of the inner tubular member,
the upper end of the inner tubular member supported (Skinner near 58) below the tubing string with the inner tubular member positioned in the outer tubular member to form a second annulus (Skinner near 46/50) with an upper end (Skinner near 58) and a lower end (Skinner near 56) and so the second bore of the inner tubular member is in fluid communication with tubing string,
wherein the upper end of the second annulus is sealed (Skinner Fig. 2 seals near 58 not labeled) and the lower end of the second annulus defines an annular fluid inlet (Skinner near 57), but does not expressly state:
wherein the lower end of the inner tubular member is sealed and spaced a distance below the at least one aperture of the inner tubular member.
Patterson teaches a de-sanding artificial lift assembly for a well comprising concentric tubulars (Patterson 12, 50, 52) wherein the inner tubular (Patterson 52) comprises at least one aperture (Patterson near 70/58) at the upper end and wherein the lower end of the inner tubular member is sealed (Patterson near 66/68) and spaced a distance below the at least one aperture of the inner tubular member.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date (AIA ) or at the time the invention was made (Pre-AIA ), to have modified Skinner to include a sealed end to collect entrained sand/solids in order to improve the life and efficiency of the pump as it is known in the art that pumping entrained sand is abrasive and reduces pump life and pump efficiency. Patterson 1:13-45
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Skinner and Patterson teaches: The combination of claim 1, further comprising a pump assembly (Patterson comprising 24) disposed in the tubing string so as to be in fluid communication with the second annulus.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Skinner and Patterson teaches: The combination of claim 1, wherein the wellbore is a vertical wellbore (Skinner Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Skinner teaches: An artificial lift system in combination with a tubing string (Skinner comprising 24/32) positioned in a wellbore lined with a casing (Skinner 12), the artificial lift system comprising:
an outer tubular member (Skinner comprising 29) having an upper end (Skinner near 34), a lower end (Skinner near 36), and a sidewall (Skinner near 29) defining a first bore,
the outer tubular member supported (Skinner via unlabeled tubing above 58 Fig. 2, dashed lines to near 32 Fig. 1) below the tubing string to form a first annulus (Skinner 38) between the outer tubular member and the casing, wherein the first annulus is sealed at an upper end (Skinner near 37) and a lower end (Skinner near 36) thereof;
an inner tubular member (Skinner 54) positioned within the outer tubular member to form an intermediate annulus (Skinner near 46/50) therebetween, the inner tubular member having an upper end (Skinner near 60), a lower end (Skinner near 57), and a sidewall defining a second bore (Skinner near 55), the sidewall having at least one aperture (Skinner 60) extending therethrough,
wherein an upper end of the intermediate annulus is sealed (Skinner Fig. 2 seals near 58 not labeled) and a lower end of the intermediate annulus defines a fluid inlet (Skinner near 57); but does not expressly state:
a dip tube having an upper end, a lower end, and a sidewall defining a third bore, the dip tube supported by the tubing string and positioned within the inner tubular member to form an inner annulus therebetween, the third bore being in fluid communication with the tubing string, and the lower end of the dip tube being spaced a distance below the at least one aperture of the inner tubular member,
wherein the lower end of the inner tubular member is sealed to define a solids collection chamber below the lower end of the dip tube, and wherein the at least one aperture is configured to direct fluid from the intermediate annulus into the inner annulus such that heavier particles gravitate toward the solids collection chamber, and separated fluid enters the third bore via the lower end of the dip tube.
Patterson teaches a de-sanding artificial lift assembly for a well comprising concentric tubulars (Patterson 12, 50, 52) comprising a dip tube (Patterson 72) having an upper end (Patterson near 58), a lower end (Patterson near 78), and a sidewall defining a third bore (Patterson inside 72), the dip tube supported by the tubing string and positioned within the inner tubular member to form an inner annulus (Patterson between 72/52) therebetween, the third bore being in fluid communication with the tubing string, and the lower end of the dip tube being spaced a distance below (Patterson near 78 / near 58) the at least one aperture of the inner tubular member,
wherein the lower end of the inner tubular member is sealed (Patterson near 66/68) to define a solids collection chamber (Patterson near 68) below the lower end of the dip tube, and wherein the at least one aperture is configured (Patterson arrows Fig. 2; 3:20-4:4) to direct fluid from the intermediate annulus into the inner annulus such that heavier particles gravitate toward the solids collection chamber, and separated fluid enters the third bore via the lower end of the dip tube.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date (AIA ) or at the time the invention was made (Pre-AIA ), to have modified Skinner to include a dip tube and a sealed end to collect entrained sand/solids in order to improve the life and efficiency of the pump as it is known in the art that pumping entrained sand is abrasive and reduces pump life and pump efficiency. Patterson 1:13-45.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are, as best understood, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Skinner and Patterson in view of Bowers (US 6080312).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Skinner and Patterson teaches: The combination of claim 2, including a jet pump or other pumping apparatus (Skinner 2:35-37) but does not expressly state: wherein the pump assembly is a sucker rod pump assembly. However, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date (AIA ) or at the time the invention was made (Pre-AIA ), to have modified the combination to include a sucker rod pump since the Examiner notes the equivalence of electric submersible pumps, progressive cavity pumps, or beam (or rod) pumps, jet pumps and gas lift systems for their use in the artificial lift art and the selection of any of these known equivalents to lift fluid would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art as taught by Bowers 6:7-20. All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date (AIA ) or at the time the invention was made (Pre-AIA ), additionally, this would have allowed the operator to customize the lift system for the specific downhole operation to be performed and the specific environmental characteristics (e.g. fluid type, pressure, temperature, formation type, etc.) where the system is to be used.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Skinner and Patterson teaches: The combination of claim 2, including a jet pump or other pumping apparatus (Skinner 2:35-37) but does not expressly state: wherein the pump assembly is an electric submersible pump. However, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date (AIA ) or at the time the invention was made (Pre-AIA ), to have modified the combination to include an ESP since the Examiner notes the equivalence of electric submersible pumps, progressive cavity pumps, or beam (or rod) pumps, jet pumps and gas lift systems for their use in the artificial lift art and the selection of any of these known equivalents to lift fluid would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art as taught by Bowers 6:7-20. All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date (AIA ) or at the time the invention was made (Pre-AIA ), additionally, this would have allowed the operator to customize the lift system for the specific downhole operation to be performed and the specific environmental characteristics (e.g. fluid type, pressure, temperature, formation type, etc.) where the system is to be used.
Claim(s) 6, 14 is/are, as best understood, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Skinner and Patterson in view of Saponja (US 20150075772).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Skinner and Patterson teaches: The combination of claim 1, but does not expressly state: wherein the wellbore has a vertical portion, a curved portion, and a horizontal portion, and wherein the lower end of the outer tubular member and the lower end of the inner tubular member are positioned in the curved portion.
Saponja teaches a wellbore with an artificial lift system comprising wherein the wellbore has a vertical portion (Saponja [0052]), a curved portion (Saponja [0052]), and a horizontal portion (Saponja [0052]), and wherein the lower end of the outer tubular member (Saponja near 26) and the lower end of the inner tubular member (Saponja near 323) are positioned in the curved portion.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date (AIA ) or at the time the invention was made (Pre-AIA ), to have modified the combination to include locating lower end of the outer tubular member and the lower end of the inner tubular member in the curve in order to allow the operator to customize the lift system for the specific environmental characteristics and operations to be performed (e.g. fluid type, wellbore layout, downhole separation, pressure, temperature, formation type, etc.) where the lift system is to be used.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Skinner and Patterson teaches: The combination of claim 8, but does not expressly state: wherein the wellbore has a vertical portion, a curved portion, and a horizontal portion, and wherein the lower end of the outer tubular member and the lower end of the inner tubular member are positioned in the curved portion.
Saponja teaches a wellbore with an artificial lift system comprising wherein the wellbore has a vertical portion (Saponja [0052]), a curved portion (Saponja [0052]), and a horizontal portion (Saponja [0052]), and wherein the lower end of the outer tubular member (Saponja near 26) and the lower end of the inner tubular member (Saponja near 323) are positioned in the curved portion.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date (AIA ) or at the time the invention was made (Pre-AIA ), to have modified the combination to include locating lower end of the outer tubular member and the lower end of the inner tubular member in the curve in order to allow the operator to customize the lift system for the specific environmental characteristics and operations to be performed (e.g. fluid type, wellbore layout, downhole separation, pressure, temperature, formation type, etc.) where the lift system is to be used.
Claim(s) 9 is/are, as best understood, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Skinner and Patterson in view of Laval (US 4072481).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Skinner and Patterson teaches: The combination of claim 7, but does not expressly state: wherein the at least one aperture of the inner tubular member is angled so that the reservoir fluid is directed tangentially into the inner tubular member along an inner surface of the inner tubular member to induce a cyclonic flow around at least a portion of the inner tubular member.
Laval teaches a separator wherein at least one aperture (Laval 92) of the inner tubular member is angled so that the reservoir fluid is directed tangentially into the inner tubular member along an inner surface of the inner tubular member to induce a cyclonic flow around at least a portion of the inner tubular member.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date (AIA ) or at the time the invention was made (Pre-AIA ), to have modified the combination to include an angled aperture in order to increase the rotational motion of the fluid as it enters the separator to increase the effectiveness of cyclonic separation.
Claim(s) 11 is/are, as best understood, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Skinner and Patterson in view of Cobb (US 20140158343).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Skinner and Patterson teaches: The combination of claim 7, but does not expressly state: wherein the dip tube has at least one spiral protrusion extending outwardly from the sidewall to cooperate with an interior side of the inner tubular member to form a spiral channel so the reservoir fluid is guided downwardly into the spiral channel to induce a cyclonic flow around at least a portion of the inner tubular member.
Cobb teaches a downhole separator wherein the dip tube (Cobb comprising 22) has at least one spiral protrusion (Cobb 20) extending outwardly from the sidewall to cooperate (Cobb Fig. 4) with an interior side of the inner tubular member (Cobb Fig. 4) to form a spiral channel so the reservoir fluid is guided downwardly into the spiral channel to induce a cyclonic flow around at least a portion of the inner tubular member.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date (AIA ) or at the time the invention was made (Pre-AIA ), to have modified the combination to include spiral protrusions in order to the operator to customize the lift system for the specific downhole operation to be performed and the specific environmental characteristics (e.g. fluid type, fluid cut, pressure, temperature, formation type, etc.) where the system is to be used. Additionally, Cobb teaches it is known in the art that causing a spiraling or vortex flow increases the efficiency of separating fluids, gas, and solids Cobb [0016-0017].
Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
Ejim (US 20240102368) teaches a downhole solids separator and collection device.
Ellithorp (US 20190055809) teaches a downhole gas separator comprising concentric tubing and flow passages through the annuli.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David Carroll whose telephone number is (571)272-4808. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 2:00-10:00 PM EDT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Doug Hutton can be reached at (571) 272-4137. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/David Carroll/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674
