Ex Parte Machado et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 27, 2018

14179266 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 27, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/179,266 02/12/2014
42982 7590 11/29/2018
Rockwell Automation, Inc./FY
Attention: Linda H. Kasulke E-7Fl 9
1201 South Second Street
Milwaukee, WI 53204
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Miguel Armando Machado
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
2014P-080-US
(ALBR:0585)
CONFIRMATION NO.
5092
EXAMINER
WALLA CE, KIPP CHARLES
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3674
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/29/2018 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
howell@fyiplaw.com
docket@fyiplaw.com
raintellectualproperty@ra.rockwell.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MIGUEL ARMANDO MACHADO,
SRIKANTH G. MASHETTY, MARESH PUROHIT, and
HASSAN S. SUHEIL
Appeal2018-004782
Application 14/179 ,266
Technology Center 3600
Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, LEE L. STEPINA, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Miguel Armando Machado et al. ("Appellants") 1 appeal under 35
U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision in the Final Office Action
(dated June 6, 2017, hereinafter "Final Act.") rejecting claims 1---6, 8-11,
13-15, 17-19, and 21-24. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 Rockwell Automation, Inc. is the applicant and is identified as the real
party in interest in Appellants' Appeal Brief 2 (filed Nov. 20, 2017,
hereinafter "Appeal Br.").
2 Claims 7, 12, 16, and 20 are canceled. See Appeal Br. 18-19, 21.
Appeal2018-004782
Application 14/179 ,266
We REVERSE.
SUMMARY OF DECISION
INVENTION
Appellants' invention relates to a system for "controlling the flow of
hydrocarbons from ... [a] hydrocarbon well site." Spec., para. 1.
Claims 1, 9, and 15 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A system, comprising:
a multi-selector valve configured to couple to one or more
outputs of one or more wells configured to extract hydrocarbons
from one or more hydrocarbon reservoirs of the one or more
wells, wherein the multi-selector valve is configured to divert a
first flow of hydrocarbons extracted from a first well into an
output pipe;
a separator configured to couple to the output pipe and
configured to separate the first flow of hydrocarbons into gas and
liquid components; and
a monitoring device configured to communicatively
couple to the multi-selector valve and the separator, wherein the
monitoring devices is configured to:
receive a first set of data associated with the first
flow of hydrocarbons from the first well in the output pipe;
determine one or more virtual flow rates of the liquid and
gas components of the first flow hydrocarbons based on the first
set of data;
determine whether the one or more virtual flow
rates of the liquid and gas components substantially match one
or more flow rates of the liquid and gas components determined
during a previous well test for the first well;
send a first signal to the multi-selector valve to
divert the first flow of hydrocarbons to the separator to perform
a well test for the first well in response to determining when the
one or more virtual flow rates of the liquid and gas components
do not substantially match the one or more flow rates of the liquid
2
Appeal2018-004782
Application 14/179 ,266
and gas components determined during a previous well test for
the first well; and
send a second signal to the multi-selector valve to
divert a second flow of hydrocarbons extracted from a second
well to the output pipe in response to determining when the one
or more virtual flow rates of the liquid and gas components
substantially match the one or more flow rates of the liquid and
gas components determined during the previous well test for the
first well.
REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review:
I. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 4---6, 8-11, 14, and 21 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Furmaga (US 4,429,581, iss. Feb.
7, 1984), Ron Cramer et al. ("Less Footprints in the Snow for Salym
Field in Western Siberia," Society of Petroleum Engineers, SPE
133236 (2010), hereinafter "Cramer '236"), 3 and Khan (US
2014/0150520 Al, pub. June 5, 2014).
II. The Examiner rejects claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Furmaga, Cramer '236, Khan, and Rossi (US 2012/0095733 Al,
pub. Apr. 19, 2012).
III. The Examiner rejects claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Furmaga, Cramer '236, Khan, and Carlson et al. (US 5,586,027,
iss. Dec. 17, 1996, hereinafter "Carlson").
3 According to the Examiner, Cramer '236 incorporates by reference R.
Cramer et al., "Well Test Optimization and Automation," Society of
Petroleum Engineers, SPE 99971 (2008) (hereinafter "Cramer '971 "). Final
Act. 5.
3
Appeal2018-004782
Application 14/179 ,266
IV. The Examiner rejects claims 15, 17-19, and 22-24 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Furmaga, Cramer '236, and Yusti et al.
(US 2010/0023269 Al, pub. Jan. 28, 2010, hereinafter "Yusti").
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
Independent claim 1 recites, in relevant part, to "determine whether
the one or more virtual flow rates of the liquid and gas components
substantially match one or more flow rates of the liquid and gas components
determined during a previous well test for the first well." Appeal Br. 17
(Claims App.). Independent claim 9 includes a substantially similar
limitation. Id. at 19.
The Examiner finds that Furmaga discloses many of the features of
independent claims 1 and 9, including performing a well test, but does not
disclose determining virtual flow rates. See Final Act. 3--4 ( citing Furmaga,
col. 3, 11. 33---60, Fig. 1 ). Nonetheless, the Examiner finds that Cramer '236
discloses "measuring virtual flow rates based on temperature (THT) and
pressure (THP) and initiating a well test if the virtual flow rates do not
match pervious well test data." Id. at 4 (citing Cramer '236, 3 (para. i), 4
(para. 2), Fig. 3).
The Examiner takes the position that Cramer '236 incorporates by
reference Cramer '971, which "further details the comparison of virtual flow
rates to previous well test data to determine if a test is necessary." Id. at 5
( citing Cramer '236, 3). The Examiner explains that because in Cramer '971
the virtual flow rate is calibrated against the latest well-test result and a new
well test is initiated when a significant change is observed in the derived
4
Appeal2018-004782
Application 14/179 ,266
(virtual) flow rate, Cramer '236 discloses comparing the virtual flow rate to
the latest well-test result. Id. (citing Cramer '971, 3, para. 4.1.1 (sub-paras.
1, 3)).
Appellants argue that Cramer '236 makes a different comparison than
what is recited in independent claims 1 and 9 because Cramer '23 6 "uses the
previous well test data to determine the modeled well oil, gas, and water
flows" and then, "reconciles the modeled data with real time
measurements." Appeal Br. 8. Appellants assert that Cramer '971 is not
incorporated by reference in Cramer '23 6 (see id. at 10), and, even if it were,
Cramer '23 6 "initiates a well test based on comparison between two models,
as opposed to . . . when virtual flow rates do not match flow rates of a
previous well test." Id. at 9 ( citing Cramer '23 6, 3). Likewise, Appellants
note that Cramer '971 "appears to teach comparing the derived liquid flow
... to determine if well flow has changed significantly- rather than
comparing between the derived liquid flow and a previous well test." Id. at
10.
The Examiner responds that Cramer '23 6 meets the claimed feature
because the model of Cramer '236 that "generates the virtual flow rate uses
. . . [data] calibrated against the most recent [well] test data" such that the
virtual flow rates generated first by the model "correspond to the latest and
most accurate well test." Examiner's Answer 4 (dated Feb. 7, 2018,
hereinafter "Ans."). Hence, according to the Examiner, "comparing virtual
flow rates at a later time . . . to the first virtual flow rates generated by the
model equates to comparing virtual flow rates to the rates determined during
a previous well test." Id. ( citing Cramer 2, paras. 4.1.1, 4.1.2).
5
Appeal2018-004782
Application 14/179 ,266
We agree with Appellants that neither Cramer '236 nor Cramer '971
discloses comparing virtual flow rates of the liquid and gas components to
flow rates determined during a previous well test, in order to decide whether
they "substantially match," as required by each of independent claim 1 and
9. See Reply Brief 3 (filed Apr. 3, 2018, hereinafter "Reply Br.").
Specifically, each of independent claims 1 and 9 requires a comparison
between one or more virtual flow rates of the liquid and gas components,
and one or more flow rates of the liquid and gas components determined in a
previous well test. See Appeal Br. 17, 19 (Claims app.). Such an
interpretation is consistent with Appellants' Specification, which describes
performing a well test by sending a stream of hydrocarbon flow output into a
test separator that divides the flow into streams of individual components
such as oil, gas, and water. Spec., para 92. The Specification then describes
determining the flow rates for the oil, gas, and water components and
comparing these flow rates to virtual flow rates. See Spec., paras. 92, 109,
Fig. 13.
In contrast, Cramer '236 discloses "continuously estimat[ing] well oil,
gas and water flows" based on FieldWare Production Universe (hereinafter
"FW PU") models. Cramer '236, 3. Cramer '971 discloses that in the FW
PU model real time data (i.e., pressure, temperature) is calibrated against
previous well-test results to generate a model, which then is used along with
future real-time data to derive continuous estimation of fluid flows. Cramer
'971, 3, para. 4.1, 4, para. 4.1.2. Cramer '971 further discloses that "[a]
significant change in the estimated well flow rates indicates the need to re-
test the well." Id. at 3, para. 4.1.
6
Appeal2018-004782
Application 14/179 ,266
As such, we agree with Appellants that in Cramer '236 and Cramer
'971 virtual flow rates derived from a model are compared "at different
times." Reply Br. 3. Although we appreciate that the model is based on
previous well-test results, nonetheless, comparing the results of two models
is not the same as comparing the results of a model to previously determined
well-test results. 4 Stated differently, because a model is a simplified
representation of flow rate data, the model based on previous well test flow
rate data is not the same as the flow rate data of the previous well test itself.
Hence, neither Cramer '236 nor Cramer '971 compare one or more virtual
flow rates of the liquid and gas components to one or more flow rates of the
liquid and gas components of a previous well test, as required by each of
independent claims 1 and 9.
In conclusion, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C, § 103 of claims 1, 2, 4---6, 8-11, 14,
and 21 as unpatentable over Furmaga, Cramer '236, and Khan.
Re} ections II and III
The Examiner's use of the disclosures of Rossi and Carlson does not
remedy the deficiency of the rejection based on the combination of Furmaga,
Cramer '236, and Khan discussed supra. See Final Act. 8-9. Therefore, for
the same reasons as discussed above, we also do not sustain the rejections
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claim 3 as unpatentable over Furmaga, Cramer
4 An ordinary and customary meaning of the term "model" is a "simplified
representation of a system or phenomenon, as in the sciences or economics,
with any hypotheses required to describe the system or explain the
phenomenon, often mathematically." See
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/model (last visited November 21, 2018).
7
Appeal2018-004782
Application 14/179 ,266
'236, Khan, and Rossi, and of claim 13, as unpatentable over Furmaga,
Cramer '236, Khan, and Carlson.
Rejection IV
Independent claim 15 recites a substantially similar limitation to that
of claim 1, namely, to "determine whether the one or more virtual flow rates
of the one or more liquid and gas components substantially match one or
more flow rates of the one or more liquid and gas components determined
during a previous well test." Appeal Br. 20 (Claims App.).
The Examiner rejects independent claim 15 based on the same
findings with respect to Cramer '236 and Cramer '971, and Appellants rely
on the same arguments discussed supra in Rejection I. See Final Act. 9-11;
Appeal Br. 15.
As the Examiner does not rely on the disclosure of Yusti in any
manner that would remedy the deficiencies of either Cramer '236 or Cramer
'971 discussed above (see Final Act. 11 ), we also do not sustain the rejection
of claims 15, 17-19, and 22-24 as unpatentable over the combined teachings
of Furmaga, Cramer '236, and Yusti.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1---6, 8-11, 13-15, 17-19,
and 21-24 is reversed.
REVERSED
8