Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/806,042

HYBRID HYDRAULIC GAS PUMP SYSTEM

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Jun 08, 2022
Examiner
WLODARSKI, NICHOLAS NMN
Art Unit
3672
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Lift Plus Energy Solutions Ltd.
OA Round
6 (Final)
84%
Grant Probability
Favorable
7-8
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 84% — above average
84%
Career Allow Rate
111 granted / 132 resolved
+32.1% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+10.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
22 currently pending
Career history
154
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.2%
-36.8% vs TC avg
§103
38.7%
-1.3% vs TC avg
§102
26.6%
-13.4% vs TC avg
§112
28.7%
-11.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 132 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 § 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. Claim(s) 2-4 and 7-8, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Juenke et al. US10858921 in view of Rowe US4284943 Regarding independent claim 10. An artificial gas lift system (Juenke; Fig. 2C-2F and 3A-3B; the system shown in the figures) comprising: a wellbore (Juenke; Fig. 2C) having a bottom; the bottom of the wellbore (Juenke; Fig. 2C); a production tubular (Juenke; production tube 31); a gas lift system (Juenke; the portion of the lift system 30 that is attached to production tube 31) having a gas lift mandrel (Juenke; Fig. 2C-2D; the uppermost/uphole pocket mandrel 32 for gas injection valve 51), a gas lift valve (Juenke; Fig. 2D; the uppermost/uphole gas injection valve 51), wherein the gas lift mandrel has an exterior and an interior (Juenke; Fig. 2C-2D; the uppermost/uphole pocket mandrel 32 has an exterior surface facing the wellbore wall in the radial direction and an interior surface facing away from the wellbore wall in the radial direction); and a first gas supply (Juenke; Fig. 2D; gas supply from the surface and through annulus 33 indicated by the vertical arrows), wherein the gas lift system is attached to the production tubular (Juenke Fig 3a; gas lines and storage are connected to the production tubular), further wherein the gas lift system is operable at the same time as a hydraulic gas pump (Juenke; gas pump 40 col 18 line 6-43; operational cycle of the pump working at the same time as the gas lift system to operably produce from the well further shown in Fig 3a as pump is working fluid flow denoted by the arrows flows up the mandrel and fluid lift supported by gas injection valve 54); the hydraulic gas pump having a first packer (Juenke Fig 3b; 47) with a first check valve (Juenke Fig 3b; 55), a second packer (Juenke Fig 3b; 46) with a second check valve (Juenke Fig 3b; 56), and a second gas supply (Juenke Fig 3b; 41 supplied via gas supply line 43), wherein a gas pump chamber (Juenke Fig 3a; 41 chamber) is formed by the wellbore between the first packer and the second packer (Juenke Fig 3a-3b col 18 line 16-29 teaching a gas pump chamber for production of oil and gas), and wherein the hydraulic gas pump is attached to the production tubular and configured to be actuated (Juenke; Fig. 2C-2F and 3A-3B) Juenke is silent regarding a sensor at the bottom of the wellbore; wherein the hydraulic gas pump is attached to the production tubular and configured to be actuated responsive to one or more signals from the fluidic pressure sensor; further wherein the gas lift valve is attached to the exterior of the gas lift mandrel. Rowe teaches a pressure sensor (Rowe; Fig. 1-2; downhole bottom pressure sensor 56) at the bottom of the wellbore; wherein the hydraulic pump (Rowe; Fig. 1-2; pump 53) is attached to the production tubular and configured to be actuated responsive to one or more signals from the fluidic pressure sensor (Rowe; Fig. 1-2; col. 32:65-68 to col. 33:1-5 control of pump 53 is responsive to pressure sensor 56 measurements). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the artificial gas lift system and the pump as taught by Juenke to include a pressure sensor for providing control data for the pump as taught by Rowe for the purpose of providing a condition-based artificial lift system that is responsive to downhole pressure conditions to improve pump efficiency/effectiveness/performance. Regarding claim 2, modified Juenke teaches the invention substantially as claimed as described above, and The artificial gas lift system of claim 10 wherein, the first gas supply is provided via a primary annular region (Juenke; Fig. 2D; gas supply from the surface and through annulus 33 indicated by the vertical arrows). Regarding claim 3, modified Juenke teaches the invention substantially as claimed as described above, and The artificial gas lift system of claim 10, wherein the first gas supply actuates the gas lift system (Juenke; Fig. 2D; see the flow arrows). Regarding claim 4, modified Juenke teaches the invention substantially as claimed as described above, and The artificial gas lift system of claim 10, wherein the first gas supply reduces a density of a wellbore fluid (Juenke; Fig. 2D; see the flow arrows and the gas bubbles which reduce the density of the produced fluid). Regarding claim 7, modified Juenke teaches the invention substantially as claimed as described above, and The artificial gas lift system of claim 10 wherein, the sensor is a pressure sensor (Rowe; Fig. 1-2; downhole bottom pressure sensor 56). Regarding claim 8, modified Juenke teaches the invention substantially as claimed as described above, and The artificial gas lift system of claim 10 wherein, the sensor is a fluid detector (Rowe; Fig. 1-2; downhole bottom pressure sensor 56; the pressure indicates/detects the presence of a fluid and detects the pressure characteristic of the fluid). Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Juenke et al. US10858921 in view of Rowe US4284943 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rudolph et al. US10738586. Regarding claim 5, modified Juenke teaches the invention substantially as claimed as described above, and The artificial gas lift system of claim 10, wherein the second gas supply is the production tubular (Juenke; gas supply line 43). Modified Juenke does not disclose wherein the second gas supply is within the production tubular. Rudolph teaches wherein the second gas supply is within the production tubular (Rudolph; Fig. 6; col. 14:30-32 gas injection tubing 40 is located within production tubing 16). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the location of the second gas supply as taught by modified Juenke to be located within the production tubular as taught by Rudolph for the purpose of creating more annular space so that a larger diameter production tubular can be used. Regarding claim 6, modified Juenke teaches the invention substantially as claimed as described above, and The artificial gas lift system of claim 5, wherein the second gas supply strokes the hydraulic gas pump (Juenke; Fig. 3B; see the flow arrows). Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Juenke et al. US10858921 in view of Rowe US4284943 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Morrow et al. US9863222. Regarding claim 9, modified Juenke teaches the invention substantially as claimed as described above, and The artificial gas lift system of claim 10 wherein, the sensor is a sensor (Rowe; Fig. 1-2; downhole bottom pressure sensor 56). Modified Juenke does not teach wherein, the sensor is a temperature sensor. Morrow teaches wherein, the sensor is a temperature sensor (Morrow; sensor 432 positioned in proximity to a corresponding gas lift valve 244; col. 17:17-19 and col. 17:26; col. 3:27-38 exemplary sensors for gas lift operations and fluid flow detection include a temperature sensor and a pressure sensor). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to substitute the pressure sensor as taught by modified Juenke with the temperature sensor as taught by Morrow since the sensors are known elements that obtain the predictable result of providing a fluid flow detection/indication means that cooperate with gas lift operations (Morrow; sensor 432 positioned in proximity to a corresponding gas lift valve 244; col. 17:17-19 and col. 17:26; col. 3:27-38 exemplary sensors for gas lift operations and fluid flow detection include a temperature sensor and a pressure sensor) with a reasonable expectation of success and with no unexpected results (MPEP 2143(I)(B) "Simple Substitution of One Known Element for Another To Obtain Predictable Results"). Response to Arguments Applicant's amendments and arguments filed 12/21/2024 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants amendments removed the limitation taught by Cannalizo (US 2954043) and claims 2-4 and 7-8, 10 are rejected under Juenke in view of Rowe as shown above. In response to applicant's argument that Gas vent valve 54 does not inject gas (or add gas in any way) into the production tubular to assist in lifting the oil or production fluids. Examiner respectfully disagrees that claim 10, former claim 1, is allowable as examiner was explaining on how the gas vent valve was used in gas pump operations as was not being cited to as the claimed gas vent valve. Examiner cited to Fig 2d element 51 as the gas lift valve. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., Juenke does not inject gas (or add gas in any way) into the production tubular) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claims only claim a gas lift valve attached to an exterior of a gas lift mandrel as a part of the gas lift system and no limitations are directed towards if the gas lift valve is injecting into the annulus or the production tubing. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Nicholas D Wlodarski whose telephone number is (571)272-3970. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm. 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. /NICHOLAS D WLODARSKI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3672 /Nicole Coy/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3672
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 08, 2022
Application Filed
Nov 17, 2022
Non-Final Rejection — §103
May 22, 2023
Response Filed
Jun 02, 2023
Final Rejection — §103
Nov 09, 2023
Request for Continued Examination
Nov 13, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 28, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jul 03, 2024
Response Filed
Aug 19, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Dec 21, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Dec 30, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 28, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Sep 08, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 17, 2025
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601257
FLUID SAMPLER TOOL AND ASSOCIATED SYSTEM AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12590521
In Situ Equipment Capability Assessment And Use In Operation
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12584366
ARRANGED PROFILED PLATES AND LOAD RELIEF PLATES FOR OILFIELD EQUIPMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12560038
A CORE SAMPLE HANDLING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12560028
COAL MINE AUTOMATIC DIRECTIONAL DRILL
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

7-8
Expected OA Rounds
84%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+10.0%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 132 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month