DETAILED ACTION
Remarks filed on 29 July 2026 have been entered. Claims 1-20 are at issue.
Response to Arguments
PNG
media_image1.png
578
1180
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotations on Mills fig 10
Applicant's arguments filed 29 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Page 8, second paragraph, applicant argues mills does not compare any patterns representing actual loads. Applicant has overlooked that Mills explicitly compares the measured loads to threshold loads (fig 10).
Applicant argues that they measure a “single load” during the upstroke and downstroke, and does not compare multiple-point patterns. Applicant has overlooked that the control system explicitly measures a multiple-points which correspond to the crank angles of the pumps (fig 10, steps 10002-1008, par 0048). The method of control explicitly operates to cause the pump to change its speed to meet the target loads (“the method may be used to cause the pumping unit 100 to operate such that a threshold load is imparted on the polished rod, par 0048), and adjust speed in order to match “the next measured load value to be substantially similar to the reference load value (fig 10, step 1010, par 0048).” The process explicitly iterates to the “next measured load” to go through the entries of the reference tables (fig 4A/B, 5A/B, 6A/B; 400, 500, 600, par 0048); reasonably, each of those multiple row table, shows the intended target for each subsequent measurement in the control method. Therefore, the control method (fig 10) is clearly disclosing the multiple-point patterns and the “plurality of actual points” as claimed. Furthermore, based only on fig 10, the steps require a measurement of a present load (step 1006), comparison of the measured load to the reference load (step 1008) and an adjustment to meet the next measured load (step 1010) explicitly accounts for at least two datapoints in a multiple-point measurement pattern, and the comparisons of a measured load to a target load, counter to applicant’s arguments.
Page 8, third paragraph; applicant argues that the processor merely determines one polish rod speed that determines one load, which is not the same as causing a plurality of actual points of a dynacard pattern to a corresponding one of a plurality of target points of a dynacard target pattern. As noted above, applicant has overlooked that Mills explicitly includes a control method of matching measured loads at angular positions of the crank arms to meet the reference table values and “next measured load” (fig 10, par 0048) as the pump operates and goes through each subsequent measured crank angle. Furthermore, as noted previously, the crank angle tables 400, 500, 600 disclose the same information as a dynamometer card, where the tables can be used to generate dynamometer cards and the dynamometer cards then used as the reference for pump load (par 0024, 0040).
Therefore, in contrast to applicant’s allegations that Mill discloses operating a pump based on a single comparison to a single reference value rather than a multi-point pattern; Mills discloses operating to meet target values for several crank angles during the operation of the pump as shown above. Therefore, the rejection under Mills is maintained.
On page 9-11, applicant argues that the dependent claims are not met by Mills and its combinations for the same reasons argued above. Since applicant is including no further arguments, the rejection under Mills is maintained for the same reasons explained above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 10, 11, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mills (US 2016/0003236).
Regarding claim 1, Mills discloses a method comprising:
operating a pump system (pumping unit 100, par 0048-0050) comprising a rod (110), the rod comprising a downhole rod portion (downhole sucker rod string, par 0015, 0024) received within a well (well, id.);
determining a condition (position, speed, load, force, par 0024, 0040, 0049) associated with the pump system utilizing a model (dynacard, par 0024, 0048-0050),
wherein the model comprises a dynacard target pattern (par 0049-0050) comprising a plurality of target points (the processor determines a load based on a dynometer card referencing table 400, when there is a difference in load the processor determines a speed to operate the motor, par 0049; plurality of points at the different angular positions of the crank arm 120, par 0050; the processor 142 interpolates between entries thereby indicating it isa plurality of entries; plurality of targets for ever pulse, par 0022), each of the target points representing a target load and a target distance through an upstroke and a downstroke of the rod (rod pump dynamometer card used for “determined position data versus time” and load, F, on the polished rod, par 0024; attempts to automatically control the speed and/or load by detecting rod-float on upstroke and downstroke, with control of speed and/or load, par 0017);
determining an actual dynacard pattern (par 0024, 0048-0050) comprising a plurality of actual points (a plurality of target points are adjustments to actual measurement points, par 0022, 0049, 0050) associated with the pump system, each of the actual points representing an actual load and an actual distance through the upstroke and the downstroke of the rod (based on a dynometer card which includes these value, par 0049), wherein the actual dynacard pattern is determined using a force parameter and a position parameter measured throughout the upstroke and the downstroke of the rod (dynamometer card using “determined position data, versus time data” and “load, F”, par 0024, on the downstroke and upstroke, par 0017);
using electronic pattern recognition to compare the dynacard target pattern and the actual dynacard pattern (the processor 142 determines the load via a dynometer card… and the processor “determines a speed to operate the motor to enable the polished rod to move at the determined polished rod speed, par 0049; the processor is a computer a variety of logical circuits, which are electronic devices, par 0052-0053); and
controlling the pump system based at least in part on the comparison (control speed, par 0049), wherein the pump system is controlled so that the actual points of the actual dynacard pattern achieve corresponding target points of the dynacard target pattern (the processor enables the speed for the rod to meet the reference load value, par 0049-0051).
Regarding claim 10, Mills discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the pump system comprises a sucker rod pump (par 0015).
Regarding claim 11, Mills discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the model uses a dynamometer card shape analysis (dynamometer cards analyzed, par 0024, 0040, 0049).
Regarding claim 16, Mills discloses a system comprising: a controller (computer processor, par 0052-0053) configured to:
operate a pump system (pump unit 100, par 0048-0050) comprising a rod (110), the rod comprising a downhole rod portion (downhole of sucker rod string, par 0015, 0024) received within a well (id);
determine a condition (position, speed, load, force par 0024, 0040, 0049) associated with the pump system utilizing a model (dynacard, id), the model comprises a dynacard target pattern comprising a plurality of target points (dynacard with target, par 0049 where the computer determines speed to operate based on the difference between the load value), each of the target points representing a target load and a target distance through an upstroke and a downstroke of the rod (rod pump dynamometer card used for “determined position data versus time” and load, F, on the polished rod, par 0024; attempts to automatically control the speed and/or load by detecting rod-float on upstroke and downstroke, with control of speed and/or load, par 0017); determine an actual dynacard pattern (par 0024, 0048-0050) comprising a plurality of actual points (a plurality of target points are adjustments to actual measurement points, par 0022, 0049, 0050) associated with the pump system, each of the actual points representing an actual load and an actual distance through the upstroke and the downstroke of the rod (based on a dynometer card which includes these value, par 0049), wherein the actual dynacard pattern is determined using a force parameter and a position parameter measured throughout the upstroke and the downstroke of the rod(dynamometer card using “determined position data, versus time data” and “load, F”, par 0024, on the downstroke and upstroke, par 0017);
use electronic pattern recognition to compare the dynacard target pattern and the actual dynacard pattern (the processor 142 determines the load via a dynometer card… and the processor “determines a speed to operate the motor to enable the polished rod to move at the determined polished rod speed, par 0049; the processor is a computer a variety of logical circuits, which are electronic devices, par 0052-0053); and
control the pump system based at least in part on the comparison (control speed, par 0049), wherein the pump system is controlled so that the actual points of the actual dynacard pattern achieve corresponding target points of the dynacard target pattern (the processor enables the speed for the rod to meet the reference load value, par 0049-0051).
Regarding claim 17, Mills discloses the system of claim 16, further comprising at least one electrical interface that is operatively coupled to the pump system (the electric computer processor is operatively coupled as the controller of the pump, par 0052-0053).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2-4, 12-14, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mills in view of Coste (WO 2016/153895) in view of Ward (US 2006/0271299).
Regarding claim 2, Mills discloses the method of claim 1. Mills is silent on the model utilizes a physics-based model that includes two special dimensions.
Coste discloses an analogous method comprising: operating a pump system (electric submersible pumps, par 0003, 0022-0023, for operation to prolong life of the pump, par 0029) for a rod pump (par 0039); utilizing a physics-based model (Coste, physics based modeling, par 0049), in order to predict an expected failure (par 0035) and control operation of pump to prolong its life (par 0029).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control of Mills by adding the failure management system of Coste in order to prolong the life of the pump (Coste, par 0023).
Coste is silent that the physics model includes two spatial dimensions.
Ward teaches an analogous pump system responding to wear to rod and rod guides and tubing wear data is conceptually in a three-dimensional plot of the well bore (Ward, par 0034, 0053).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention that when incorporating Ward’s rod, rod guide and tubing wear data into the combination of Mills in view of Coste in view of Ward’s prediction model, to incorporate the three-dimensional data of Ward in three spatial dimensions for that data to continue to function as intended in Ward and provide usable wear data.
As a result of Coste in view of Ward using the three dimensional data, the combination meets the claimed “two spatial dimensions” because the claim is an open ended “comprising” claim, such that limitations with more than two spatial dimensions would meet the limitation.
Regarding claim 3, Mills discloses the method of claim 1.
Mills is silent on the model utilizes a physics-based model that includes three special dimensions.
Coste discloses an analogous method comprising: operating a pump system (electric submersible pumps, par 0003, 0022-0023, for operation to prolong life of the pump, par 0029) for a rod pump (par 0039); utilizing a physics-based model (Coste, physics based modeling, par 0049), in order to predict an expected failure (par 0035) and control operation of pump to prolong its life (par 0029).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control of Mills by adding the failure management system of Coste in order to prolong the life of the pump (Coste, par 0023).
Coste is silent that the physics model includes two spatial dimensions.
Ward teaches an analogous pump system responding to wear to rod and rod guides and tubing wear data is conceptually in a three-dimensional plot of the well bore (Ward, par 0034, 0053).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention that when incorporating Ward’s rod, rod guide and tubing wear data into the combination of Mills in view of Coste in view of Ward’s prediction model, to incorporate the three-dimensional data of Ward in three spatial dimensions for that data to continue to function as intended in Ward and provide usable wear data.
Regarding claim 4, Mills in view of Coste in view of Ward teaches the method of claim 3, further comprising comparing the actual dynacard pattern to a plurality of predetermined patterns to determine control instructions for approaching the dynacard target pattern (Mills, a plurality of cards, such as a rod pump dynamometer card, a surface dynamometer card, a pump dynamometer card can be used, par 0024).
Regarding claim 12, Mills discloses the method of claim 1.
Mills does not disclose wherein the condition comprises the rod failure time. Similarly, regarding claims 13 and 14, Mills does not disclose a rod guide failure time (claim 13), or a tubing wear parameter (claim 14).
Coste discloses a method comprising: operating a pump system (electric submersible pumps, par 0003, 0022-0023, for operation to prolong life of the pump, par 0029); comprising a rod (rod pump, par 0039);
determining a condition (predict failure of pump, par 0020, 0021) associated with the pump system utilizing a model (par 0029, 0037, 0040),
wherein the condition comprises a failure time (alarm for impending failure of the pump, par 0037, 0039; predict an expected failure, par 0035; examiner notes that applicant has not provided the specific details of what is meant by “failure time”, the plain meaning of “failure time” will be applied, which references when failure occurs, under a broadest reasonable interpretation of “failure time,” and indication of “impending” failure meets the meaning because impending means an immediate future event) for specific critical events (360, par 0039), and controlling the pump system based at least in part on the condition (control operation of pump to prolong its life, par 0029).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control of Mills by adding the failure management system of Coste in order to prolong the life of the pump (Coste, par 0023). Furthermore, there would be a reasonable expectation of success for the combination as the dynacard model of Mills and the failure time algorithm model of Coste function in the same way in the combination as they do in the references individually, because the dynacard model of Mills and the failure time algorithm model of Coste can function as independent of each other. Applicant’s claims are directed toward “a model comprises a dynacard target pattern,” since the claim is an open “comprising” group, additional models besides the dynacard target pattern model can be included. This interpretation concurs with applicant’s disclosure, as applicant does not disclose that the “rod failure time” is determined via the claimed dynacard target pattern. Therefore, Coste adding a time algorithm model independent of the Mills dynacard model meets the claim.
Coste is silent as to the failure time comprising a rod failure time, a rod guide failure time, or a tubing wear parameter.
Nevertheless, Coste discloses that the prediction algorithm is usable with a rod pump (par 0039) and that several sources of data from the downhole pump may be used (par 0021, 0027-0029) and that the sensors monitor aspects of the pumping system operation (par 0004, 0024-0029) and specifically monitor critical events that impact the health of the system (par 0031-0032, 0036). Therefore, Coste suggests that specific critical events should be monitored by the prediction algorithm.
Ward teaches a wear evaluation system (Ward, par 0021) for a well system with a downhole pump, par 30001) which teaches measuring wear to rods and rod guides, and tubing wear (par 0023, 0028, 0045-0046), and that wear leads to failure of the oil wells and is the largest cause of well down time (par 0011, 0024, 0025), wherein the system accounts for a force normal (“side loads” of the sucker rod; par 0067; “side loads” on the sucker rod can be interpreted as a normal force; further the result includes determining deviation from the deviation profile on the horizontal axes 54, 56 parallel to the earth’s surface, para 0053; the horizontal axis is normal to the vertical axis which aligns with applicant’s disclosure; Applicant discloses that the determination of normal force can be “determining normal deviation from an axis,” as See Applicant’s specification, par 0108) to a longitudinal axis of the rod (vertical axis 52, par 0053); further, even if the force is not applied perpendicularly to production loading, the side load would continue to have a normal component. Ward further teaches mitigation solutions based on wear findings including strategically positioning rod guides wear excessive wear is observed, which is equivalent to controlling the pump system to account for a force normal to a longitudinal axis of the rod (par 0078-0083).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the failure time algorithm of Mills in view of Coste to include data for wear to rods, and rod guides, and tubing wear as taught by Ward (par 0023, 0028, 0045-0046) because that data predicts well failure (Ward, par 0011, 0024, 0025) and is therefore a critical event that Coste suggests monitoring with the prediction algorithm (par 0031-0032, 0036), and thereby improve the maintenance and operable reliability of the rod pump system of Mills.
Therefore, as a result of the combination of Mills in view of Coste’s prediction of impending failure of a pump and automatic critical event detection algorithm with Ward’s specific teachings of the critical data for a rod pump, Coste in view of Ward makes obvious predicting a rod’s impending failure, a rod guide’s impending failure, and tubing wear leading to impending failure. Furthermore, there would be a reasonable expectation of success for the combination as the dynacard model of Mills and the failure time algorithm model of Coste in view of Ward function in the same way in the combination as they do in the references individually, because the dynacard model of Mills and the failure time algorithm model of Coste in view of Ward can function as independent of each other.
Since the combination make obvious a prediction of “impending failure” it meets the plain meaning of “failure time” under a broadest reasonable interpretation. Therefore, Mills in view of Coste in view of Ward meets the claim limitations a rod failure time (claim 12), a rod guide failure time (claim 13), or a tubing wear parameter (claim 14).
Regarding claim 13, Mills discloses the method of claim 1. Mills does not disclose wherein the condition comprises the rod guide failure time.
The obviousness of combining Mills in view of Coste in view of Ward to make said element obvious is shown in claim 12 above.
Regarding claim 14, Mills discloses the method of claim 1. Mills does not disclose wherein the condition comprises the tubing wear parameter.
The obviousness of combining Mills in view of Coste in view of Ward to make said element obvious is shown in claim 12 above.
Regarding claim 18, Mills discloses one or more computer-readable media (computer readable storage medium, par 0033-0035) comprising computer-executable instructions executable to instruct a computing system (programs for a computer, par 0034) to:
operate a pump system (pump, par 0048-0050) comprising a rod (110), the rod comprising a downhole rod portion received within a well (downhole sucker rod string, par 0015-0024);
determining a condition (position, speed, load, force, par 0024, 0040, 0049) associated with the pump system utilizing a model (dynacard, par 0024, 0048-0050),
wherein the model comprises a dynacard target pattern (par 0049-0050)
…
comprising a plurality of target points (the processor determines a load based on a dynometer card referencing table 400, when there is a difference in load the processor determines a speed to operate the motor, par 0049; plurality of points at the different angular positions of the crank arm 120, par 0050; the processor 142 interpolates between entries thereby indicating it isa plurality of entries; plurality of targets for ever pulse, par 0022), each of the target points representing a target load and a target distance through an upstroke and a downstroke of the rod (rod pump dynamometer card used for “determined position data versus time” and load, F, on the polished rod, par 0024; attempts to automatically control the speed and/or load by detecting rod-float on upstroke and downstroke, with control of speed and/or load, par 0017);
determining an actual dynacard pattern (par 0024, 0048-0050) comprising a plurality of actual points (a plurality of target points are adjustments to actual measurement points, par 0022, 0049, 0050) associated with the pump system, each of the actual points representing an actual load and an actual distance through the upstroke and the downstroke of the rod (based on a dynometer card which includes these value, par 0049), wherein the actual dynacard pattern is determined using a force parameter and a position parameter measured throughout the upstroke and the downstroke of the rod (dynamometer card using “determined position data, versus time data” and “load, F”, par 0024, on the downstroke and upstroke, par 0017);
using electronic pattern recognition to compare the dynacard target pattern and the actual dynacard pattern (the processor 142 determines the load via a dynometer card… and the processor “determines a speed to operate the motor to enable the polished rod to move at the determined polished rod speed, par 0049; the processor is a computer a variety of logical circuits, which are electronic devices, par 0052-0053); and
controlling the pump system based at least in part on the comparison (control speed, par 0049), wherein the pump system is controlled so that the actual points of the actual dynacard pattern achieve corresponding target points of the dynacard target pattern (the processor enables the speed for the rod to meet the reference load value, par 0049-0051).
Mills does not disclose wherein the condition comprises a rod failure time, a rod guide failure time, or a tubing wear parameter.
Coste discloses a method comprising: operating a pump system (electric submersible pumps, par 0003, 0022-0023, for operation to prolong life of the pump, par 0029); comprising a rod (rod pump, par 0039);
determining a condition (predict failure of pump, par 0020, 0021) associated with the pump system utilizing a model (par 0029, 0037, 0040),
wherein the condition comprises a failure time (alarm for impending failure of the pump, par 0037, 0039; predict an expected failure, par 0035; examiner notes that applicant has not provided the specific details of what is meant by “failure time”, the plain meaning of “failure time” will be applied, which references when failure occurs, under a broadest reasonable interpretation of “failure time,” and indication of “impending” failure meets the meaning because impending means an immediate future event) for specific critical events (360, par 0039), and controlling the pump system based at least in part on the condition (control operation of pump to prolong its life, par 0029).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control of Mills by adding the failure management system of Coste in order to prolong the life of the pump (Coste, par 0023).
Coste is silent as to the failure time comprising a rod failure time, a rod guide failure time, or a tubing wear parameter.
Nevertheless, Coste discloses that the prediction algorithm is usable with a rod pump (par 0039) and that several sources of data from the downhole pump may be used (par 0021, 0027-0029) and that the sensors monitor aspects of the pumping system operation (par 0004, 0024-0029) and specifically monitor critical events that impact the health of the system (par 0031-0032, 0036). Therefore, Coste suggests that specific critical events should be monitored by the prediction algorithm.
Ward teaches a wear evaluation system (Ward, par 0021) for a well system with a downhole pump, par 30001) which teaches measuring wear to rods and rod guides, and tubing wear (par 0023, 0028, 0045-0046), and that wear leads to failure of the oil wells and is the largest cause of well down time (par 0011, 0024, 0025), wherein the system accounts for a force normal (“side loads” of the sucker rod; par 0067; “side loads” on the sucker rod can be interpreted as a normal force; further the result includes determining deviation from the deviation profile on the horizontal axes 54, 56 parallel to the earth’s surface, para 0053; the horizontal axis is normal to the vertical axis which aligns with applicant’s disclosure; Applicant discloses that the determination of normal force can be “determining normal deviation from an axis,” as See Applicant’s specification, par 0108) to a longitudinal axis of the rod (vertical axis 52, par 0053); further, even if the force is not applied perpendicularly to production loading, the side load would continue to have a normal component. Ward further teaches mitigation solutions based on wear findings including strategically positioning rod guides wear excessive wear is observed, which is equivalent to controlling the pump system to account for a force normal to a longitudinal axis of the rod (par 0078-0083).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the failure time algorithm of Coste to include data for wear to rods, and rod guides, and tubing wear as taught by Ward (par 0023, 0028, 0045-0046) because that data predicts well failure (Ward, par 0011, 0024, 0025) and is therefore a critical event that Coste suggests monitoring with the prediction algorithm (par 0031-0032, 0036), and thereby improve the maintenance and operable reliability of the rod pump system of Mills.
Therefore, as a result of the combination of Mills in view of Coste’s prediction of impending failure of a pump and automatic critical event detection algorithm with Ward’s specific teachings of the critical data for a rod pump, Coste in view of Ward makes obvious predicting a rod’s impending failure, a rod guide’s impending failure, and tubing wear leading to impending failure. Furthermore, there would be a reasonable expectation of success for the combination as the dynacard model of Mills and the failure time algorithm model of Coste in view of Ward function in the same way in the combination as they do in the references individually, because the dynacard model of Mills and the failure time algorithm model of Coste in view of Ward can function as independent of each other. Since the combination make obvious a prediction of “impending failure” it meets the plain meaning of “failure time” under a broadest reasonable interpretation. Therefore, Mills in view of Coste in view of Ward meets the claim limitations a rod failure time, a rod guide failure time, or a tubing wear parameter.
Regarding claim 19, Mills in view of Coste in view of Ward makes obvious the one or more computer-readable media of claim 18, wherein the condition comprises the rod failure time, the rod guide failure time, and the tubing wear parameter (obvious to include data on wear to rods, rod guides and tubing taught by Ward into the failure time taught by Coste, into the combination as shown in claim 18).
Regarding claim 20, Mills in view of Coste in view of Ward teaches the one or more computer-readable media of claim 18. The combination is silent that wherein the pump system is controlled to at least one of extend the rod failure time, to extend the rod guide failure time, or to decrease the tubing wear parameter.
Nevertheless, Coste teaches that its control system can be used to prolong the life of the pump (par 0029, 0036, 0037).
Since the combination makes obvious monitoring to determine the impending rod failure time, the impending rod guide failure time, or the tubing wear, it is obvious that actions to prevent failure of the pump system would prevent the impending failure of the rod, rod guide, and wear of the tubing; which is the same thing as extending the life of those elements as claimed. Therefore, Mills in view of Coste in view of Ward also makes obvious the pump system is controlled to at least one of extend the rod failure time, to extend the rod guide failure time, or to decrease the tubing wear parameter.
Claims 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mills in view of DaCunha (US 2016/0102542).
Regarding claim 5, Mills discloses the method of claim 1. Mills is silent on further comprising adjusting for acceleration to improve a pump load model.
DaCunha teaches a method of monitoring rod pumps using dynagraph cards (par 0021) using a wave equation (par 0025) where the equation superpositions a static and dynamic part, where the static part includes the force of the weight of the rods, and uses the gravity constant from a viscos dampened wave equation (par 0027) and the dynamic parts relate load/force over time (par 0033-0034, a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that load meets the plain meaning of force parameter), where the static and dynamic portions are combined to find the solution (par 0025) and calculate load data (par 0029). This teaching meets the claimed model (wave equation describing the sucker rod pumping, par 0024) subtracts an earth’s gravity constant fluid acceleration term from the force parameter (dynamic part with load subtracts the static viscous damped wave equation which incorporates gravity, in order to determine pump load).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the generic dynacard calculation of Mills to incorporate the wave equation model incorporating gravity’s acceleration term of DaCunha for the predictable result of determining load on the rod in real time (DaCuna, par 0002).
Regarding claim 9, Mills discloses the method of claim 1. Mills is silent on the model subtracts an Earth’s gravity constant fluid acceleration term from the force parameter.
DaCunha teaches a method of monitoring rod pumps using dynagraph cards (par 0021) using a wave equation (par 0025) where the equation superpositions a static and dynamic part, where the static part includes the force of the weight of the rods, and uses the gravity constant from a viscos dampened wave equation (par 0027) and the dynamic parts relate load/force over time (par 0033-0034, a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that load meets the plain meaning of force parameter), where the static and dynamic portions are combined to find the solution (par 0025) and calculate load data (par 0029). This teaching meets the claimed model (wave equation describing the sucker rod pumping, par 0024) subtracts an earth’s gravity constant fluid acceleration term from the force parameter (dynamic part with load subtracts the static viscous damped wave equation which incorporates gravity, in order to determine pump load).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the generic dynacard calculation of Mills to incorporate the wave equation model of DaCunha for the predictable result of determining load on the rod in real time (DaCunha, par 0002).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mills in view of Peterson (US 2014/0129037).
Regarding claim 6, Mills discloses the method of claim 5. Mills does not disclose further comprising estimating one or more gas characteristics using the pump load model and/or estimating stroke length using the pump load model.
Peterson teaches tracking a rod pump system performance (par 0003) estimating a stroke length (determine toggle points at top dead center and bottom dead center of the rod string, which is the maximum and minimum extended position, par 0013) using a pump load model (controller analyzes torque based upon knowledge of the pump geometry to determine the toggle points, par 0039-0041).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add to the system of Mills a function of using torque to determine stroke length toggle points (Peterson, par 0039) as taught by Peterson in order to generate dynamometer plots (par 0038) and thereby optimize operation of the pump and elimination sucker rod buckling (par 0038), thereby reducing pump wear due to buckling and prolonging the life of the system.
Examiner notes that the claim limitation is claimed in the alternative one or more gas characteristics using the pump load model (first of two alternatives, the rejection addresses the second alternative, See below) and/or estimating stroke length using the pump load model (the second alternative).
Therefore Mills in view of Peterson make obvious the limitation estimating stroke length (Peterson, top dead center and bottom dead center found for maximum and minimum extend positions of the rod, par 0039) using the pump load model (Peterson, motor torque is used to determine stroke length, par 0039, torque is synonymous with motor load which is equivalent to pump load, and therefore meets the pump load model under a broadest reasonable interpretation; second of two alternatives, Peterson teaches the second alternative).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mills in view of Ward.
Regarding claim 7, Mills discloses the method of claim 1. Mills does not disclose wherein the pump system is disposed at least in part in a deviated well.
Ward teaches wherein the pump system is disposed at least in part in a deviated well (fig 5 shows a deviated well in which the system is used, par 0035). In the art, the term deviated refers to the well bore deviating from true vertical (par 0004).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to deploy the pump system of Mills in a deviated well taught by Ward for the predictable result of predicting failure and sensing wear of components in a deviated well, and thereby increasing the capability of the pump to also be operated in a deviated well. Furthermore, the Mills pump is a sucker rod pump, wherein Ward teaches that the sucker rod pump is a type of pump that is conventionally capable of operating in a deviated well without significant changes to its intended operation modes (Ward par 0003-0004).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mills in view of Ward in view of Coste.
Regarding claim 8, Mills in view of Ward teaches the method of claim 7. Mills is silent on wherein the determining utilizes a physics-based model that includes an axial dimension and a radial dimension as a dimension normal to the axial dimension.
Ward further teaches that the well data includes an axial dimension (fig 5, axial dimensions, depths of the well and pump are illustrated) and a radial dimension (fig 5, radial dimensions of the well and pump are illustrated) as a dimension normal to the axial dimension (fig 5 depicts radius measured normal to the axis of the tubing as the tubing bends through the deviated well; further radius measured normal to axis is the standard way of measuring radius in a cylinder, and offers no more than a predictable way of dimensioning a tubing string).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to deploy the pump system of Mills in view of Ward with parameters for axial and radial dimensions of the pump as taught by Ward for the predictable result of predicting failure and sensing wear of components in a deviated well.
Coste discloses an analogous method comprising: operating a pump system (electric submersible pumps, par 0003, 0022-0023, for operation to prolong life of the pump, par 0029) for a rod pump (par 0039); utilizing a physics-based model (Coste, physics based modeling, par 0049), in order to predict an expected failure (par 0035) and control operation of pump to prolong its life (par 0029).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control of Mills in view of Ward by adding the failure management system of Coste in order to prolong the life of the pump (Coste, par 0023).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mills in view of Coste.
Regarding claim 15, Mills discloses the method of claim 1. Mills does not disclose utilizing a physics- based model to generate training data, training a machine model utilizing the training data to generate a trained machine model and wherein the model is the trained machine model configured to output an updated condition responsive to receiving an input associated with operating the pump system.
Coste teaches a method comprising: operating a pump system (electric submersible pumps, par 0003, 0022-0023, for operation to prolong life of the pump, par 0029); comprising a rod (rod pump, par 0039);
further comprising utilizing a physics-based model (Coste, physics based modeling, par 0049) to generate training data (historic analysis of data used with machine learning to generate prediction algorithm, par 0029, 0040, 0043-0044),
training a machine model (failure prediction algorithm is developed from machine learning on the historic data, par 0029, 0040, 0043-0044; machine learning using historic data meets the plain meaning of training a machine model) utilizing the training data to generate a trained machine model (failure prediction algorithm, par 0029, 0040, 0043-0044) and
wherein the model is the trained machine model configured to output an updated condition (the algorithm outputs alarms and information regarding anomalies, par 0020, 0039, 0040) responsive to receiving an input associated with operating the pump system (sensor data is directed to the failure prediction algorithm to get an output of predicted failure, par 0039).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control of Mills by adding the failure management system of Coste in order to prolong the life of the pump (Coste, par 0023).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 GEOFFREY S LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5354. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0900-1800.
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, Essama Omgba can be reached on (469) 295-9278. 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.
/GEOFFREY S LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/DOMINICK L PLAKKOOTTAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights