DETAILED ACTIONNotice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 13 June 2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-20 remain pending.
The amendments have overcome the claim objections of the non-final office action dated 13 February 2025. The previous claim rejections are hereby withdrawn, however new rejections have been asserted in response to amendments.
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, 4, 5, 10, 11, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Best (WO 2014/165831).
PNG
media_image1.png
416
518
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Best fig 12, Dynamometer card (“dynacard”), also known as a pump card, par 0032, 0038, 0040
Regarding claim 1, Best discloses a method comprising:
operating a pump system (abstract) comprising a rod (sucker rod 10, par 0013), the rod comprising a downhole rod portion (sucker rod 10 is within well head 4, par 0013) received within a well (par 0002, 0013);
determining a condition (position and feedback info, par 0032, 0038) associated with the pump system utilizing a model (fig 12 depicts dynacard, par 0032; dynacard plot includes target rod load and stroke, par 0038), wherein the model comprises a dynacard target pattern (load and stroke targets indicated by black dot 212 on dynacard, par 0038);
determining an actual dynacard pattern associated with the pump system (par 0032), wherein the actual dynacard pattern is determined using a force parameter (rod load is a feedback parameter, par 0038) and a position parameter (position feedback, par 0032, 0038);
using electronic pattern recognition to compare the dynacard target pattern and the actual dynacard pattern (the electronic controller analyzes the dyna card in relation to the desired targets, par 0038; the system recognizes whether the system is above or below target points which broadly meets the term pattern recognition, because recognition of above/below requires perceiving the dynacard geometry in relation to the target);
and controlling the pump system based at least in part on the comparison (dynacard feedback is used reach desired target operation point,s par 0038), wherein the pump system is controlled so that the actual dynacard pattern achieves the dynacard target pattern (par 0038).
Regarding claim 4, Best discloses the method of claim 3, further comprising comparing the actual dynacard pattern to a plurality of predetermined pattern to determine control instructions for achieving the target dynacard pattern (the dynamometer cards are independently adjusted for each well, par 0032; optimization per individual well is in accord with applicant’s disclosed “plurality of pre-determined patterns” on applicant’s spec par 0092).
Regarding claim 5, Best discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising adjusting for acceleration to improve a pump load model (acceleration is input to calculate stroke position, par 0023).
Regarding claim 10, Best discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the pump system comprises a sucker rod pump (Sucker rod 10, par 0013).
Regarding claim 11, Best discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the model uses a dynamometer card shape analysis (fig 12, controller checks whether the dynacard shape is above or below the target, par 0038).
Regarding claim 16, Best discloses a system comprising:
a controller (microprocessor controller, par 0038) configured to:
operate a pump system comprising a rod (sucker rod 10, par 0013), the rod comprising a downhole rod portion received within a well (sucker rod 10 within well head 4, par 0002, 0013);
determine a condition (position and power feedback info, par 0032, 0038) associated with the pump system utilizing a model (fig 12 depicts dynacard, par 0032; dynacard plot includes target rod load and stroke, par 0038), the model comprises a dynacard target pattern (par 0032, 0038);
determining an actual dynacard pattern associated with the pump system (independent dynamometer card per well, par 0023), wherein the actual dynacard pattern is determined using a force parameter (rod load is a feedback parameter, par 0038) and a position parameter (position feedback, par 0032, 0038);
using electronic pattern recognition to compare the dynacard target pattern and the actual dynacard pattern (par 0038); and
controlling the pump system based at least in part on the comparison (adjust pump toward target, par 0038), wherein the pump system is controlled so that the actual dynacard pattern achieves the dynacard target pattern (par 0038).
Regarding claim 17, Best discloses the system of claim 16, further comprising at least one electrical interface that is operatively coupled to the pump system (pump control interfaces with control units via microprocessors, par 0032).
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, 3, 12-14, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Best in view of Coste (WO 2016/153895) in view of Ward (US 2006/0271299).
Regarding claim 2, Best 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 Best 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 Best 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, Best discloses the method of claim 1.
Best 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 Best 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 Best 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 12, Best discloses the method of claim 1.
Best does not disclose wherein the condition comprises the rod failure time. Similarly, regarding claims 13 and 14, Best 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 Best 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 Best 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 Best 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 Best 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 Best 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 Best.
Therefore, as a result of the combination of Best 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 Best 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 Best 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, Best 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, Best discloses the method of claim 1. Best does not disclose wherein the condition comprises the rod guide failure time.
The obviousness of combining Best in view of Coste in view of Ward to make said element obvious is shown in claim 12 above.
Regarding claim 14, Best discloses the method of claim 1. Best does not disclose wherein the condition comprises the tubing wear parameter.
The obviousness of combining Best in view of Coste in view of Ward to make said element obvious is shown in claim 12 above.
Regarding claim 18, Best discloses one or more computer-readable media comprising computer- executable instructions executable to instruct a computing system to (machine readable instructions via microprocessor and computer memory, par 0015):
operate a pump system (abstract) comprising a rod (sucker rod 10, par 0013), the rod comprising a downhole rod portion (sucker rod 10 is within well head 4, par 0013) received within a well (par 0002, 0013);
determining a condition (position and power feedback info, par 0032, 0038) associated with the pump system utilizing a model (fig 12 depicts dynacard, par 0032; dynacard plot includes target rod load and stroke, par 0038), wherein the model comprises a dynacard target pattern (load and stroke targets indicated by black dot 212 on dynacard, par 0038).
…
determine an actual dynacard pattern associated with the pump system (par 0032), wherein the actual dynacard pattern is determined using a force parameter (rod load is a feedback parameter, par 0038) and a position parameter (position feedback, par 0032, 0038);
using electronic pattern recognition to compare the dynacard target pattern and the actual dynacard pattern (the electronic controller analyzes the dyna card in relation to the desired targets, par 0038; the system recognizes whether the system is above or below target points which broadly meets the term pattern recognition, because recognition of above/below requires perceiving the dynacard geometry in relation to the target); and
control the pump system based at least in part on the comparison (dynacard feedback is used reach desired target operation points, par 0038), wherein the pump system is controlled so that the actual dynacard pattern achieves the dynacard target pattern (par 0038).
Best 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 Best 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 Best.
Therefore, as a result of the combination of Best 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 Best 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 Best 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, Best 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, Best 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, Best 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, Best 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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Best in view of Peterson (US 2014/0129037).
Regarding claim 6, Best discloses the method of claim 5. Best 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 Best 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 Best 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 Best in view of Ward.
Regarding claim 7, Best discloses the method of claim 1. Best 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 Best 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 Best 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 Best in view of Ward in view of Coste.
Regarding claim 8, Best in view of Ward teaches the method of claim 7. Best 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 Best 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 Best 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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Best in view of DaCunha (US 2016/0102542).
Regarding claim 9, Best the method of claim 1. Best 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 Best to incorporate the wave equation model of DaCunha for the predictable result of determining load on the rod in real time (DaCuna, par 0002).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Best in view of Coste.
Regarding claim 15, Best discloses the method of claim 1. Best 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 Best by adding the failure management system of Coste in order to prolong the life of the pump (Coste, par 0023).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1-20, filed 13 June 2025, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Specifically with regard to the new amendments related to the dynacard, the rejection is now based on the new reference Best.
Conclusion
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