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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 8, 9, 12, and 14 have been amended.
Claim 2 has been canceled.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “cablings supporting the stanchion posts,” of claim 9, and the “cablings supporting the stanchion posts via an axle,” of claim 14, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Examiner’s Note: It is noted that the Office letter of 2025.06.16 presented a drawing objection over limitations of previously presented claim 2, which covered nearly identical language as the aforesaid limitations of claim 9 and 14. Applicant indicated that claim 2 was canceled by their 2025.12.05 amendment to overcome the previously presented drawing objection.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 9, and 14 – 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 9 and 14 recite the limitations the “cablings supporting the stanchion posts,” and the “cablings supporting the stanchion posts via an axle,” respectively.
These limitations appear to be directed towards the arrangement of system 200 of the originally filed specification which is directed towards an arrangement comprising a walking beam 202, perpendicular upright support stanchion post 212, and support cablings 216. It is noted that system 200 is disclosed as a separate species from that of system 400, as recited by the instant claims, insofar as system 400 comprises at least a curved metal head and a sucker rod string. Although applicant can be their own lexicographer, in this instance, the use of the limitation “cablings” appears to be directed towards its normal and usual definition of a simple tension member. However, the use of the limitation as recited in the claim, and as shown in the figures of system 400, appears directed towards a traditional support member, such as a stanchion post (i.e. Sampson post). The claims are being interpreted as directed towards an arrangement of a stanchion/Sampson post as shown in at least Figure 4 and the limitation “cablings” of claims 9, and 14 is not being provided with patentable weight.
Dependent claims not specifically objected to are interpreted as being rejected for depending on an objected claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 8 recites the limitation “a plurality of lattice bars interconnected in a structurally rigid manner.” Claim 8 as originally presented recited the limitation “a plurality of lattice bars interconnected in an articulated manner.” The originally filed specification recites “a plurality of lattice bars interconnected in an articulated manner,” in [0026], “a plurality of lattice bars interconnected in an articulated manner,” in [0050], and “a plurality of lattice bars 403 interconnected in an articulated manner,” in [0088]. The originally filed specification fails to recite the limitation “rigid.” This is a new matter rejection.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 11 recites the limitation “wherein the EV chassis is powered by one or more EV batteries,” this limitation is interpreted as failing to further limit the previously recited limitation of preceding claim 1 which recites the limitation “an electric vehicle (EV) chassis powered by one or more EV batteries.” Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 14*, 15*, 3, 4, 16*, 5, 17*, 6, 18*, 10, 20*, 11, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3,209,605, “Scoggins,” in view of US 4,092,872, “McClure,” US 11,204,028, “Dreher,” and US 2009/0314557, “Takeuchi.” (Claims listed with a “*” are rejected method claims listed in order of precedence of their corresponding rejection tied to the preceding apparatus claims)
Regarding Claim 1: Scoggins discloses an apparatus (Figures 1 – 2A) for generating artificial fluid lift (Cl. 1, ln. 8, “This invention relates to deep well pumps of the type used to recover subterranean oil deposits and, more particularly, to deep well pumps of the type in which the pumping motion is originated at the surface of the ground and transmitted through a reciprocating string of rods to a pump located within the well bore”), comprising: at least one walking beam (14) having a distal end (Interpreted as the left end of the walking beam as viewed in Figure 1) and a proximal end (Interpreted as the right end of the walking beam as viewed in Figure 1), wherein the walking beam comprises a track (30) attached to the distal end (As shown in at least Figures 1 and 2; Cl. 4, ln. 69, “a pair of parallel track members 30 are provided on the upper side of the walking beam 14”), wherein the walking beam is affixed to one end of one or more upright support stanchion posts (10) via an axle (As shown in at least Figure 1; The axle is shown formed as a part of the saddle 16 as described in at least Cl. 4, ln. 49, “walking beam 14 is secured to a saddle 16 positioned intermediate the length of the walking beam, and the saddle 16 is pivotally supported upon the upper end of the Samson post 10”); a curved metal head (18) attached to the proximal end of the walking beam via a connecting member (As shown in at least Figure 1); an electric vehicle (EV) chassis (40) (Cl. 4, ln. 73, “a drive assembly designated generally by reference character 34, which assembly includes a prime mover 36 and suitable speed reduction gearing 38. In one embodiment of the invention, both the prime mover 36 and speed reduction gearing 38 are mounted upon a common bed or frame 40 which is supported by the wheels 32 for rolling movement along the tracks 30 […] prime mover 36 may be of any suitable type, such as an electric motor”) positioned on top of the track (As shown in at least Figure 1) and allowed to move back and forth on the track (Cl. 5, ln. 2, “a common bed or frame 40 which is supported by the wheels 32 for rolling movement along the tracks 30”); and a sucker rod string (20) having an upper end attached to the curved metal head and a lower end attached to a subterranean wellhead (As shown in at least Figure 1; As described in at least Cl. 4, ln. 56, “wire line 20 is attached to the mulehead 18 at the upper end thereof, and the wire line 20 is connected through a rod clamp seat 22 to the polished rod 24 which constitutes the uppermost rod in a string of sucker rods;” and Cl. 4, ln. 61, “polished rod 24 passes through a pumping T 26, or similar fitting, into the production tubing (not shown) which is positioned in the well bore”), wherein the back and forth movement of the EV chassis along the track enables the walking beam to tilt on the axle of the upright support stanchion posts to a maximum decline angle, wherein the tilting of the walking beam causes the curved metal head to move up and down, thereby allowing the sucker rod string to move up and down through the wellhead and descend into the wellbore to artificially increase pressure and extract the fluid (As described in at least Cl. 5, ln. 42 – Cl. 7, ln. 49; “The generally circular movement of the prime mover- speed reduction gearing assembly 34 results in an oscillating movement being imparted to the walking beam 14, and a simultaneous reciprocating movement the prime mover 36 and speed reduction gearing 38 along the walking beam toward and away from the axis of oscillation of the beam at the saddle 16”); however, Scoggins is fails to explicitly disclose wherein the track includes at least two protective end stops located on opposite ends of the track, and wherein the back and forth movement of the EV chassis is limited by the protective end stops and wherein the protected end stops are composed of auto springs, integrating them with the back-and-forth movement of the EV chassis; Scoggins is silent as to the connection between the curved metal head and the walking beam and as such fails to explicitly disclose the curved metal head attached to the proximal end of the walking beam via connecting member. Scoggins is fails to explicitly disclose wherein the EV chassis is powered by one or more EV batteries.
McClure teaches an arrangement of a walking beam pump (Figures 1 – 7), similarly arranged to the apparatus of Scoggins, the walking beam pump comprising a walking beam (14), a curved metal head (22) on a proximal end of the walking beam, and wherein the curved metal head is attached to the proximal end of the walking beam via a connecting member (62, 64, 66) (As shown in at least Figure 2; Cl. 4, ln. 18, “walking beam 14 is provided with a saddle bearing assembly 62 receiving a trunnion 64 extending between the side plates forming the horsehead”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the connection of the curved metal head and walking beam of Scoggins, such that the connection utilizes a connecting member, as taught by McClure, with the predicted results that such a connecting member be capable of connecting the elements in a manner well known in the art and that such a connection method will provided for ease of installation and removal in conventional construction of the apparatus (McClure, Cl. 4, ln. 16 – 27).
Dreher teaches an arrangement of a walking beam pump (Figures 1 – 7), similarly arranged to the apparatus of Scoggins, the walking beam pump comprising a walking beam (3), a curved metal head (36), and a reciprocating counterweight assembly on the waling beam (64) (Figure 1), wherein the counterweight is repositioned through the use of an electric motor (42) (Figure 7; Cl. 21, ln. 29, “Embodiments of the moving force point positioning drive 2 can include, but are not limited to […] FIG. 7 a motorized lead screw 46 bolt or ball screw 46 for moderate loads”), and wherein the motor is powered by batteries (73) (Cl. 16, ln. 1, “partially self-perpetuating method of pumping a well 11 with end return 75 assistance for a positioning drive 2 is with the permanent magnet 76 propelled positioning drive 2 as above, supplemented in one embodiment by powering the system pneumatically or hydraulically which in turn are powered by electricity generator 67 as an auxiliary power source to the electric grid 73 or battery storage 73 from solar panels 71, wind turbines 72, and pneumatically powered electricity generators 67 from a well 11 groups of wells 11.”). Dreher further teaches wherein the track includes at least two protective end stops (75) located on opposite ends of the track (As shown in at least Figures 1 - 6), and wherein the back and forth movement of the EV chassis is limited by the protective end stops (Cl. 8, ln. 6, “end return 75 device providing assistance for a positioning drive 2 is located at the extremities of the positioning drive 2 range of travel […] end return 75 device must be very securely mounted, preferably welded in place, but an adequate nut and bolt or rivet fastening is feasible. The dynamic forces encountered for possibly 20,000 more or less reversals per day”) and wherein the protected end stops are composed of auto springs (At least Cl. 10, ln. 1 – 19; “1. spring absorber and a spring cushioner; 2. a spring repeller and a spring push starter”), integrating them with the back-and-forth movement of the EV chassis (The presence of end stops comprising auto springs will necessarily integrate the end stops with the back-and-forth movement of the EV chassis as the EV chassis will interface with the auto springs upon changing its direction of travel at the end limits of the track in a manner well known in the art). The term “auto springs” has been provides its broadest reasonable interpretation, such that the springs of Dreher are interpreted as reding over the recited springs as Dreher teaches the use of combination springs and shock absorbers as discussed in at least Cl. 10, ln. 1 – 19, and the use of such class of springs in the automotive filed is well known in the art. It is noted the claim does not recite the springs are utilized by an automobile.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the arrangement of Scoggins to incorporate at least two protective end stops, as taught by Dreher, with the predicted results that the protective end stops will act to limit the travel of the electric vehicle (EV) chassis of Scoggins in a manner well known in the art, both complementary and as a failsafe, to the limits of reciprocation imposed by Scoggins’ drive shaft.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have powered the EV chassis of Scoggins with one or more batteries, as taught by Dreher, with the predicted results that such an electrical source will work equally well to provide electricity to the EV chassis as is needed for its intended operation. Such a change of power source is viewed as a simple substitution of one known power source for that of another (As previously noted, and as recited in at least Cl. 5, ln. 9, the prime mover of Scoggins “may be of any suitable type, such as an electric motor,” it is noted that the use of batteries as the motive electrical supply for operation of an electric motor is well known in the art, as further evidenced by the aforesaid use of batteries 73 to power motor 42 of Dreher). Such a modification of power source would have been obvious since, an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious (MPEP 2144.06).
Once combined, Scoggins, in view of Dreher, makes obvious an electric vehicle (EV) chassis powered by one or more EV batteries (It is noted that the term “EV batteries” has been provided with its broadest reasonable interpretation such that batteries used to provide power to an electric vehicle, such as those disclosed by Scoggins and taught by Dreher (i.e. a vehicle powered by an electric motor) are interpreted as being “EV batteries” insofar as they are used in, or by, such an electric vehicle); however, it is noted that the combined apparatus of Scoggins, in view of Dreher, does not place the EV batteries within the electric vehicle (EV) chassis. Scoggins, in view of Dreher, fails to explicitly disclose the one or more EV batteries [are also] positioned on top of the track and allowed to move back and forth on the track.
Takeuchi teaches the use of EV batteries (50) within, or as, a counterweight of an electric vehicle chassis (11, 12) ([0006], “a heavy battery can be made to function as the counterweight;” [0072], “the battery 50 as such acts as a counterweight”), wherein the electric (1) vehicle is moved by use of an electric motor powered by the EV batteries ([0056], “The left and right crawler tracks 3, 3 are each driven by a hydraulic motor 3a (and a deceleration mechanism not shown) that is rotationally driven by receiving hydraulic fluid that is fed from a hydraulic pump 14 described hereinafter. However, an electric motor that is driven by receiving a supply of electric power from the battery 50 described hereinafter may also be used instead of the hydraulic motor 3a.” [0060], “a hydraulic pump 14 driven by an electric motor 13 to which electrical power is fed from the battery 50”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery placement of Scoggins, in view of Dreher, to reposition the batteries to the electric vehicle chassis, as taught by Takeuchi, as such a placement will allow the mass of the batteries to be utilized effectively as the counterweight (Takeuchi, at least [0006] and [0072]) and as such a modification is viewed as a simple rearrangement of existing parts. Such a rearrangement would have been obvious since, an express suggestion to rearrange the parts which would not have modified operation of the device is not necessary to render such substitution obvious (MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)).
Once combined, Scoggins, in view of Dreher, and Takeuchi, makes obvious an electric vehicle (EV) chassis powered by one or more EV batteries positioned on top of the track and allowed to move back and forth on the track.
Regarding Claim 14: Scoggins, in view of McClure, Dreher, and Takeuchi, teaches the apparatus of claim 1; Claim 14 is directed towards a method of artificially lifting fluids from borewell using an apparatus, the apparatus being previously described as the apparatus of claim 1 (It is noted that the limitation “borewell” is recited as an intended use of the apparatus of claim 1, and the apparatus of claim 1 is capable of use in artificially lifting fluids from a borewell as disclosed by Scoggins in at least Cl. 1, ln. 10). Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 E2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (fed Cor, 1986). See MPEP 2112.02.
Regarding Claim 15: Scoggins, in view of McClure, Dreher, and Takeuchi, teaches the apparatus of claim 1; Claim 15 is directed towards a method of limiting back and forth movement of an EV chassis by at least two protective end stops, such an arrangement being described by the apparatus of claim 1. Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process (see MPEP 2112.02).
Regarding Claim 3: Scoggins, in view of McClure, Dreher, and Takeuchi, teaches the apparatus of claim 1; Scoggins further discloses wherein the axle is placed in the middle of the walking beam configured to allow for a greater stroke range (As shown in Figure 1; Cl. 4, ln. 49, “walking beam 14 is secured to a saddle 16 positioned intermediate the length of the walking beam, and the saddle 16 is pivotally supported upon the upper end of the Samson post 10”).
Regarding Claim 4: Scoggins, in view of McClure, Dreher, and Takeuchi, teaches the apparatus of claim 1; Scoggins further discloses wherein the back-and-forth movement of the EV chassis raises and lowers the walking beam (As described in at least Cl. 5, ln. 42 – Cl. 7, ln. 49; “The generally circular movement of the prime mover- speed reduction gearing assembly 34 results in an oscillating movement being imparted to the walking beam 14, and a simultaneous reciprocating movement the prime mover 36 and speed reduction gearing 38 along the walking beam toward and away from the axis of oscillation of the beam at the saddle 16;” and Cl. 7, ln. 45, “the length of both the up and down strokes of the pump assembly is determined by the length of the crank 56”).
Regarding Claim 16: Scoggins, in view of McClure, Dreher, and Takeuchi, teaches the apparatus of claim 4; Claim 16 is directed towards raising and lowering a walking beam through back-and-forth movement of the EV chassis as described by the apparatus of claim 4. Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process (see MPEP 2112.02).
Regarding Claim 5: Scoggins, in view of McClure, Dreher, and Takeuchi, teaches the apparatus of claim 1; Scoggins further discloses wherein the sucker rod string moves up and down based on the speed of the movement of the EV chassis across the track (As described in at least Cl. 5, ln. 42 – Cl. 7, ln. 49; The speed of the chassis is dependent on the speed of the prime mover, such that the speed of the prime mover will determine the speed of the chassis which in turn will dictate the speed of reciprocation of the sucker rod string; As additionally discussed in at least Cl. 5, ln. 13, “power developed by the prime mover is transmitted through the shaft 42 into the speed reduction gearing 38 and is employed to drive the shaft 44 in rotation at a desired pumping speed”).
Regarding Claim 17: Scoggins, in view of McClure, Dreher, and Takeuchi, teaches the apparatus of claim 5; Claim 16 is directed towards moving the sucker rod string up and down based on the speed of the movement of the EV chassis as described by the apparatus of claim 5. Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process (see MPEP 2112.02)
Regarding Claim 6: Scoggins, in view of McClure, Dreher, and Takeuchi, teaches the apparatus of claim 1; Scoggins further discloses wherein the back-and-forth movement of the EV chassis enables the up and down movement of the walking beam and sucker rod string to a maximum angle at a maximum stroke range (As described in at least Cl. 5, ln. 42 – Cl. 7, ln. 49; with emphasis on Cl. 7, ln. 45, “the length of both the up and down strokes of the pump assembly is determined by the length of the crank 56;” The movement of the chassis is in direct relation to the length of the crank, such that the movement of the chassis will allow the walking beam to reciprocate to a point of its maximum and minimum stroke).
Regarding Claim 18: Scoggins, in view of McClure, Dreher, and Takeuchi, teaches the apparatus of claim 6; Claim 18 is directed towards enabling the up and down movement of the walking beam and sucker rod string to a maximum angle by the back and forth movement of the EV chassis as described by the apparatus of claim 6. Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process (see MPEP 2112.02).
Regarding Claim 10: Scoggins, in view of McClure, Dreher, and Takeuchi, teaches the apparatus of claim 1; Scoggins further discloses wherein the curved metal head has an elliptical shape configured to maintain a perpendicular alignment of the sucker rod string while moving up and down to extract oil (As shown in at least Figure 1; The head is shown formed to maintain the alignment with the sucker rod string in a manner well known in the art).
Regarding Claim 20: Scoggins, in view of McClure, Dreher, and Takeuchi, teaches the apparatus of claim 10; Claim 20 is directed towards using the curved metal head with an elliptical shape configured to maintain a perpendicular alignment of the sucker rod string as described by the apparatus of claim 10. Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process (see MPEP 2112.02).
Regarding Claim 11: Scoggins, in view of Dulaney, McClure, Dreher, and Takeuchi, teaches the apparatus of claim 1; once combined, Scoggins, in view of Dulaney, McClure, Dreher, and Takeuchi, teaches wherein the EV chassis is powered by one or more EV batteries (As discussed in the aforesaid rejection of claim 1).
Regarding Claim 12: Scoggins, in view of Dulaney, McClure, Dreher, and Takeuchi, teaches the apparatus of claim 11; once combined, Dreher further teaches wherein the one or more EV batteries are recharged using one or more solar PV panels (71) (Cl. 16, ln. 1, “partially self-perpetuating method of pumping a well 11 with end return 75 assistance for a positioning drive 2 is with the permanent magnet 76 propelled positioning drive 2 as above, supplemented in one embodiment by powering the system pneumatically or hydraulically which in turn are powered by electricity generator 67 as an auxiliary power source to the electric grid 73 or battery storage 73 from solar panels 71, wind turbines 72, and pneumatically powered electricity generators 67 from a well 11 groups of wells 11.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the PV panels taught by Dreher to recharge the batteries of the combined apparatus with the predicted results that such an arrangement will allow for the batteries to be recharged utilizing renewable energy (Dreher, Cl. 16, ln. 20).
Once combined Scoggins, in view of Dulaney, McClure, Dreher, and Takeuchi makes obvious wherein the battery packs are recharged using one or more solar PV panels; Scoggins further discloses coupled to the top of the EV chassis (As shown in at least Figure 1; The electrical motor, as the prime mover, is shown mounted to and coupled with the chassis 40, as such, when the EV chassis is coupled with an electrical source the EV chassis is necessarily also coupled with said source such that once combined the EV chassis of Scoggins is coupled with the one or more PV panels as taught by Dreher. It is noted that the recited claim limitations are present a broad scope of the claim, and are not narrowly directed towards an arrangement specifically prescribing the installation location, such as the location indicated by at least Figure 4A of the originally filed specification).
Regarding Claim 13: Scoggins, in view of Dulaney, McClure, Dreher, and Takeuchi, teaches the apparatus of claim 11; Scoggins further discloses wherein the back and forth movement of the EV chassis between the protective end stops on the track allows the EV batteries to remain charged (Scoggins discloses the downstroke of the pumping assembly occurring over approximately 160° of the operation of the shaft 44 while the upstroke occurs over approximately 200° of the operation of the shaft 44, such that the speed of the downstroke is higher that the upstroke. Scoggins further discloses that the upstroke and the downstroke are necessarily of equal lengths, as is well known in the art, such that Scoggins discloses a lower energy usage by the electric motor in the downstroke direction, advantaged by gravity, than that of the upstroke direction. As such, the power usage of the electric motor will be unbalanced, such that it will comprise a higher power draw in one direction than the other. Such an unbalanced power draw is broadly interepted as reading over the recited “allows the EV batteries to remain charged,” as the unbalanced draw will decrease the discharge of the batteries and thus allowing them to maintain a higher state of charge for a longer period of time). It is noted that the recited limitation of “allows the EV batteries to remain charged” is directed towards a broad scope of the claim, and is not narrowly directed towards a specific means of increasing the charge of the batteries, maintaining the charge of the batteries, or preventing the discharge of the batteries.
Claim(s) 7, and 19, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3,209,605, “Scoggins,” in view of US 4,092,872, “McClure,” US 11,204,028, “Dreher,” US 2009/0314557, “Takeuchi,” and US 2,190,070, “Holzer.”
Regarding Claim 7: Scoggins, in view of McClure, Dreher, and Takeuchi, teaches the apparatus of claim 1; however, Scoggins fails to explicitly disclose wherein the maximum decline angle of the walking beam is determined by one or more walking beam stops located on the upright support stanchion posts. It is noted the claims fail to define the limitation “maximum decline angle,” such that the angle can reasonably be interpreted as the angle of the walking beam with the sucker rod either up or down relative to the wellhead.
Holzer teaches an arrangement of a walking beam pump (Figures 1 – 7), similarly arranged to the apparatus of Scoggins, the walking beam pump comprising a walking beam (26), a head or rod hanger (41), upright stanchion posts (15, 16) and one or more walking beam stops (23, 24, 25) located on the upright support stanchion posts (As shown in at least Figures 1 and 3; Pg. 1, cl. 2, ln. 7, “Attached to the legs 16 of the respective side frames by gussets 22 are upwardly and rearwardly directed angles 23 cooperating with similar angles 24 to mount a rest or seat 25 for the walking beam 26 when it is to be moved to inoperative position”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have arranged one or more walking beam stops, as taught by Holzer, into the apparatus of Scoggins, with the predicted results that such a walking beam stop will be capable of limiting the maximum inclination angle of the walking beam in a manner well known in the art and as such a stop will be capable of acting as a rest when the walking beam is in an inoperative position (Holzer, Pg. 1, cl. 2, ln. 7).
Regarding Claim 19: Scoggins, in view of McClure, Dreher, Takeuchi, and Holzer, teaches the apparatus of claim 7; Claim 18 is directed towards the maximum decline angle of the walking beam being determined by one or more walking beam stops located on the upright support stanchion posts as described by the apparatus of claim 7. Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process (see MPEP 2112.02).
Claim(s) 8, and 9, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3,209,605, “Scoggins,” in view of US 4,092,872, “McClure,” US 11,204,028, “Dreher,” US 2009/0314557, “Takeuchi,” and US 735,518, “Hussey.”
Regarding Claim 8: Scoggins, in view of McClure, Dreher, and Takeuchi, teaches the apparatus of claim 1; however, Scoggins fails to explicitly disclose wherein the walking beam comprises a plurality of lattice bars interconnected in a structurally rigid manner configured to form a walking beam lattice support structure.
Hussey teaches an arrangement of a walking beam motion transfer apparatus (Figures 1 – 4), similarly arranged to the apparatus of Scoggins, the walking beam motion transfer apparatus comprising a walking beam (B), a curved metal head (B8) on a proximal end of the walking beam, a reciprocal counterweight (J) on reciprocal on rails (J’) mounted to the walking beam, and wherein the walking beam comprises a plurality of lattice bars (B’) interconnected in a structurally rigid manner configured to form a walking beam lattice support structure (As shown in at least Figures 1 and 3; Pg. 1, ln. 50, “Each walking-beam is reinforced by the truss-rods B' 13i' on each side thereof. These rods are secured to the beam at each end by the bolts B2. At its center the walking-beam is provided with the cones B3, which operate as spreaders to hold the rods suitably separated from the beam at their centers. Each of these rods is provided with a turnbuckle B4 for imparting the necessary tension thereto from time to time”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the walking beam arrangement of Scoggins to incorporate a plurality of reinforcing lattice bars, as taught by Hussey, to form a walking beam lattice support structure with the predicted results that such a structure will increase the tortional rigidity of the walking beam in a manner well known in the art.
Regarding Claim 9: Scoggins, in view of McClure, Dreher, Takeuchi, and Hussey, teaches the apparatus of claim 8; once combined with Hussey to form a walking beam lattice support structure functioning as the walking beam, Scoggins, and Scoggins in view of Dulaney, further discloses wherein the walking beam lattice support structure serves as a support structure for the curved metal head, protective end stops, upright support stanchion posts, and cablings supporting the stanchion posts (As shown in at least Figures 1 and 2; The claimed elements of the apparatus are interconnected through their connection with or to the walking beam such that the walking beam is interpreted as forming a support structure to the recited interconnected members). It is noted that the limitation “with cablings” is being interpreted in view of the aforesaid claim objection and as such has not been provided patentable weight.
Examiner’s Note
The instant application, 18/522453, is listed as being invented by Thomas Wither of Royal Oaks, MI. [emphasis added] A copending application, 18/522434, appearing identical to the instant application, is listed as being invented by Thomas Withers of Royal Oaks, MI. [emphasis added] It is requested that Applicant seek appropriate correction to the record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2025.12.05 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, on pages 4 and 5 of Applicants Remarks, 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. Applicant argues that Scoggins fails to disclose an “electric vehicle chassis […] supporting components such as EV batteries.”
PNG
media_image1.png
436
644
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, it is noted that Scoggins is not relied upon for disclosure of the recited batteries, and that such a teaching is provided by Dreher and Takeuchi. Here, Applicant also makes the assertion that “actual EV use […] would not be possible under Scoggins’ claims.” However, as noted in the aforesaid rejection of claim 1, in at least ¶13, Scoggins clearly discloses an EV in at least Cl. 4, ln. 73+ wherein a vehicle driven through electric means is described. Applicant may be directing their arguments towards a narrow interpretation of the limitation “electric vehicle (EV) chassis;” however, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation has been provided by the aforesaid claim rejections.
Applicant further argues on page 5 of their Remarks that Dulaney fails to teach the recited “protective end stops.”
PNG
media_image2.png
134
630
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, it is noted that Dulaney is not relied upon for such a teaching, and that a teaching of such end stops is provided by Dreher as discussed in at least the aforesaid rejection of claim 1, as recited in at least ¶16.
Applicant argues on page 5 of their Remarks that the rejection of claim 14 should be withdrawn in view of the amendment to incorporate “cablings supporting the stanchion posts,” and that the claim is directed towards a method which is not described by the apparatus of claim 1, wherein “the upward movement of an artificial fluid […] is specified.”
PNG
media_image3.png
322
634
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The recitation of the limitation “cablings supporting the stanchion posts” has not been provided with any patentable weight, as discussed in at least the aforesaid objection of claim 14, as recited in at least ¶5 and in further view of the drawing objection presented in at least ¶4. It is further noted that this same issue was previously presented in the 2025.06.16 Office letter which led to the cancelation of originally presented claim 2. With respect to inherency of the method, it is noted that the apparatus of claim 1 is disclosed as one which is used to generate artificial lift of a fluid from a well bore, such that it reads over the recited limitation of claim 14, “A method of artificially lifting fluids from borewell using an apparatus [such as the apparatus of claim 1].” 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., “the upward movement of an artificial fluid […] is specified.”) 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).
Applicant argues, on page 6 of their Remarks, that the rejection of claim 15 should be withdrawn as “[t]he stoppers taught in Dulaney are utilized for a free moving mass.” As previously noted, Dulaney is not relied upon for the limitations of claim 15.
Applicant argues, on page 6 of their Remarks, that the rejection of claim 3 should be withdrawn as “Scoggins does not refer to the axle of the beam in this application.” However, Scoggins clearly discloses an axle arranged in the middle of the walking beam, in at least Figure 1, and as further discussed in the aforesaid rejection of claim 3.
Applicant argues, on page 6 and 7 of their Remarks, that Scoggins “does not refer to nor is it taught by prior art, on the matter of an EV chassis” with respect to claim 4. Arguments related to Scoggins’ disclosure of an EV chassis have been previously addressed under this heading. Similar arguments are made with respect to the inherency of the method of claim 16 without citing specific limitations which are not met by the art.
Applicant argues, on page 7 and 8 of their Remarks, that Scoggins fails to disclose “the device and function of the EV chassis and how the speed of the chassis affects the movement of the sucker rod.” However, such a disclosure is made by Scoggins as the rate of movement of the walking beam is dependent on the movement of the counterweight of the EV chassis, such an arrangement is further discussed in at least the aforesaid rejection of claim 5, as recited in at least ¶28. Similar arguments are made with respect to the inherency of the method of claim 17 without citing specific limitations which are not met by the art.
Applicant argues, on page 8 of their Remarks, that the movement of the crank of Scoggins “differs from how the maximum and minimum angles are calculated in claim 6.” 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., “how the maximum and minimum angles are calculated”) 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). It is further noted that the movement of the crank, which is directly correlated to the movement of the EV chassis of Scoggins, is presented as an equivalent motion translation means as recited by the limitations of claim 6. Similar arguments are made with respect to the inherency of the method of claim 18 without citing specific limitations which are not met by the art.
Applicant argues, on page 9 of their Remarks, that Scoggins fails to “explicitly speak to the function of the head piece itself and the elliptical shape.” However, as noted in the aforesaid rejection of claim 1, Scoggins clearly discloses this well known arrangement of a walking beam head in at least Figure 1. Applicant has failed to provide any evidence that the arrangement of Figure 1 does not disclose the claimed arrangement. Similar arguments are made with respect to the inherency of the method of claim 20 without citing specific limitations which are not met by the art.
Applicant argues, on page 10 of their Remarks, that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim 7 limitation “maximum decline angle” is unreasonable, and that Applicants use of “walking beam stops to determine the maximum decline angle of the walking beam” is different than “Holzer’s fixed beam stops to prevent over-rotation.”
PNG
media_image4.png
386
634
media_image4.png
Greyscale
However, Applicant provides no real rational for how the recited interpretation the limitation “maximum decline angle,” is unreasonably broad. It appears that Applicant notes the equivalence in the art, and the aforesaid interpretation, by noting that the device of Holzer is arranged “to prevent over-rotation” and that the instant claim seeks to “determine the maximum decline angle.” 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., “[the] use of a small amount of energy to lift a small weight to create much greater potential energy”) 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). Similar arguments are made with respect to the inherency of the method of claim 19 without citing specific limitations which are not met by the art.
Applicant argues, on page 11 of their Remarks, that Hussey fails to disclose the limitations of claim 8. 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., “a lighter but strong walking beam lattice support structure”) 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). Applicant likewise argues that Hussey fails to disclose an “integrated structural support system” of claim 9. 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., “integrated structural support system”) 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). Applicant has failed to demonstrate how the lattice bars of Hussey fail to meet the limitations of the recited claims.
Applicant argues, on page 12 of their Remarks, that the rejections of claims 11 – 13 should be withdrawn in view of Arguments directed towards at least Scoggins and Dreher. However, it is noted that the instant rejections relating to the limitations of the EV batteries do not solely rely on the disclosure, or teachings, of Scoggins and Dreher.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 BENJAMIN DOYLE whose telephone number is (571)270-5821. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 0900 - 1700.
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, Mark Laurenzi can be reached at 571-270-7878. 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.
/BENJAMIN DOYLE/Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/KENNETH J HANSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746 29-Dec-25