Response to Amendment
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 Claims
In the response of 12/6/2025, Applicant amended claim 16. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 12/6/2025, with respect to claims 7 and 20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 7 and 20 has been withdrawn. Claims 7 and 20 are now objected to.
Applicant's remaining arguments concerning the rejection of 9/5/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Endo is Non-Analogous art. (Remark, Page 6)
Examiner responds that the instant claims are directed to monitoring conditions in a well. (Instant Claims 1, 15 and 18). Endo is directed to sensing parameters within a well, Endo, ¶0001. Thus, both Endo and the instant application are concerned with the sensing and monitoring sub-surface parameters within wells.
Consequently, contrary to Applicant’s argument Endo is analogous art to the instant application.
Applicant argues that the cited art does not disclose “remotely operable to press at least one sensor toward the pipe.” Specifically, Applicant argues that Endo does not teach the sensor is pressed against a pipe. (Remarks, Pages 6-7).
Examiner responds 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 sensor is pressed against a pipe) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The instant claims merely recite the sensor is pressed toward the pipe and do not recite nor require the sensor to be pressed against the pipe.
Endo, Figs. 4.1 and 4.4 and ¶0040, ¶0043, and ¶0044 clearly discloses that sensor 348 is pushed, i.e. pressed, towards, (and is also pushed away from) the pipe via application of the appropriate magnetic field, wherein that the application is selectively controlled by controller 366, ¶0045, which is remote from the sensor.
Thus, Endo discloses:
a sensor unit (Endo, Figs. 4.1-4.4 ¶0044; the sensor flap 30')
that is remotely operatable (Endo, Fig. 3 and ¶0045; The sensor 348 may also be powered by the downhole unit 364 and/or controlled by the controller 366 to selectively activate as desired. )
to press at least one sensor toward the pipe. (Endo, Figs. 4.1-4.4 ¶0044; As shown in the deactivated position of FIG. 4.4, the sensor flap 30' may be shifted back to the retracted position by shifting the magnets 470.3 and 470.4 back to their original position of FIG. 4.1. The magnets are shifted such that ... The magnetic forces drive the actuator portion 352' away from the wall 240' along pocket 356,' and the sensor portion 350 back into pocket 354. ... thereby pushing the sensor portion 350 back to the retracted position as shown in FIG. 4.1) Consequently, contrary to Applicant’s argument, the cited art discloses disclose “remotely operable to press at least one sensor toward the pipe” within the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Applicant argues that Endo teaches away from combination with Taylor. Specifically, Applicant argues that modifying Endo to include a remotely pressable clamp on sensor would destroy Endo’s ability to function as a drilling seismic monitor. (Remarks, Page 7)
Examiner responds that,
1) Endo does not limited its teaching to a drilling seismic monitor; Endo, ¶0033, states “The sensor 348 may optionally contain one or more sensors capable of measuring a variety of downhole properties when in the extended or retracted position;” (Emphasis Added)
2) neither Taylor nor Endo require or mention a clamp on sensor; and
3) given that Endo’s teaches that its sensors may be coupled to a various components of downhole tools, Endo, ¶0045, and given that downhole tools for wells are known included clamp on sensors and devices1, then there is no reason, other than Applicant’s comments, to suspect that if Taylor did require the use of clamp sensors that Endo would teach away from being employed with such downhole system.
Consequently, contrary to Applicant’s argument, Endo does not teach away from a combination with Taylor.
Applicant argues that there is no reasonable expectation of success combining Endo with Taylor. Specifically, Applicant argues that the environments sensor, attachment, physics and economies are irreconcilably different. (Remark, Page 7)
Examiner responds, Singer is directed monitoring and reporting parameters from within a water wellbore, Singer, ¶0002. Endo is directed with the monitoring and reporting parameters from within wellbores, Endo, ¶0001; and Taylor is directed to control and monitoring systems associated with delivery from a fluid, water, from wellbore, Taylor, ¶0001. Thus, each of the references are directed to providing electro-mechanical sensors and devices associated with the monitoring of wellbore systems and parameters.
While Singer discloses a employing a sensing unit, Singer does not disclose the sensing unit having a device that is remotely operated to press at least one sensor towards the pipe. Endo, also in the field of proving sensors within wells, however, teaches the limitation. Thus, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed subject matter, to implement Singer with the known technique of the sensing unit having a device that is remotely operatable to press at least one sensor toward the pipe, as taught by Endo, in order to allow for the selective positioning and activation of sensors for measuring properties within a well. (Endo, ¶0007 and ¶0017)
While Endo teaches sensing fluid properties neither Singer nor Endo specifically disclose the at least one sensor being configured to generate a flowrate signal indicative of a flowrate of the fluid through the pipe. Taylor, in the same field of endeavor as Singer, however, teaches the limitation. Thus, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed subject matter, to implement Singer with known technique of at least one sensor being configured to generate a flowrate signal indicative of a flowrate of the fluid through the pipe, as taught by Taylor, in order to allow for determining whether flow rates within the system are adequate to meet demand and/or prevent damage or other adverse conditions. (Taylor, ¶0021)
Consequently, contrary to Applicant’s argument, there is a reasonable expectation of success in the combination of Singer in view of Endo in view of Taylor as each is directed to monitoring parameters within fluid flowing well systems.
Applicant argues that the cite art does not disclose the dependent claim 5 limitation, determine a depth of water within the bore based on the flowrate signal. Specifically, Applicant argue that Jabusch does not disclose determining an unknown depth, but must rely on previously known depth points to calculate estimates of a water height, i.e. depth. (Remarks, Pages 8-10 and 12)
Examiner responds 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., determining an unknown depth) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claims merely require the determination of a depth of water.
Jabusch discloses determine a depth of water within the bore(Jabusch, ¶0013... the controller alters the operation of the pump to bring the height of the water column into a selected range or height... the processor can determine the rate of change of the height of the water column and predict by interpolation or extrapolation the height of the water column; )
based on a flowrate signal (Jabusch, ¶0040; ... an effective inflow rate, an effective pump-off rate, or differential of the inflow and pump-off rate can be determined. Using this information, the control unit 110 can calculate a rate of change of the height of the water column 104. Based on this calculated rate of change, the control unit 110 can estimate the time required for the height of the water column to reach point P1 from sensor 108 or point P2 from sensor 106.) Thus, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed subject matter, to implement Singer with the known technique of to determine a depth of water in the bore based on the flowrate signal and an amount of power consumed by the pump, as taught by Jabusch, in order to adjust the operation of the pump setting the optimal time to energize or deenergize the pump. (Jabusch, ¶0040)
Applicant additionally argues that using a rate of change calculation to determine depth changes the fundamental principle of operation of Jabusch. Specifically, Applicant argues that the use of a flow rate signal to determine depth, would render Jabusch, ¶0027, use of fixed sensors obsolete and inoperable. (Remarks, Pages 9-10).
Examiner response that there is a distinction between using fixed sensors at two known depths to provide indications that the water column is at a height position that is low or is too high for the safe operation of the water pump, as in ¶0027; and using a flowrate, i.e. effective inflow, to determine the rate of change of the height of the water column between the low and high safe operating points, as in ¶0040. The fact that Jabusch teaches employing both techniques is clear evidence that the use of a rate of change to calculate the increase of decrease in the height of the water column of ¶0040 does not render Jabusch’s use of fixed sensors to indicate whether the water column height is at a position that is to low or is too high for safe operation of the water pump. Thus, using a rate of change calculation to determine depth does not change the fundamental principle of operation of Jabusch.
Consequently, contrary to Applicant’s argument, the cited art discloses determine a depth of water within the bore based on the flowrate signal, within the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Applicant argues that the cited art does not discloses the dependent claim 6 limitations, further including a temperature sensor located in the sensing unit and configured to generate a temperature signal indicative of the water flowing through the pipe, wherein the hub is configured to determine the depth based further on the temperature signal. Specifically, Applicant argues that no single reference uses pipe-water temperature, as opposed to water temperature, to determine depth. (Remarks, Pages 10-12)
Examiner in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In the case at hand. Singer discloses further including a temperature sensor located in the sensing unit and configured to generate a temperature signal indicative of the water, wherein the hub is configured to determine the depth based further on the temperature signal. (Singer, Col. 9, Lines 4-12; The environmental sensor 108 includes a temperature reading device 110, positioned at a location accounting for variations in surface and deep depth temperatures, and providing information to adjust final water depth calculations.)
While Singer discloses employing temperature sensing to calculate depth, Singer does not specifically disclose that the temperature information is indicative of the water flowing through the pipe. Krywyj, in the same field of endeavor, however, discloses determining a temperature indicative of water flowing in a pipe. (Krywyj ,Col. 7, Line 24-40; ... the data may include information about (i) temperature of a pipe or water in the water system, (ii) flow of water in the pipe or other component of the water system) Thus, prior to the effective date of the claimed subject matter there had been a recognized, need as demonstrated by Singer, to provide water temperature measurements for adjusting depth calculations, there are a limited number of locals within the well system from which to obtain water temperature measurements; and as demonstrated by Singer and Krywyj, a person of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the potential location solutions to obtain water temperature within the well with a reasonable expectation of success. Thus, it would have been obvious to try, before the effective filing date of the claimed subject matter, to implement Singer with the known technique of to obtaining the indication of water temperature from the water flowing through the pipe, as taught by Krywyj, in order to provide the necessary temperature information needed for implementing the known need for temperature adjustment for depth calculations.
Applicant additionally argues that Krywyj is non-analogous art and teaches away. Specifically, Applicant argues that a person would have no reason to consult Krywyj. (Remarks, Page 11-12)
Examiner response the instant applicant is directed a fluid delivery system and determining parameters within pipes of the system, Krywyj is directed to determining conditions with a fluid conduit, (Abstract) and monitoring conditions within a fluid delivery system conduits. Thus, contrary to Applicant’s argument Krywyj is analogous art to the instant application. Moreover, nothing in Krywyj states that its teaching of providing information about the temperature water within a pipe cannot or should be used with alternative water delivery systems. On the contrary Krywyi teaches providing information about temperature of water in a water system or flow of water in the pipe or other component of the water system, and Singer is a water delivery system. Thus, contrary to Applicant’s argument, Krywyj also does not teach away from a combination with a water delivery system such as Singer.
Consequently, contrary to Applicant’s argument, the cited art discloses further including a temperature sensor located in the sensing unit and configured to generate a temperature signal indicative of the water flowing through the pipe, wherein the hub is configured to determine the depth based further on the temperature signal, within the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Applicant, argues that the cited art does not disclose the claim 10 limitation, “wherein the sensing unit and the hub include power connections configured to allow a power line extending between the pump and a pump controller located outside of the well to power the hub and the sensing unit.” Specifically, Applicant argues that Singer in view of Endo in view of Taylor in view of Jabusch does not have a power line. (Remarks, Pages 13-15)
Examiner responds that Jabusch, Figs.1 and 4 and ¶0037, specifically discloses, “power can be transmitted from a surface source or obtained from the power provided on the cable driving a downhole electrical submersible pump.” (Emphasis Added)
Thus, concerning claim 10, Singer discloses concerning claim 10, wherein the sensing unit and the hub (Singer, Fig. 3 and Col. 5, Line 58- Col. 6, Line 4; External electronics 206 ... in a rugged box 208 attached to the pipe. Communication between internal sensors 210 and external electronics 206 is made via flat, durable ribbon cable 212 that passes across gaskets 214 without breaking the mechanical seals between the casing pipe 40 and the cap 45.2)
include power connections (Singer, Col. 4, Lines 12-20; The well head water level sensing system includes ...power and communication circuits. )
and a pump controller located outside of the well to power the hub and the sensing unit. (Singer, Fig. 3 and Col. 5, Line 58- Col. 6, Line 4; External electronics 206 ... in a rugged box 208 attached to the pipe. Communication between internal sensors 210 and external electronics 206 is made via flat, durable ribbon cable 212 that passes across gaskets 214 without breaking the mechanical seals between the casing pipe 40 and the cap 45.)
Singer does not specifically disclose a power line extending between the pump and a pump controller. Jabusch, however, discloses the limitation. (Jabusch, Figs.1 and 4 and ¶0027; the controller 38 is programmed to energize and de-energize the pump 20 upon detecting one or more predetermined conditions.; ¶0036; the processor 38 operates a pump control unit 82 having one or more relays 84 that are coupled to the pump). For example, the processor 38 opens and closes the relays 84 as necessary to control the operation of the pump.; ¶0037; power can be transmitted from a surface source, or obtained from the power provided on the cable driving a downhole electrical submersible pump) Thus, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed subject matter, to implement Singer with the known technique of a power line extending between the pump and a pump controller, as taught by Jabusch, in order to a controller adjust the operation of the pump for optimal times to energize or deenergize the pump. (Jabusch, ¶0040)
Consequently, contrary to Applicant’s argument, the cited art discloses the claim 10 limitations, “wherein the sensing unit and the hub include power connections configured to allow a power line extending between the pump and a pump controller located outside of the well to power the hub and the sensing unit,” within the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Applicant argues that the cited art does not disclose the claim 16 limitations further including a power line directed through the hub to the pump, wherein the hub is distinct from a pump controller and configured to selectively interrupt a supply of power to the pump. (Remarks, Page 15-16)
Examiner responds that Jabusch discloses further including a power line (Jabusch, Figs.1 and 4 and ¶0037; power can be transmitted from a surface source, or obtained from the power provided on the cable driving a downhole electrical submersible pump)
directed through the hub to the pump, (Jabusch, Figs.1 and 4 and ¶0027; the controller 38 is programmed to energize and de-energize the pump 20 upon detecting one or more predetermined conditions.; ¶0036; the processor 38 operates a pump control unit 82 having one or more relays 84 that are coupled to the pump. For example, the processor 38 opens and closes the relays 84 as necessary to control the operation of the pump.)
wherein the hub (Jabusch, Figs.1 and 4 and ¶0027; the controller 38)
is distinct from a pump controller, (Jabusch, Fig. 5 and ¶0037; a downhole control unit 92 for operating a pump 94[The hub, controller 38, is distinct from controller, control unit 92])
and configured to selectively interrupt a supply of power to the pump.( Jabusch, ¶0036; the processor 38 operates a pump control unit 82 having one or more relays 84 that are coupled to the pump. For example, the processor 38 opens and closes the relays 84 as necessary to control the operation of the pump.)
Consequently, contrary to Applicants argument, the cited art discloses further including a power line directed through the hub to the pump, wherein the hub is distinct from a pump controller and configured to selectively interrupt a supply of power to the pump, within the broadest reasonable interpretation.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singer et al. (USP 10,030,502 B1)(hereinafter Singer) in view of Endo (US Pub. 2015/0000904) (hereinafter Endo) in view of Taylor (US Pub. 2023/0376051 A1)(hereinafter Taylor)
Regarding claim 1, Singer discloses a system for monitoring a well (Singer, Fig. 11 and Title and Abstract; SYSTEM FOR WELL MONITORING)
having a pump disposed within a bore to pump fluid out of the bore through a pipe, (Singer, Fig. 1 and Col. 5, Lines 37-45; A pump 60 is lowered into the casing pipe and is submerged under water 65... An integrated supply water pipe 50 ..., supplies water from the pump 60 to any location, which may include a home.)
the system comprising: a sensing unit (Singer, Figs. 2-4 and Col. 5, Line 58- Col. 6, Line 4; a well head water level sensor 200. Col. 9, Lines 4-11; The well head water level sensor 100, 200, 300 also includes an environmental sensor 108 because the speed of sound in the air is affected by the air temperature and relative humidity. The environmental sensor 108 includes a temperature reading device 110, positioned at a location accounting for variations in surface and deep depth temperatures,)
and a hub connected to the sensing unit and configured to receive the signal. (Singer, Fig. 3 and Col. 5, Line 58- Col. 6, Line 4; External electronics 206 ... in a rugged box 208 attached to the pipe. Communication between internal sensors 210 and external electronics 206 is made via flat, durable ribbon cable 212 that passes across gaskets 214 without breaking the mechanical seals between the casing pipe 40 and the cap 45.3)
While Singer discloses a employing a sensing unit, Singer does not disclose the sensing unit having a device that is remotely operated to press at least one sensor towards the pipe. Endo, also in the field of proving downhole sensors within wells, however, teaches the limitation. Endo discloses a sensor unit (Endo, Figs. 4.1-4.4 ¶0044; the sensor flap 30'
that is remotely operatable( Endo, Fig. 3 and ¶0035; downhole unit 364, actuator 366; ¶0045; The sensor 348 may also be powered by the downhole unit 364 and/or controlled by the controller 366 to selectively activate as desired. )
to press at least one sensor toward the pipe. Endo, also in the field of proving downhole sensors within wells, however, teaches the limitation. (Endo, Figs. 4.1-4.4 ¶0044; As shown in the deactivated position of FIG. 4.4, the sensor flap 30' may be shifted back to the retracted position by shifting the magnets 470.3 and 470.4 back to their original position of FIG. 4.1. The magnets are shifted such that ... The magnetic forces drive the actuator portion 352' away from the wall 240' along pocket 356,' and the sensor portion 350 back into pocket 354. ... thereby pushing the sensor portion 350 back to the retracted position as shown in FIG. 4.1) Consequently, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed subject matter, to implement Singer with the known technique of the sensing unit having a device that is remotely operatable to press at least one sensor toward the pipe, as taught by Endo, in order to allow for the selective positioning and activation of sensors for measuring downhole properties within a well. (Endo, ¶0007 and ¶0017)
While Endo teaches sensing fluid properties neither Singer nor Endo specifically disclose the at least one sensor being configured to generate a flowrate signal indicative of a flowrate of the fluid through the pipe. Taylor, in the same field of endeavor as Singer, however, teaches the limitation. (Taylor, Fig. 1 and ¶0021; Sensors ... may further be utilized to determine a flow rate of water at any stage within the well-based, groundwater delivery system...; ¶¶0025-0026; A flow sensor may additionally be monitored (e.g., wirelessly monitored via wireless network 128) to ensure that once submersible pump 104 has been activated, a commensurate flow rate of water has been established via water pipe 108.... ) Consequently, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed subject matter, to implement Singer with known technique of at least one sensor being configured to generate a flowrate signal indicative of a flowrate of the fluid through the pipe, as taught by Taylor, in order to allow for determining whether such flow rates are adequate to meet demand and/or prevent damage that may otherwise be caused by a “dry well” or other adverse condition. (Taylor, ¶0021)
Regarding claim 2, which depends from claim 1, Singer discloses wherein: the well includes a casing inside the bore; (Singer, Fig. 1 and Col 10, Lines 28-40; a casing pipe 40 inserted in a bore ...)
the sensing unit is configured to connect to the pipe at a location inside the casing; (Taylor, Fig 1 and ¶0021; ...sensors may be provisioned anywhere along the infrastructure interconnecting each component of the well-based, groundwater delivery system so as to determine whether such flow rates are adequate; ¶0025; A flow sensor may additionally be monitored (e.g., wirelessly monitored via wireless network 128) to ensure that once submersible pump 104 has been activated, a commensurate flow rate of water has been established via water pipe 108....)
and the hub is mounted to an end of the case extending from the bore and remote from the sensing unit. (Singer, Fig. 3 and Col. 5, Line 58- Col. 6, Line 4; External electronics 206 ... in a rugged box 208 attached to the pipe. Communication between internal sensors 210 and external electronics 206 is made via flat, durable ribbon cable 212 that passes across gaskets 214 without breaking the mechanical seals between the casing pipe 40 and the cap 45.)
Regarding claim 3, which depends from claim 1, Singer discloses further including at least one of a rod or a tether extending from the hub to the sensing unit. (Singer, Fig. 3 and Col. 5, Line 58- Col. 6, Line 4 Communication between internal sensors 210 and external electronics 206 is made via flat, durable ribbon cable 212 that passes across gaskets 214 without breaking the mechanical seals between the casing pipe 40 and the cap 45.)
Claim(s) 4 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singer in view of Endo in view of Taylor in view of Xiao et al. (USP 2020/0284629 A1)(hereinafter Xiao)
Regarding claim 4, claims 4 depends from claim 1. As already discussed, the limitations of claim 1 are obvious over Singer in view of Endo in view of Taylor. While both Singer and Taylor disclose employing sensors, neither Singer, Endo nor Taylor specifically disclose wherein: the sensor is a transducer; and the sensing unit includes two transducers located at a same side of the pipe in an axially spaced-apart configuration. Xioa, in the field of flow meters, however, teaches the limitations. (Xioa, Fig. 2 and ¶0027; Referring to FIG. 2, a flow meter 100 includes two ultrasonic transducers, a first ultrasonic transducer 110 and a second ultrasonic transducer 112. The first ultrasonic transducer 110 may be disposed upstream on the pipe 10 with the second ultrasonic transducer 112 disposed on the pipe downstream of the first transducer 110.) Consequently, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed subject matter, to implement Taylor with the known technique of wherein: the sensor is a transducer; and the sensing unit includes two transducers located at a same side of the pipe in an axially spaced-apart configuration, as taught by Xioa, in order to implement Taylor’s teaching of provisioning flow sensors throughout the a ground water delivery system.
Regarding claim 8, which depends from claim 1, Xioa discloses wherein the device is a clamp configured to at least partially enclose the pipe, (Xioa, Figs 8 and ¶0048; ... an exterior housing 460 made up of a shell 462 and flaps 464, 466. The flaps are spring loaded to exert pressure on a pipe 10 located between the shell and the flaps and thereby hold the ultrasonic flow meter stable in place during flow measurement of fluid flowing through the pipe 10.)
Claim(s) 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singer in view of Taylor in view of Jabusch et al. (US Pub. 2005/0217350 A1)(hereinafter Jabusch) in view of Cheng et al. (CN 111851546 A)(hereinafter Cheng)
Regarding claim 15, Singer discloses a system for monitoring a well (Singer, Fig. 1 and Title and Abstract; SYSTEM FOR WELL MONITORING)
having a pump disposed within a bore to pump fluid out of the bore through a pipe, (Singer, Fig. 1 and Col. 5, Lines 37-45; A pump 60 is lowered into the casing pipe and is submerged under water 65... An integrated supply water pipe 50 ..., supplies water from the pump 60 to any location, which may include a home.)
the system comprising: a sensing unit (Singer, Figs. 2-4 and Col. 5, Line 58- Col. 6, Line 4; a well head water level sensor 200. Col. 9, Lines 4-11; The well head water level sensor 100, 200, 300 also includes an environmental sensor 108 because the speed of sound in the air is affected by the air temperature and relative humidity. The environmental sensor 108 includes a temperature reading device 110, positioned at a location accounting for variations in surface and deep depth temperatures,)
While Singer discloses a employing a sensing unit, Singer does not disclose the senor unit is configured to generate a flowrate signal indicative of a flowrate of the fluid through the pipe. Taylor, in the same field of endeavor as Singer, however, teaches providing the functionality of the limitation. (Taylor, Fig. 1 and ¶0021; Sensors... may further be utilized to determine a flow rate of water at any stage within the well-based, groundwater delivery system... Still further, sensors may be provisioned anywhere along the infrastructure interconnecting each component of the well-based, groundwater delivery system so as to determine whether such flow rates are adequate to meet demand and/or prevent damage ... or other adverse condition; ¶¶0025-0026; A flow sensor may additionally be monitored to ensure that once submersible pump 104 has been activated, a commensurate flow rate of water has been established via water pipe 108... ) Consequently, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed subject matter, to implement Singer with known technique of at least one sensor being configured to generate a flowrate signal indicative of a flowrate of the fluid through the pipe, as taught by Taylor, in order to allow for determining whether such flow rates are adequate to meet demand and/or prevent damage or other adverse condition. (Taylor, ¶0021)
and a hub in communication with the sensing unit (Singer, Fig. 3 and Col. 5, Line 58- Col. 6, Line 4; External electronics 206 are housed outside of the casing pipe 40 in a rugged box 208 attached to the pipe. Communication between internal sensors 210 and external electronics 206 is made via flat, durable ribbon cable 212 that passes across gaskets 214 without breaking the mechanical seals between the casing pipe 40 and the cap 45..)
Singer does not disclose, “and configured to determine a depth of water in the bore based on the flowrate signal.” Jabusch in the same field of endeavor, however teaches providing the functionality. (Jabusch, ¶0040; ... an effective inflow rate, an effective pump-off rate, or differential of the inflow and pump-off rate can be determined. Using this information, the control unit 110 can calculate a rate of change of the height of the water column 104. Based on this calculated rate of change, the control unit 110 can estimate the time required for the height of the water column to reach point P1 from sensor 108 or point P2 from sensor 106.) Consequently, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed subject matter, to implement Singer with the known technique of determining a depth of water in the bore based on the flowrate signal and an amount of power consumed by the pump, as taught by Jabusch, in order to adjust the operation of the pump setting the optimal time to energize or deenergize the pump. (Jabusch, ¶0040)
While Jabusch discloses using a flowrate and the pump off rate, i.e. the time the pump is energized and deenergized, to determine depth, Jabusch does not specifically state determining an amount of power consumed by the pump, Cheng in the same field of endeavor, however, discloses determining the power of a water pump over. (Cheng, 4.8 Test Pumping; ...according to the design requirement and the pumping quantity of the pumping well, determining the power of the water pump. The time of test water pumping is controlled by the water-water clear sand extracted by the pumping well as the standard, and the general control time is about 2 hours.) Consequently, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to implement Jabusch with the determination of pump power in lieu of pump-off rate, as taught by Cheng, since power is simply the time rate of change of energy.
Regarding claim 16, which depends from claim 15, Jabusch discloses further including a power line (Jabusch, Figs.1 and 4 and ¶0037; power can be transmitted from a surface source, or obtained from the power provided on the cable driving a downhole electrical submersible pump)
directed through the hub to the pump, (Jabusch, Figs.1 and 4 and ¶0027; the controller 38 is programmed to energize and de-energize the pump 20 upon detecting one or more predetermined conditions.; ¶0036; the processor 38 operates a pump control unit 82 having one or more relays 84 that are coupled to the pump. For example, the processor 38 opens and closes the relays 84 as necessary to control the operation of the pump.)
wherein the hub (Jabusch, Figs.1 and 4 and ¶0027; the controller 38)
is distinct from a pump controller, (Jabusch, Fig. 5 and ¶0037; a downhole control unit 92 for operating a pump 94 [The hub, controller 38, is distinct from controller, control unit 92])
and configured to selectively interrupt a supply of power to the pump.( Jabusch, ¶0036; the processor 38 operates a pump control unit 82 having one or more relays 84 that are coupled to the pump. For example, the processor 38 opens and closes the relays 84 as necessary to control the operation of the pump.)
Regarding claim 17, which depends from claim 16, Jabusch discloses wherein the hub and the sensing unit are powered via the power line. (Jabusch, Figs.1 and 4 and ¶0036; The sensors 32, 34, processor 38 and the current source 80 are operably coupled by a suitable data conduit or carrier 36.)
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singer in view of Taylor in view of Jabusch.
Regarding claim 18, Singer discloses a method of monitoring a well, (Singer, Fig. 1 and 4 and Title and Abstract; SYSTEM FOR WELL MONITORING)
comprising: using a sensing unit located inside of a well casing (Singer, Fig. 3 and Col. 5, Line 58- Col. 6, Line 4; a well head water level sensor 200 for a well where the existing well cap 45 cannot be replaced is shown. In this embodiment, the well head water level sensor 200 is attached to the underside of the existing well cap 45 using any suitable means, e.g. screws, adhesive, etc.)
While Singer discloses a sensor unit, Singer does not specifically disclose the senor unit is to generate a flowrate signal indicative of a flowrate of water. Taylor, in the same field of endeavor as Singer, however, teaches the limitation. (Taylor, Fig. 1 and ¶0021; Sensors for example, may further be utilized to determine a flow rate of water at any stage within the well-based, groundwater delivery system... Still further, sensors may be provisioned anywhere along the infrastructure interconnecting each component of the well-based, groundwater delivery system so as to determine whether such flow rates are adequate to meet demand and/or prevent damage ...; ) Consequently, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed subject matter, to implement Singer with known technique of the sensing unit being configured to generate a flowrate signal indicative of a flowrate of water, as taught by Taylor, in order to allow for determining whether such flow rates within the system are adequate to meet demand and/or prevent damage. (Taylor, ¶0021)
pumped by a pump submerged in the well; (Singer, Fig. 1 and Col. 5, Lines 37-45; A pump 60 is lowered into the casing pipe 40 and is submerged under water 65... An integrated supply water pipe 50 as shown in FIGS. 2-4, supplies water from the pump 60 to any location, which may include a home.)
and using a hub located remotely from the sensing unit (Singer, Fig. 3 and Col. 5, Line 58- Col. 6, Line 4; External electronics 206 are housed outside of the casing pipe 40 in a rugged box 208 attached to the pipe. Communication between internal sensors 210 and external electronics 206 is made via flat, durable ribbon cable 212 that passes across gaskets 214 without breaking the mechanical seals between the casing pipe 40 and the cap 45.)
Singer does not disclose to determine a depth of water in the well based on the flowrate signal. Jabusch in the same field of endeavor, however discloses the limitation. (Jabusch, ¶0040; Based on this measurement, an effective inflow rate, an effective pump-off rate, or differential of the inflow and pump-off rate can be determined. Using this information, the control unit 110 can calculate a rate of change (e.g., increase or decrease) of the height of the water column 104. Based on this calculated rate of change, the control unit 110 can estimate the time required for the height of the water column to reach point P1 from sensor 108 or point P2 from sensor 106.) Consequently, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed subject matter, to implement Singer with the known technique of to determine a depth of water in the bore based on the flowrate signal and an amount of power consumed by the pump, as taught by Jabusch, in order to adjust the operation of the pump setting the optimal time to energize or deenergize the pump. (Jabusch, ¶0040)
Regarding claim 19, which depends from claim 18, Jabusch discloses further including using the hub to selectively interrupt a supply of power from a pump controller to the pump. (Jabusch, Figs.1 and 4 and ¶0027; the controller 38 is programmed to energize and de-energize the pump 20 upon detecting one or more predetermined conditions.; ¶0036; the processor 38 operates a pump control unit 82 having one or more relays 84 that are coupled to the pump). For example, the processor 38 opens and closes the relays 84 as necessary to control the operation of the pump.)
Claim(s) 5 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singer in view of Endo in view of Taylor in view of Jabusch.
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 depends from claim 1. As already discussed, the limitations of claim 1 are obvious over Singer in view of Endo in view of Taylor. Concerning claim 5, Singer discloses the hub, (Singer, Fig. 3 and Col. 5, Line 58- Col. 6, Line 4; External electronics 206 ... in a rugged box 208 attached to the pipe. Communication between internal sensors 210 and external electronics 206 is made via flat, durable ribbon cable 212 that passes across gaskets 214 without breaking the mechanical seals between the casing pipe 40 and the cap 45.4)
wherein the hub is configured to determine a depth of water within the bore (Singer, Fig. 3 and Col. 7, Lines 22-24; the well head water level sensor 100, 200, 300)
Singer does not disclose the determining depth is based on the flowrate signal. Jabusch in the same field of endeavor, however discloses the limitation. (Jabusch, ¶0040; ... an effective inflow rate, an effective pump-off rate, or differential of the inflow and pump-off rate can be determined. Using this information, the control unit 110 can calculate a rate of change of the height of the water column 104. Based on this calculated rate of change, the control unit 110 can estimate the time required for the height of the water column to reach point P1 from sensor 108 or point P2 from sensor 106.) Consequently, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed subject matter, to implement Singer with the known technique of to determine a depth of water in the bore based on the flowrate signal and an amount of power consumed by the pump, as taught by Jabusch, in order to adjust the operation of the pump setting the optimal time to energize or deenergize the pump. (Jabusch, ¶0040)
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 depends from claim 1. As already discussed, the limitations of claim 1 are obvious over Singer in view of Endo in view of Taylor. Concerning claim 10, Singer discloses wherein the sensing unit and the hub (Singer, Fig. 3 and Col. 5, Line 58- Col. 6, Line 4; External electronics 206 ... in a rugged box 208 attached to the pipe. Communication between internal sensors 210 and external electronics 206 is made via flat, durable ribbon cable 212 that passes across gaskets 214 without breaking the mechanical seals between the casing pipe 40 and the cap 45.5)
include power connections (Singer, Col. 4, Lines 12-20; The well head water level sensing system includes ...power and communication circuits. )
and a pump controller located outside of the well to power the hub and the sensing unit. (Singer, Fig. 3 and Col. 5, Line 58- Col. 6, Line 4; External electronics 206 ... in a rugged box 208 attached to the pipe. Communication between internal sensors 210 and external electronics 206 is made via flat, durable ribbon cable 212 that passes across gaskets 214 without breaking the mechanical seals between the casing pipe 40 and the cap 45.)
Singer does not specifically disclose a power line extending between the pump and a pump controller. Jabusch, however, discloses the limitation. (Jabusch, Figs.1 and 4 and ¶0027; the controller 38 is programmed to energize and de-energize the pump 20 upon detecting one or more predetermined conditions.; ¶0036; the processor 38 operates a pump control unit 82 having one or more relays 84 that are coupled to the pump). For example, the processor 38 opens and closes the relays 84 as necessary to control the operation of the pump.; ¶0037; power can be transmitted from a surface source, or obtained from the power provided on the cable driving a downhole electrical submersible pump) Consequently, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed subject matter, to implement Singer with the known technique of a power line extending between the pump and a pump controller, as taught by Jabusch, in order to a controller adjust the operation of the pump for optimal times to energize or deenergize the pump. (Jabusch, ¶0040)
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singer in view of Endo in view of Taylor in view of Jabusch in view of Krywyj et al. (USP 12,152,954 B2)(hereinafter Krywyj).
Regarding claim 6, which depends from claim 5, Singer discloses further including a temperature sensor located in the sensing unit and configured to generate a temperature signal indicative of the water, wherein the hub is configured to determine the depth based further on the temperature signal. (Singer, Col. 9, Lines 4-12; The environmental sensor 108 includes a temperature reading device 110, positioned at a location accounting for variations in surface and deep depth temperatures, and providing information to adjust final water depth calculations.)
While Singer discloses employing temperature sensing to calculate depth, Singer does not specifically disclose that the temperature information is indicative of the water flowing through the pipe. Krywyj, in the same field of endeavor, however, discloses the limitation. (Krywyj ,Col. 7, Line 24-40; ... the data may include information about (i) temperature of a pipe or water in the water system, (ii) flow of water in the pipe or other component of the water system) Thus, prior to the effective date of the claimed subject matter there had been a recognized, need as demonstrated by Singer, to provide water temperature measurements for adjusting depth calculations, there are a limited number of locals within the well system from which to obtain water temperature measurements; and as demonstrated by Singer and Krywyj, a person of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the potential location solutions to obtain water temperature within the well with a reasonable expectation of success. Consequently, it would have been obvious to try, before the effective filing date of the claimed subject matter, to implement Singer with the known technique of to obtaining the indication of water temperature from the water flowing through the pipe, as taught by Krywyj, in order to provide the necessary temperature information needed for implementing the known need for temperature adjustment for depth calculations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 9, 11-14 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record does not disclose the system of claim 8 further comprising , wherein the clamp includes: a first leaf; a second leaf; a pivot pin removably connecting the first leaf to the second leaf; a lock pin inhibiting pivoting of the first leaf relative to the second leaf; and a biasing mechanism configured to cause the pipe to be sandwiched between the first and second leaves of claim 9, nor disclose the system of claim 10 further comprising wherein the sensing unit and the hub only receive shore power when the pump is energized by the pump controller of claim 11.
Claims 12-14 depend from claim 11 and therefore also recite patentable subject matter.
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 JEROLD B MURPHY whose telephone number is (571)270-1564. The examiner can normally be reached M-T, Th-F 10am-7pm, W 1pm-5pm.
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, STEVEM LIM can be reached on 5712701210. 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.
/JEROLD B MURPHY/Examiner, Art Unit 2687
/STEVEN LIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2688
1 See, for example Tao et al. (US Pub. 2017/0268326 A1) Claim 9 and Figs. 2 and 4.
2 Taylor also discloses a hub connected external to the sensing unit configured to receive the signal. (And Taylor, Fig. 1 and ¶0034; In response, device 140 may receive water flow information from sensor 110 (e.g., via wireless network 128 or Wi-Fi interface 146) to verify that submersible pump 104 has been commanded correctly. Alternately, device 140 may send a control signal to pump 132 (e.g., directly via network 128 or indirectly through base controller 126 via Wi-Fi interface 146) to cause pump 132 to either start or stop its operation and may receive water flow information from sensor 120)
3 Taylor also discloses a hub connected external to the sensing unit configured to receive the signal. (And Taylor, Fig. 1 and ¶0034; In response, device 140 may receive water flow information from sensor 110 (e.g., via wireless network 128 or Wi-Fi interface 146) to verify that submersible pump 104 has been commanded correctly. Alternately, device 140 may send a control signal to pump 132 (e.g., directly via network 128 or indirectly through base controller 126 via Wi-Fi interface 146) to cause pump 132 to either start or stop its operation and may receive water flow information from sensor 120)
4 Taylor also discloses a hub connected external to the sensing unit configured to receive the signal. (And Taylor, Fig. 1 and ¶0034; In response, device 140 may receive water flow information from sensor 110 (e.g., via wireless network 128 or Wi-Fi interface 146) to verify that submersible pump 104 has been commanded correctly. Alternately, device 140 may send a control signal to pump 132 (e.g., directly via network 128 or indirectly through base controller 126 via Wi-Fi interface 146) to cause pump 132 to either start or stop its operation and may receive water flow information from sensor 120)
5 Taylor also discloses a hub connected external to the sensing unit configured to receive the signal. (And Taylor, Fig. 1 and ¶0034; In response, device 140 may receive water flow information from sensor 110 (e.g., via wireless network 128 or Wi-Fi interface 146) to verify that submersible pump 104 has been commanded correctly. Alternately, device 140 may send a control signal to pump 132 (e.g., directly via network 128 or indirectly through base controller 126 via Wi-Fi interface 146) to cause pump 132 to either start or stop its operation and may receive water flow information from sensor 120)