DETAILED ACTION
The present application is a 371 national stage entry of PCT/CA2022/050644.
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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment, filed February 26, 2026, has been fully considered.
Claims 10 and 21-33 have been cancelled. Claims 1-9 and 11-20 are pending.
The objection to the Specification, mailed November 26, 2025, has been overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The objection to Claim 16 regarding inconsistent terminology, mailed November 26, 2025, has been overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The objection to Claim 19 regarding a typographical error, mailed November 26, 2025, has been overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) regarding insufficient antecedent basis, mailed November 26, 2025, has been overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claims 4-6 and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) regarding insufficient antecedent basis, mailed November 26, 2025, has been overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejections of Claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) regarding insufficient antecedent basis, mailed November 26, 2025, have been overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 4-5 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the second fluid" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 5 and 18-20 depend from Claim 4.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "further comprising a third conduit" in lines 1-2. However, neither “a first conduit” and/or “a second conduit” have been introduced into independent Claim 1, from which Claim 7 depends. Therefore, Claim 7 is incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01.
Claims 8-9 depend from Claim 7.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the first conduit" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the second conduit" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 depends from Claim 8.
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.
Claim 1-9 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding et al. (US 2018/0156015).
Claim 1. Ding discloses A fluid conducting system for providing fluid communication between an above-ground system of equipment (above-ground system with wellhead 20 and surface controller 30) and a downhole pumping assembly (downhole pump assembly 100 with pumps 130, 150) (Figs. 1-4; [0050]), the fluid conducting system comprising:
a first end and a second end defining an outer surface therebetween, the first end connectible to the above-ground system of equipment (housing of valve 300 on left end of pump assembly 100 connecting downhole system components to above-ground system) (Figs. 1-3; [0048] – [0049]; [0054] – [0055]);
one or more internal fluid conduits (oil pipeline 25; well fluid producing tubing 10; hydraulic power supply tubing 55; hydraulic exhaust conduit 65; hydraulic power supply and oil vent tubing 61; hydraulic power supply and oil vent tubing 62; production fluid conduit 158) for providing fluid communication between the first end and the second end (Figs. 2-3); and
a connector (housing of valve 60) connected to the second end for operatively coupling the one or more internal fluid conduits to the downhole pumping assembly (housing of valve 60 on right end of pump assembly 100 connecting internal fluid conduits) (Figs. 1-3),
Ding does not expressly disclose: the connector comprising a central channel, a secondary channel, and a production fluid channel. However, Ding does disclose the following conduits connected through the housing of valve 60: a hydraulic power supply tubing 55; a hydraulic exhaust conduit 65; and hydraulic power supply and oil vent tubings 61, 62) (Figs. 1-3; [0054]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to arrange the conduits within the housing in the manner as claimed, because it has also been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. See also, In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Claim 2. Ding discloses a similar diameter interface between the housing of valve 60 and downhole pump assembly section (Figs. 1-3).
Claim 3. Ding discloses a hydraulic power supply tubing 55 connected to housing of valve 60 (Figs. 1-3; [0045] – [0050]).
Claim 4. Ding discloses a hydraulic exhaust conduit 65 connected to housing of valve 60 (Figs. 1-3; [0045] – [0050]).
Claim 5. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the pressure and/or temperature of the power fluid and/or exhaust fluid in Ding to the range as claimed, because it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 6. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to arrange the conduits in the manner as claimed, because it has also been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. See also, In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Claim 7. Ding discloses a well fluid producing tubing 10 and oil pipeline 25 connected to hydraulic power supply and oil vent tubings 61, 62 (Figs. 1-3; [0045] – [0050]).
Claims 8-9. Ding discloses a well fluid producing tubing 10 and oil pipeline 25 connected to hydraulic power supply tubing 55, hydraulic exhaust conduit 65, and hydraulic power supply and oil vent tubings 61, 62 and positioned within well casing 15 (Figs. 1-3; [0045] – [0050]).
Claims 11-13. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to arrange the conduits in the manner as claimed, because it has also been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. See also, In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Claims 14-16. Ding discloses an electrical control system 30, wherein the downhole equipment (including the downhole pump assembly 100) is powered by and controlled via electrical connection 31, 31A, 32, 32A extending between the downhole equipment and surface equipment ([0061] – [0068]).
Claim 17. Ding discloses that the system contains a piston assembly, each assembly comprising a piston 135, each of which is slideably fit and dynamically sealed to the inner surface of the cylindrical body 156, 160, 140 and to the outer surface of the second cylinder 158 ([0054]).
Claims 18-20. Ding discloses that the valves may provide three actuatable valve positions: direct flow, cross-over flow, and bypass / idle ([0046]; [0052]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed February 26, 2026, 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Crystal J. Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-6242. The examiner can normally be reached M-F from 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Doug Hutton can be reached at (571) 272-4137. 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.
/CRYSTAL J LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674
Prosecution Insights