Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. Applicant’s arguments filed May 04, 2026. Claims 1-10 and 16-21 cancelled. Claims 11-15 have been presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea).
Claim 11 is drawn to a method of inspecting a well pumping unit with sensor/accelerometer for recording acceleration data output which could be performed by a human and (under prong 2A) does not claim additional elements integrated into a practical application given the reasoning below and (under prong 2B) does not recite additional elements which amount to significantly more, given that "acceleration versus time data exceeding first threshold and transforming time data versus frequency data" can be performed solely with generic computer components used by a human hand.
Claim 11 also includes:"..transforming acceleration versus time data to acceleration versus frequency data"- (Mental Processes -(recording, plotting data on graph on any device) notwithstanding a computer or mobile device implementation for information).
This could also be considered as data gathering and analyzing).
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible
Claim 12: “..monitoring a number of times an amplitude of the acceleration versus frequency data exceeds a second predetermined threshold; and producing an alert when the number reaches a predetermined level”- Mental process (monitoring data- such as number of times amplitude exceeds threshold for alert).
Claim 13: “..producing the alert when the number reaches the predetermined level in a predetermined time period”- Mental process (monitoring data for producing alert).
Claim 14: “..producing the alert when a rate of the number reaching the predetermined level per predetermined time period increases”- Mental process (monitoring data rate for producing alert).
Claim 15: “..monitoring the number of times the amplitude of the acceleration versus frequency data exceeds the second predetermined threshold in a predetermined range of frequencies”- Mental process (monitoring data for plotting from threshold data).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless —
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
5. Claim(s) 11-13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ebrahimi et al. (US PGPUB 2018/0298744).
As per Claim 11, Ebrahimi discloses a method of inspecting a well pumping unit, the method (para 12, monitoring component in a pumping unit for a wellbore) comprising: attaching a sensor assembly to the pumping unit, the sensor assembly including an accelerometer (para 28, pumping unit 100 may include one or more sensors to detect and monitor vibration of pumping unit 100, include a sensor 171 (e.g., accelerometer) to measure vibration);
recording acceleration versus time data output by the sensor assembly (Abstract, measuring vibration data in the time domain using sensor, para 32, accelerometer used to measure magnitude of vibrations in the direction of accelerometer's axis of orientation); and
in response to an amplitude of the acceleration versus time data exceeding a first predetermined threshold (para 29, measured by accelerometer may be monitored over time to determine trends in frequencies and amplitudes, para 08, convert data in the time domain to data in frequency domain; to determine that data above a first threshold and output an indication based on the determination (i.e., in response to exceeding threshold)), transforming the acceleration versus time data to acceleration versus frequency data (para 38, data from the accelerometers may be converted from time -based data to frequency-based data and plotted to generate frequency spectrum 400 (i.e., transforming data), para 11, convert data in the time domain to data in frequency domain; to output indication based on the quantification (i.e., transforming data)).
PNG
media_image1.png
540
494
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As per Claim 12, Ebrahimi discloses the method of claim 11, further comprising: monitoring a number of number an amplitude of the acceleration versus frequency data exceeds a second predetermined threshold (para 29, accelerometer may be monitored over number to determine vibrational trends in frequencies and amplitudes, para 06, converting data in the time domain to vibration data in the frequency domain; determining that data above a second threshold, para 41, monitor the number of count to determine exceed of predetermined number threshold, determine level of wear); and
producing an alert when the number reaches a predetermined level (para 42, when a threshold amplitude or a count has been exceeded (e.g., three or level four thresholds), which trigger a signal being sent an alarm being raised (e.g., sounded)).
As per Claim 13, Ebrahimi discloses the method of claim 12, in which the producing comprises producing the alert when the number reaches the predetermined level in a predetermined time period (para 42, window 502 may be sized to control when a threshold amplitude or a count components has been exceeded, which trigger a signal being sent and an alarm being raised (e.g., sounded), window 502 may set threshold amplitude, filtering raw signals allow in the range of interest, para 66, determine vibration data in a first frequency band above a threshold for period of time).
As per Claim 15, Ebrahimi discloses the method of claim 12, in which the monitoring comprises monitoring the number of times the amplitude of the acceleration versus frequency data exceeds the second predetermined threshold in a predetermined range of frequencies (para 29, accelerometer monitored over number to determine trends in frequencies and amplitudes, para 06, converting data in the time domain to data in the frequency domain; determining that data above a second threshold, para 41, monitor the number of count to determine exceed of predetermined number threshold).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
7. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
8. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
9. Claim 14 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ebrahimi et al. (US 2018/0298744) in view of ROBISON (WO 2022035503 A1).
As per Claim 14, Ebrahimi fails to discloses the method of claim 12, in which the producing comprises producing the alert when a rate of the number reaching the predetermined level per predetermined time period increases.
In analogous art, ROBISON discloses the method of claim 12, in which the producing comprises producing the alert when a rate of the number reaching the predetermined level per predetermined time period increases (page 19, lines 15-18).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify teaching of converting the vibration data in the time domain to vibration data in the frequency domain disclosed by Ebrahimi to use an inspection sensor assembly, system and method for use with a pumping unit as taught by ROBISON to number of times that the acceleration amplitude exceeds a predetermined threshold in a certain frequency range of interest is determined [ROBISON , page 13, lines 23-27].
Response to Arguments
10. Applicant's arguments filed May 04, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
101 rejection not withdrawn Based on Applicant’s argument
Double Patenting rejection withdrawn
On page 3, lines 10-23, the applicant argues that the reference(s) do not teach or even suggest transforming the acceleration versus time data to acceleration versus frequency data in response to an amplitude of the acceleration versus time data exceeding a first predetermined threshold as claimed.
The examiner respectfully disagrees and points out that the Ebrahimi et al. (US 2018/0298744) teaches pumping unit 100 may include one or more sensors to detect and monitor vibration of pumping unit 100, include a sensor 171 (e.g., accelerometer) to measure vibration [028] and as in FIG. 5A shows frequency spectrum with a window focused on predetermined values, in accordance with certain aspects of the present disclosure and as in FIG. 5B shows a resized window for the frequency spectrum of FIG. 5A [022-023] and measured by accelerometer may be monitored over time to determine trends in frequencies and amplitudes [029] and, convert data in the time domain to data in frequency domain; to determine that data above a first threshold and output an indication based on the determination (i.e., in response to exceeding threshold)) [08], and data from the accelerometers converted from time -based data to frequency-based data and plotted to generate frequency spectrum 400 (i.e., transforming data) [038] and , convert data in the time domain to data in frequency domain; to output indication based on the quantification (i.e., transforming data) [011] and frequency spectrum focuses on a specific range of frequencies and amplitudes that create a window 502. FIG. 5A shows frequency spectrum 500 with a window 502 focused on predetermined values [042-043].
PNG
media_image2.png
360
462
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image1.png
540
494
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Thus, Ebrahimi et al. (US 2018/0298744) and ROBISON (WO 2022035503 A1) disclose the applicant’s whole invention.
Citation of pertinent Prior Arts
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
i. Sengul (US 20200392834 A1) discloses pump unit is disclosed. The method includes receiving acoustic signals from one or more acoustic sensors that are coupled to a beam pump unit. The method also includes identifying a frequency of the beam pump unit in the acoustic signals. The method also includes detecting an outlier in the acoustic signals based at least partially upon the identified frequency. The outlier represents an operational issue with the beam pump unit, and identifying and detecting an outlier in the acoustic signals based at least partially upon the identified frequency.
ii. Davis (US 20200393822 A1) discloses in a pump monitor includes a processor and memory, a communicator for communicating with other monitors and a server, a sensor module having at least one strain gauge, and accelerometers for determining vibration and position of the monitor. Other sensors may be internal, including sensors for polished-rod rotation, and linked to the monitoring device wirelessly and detected by the accelerometer, or measured loads on the polished rod, occur so high-resolution signatures of magnitudes 1002 or frequency of these vibrations and loads can be logged and reported with associated pumpjack cycle position, or plotted against displacement 1006 on a surface and use frequency domain methods to determine a speed of the pumpjack..
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIRZA ALAM whose telephone number is (469) 295-9286. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00AM-5:00PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steven Lim can be reached on 571-270-1210. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000
/MIRZA F ALAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688
Prosecution Insights