DETAILED ACTION
Claims 2-11 are pending.
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 Arguments
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s representative’s comments in regard to overlooking the preliminary claim amendments filed on 01/03/2025. Therefore, a second Non-Final Rejection Office action is issued herein.
The drawings were received on 09/02/2025. These drawings are unacceptable. Firstly, Examiner notes that Applicant’s representative indicated filing amendments to figures 2B and 2C, however, the amended drawings are not shown to be filed. Rather amendments corresponding to figures 6-8 are only shown filed.
The most recent claim and specification objections have been withdrawn in light of the current amendments. However, a new claim objection is presented herein.
The most recent 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection is withdrawn in light of the current amendment. However, a new 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection has been presented herein.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following:
The “C” section depicted in figure 2C should be a dashed line.
Figures 2B, 2C, 2D has a section identifier (e.g., B-B), which should use Roman or Arabic numerals. See 37 CFR 1.84(h)(3).
The illustration in figures 6-8 as shown in the replacement drawings dated 09/02/2025 are too small and compacted, making it not legible. The line quality of figures 6-8, when zoomed in, illustrate an inconsistent line quality. 37 CFR 1.84 (Standards for Drawings), section L (Character of lines, numbers, and letters) states: “All drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined”. The drawings should be viewed in the USPTO’s patent center in order to see this problem.
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
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities and should likely read as follows: “[...] [[a]]an upper tubing coupled onto the upper end of the stator...”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, 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 5 (and, similarly at least claims 6 and 8) recite “a centralizer.” The claims are confusing as one skilled in art would question as to which of the preceding centralizers the instant centralizer is referring to. For examination purposes, the Examiner will give its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the instant specification. Due to claims 5-6 and 8 being rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), the corresponding dependent claims are also rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 2, 4 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wold et al. (US Publication Number 2012/0061099 A1; herein “Wold”).
In regard to claim 2, Wold discloses: A wellbore structure (as shown in figure 1) comprising:
a progressive cavity (PC) pump (comprising 16) including a rotor, a stator (i.e., outer tubing/housing comprising 16, 72) in which the rotor moves (paragraph [0025] and figure 1), the stator including an upper end (i.e., uphole end of at least 16), a lower end (i.e., downhole end of at least 16) and an outer diameter (i.e., outer diameter of at least 16 — figure 1), and a centralizer (10 — paragraphs [0025-0026, 0040]) on the stator (figure 1), the centralizer including centralizing blocks (36) that are outwardly biased and resiliently collapsible (paragraphs [0030-0032, 0040]), the centralizing blocks defining a centralizer outer diameter (i.e., outer diameter of blocks 36) greater than the stator outer diameter (figures 1-3 and 5).
In regard to claim 4, Wold discloses: A method for reducing downhole vibration damage of a progressive cavity (PC) pump (16) in a well (paragraphs [0007, 0025, 0028] | Examiner notes that the preamble is being read as intended use and is given little patentable weight — see MPEP 2111.02. Furthermore, given that Wold teaches the structure required by the claim, it is deemed that Wold has the capability of “addressing”/reducing/dealing with downhole vibrational damages/issues with PC pumps), the method comprising:
installing a wellbore centralizer (10 — paragraphs [0025-0026, 0040]) on a stator (i.e., outer tubing/housing comprising 16, 72) of the PC pump (paragraph [0025] and figure 1), wherein the wellbore centralizer includes centralizing blocks (36) that are outwardly biased and resiliently collapsible (paragraphs [0030-0032, 0040]), the centralizing blocks defining a centralizer outer diameter (i.e., outer diameter of blocks 36) greater than a stator outer diameter (i.e., outer diameter of at least 16 | see figures 1-3 and 5);
moving the PC pump and the wellbore centralizer into the well including compressing the centralizer blocks radially inwardly to be constrained within an inner diameter of the well (i.e., inner diameter of 12 — paragraphs [0025-0026, 0028-0033] and figures 1-2);
moving the PC pump into position within the well (paragraphs [0025-0026, 0028-0033, 0040-0041] and figures 1-2); and
operating the PC pump while the wellbore centralizer resists deflection of the stator (paragraphs [0040-0041]).
In regard to claim 10, Wold further discloses: wherein installing the wellbore centralizer on the stator of the PC pump includes positioning a body (18) of the centralizer to encircle the stator outer diameter (figure 1).
In regard to claim 11, Wold further discloses: wherein installing the wellbore centralizer on the stator of the PC pump includes driving set screws (22, 58) through the centralizer and against the stator to prevent the centralizer from sliding up or down along the stator (paragraphs [0026, 0029] and figure 1).
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(s) 3 and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wold et al. (US Publication Number 2012/0061099 A1; herein “Wold”) in view of Jogdand et al. (US Publication Number 2025/0111110 A1; herein “Jogdand”).
In regard to claim 3, Wold discloses claim 2 above. Wold further discloses an upper string (i.e., unlabeled tubing string uphole of the upper end of the “stator” — figure 1) coupled onto the upper end of the stator and a lower tubing string (i.e., unlabeled tubing string downhole of the upper end of the “stator” for in-line installation — figure 1 and paragraph [0026]) coupled onto the lower end of the stator.
However, Wold is silent in regard to: [[a]]an upper tubing coupled onto the upper end of the stator; a centralizer coupled onto the upper tubing; a lower tubing coupled onto the lower end of the stator; and a lower centralizer coupled onto the lower tubing.
Nonetheless, Jogdand teaches a downhole assembly (as shown in figure 1), in which “[...] a plurality of centralizers 40 can be coupled to the casing string 20 to maintain the annular gap within the annular space 42 between the casing string 20 and the wellbore 12” (paragraph [0056]).
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), to modify the sections of tubing strings, as taught by Wold, to include centralizers throughout the length thereof, as taught by Jogdand, to allow for maintaining the annular gap within the annular space between the casing string and the wellbore (paragraph [0056]).
In regard to claim 6, Wold further discloses: wherein the centralizer includes a body (18) with an open inner diameter and the body encircles the outer diameter of the stator (figure 1).
In regard to claim 7, Wold further discloses: wherein the body includes a plurality of body pieces (i.e., arbitrary pieces making up “10”) connected together encircling and against the stator (figure 1).
In regard to claim 8, Wold further discloses: set screws (22, 58) coupled to the centralizer and driven against the stator to prevent the centralizer from sliding up or down along the stator (paragraphs [0026, 0029] and figure 1).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wold et al. (US Publication Number 2012/0061099 A1; herein “Wold”) in view of Jogdand et al. (US Publication Number 2025/0111110 A1; herein “Jogdand”) in further view of Barbour (US Publication Number 2016/0108912 A1; herein “Barbour”).
In regard to claim 5, Wold in view of Jogdand disclose the preceding claim(s).
However, Wold is silent in regard to: a tag bar at or just below the lower end of the stator and the centralizer is spaced from the tag bar.
Nonetheless, Barbour teaches a downhole progressive cavity pump assembly (abstract and paragraphs [0021, 0047]), similar to that of Wold. Barbour teaches having a tag bar (58) on the lower (i.e., downhole) end of the stator (i.e., housing of pump) bottom the pump assembly (paragraph [0047] and figures 5).
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), to modify the progressive cavity pump assembly, as taught by Wold, to include for a tag bar at the lower end of the stator, as taught by Barbour, to block further progression of first and second rotors as they are inserted in the tubing string (paragraph [0047] — Barbour).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wold et al. (US Publication Number 2012/0061099 A1; herein “Wold”) in view of Barbour (US Publication Number 2016/0108912 A1; herein “Barbour”).
In regard to claim 9, Wold discloses the preceding claim.
However, Wold is silent in regard to: wherein installing the wellbore centralizer on the stator of the PC pump includes spacing the centralizer from a tag bar that is coupled at or below the lower end of the stator.
Nonetheless, Barbour teaches a downhole progressive cavity pump assembly (abstract and paragraphs [0021, 0047]), similar to that of Wold. Barbour teaches having a tag bar (58) on the lower (i.e., downhole) end of the stator (i.e., housing of pump) bottom the pump assembly (paragraph [0047] and figures 5).
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), to modify the progressive cavity pump assembly, as taught by Wold, to include for a tag bar at the lower end of the stator, as taught by Barbour (which would require the tag bar to be spaced apart from the centralizer of Wold), to block further progression of first and second rotors as they are inserted in the tubing string (paragraph [0047] — Barbour).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEEL PATEL whose telephone number is (469)295-9168. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00AM-5:00PM CST.
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, Tara Schimpf can be reached at (571) 270-7741. 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.
/NEEL GIRISH PATEL/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676