DETAILED ACTION
Claims 2-5, 7-9, and 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
The most recent claim objection has been withdrawn in light of the current claim amendment.
The most recent 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn after further consideration and in light of the current claim amendments. However, a new 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection has been introduced herein, as it relates to indefiniteness.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 2-5, 7-9, and 11 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.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 04/13/2026. Most of these drawings are acceptable.
The drawings are objected to because of the following:
The cross-hatching of elements corresponding to reference numerals “2” and “4” (as shown in figures 2C and 2D) should be cross-hatched in a different angle (preferably opposing) to distinguish the separate elements, as currently the hatching is continuous between both the elements. “The hatching of juxtaposed different elements must be angled in a different way.” See 37 CFR 1.84, section “h”, subsection “3”.
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 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 2-3, 5, and 7-8 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 2 recites: “[...] a tag bar at or just below the lower end of the stator and a centralizer on the stator and positioned between the upper end of the stator and the tag bar, the centralizer including a body with an open inner diameter and the body encircles the outer diameter of the stator between the upper end of the stator and the tag bar and centralizing blocks that are outwardly biased from the body and are resiliently collapsible, the centralizing blocks defining a centralizer outer diameter greater than the stator outer diameter...”. The limitation is confusing as it is a run-on sentence, without proper punctuation or conjunctions. The limitation can be construed in the multiple different interpretations. For examination purposes, the Examiner will give its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) in light of the instant specification and will assume for the limitation to read as follows: “[...] a tag bar at or just below the lower end of the stator, [[and ]]a centralizer on the stator, [[and]]wherein the centralizer is positioned between the upper end of the stator and the tag bar, wherein the centralizer [[including]]includes a body with an open inner diameter, [[and ]]wherein the body encircles the outer diameter of the stator between the upper end of the stator and the tag bar, [[and ]]wherein the centralizer includes centralizing blocks that are outwardly biased from the body and are resiliently collapsible, and wherein the centralizing blocks [[defining]]define a centralizer outer diameter greater than the stator outer diameter.” Due to claim 2 being rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), the corresponding dependent claim(s) is/are also rejected.
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) 2, 4-5, 7-9, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colley, III (US Publication Number 2009/0223665 A1; herein “Colley, III”) in view of Wold et al. (US Publication Number 2012/0061099 A1; herein “Wold”) in further view of Barbour (US Publication Number 2016/0108912 A1; herein “Barbour”).
In regard to claim 2, Colley, III discloses: A wellbore structure (as shown in figures 1-3 | see abstract and paragraphs [0017, 0019-0021, 0024-0039]) comprising:
a progressive cavity (PC) pump (i.e., as shown within casing 15 in figures 1-3) including a rotor (i.e., comprising 25, 40, 85), a stator (20) in which the rotor moves (paragraphs [0028, 0030-0039]), the stator including an upper end (i.e., arbitrary uphole end), a lower end (i.e., arbitrary uphole end) and an outer diameter (i.e., radial outer diameter), [[and ]]a centralizer (45A or 45B | furthermore, it should be noted that the edited claim language is in light of the BRI presented by Examiner in the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection herein) on the stator (paragraph [0028]), [[and]]wherein the centralizer is positioned adjacent the upper end of the stator (as shown in figures 2-3), wherein the centralizer [[including]]includes a body (30) with an open inner diameter (i.e., bore space within 30), [[and ]]wherein the body encircles the outer diameter of the stator (as shown in figures 1-3), [[and ]]wherein the centralizer includes centralizing elements (i.e., of 45A/45B) that are outwardly biased from the body and are resiliently collapsible (Examiner notes that centralizers 45A/45B are “resiliently collapsible” to a certain degree to allow for moving the apparatus in the casing 15, absent specific detail), and wherein the centralizing elements [[defining]]define a centralizer outer diameter (i.e., radial outer diameter) greater than the stator outer diameter (paragraph [0028] and figures 1-3).
However, Colley, III is silent in regard to: a tag bar at or just below the lower end of the stator,
wherein the centralizer is positioned between the upper end of the stator and the tag bar,
wherein the body encircles the outer diameter of the stator between the upper end of the stator and the tag bar, and
wherein the centralizer includes centralizing blocks that are outwardly biased from the body and are resiliently collapsible, wherein the centralizing blocks define a centralizer outer diameter greater than the stator outer diameter.
Nonetheless, Wold teaches a similar type of apparatus comprising a centralizer (10 | and, detailed in figures 2-3) and a progressive cavity pump (16) further comprising a rotor therein (paragraphs [0025-0032] and figures 1-3), similar to that of Colley, IIIl. Wold teaches that the centralizer can comprise of circumferential blocks (36) which are fastened to the “body” (32) via fasteners (58) — paragraphs [0028-0032] and figures 2-3.
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 simply substitute the generic centralizer(s), as taught by Colley, III, with that of Wold, to yield the predictable result of providing replaceable centralizer biasing elements (paragraph [0029]). See MPEP 2143, section I, subsection B.
Furthermore, Colley, III is silent in regard to: a tag bar at or just below the lower end of the stator,
wherein the centralizer is positioned between the upper end of the stator and the tag bar,
wherein the body encircles the outer diameter of the stator between the upper end of the stator and the tag bar.
Nonetheless, Barbour teaches a downhole progressive cavity pump assembly (abstract and paragraphs [0021, 0047]), similar to that of Colley, III. 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 Colley, III, to include for a tag bar at the “lower end” of the stator below the rotor, as taught by Barbour, to block further progression of first and second rotors as they are inserted in the tubing string, as it is known to position the rotor in desired predetermine location(s) (paragraph [0047] — Barbour). Examiner notes that the modification would be meet the requirements of the limitations corresponding to positioning.
In regard to claim 4, Colley, III discloses: A method for reducing downhole vibration damage of a progressive cavity (PC) pump (i.e., as shown within casing 15 in figures 1-3) in a well (13 — paragraphs [0024-0025] and figures 1-3 | Examiner notes that the preamble is being read as intended use and is given little patentable weight — see MPEP 2111.02. Furthermore, given that Colley, III teaches the structure required by the claim, it is deemed that Colley, III has the capability of “addressing”/reducing/dealing with downhole vibrational damages/issues with PC pumps), the method comprising:
installing a wellbore centralizer (45A or 45B) on and encircling an outer wall (i.e., of 20) of a stator (20) of the PC pump (paragraph [0028] and figures 1-3), the wellbore centralizer being positioned adjacent an upper end (i.e., arbitrary uphole end) of the stator (as shown in figures 1-3), wherein the wellbore centralizer includes centralizing elements that are outwardly biased and resiliently collapsible (Examiner notes that centralizers 45A/45B are “resiliently collapsible” to a certain degree to allow for moving the apparatus in the casing 15, absent specific detail), the centralizing elements defining a centralizer outer diameter (i.e., radial outer diameter) greater than a stator outer diameter (i.e., radial outer diameter — paragraph [0028] and figures 1-3);
moving the PC pump and the wellbore centralizer into the well including compressing the centralizer elements radially inwardly to be constrained within an inner diameter of the well (paragraphs [0028, 0030-0039]);
moving the PC pump into position within the well (paragraphs [0028, 0030-0039]); and
operating the PC pump while the wellbore centralizer resists deflection of the stator (paragraphs [0028, 0030-0039]).
However, Colley, III is silent in regard to: wellbore centralizer being positioned between an upper end of the stator and a tag bar at or just below a lower end of the stator;
wherein the wellbore centralizer includes centralizing blocks that are outwardly biased and resiliently collapsible, the centralizing blocks defining a centralizer outer diameter greater than a stator outer diameter; and
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.
Nonetheless, Wold teaches a similar type of apparatus comprising a centralizer (10 | and, detailed in figures 2-3) and a progressive cavity pump (16) further comprising a rotor therein (paragraphs [0025-0032] and figures 1-3), similar to that of Colley, IIIl. Wold teaches that the centralizer can comprise of circumferential blocks (36) which are fastened to the “body” (32) via fasteners (58) — paragraphs [0028-0032] and figures 2-3.
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 simply substitute the generic centralizer(s), as taught by Colley, III, with that of Wold, to yield the predictable result of providing replaceable centralizer biasing elements (paragraph [0029]). See MPEP 2143, section I, subsection B.
Furthermore, Colley, III is silent in regard to: wellbore centralizer being positioned between an upper end of the stator and a tag bar at or just below a lower end of the stator.
Nonetheless, Barbour teaches a downhole progressive cavity pump assembly (abstract and paragraphs [0021, 0047]), similar to that of Colley, III. 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 Colley, III, to include for a tag bar at the “lower end” of the stator below the rotor, as taught by Barbour, to block further progression of first and second rotors as they are inserted in the tubing string, as it is known to position the rotor in desired predetermine location(s) (paragraph [0047] — Barbour). Examiner notes that the modification would be meet the requirements of the limitations corresponding to positioning.
In regard to claim 5, in view of the modification of the preceding claims, Colley, III further discloses: wherein the centralizer (as taught by Colley, III) is spaced from the tag bar (as taught by Barbour — see claim 2 rejection herein).
In regard to claim 7, in view of the modification of the preceding claims, 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, in view of the modification of the preceding claims, 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).
In regard to claim 9, in view of the modification of the preceding claims, Colley, III further discloses: wherein installing the wellbore centralizer on the stator of the PC pump includes spacing the centralizer from the tag bar (as taught by the modification, as presented in the claim 4 rejection herein).
In regard to claim 11, in view of the modification of the preceding claims, 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(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colley, III (US Publication Number 2009/0223665 A1; herein “Colley, III”) in view of Wold et al. (US Publication Number 2012/0061099 A1; herein “Wold”) in further view of Barbour (US Publication Number 2016/0108912 A1; herein “Barbour”) and Jogdand et al. (US Publication Number 2025/0111110 A1; herein “Jogdand”).
In regard to claim 3, Colley, III further discloses: an upper tubing (i.e., unlabeled tubing section coupled to tubing section corresponding to reference numeral 20 above 50B) coupled onto the upper end of the stator (as shown in figure 2); a lower tubing (i.e., unlabeled tubing section coupled to tubing section corresponding to reference numeral 20 below 85) coupled onto the lower end of the stator (as shown in figure 2).
However, Colley, III is silent in regard to: an upper centralizer coupled onto the upper tubing; 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]). Furthermore, it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
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 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 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/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights