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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3118409 (herein Pons) in view of Messer et al (US PGPub No. 2025/0012176).
Pons teaches:
limitations from claims 1, 9, and 18, a method/apparatus, and computer-readable storage medium for managing a gas interference condition in a downhole pump (FIG. 30; 3000; paragraph 91), comprising: monitoring, by a controller (110) having a storage medium and processor (paragraph 115) of the downhole pump, data indicating liquid pump fillage values for the downhole pump (at step 3002); determining, by the controller, one or more patterns in the monitored data (step 3004, 3006) indicating that the gas interference condition exists (see paragraph 81, 107, and 112 teaching that interference is a detectable condition using the different methods, such as operation 3000); and in response to determining that the gas interference condition exists, increasing,
Pons teaches using the downhole condition as a feedback control of the well/pump (STEP 3010; paragraph 108 teaching that pump speed is controlled based on the feedback); Pons does not teach a particular control, i.e. a speed increase);
Messer teaches a downhole pump (10) in which an interference condition is determined (paragraphs 41, 46, 48, 74) and wherein a speed control including an increased speed is enacted corresponding to the interference condition (see FIG. 6B-6H; paragraph 22, 41 for example);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of pumps at the time the invention was filed to include a speed increase in the pump control of Pons, as taught Messer, in order to create a stroke with improved interference condition operation (paragraph 41 of Messer).
Pons further teaches:
limitations from claims 2, 10, and 19, further comprising: determining, by the controller (110), that the gas interference condition is no longer present in the downhole pump; and in response to determining that the gas interference condition is no longer present, resuming the normal pump operation speed for the downhole pump (step 3010 teaching using the downhole condition as a feedback control of the well/pump; paragraph 108 teaching that pump speed is controlled based on the feedback; Pons does not expressly teach returning to a normal operation after interference has subsided, however the examiner maintains that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to operate the pump normally if the condition (interference) that causes a change in speed no longer exists in order to maintain normal pump operation when possible);
limitations from claim 11, further comprising: the downhole pump (104); a pump motor (120) that actuates the downhole pump; and a sensor that generates the data (paragraph 105);
limitations from claims 3 and 12, wherein the downhole pump comprises a long-stroke pumping unit configured for liquid hydrocarbon production (100; FIG. 1);
limitations from claims 4 and 13, wherein the monitored data further comprises dynamometer data indicating pump force values versus pump displacement values (paragraph 6, 9, 92-94; FIG. 31-32);
limitations from claims 5, 14, and 20, wherein the determining further comprises: identifying an increase in a variance of the liquid pump fillage values; identifying an increase in the liquid pump fillage values followed by a decrease in the liquid pump fillage values followed by another increase in the liquid pump fillage values; evaluating the monitored data during a number of pump operating cycles (paragraphs 91, the evaluating occurs during pump operation and therefore across at least one cycle); or a combination thereof.
limitations from claims 6 and 15, wherein the determined patterns correspond to gas compression and gas expansion in the downhole pump (see FIG. 31-32 for example, in which pump position (and therefore suction and discharge strokes) is a variable in the graphs used in the pattern determination);
limitations from claim 7 and 16, wherein the normal pump operation speed further comprises a rate of performing upstrokes and downstrokes that maximizes the liquid pump fillage values in an absence of the gas interference condition (see paragraph 4; wherein the system attempts to reach a maximum fillage such that fluid remains available in the well by controlling a speed);
limitations from claims 8 and 17, wherein the increasing further comprises increasing a speed of a variable-frequency-drive electric motor that drives the downhole pump (FIG. 1; paragraph 25);
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see response, filed 07/20/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 9, and 18 under Pons have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Messer. While Pons teaches speed control based on an interference condition, Messer is relied upon to clarify that increases in speed are known as part of such a control.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER S BOBISH whose telephone number is (571)270-5289. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5.
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, Essama Omgba can be reached at 469-295-9278. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER S BOBISH/Examiner, Art Unit 3746
