Detailed Action
Status of Claims
Claims 1-18 are currently pending and addressed below.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the a pair of sets of fluid passages must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Specification
The amendment filed 06/02/2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: “a pair of sets of fluid passages” is not disclosed within the specification.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6 & 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The newly added limitation “a pair of sets of fluid passages” is not disclosed within the specification or drawings and it is not described what is fully considered fluid passages to be grouped into sets of fluid passages and then further grouped into pairs. Therefore, Claims 1-6 & 11-18 are rejected on this basis.
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.
Claims 7, 9-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murdoch (US Pub No 20190234191) in view of Freeman (US Pub No 20240102351)
In regards to claim 7 Murdoch discloses: A method comprising:
receiving a plunger (Murdoch [0072] plunger operations) from a wellbore (Murdoch [0002] plunger lift operation on the top of a wellbore) by an inlet of a plunger lubricator comprising a housing defining a central receiving passage (Murdoch Fig 9b; 20) and internal flow passages (see Attached picture above) fluidically connected to the central receiving passage (see Attached picture above);
receiving fluid, traveling ahead of the plunger, by a first fluid passage (see Attached picture above) defined by the housing and defining a first inlet (see Attached picture above) within the central receiving passage, the first inlet configured to receive production fluid from the central receiving passage, and a second fluid passage (see Attached picture above) defined by the housing and defining a second inlet (see Attached picture above), uphole of the first inlet, the second inlet configured to receive production fluid from the central receiving passage, the second fluid passage converging with the first fluid passage (see Attached picture below);
receiving fluid, traveling behind the plunger, by the first inlet and by the second inlet (Murdoch [0002] [0056] flow of fluid traveling up from the plunger, into the fluid inlets and passages towards surface production equipment);
receiving fluid, by the plunger lubricator, from the wellbore (Murdoch [0002] [0056] flow of fluid traveling up from the plunger, into the fluid inlets and passages towards surface production equipment); and
directing fluid by a third fluid flow passage (see Attached picture below) defined by the housing and fluidically connecting the first fluid passage and the second fluid passage within the plunger lift lubricator (see Attached picture below). Murdoch does not teach that the plunger lift lubricator can be made of a single unitary housing.
However, Freeman teaches that a plunger lubricator housing can be forged or welded as: the internal flow passage integrated within and defined by the single unitary housing instead of using external piping runs (Freeman [0052] outlet flange, inlet flange and body can be "forged as a single unit" ) as well as having the first second and third fluid passages integrated within and defined by the single unitary housing as a result of being forged as a single piece with the teaching from Freeman [0052].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lubricator of Murdoch as a single unitary housing as taught by Freeman. Freeman teaches that the pieces can be forged as a single unit or in separate pieces, therefore selection of either of the known equivalents of the separate pieces of the lubricator or a single unitary housing would be within one of ordinary skill in the art (Freeman [0052] can be forged can be forged as a single unit as known in the art) Further, the forming of previously known separable elements as a single integral unit has been held to be an obvious variation thereof, when the prior art teaches such construction as known, such as Freeman does. See MPEP 2144.04, subsection V(B).
Figure 1: Annotated Fig 9b showing a first fluid passage and inlet, a second fluid passage with inlet uphole of the first fluid passage, a third fluid passage connecting the first and second fluid passages
PNG
media_image1.png
383
373
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 9 Murdoch in view of Freeman discloses: The method of claim 7, wherein the second fluid inlet is configured to receive production fluid from the central receiving passage (Murdoch Fig 9b & annotated Fig 9b second fluid inlet is configured to receive production fluid from the central receiving passage)
In regards to claim 10 Murdoch in view of Freeman discloses: The method of claim 7, further comprising: retaining the plunger by the plunger lubricator (Murdoch Fig 9I & ¶ 54; "plunger catcher").
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murdoch US Pub No 20190234191) & Freeman (US Pub No 20240102351) in further view of Boyd (US Pub No 20210071505A1).
Murdoch in view of Freeman discloses in claim 8: releasing the plunger by the plunger lubricator (Murdoch Fig 9I plunger catcher). Murdoch does not explicitly disclose detecting a pressure drop or ceasing wellbore fluid flow.
However, Boyd discloses a plunger lift system that: detecting a pressure drop (Boyd [0023] optimizing flow rates based on predetermined range of values, one of the values being tubing and or casing pressure or pressure differential); ceasing fluid flow within the wellbore in response to the detected pressure drop (Boyd [0012] as pressure drops and plunger sits at the bottom, plunger forms a seal stopping fluid flow from within the wellbore to rebuild pressure to lift the plunger again);
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 lubricator of Murdoch in view of Freeman to include the plunger lift control and sensor system of Boyd to the lubricator of Murdoch in view of Freeman since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the combination would result in the predictable result of optimizing production from the wellbore.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 & 11 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Plunger lubricators are well known in the art of wellbore exploration and operations. Representative art which appears close to the claimed invention includes Roycroft (US Pub No 20160341195) Boyd (US Pub No 20210071505) Murdoch (US Pub No 20190234191) Freeman (US Pub No 20240102351) Boyd (US Pat No 12098609). This art, alone or in combination, discloses various structures related to plunger lift systems used in oil and gas production utilizing various recited features including but not limited to, such as a housing defining a central receiving passage with internal flow passages fluidically connected to the central flow passage, a receiving spring and a plunger catcher. However, this art fails to disclose or fairly suggest the specifically combined structure and steps regarding the specific positional relationships and operations between each recited structure in operation, such as a pair of sets of fluid passages fluidically connected to the central receiving passage and symmetrically distributed on each side of the central receiving passage. It could be argued that the individual structure is generally known or easily conceived in the art and thus, could just be assembled to disclose the claimed invention. However, the instant invention clearly and specifically recites structural relationships and combinations, which require a greater effort than just cobbling together known structures. Furthermore, the claimed structures are sufficiently detailed to be distinguishable when configured as claimed. The examiner could find no motivation to combine or modify the references which would define a fully functioning apparatus as claimed in the instant application.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 06/02/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-6 and 11-18 under 35 USC 102/103 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 under 35 USC § 112a. Furthermore, a drawing objection and specification objection are made in light of the newly added limitations.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 06/02/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 7-10 under 35 USC 102/103 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 Murdoch US Pub No 20190234191), Freeman (US Pub No 20240102351) & Boyd (US Pub No 20210071505A1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Boyd (US Pat No 12098609 12460500 12680411): Substantially teach the indicated allowable subject matter from claims 1 and 11 as Fig 2b of the various Boyd patents teaches a system of internal flow passages defined by a housing that are symmetrical to the central flow passage. However, the various filing dates of Boyd are filed after the parent application 17/887,963 of 08/15/2022.
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 Nicholas D Wlodarski whose telephone number is (571)272-3970. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached at (571) 272-5405. 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.
/NICHOLAS D WLODARSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3672
/Nicole Coy/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3672
Prosecution Insights