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 as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: reference number “228” has not be described in the specification.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 6, line 3, insert a comma (,) after “a housing”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tolman et al. (U.S. 2017/0096877A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tolman et al. disclose a subterranean solids fallback protection device (228; see fig. 3; refer to abstract, para 0063 and 0066) comprising:
a differential pressure measurement system (para 0071: “providing a differential pressure across the velocity fuse to create…back-flush”; also refer to para 0026, 0068, and para 0081) configured to (the phrase “configured to” is related to the intended use of the apparatus. A recitation with respect to the manner in which an apparatus is intended to be employed does not impose any structural limitation upon the claimed apparatus which differentiates it from a prior art reference disclosing the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2111.02) determine a quantity of solids accumulated within the device based on a pressure differential across the device during operation (para 0066: “pressure data…may be used to determine when the well screen or filter 220 is in need of flushing”).
Regarding claim 6, Tolman et al. disclose a solids fallback protection device (228; see fig. 3; refer to abstract, para 0063 and 0066) for use in a downhole pump system (see fig. 3; [0063] “pump 202”), comprising:
a housing (section of 212 surrounding 210)
a rod string (212 or rod string extending from pump 202) for connecting the device (228) to a downhole pump system (202; see fig. 3);
at least one storage chamber (space defined in 212), having a head (218) at a top of the storage chamber (as shown in fig. 3) and a base at a bottom (228) of the storage chamber (as shown in fig. 3), the head (218) and base being (228) connected to the rod string (221 or rod string extending from pump 202), the head (218) and base (228) each having slots or openings (228) to allow fluid to pass through them (as shown in fig. 3).
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by B.F. Schmidt (U.S. 3,090,324).
Regarding claim 6, B.F. Schmidt discloses a solids fallback protection device (title: “sand trapping sucker-rod for piston type oil well pump”) for use in a downhole pump system (“refer to title”), comprising:
a housing (F, G, fig. 5)
a rod string (B) for connecting the device to a downhole pump system (as shown in fig. 1; refer to col. 2, lines 40-70);
at least one storage chamber (E), having a head (11) at a top of the storage chamber and a base (10) at a bottom of the storage chamber (E), the head (11) and base (10) being connected to the rod string (B), the head and base each having slots or openings (14) to allow fluid to pass through them (see fig. 5 and refer to col. 3, line35-col. 4, line 45).
Regarding claim 7, B.F. Schmidt discloses wherein multiple bases (E, fig. 1_ are provided within the at least one storage chamber, the bases being configured with slots which are not vertically aligned (as shown in figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 8, B.F. Schmidt discloses wherein the rod string is configured to reciprocate in response to a pumping action of a sucker rod pump (SRP) system (refer to col. 3, lines 35-45 and col. 4, lines 46-50), wherein the reciprocating movement of the rod string (B) aids in dislodging accumulated solids within the at least one storage chamber during operation of the SRP system (see figs. 1-5 and refer to col. 3, lines 35-65).
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.
Claims 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tolman et al. (U.S. 2017/0096877A1), in view of Kaarigstad et al. (U.S. 2014/0319080A1).
Regarding claims 2 and 9, Tolman et al. a first pressure gauge (236) positioned above the solids fallback protection device (210; see fig. 3 and refer to para 0066).
However, Tolman et al. fail to teach a second pressure gauge positioned below the solids fallback protection device, wherein the differential pressure measurement system includes these first and second gauges for measuring pressure above and below the solids fallback protection device.
Kaarigstad et al. generally teach a well device (100, fig. 1) comprising a filter (104; see figs. 1-6 and refer to para 0022), a first pressure gauge (P1, see fig. 6; refer top para 0058 and 0060), and a second pressure gauge (P2, fig. 2 and para 0060) or a pressure differential gauge (dp1) for measuring a pressure differential across the filter (refer to para 0060).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted a one pressure sensor differential measurement system for a two pressure sensor system, as taught by Kaarigstad et al., for the predictable result of measuring differential pressure across the filter (refer to para 0060).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Alharbi (U.S. 2024/0167354A1), Snyder (U.S. 11,852,003 B2), Lane et al. (U.S. 11,255,171 B1), and Head (U.S. 2021/0164310A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YANICK A AKARAGWE whose telephone number is (469)295-9298. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 7:30-5:30.
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.
/YANICK A AKARAGWE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
Prosecution Insights