DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of the Application
This Office action is in response to the amendment of September 30, 2025 which amended claims 10, 22 and 30; and canceled claims 12 and 25.
Claim Objections
Claims 10, 22 and 30 are objected to because of the following informalities: in line 11 of claims 10 and 22, and in line 12 of claim 30, “the” should be inserted before “electronic motor controls”. 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.
Claim(s) 10 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Fischer et al (USPAP 2020/0263528).
Fischer et al disclose a compact fracturing system having a pump 136 (see Fig. 3) comprising an electronic system comprising a transformer 232, an electronic motor controller 132 in the form of the rest of the components of the VFD (see Fig. 6 for example) and a housing 202, 220 (see Fig. 4) having the electronic system housed therein. With regards to the newly amended material of “wherein the transformer and electronic motor controls are disposed adjacent to one another within the housing” Fischer discloses this limitation. As shown in Fig. 6 the Medium-Voltage VFD 132 includes a transformer 232. The transformer is part of the VFD system but a transformer does not perform a variable frequency function in its operation. Therefore, the rest of the circuitry which forms the Medium-Voltage VFD and performs the variable frequency function, is adjacent to the transformer, would be considered the “electronic motor controls”.
With regards to claim 22, this claim includes the same limitations as claim 10 with the additional limitation that the housing includes “at least one cable plug-in for transmission of power or communication signals or both). This is taught at 260 in Fig. 6 and Fig. 12, see [0088] at least.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 13, 16-18, 25, 27-30, and 32-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer et al in view of Bishop (USPAP 2018/0328157).
As set forth above, Fischer et al disclose the fracturing system substantially as claimed. Fischer et al do not disclose that the pump is a quintuplex pump (regarding claims 17 and 28), that the pump truck has a length of 40 feet or less (see Table 1, regarding claims 16, 27 and 30), has a rear mounted power end lube cooler (regarding claims 18, 29, and 33) or a variable speed cooler motor (claims 13, 25 and 32).
Bishop discloses a fracturing system having a drive 120 powering a quintuplex pump (see [0053], 130) having a power end and a fluid end (clearly shown in Fig 14), notes that it is beneficial to make the fluid delivery system be shorter in length (see [0039] and a teaching of a length of 44 ft. see Table 1, regarding claims 16, 27 and 30), discloses a lubrication system including a rear mounted oil cooler (222 cooled by a fan, see Figs. 14 & 16); the cooler cooling the lubrication system oil that is provided to the pump power end (see 0087]).
With regards to claims 16, 27, 30 and 34, it would have been obvious at the time of the effective filing date of the instant application to organize the elements on the pump truck to achieve a pump truck having shorter than normal lengths such as less 40 or 37 feet. It is noted that Bishop at [0039] describes that it is desirable to make mobile fluid delivery systems shorter in length. Given that in Fischer et al an electric motor is used as the power source and because electric motors are more efficient and for the same power and torque delivery are smaller than a gas engine utilized of Bishop it would have been obvious to arrange the parts of Fischer et al on the trailer to realize trailer lengths of 40 or less, or even 37 feet or less. It is noted that the applicant has provided no particular description of the sizing of the elements that allowed the claimed sizing to be achieved. Further, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japinske, 86 USPQ 70. Please note that in the instant application the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
At the time of the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to provide a rear mounted lubrication system and a cooler as taught by Bishop to the Fischer et al fracturing pump system in order to provide properly cooled lubrication to the power end of the Fischer et al fracturing pump in order to provide an extended life for the system (making obvious claims 18, 29, and 33). It also would have been obvious (regarding claims 17 and 28) to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the pump of Fischer be a quintuplex pump, as taught by Bishop, in order to provide high power fluid for fracturing.
Lastly, with regards to claims 13, 25 and 32 the examiner previously gave official notice that it is common to have a variable speed fan blowing air over the cooler, which was not challenged. This is taken as an admission that this material is prior art. Therefore, at the time of the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to include a variable speed fan blowing air over the cooler in order to adjust the cooling ability of the oil cooler and prolong the operating life of the pump.
Claim(s) 11, 23 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer et al in view of Bishop as applied to claims 10, 22 and 30 above, and further in view of Leugemors et al (USPAP 2015/0064027).
As set forth above Fischer et al in view of Bishop discloses the invention substantially as claimed but does not disclose the use of a regulated suction stabilizer. Leugemors et al disclose a pump 102 having a suction stabilizer (200 shown in Fig. 4) that is regulated via the structure/assembly 231, 236 shown in Fig. 8.
At the time of the effective filing date of the application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a suction stabilizer as taught by Leugemors et al to the reciprocating pump of Fischer et al in view of Bishop in order to reduce pulsation flow in the suction conduit.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 30, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues with respect to claim(s) 10, 22 and 30, along with the claims dependent therefrom, that the references do not disclose the invention as set forth because “Fischer discloses that the transformer (232) is a component of the medium-voltage VFD (132).” Respectfully, the Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. As noted in the above rejections, after further review it is found that the Fischer reference specifically teaches of this newly added limitation since as shown in Fig. 6 the Medium-Voltage VFD 132 includes a transformer 232. The transformer is part of the VFD system but a transformer does not perform a variable frequency function in its operation. Therefore, the rest of the circuitry which forms the Medium-Voltage VFD and performs the variable frequency function, is adjacent to the transformer, would be considered the “electronic motor controls”. For the reasons set forth in the above rejections the claims remain rejected in view of the prior art.
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 CHARLES G FREAY whose telephone number is (571)272-4827. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri: 8:00 - 5:00.
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 on (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.
/CHARLES G FREAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
CGF
October 27, 2025