DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is in response to Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 12/15/2025 amending Claim 1, canceling Claim 24, and adding new Claim 27. Claims 1 – 6, 23, and 25 - 27 are examined. Claims 13 – 22 remain withdrawn.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 12/15/2025. These drawings are acceptable.
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 1 - 6 and 23 - 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (CN 202935216U) in view of Raad (2015/0214816) in view of Del Bono (10,060,293) in view of Leavitt (8,689,494) in view of Baca et al. (9,273,543) in view of DEIF, “What exactly is power management?”, November 12, 2019 [accessed at https://www.deif.com/blog/posts/what-exactly-is-power-management/ on 12/31/2025], hereinafter “DEIF” as evidenced by Matt Sands, “MRP 15: They are Going to Drill on my Land – How Long Before I Start Getting Paid Oil & Gas Royalties?”, January 28, 2019 [accessed at https://mineralrightspodcast.com/how-long-before-i-start-getting-royalties/ on 12/31/2025], hereinafter “Sands”.
Regarding Claim 1, Zhu teaches, in Figs. 1 - 4, the invention as claimed, including a mobile power unit comprising (fracturing pump vehicle, abstract): a platform (see Fig. 2); a gas turbine engine (1) positioned on the platform and including an engine output shaft (drop-gear box input shaft between 1 and 2); a drive shaft (output shaft for fracturing pump between 2 and 3) positioned on the platform and driven by the gas turbine engine (1); wherein the driveshaft includes a flange (way to connect drive shaft to 3) that is configured to connect to a hydraulic fracturing pump (8) so that the driveshaft drives the hydraulic fracturing pump when the hydraulic fracturing pump is positioned on the platform; a fixed reduction gearbox (2, drop-gear box) positioned on the platform between the gas turbine engine (1) and the drive shaft and configured to reduce a speed of rotation of the engine output shaft to a speed of rotation of the drive shaft (Designed and intended purpose of a reduction gearbox.) when the hydraulic fracturing pump is positioned on the platform and connected to the drive shaft, the fixed reduction gearbox having a fixed reduction ratio corresponding to one or more specifications (the output speed of the drop-gear box is the speed required for the hydraulic fracturing pump and the input speed of the drop-gear box would be the output speed of the drive shaft of the gas turbine engine) associated with the hydraulic fracturing pump (8).
Zhu is silent on said driveshaft being able to connect to an electrical generator so that the driveshaft drives the electrical generator when the electrical generator is positioned on the platform in place of the hydraulic fracturing pump such that the hydraulic fracturing pump is interchangeable with the electrical generator on the platform; and wherein electrical generator includes a step up generator gearbox having a step up ratio corresponding to one or more specifications associated with the electrical generator and the one or more specifications associated with the hydraulic fracturing pump to at least partially offset the fixed reduction gearbox, a permanent magnet alternator configured to generate electrical power such that the electrical generator converts rotation of the drive shaft into electrical power when the electrical generator is positioned on the platform and connected to the drive shaft, and a cooling system having a generator cooling pump configured to circulate cooling fluid through the electrical generator.
Raad teaches an electrical generator (100/108) connected to a drive shaft (106), the electrical generator including a step up generator gearbox having a step up ratio corresponding to one or more specifications associated with the electrical generator (Paras. [0019] and [0026] – rotational speed of the generator rotor) and the one or more specifications associated with the hydraulic fracturing pump (rotational speed of the gas turbine engine output shaft) to at least partially offset the fixed reduction gearbox ([0018], desired result; the input end, 212, of the step up generator gearbox corresponds to the speed of rotation of the turbine drive shaft, which in this case is the speed of drop-gear-box of Zhu or the input of the pump, and the output end, 106, of the step up generator gearbox corresponds to the speed of rotation of the generator), a permanent magnet alternator (132, Fig. 8 and [0027]) configured to generate electrical power such that the electrical generator converts rotation of the drive shaft into electrical power (Designed and intend purpose of the electrical generator ), and a cooling system having a generator cooling pump (120, Fig. 7) configured to circulate cooling fluid through the electrical generator (Designed and intend purpose of the cooling pump).
Del Bono teaches, in Figs. 1A – 9, a similar gas turbine engine (101 - Figs. 1A – 2 and 3 - Figs. 3 – 7) positioned on a platform (103 - Figs. 1A – 2 and 1 - Figs. 3 – 7) and including an engine output shaft (9 - Figs. 3 – 7); a drive shaft (11 - Figs. 3 – 7) positioned on the platform (1) and driven by the gas turbine engine (3), wherein the driveshaft (11) includes a flange that is configured to connect to a load (5 – Col. 2, ll. 40 – 45 load can be an electric generator or a pump, Col. 9, ll. 30 – 35, “The system of claim 9, wherein the load comprises a centrifugal compressor, pump, or an electric generator.”) which can be an electrical generator (5, Col. 4, Il. 40 – 45, “load 5 can be comprised of an electric generator”) connected to the drive shaft (11), the electrical generator including a step up generator gearbox (7, Col. 4, Il. 40 – 45, “multiplier device”) to at least partially offset the fixed reduction gearbox (Col. 4, Il. 45 – 55, 7 can be a multiplier device provided when the shaft 9 speed is different from the rotation speed of the generator, the input end, connected to shaft 9, of the step up generator gearbox corresponds to the speed of rotation of the turbine drive shaft, which in this case is the speed of drop-gear-box of Zhu or the input of the pump, and the output end, connected to shaft 11, of the step up generator gearbox corresponds to the speed of rotation of the generator).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Zhu with the electrical generator includes a step up generator gearbox, a permanent magnet alternator configured to generate electrical power when the electrical generator is positioned on the platform and connected to a drive shaft, and a cooling system having a generator cooling pump configured to circulate cooling fluid through the electrical generator, taught by Raad and Del Bono, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the mobile power unit comprising: a gas turbine engine positioned on a platform and including an engine output shaft, a drive shaft positioned on the platform and driven by the gas turbine engine, and torque sensor positioned on the drive shaft and configured to transmit a signal indicative of a torque of the drive shaft, a hydraulic fracturing pump connected to and driven by the drive shaft, and an electrical generator assembly comprising an electrical generator including a step up generator gearbox, a permanent magnet alternator configured to generate electrical power when the electrical generator is positioned on the platform and connected to a drive shaft, and a cooling system having a generator cooling pump configured to circulate cooling fluid through the electrical generator, were known in the art, and one skilled in the art could have substituted the electrical generator assembly, taught by Raad, for the hydraulic fracturing pump of Zhu, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., positioning/interchanging the electrical generator assembly on the platform in place of the hydraulic fracturing pump so that the gas turbine engine could drive the electric generator would have facilitated generating electricity on a mobile power unit (truck) that could be driven to a plurality of remote fracking pads where it was impossible or impractical to receive electricity from a commercial electricity grid thereby increasing the utility of the mobile power unit. Del Bono teaches, in Col. 1, Il. 25 – 30, “Oil rigs and offshore platforms are often equipped with one or more gas turbines driving a load, such as an electric generator which provides electric power for the facilities of the rig.” A fracking pad, also known as a well pad or drilling pad, was a temporary construction site where drilling and hydraulic fracturing (fracking) operations took place to extract oil and natural gas from a well head, see 83 – Fig. 4 - Leavitt and 114 – Fig. 1 - Baca. These pads were engineered to accommodate drilling rigs, fracking equipment, and related infrastructure, e.g., mobile power units generating electricity to power the lights and other electrical equipment like electric motors. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(B).
Zhu, i.v., Raad and Del Bono, as discussed above, is silent on one or more controllers, wherein with the hydraulic fracturing pump positioned on the platform, the one or more controllers are configured to transmit one or more signals to a supervisory control unit that monitors and controls the mobile power unit.
Leavitt teaches, in Fig. 4 and Col. 3, ll. 53 – 67, that “A typical fracking pad consists of a well head, a data monitoring station, frac pumps, a frac blender, chemical storage tanks, sand storage units and a number of hydro tanks. The latter are usually arranged side-by-side, forming a rectangular configuration. A typical frac pad may contain about 4 hydro tanks, although more or less hydro tanks can be present based on the degree of activity of the fracking operation. See FIG. 4 in which 81 represents a data monitoring van, 82 represents the frac pumps, 83 represents the wellhead, 84 represents the frac blender, 85 represents the chemical storage tanks, 86 represents the frac hydro tanks in a series and 87 represents sand storage units”. The frac pumps trucks (82, four shown in Fig. 4) were equivalent to the claimed ‘mobile power unit’ comprising a hydraulic fracturing pump. As shown in Fig. 4, there was a single data monitoring station/data monitoring van (81) which was equivalent to the claimed ‘supervisory control unit positioned separate from the platform’.
Baca teaches, in Fig. 1 and Col. 5, ll. 47 – 67, a similar fracking pad (100) having a plurality of hydraulic fracturing pumps (112) and a single data monitoring station/data monitoring van (118) servicing a well head (114). Baca teaches, in Col. 6, ll. 3 – 10, “In the example of FIG. 1, the frac site 100 includes a data van 118 that operates as a main communication center for the entire frac site 100. The data van 118 may be configured to monitor all aspects of the fracking operation and may be in communication with transducers and controllers disposed about the frac site 100. From the data van 118, an operator may be able to monitor pressures, flows, blending, and other information relating to the frac site 100.” Baca teaches, in Col. 7, l. 62 – Col. 8, l. 2, “In one wired embodiment, the connector 164 may connect to the valve actuation system 156 using a data cable 168, such as a 150 ft weatherproof data cable. Other cable types and of course, other lengths are contemplated. The 150 ft data cable is sufficient length to extend from the valve actuation system 156 to the control box 154, which may be disposed at a different location at the frac site, such as in the data van 118.” Baca teaches, in Col. 17, ll. 10 – 16, “A frac site may include any number of cables and hoses extending between and connecting the data van 118 to other trucks, trailers, or equipment pieces disposed about the frac site.” The “other trucks, trailers, or equipment pieces” are equivalent to the claimed ‘mobile power unit’.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Zhu, i.v., Raad and Del Bono, with the one or more controllers, wherein with the hydraulic fracturing pump positioned on the platform, the one or more controllers are configured to transmit one or more signals to a supervisory control unit that monitors and controls the mobile power unit, taught by Leavitt and Baca, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the platform, the hydraulic fracturing pump positioned on the platform (mobile power unit/frac truck comprising a hydraulic fracturing pump positioned on the platform), the one or more controllers (each mobile power unit/frac truck had a controller) are configured to transmit one or more signals (across the data cables) to a supervisory control unit (data monitoring station/data monitoring van/data van) that monitors and controls each one of the mobile power units, were known in the art, in combination each one of the components would perform the same function as it did separately, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., transmitting one or more signals to and from a plurality of said mobile power unit/frac truck controllers through data cables to a display or controller located within the supervisory control unit (data monitoring station/data monitoring van/data van) would have facilitated monitoring and controlling the gas turbine engine output power for a plurality of mobile power units/frac trucks from a single location, Baca - Col. 6, ll. 3 – 10. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(A).
Zhu, i.v., Raad, Del Bono, Leavitt, and Baca, teach a mobile power unit, i.e., base device, upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement. Zhu, i.v., Raad, Del Bono, Leavitt, and Baca, as discussed above, is silent on said supervisory control unit determines an indicator to replace the hydraulic fracturing pump with the electrical generator on the platform, wherein the indicator is based on the one or more signals, and wherein the one or more signals are indicative of an electrical demand, or fluid requirements, of the mobile power unit.
DEIF teaches a supervisory control unit (PMS – Power Management System) determines an indicator to replace a hydraulic fracturing pump with the electrical generator on the platform, wherein the indicator is based on the one or more signals, and wherein the one or more signals are indicative of an electrical demand, or fluid requirements, of the mobile power unit. DEIF teaches, on Pg. 1, first and second paragraphs, “With a power management system (PMS), supply is matched with demand in your power supply system. … PMSes automatically monitor and control your installation, ensuring uninterrupted power and allowing you to operate the installation as efficiently as possible. If your power sources do not produce enough electricity, your operations could be jeopardised. Conversely, if they produce too much, you could be spending too much on power generation, for example on diesel fuel. Neither of these scenarios are acceptable, but you can avoid them using a power management system (PMS) which ensures that enough power is available with the right amount of power sources online.” DEIF teaches, on Pg. 3, second paragraph, “In a PMS, the individual controllers controlling the power sources (grid connection, gensets, batteries, and so on) and breakers are all interconnected in a communication network. The controllers constantly communicate over this network, exchanging information about the current load, their own power production capabilities, and the size of the current load on the power source they are controlling. Based on this information, the PMS calculates which power sources to use and how many power sources need to be active, and sends out commands as needed, for example to open and close breakers, crank gensets, and so on.” DEIF teaches, on Pg. 3, third paragraph, “When running on gensets, a PMS will ensure that you only run the precise amount of gensets needed. If three gensets are enough to cover power demand, for example, there is no reason for keeping four gensets running in order to provide excess power that will only rarely be needed. This reduces the fuel cost associated with running your gensets while also reducing wear and tear on the genset units.”
As evidenced by Sands, hydraulic fracturing, i.e., frac or frac’ing, was only performed after one or more horizontal well bores had been drilled by a drilling rig. Sands teaches, on Pgs. 3 – 4, that the best case timeline typically took 10 to 15 weeks (2.5 to 4 months) to go from an unimproved tract of land to a producing oil and/or gas well. First, the access roads and the wellpad would typically take 4 to 8 weeks to build. Second, a drilling rig would be moved to and setup on the wellpad and well bore(s) would be drilled. It would typically take 2 weeks to drill a single horizontal well bore and 1 week to move in the drilling rig, set it up, then take it down, and remove the drilling rig from the wellpad. Therefore, multiple horizontal well bores were typically drilled from a single wellpad to reduce the environmental impact, time, and cost of having to build multiple wellpads and their access roads and then having to move the drilling rig and other equipment to each one of the multiple wellpads. So at a single wellpad it would have typically taken 3 weeks to drill a single horizontal well bore, 5 weeks to drill two horizontal well bores, 7 weeks to drill three horizontal well bores, …, 17 weeks to drill eight horizontal well bores, and etcetera. Third, after all the horizontal well bores had been drilled and the drilling rig removed from the wellpad, the hydraulic fracturing process of each one of the horizontal well bores could start and would typically take 2 weeks where the actual hydraulic fracturing using one or more hydraulic fracturing pump(s) driven by an associated gas turbine would typically take 4 to 5 days out of the 2 weeks for a single horizontal well bore.
Thus, improving a particular device (mobile power unit), based upon the teachings of such improvement in DEIF, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, i.e., applying this known improvement technique in the same manner to the mobile power unit of Zhu, i.v., Raad, Del Bono, Leavitt, and Baca, and the results would have been predictable and readily recognized, that integrating the (PMS – Power Management System), taught by DEIF, into the supervisory control unit of Zhu, i.v., Raad, Del Bono, Leavitt, and Baca, would have facilited the supervisory control unit determining an indicator to replace the hydraulic fracturing pump with the electrical generator on the platform (for example, during the well bore drilling phase when the one or more hydraulic fracturing pumps were not needed, but additional electricity to power the drilling rig was needed), wherein the indicator is based on the one or more signals, and wherein the one or more signals are indicative of an electrical demand (additional electricity required to power the drilling rig), or fluid requirements (no demand for hydraulic fracturing fluid during the well bore drilling phase), of the mobile power unit, as evidenced by Sands. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(C).
Re Claim 2, Zhu, i.v., Raad, Del Bono, Leavitt, Baca, and DEIF, as evidenced by Sand, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including wherein the one or more specifications associated with the hydraulic fracturing pump include a rotation speed specification of the hydraulic fracturing pump (since the output of Zhu’s drop-gear-box drove the hydraulic fracturing pump). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that in the combination of Zhu, i.v., Raad, Del Bono, Leavitt, Baca, and DEIF, as evidenced by Sand, the rotation speed specification of the hydraulic fracturing pump would have included a minimum rotational speed, i.e., zero revolutions per minute (rpm), and a maximum rotational speed where driving the hydraulic fracturing pump faster than the maximum rotational speed would have resulted in damaging or destroying the hydraulic fracturing pump.
Re Claim 3, Zhu, i.v., Raad, Del Bono, Leavitt, Baca, and DEIF, as evidenced by Sand, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including wherein the one or more specifications associated with the electrical generator include a rotation speed specification of the electrical generator. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that in the combination of Zhu, i.v., Raad, Del Bono, Leavitt, Baca, and DEIF, as evidenced by Sand, the rotation speed specification of the electrical generator would have included a minimum rotational speed, i.e., zero revolutions per minute (RPM), where no electricity was generated and the operational rotational speed to generate electricity at a specified frequency, e.g., 60 Hertz (Hz). It was a scientific fact that the formula relating electricity frequency (f), engine speed (N), and number of poles (P) of the electric generator was: f = (N * P) / 120. Therefore, to generate electricity at a 60 Hz frequency with an electric generator, the rotational speed (RPM) depended on the number of magnetic poles in the generator. For a 2-pole generator, the required rotational speed was 3600 RPM, while for a 4-pole generator, the required rotational speed was 1800 RPM.
Re Claim 4, Zhu, i.v., Raad, Del Bono, Leavitt, Baca, and DEIF, as evidenced by Sand, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except, wherein the cooling system is configured to be powered by at least one of the permanent magnet alternator or a lubrication system positioned between the gas turbine engine and the electrical generator and having a lubrication pump to provide lubrication to the electrical generator. Raad further teaches wherein the cooling system is configured to be powered by at least one of the permanent magnet alternator or a lubrication system positioned between the gas turbine engine and the electrical generator and having a lubrication pump (120) to provide lubrication to the electrical generator (Paras. [0022] – [0027], Figs. 1, 7 and 8; Turbine being at the end (212) and the generator (100, 102) being at the opposite end). Raad further teaches, in Para. [0022], “Rotational movement of the generator shaft 106 drives the electricity generating components 108 and the pump 120.” Raad further teaches, in Para. [0025], “Lubricating and cooling fluid may be pumped from the pump 120 through the port 126 to the drive shaft 208. The fluid pump 120 may be driven by either the low speed drive shaft 106, as shown, or alternatively, by the higher speed generator shaft 206.”
Re Claim 5, Zhu, i.v., Raad, Del Bono, Leavitt, Baca, and DEIF, as evidenced by Sand, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except, wherein the step up generator gearbox has a step up ratio of from 1:1.25 to 1:5. Raad further teaches, in Para. [0025], wherein the step up generator gearbox has a step up ratio of 1:4 or greater which was within and overlaps the claimed range of from 1:1.25 to 1:5. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); MPEP2144.05(I).
Re Claim 6, Zhu, i.v., Raad, Del Bono, Leavitt, Baca, and DEIF, as evidenced by Sand, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, and Zhu further teaches, wherein the fixed reduction gearbox has a fixed reduction ratio to drive the hydraulic fracturing pump at a lower rotational speed than the gas turbine engine output shaft rotational speed. Zhu, i.v., Raad, Del Bono, Leavitt, Baca, and DEIF, as evidenced by Sand, as discussed above, is silent on said fixed reduction ratio being from 5:1 to 20:1 (5:1 meant that the drive shaft completed a single 360° rotation for every five 360° rotation of the gas turbine engine output shaft and 20:1 meant that the drive shaft completed a single 360° rotation for every twenty 360° rotation of the gas turbine engine output shaft). Therefore, the fixed reduction ratio was recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In this case, the recognized result is that a 5:1 reduction ratio meant that the drive shaft completed a single 360° rotation for every five 360° rotation of the gas turbine engine output shaft and 20:1 reduction ratio meant that the drive shaft completed a single 360° rotation for every twenty 360° rotation of the gas turbine engine output shaft. In other words, when the gas turbine engine output shaft rotated at 5,000 revolutions per minute (RPM), the drive shaft rotational speed would have been 1,000 RPM at a 5:1 reduction ratio and 250 RPM at a 20:1 reduction ratio. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e., that the fixed reduction gearbox has a fixed reduction ratio, were disclosed in the prior art by Zhu, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the fixed reduction gearbox taught by Zhu, i.v., Raad, Del Bono, Leavitt, Baca, and DEIF, as evidenced by Sand, to have a fixed reduction ratio being in the range from 5:1 to 20:1. It has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) the Supreme Court held that “a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent". It was held that "It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.", In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). Changing the fixed reduction ratio from 5:1 to 20:1 was mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of proportions and is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.
Re Claim 23, Zhu, i.v., Raad, Del Bono, Leavitt, Baca, and DEIF, as evidenced by Sand, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including wherein the fixed reduction ratio of the fixed reduction gearbox with the electrical generator connected to the driveshaft is the same as the fixed reduction ratio of the fixed reduction gearbox when the hydraulic fracturing pump is connected to the driveshaft (since only step up gear is added, in other words the fixed reduction gearbox isn’t changed).
Re Claim 25, Zhu, i.v., Raad, Del Bono, Leavitt, Baca, and DEIF, as evidenced by Sand, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except, further comprising the hydraulic fracturing pump and the electrical generator, wherein the hydraulic fracturing pump is positioned on a first skid and the electrical generator is positioned on a second skid. Del Bono further teaches, in Col. 1, Il. 20 – 25, “Typical rotating machinery which requires support on a baseplate or skid includes, but is not limited to gas turbines, electric generators, turbo compressors, such as centrifugal turbo compressors and the like” and in Col. 1, Il. 30 – 35, “Conventionally the rotating machinery mentioned above is mounted on a baseplate, or skid, which is secured to a deck of the platform after being leveled by suitable shims or packagings. The baseplate is dimensioned so as to withstand the static and dynamic loads generated by the machinery supported by the baseplate”. Del Bono further teaches, in Col. 2, ll. 40 – 45, that the load can be an electric generator or a pump and, in Col. 9, ll. 30 – 35, “The system of claim 9, wherein the load comprises a centrifugal compressor, pump, or an electric generator.” Del Bono further teaches, in Col. 6, ll. 1 – 5, “In some embodiments the load 5 can be supported by a separate support platform 49, rigidly connected to the elongate torsion and bending resisting member 23, more particularly in a torque transmitting relationship”. The separate support platform (49) was equivalent to a skid/baseplate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Zhu, i.v., Raad, Del Bono, Leavitt, Baca, and DEIF, as evidenced by Sand, with the hydraulic fracturing pump and the electrical generator, wherein the hydraulic fracturing pump is positioned on a first skid and the electrical generator is positioned on a second skid, taught by Del Bono, because all the claimed elements, i.e., a hydraulic fracturing pump, an electrical generator, and a skid (baseplate), were known in the art, in combination each one of the components would perform the same function as it did separately, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., mounting/positioning the hydraulic fracturing pump on a first skid and mounting/positioning the electrical generator on a second skid because it would have been impossible to mount/position both the hydraulic fracturing pump and the electrical generator on the same skid at the same time. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(A).
Re Claim 26, Zhu, i.v., Raad, Del Bono, Leavitt, Baca, and DEIF, as evidenced by Sand, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including wherein the platform includes a drive equipment receiver (space on the platform) on which either the first skid or the second skid is positioned. Zhu – Figs. 2 – 4 show two hydraulic fracturing pumps (4A and 4B) positioned in drive equipment receivers (space on the platform) of the mobile power unit (truck). As discussed in Claim 25 above, Del Bono taught that the load can be an electric generator or a pump and that the load 5 can be supported by a separate support platform (skid), rigidly connected to the elongate torsion and bending resisting member 23, i.e., platform.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Zhu, i.v., Raad, Del Bono, Leavitt, Baca, and DEIF, as evidenced by Sand, with the platform includes a drive equipment receiver (space on the platform) on which either the first skid or the second skid is positioned, taught by Del Bono, because all the claimed elements, i.e., a platform with a drive equipment receiver (space on the platform), a hydraulic fracturing pump mounted to a skid/support platform, and an electrical generator mounted to a skid/support platform, were known in the art, in combination each one of the components would perform the same function as it did separately, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., mounting/positioning the hydraulic fracturing pump on a first skid and mounting/positioning the electrical generator on a second skid where the first skid and second skid had the same dimensions to fit into a drive equipment receiver (space on the platform) to facilitate switching between the gas turbine engine driving the hydraulic fracturing pump when mobile pumping services were required or the gas turbine engine driving the electrical generator when mobile electricity generation services were required thereby increasing the utility of the mobile power unit. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(A).
Re Claim 27, Zhu, i.v., Raad, Del Bono, Leavitt, Baca, and DEIF, as evidenced by Sand, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including wherein the indicator indicates that the electrical demand of a well pad site including the mobile power unit [For example, when the drilling rig was setup on the wellpad site and started drilling a well bore the electrical demand of a well pad site would have been greater than an electrical supply of the well pad site before the drilling rig arrived and started operating because the power management system (PMS) would have been automatically controlling the wellpad power supply system so that the supply of electricity matched the demand for electricity thereby reducing fuel consumption and reducing wear and tear on the electric generators and associated gas turbines.] is greater than an electrical supply of the well pad site or that a fluid capacity of the well pad site is greater than fluid requirements of the well pad site [For example, during the well bore drilling phase there would have been no demand for hydraulic fracturing fluid to be pumped by the one or more hydraulic fracturing pumps mounted on a corresponding mobile power unit. Therefore, one or more mobile power units mounted with hydraulic fracturing pumps would have provided greater fluid capacity than needed by the wellpad site during the well bore drilling phase.]. Refer to the Claim 1 rejection above.
Thus, improving a particular device (mobile power unit), based upon the teachings of such improvement in DEIF, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, i.e., applying this known improvement technique in the same manner to the mobile power unit of Zhu, i.v., Raad, Del Bono, Leavitt, Baca, and DEIF, as evidenced by Sand, and the results would have been predictable and readily recognized, that the power management system (PMS) integrated into the supervisory control unit of Zhu, i.v., Raad, Del Bono, Leavitt, Baca, and DEIF, as evidenced by Sand, would have facilitated indicating when the electrical demand of a well pad site including the mobile power unit [For example, when the drilling rig was setup on the wellpad site and started drilling a well bore the electrical demand of a well pad site would have been greater than an electrical supply of the well pad site before the drilling rig arrived and started operating because the power management system (PMS) would have been automatically controlling the wellpad power supply system so that the supply of electricity matched the demand for electricity thereby reducing fuel consumption and reducing wear and tear on the electric generators and associated gas turbines.] is greater than an electrical supply of the well pad site or when the fluid capacity of the well pad site is greater than fluid requirements of the well pad site [For example, during the well bore drilling phase there would have been no demand for hydraulic fracturing fluid to be pumped by the one or more hydraulic fracturing pumps mounted on a corresponding mobile power unit. Therefore, one or more mobile power units mounted with hydraulic fracturing pumps would have provided greater fluid capacity than needed by the wellpad site during the well bore drilling phase.] by communicating which device is mounted on each one of the plurality of mobile power units. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(C).
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/15/2025 have been fully considered and to the extent possible have been addressed in the rejections above, at the appropriate locations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LORNE E MEADE whose telephone number is (571)270-7570. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5 EST.
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, Phutthiwat Wongwian can be reached at 571-270-5426. 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.
/LORNE E MEADE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741