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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 07/21/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-2, 6-7, 10-11, 13-16, 18-19 & 21-28 are pending in the application. Claims 3-5, 8-9, 12, 17 & 20 are cancelled.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 & 21-24 are objected to because of the following informalities.
Claim 2, the preamble should read --The hydraulic fracturing pump
Claim 21, the preamble should read --The hydraulic fracturing pump
Claim 22, the preamble should read --The hydraulic fracturing pump
Claim 23, the preamble should read --The hydraulic fracturing pump
Claim 24, the preamble should read --The hydraulic fracturing pump
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-2 & 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kugelev (U.S. PGPub 2006/0029502), in view of Kushida (JP2003253333A - see previously attached translation).
As to Claim 1, Kugelev teaches a hydraulic fracturing pump (Figure 3) comprising: a fluid end assembly (the assembly to the right of rod housing 15, as viewed in Figure 3); and
a power end assembly (the assembly to the left of rod housing 15, as viewed in Figure 3).
Kugelev is silent on the material makeup of the fluid end assembly and power end assembly, so does not explicitly teach at least one component of the fluid end assembly or power end assembly comprises a resistant steel composition comprising:
a carbon content from 0.07% MB to 0.17% MB;
a nickel content with a nickel content from 2% MB to 4.1% MB;
a manganese content from about 0.3% MB to about 0.6% MB;
a molybdenum content of about 0.5% MB to about 2.0% MB; and
a chromium content from 8% MB to 10% MB.
Kushida describes a resistant steel composition for use in drilling oil wells (Paragraph 0001), and teaches a resistant steel composition (Paragraph 0001) comprising:
a carbon content from 0.01% MB to 0.1% MB (Paragraph 0027);
a nickel content with a nickel content from 0.1% MB to 3.0% MB (Paragraph 0027);
a manganese content from 0.05% MB to 1.5% MB (Paragraph 0027);
a molybdenum content from 0.05% MB to 3.0% MB (Paragraph 0027); and
a chromium content from 9% MB to 15% MB (Paragraph 0027).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to make at least one component of the fluid end assembly or power end assembly, as taught by Kugelev, from the resistant steel composition, as taught by Kushida, since the material “suppresses delayed fracture after hot working or cold working without particularly reducing the amount of hydrogen in the steel (Paragraph 0013).”
However, Kushida does not explicitly teach the specific ranges for each material composition.
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 carbon content to be from about 0.07% MB to about 0.17% MB; the nickel content to be from 2% MB to 4.1% MB; the manganese content to be from about 0.3% MB to about 0.6% MB; the molybdenum content to be of about 0.5% to about 2.0% MB; and the chromium content to be from 8% MB to 10% MB, since it has been held that “[i]n 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). Further, applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed ranges (see instant application Paragraphs 0020/0021, which only state material compositions “may” be within the claimed ranges).
As to Claim 2, Kugelev, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, and continues to teach at least one of:
a copper content of less than about 0. 5% MB;
a sulfur content of less than about 0.02% MB;
a silicon content of less than about 1% MB (Kushida Paragraph 0027 describes Si between 0.05-1%, which is less than 1%);
a phosphorous content of less than about 0.04% MB;
a niobium content from about 0.01% MB to about 0.1% MB;
a vanadium content from about 0.01% MB to about 0.1% MB;
a titanium content from about 0.0001% MB to about 0.1% MB;
a nitrogen content from about 0.02% MB to about 0.07% MB; and
an aluminum content of less than about 0.1% MB.
Since the limitation in Claim 2 is written where each of the defined materials is provided as an option, and Kugelev, as modified with Kushida teaches the use of silicon as claimed, none of the other materials need to be taught.
As to Claim 21, Kugelev, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, and continues to teach a silicon content between 0.05% MB and 1% MB (Kushida Paragraph 0027).
However, Kushida does not explicitly teach the specific silicon content range from about 0.8% MB to about 1% MB.
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 silicon content to be from about 0.8% MB to about 1% MB, since it has been held that “[i]n 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). Further, applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see instant application Paragraph 0020, which only state the material composition “may” be within the claimed range).
As to Claim 22, Kugelev, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, and continues to teach a vanadium content from 0.005% MB to 0.5% MB (Kushida Paragraph 0027).
However, Kushida does not explicitly teach the specific vanadium content range from about 0.016% MB to about 0.023% MB.
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 vanadium content to be from about 0.016% MB to about 0.023% MB, since it has been held that “[i]n 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). Further, applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see instant application Paragraph 0020, which only state the material composition “may” be within the claimed range).
As to Claim 23, Kugelev, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, and continues to teach a copper content from 0.05% MB to 3.0% MB (Kushida Paragraph 0027).
However, Kushida does not explicitly teach the specific copper content range from about 0.4% MB to about 0.5% MB.
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 copper content to be from about 0.4% MB to about 0.5% MB, since it has been held that “[i]n 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). Further, applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see instant application Paragraph 0020, which only state the material composition “may” be within the claimed range).
As to Claim 24, Kugelev, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, and continues to teach a phosphorus content of about 0.023% MB (Kushida Paragraph 0027 teaches less than 0.03%). Instant application Page 7, Lines 7-9, defines the term “about” when used with a phosphorus range as being “plus or minus 0.01% MB”. As such, the claimed phosphorus range is between zero and 0.033% MB, and 0.03 % MB, as taught by Kushida in Paragraph 0027, is within the claimed range.
Claims 6-7, 10-11 & 13-16, 18-19 & 25-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kugelev, in view of Hiraide (JP2017179406 – see previously attached translation).
As to Claim 6, Kugelev teaches a hydraulic fracturing pump (Figure 3) comprising a fluid end assembly (the assembly to the right of rod housing 15, as viewed in Figure 3), the fluid end assembly comprising:
a cylinder body (17) configured to receive (as shown in Figure 3) a respective plunger (35) from (via at least 24/25/27/31/29/33) a power end assembly (the assembly to the left of rod housing 15, as viewed in Figure 3);
a suction bore (the bore within which inlet valve 41 sits in Figure 3) configured to house (as shown in Figure 3) a valve body (41), a valve seat (see Figure 5 below), and a spring (73); and
a spring retainer (71).
PNG
media_image1.png
560
596
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kugelev Figure 5, Modified by Examiner
Kugelev is silent on the material makeup of the fluid end, so does not explicitly teach the cylinder body comprises a steel composition comprising:
a nickel content from 2% MB to 4.1% MB,
a manganese content from about 0.3% MB to about 0.6% MB,
a molybdenum content of about 0.5% to about 2.0% MB, and
a chromium content from about 8% MB to 10% MB.
Hiraide describes a material for pump members (Paragraph 0001), and teaches a resistant steel composition (Paragraph 0018) comprising:
a nickel content with a nickel content of less than 2% (Paragraph 0040), by mass (see Paragraph 0030),
a manganese content from 0.02%-2% (Paragraph 0034) by mass (see Paragraph 0030),
a molybdenum content of less than 2.5% (Paragraph 0042), by mass (see Paragraph 0030), and
a chromium content from 10.5%-23% (Paragraph 0035), by mass (see Paragraph 0030).
Note instant application Paragraph 0021 defines the term “about” when used with the chromium range as plus or minus 1%, which creates an overlapping range with Hiraide.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to make the cylinder body, as taught by Kugelev, from the resistant steel composition, as taught by Hiraide, since the material has excellent formability and excellent corrosion resistance (Paragraph 0018).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to make the cylinder body, as taught by Kugelev, from the stainless steel composition, as taught by Hiraide, as modified, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. (1960)
Kugelev, as modified, (Hiraide) does not explicitly teach the specific ranges for each material composition.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the nickel content to be 2% MB to 4.1% MB; and the chromium content to be from 8% MB to 10% MB, since it has been held that “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close.” Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Lilienfeld, 67 F.2d 920, 924, 20 USPQ 53, 57 (CCPA 1933). Further, Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range.
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 manganese content to be from about 0.3% MB to about 0.6% MB; and the molybdenum content to be of about 0.5% to about 2.0% MB, since it has been held that “[i]n 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). Further, applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed ranges (see instant application Paragraphs 0020/0021, which only state material compositions “may” be within the claimed ranges).
As to Claim 7, Kugelev, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 6, and continues to teach the steel composition further comprises at least one of:
a carbon content from about 0.07 % MB to about 0.17 % MB;
a copper content of less than about 0. 5 % MB;
a sulfur content of less than about 0.02 % MB;
a silicon content of less than about 1 % MB;
a phosphorous content of less than about 0.04 % MB (Hiraide Paragraph 0055 teaches P is 0.04% or less);
a niobium content from about 0.01 % MB to about 0.1 % MB;
a vanadium content from about 0.01 % MB to about 0.1 % MB;
a titanium content from about 0.0001 % MB to about 0.1 % MB;
a nitrogen content from about 0.02 % MB to about 0.07 % MB; and
an aluminum content of less than about 0.1 % MB.
Since the limitation in Claim 2 is written where each of the defined materials is provided as an option, and Kugelev, as modified, (Hiraide) teaches the use of phosphorous as claimed, none of the other materials need to be taught.
As to Claim 10, Kugelev, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 6, and continues to teach a suction cover (Kugelev 22) configured to fit into (as shown in Kugelev Figure 5) the suction bore (the bore within which Kugelev inlet valve 41 sits in Kugelev Figure 3) and a valve stop (Kugelev 53) that is attached to (as shown in Kugelev Figure 5) the suction cover (Kugelev 22) through a stem (Kugelev 75), the valve stop (Kugelev 53) configured to lock under a ridge (see Kugelev Figure 5 in the Claim 6 rejection above) in a fluid cylinder bore (see Kugelev Figure 5 in the Claim 6 rejection above).
As to Claim 11, Kugelev, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 6, and continues to teach the suction bore comprises a groove (see Kugelev Figure 5 in the Claim 6 rejection above).
As to Claim 13, Kugelev teaches a hydraulic fracturing pump (Figure 3) comprising a fluid end assembly (the assembly to the right of rod housing 15, as viewed in Figure 3) and a power end assembly (the assembly to the left of rod housing 15, as viewed in Figure 3), the power end assembly comprising:
a crank shaft (25);
a frame (13);
a connecting rod (27) connected to (as shown in Figure 3; Paragraph 0026) the crank shaft (25);
a cross head (29); and
a plunger (35) connected to (via cross head 29 and crosshead pin 31, as shown in Figure 3; Paragraph 0026) the connecting rod (27).
Kugelev is silent on the material makeup of the power end, so does not explicitly teach the frame comprises a resistant steel composition comprising:
a nickel content from about 1.75% MB to about 5.75% MB,
a manganese content from about 0.3% MB to about 0.6% MB,
a molybdenum content of about 0.5% to about 2.0% MB, and
a chromium content from 8% MB to 10% MB.
Hiraide describes a material for pump members (Paragraph 0001), and teaches a resistant steel composition (Paragraph 0018) comprising
a nickel content with a nickel content of less than 2% (Paragraph 0040), by mass (see Paragraph 0030),
a manganese content from 0.02%-2% (Paragraph 0034) by mass (see Paragraph 0030),
a molybdenum content of less than 2.5% (Paragraph 0042), by mass (see Paragraph 0030), and
a chromium content from 10.5%-23% (Paragraph 0035), by mass (see Paragraph 0030).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to make the frame, as taught by Kugelev, from the resistant steel composition, as taught by Hiraide, since the material has excellent formability and excellent corrosion resistance (Paragraph 0018).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to make the frame, as taught by Kugelev, from the stainless steel composition, as taught by Hiraide, as modified, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. (1960)
Kugelev, as modified, (Hiraide) does not explicitly teach the specific ranges for each material composition.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the chromium content to be from 8% MB to 10% MB, since it has been held that “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close.” Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Lilienfeld, 67 F.2d 920, 924, 20 USPQ 53, 57 (CCPA 1933). Further, Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range.
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 nickel content to be 1.75% MB to 5.75% MB; the manganese content to be from about 0.3% MB to about 0.6% MB; and the molybdenum content to be of about 0.5% to about 2.0% MB, since it has been held that “[i]n 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). Further, applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed ranges (see instant application Paragraphs 0020/0021, which only state material compositions “may” be within the claimed ranges).
As to Claim 14, Kugelev, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 13, and continues to teach the resistant steel composition further comprises at least one of:
a carbon content from about 0.07 % MB to about 0.17 % MB;
a copper content of less than about 0. 5 % MB;
a sulfur content of less than about 0.02 % MB;
a silicon content of less than about 1 % MB;
a phosphorous content of less than about 0.04 % MB (Hiraide Paragraph 0055 teaches P is 0.04% or less);
a niobium content from about 0.01 % MB to about 0.1 % MB;
a vanadium content from about 0.01 % MB to about 0.1 % MB;
a titanium content from about 0.0001 % MB to about 0.1 % MB;
a nitrogen content from about 0.02 % MB to about 0.07 % MB; and
an aluminum content of less than about 0.1 % MB.
Since the limitation in Claim 2 is written where each of the defined materials is provided as an option, and Kugelev, as modified, (Hiraide) teaches the use of phosphorous as claimed, none of the other materials need to be taught.
As to Claim 15, Kugelev teaches a fluid end block assembly (the assembly to the right of rod housing 15, as viewed in Figure 3) for use in a plunger pump apparatus (Figure 3), the fluid end assembly comprising:
a cylinder body (17) configured to receive (as shown in Figure 3) a respective plunger (35) from (via at least 24/25/27/31/29/33) a power end (the assembly to the left of rod housing 15, as viewed in Figure 3);
a suction bore (the bore within which inlet valve 41 sits in Figure 3) configured to house (as shown in Figure 3) a valve body (41), a valve seat (see Kugelev Figure 5 in the Claim 6 rejection above), a spring (73); and a spring retainer (71).
Kugelev is silent on the material makeup of the fluid end, so does not explicitly teach the cylinder body comprises a steel composition comprising: a nickel content from about 1.75% MB to about 5.75% MB, a manganese content from about 0.3% MB to about 0.6% MB, a molybdenum content of about 0.5% to about 2.0% MB, and a chromium content from 8% MB to 10% MB.
Hiraide describes a material for pump members (Paragraph 0001), and teaches a resistant steel composition (Paragraph 0018) comprising a nickel content with a nickel content of less than 2% (Paragraph 0040), by mass (see Paragraph 0030), a manganese content from 0.02%-2% (Paragraph 0034) by mass (see Paragraph 0030), a molybdenum content of less than 2.5% (Paragraph 0042), by mass (see Paragraph 0030), and a chromium content from 10.5%-23% (Paragraph 0035), by mass (see Paragraph 0030).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to make the cylinder body, as taught by Kugelev, from the resistant steel composition, as taught by Hiraide, since the material has excellent formability and excellent corrosion resistance (Paragraph 0018).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to make the cylinder body, as taught by Kugelev, from the stainless steel composition, as taught by Hiraide, as modified, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. (1960)
Kugelev, as modified, (Hiraide) does not explicitly teach the specific ranges for each material composition.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the chromium content to be from 8% MB to 10% MB, since it has been held that “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close.” Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Lilienfeld, 67 F.2d 920, 924, 20 USPQ 53, 57 (CCPA 1933). Further, Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range.
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 nickel content to be 1.75% MB to 5.75% MB; the manganese content to be from about 0.3% MB to about 0.6% MB; and the molybdenum content to be of about 0.5% to about 2.0% MB, since it has been held that “[i]n 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). Further, applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed ranges (see instant application Paragraphs 0020/0021, which only state material compositions “may” be within the claimed ranges).
As to Claim 16, Kugelev, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 15, and continues to teach the resistant steel composition further comprises at least one of:
a carbon content from about 0.07 % MB to about 0.17 % MB;
a copper content of less than about 0. 5 % MB;
a sulfur content of less than about 0.02 % MB;
a silicon content of less than about 1 % MB;
a phosphorous content of less than about 0.04 % MB (Hiraide Paragraph 0055 teaches P is 0.04% or less);
a niobium content from about 0.01 % MB to about 0.1 % MB;
a vanadium content from about 0.01 % MB to about 0.1 % MB;
a titanium content from about 0.0001 % MB to about 0.1 % MB;
a nitrogen content from about 0.02 % MB to about 0.07 % MB; and
an aluminum content of less than about 0.1 % MB.
Since the limitation in Claim 2 is written where each of the defined materials is provided as an option, and Kugelev, as modified, (Hiraide) teaches the use of phosphorous as claimed, none of the other materials need to be taught.
As to Claim 18, Kugelev, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 15, and continues to teach a suction cover (Kugelev 22) configured to fit into (as shown in Kugelev Figure 5) the suction bore (the bore within which Kugelev inlet valve 41 sits in Kugelev Figure 3) and a valve stop (Kugelev 53) that is attached to (as shown in Kugelev Figure 5) the suction cover (Kugelev 22) through a stem (Kugelev 75), the valve stop (Kugelev 53) configured to lock under a ridge (see Kugelev Figure 5 in the Claim 6 rejection above) in a fluid cylinder bore (see Kugelev Figure 5 in the Claim 6 rejection above).
As to Claim 19, Kugelev, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 15, and continues to teach the suction bore comprises a groove (see Kugelev Figure 5 in the Claim 6 rejection above).
As to Claim 25, Kugelev, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 6, and continues to teach a manganese content from 0.02%-2% (Hiraide Paragraph 0034) by mass (see Hiraide Paragraph 0030).
However, Kugelev, as modified by Hiraide, does not explicitly teach the specific manganese content of about 0.45% MB.
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 manganese content of about 0.45% MB, since it has been held that “[i]n 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). Further, applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see instant application Paragraph 0020, which only state the material composition “may” be within the claimed range).
As to Claim 26, Kugelev, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 6, and continues to teach a silicon content between 0.002% and 1.5% (Paragraph 0033), by mass (see Paragraph 0030).
However, Kugelev, as modified by Hiraide, does not explicitly teach the specific silicon content range from about 0.8% MB to about 1% MB.
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 silicon content to be from about 0.8% MB to about 1% MB, since it has been held that “[i]n 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). Further, applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see instant application Paragraph 0020, which only state the material composition “may” be within the claimed range).
As to Claim 27, Kugelev, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 6, and continues to teach the steel composition further comprises: a copper content less than 1.5% (Paragraph 0041), by mass (see Paragraph 0030).
However, Kugelev, as modified, does not explicitly teach the specific copper content range from about 0.4% MB to about 0.5% MB.
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 copper content to be from about 0.4% MB to about 0.5% MB, since it has been held that “[i]n 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). Further, applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see instant application Paragraph 0020, which only state the material composition “may” be within the claimed range).
As to Claim 28, Kugelev, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 6, and continues to teach the steel composition further comprises: a copper content less than 1.5% (Paragraph 0041), by mass (see Paragraph 0030).
However, Kugelev, as modified, does not explicitly teach the specific vanadium content range from about 0.016% MB to about 0.023% MB.
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 vanadium content to be from about 0.016% MB to about 0.023% MB, since it has been held that “[i]n 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). Further, applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see instant application Paragraph 0020, which only state the material composition “may” be within the claimed range).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 103 rejection for Claim 1, Applicant argues Kushida cannot be used in fracturing pump due to the cyclical pressure changes during fracturing operation. Examiner disagrees. As outlined above, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the Kushida steel with the Kugelev pump due to the anti-corrosive aspects of the Kushida steel. Applicant’s assertion the Kushida steel may not be used with fracturing pumps is merely speculative and conclusory, since Kushida makes no mention of pressure limits for the Kushida steel.
Regarding the 103 rejection for Claims 6-7, 10-11, 13-16, 18-19 & 25-28, specifically independent Claims 6, 13 & 15, Applicant argues the Hiraide steel is intended to be used for sheet metal part, and, therefore, would not be used to form cast parts.
As an initial matter, there is no requirement or description of any of the claimed or referenced pump components being made of cast parts. As such, there is no basis for Applicant arguing either the claimed invention or the referenced pump is made of cast parts, specifically, the cylinder body of Claims 6 & 15, or the frame of Claim 13. Any argument made by Applicant regarding how either the invention or the reference is made, is purely speculation. Examiner contends one of ordinary skill in the art would understand each of the claimed frame and the claimed cylinder body may be made from sheet metal, even if each respective part only contains a small amount of sheet metal.
Applicant continues to argue the Hiraide steel would be unable to operate at the required pressure limits for fracturing pumps. Applicant’s assertion the Hiraide steel may not be used with fracturing pumps is merely speculative and conclusory, since Hiraide makes no mention of pressure limits for the Hiraide steel.
Examiner has considered Inventor’s 07/21/2025 Affidavit. However, the Affidavit is not persuasive. The Affidavit is merely conclusory, since the statements do not rely on any sources for the comments. Additionally, the Affidavit relies on pressure ratings which are not disclosed in the instant application. Kushida does not make any mention of pressure restrictions, and Hiraide only mentions the use of “high pressure”, similar to the instant application. In light of the above, the Affidavit is not persuasive.
Applicant should consider providing published references to support the information in the Affidavit.
All rejections are maintained.
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 DAVID BRANDT whose telephone number is (303)297-4776. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10-6, MT.
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, Mark Laurenzi can be reached at (571) 270-7878. 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.
/DAVID N BRANDT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746