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
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed 02/17/2026, have made the claim objections moot. The claim objections of 11/11/2025 have been withdrawn.
It is noted that: the temperature monitoring system recited in Line 31 of Claim 27 corresponds to the system introduced in Line 14-16 of Claim 27 – given Applicants remarks at item #8 on Page 19 of the REM filed 08/04/2025 – which suggest that the amendment made by applicant in the response filed on 08/04/2025 is a less cumbersome way of stating the same thing which was suggested by the examiner earlier in prosecution.
It is noted that when the claims are read in light of the SPEC, the recess recited in Line 2 of claim 32 corresponds to recess 134 in Fig 12 & the crosshead recess recited in Line 12 of claim 20 & Line 10-11 of claim 27 correlates to recess 50 in Fig 3.
Due to the amendment to claims 20 & 33, claims 20-37 are now rejected under §112(a) since the SPEC does not provide an exclusionary provision for the sensors being located in the suction pressure & discharge pressure lines. The only exclusionary provision is for sensors being located in the fluid end (Page 5 Line 15-17).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 20-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 20: Line 27-30 states: “wherein the signal processing unit does not use measured values of a suction pressure in the suction line or a discharge pressure in the discharge line to determine whether the measured rod load values deviate from the normal rod load values.”. This subject matter was not described in such a way as to show the inventor had possession of the claimed invention, because the original disclosure does not have basis for this limitation, since the original disclosure does not describe the invention not using measured values of a suction pressure in the suction line or a discharge pressure in the discharge line to determine whether the measured rod load values deviate from the normal rod load values. Additionally, the examiner notes that the SPEC states in part “The suction bore is connected to a suction line which commonly takes the form of a suction manifold positioned below the fluid end housing, and the discharge bore is connected to a discharge line which extends through the fluid end housing.” (Page 2 Line 15-18) And “As the plunger advances into the crossbore, the fluid is pressurized, and as the pressure of the fluid in the crossbore reaches the pressure of the fluid in the discharge line, the discharge valve opens and allows the fluid to flow through the discharge bore and into the discharge line.” (Page 3 Line 3-6) – accordingly in view of these statements it is understood that the suction line and discharge lines are external of the fluid end; additionally, the language of claim 20 which states in part “a fluid end assembly having at least one plunger bore in communication with a suction line and a discharge line” confirms this understanding.
Furthermore it is noted that MPEP §2173.05(i) states in part: Any claim containing a negative limitation which does not have basis in the original disclosure should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. See MPEP § 2163 - § 2163.07(b) for a discussion of the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Accordingly, claim 20 contains new matter, and is rejected un §112(a).
Regarding Claim 33: Line 27-30 states: “wherein the step of determining whether the measured rod load values deviate from the normal rod load values does not rely on measured values of a suction pressure in the suction line or a discharge pressure in the discharge line.”. This subject matter was not described in such a way as to show the inventor had possession of the claimed invention, because the original disclosure does not have basis for this limitation, since the original disclosure does not describe the invention not relying on measured values of a suction pressure in the suction line or a discharge pressure in the discharge line (to determine whether the measured rod load values deviate from the normal rod load values) as claimed.
Additionally, the examiner notes that the SPEC states in part “The suction bore is connected to a suction line which commonly takes the form of a suction manifold positioned below the fluid end housing, and the discharge bore is connected to a discharge line which extends through the fluid end housing.” (Page 2 Line 15-18) And “As the plunger advances into the crossbore, the fluid is pressurized, and as the pressure of the fluid in the crossbore reaches the pressure of the fluid in the discharge line, the discharge valve opens and allows the fluid to flow through the discharge bore and into the discharge line.” (Page 3 Line 3-6) – accordingly in view of these statements it is understood that the suction line and discharge lines are external of the fluid end; additionally, the language of claim 33 which states in part “a fluid end assembly having at least one plunger bore in communication with a suction line and a discharge line,” confirms this understanding.
Furthermore it is noted that MPEP §2173.05(i) states in part: Any claim containing a negative limitation which does not have basis in the original disclosure should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. See MPEP § 2163 - § 2163.07(b) for a discussion of the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Accordingly, claim 33 contains new matter, and is rejected un §112(a).
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.
Claim(s) 20-26 and 33-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shampine US 2023/0392592 in view of Beisel US 2021/0199108 and Christinzio US 2021/0198992.
Regarding Claims 20 & 33: Shampine US 2023/0392592 discloses the limitations: A reciprocating pump (the reciprocating pump is defined by the sum of its parts and is generally indicated by element 46 in the Figures ¶0094; additionally, under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986), see MPEP §2112.02 I) comprising: a power end assembly (48, ¶0094-¶0095) having a crankshaft (62, Fig 20, ¶0095) rotationally supported therein (crankshaft 62 rotates ¶0095, thus the crankshaft 62 is inherently rotationally supported in power end 48 as claimed); a fluid end assembly (50, ¶0094) having at least one plunger bore (e.g. bore that plunger 302 reciprocates in in Fig 41) in communication with a suction line (82, ¶0095) and a discharge line (84, ¶0095), a suction valve 334 positioned between the plunger bore and the suction line (as seen in Fig 41, ¶0152), and a discharge valve 332 positioned between the plunger bore and the discharge line (as seen in Fig 41, ¶0152); a plunger 302 slidably supported in the plunger bore (as seen in Fig 41, ¶0152); a connecting rod 72 having a first end (= left end 180 of 72 in Fig 41, Fig 18, Fig 20, & Fig 65) rotationally connected to a crank pin on the crankshaft (crank pin = circular element which is located inside of the left end of 72 in Fig 20, & Fig 65) and a second end (= right end 182,186 of 72 in Fig 41, Fig 18, Fig 20, & Fig 65) configured as a wrist pin (it is, 186 is a wrist pin, ¶0106, Fig 18); a crosshead 70 having a first face (= right side/face of 70 in Fig 19 & Fig 41 which element 76 extends from) to which the plunger is connected (¶0152, Fig 41) and an opposite second face (= left side of 70 in Fig 19 that is generally indicated by 188 in Fig 19, ¶0106) comprising a crosshead recess (188, ¶0106, Fig 19, Fig 65, ¶0192) in which the wrist pin is pivotably received (¶0106), the crosshead being slidably supported in the pump such that rotation of the crankshaft results in linear reciprocating motion of the crosshead and, thus, the plunger (¶0095); and a monitoring system (the monitoring system is defined by the sum of its parts), the monitoring system comprising: a rod load sensor (410, ¶0159-¶0161, Fig 47) which is positioned in a rod load bearing path (since ¶0161 suggests putting the strain sensor 410 directly on the rod (i.e. pony rod 76) or the connecting rod (i.e. connecting rod 72) to measure load values, the prior art of Shampine discloses putting the sensor in a rod load bearing path as claimed, because both the pony rod and the connecting rod experience rod loads during operation) of the pump and is configured to measure a rod load value (i.e. strain values ¶0159-¶0161, ¶0193-¶0194) on the plunger a number of times during each cycle of the pump (i.e. continuously ¶0153); and a signal processing unit (760, Fig 92, ¶0243-¶0247) which is configured to compare the measured rod load values to normal road load values, high road load values, and low rod load values (the anomaly detection (¶0192-¶0196) which uses measured strain values to detect the anomalies – would inherently include comparing the measured strain signal to normal, high and low values of the strain signal) and, if the measured rod load values deviate from the normal rod load values (i.e. if a higher than expected strain is experienced ¶0196, a leaking valve will alter the loads on the bearings ¶0153 & ¶0159, abnormal strain and temperature values can indicate that the connecting rod is worn - ¶0194 and can be used to detect failures in the pump). Shampine US 2023/0392592 is silent regarding the limitations: a valve monitoring system for monitoring the condition of at least one of the suction valve and the discharge valve using a rod load/strain signal to provide an indication that the at least one of the suction valve and the discharge valve has failed. The prior art of Beisel US 2021/0199108 which is directed to a high pressure reciprocating pump (title, abstract, ¶0001) like Shampine US 2023/0392592, is noted.
PNG
media_image1.png
560
453
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig 1B of Beisel US 2021/0199108 (Annotated Figure Z)
However, Beisel US 2021/0199108 does disclose the limitations: a reciprocating pump (Fig 1B) including a fluid end (104, ¶0031-¶0032, also see Annotated Fig 1B of Beisel US 2021/0199108 (Annotated Figure Z) above) an inlet valve 116 and an outlet valve 118, a strain gauge (124/203, ¶0032-¶0033, Fig 1A & Fig 2) generating a strain signal (as described in ¶0039 and seen in Fig 2 the strain sensors provide signals to be measured and recorded by the computing device 206); a valve monitoring system (206, ¶0033) for monitoring the condition of at least one of the suction valve and the discharge valve (¶0035, 206 has processor 208 which executes instructions for identifying failed valves) and using the strain signal to provide an indication that the at least one of the suction valve and the discharge valve has failed (¶0023-¶0025, ¶0032, ¶0035, ¶0050-¶0053).
Hence it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the fluid end assembly and the signal processing unit (760) of Shampine US 2023/0392592 with the suction pressure transducer 204, discharge pressure transducer 205 and the computing device 206 of Beisel US 2021/0199108 in order to identify which valve has failed using the strain signal and actual pressure signals (Abstract).
Additionally, it is noted that given the disclosure of (¶0034 & ¶0031) and what is shown in Attached Figure Z of Beisel US 2021/0199108 – it is understood that the discharge pressure sensor 205 is located in the fluid end – thus Shampine as modified by Beisel ‘108 – teaches not use(ing) measured values of a discharge pressure in the discharge line – since pressure sensor 205 is not located in the discharge line connected to the fluid end 104. Furthermore while (¶0031) of Beisel US 2021/0199108 states that A similar pressure transducer (not visible) is mounted in the inlet manifold and measures the pressure in the suction manifold – it is unknown where the suction pressure transducer is located. Accordingly, Shampine US 2023/0392592 as modified by Beisel US 2021/0199108 is silent regarding the limitations: not use(ing) measured values of a suction pressure in the suction line.
However Christinzio US 2021/0198992 discloses the limitations: a fluid end (56, ¶0018) having a sensor (64, ¶0018) to measure pressure at the discharge side of the fluid end (Fig 2, ¶0018); and that a sensor(64, ¶0018) placed on the suction side of the fluid end (suction side of the fluid end = 58) to measure pressure at the suction side of the fluid end (the sensor placed at 58 would measure pressure at the suction side of the fluid end). Accordingly Christinzio US 2021/0198992 teaches placing pressure sensors in the fluid end to measure inlet and outlet pressure, thus when used in combination with the other prior art, the combination suggests not use(ing) measured values of a suction pressure in the suction line or a discharge pressure in the discharge line.
Hence 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 position of the suction pressure transducer 204 in the combination of Shampine US 2023/0392592 as modified by Beisel US 2021/0199108 by placing the suction pressure transducer in the suction side of the fluid end (e.g. suction side 58 of fluid end 56, located upstream of the valve element as seen in Fig 2) as taught by Christinzio US 2021/0198992 in order to be able to reliably sense the pressure at the inlet to the pump.
In the alternate: Shampine US 2023/0392592 as modified by Beisel US 2021/0199108 discloses the claimed invention except for " not use(ing) measured values of a suction pressure in the suction line ". It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have such a rearrangement of the suction pressure transducer 204, by placing it in the suction side of the fluid end instead of the suction line, as a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence the particular suction pressure transducer arrangement is significant. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F. 2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
--It is noted that combination of the prior art results in a valve monitoring system (Shampine – 760, 410 | Beisel – 206, 124/203,204,205) which does not use measured values of a suction pressure in the suction line or a discharge pressure in the discharge line to determine whether the measured rod load values deviate from the normal rod load values as claimed, since following the combination the both of the pressure sensors would be located in the fluid end as taught by Beisel US 2021/0199108 & Christinzio US 2021/0198992; and that combination of the prior art results in a valve monitoring system (Shampine – 760, 410 | Beisel – 206, 124/203,204,205) wherein the step of determining whether the measure rod load values deviate from the normal rod load values does not rely on measured values of a suction pressure in the suction line or a discharge pressure in the discharge line, since both claim 20 & 33 require the suction line and discharge line to be external of the fluid end--.
PNG
media_image2.png
543
974
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 41 of Shampine US 2023/0392592 (Attached Figure R)
Regarding Claims 21 & 34: Shampine US 2023/0392592 does disclose the limitations: wherein the rod load sensor is positioned between the wrist pin and the connecting rod (see Annotated Figure 41 of Shampine US 2023/0392592 (Attached Figure R) above; when the rod load sensor 410 is located directly on the connecting rod72 as suggested in ¶0161 – the sensor would be located between the wrist pin 186 and the first end 180 as seen in Attached Figure R, Fig 18, and Fig 45), or between the crosshead and the plunger (see Attached Figure R; when the rod load sensor 410 is located directly on the rod (e.g. pony rod 76) as suggested in ¶0161 – the sensor would be located between the crosshead 70 located to the left of the sensor and the plunger 302 located to the right of the sensor as seen in Attached Figure R).
Regarding Claims 22 & 35: Shampine US 2023/0392592 does disclose the limitations: wherein the plunger 302 is connected to the first face (connected to the right side/face of 70 in Fig 19 & Fig 41) of the crosshead 70 by an elongated pony shaft (pony rod 76, ¶0152), and wherein the rod load sensor is positioned between the plunger and the pony shaft (¶0161 suggest placing the strain sensing device (i.e. 410) directly on the rod (i.e. pony rod 76); and since a position on the pony rod 76 would be located between the plunger and the end of pony rod 76 connected to the crosshead, Shampine suggests the rod load sensor is positioned between the plunger and the pony shaft – as claimed).
Regarding Claim 23: Shampine US 2023/0392592 does disclose the limitations: wherein the rod load sensor comprises a load cell (because Page 25 Line 14 – Page 26 Line 5 of the SPEC indicates that the load cell used in the instant application is just a particular type of force sensor; and since strain sensors (such as strain sensing device 410 of Shampine) are known to be a special form of force sensor – the strain sensing device 410 of Shampine would inherently comprise a load cell (i.e. a force sensor)).
Regarding Claims 24 & 36: Shampine US 2023/0392592 does disclose the limitations: wherein the rod load sensor is mounted to the connecting rod (¶0161 suggest placing the rod load sensor/strain sensing device (i.e. 410) directly on the rod (i.e. connecting rod 76)).
Regarding Claim 25 & 37: Shampine US 2023/0392592 does disclose the limitations: wherein the plunger 302 is connected to the first face (connected to the right side/face of 70 in Fig 19 & Fig 41) of the crosshead 70 by an elongated pony shaft (pony rod 76, ¶0152), and wherein the rod load sensor is mounted to the pony shaft (¶0161 suggest placing the rod load sensor/strain sensing device (i.e. 410) directly on the rod (i.e. pony rod 76)).
Regarding Claim 26: Shampine US 2023/0392592 as modified by Beisel US 2021/0199108 and Christinzio US 2021/0198992 discloses in the above mentioned Figures and Specifications the limitations set forth in claim 24 or 25.
Additionally Regarding Claim 26: Shampine US 2023/0392592 as modified by Beisel US 2021/0199108 and Christinzio US 2021/0198992 discloses the claimed limitations except for: “wherein the rod load sensor comprises a linear variable differential transformer (LVDT)”. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to --design the system to use a linear variable differential transformer for the rod load sensor--, since no stated problem is solved or unexpected results obtained in having the rod load sensor being a linear variable differential transformer versus the design taught by Shampine US 2023/0392592 as modified by Beisel US 2021/0199108. Additionally, Applicant has not disclosed why it is important/critical that the rod load sensor is a linear variable differential transformer and has not demonstrated that this feature solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Specifically, Page 26 Line 6-9 of the SPEC indicates that the rod load sensor can be any sensor that can measure the deformation of a component (e.g. like the strain sensor 410 taught by Shampine). Thus, when the system is designed to use a linear variable differential transformer for the rod load sensor 410 of Shampine US 2023/0392592 as modified by Beisel US 2021/0199108 and Christinzio US 2021/0198992, it will also meet Applicant’s disclosed functional limitation of measuring the deformation of a component.
Allowable Subject Matter
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Claims 1-19 are allowed.
Regarding Claim 1: The prior art of record either alone or in combination does not teach or suggest the device recited in claim 1 including “wherein each sensor head is mounted to the crosshead; wherein each antenna head is mounted to the pump at a location in which communication is enabled between the antenna head and its corresponding sensor head when the crosshead reaches a first position during each reciprocation of the crosshead; and wherein in operation of the system for monitoring the temperature each antenna head transmits a radar pulse which is reflected by its corresponding sensor head, wherein the reflected pulse is received by the antenna head and communicated to the signal processing unit, and wherein the signal processing unit determines the temperature of the sensor head from the reflected pulse” in combination with all the other limitations recited in independent claim 1.
Additionally, while the sensor is known (NPL document) and the pump is known, the particular claimed implementation of the sensor in the pump as structurally required by the claims is non-obvious absent hindsight.
It is the Examiner’s opinion that modification of the available prior art in the claimed manner is neither contemplated nor foreseeable without the benefit of the disclosure of the instant invention. Accordingly, claims 2-13 are allowable based on their dependency on claim 1.
Further since claim(s) 14 require similar limitations that make claim 1 allowable as discussed above, claim(s) 14-19 are allowable for the same reasons.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Page 16 ¶3-Page 20 ¶3: Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach the language recited in the claims because the combination of Shapine as modified by Bissel results in a valve modifying system which still requires using pressure sensors to measure the actual suction and discharge pressures in the fluid end.
--Applicants arguments do not convince the examiner that the claims are not taught by the prior art of record. The examiner notes that as claim 20 and 33 are written, the negative claim language precludes having/using a pressure sensor to measure a suction pressure in the suction line and having/using a pressure sensor to measure a discharge pressure in the discharge line. Contrary to Applicants argument, there is no prohibition for having/using a suction pressure sensor in the fluid end or having/using a discharge pressure sensor in the fluid end. Additionally, as explained above the art of Beisel US 2021/0199108 suggests that the discharge pressure sensor is in the fluid end, and the teachings of Christinzio US 2021/0198992 provide for having the suction pressure sensor in the fluid end also. Accordingly the combination of prior art suggests determining whether the measure rod load values deviate from the normal rod load values WITHOUT having/using measured values of a suction pressure in the suction line or a discharge pressure in the discharge line – as claimed.
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 JOSEPH S HERRMANN whose telephone number is (571)270-3291. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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, ESSAMA OMGBA can be reached at 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
/JOSEPH S. HERRMANN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3746