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 amendment to the claims filed on December 20, 2025, has been entered. Claims 1, 10, 16 and 18 are currently amended. Claims 1 – 20 are pending and under examination. The amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection.
Drawings
The drawings were received on December 21, 2025. These drawings are acceptable.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
New Grounds of Rejection
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 – 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korach et al. (US 2014/0238683 A1), in view of Dunton et al. (US Pat. 4,904,089) and/or Ross (US Pat. No. 5,637,350), and further in view of McIver et al. (US 2017/0021318 A1).
Regarding claim 1. Korach et al. teaches sand coating system (100), comprising:
a sand carrier ([0067], [0071]) operably connected to transport an amount of sand to a coating mixer (“blender unit” 120) ([0041], [0077]);
a liquid additive dispenser operably connected to spray a liquid additive onto the amount of sand before the amount of sand is transported into the coating mixer ([0041] “the carrier 100 containing a blender unit 121, a hydration unit compartment 126 on the opposing side of the carrier 100 (also shown in FIG. 7) containing a hydration unit 127, and a number of different compartments disposed between the blender unit compartment 120 and the hydration unit compartment 126”, see [0008], [0042], [0044]-[0046],[0053]);
a volumetric powder dispenser (172) operably connected to add an amount of powder additive to the coating mixer (“the conveying structure 172 is not integrated with the carrier 100 ([0050] discloses it can be integrated), but is configured to operationally cooperate with the blender unit 121 to convey proppant to the blender unit from a location spaced from the blender unit”, [0049]-[0050]);
a control unit operably connected to the sand carrier, the liquid additive dispenser, the volumetric powder dispenser, and the coating mixer in a manner that enables the control unit to control the functionality of each (see [0073], and [0056]-[0058], [0065]); and
a scaffold (e.g., “frame structure” 102, 302; [0034]-[0035], [0059]) that supports the sand carrier, the liquid additive dispenser, the volumetric powder dispenser, and the coating mixer, and defines a footprint of the system ([0046], [0081], FIGs. 1, 2, 4-9, 12-13).
Korach et al. does not explicitly disclose, wherein the coating mixer comprises a vertical exit that dispenses coated sand in a downward direction, the coating mixer configured to blend the sand with at least one of the liquid additive and the powder additive to produce a coated sand for use as a proppant within a fracturing fluid, and the control unit operably connected to the sand carrier, the liquid additive dispenser, the volumetric powder dispenser, and the coating mixer in a manner that enables the control unit to control the functionality of each in response to downhole conditions at a well-site.
However, the rearrangement of the coating mixer exit to a vertical downward direction would have not modified the operation of the sand coating system.
Furthermore, coating mixers comprising a vertical exit are customary and well known in the art. For example, Dunton et al. (Col. 2, lines 65-68, cont. Col. 3, lines 1-46) teaches a particle wetting process and apparatus (Abstract), comprising an upright mixing vessel 10 (a coating mixer), having -inter alia- water fill lines 13, water storage tank 14, water inlet 15, storage tank 14, the operation of the mixing vessel is operated by a computer 19, a bottom outlet 36 (analogous to the claimed “a vertical exit that dispenses coated sand in a downward direction”) (Col. 3, lines 63-68, cont. Col. 4, lines 1-13; FIG. 2).
Similarly, Ross teaches an encapsulating chamber 26 (analogous to the claimed “coating mixer”), comprising a spray system, spray nozzles 28 (Col. 3, lines 49-64), a collecting bath 32 with a bottom discharge 36 (analogous to the claimed “a vertical exit that dispenses coated sand in a downward direction”) (Col. 4, lines 6-32).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the exit in the sand coating mixer of Korach et al. sand coating system, as suggested by Dunton et al. or Ross, since it have been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.04 (VI) (C):
It has generally been recognized that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Gazda, 104 USPQ 400.
As to the limitation “the coating mixer configured to blend the sand with at least one of the liquid additive and the powder additive to produce a coated sand for use as a proppant within a fracturing fluid, and control unit operably connected to the sand carrier, the liquid additive dispenser, the volumetric powder dispenser, and the coating mixer in a manner that enables the control unit to control the functionality of each in response to downhole conditions at a well-site”.
McIver et al., in the same field of endeavor of on-site blending systems and methods [0003, 0010], teaches “a control system configured to dynamically regulate the feeder regulators to match the delivery rate of all of the ingredients into the blender with the exit rate of the blend mixture from the blender.” [0011], and discloses that “An on-site blending system allows oil field personnel to blend two or more products with precision. This enables pressure pumpers to precisely blend products for specific well designs that call for a blend of proppants such as a coated sand of a specific color with another proppant, a sand that is chemically coated with a traceable tag to allow the proppant to be traced down hole, or a blend of proppant and other bulk solid additives for tracking proppant position or performance.” [0063].
[0103] “the flow of granular solid components from the silos or storage containers of the invention to the container, hopper or blender is automatically regulated and controlled by a pre-set program or a program determined on-site by conditions at the site operation [analogous to the claimed “the control unit operably connected to the sand carrier, the liquid additive dispenser, the volumetric powder dispenser, and the coating mixer in a manner that enables the control unit to control the functionality of each in response to downhole conditions at a well-site”].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify the coating mixer in the sand coating system of Korach/Dunton/Ross to be configured to blend the sand with at least one of the liquid additive and the powder additive to produce a coated sand for use as a proppant within a fracturing fluid, as suggested by the prior art of McIver et al. [0063], to dynamically regulate the feeder regulators to match the delivery rate of all of the ingredients into the blender with the exit rate of the blend mixture from the blender, as taught by McIver et al. [0063]. See MPEP 2143 (I)(G).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control unit in the sand coating system of Korach/Dunton/Ross/McIver, so that the control unit operably connected to the sand carrier, the liquid additive dispenser, the volumetric powder dispenser, and the coating mixer in a manner that enables the control unit to control the functionality of each in response to downhole conditions at a well-site, as suggested by the prior art of McIver et al. [0103], to dynamically regulate the feeder regulators to match the delivery rate of all of the ingredients into the blender with the exit rate of the blend mixture from the blender, as taught by McIver et al. [0063]. See MPEP 2143 (I)(G).
Regarding claim 2. Korach/Dunton/Ross/McIver teaches the sand coating system of claim 1, wherein the sand carrier, the liquid additive dispenser, the coating mixer, and the control unit are substantially contained within a lower container, and the lower container is transportable; and wherein the volumetric powder dispenser is substantially contained within a top container, and the top container is transportable (see Korach FIGs. 1, 2, 4-9, 12-13).
Regarding claim 3. Korach/Dunton/Ross/McIver teaches the sand coating system of claim 1, except for, wherein the system footprint is less than about ten feet wide and about fifty feet long.
However, scaling up or down the sand coating system is withing the skillset of one of ordinary skill in the art. Further, Korach et al. [0067] discloses that the size of the modular system is job-size requirements dependent.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to scale the footprint of the sand coating system of Korach/Dunton/Ross/McIver based on the requirement of a specific job size, as suggested by Korach et al., since such a modification would involve only a mere change in size of a component. Scaling up or down of an element which merely requires a change in size is generally considered as being within the ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.04 (IV) (A):
In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) Mere scaling up or down of a prior art process capable of being scaled up or down would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled.
Regarding claim 4 and claim 11. Korach/Dunton/Ross/McIver teaches the sand coating system of claim 1 and claim 10, respectively, further comprising: a charge hopper (e.g., see Korach et al. FIG. 3, integrated conveying structure 172) operably connected to provide sand to the sand carrier and is operably connected to the control unit (see Korach et al. [0049]).
Regarding claim 5. Korach/Dunton/Ross/McIver teaches the sand coating system of claim 4, further comprising: a sand transporter operably connected to provide sand to the charge hopper (Korach et al. [0049] discloses “the integrated conveying structure comprises one or more conveyers, while in other embodiments, the integrated conveying structure comprises one or more augers. Other conveying structure is also considered.”).
Regarding claim 6 and claim 12. Korach/Dunton/Ross/McIver teaches the sand coating system of claim 1 and claim 11, respectively, further comprising: one or more powder additive silos operably connected to provide powder additives to the volumetric powder dispenser ([0055] “the proppant storage compartment carries sand as the proppant. Other types of proppant that may be carried in the proppant storage compartments include, for example, silica sand, resin-coated sand, and man-made ceramics or other particulates. Because each of the carriers 102, 202, 204 includes a door at the end, workers can connect the integrated conveying structures 172, 220 without being exposed to the harsh weather environment outside the carriers.”); and
one or more liquid additives that can be sprayed by the liquid additive dispenser ([0032] “a single carrier may include one or more integrated tanks for fracking liquid and/or a proppant, an integrated piping system such as a piping manifold, integrated sand conveying and handling equipment, integrated electrical and monitoring systems, and an integrated heating system, among other equipment or systems.”, see [0034] “the carrier 100 may include integrated fluid tanks that carry fracking supplies, such as flowable fracking materials, carry fracking pumps configured to pressurize and pump fracking material from the carrier 100 to the well site, carry blender units and hydration trailers, and other equipment and supplies.”, see [0062]).
Regarding claim 7. Korach/Dunton/Ross/McIver teaches the sand coating system of claim 1, wherein the control unit is operably connected to a frac van (e.g., “control center truck 216”, Korach et al. [0056]-[0057]; see Korach et al. [0059] “integrated fracking system”, “mobility-enabling structure 306”, “The mobility enabling structure 306 in this embodiment comprises a semi-trailer with landing gear 308 and a king-pin 310 for connecting with a fifth-wheel coupling on a tractor or towing truck”, FIG. 12).
Regarding claim 8. Korach/Dunton/Ross/McIver teaches the sand coating system of claim 1, wherein the vertical exit dispenses coated sand into a blender (e.g., modified Korach et al. coating system with the coating mixer of Dunton et al. or Ross dispensing into Korach et al. blender unit 121).
Regarding claim 9. Korach/Dunton/Ross/McIver teaches the sand coating system of claim 1, except for, wherein the vertical exit is at least four feet above the ground where the system is located.
However, the rearrangement of the coating mixer vertical exit to be at least four feet above the ground where the system is located, would have been within the skillset of one of ordinary skill in the art, and the modification would have done no more than produce predictable results. Furthermore, Korach et al. recognizes that the scale and arrangement of the sand coating system is job-size dependent.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the vertical exit of the sand coating mixer of Korach/Dunton/Ross by routine experimentation, so that the vertical exit is at an optimal height with respect to the ground where the system is located and the modification would have not change the sand coating system operation, since it have been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.04 (VI) (C):
It has generally been recognized that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Gazda, 104 USPQ 400.
Regarding amended claim 10. Korach/Dunton/Ross/McIver teaches a system for coating a proppant as discussed in claim 1 above. The examiner notes that, after the amendment, the only difference between the coating systems remains that claim 1 discloses a “sand coating system” and claim 10 discloses a “a system for coating a proppant”. However, sand is a type of proppant, as disclosed by Korach et al. [0055] (“In some embodiments, the proppant storage compartment carries sand as the proppant. Other types of proppant that may be carried in the proppant storage compartments include, for example, silica sand, resin-coated sand, and man-made ceramics or other particulates.”). Moreover, the difference is directed to the material worked upon by the coating systems and to the intended use of the coating systems, while the systems are structurally identical and capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble.
As to the limitations directed to the material worked upon (sand, proppant), the material worked upon is not germane to the patentability of apparatus itself and such fails to further limit the structure of the apparatus, MPEP 2115. See MPEP § 2111.02 (II) “To satisfy an intended use limitation which is limiting, a prior art structure which is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble meets the claim.” See, e.g., In re Schreiber: "It is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable." In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997). We conclude that this is true whether an intended use recitation is recited in the preamble or, as in the present case, in a wherein clause. See Griffin v. Bertina, 283 F.3d 1029, 1034 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
Regarding claim 13. Korach/Dunton/Ross/McIver teaches the system of claim 12, wherein the control unit is operably connected to a frac van on the well-site (e.g., “control center truck 216”, Korach et al. [0056]-[0057]; see Korach et al. [0059] “integrated fracking system”, “mobility-enabling structure 306”, “The mobility enabling structure 306 in this embodiment comprises a semi-trailer with landing gear 308 and a king-pin 310 for connecting with a fifth-wheel coupling on a tractor or towing truck”, FIG. 12), and the control unit receives real-time, down-hole information provided to the control unit by the frac van (Korach et al. [0057] “the control center truck 216 communicates via wireless transmission with one or more of the components of the frack site. Accordingly, the control center truck 216 may monitor and control operation of the system 200 while disposed within the system 200. In some embodiments, rather than being a part of a truck, the control center is permanently integrated in the carrier. As such, operation can take place without rig set-up at the frack site, saving time and effort and reducing expense.”).
Regarding claim 14. Korach/Dunton/Ross/McIver teaches the system of claim 13, wherein the proppant is sand (Korach et al. [0055] “In some embodiments, the proppant storage compartment carries sand as the proppant.”).
Regarding claim 15. Korach/Dunton/Ross teaches the system of claim 13, except for specifically disclosing, wherein the footprint is less than about ten feet wide and about sixty feet long.
However, scaling up or down the sand coating system is withing the skillset of one of ordinary skill in the art. Further, Korach et al. [0067] discloses that the size of the modular system is job-size requirements dependent.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to scale the footprint of the sand coating system of Korach/Dunton/Ross based on the requirement of a specific job size, as suggested by Korach et al., since such a modification would involve only a mere change in size of a component. Scaling up or down of an element which merely requires a change in size is generally considered as being within the ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.04 (IV) (A):
In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) Mere scaling up or down of a prior art process capable of being scaled up or down would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled.
Regarding claim 16. Korach/Dunton/Ross/McIver teaches a system for coating sand at a well-site (as discussed in claim 1), comprising;
a silo-mixer containing an amount of sand (Korach et al. [0032] “ a single carrier may include one or more integrated tanks for fracking liquid and/or a proppant, an integrated piping system such as a piping manifold, integrated sand conveying and handling equipment, integrated electrical and monitoring systems, and an integrated heating system, among other equipment or systems.”; McIver discloses [0091] “the blender system 1000 includes a silo monitor 1032 for the primary silo 1030 and a silo monitor 1022 for the secondary silo 1020. The use of silo monitoring within the blending process is described in more detail below.”);
a first input feeder operably connected to the silo-mixer in a manner that allows an additive to be introduced into the silo-mixer via the first input feeder (Korach et al. [0035] “the carrier 100 may include integrated fluid tanks that carry fracking supplies, such as flowable fracking materials, carry fracking pumps configured to pressurize and pump fracking material from the carrier 100 to the well site, carry blender units and hydration trailers, and other equipment and supplies. Integrated piping systems, such as integrated piping manifolds, extend between and connect different compartments and levels to direct fracking material from the fluid tanks directly or indirectly to the pumps, or to other fracking equipment.”, [0062] “piping is intended to encompass rigid pipes, tubes including flexible tubes, hoses, or other and liquid carrying conduits.”), the silo-mixer (e.g., McIver silo-mixer encompass by blender system 1000) configured to blend the sand with the additive to produce coated sand for adding to a fracturing fluid (see McIver et al. [0104]);
a first input storage mechanism operably connected to the first input feeder in a manner that enables the first input storage mechanism to provide the additive to the first input feeder (e.g., Korach et al. [0042] discloses, “The manifold and pump room 164 may include an integrated manifold 165 in communication with the fluid tanks 122. The integrated tank piping system 165 connects each of the fluid tanks 122 and in some embodiments, extends to the sides of the carrier 100 in a manner permitting connection to adjacent carriers or other equipment. The integrated tank piping system 165 may also connect the fluid tanks 122 to other equipment, such as the blender unit 121.”, see Korach et al. [0035]-[0042], FIGs. 3-5); and
a control unit operably connected to the first input storage mechanism and to the silo- mixer in a manner that enables the control unit to control the functionality of each in response to downhole conditions at a well-site (see Korach et al. [0056]-[0057], and the discussion of claim 1 above in view of McIver et al.).
Claim(s) 17 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korach et al. (US 2014/0238683 A1), in view of Dunton et al. (US Pat. 4,904,089) and/or Ross (US Pat. No. 5,637,350), and McIver et al. (US 2017/0021318 A1), as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Diver (US 2021/0316475 A1).
Regarding claim 17. Korach/Dunton/Ross/McIver teaches the system of claim 16, except for, wherein the silo-mixer is mounted on one or more load-cells and the load-cells are operably connected to the control unit.
In the same field of endeavor of mixing tanks, Diver [0062] teaches “Dry mix delivered via the dry mix inputs 397, 398 is controlled by the blend controller and the mixing load cells monitor the input quantity of dry mix as it fills the mixing tanks 309, 310 in order for the blend controller to determine when to slow and stop the delivery of dry mix.”
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify in the same way the system for coating sand at a well-site of Korach/Dunton/Ross/McIver with load-cells, so that the silo-mixer is mounted on one or more load-cells and the load-cells are operably connected to the control unit, as suggested and taught by Dicer [0062], for the purpose of monitor the input quantity of the mixing materials as they fill the silo-mixer in order for the control unit determine when to slow and stop the feeds of materials, as suggested and taught by Diver [0062]. See MPEP 2143 (I)(G).
Regarding claim 18. Korach/Dunton/Ross/McIver/Diver teaches system of claim 17, further comprising:
a second input feeder operably connected to the silo-mixer in a manner that allows a second additive to be introduced into the silo-mixer via the second input feeder (see Korach et al. FIG. 5, showing several tanks 122 in fluid communication with the silo-mixer, as disclosed by Korach et al. [0035]), the silo-mixer (e.g., McIver silo-mixer encompass by blender system 1000) configured to blend the sand with the additive to produce coated sand (see McIver et al. [0104]);
a second input storage mechanism operably connected to the second input feeder in a manner that enables the second input storage mechanism to provide the second additive to the second input feeder (see Korach et al. FIG. 5, [0035], [0052]-[0054]).
As to the limitations “and the second additive is a powder additive”, the limitation tries to further limit the system for coating by indicating the material worked upon by the system, however, the material worked upon is not germane to the patentability of apparatus itself and such fails to further limit the structure of the apparatus. MPEP 2115. Nonetheless, the input storage and input feeder’s mechanisms of Korach/Dunton/Ross/McIver/Diver are capable of store additives in powder form, e.g., Korach et al. [0051] discloses the use of “chemicals and proppants”, and [0056] “Exemplary chemicals in the storage tanks 214 on the carrier may include, for example, acids such as hydrochloric acid or acetic acid, sodium chloride, polyacrylamide, ethylene glycol, borate salts, sodium and potassium carbonates, glutaraldehyde, guar gum and other water-soluble gelling agents, citric acid, isopropanol, methanol, isopropyl alcohol, 2-butoxyethanol, and ethylene glycol.”); and
the second input storage mechanism is operably connected to the control unit (see Korach et al. [0056]-[0057]; McIver et al. [0011, 0063, 0104]).
Regarding claim 19. Korach/Dunton/Ross/McIver/Diver teaches the system of claim 16, wherein the control unit is operably connected to a frac van on the well-site and the control unit receives real-time, down-hole information provided to the control unit by the frac van (see Korach et al. [0056]-[0059]).
Regarding claim 20. Korach/Dunton/Ross/McIver/Diver teaches the system of claim 19, wherein the silo-mixer is operably connected to a surge hopper in a manner that allows the silo-mixer to discharge coated sand into the surge hopper (e.g., Korach et al [0042]-[0048], discloses that the blender unit 121 can be operatively connected to fluid tanks 122 through the tank piping system 165, hence fluid tanks 122 working as a surge hopper as claimed).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments are based on newly amended limitations which have been addressed by the new grounds of rejection above.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Li, Gang (CN 113942753 B): discloses a dry powder mortar anti-blocking storage device (silo-mixer), comprising a primary storage tank, a primary conveying assembly, a secondary storage tank, an anti-blocking assembly and a secondary conveying assembly, the bottom of the primary storage tank is provided with multiple sets of conveying assembly.
Zhang, Kun (CN 113200248 A): discloses a full-automatic sand storing and sand conveying device.
Grimes et al. (US 2021/0354910 A1): discloses mobile proppant delivery system may include a system for unloading proppant transport trailers, storing proppant in silos, and feeding proppant to frac operations. The system may include drive-over conveyors, swiveling distribution heads, internal silo bucket elevators, gravity feed, choke filling, and bases designed with internal conveying systems.
Perry (US Pat. No. 4,775,275): discloses mobile-type batch plants.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDGAREDMANUEL TROCHE whose telephone number is (571)272-9766. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sam Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/EDGAREDMANUEL TROCHE/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/JEFFREY M WOLLSCHLAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742