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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/12/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarrier (US 2012/0204568) taken together with Chaudhari et al. (US20120000168) in view of Cousino Sr (US8616005).
Jarrier discloses an air treatment system (figure 3,280) for a gas turbine (110) including a housing (200) having an internal chamber with one outlet and at least one inlet (duct 190 providing the inlet and outlet from housing 200), one or more air treatment modules including a plurality of inlet air filters (220), the plurality of inlet air filters positioned prior to entry into the internal chamber of the housing, wherein the plurality of inlet ai filters are positioned entirely outside the housing at a proximal end of the housing and upstream of the internal chamber (22), one or more additional filters (200, 210), external the internal chamber (180) and downstream of the air treat modules (220). The Jarrier discloses the arrangement of parts as claimed but even if it did not the courts have that that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Jarrier does not disclose a blower as instant claim 1 nor inlet air filters having a cylindrical tubular portion configured to operate by centrifugal force as in instant claim 2.
However, Chaudhari et al disclose centrifugal inlet air filters (100, paragraph 0025-0028) for a similar turbine air treatment system (500, paragraph 0039- 0041). it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the inertial centrifugal filters of Chaudhari et al for the inlet filters of Jarrier in order to improve the filtration efficiency and decrease pressure drop as suggested by Chaudhari et al. (paragraphs 0046, 0003,0004,0005).
Cousino et al discloses in Figure 4 a blower (102) downstream of an inlet filter (114) of air treatment unit (122) t of a turbine system (8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to include a blower in the air treatment system of Jarrier as in Cousino et al in order to increase the pressure to the turbine and increase the turbine efficiency by increasing the air mass flow as suggested by Cousino Sr (col 5 lines 55- col 6 line 5, col. 8 lines 5-15).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris et al (US20200347725) taken together with Chaudhari et al. (US20120000168) in view of Cousino Sr (US8616005).
Morris et al. disclose a hydraulic fracturing unit to be mounted on a trailer (200), the hydraulic fracturing unit comprising:
a hydraulic fracturing pump (108, paragraph 0035);
a gas turbine (225) to drive the hydraulic fracturing pump, the gas turbine including an inlet assembly (220) and a gas turbine compressor (paragraph 0058,0043);
an air treatment system(215A,215B) including a housing(217B) having an internal chamber and positioned to channel (an airstream towards the inlet assembly of the gas turbine; and an air treatment module having one or more inlet air filters (215B, paragraph 0063) to filter fluid flow to the internal chamber. It is noted that the multitude of filters as mentioned in [0063] can act as both the one or more air treatment modules as well as the one or more inlet pre-cleaners.
Morris et al does not disclose the plurality of inlet air filters being positioned to knock-down debris prior to entrance into the internal chamber of the housing and to eject debris therefrom via centrifugal force, each of the plurality of inlet air filters having a cylindrical tubular portion configured to channel the air into the internal chamber, wherein the cylindrical tubular portion is positioned entirely outside the housing at a proximal end of the housing and upstream of the internal chamber; and at least one blower in fluid communication with an interior of the housing.
However, Chaudhari et al disclose centrifugal inlet air filters (100, paragraph 0025-0028) for a similar turbine air treatment system (500, paragraph 0039- 0041). it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the inertial centrifugal filters of Chaudhari et al for the inlet filters of Morris et al. in order to improve the filtration efficiency and decrease pressure drop as suggested by Chaudhari et al. (paragraphs 0046, 0003,0004,0005).
Merely changing the location of the cylindrical tubular portion to be entirely outside the housing at a proximal end of the housing and upstream of the internal chamber would merely be a rearrangement of parts MPEP 2144.04.
Cousino et al discloses in Figure 4 a blower (102) downstream of an inlet filter (114) of air treatment unit (122) of a turbine system (8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to include a blower in the air treatment system of Morris et al. as in Cousino et al in order to increase the pressure to the turbine and increase the turbine efficiency by increasing the air mass flow as suggested by Cousino Sr (col 5 lines 55- col 6 line 5, col. 8 lines 5-15).
Claim 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris et al (US20200347725) taken together with Chaudhari et al. (US20120000168) in view of Cousino Sr (US8616005).
Morris et al disclose a pumping unit comprising a gas turbine engine (225) comprising a dual fuel gas turbine engine (par 0043);
an enclosure (290) housing the gas turbine engine;
an air intake duct (220) connected to the gas turbine engine;
a housing having an internal chamber (215B air inlet filter housing)
an air treatment system(215A) connected to the air intake duct, the air treatment system comprising one or more inlet pre-cleaners (215B, Par 0063) configured to eject debris before the internal chamber (290),
a gearbox (240) mechanically linked to the gas turbine engine;
a pump (108, paragraph 0035) mechanically linked to the gearbox
In regards to claim 6 Morris et al disclose a trailer (200) configured and positioned to support both the pump and the enclosure.
Morris et al does not disclose each of the one or more inlet pre-cleaners having a cylindrical tubular portion configured to channel air toward the air intake duct and configured to eject debris via centrifugal force, wherein the cylindrical tubular portion is positioned entirely outside the housing at a proximal end of the housing an upstream of the internal chamber; and at least one blower in fluid communication with an interior of the enclosure or air treatment modules within the internal chamber.
However, Chaudhari et al discloses centrifugal inlet air filters (100, paragraph 0025-0028) for a similar turbine air treatment system (500, paragraph 0039- 0041). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the inertial centrifugal filters of Chaudhari et al for the inlet filters of Morris et al. in order to improve the filtration efficiency and decrease pressure drop as suggested by Chaudhari et al. (paragraphs 0046, 0003,0004,0005).
Merely changing the location of the cylindrical tubular portion to be entirely outside the housing at a proximal end of the housing and upstream of the internal chamber would merely be a rearrangement of parts MPEP 2144.04.
Cousino et al discloses in Figure 4 a blower (102) downstream of an inlet filter (114) of air treatment unit (122) t of a turbine system (8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to include a blower in the air treatment system of Morris et al. as in Cousino et al in order to increase the pressure to the turbine and increase the turbine efficiency by increasing the air mass flow as suggested by Cousino Sr (col 5 lines 55- col 6 line 5, col. 8 lines 5-15).
Morris et al does not disclose air treatment modules within the internal chamber as in claim 5 . However, such is well known in the art to include additional air treatment modules within an internal chamber a shown by Chaudhari et (600, figure 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include additional filter modules within the internal chamber in order to provide increased filtering and thus turbine efficiency.
Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris et al (US20200347725) taken together with Chaudhari et al. (US20120000168) in view of Cousino Sr (US8616005).
For claim 8, Morris et al discloses a pumping unit (108, paragraph 0002, par 0035),
comprising a chassis (200);
a gas turbine engine (225);
an enclosure (290);
an air intake duct (220) connected to the gas turbine engine;
a housing having an internal chamber (215B air inlet filter housing)
an air treatment system(215B) connected to the air intake duct, the air treatment system comprising one or more inlet pre-cleaners (Paragraph 0045, par 0063) before the internal chamber 290.
a gearbox (240) mechanically linked to the gas turbine engine;
a pump (positioned on the chassis and mechanically linked to the gearbox, the air treatment system, the enclosure, the gas turbine engine, and the gearbox; and
Morris et al does not disclose at least one blower in fluid communication with an interior of the enclosure.
However, Cousino et al discloses in Figure 4 a blower (102) downstream of an inlet filter (114) of air treatment unit (122) t of a turbine system (8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to include a blower in the air treatment system of Morris et al. as in Cousino et al in order to increase the pressure to the turbine and increase the turbine efficiency by increasing the air mass flow as suggested by Cousino Sr (col 5 lines 55- col 6 line 5, col. 8 lines 5-15).
Morris does not disclose that each of the one or more inlet pre-cleaners comprises a cylindrical tubular portion configured to channel air toward the air intake duct via centrifugal force, wherein the cylindrical tubular porition is positioned entirely outside the housing at a proximal end of the housing and upstream of the internal chamber. However, Chaudhari et al disclose centrifugal inlet air filters (100, paragraph 0025-0028) for a similar turbine air treatment system (500, paragraph 0039- 0041). it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the inertial centrifugal filters of Chaudhari et al for the inlet filters of Morris et al. in order to improve the filtration efficiency and decrease pressure drop as suggested by Chaudhari et al. (paragraphs 0046, 0003,0004,0005).
Merely changing the location of the cylindrical tubular portion to be entirely outside the housing at a proximal end of the housing and upstream of the internal chamber would merely be a rearrangement of parts MPEP 2144.04.
In regards to claim 10 Morris et al disclose wherein the gas turbine engine comprises a dual fuel gas turbine engine (paragraph 0043).
Morris et al does not disclose air treatment modules within the internal chamber as in claim 8. However, such is well known in the art to include additional air treatment modules within an internal chamber a shown by Chaudhari et (600, figure 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include additional filter modules within the internal chamber in order to provide increased filtering and thus turbine efficiency.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 5, 6, 8 and 10 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMBER ROSE ORLANDO whose telephone number is (571)270-3149. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30-4:30.
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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at (571) 272-2450. 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.
AMBER ROSE ORLANDO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1731
/AMBER R ORLANDO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights