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 .
Status of the Application
This Office action is in response to the amendment of August 20, 2025 which amended claims 1, 2, 4 and 6 and canceled claim 5.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The substitute Specification and the Abstract of August 20, 2025 are approved and overcome the previously set forth objections thereto.
Claim Objections
The previously set forth claim objections have been overcome.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4 and 6 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. The disclosure does not set forth how to judge or determine a cylinder status of healthy, mild wear, severe wear, and failure “according to data abnormality”. The particular steps or algorithm for judging each state from the sensor data gathered and analyzed to determine the data abnormality has not been disclosed.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The terms “healthy, mild wear, severe wear, and failure” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The terms are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. While these terms are commonly used the judgement of what each limitation means can change from person-to-person or case-by-case basis.
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, as understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Netecke (USPN 11,624,358) on view of Li et al (USPN 11,047,379) and CN 201220137128 U (hereafter CN ‘128).
With regards to claim 1, Netecke discloses a five-cylinder (see col. 14, lines 43-45) drilling (see the paragraph spanning cols. 4 & 5) pump system (158/201; see Fig. 2-4 especially), comprising: a drilling pump group (Fig. 2-4), a frequency conversion control room (170, 172, 184 (Fig. 1); 204 (Fig. 2); note that from the disclosure and the standard terminology in the art it is clear that a control room includes control equipment which is capable of performing the noted function); and a pump health system (200, 184, 204, see the sensors, for example the rotary speed sensor 206 on the motor crankshaft including an encoder see col. 12, lines 4-10, measured throughout and the discussion of col. 7 lines 34-67); wherein: the drilling pump set comprises a base (the bottom surface of crack housing 268 in Fig. 2), and the base is provided with a transmission assembly 270, a power end assembly 208, and a hydraulic end assembly 210; the frequency conversion control room is used to provide frequency-changing AC power (note that the equipment control provides control signals to the VFD controller 212, see col. 12 lns. 11-25), and would thus realize the control and protection of the drilling pump group.
Further, Netecke the hydraulic end health diagnosis system (200, 184, 204; see the discussion from col. 15 lines 20 thru col. 17 line 38, note in particular col. 15 line 33, and 34) comprises an HMI module (324, 326, 188, 186; see col. 16 lines 23-55), a control module and sensors installed on site; wherein the HMI module has the functions of reading, storing sampled data, periodic automatic filing (as explained from col. 15 lines 20 thru col. 17 line 38). Netecke does not discuss automatically deleting data after expiration/a period of time. However, the Examiner gives previously gave official notice that deleting older data is well-known in the art, which was not challenged. This is taken as an admission that this material is prior art. As previously noted, at the time of the effective filing date it would have been obvious to perform the noted functions in order to create storage space for current data given that any memory is limited in size.
Further, in Netecke the HMI includes a pump health information management interface, i.e., the output device 328 which can include a video screen displaying data (see the paragraph spanning columns 16 and 17) which would allow a user viewing the pump health information management interface to perform the desired results of to realize data display, real-time analysis and historical analysis.
Netecke does not disclose that the pump health system 200 comprises a power end health diagnosis system and a fluid end health diagnosis system, or a lubrication system.
Li et al discloses a similar five-cylinder pump including a pump health system (the diagnosis system of col. 2 line 62 thru col. 3 line 12) including a power end health diagnosis system (col. 3 lines 1-3 and 13-32) and a fluid end health diagnosis system (col. 2 lines 66 & 67 and col. 3 lines 33-54). At column 3 lines 33-54 Li discloses that the valves are being monitored and that vibration sensors on the valves and cylinders are used which it believed satisfies determining the wear and condition as understood from the applicant’s disclosure.
At the time of the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to expand the capabilities of the Netecke pump health system to include a power end health diagnosis system and a fluid end health diagnosis system as taught by Li et al so that sudden emergencies are prevented, damages are reduced and maintenance is improved thus extending the service life of the pump (see Li et al col. 2 lines 58-60).
CN ‘128 discloses a similar VFD driven pump including a motor 10, a fracturing pump 6, a transmission 8, a frequency conversion control room 16, a pump health system 19 including a plurality of sensors including a motor temperature sensor 25, motor speed sensor 24, a pump output flow sensor 20, an outlet pressure sensor 21 and a lubrication system 13 which is monitored by oil pressure sensors 22 and oil temperature sensors 23 of the pump health system.
At the time of the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a lubrication system, and its monitoring/health diagnosis features, into the system of Netecke in view of Li et al in order to provide the commonly understood benefits of lubrication machinery wear points and thus prolonging the life of the machinery.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Netecke in view of Li et al and CN ‘128 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CN 109412234 A (hereafter CN ‘324).
As set forth above Netecke in view of Li et al and CN ‘128 disclose an efficient five-cylinder drilling pump system according to claim 1. It is additionally noted that CN ‘128 describes sensing motor temperature with 25 and that Netecke discloses the power end including crank shaft bearings (see col. 10 lines 4-11). But, Netecke in view of Li et al and CN ‘128 do not disclose that the power end health diagnosis system comprises a winding temperature sensor installed on a main motor of the drilling pump set, a motor bearing temperature sensor assembled on a motor bearing, or a crankshaft main bearing temperature sensor used on a crankshaft in a drilling pump to detect temperature of the crankshaft main bearing.
CN ‘324 discloses a VFD drive motor for a fracturing pump which in the translation states that “(a)ccording to one embodiment, the electric motor further comprises a winding temperature sensor, a bearing temperature sensor, pressure sensor, cooling water conductivity sensor. In the embodiment adopts the direct transmission mode, the fault rate of the system is low, the efficiency high, saves maintenance cost, reduces the energy consumption”.
At the time of the effective filing date of the application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the winding temperature sensor and the motor bearing temperature sensor of CN ‘324 for the generic motor temperature sensor of CN ‘128 in order to obtain the predictable result of obtaining a clearer temperature picture of the motor electrical part and rotating parts and thus a more in depth understanding of the condition of the motor. KSR Int' l Co. V. Teleflex Inc. 550 U.S.__, 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (Supreme Court 2007) (KSR). It also would have been obvious to utilize a bearing temperature sensor, such as the bearing temperature sensor of CN ‘324, to measure the crankshaft bearing of Netecke since CN ‘324 notices that bearings are a source of wear and failure in a machine an measuring the temperature of the bearing can “save maintenance cost and reduce energy consumption.”
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Netecke in view of Li et al and CN ‘128 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stewart (USPAP 2021/0018001).
As set forth above Netecke in view of Li et al and CN ‘128 disclose an efficient five-cylinder drilling pump system according to claim 1. It is additionally noted that Li et al discloses that the pump health system will monitor the sensed data and when a specified value (the monitoring standard value of Li et al) is reached raise an alarm in response thereto (see col. 7 lines 50-55). Further, CN ‘128 discloses a temperature sensor 23 for detecting temperature on a main oil circuit of the lubrication system; and an oil pressure sensor 22 for detecting a pressure of the main oil circuit of the lubrication system; and Netecke discusses in numerous places that data is transmitted to the various controllers by either wireless or wired/cable transmission mechanisms (see for example col. 6 lines 17-20 and col. 7 lines 60-67).
Netecke in view of Li et al do not disclose the health diagnosis system of the power end further comprises a temperature sensor for detecting an internal temperature of an oil tank of the lubrication system.
Stewart discloses a lubrication system for the power end of a pump including an oil tank 304 and a monitoring system including oil temperature sensor in the lubrication circuit (see the last sentence of [0043]) and an oil temperature sensor 310 inside the tank (see [0051]).
At the time of the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to provide an oil tank, as taught by Stewart, as a well-known mechanism for suppling oil to an existing pump or allowing a pump to be retrofit with lubrication (see the last sentence of [0050]). It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the instant application to provide a temperature sensor inside the oil tank, in addition to the oil temperature sensor in the lubrication circuit, as taught by CN ‘128 and Stewart, to get a more complete picture of the temperature changes occurring throughout the lubrication system.
Claim(s) 6, as understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Netecke in view of Li et al and CN ‘128 as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of WO 2020/185803 (hereafter Stewart ‘803).
As set forth above Netecke in view of Li et al and CN ‘128 disclose an efficient five-cylinder drilling pump system according to claim 5, wherein: the hydraulic end health diagnosis system comprises an output pressure sensor (see Li et al col. 3 lines 51-54 and 21 of CN’128), a speed sensor in the form of an encoder (see Netecke col. 12 line 8); the discharge pressure sensor is arranged on the discharge manifold for testing the pressure of the liquid; a vibration sensor is installed on the suction chamber to measure the vibration data of the hydraulic end suction cylinder (see the vibration sensor of Li et al at col.3 lines 40-43 mounted on the lower/suction valve); and the encoder is used to measure the speed/trajectory of each piston mechanism.
Netecke et al do not specifically teach the hydraulic end health diagnosis system comprises multiple strain gauge sensors, each strain gauge sensor is arranged on a surface of the hydraulic end assembly to measure the stress of the respective fluid cylinder; pressure sensors are respectively arranged on the suction chamber of the hydraulic end assembly; the vibration sensor being a speed sensor or the speed sensor including a proximity switch.
Stewart ‘803 discloses the use of proximity switches (see page 2 lines 26 & 27) and the use of strain gauges arranged on the surface of the fluid end (see the last line of page 2 through page 3 line 7).
At the time of the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to utilize a position sensor in the form of a switch and to provide strain gauge sensors as taught by Stewart ‘803 in order to, in the case of the proximity switch, provide the starting point for the trajectory determination of the encoder of Netecke, thus allowing for a complete trajectory picture to be developed. With regards to the provision of the plural pressure sensors at the inlet of each pump the examiner gives official notice that it is common to provide such inlet pressure sensors and that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide such suction pressure sensors and the strain gauge sensors taught by Stewart ‘803 as a mechanism for monitoring the pressure throughout the full cycle of each pump chamber. Lastly, the Examiner previously gave official notice that it is common to utilize speed sensors as a vibration sensor, which was not challenged. This is taken as an admission that this material is prior art. Thus, the Examiner finds that at the time of the effective filing date of the application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a plurality of speed sensors in order to obtain the predictable result of monitoring vibration, thus providing the vibration sensing mechanism generically mentioned in li et al, see KSR Int' l Co. V. Teleflex Inc. 550 U.S.__, 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (Supreme Court 2007) (KSR).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 20, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues on page 16 lines 6-11 that “Netecke fails to teach an HMI module comprising a pump health information management interface to realize data display, real-time analysis and historical analysis, fails to teach judging a cylinder status according to data abnormality, and fails to teach that the cylinder status comprises: healthy, mild wear, severe wear, and failure.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Netecke discloses an output interfaces which is capable of displaying the information that would allow the user to perform the intended uses and obtain the desired results of to realize data display, real-time analysis and historical analysis. Furthermore, to the degree understood and as clearly as can be understood from the applicant’s disclosure the teachings of Netecke in view of Li et al and CN ‘128 teaches and makes obvious judging a cylinder status according to data abnormality, and fails to teach that the cylinder status comprises: healthy, mild wear, severe wear, and failure.
With regards to the Applicant’s arguments with regards to what the claimed invention can accomplish (i.e., “With such a HMI module, the pump system can monitor the pumping equipment in real time, use electronic monitoring to track pump performance parameters in real time, display the health status of the pump in real time, provide predictive pump inspection instructions, reduce unpredicted shutdown of equipment, improve equipment stability and reduce overall maintenance costs.
Even more, the pump system of the instant invention can establish a remote expert online diagnosis system, and use the big data platform to conduct real-time diagnosis of the operating status of the client's drilling pump, predict the life of key components such as bearings, crossheads, slides, and hydraulic cylinders, and predict
the total life of cylinder liners, pistons, and valves, so as to achieve a long life and solve major technical problems.
Both Li and CN '128 are silent about an HMI module with above features. Therefore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Neteckc with the teachings of Li and CN '128 to provide a five- cylinder drilling pump system comprising an HMI module with data display, real-time analysis and historical analysis functions, or an HMI module for judging a cylinder status that may be healthy, mild wear, severe wear, or failure.” ). These features are not fully set forth in the claims. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the above noted features) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
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 CHARLES G FREAY whose telephone number is (571)272-4827. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri: 8:00 - 5:00.
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
CGF
September 29, 2025