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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 July 9, 2025 has been entered.
The amendment submitted therewith amended claims 1, 9, 17, 19, 20 and 22; canceled claims 7, 16, 21 and 23; and, added new claims 24-26.
Claim Objections
Claims 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2 “one or more sensor” should be “one or more sensors”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 8 “detecting fluid” should be “detecting leak fluid”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2 “detecting fluid” should be “detecting leak fluid”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 25 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 1 “detecting fluid” should be “detecting leak fluid”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: the “control system” in claims 9, 13 and 26.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 2 is 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.
Claim 2 is vague and indefinite because in line 3 the meaning of “substantially uncoupled” is unclear. As described at paragraph [0059] the descriptions of what uncoupled means seems to be a restatement or redundant description. For example, “the inner wall 710 and outer wall 720 may be substantially uncoupled (e.g. not coupled together)”. For purposes of examination “substantially uncoupled” will be considered as the inner and outer bellows not being secured to one another beyond the location they are sealed to one another.
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, 3, 4, 6, 8-10, 12-15 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 1-257775 (hereafter JP ‘775) in view of Matsuda et al (JP 60-93190A, hereafter Matsuda et al).
With regards to claim 1, JP ‘775 discloses a pump for introducing high-pressure treatment fluid into a well (“for introducing treatment fluid…” is considered an intended use in the preamble and does not further limit the claimed invention), comprising: an expandable bellows (18) configured to extend into a chamber (17) of a fluid end (4,5) of the pump based on application of drive fluid (the fluid in chamber 16 applied via piston 15) within the bellows, the bellows comprising an expandable wall enclosing an inner volume (inside 18).
JP ‘775 does not disclose the bellows is a double-walled bellows having an inner wall enclosing an inner volume; and an outer wall encompassing the inner wall; wherein: an annulus is disposed between the inner wall and the outer wall of the bellows, and the annulus is in fluid communication with a port.
Matsuda et al discloses a reciprocating positive displacement pump having an expandable double-walled bellows having an inner wall (4) enclosing an inner volume (5); and an outer wall (14) encompassing the inner wall; wherein: an annulus (15) is disposed between the inner wall and the outer wall of the bellows, and the annulus is in fluid communication with a port (16).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the technique of detecting leakage of a bellows member by providing a double-walled bellows enclosing an inner volume in communication with a port as taught by Matsuda et al, to improve the reliability of JP ‘775 for the predictable result of extending the lifespan and preventing catastrophic damage to the bellows pump. KSR Int’l C. V. Teleflex Inc. 550 U.S. ___, 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (Supreme Court 2007) (KSR).
With regards to claim 3, as set forth above JP ‘775 in view of Matsuda et al discloses the pump of claim 1, Matsuda et al further teaches one or more sensors (18) disposed in proximity to the port (16).
With regards to claim 4, as set forth above JP ‘775 in view of Matsuda et al discloses the pump of claim 1, Matsuda et al further teaches a fluid sensor (pressure sensor 18) in proximity to the port, configured to detect the presence of fluid (from the CONSTITUTION section “(w)hen breakage occurs to the bellows 4, a pressure in the airtight chamber 15 is varied and thereby, the breakage is detected”), or a contamination sensor in proximity to the port.
With regards to claim 6, as set forth above JP ‘775 in view of Matsuda et al discloses the pump of claim 1, Matsuda et al further teaches wherein the inner wall is configured to be at least as expandable as the outer wall. In Matsuda et al each of the inner (4) and the outer (14) walls are secured at their ends to the same plates, i.e. the stationary plate (13) and the reciprocating plate (6). The amount of expansion is determined by the reciprocating distance of plate (6) relative to the stationary plate. Therefore by each of the inner wall and the outer wall being fixed between the same plates “the inner wall is configured to be at least as expandable as the outer wall”, as claimed.
With regards to claim 8, as set forth above JP ‘775 in view of Matsuda et al discloses the pump of claim 1, Matsuda et al further teaches wherein a first one of the inner wall and the outer wall is formed of metal (see col. 3 line 38 of the translation) having an accordion-like configuration, and a second one of the inner wall and the outer wall is formed of an elastomeric material (see the last line of page 4). In Matsuda et al the pump chamber (5) is disposed within the pumping bellows (4) and the bellows (14) defining the space (15) between the inner and outer bellows is set forth as being an elastic bellows such as rubber (see the last line of page 4), i.e., the bellows (14) is elastomeric and surrounds a pumping bellows (4) made of a harder material, such as metal (see col. 3 line 38 of the translation).
With regards to claim 9, as set forth above JP ‘775 in view of Matsuda et al discloses the pump of claim 3, Matsuda et al further teaches the pump comprising a control system (the switch mentioned at page 4 line 21 of the translation, the switch satisfies the broad teaching of the control system provided in [0039] of a device receiving a signal from the sensor and controlling one or more aspects of the driver) configured to receive data from the one or more sensors (see page 4 lines 23 and 24), compare the data to a corresponding threshold, and responsive to the data exceeding the threshold (the predetermined value of line 23), initiate an action (stopping the motor (line 25).
With regards to claim 10, as set forth above JP ‘775 in view of Matsuda et al discloses the pump of claim 1. Independent claim 10 further sets forth that the pump includes a power end (2, 3 & 15 in JP ‘775), that the fluid end includes a suction valve (14) and a discharge valve (11) and, as set forth in the above rejection of claim 1, the inside volume of the JP ‘775 bellows receives drive fluid and the chamber (17) surrounding the bellows delivers fracturing fluid to the well. JP ‘775 does not teach that there is an elastomeric liner disposed within the bellows that separates the drive fluid from the treatment fluid.
In Matsuda et al the pump chamber (5) is disposed within the pumping bellows (4) and the bellows (14) defining the space (15) between the inner and outer bellows is set forth as being an elastic bellows such as rubber (see the last line of page 4), i.e., the bellows (14) is elastomeric and surrounds a pumping bellows (4) made of a harder material, such as metal (see col. 3 line 38 of the translation).
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 provide an elastomeric liner on the side of the pumping bellows opposite from the pumping chamber, i.e., within the pumping bellows, in the device of JP ‘775 to create a space having a port between the pumping bellows and the liner, as taught by Matsuda et al. Using the known technique of creating a space and a port to provide leak detection in JP ‘775 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to prevent catastrophic damage to the pump system. KSR Int’l Co. V. Teleflex Inc. 550 U.S. ___, 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (Supreme Court 2007) (KSR). It is noted that each of the valves and the bellows are configured to operate with a treatment fluid as described in lines 14 and 15 and the use of the pumps with various fluids is considered an intended use. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
With regards to claim 12, as set forth above JP ‘775 in view of Matsuda et al discloses the pump of claim 10, Matsuda et al further teaches one or more sensors (18) disposed in proximity to the port (16).
With regards to claim 13, as set forth above JP ‘775 in view of Matsuda et al discloses the pump of claim 12, Matsuda et al further teaches the pump comprising a control system (the switch mentioned at page 4 line 21 of the translation the switch satisfies the broad teaching of the control system provided in [0039] of a device receiving a signal from the sensor and controlling one or more aspects of the driver) configured to receive data from the one or more sensors (see page 4 lines 23 and 24), compare the data to a corresponding threshold, and responsive to the data exceeding the threshold (the predetermined value of line 23), initiate an action (stopping the motor (line 25).
With regards to claim 14, as set forth above JP ‘775 in view of Matsuda et al discloses the pump of claim 13, Matsuda et al further teaches wherein the inner wall is configured to be at least as expandable as the outer wall. In Matsuda et al each of the inner (4) and the outer (14) walls are secured at their ends to the same plates, i.e. the stationary plate (13) and the reciprocating plate (6). The amount of expansion is determined by the reciprocating distance of plate (6) and therefore by each of the inner and outer walls being fixed to same plates “the inner wall is configured to be at least as expandable as the outer wall” as claimed.
With regards to claim 15, as set forth above JP ‘775 in view of Matsuda et al discloses the pump of claim 10 and each of JP ‘775 and Matsuda et al teach of the bellows having accordion-like configurations (clearly shown in the figures) but do not teach of the bellows being formed of a metal. Matsuda et al teaches wherein the bellows is formed of a metal (see col. 3 line 38 of the translation).
At the time of the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the JP ‘775 pumping bellows of metal as taught by Matsuda et al, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
With regards to claim 22, as set forth above with regards to the rejection of claim 10, JP ‘775 in view of Matsuda et al discloses the pump substantially as claimed and Matsuda et al additionally discloses that the pumping bellows, i.e., bellows 4, maybe hard plastic (see pg. 3 line 38). Claim 22 sets forth that “an interior surface of the outer wall or an exterior surface of the inner wall comprises a low-friction material configured to minimize friction due to rubbing of the inner and outer walls.” Paragraph [0064] if the instant application gives PTFE as an example of a low-friction material, and thus when the outer wall/pumping bellows of JP ‘775 in view of Matsuda et al is made of a hard plastic it would have “an interior surface of the outer wall comprising a low-friction material configured to minimize friction due to rubbing of the inner and outer walls”, as claimed.
Claim(s) 2 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP ‘775 in view of Matsuda et al as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Neal et al (USPN 4,442,957).
As set forth above JP ‘775 in view of Matsuda et al disclose the invention substantially as claimed but do not teach that “the inner wall is sealingly coupled to an interior surface of the outer wall in proximity to the port, but the inner wall and the outer wall are substantially uncoupled within the chamber” or that the “liner is sealingly coupled to an interior surface of the bellows in proximity to the port, but otherwise is loose or slip fit within the bellows”.
Neal et al disclose a similar fluid driven pump and has a double-walled bellows having an outer wall/bellows (13, labeled in the annotated portion of Fig. 1 below) and an inner wall/liner (14, labeled in the annotated figure below) that is sealingly coupled to an interior surface of the outer wall (via the plate as labeled in the annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
336
611
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 a double walled/loose fit bellows system of Neal et al for the double-walled coupled bellows system of Matsuda et al since each double-walled bellows system is recognized as equivalence for their use in the fluid actuation art and selection of either of these known equivalents to create a double walled bellows having a space between the bellows would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art (Note MPEP 2144.06).
Claim(s) 17 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP ‘775 in view of Matsuda et al as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Mollatt (USPAP 2020/0217186, previously cited).
With regards to claim 17, as set forth above JP ‘775 in view of Matsuda et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed. It is noted that 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). MPEP 2112.02.
JP ‘775 in view of Matsuda et al, however, do not disclose placing the pump in communication with a hydrocarbon well, or using the pump to introduce treatment fluid into the well for a hydraulic fracturing operation.
Mollatt, however, discloses a similar positive displacement bellows (6’, 6”) pump that is placed in communication (via 37’, 37” and 15) with a hydrocarbon well and using the pump to introduce treatment fluid into the well for a hydraulic fracturing operation (see paragraphs [0003] & [0004]).
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 connect the pump of JP ‘775 in view of Matsuda et al to a hydrocarbon well and utilize the JP ‘775 in view of Matsuda et al pump to deliver treatment fluid to a well, as taught by Mollatt, in order to obtain the predictable result of delivering high pressure treatment fluid to a hydrocarbon well with a bellows pump having improved durability (see the PUPOSE section on pg. 1 of the Translation of JP ‘775) while detecting rupture in order to prevent catastrophic damage to the pump, KSR Int' l Co. V. Teleflex Inc. 550 U.S.__, 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (Supreme Court 2007) (KSR).
With regards to claim 25, the examiner gives official notice that detecting leakage by visually inspecting a weep hole is well known in the art and that determining that leakage has occurred by visually inspecting the hole, such as the hole 16 of Matsuda et al, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as a cost effective and simple well-known mechanism for determining leakage has occurred.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 20, 19, 24 and 26 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 20, and claims 19, 24 and 25 dependent therefrom, is allowable because the prior art does not teach or make obvious a method of operating a doubled-walled bellows to inject treatment fluid into a hydrocarbon well where leakage between the bellows is detected as claimed, wherein responsive to detecting leak fluid, determining based on the one or more sensors whether the detected leak fluid is drive fluid or treatment fluid; responsive to determining that the leak fluid is drive fluid, injecting drive fluid between the piston and the bellows; and responsive to determining that the leak fluid is treatment fluid, stopping introduction of treatment fluid into the well. 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 application.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-17, 22 and 25 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 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
February 28, 2026