DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed June 9, 2026 has been entered. Claims 21 – 39 are pending in the application with claims 1 – 20 being cancelled. The amendment to the claims has overcome the claim objections and 35 USC 112 rejections set forth in the last Non-Final Action mailed December 10, 2025. Applicant’s request for nonstatutory double patenting rejections to be held in abeyance is acknowledged.
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.
Claim 31 is 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.
Claim 31 recites the limitation “between 5000 HP and 1000 HP” in line 2. In view of the disclosure in ¶5, ¶7, ¶27 and ¶42 of the originally filed specification, the specification fails to provide support for ranges below 5000 HP (in particular, between 1000 HP and 5000 HP). The applicant has disclosed a starting point of “5000 HP” in the filed specification. Therefore, this limitation is a new matter.
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 21 – 39 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.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “wherein one of the first lubrication unit or the second lubrication unit comprises both independent lubrication fluid lines and a common lubrication fluid line, wherein components having a higher rotation speed are lubricated by the independent lubrication fluid lines and components having a lower rotation speed share the common lubrication fluid line” in last four lines. The claim is indefinite for following reasons:
With respect to phrase “components having a higher rotation speed are lubricated by the independent lubrication fluid lines and components having a lower rotation speed share the common lubrication fluid line”: It is unclear as to whether “components” having a higher rotation speed and “components” having a lower rotation speed are same as or different from or part of “components of the plunger pump” claimed in line 8 of claim 21.
With respect to phrases “a common lubrication fluid line” and “components having a lower rotation speed share the common lubrication fluid line”:
It is unclear as to what makes a line “common” from a physical or structural standpoint: does “common” mean a single continuous manifold or header pipe from which sub-branches extend? Does it mean multiple branch lines originate from the lower-pressure pump?
A plunger pump is a five-cylinder pump (as in claim 32 and ¶42 of the filed specification). Consequently, there are multiple crankshaft bearings 15 and multiple sliding rails 16, 17 distributed across the frame. These components 15, 16 and 17 are being claimed as “components having a lower rotation speed” (implied from disclosure in ¶46 of the filed specification). In structural reality, multiple physical branch lines run to these separate locations (as illustrated in fig. 3). As seen in fig. 3, crankshaft bearings 15, upper sliding rails 16 have corresponding fluid line branched from low pressure oil line 21 and lower sliding rails 17 have corresponding fluid line branched from low pressure oil line 21. Thus, there is no “common” lubrication line for these components 15, 16 and 17 which have a lower rotation speed.
Furthermore, certain components of the plunger pumps (e.g. crossheads and crosshead sliding rails) undergo reciprocating linear motion rather than continuous rotation, rendering the concept of “rotation speed” as applied to all these components indefinite. In this case, it is unclear how the components (sliding rails 16, 17) have a “rotation speed”.
Claim 23 recites the limitation “independent lubricating oil lines” in line 4. It is unclear if these claimed lines are same or different from “independent lubrication fluid lines” claimed in claim 21.
Claims 22 – 39 are rejected for being dependent on claim 21.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 21, 22, 24, 25, 32, 33 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams, Jason C. (US 2020/0325761 – herein after Williams; cited by applicant on IDS dated 03/15/2024) in view of Boehning et al. (DE 102011103657 A1herein after Boehning).
In reference to claim 21, Williams teaches a continuous high-power turbine fracturing equipment (in fig. 1), comprising (see figs. 2-3):
a turbine engine (prime mover, see ¶22: “the drive assembly 202 may include a prime mover… In at least one embodiment, the prime mover is a twin shaft turbine engine. In other embodiments, the prime mover may be a single shaft turbine engine,..” – herein after referred as 202);
a first reduction gearbox (“prime mover gearbox”, see ¶21) coupled to a power output of the turbine engine;
a plunger pump (204, see fig. 2/3) coupled to the first reduction gearbox (“prime mover gearbox” within drive assembly 202); and
a lubrication system comprising at least a first lubrication unit [unit that supplies lubricating oil from dedicated “pump oil reservoir” to components pump 302 and gearbox 300 of the plunger pump 204; see ¶25: “The multispeed gearbox 300 and the pump assembly 204 share a common lubricating oil reservoir (not shown) with the pump 302”], wherein components (components within multispeed gearbox 300 and pump 302) of the plunger pump (204, see fig. 2/3) are lubricated by the first lubrication unit (in view of disclosure in ¶25).
Williams remains silent on the continuous high-power turbine fracturing equipment, wherein the lubrication system also comprises “a second lubrication unit”, wherein the first lubrication unit and the second lubrication unit “operates at different lubricating pressures”, wherein the lubrication of components of the plunger pump are “according to load or contact area of the components” and “wherein one of the first lubrication unit or the second lubrication unit comprises both independent lubrication fluid lines and a common lubrication fluid line, wherein components having a higher rotation speed are lubricated by the independent lubrication fluid lines and components having a lower rotation speed share the common lubrication fluid line”.
However, Boehning teaches a lubrication system (see fig. 3) corresponding to an internal combustion engine (reciprocating apparatus that is structurally equivalent to claimed plunger pump), wherein the lubrication system comprises at least a first lubrication unit (lubricating oil circuit 28) and a second lubrication unit (lubricating oil circuit 29) operating at different lubricating pressures (see ¶31 of translation), wherein components (such as bearing points 50, 52, 24; gears 34, 38, 40, 42, 44; see ¶19, ¶21, ¶23 of translation and figs. 1-3) of the engine are lubricated by one of the first lubrication unit (28) and the second lubrication unit (29) according to load or contact area of the components (see ¶7 of translation: “Preferably, the lubricant pump's delivery capacity is variably adjustable depending on the load and/or the speed of the internal combustion engine”), and wherein one of the first lubrication unit (28) or the second lubrication unit (29) comprises both independent lubrication fluid lines (for instance, in view of fig. 3, with respect to first lubrication unit 28: independent fluid line 1 = line corresponding to gears 34, 38, 40, 42, 44; independent fluid line 2 = line corresponding to bearing point 24) and a common lubrication fluid line (for instance, common fluid line = line with valve 78 + line 35 corresponding bearing points 50, 52), wherein components having a higher rotation speed are lubricated by the independent lubrication fluid lines and components having a lower rotation speed share the common lubrication fluid line (see ¶8-¶10 of translation: the fluid lines (independent and common) are capable of lubricating the components of the engine depending on speed and/or load).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the lubrication system having the first lubrication unit in the fracturing equipment of Williams for the lubrication system having the first lubrication unit and the second lubrication unit as taught by Boehning for the purpose of utilizing the lubrication circuit that conveys variably adjusted amount of lubricant based on different operating conditions, as recognized by Boehning (see ¶7 of translation).
In reference to claim 22, William, as modified, teaches the continuous high-power turbine fracturing equipment, wherein (see Boehning) the first lubrication unit (28) further comprises a low pressure lubrication unit (as per disclosure in ¶30-¶31, lubrication oil circuit 28 with oil pump 30 is low pressure), the low pressure lubrication unit (28) comprises (see ¶66) a low pressure motor (motor = power/drive source for low pressure pump 30; motor being an inherent feature), a low pressure pump (30), and a low pressure oil line (74/35, see figs. 1-3), and the low pressure motor is configured to drive the low pressure pump, which is configured to pump a low pressure lubricating oil (low pressure lubricating fluid) into the low pressure oil line (74/35).
In reference to claim 24, Williams teaches the continuous high-power turbine fracturing equipment, wherein a third lubrication unit is configured to lubricate the turbine engine [see Williams claim 7: “third lubrication unit” = fluid line that supplies lubricating oil from dedicated “drive assembly oil reservoir” to the prime mover (turbine engine 202)].
In reference to claim 25, Williams teaches the continuous high-power turbine fracturing equipment, wherein the lubrication system further comprises a fourth lubrication unit configured to lubricate the first reduction gearbox (in view of disclosure in Williams claim 7, “fourth lubrication unit” = fluid line that supplies lubricating oil from dedicated “drive assembly oil reservoir” to the prime mover’s gearbox).
In reference to claim 32, Williams teaches the continuous high-power turbine fracturing equipment, wherein the plunger pump (302) is a five-cylinder plunger pump (as seen in fig. 3).
In reference to claim 33, Williams teaches the continuous high-power turbine fracturing equipment, wherein the turbine engine (202, in fig. 2) is fueled by 100% of natural gas or diesel as fuel (see ¶21).
In reference to claim 39, Williams, as modified, teaches the continuous high-power turbine fracturing equipment, wherein (see figs. 1-3 and ¶29 of translation in Boehning) the lubrication system comprises a cooler (oil cooler 70) and a first hydraulic pump (oil pump 30).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams in view of Boehning and further in view of Smith et al. (US 2,535,703 — herein after Smith; cited by applicant on IDS dated 03/15/2024).
Williams, as modified, teaches the continuous high-power turbine fracturing equipment, wherein the low pressure oil line (74; see fig. 3 of Boehning) is configured to lubricate at least one of bearings (condition A) or gears (condition B) of a second reduction gearbox of the plunger pump (Williams’s second reduction gearbox 300 of the plunger pump) [condition B is met, see fig. 3 of Boehning: Boehning’s 74 is configured to lubricate gears 34, 38, 40, 42, 44]; wherein at an oil inlet of the low pressure oil line (74; of Boehning), independent lubricating oil lines (for instance, see oil lines corresponding to gears 34, 38, 40, 42, 44 in Boehning) are respectively arranged for the gears of the second reduction gearbox (Williams’s second reduction gearbox 300).
Williams, as modified, does not teach the continuous high-power turbine fracturing equipment, wherein “independent lubricating oil lines are respectively arranged for the bearings of the second reduction gearbox”.
However, Smith teaches a lubricating system for gear units (see col. 1, lines 1-4), wherein (see col. 2, lines 36-42 and fig. 1) independent lubricating oil lines (12a, 12b, 12c, 12d of discharge conduit 12) are respectively arranged for the bearings of the reduction gearbox and the gears of the reduction gearbox in the pump (8) [lubricant for bearings 2 are provided via 12a, 12b and lubricant for gears 6, 7 are provided via 12c, 12d].
Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify the lubrication unit in the modified fracturing equipment of Williams by providing the first lubrication unit with independent lubrication oil lines for the bearings in the gearbox as taught by Smith for the purpose of providing the lubricant to also cool and lubricate bearings in the gearbox, as recognized by Smith (see col. 4, lines 72-75 and col. 5, lines 1-2).
Claims 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams in view of Boehning and Headrick (US 2019/0153843 – herein after Headrick; cited by applicant on IDS dated 03/15/2024).
Regarding claim 26,
Williams remains silent on the continuous high-power turbine fracturing equipment, further comprising an auxiliary power system, wherein the auxiliary power system is configured to provide power to the lubrication system.
However, Headrick teaches an auxiliary power system (28: central electric power generating system) [see ¶12, ¶23, ¶26 and fig. 2] and wherein the power from the auxiliary power system (28) is delivered via a switching device (84) to the auxiliary systems (70), wherein the auxiliary systems may include a lubricant circulation system (see ¶26).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide an auxiliary power system for powering low power components such as a lubrication system as taught by Headrick in the fracturing equipment of Williams for enabling the prime mover on the pumping units and other equipment to be fully shut down between pumping stages of the well stimulation operation, rather than running the prime mover at idle, as recognized by Headrick (in ¶16).
Regarding claim 27,
Williams, as modified, teaches the continuous high-power turbine fracturing equipment, wherein the auxiliary power system (of Headrick) comprises a diesel engine, a gas turbine, or an electromotor (see ¶27 in Headrick: “The central electric power generating system 28 may include any desirable type of electrical power system including, but not limited to, a turbine generator, one or more fuel cells, a diesel engine powered generator, a natural gas engine powered generator, a generator powered by one or more tractors, a generator on a nearby mobile well stimulation equipment unit, or a conventional grid when power is available”).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams in view of Boehning, Headrick and Bishop, Mark Daniel (US 2018/0328157 – herein after Bishop; cited by applicant on IDS dated 03/15/2024).
Williams teaches the continuous high-power turbine fracturing equipment, further comprising a chassis (see frame of trailer 206, in fig. 2 of Williams), wherein the turbine engine (202) and the plunger pump (302) are disposed on the chassis.
Williams remains silent on the continuous high-power turbine fracturing equipment, wherein the chassis is made of material comprising T1 high strength structure steel.
However, Bishop teaches the continuous high-power turbine fracturing equipment wherein (see ¶54) the chassis (10) is constructed from steel (e.g., high tensile AS14-T1 steel).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the chassis in the turbine fracturing equipment of Williams from the material comprising T1 high strength structure steel as taught by Bishop 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.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams in view of Boehning, Headrick, Bishop and evidenced by Chandler, Ronald L (US 2014/0048268 – herein after Chandler; cited by applicant on IDS dated 03/15/2024).
Williams, as modified, teaches the high-power turbine fracturing equipment with the auxiliary power system (of Headrick) and the chassis (of Williams) having a gooseneck {goose neck: end of the chassis near the front cabin of the truck} (see fig. 2 of Williams: portion of trailer 206 on which element 200 is present).
Williams, as modified, remains silent on the auxiliary power system being disposed on the gooseneck of the chassis.
However, Chandler teaches/evidences the fracturing equipment with the auxiliary power system (30) disposed on a gooseneck of the chassis (14, see fig. 1) {goose neck: end of the chassis near the front cabin of the truck}.
Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to locate the auxiliary power system on a gooseneck of the chassis in the modified system of Williams as evidenced by Chandler since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams in view of Boehning and evidenced by Curry et al. (US 2019/0338762 – herein after Curry; cited by applicant on IDS dated 03/15/2024) further in view of Oehring et al. (US 2017/0037717 – herein after Oehring; cited by applicant on IDS dated 03/15/2024).
Williams teaches the continuous high-power turbine fracturing equipment, further comprising (see fig. 2) a transmission shaft (214) between the first reduction gearbox (“prime mover gearbox” within housing 212 in fig. 2) and the plunger pump (204), and wherein the turbine engine is arranged coaxially with the first reduction gearbox around a common straight axis [the claimed feature being implicitly present when the prime mover and its gearbox are directly coupled; see ¶22: “the prime mover is connected to a prime mover gearbox, either directly or through a driveshaft (not shown) extending between the prime mover and the prime mover gearbox”; Curry further evidences “direct coupling” between the turbine engine (108a/108b) & its corresponding gearbox (110a/110b) (see fig. 9 and ¶101) such that they are arranged coaxially around a common straight axis].
Williams remains silent on the continuous high-power turbine fracturing equipment, wherein an angle between the transmission shaft and the common straight axis is between 2° and 4°, inclusive.
However, Oehring teaches (in ¶6) that the diesel engine and transmission are coupled to the hydraulic fracturing pump through a u-joint drive shaft, which requires a three degree offset from the horizontal output of the transmission to the horizontal input of the hydraulic fracturing pump.
In Williams’s turbine fracturing equipment (see fig. 2), there is the transmission shaft (214) present between the prime mover gearbox (within 202) and the plunger pump (204). Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute the transmission shaft in the turbine fracturing equipment of Williams with the u-joint drive shaft with three degree offset as taught by Oehring in order to obtain the predictable result of transmitting the power from the engine to the pump. KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740-41, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007). It is to be noted that the use of u-joint drive shaft with three degree offset is well known in the art, as recognized by Oehring (in ¶6).
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams in view of Boehning and Glass, Cory (US 2019/0154020 – herein after Glass; cited by applicant on IDS dated 03/15/2024).
Williams teaches the continuous high-power turbine fracturing equipment wherein the plunger pump is a five-cylinder plunger pump (as seen in fig. 3).
Williams remains silent on the continuous high-power turbine fracturing equipment, wherein a power of the plunger pump is between 5000 HP and 1000 HP.
However, Glass teaches a turbine fracturing equipment (in fig. 3A), comprising a plunger pump (306), wherein the power of the plunger pump is 5000HP or above (see ¶23: “quintplex plunger-style fluid pump” capable of providing at least 3500 HP, thus anticipating the claimed range) and wherein the plunger pump is a five- cylinder plunger pump (¶21 or ¶115: pump can be a “quintuplex plunger-style fluid pump’).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute the plunger pump in the turbine fracturing equipment of Williams with the plunger pump as taught by Glass in order to obtain the predictable result of pumping the frac fluid to create fractures. KSA Int'l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740-41, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007).
Claims 34 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams in view of Boehning and Davis et al. (US 2019/0063263 – herein after Davis; cited by applicant on IDS dated 03/15/2024).
Regarding claim 34,
Williams remains silent on the details of an air intake system.
However, Davis teaches the turbine fracturing equipment, further comprising (see ¶37, ¶38) an air intake system (126) for the turbine engine, wherein the air intake system comprises air intake filters (128) and air intake pipes (not shown but present), wherein the air intake filters are connected to air inlets (see ¶38) of the turbine engine through the air intake pipes.
Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide an air intake system as taught by Davis for the turbine engine in the high-power turbine fracturing equipment of Williams for the purpose of providing filtered combustion air to the gas turbine engine while also reducing noise at the air inlet, as recognized by Davis (in ¶38).
Regarding claim 35,
Williams, as modified, teaches the high-power turbine fracturing equipment, wherein the air intake filters (128, in Davis) are V-shaped (as seen in fig. 4 of Davis).
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams in view of Boehning and Bishop, Mark Daniel (US 2018/0298731 – herein after Bishop II; cited by applicant on IDS dated 03/15/2024).
Williams teaches the high-power turbine fracturing equipment, further comprising (in view of disclosure in ¶19-¶20 and fig. 2) an exhaust system which (200) is connected (fluidly connected) to an exhaust port of the turbine engine and an exhaust end of the exhaust system (not shown but present; this is the end that discharges exhaust gases into the surrounding atmosphere).
Williams remains silent on the high-power turbine fracturing equipment wherein “an exhaust end of the exhaust system is provided with a rain cap, the rain cap is configured to be hinged to the exhaust end of the exhaust system and opened in a direction away from the turbine engine”.
However, Bishop II teaches the turbine fracturing equipment comprising an exhaust system (503, in fig. 18) which is connected to an exhaust port of the turbine engine (500); wherein an exhaust end of the exhaust system is provided with a rain cap (507, in fig. 18), the rain cap being configured to be hinged to the exhaust end of the exhaust system and opened in a direction away from the turbine engine (in a clockwise direction, in view of fig. 18) [¶91 and ¶106: generator set 500 can also be called “gas turbine generator”)].
Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a rain cap as taught by Bishop II at the exhaust end of the exhaust system of Williams in the modified high-power turbine fracturing system of Williams for the purpose of preventing the rain water or contaminants from flowing into the exhaust end of the exhaust system when the equipment is not operational.
Claims 37 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams in view of Boehning, Bishop II and further in view of Fairbanks, Philip R. (US 2,350,102 – herein after Fairbanks; cited by applicant on IDS dated 03/15/2024).
Regarding claim 37,
Williams, as modified, teaches the high-power turbine fracturing equipment, wherein the rain cap is configured to rotate along the exhaust end of the exhaust system with a rotation angle between 0° and 90° (as seen in fig. 18 of Bishop II).
Williams, as modified, does not teach the high-power turbine fracturing equipment, wherein “an electric capstan” providing power to the rain cap.
However, Fairbanks teaches an exhaust pipe covered with a cover (F). This cover is held open when the engine is in operation and is closed when the engine is not operating (see left col. on page 1 of specification, lines 1-30). The cover may be self-opening and either controlled to close by manual operation, by operation of the throttle lever, or by electrical means (see left col. on page 1 of specification, lines 15-18: electrical means = electrical capstan).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide power to the rain cap using an electric capstan so that the rain cap rotates along the exhaust end of the exhaust system with a rotation angle between 0° and 90° in the modified fracturing equipment of Williams in order to keep the cover/cap open when the equipment is operating and close the cover when the equipment is not operating so that water does not enter the exhaust structure, as recognized by Fairbanks (see left col. on page 1 of specification, lines 1-30).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide power to the rain cap using an electric capstan so that the rain cap rotates along the exhaust end of the exhaust system with a rotation angle between 0° and 90° in the modified fracturing equipment of Williams, since it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art, as evidenced by Fairbanks. In re Venner, 120 USPQ 192. Please note that in the instant application, page 9 of specification, ¶57, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation of using electric capstan to provide power to the rain cap.
Regarding claim 38,
Williams, as modified, remains silent on the high-power turbine fracturing equipment, wherein the rotation angle is 85°.
In fig. 18 of Bishop Il, the cap is shown with a rotation angle of about 45°. As seen in fig. 3 of Fairbanks, the asserted rain cap is actuated to 90° (see position of cap F1 shown by dotted lines). Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the rotation angle of 85° for the cap in the modified fracturing equipment of Williams as a matter of obvious engineering design choice because there are no indications in the disclosure as filed (see ¶57 of the filed specification) that the claimed angle is any way unique, is used for a particular purpose, solves a stated problem or produces unexpected results. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected the modified fracturing equipment of Williams to perform equally well with this claimed angle.
Response to Arguments
The arguments, dated 06/09/2026, have been fully considered.
With respect to “Rejections under 35 USC 112”:
These arguments are not found to be persuasive for following reasons:
Claim 31 recites that the power of the plunger pump is “between 5000 HP and 1000 HP”. This is a new matter issue as discussed above. Furthermore, this claim recites the limitation “between 5000 HP and 1000 HP”, whereas applicant’s asserts that claim 31 was amended to recite “between 5000 HP and 10000 HP”. This discrepancy between the actual claim text and applicant’s remarks creates a contradiction.
Furthermore, even if applicant corrects “1000 HP” to “10000 HP”, the upper bound of 10,000 HP has no written description support under 35 USC 112(a) in the specification as filed, as the number “10000” never appears in the disclosure.
The specification must clearly convey to the skilled artisan that the inventor actually possess the entire claimed range as of the filing date. Here, the filed specification only discloses that power is “at least 5000 HP” or “5000 HP or above”, without providing any guidance, examples, or technical bounds at to where the continuous high-power operation ceiling lies. Asserting an unspecified “inherent practical limit” does not cure the defect because the specification fails to establish that the disclosed structures are functional across such an open-ended spectrum. Furthermore, applicant’s attempt to resolve the issue by reciting a ceiling of 10,000 HP confirms that the upper limit is not self-evident, and introduces new matter lacking written description support, as the value “10000 HP” is never disclosed in the specification as filed.
With respect to “Double Patenting Rejections”: Applicants request to hold these rejections in abeyance is hereby acknowledged.
With respect to “Rejections under 35 USC 103” in view of the amendment presented for advancing prosecution: These arguments are moot. The amendment to independent claim 21 changed the scope of the claim. As a result, the prior arts have been re-evaluated and re-applied to claim 21, in view of newly found reference of Boehning.
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 CHIRAG JARIWALA whose telephone number is (571)272-0467. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM-5 PM.
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.
/CHIRAG JARIWALA/Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/BRYAN M LETTMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
