DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 November 12, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed November 12, 2025 has been entered. Claims 21 – 39 are pending in the application with claims 1 – 20 being cancelled. The amendment and remarks made to the drawings and claims have overcome the drawing and claim objections set forth in the last Final Action mailed May 12, 2024.
Claim Objections
Claims 21 – 39 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 21, line 9: “plunger pump is” should read --plunger pump are--.
Claim 21, line 11: “independent fluid line” should read --independent fluid lines--. In view of filed specification (see ¶47), there are independent fluid lines and not “one” as recited in the claim.
Claims 22 – 39 are objected to for being dependent on claim 21.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 “at least 5000 HP” in line 2. In view of the disclosure in ¶5, ¶7, ¶27 and ¶42 of the originally filed specification, the specification fails to show the possession of the upper range (conceivably covering ranges substantially greater than 100,000 HP). The claim language “at least 5000 HP” reads on theoretically infinite power outputs, including 20,000 HP, 50,000 HP, or 100,000 HP. Therefore, while the applicant has disclosed a starting point (“5000 HP”), the specification does not provide a description of how to achieve or maintain the claimed “continuous high-power” operation at the upper reaches of the claimed range. Because applicant has not shown that they have tested every range above 5000 HP, simply reciting an unbounded range (on upper end, in this case) would include ranges that applicant does not have possession of.
Double Patenting
Applicants request for nonstatutory double patenting rejections to be held in abeyance is acknowledged. Please note that these double patenting rejections are still valid in view of the amendment made to claim 21 {secondary reference of Ito reads on amended limitations as discussed below in the prior art rejections of the claims}.
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, 24, 25, 32 and 33 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 Ito et al. (US 5,526,783 – herein after Ito).
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 is “according to load or contact area of the components” and “whether the components are lubricated by independent lubrication fluid lines from one of the first lubrication unit or the second lubrication unit depends on a rotation speed of the components and at least some different components of the plunger pump share a common lubrication fluid line”.
However, Ito teaches a lubrication system (see fig. 1 and col. 5, lines 36-49) corresponding to a plunger pump, wherein the lubrication system comprises at least a first lubrication unit (35+39) and a second lubrication unit (36+41) operating at different lubricating pressures, wherein components (such as main bearings of the crankshaft, other elements of the engine, skirts of pistons, piston pins) of the plunger pump are lubricated by one of the first lubrication unit (35+39) and the second lubrication unit (36+41) according to load or contact area of the components, and whether the components are lubricated by independent lubrication fluid lines (39, 41) from one of the first lubrication unit or the second lubrication unit depends on a rotation speed of the components (see col. 5, lines 46-49: “the system provides separate lubricant pumps and supply circuits for those portions of the engine which have different lubricant requirements which vary differently with speed and 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 Ito for the purpose of having the improved lubrication system that will insure that components receive the proper amount of lubricant regardless of the running condition, as recognized by Ito (see col. 1, lines 63-67 and col. 2, lines 26-28).
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).
Claims 21, 22 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Byrne et al. (US 2016/0177945 – herein after Byrne; cited by applicant on IDS dated 03/15/2024) in view of Williams, Jason C. (US 2020/0325761 – herein after Williams; cited by applicant on IDS dated 03/15/2024) and Ito et al. (US 5,526,783 – herein after Ito).
In reference to claim 21, Byrne teaches a continuous high-power fracturing equipment (10, in fig. 1A), comprising (see figs. 1A-3B):
a power source (see ¶47: “A power source, such as a diesel engine (not shown), connects to an input flange 42 (see FIGS. 2A and 2C) and rotates the gearbox input 40 during operation);
a plunger pump (14+12, see fig. 1A) coupled to the power source; and
a lubrication system (16, see ¶39) comprises at least a first lubrication unit (low pressure lubrication circuit 102, see ¶41) and a second lubrication unit (low high lubrication circuit 100, see ¶41) operating at different lubricating pressures (high and low pressures), wherein components (roller bearings 70, top portion 56 of crosshead 44, various mesh gear interfaces within gearbox 62, sliding surfaces associated with crankshaft 36 via conduits 75, bottom portion 54 of the crosshead 44; see fig. 3A) of the plunger pump are lubricated by one of the first lubrication unit (102) and the second lubrication unit (100) and wherein the components are lubricated by independent lubrication fluid lines (72, 74, 75, 76, 66, 78; see fig. 3A) from one of the first lubrication unit or the second lubrication unit (high pressure lubricant fluid and low pressure lubricant fluid circuits), and at least some different components of the plunger pump share a common lubrication fluid line (76/78).
Byrne remains silent on the continuous high-power turbine fracturing equipment, comprising:
However, Williams teaches a similar fracturing equipment, comprising: 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; and a plunger pump (204, see fig. 2/3) coupled to the first reduction gearbox (“prime mover gearbox” within drive assembly 202).
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute a type of power source in the fracturing equipment of Byrne for a turbine engine and its corresponding reduction gearbox as taught by Willams in order to obtain the predictable result of providing power or operating the plunger pump. KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740-41, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007).
Thus, Byrne, as modified, teaches the continuous high-power turbine fracturing equipment, wherein the plunger pump (of Byrne) is coupled to the first reduction gearbox (of Williams).
Byrne remains silent on the fracturing equipment, wherein components of the plunger pump are lubricated by one of the first lubrication unit and the second lubrication unit “according to load or contact area of the components”, and whether the components are lubricated by independent lubrication fluid lines from one of the first lubrication unit or the second lubrication unit “depends on a rotation speed of the components”.
However, Ito teaches a lubrication system (see fig. 1 and col. 5, lines 36-49) corresponding to a plunger pump, wherein the lubrication system comprises at least a first lubrication unit (35+39) and a second lubrication unit (36+41) operating at different lubricating pressures, wherein components (such as main bearings of the crankshaft, other elements of the engine, skirts of pistons, piston pins) of the plunger pump are lubricated by one of the first lubrication unit (35+39) and the second lubrication unit (36+41) according to load or contact area of the components, and whether the components are lubricated by independent lubrication fluid lines (39, 41) from one of the first lubrication unit or the second lubrication unit depends on a rotation speed of the components (see col. 5, lines 46-49: “the system provides separate lubricant pumps and supply circuits for those portions of the engine which have different lubricant requirements which vary differently with speed and 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 in the fracturing equipment of Byrne for the lubrication control as taught by Ito for the purpose of having the improved lubrication system that will insure that components receive the proper amount of lubricant regardless of the running condition, as recognized by Ito (see col. 1, lines 63-67 and col. 2, lines 26-28).
In reference to claim 22, Byrne, as modified, teaches the continuous high-power turbine fracturing equipment, wherein the first lubrication unit further comprises (see Byrne) a low pressure lubrication unit (102 as per disclosure in ¶41 is a low pressure lubrication unit), the low pressure lubrication unit (102) comprises (see ¶66) a low pressure motor (see ¶40 or ¶80: “diesel engine”), a low pressure pump (77), and a low pressure oil line (76), 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 (76).
In reference to claim 39, Byrne teaches the continuous high-power turbine fracturing equipment, wherein (see ¶71 and ¶73 of Byrne) the lubrication system comprises a cooler (91) and a first hydraulic pump (79) [¶71 discloses: “The orifice restrictors 91 balance the flow in the lubrication circuits 100, 102 in order to maintain a substantially constant temperature of the lubrication fluid at the level of optimum lubrication effectiveness”; thus 91 acts as a cooler for the lubrication fluid].
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Byrne in view of Williams, Ito and further in view of Smith et al. (US 2,535,703 — herein after Smith; cited by applicant on IDS dated 03/15/2024).
Byrne teaches the continuous high-power turbine fracturing equipment, wherein the low pressure oil line (76; of Byrne) is configured to lubricate at least one of bearings (condition A) or gears (condition B) of a second reduction gearbox of the plunger pump (condition B is met: Byrne’s 76 is configured to lubricate gears 62 of the second reduction gearbox of the plunger pump).
Byrne does not teach the continuous high-power turbine fracturing equipment, wherein “at an oil inlet of the low pressure oil line, independent lubricating oil lines are respectively arranged for the bearings of the second reduction gearbox and the gears 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 modify the first lubrication unit in the modified fracturing equipment of Byrne by providing the first lubrication unit with independent lubrication oil lines for the gearbox as taught by Smith for the purpose of providing a lubrication system that supplies the lubricant as per the changing requirements of a reduction gear over a wide range of speeds, as recognized by Smith (see col. 1, lines 5-42).
Claims 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams in view of Ito 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 Ito, 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 Ito, 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 Ito 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 Ito 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 at least 5000 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 Ito 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 Ito 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 Ito, 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 11/12/2025, have been fully considered.
With respect to “Rejections under 35 USC 112”: Applicant states “Applicant submits that paragraphs [0005], [0007], [0027], and [0042] of the specification explicitly discloses that the rating for the plunger pump can be “5000 HP or above’, which is to say that the disclosed implementation for lubrication is designed for high power pump. The alleged deficient claim language of “at least 5000 HP” is actually explicitly supported by these paragraphs. Applicant respectfully requests that the Section 112 rejections be withdrawn.”
This argument is not found to be persuasive. Applicant argues that paragraphs [0005], [0007], [0027], and [0042] explicitly disclose the rating “5000 HP or above,” and therefore the claim limitation “at least 5000 HP” is supported. While the Examiner acknowledges that the literal phrase “5000 HP or above” appears in the specification, the mere recitation of an open-ended range does not automatically satisfy the written description requirements of 35 USC 112(a) for the full scope of the claim. The rejection is maintained because the specification fails to demonstrate possession of the open-ended upper limit recited in the claim. The claim language “at least 5000 HP” reads on theoretically infinite power outputs, including 20,000 HP, 50,000 HP, or 100,000 HP. However, the structural features disclosed in the specification are tailored to a specific operational baseline and do not support an unbounded range. Therefore, while the applicant has disclosed a starting point (“5000 HP”), the specification does not provide a description of how to achieve or maintain the claimed “continuous high-power” operation at the upper reaches of the claimed range. The disclosure of “5000 HP or above” is effectively a wish or a plan for high power, rather than a description of the invention that demonstrates possession of a fracturing unit capable of operating at significantly higher power levels (e.g., 100,000 HP).
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 of Williams and Byrne has been re-evaluated and re-applied to claim 21, in view of newly relied upon reference of Ito.
Conclusion
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
/ESSAMA OMGBA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3746