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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 14-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 14, line 12, the term “at least in part on one or more signals” should be corrected to “at least in part on the one or more signals”; and
Claim 15, line 1, the term “auxiliar” should be corrected to “auxiliary”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2-9, 14-15, 18-19, 21-23 and 25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 16-20 & 24 of U.S. Patent No. 11,814,940. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both disclose a fracturing unit.
Regarding claims 2-3, 14, 18, 22:
Patent ‘940 discloses a fracturing unit comprising a chassis, a fracturing pump, a gas turbine engine, a reciprocating-piston engine, one or more hydraulic auxiliary components or electrical auxiliary components, first and second fuel lines in fluid communication with first and second manifolds, a controller (claims 16 & 18-19).
Regarding claims 4-7:
Patent ‘940 discloses a primary valve, one or more fuel pump or a secondary valve (claim 17).
Regarding claims 8-9, 15:
Patent ‘940 discloses wherein the hydraulic auxiliary components comprise a hydraulic pump, and the electrical auxiliary components comprise an electrical power generation device (claim 18).
Regarding claims 19, 23:
Patent ‘940 discloses one or more of: efficiency data or mathematical function (claim 20).
Regarding claims 21, 25:
Patent ‘940 discloses a total power load, two or more phases comprising a first phase and a second phase, first and second efficiencies, first and second expected emissions (claim 24).
Claims 2-25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 16-20 & 24 of U.S. Patent No. 11,603,745. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both disclose a fracturing unit.
Regarding claims 2-3, 14, 18, 22:
Patent ‘745 discloses a fracturing unit comprising a chassis, a fracturing pump, a gas turbine engine, a reciprocating-piston engine, one or more hydraulic auxiliary components or electrical auxiliary components, first and second fuel lines in fluid communication with first and second manifolds, a controller (claims 16 & 25).
Regarding claims 4-7:
Patent ‘745 discloses a primary valve, one or more fuel pump or a secondary valve (claims 17 & 25-26).
Regarding claims 8-9, 15:
Patent ‘745 discloses wherein the hydraulic auxiliary components comprise a hydraulic pump, and the electrical auxiliary components comprise an electrical power generation device (claims 18 & 27).
Regarding claims 10-13, 16-17, 20, 24:
Patent ‘745 discloses gaseous fuel as the primary fuel and liquid fuel as secondary fuel, and compression-ignition engine (claims 1, 10, 15). The examiner notes that it is well-known in the art that natural gas fuel is in compressed form. Thus, the Patent claims meet the limitations of the present claim.
Regarding claims 19, 23:
Patent ‘745 discloses one or more of: efficiency data or mathematical function (claims 20 & 29).
Regarding claims 21, 25:
Patent ‘745 discloses a total power load, two or more phases comprising a first phase and a second phase, first and second efficiencies, first and second expected emissions (claim 24).
Claims 2-25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 16-20 & 24 of U.S. Patent No. 11,365,616. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both disclose a fracturing unit.
Regarding claims 2-3, 14, 18, 22:
Patent ‘616 discloses a fracturing unit comprising a chassis, a fracturing pump, a gas turbine engine, a reciprocating-piston engine, one or more hydraulic auxiliary components or electrical auxiliary components, first and second fuel lines in fluid communication with first and second manifolds, a controller (claims 16 & 25).
Regarding claims 4-7:
Patent ‘616 discloses a primary valve, one or more fuel pump or a secondary valve (claims 17 & 25-26).
Regarding claims 8-9, 15:
Patent ‘616 discloses wherein the hydraulic auxiliary components comprise a hydraulic pump, and the electrical auxiliary components comprise an electrical power generation device (claims 18 & 27).
Regarding claims 10-13, 16-17, 20, 24:
Patent ‘616 discloses gaseous fuel as the primary fuel and liquid fuel as secondary fuel, and compression-ignition engine (claims 1, 10, 15). The examiner notes that it is well-known in the art that natural gas fuel is in compressed form. Thus, the Patent claims meet the limitations of the present claim.
Regarding claims 19, 23:
Patent ‘616 discloses one or more of: efficiency data or mathematical function (claims 20 & 29).
Regarding claims 21, 25:
Patent ‘616 discloses a total power load, two or more phases comprising a first phase and a second phase, first and second efficiencies, first and second expected emissions (claim 24).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The cited prior arts teach a fracturing unit.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNG Q NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5424. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7am-pm (CT).
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, Phutthiwat Wongwian can be reached at 571-270-5426. 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.
HUNG Q. NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3747
/HUNG Q NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights