DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Application
This Office action is in response to the amendment of February 5, 2026 which amended claims 1, 7 and 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Bagulayan et al (USPN 11,649,817).
With regards to claim 1, Bagulayan et al disclose a method for controlling two or more frac pumps (see the title and the first two lines of the abstract which discuss operating, changing and adjusting the pumping rates of a plurality of frac pumps; and Fig. 6) of a fracturing spread (shown in Fig. 1), the method comprising: adjusting a total pump rate (see for example in the para. spanning cols. 12 &13 the mentioned “flow rate target set-point”; or the “new ‘target’ cumulative pumping rate” of col. 13 ln. 19, and the representation of the smoother total flow rate shown at 606 of Fig. 10; particular reference is made to the discussion of the New Rate Plan” discussed from col. 13 line 4 thru col. 15 linen 30 and TABLE 1) of one or more target pumps (pumps 2 and 3 of Table 1 shown as having a gear change; and, the discussions of col. 12 ln 56-65 and col. 14 lns. 1-9 which note that: “a flow rate dip resulting from shifting up gears of a first one of the pump units 150 may be negated, cancelled, or otherwise compensated for by a second one of the pump units 150 simultaneously throttling up, such that the increased flow rate of the second pump unit 150 compensates for the flow rate dip of the first pump unit 150 during the gear shift, thus maintaining a substantially smooth combined flow rate of the first and second pump units 150” where in TABLE 1 pumps 2 & 3 represent the first ones of the frac pumps, i.e., the target pumps of the claim, and pumps 1 & 4 represent the second ones of the frac pumps, i.e., the trim pumps of the claim) of the frac pumps (pumps 1-6 of TABLE 1) to achieve a total rate setpoint (the “new ‘target’ cumulative pumping rate” of col. 13 ln. 19) for the frac pumps; determining a total rate dip aggregated across the one or more target pumps (by estimating/determining the dip, see col. 13 line 45, that will occur for each of the pumps of the frac spread the total rate dip aggregated across the frac pump spread has been determined; in Table 1 the rate dip of Pump Unit 2 is determined to be -0.2 and is compensated for by the 0.2 rate increase of pump unit 1 and the rate dip of Pump Unit 3 is determined to be -0.4 and is compensated for by the 0.4 rate increase of pump unit 4; thus by determining the rate dips of each pump in the frac pump spread that will experience a dip the total rate dip aggregate has been determined); and activating (see the rate increases of pumps 1 & 4, i.e., the second ones of the pumps discussed above, which do not have their gears changed) one or more trim pumps (pumps 1 & 4, i.e., the second ones of the pumps discussed above and at 604 of Fig. 10) of the frac pumps for an additional pump rate based on the aggregated total rate dip (the individual increases of Pump Units 1 & 4 are directly related to the rate dips of respective dips of all the pumps that will be experiencing a rate dip and therefore indirectly are based upon the aggregated total rate dip, see the Rate Increase column for pumps 1 & 4 in TABLE 1) to compensate for a total rate dip occurring when the total pump rate of the one or more target pumps is adjusted (as noted above in the quotation from col. 14 lns. 1-9 the flow rate dip of the target pumps 2 & 3 is “compensated for by a second one of the pump units 150 simultaneously throttling up”, i.e. the trim pumps 1 & 4).
With regards to claims 2, Bagulayan et al discloses the method of claim 1 as set forth above, further comprising: determining a respective rate setpoint for each of the one or more target pumps (from col. 13 lns 17-19: “the new plan describes how the pump units 150 are to be adjusted so that the pumping system will achieve a new “target” cumulative pumping rate”) based on the total rate setpoint (i.e., the “new “target” cumulative pumping rate”); determining a respective rate dip for each of the one or more target pumps (from col 13 lns 26-31: “(t)he new plan describes ….which (if any) pump units 150 will experience a decrease in pumping rate, referred to herein as going-down or ramp-down pump units”); and summing the respective rate dips for each of the one or more target pumps to determine the total rate dip (see the discussion from col 13 lines 37 thru col 14 line 9; note especially from col 13 lines from col 13 lns 39-48: “A transition schedule is then generated 520 based on whether a total rate change request is an increase or a decrease and by selecting transitions from the generated up/down pump lists in the order that is most conducive for avoiding spikes and dips. Special transition steps may also be generated 530 for shifting pump gears, such as by estimating the dip that would be caused due to the gear shift, and by stacking pumps that can compensate for such dip by throttling up temporarily and then throttling back down when the dip is over.”; note also col 14 lns 38-52 and TABLE 1 with pumps 1 & 4 compensating for the dips of pumps 2 & 3).
With regards to claims 3, Bagulayan et al discloses the method of claim 1 as set forth above, wherein the one or more target pumps are pumps that require a gear shift to adjust pump rate of the respective pumps (see col 13 lines 43-47 and col 14 lines 1-9).
With regards to claims 4, Bagulayan et al discloses the method of claim 1 as set forth above further comprising: determining a respective rate adjustment profile for each of the one or more trim pumps based on the total rate dip (see col 13 lns 26-36; col 14 lns 1-9; and col 14 lns 39-48 and TABEL 1).
With regards to claims 5, Bagulayan et al discloses the method of claim 1 as set forth above, wherein the one or more trim pumps are pumps that do not require a gear shift to adjust pump rate of the respective pumps (see at least TABLE 1 pump[s 1 & 4 and the column noting that no gear change is required), and wherein the one or more trim pumps are a part of the one or more frac pumps (pumps 1-6 of TABLE 1) or specialized pumps utilized for trimming purposes only.
With regards to claims 6, Bagulayan et al discloses the method of claim 1 as set forth above, wherein the one or more trim pumps are selected based on pump type (see col. 14 lines 13 & 14) and historical performance (col 14 ln 19).
With regards to claims 7, Bagulayan et al discloses the method of claim 1 as set forth above further comprising: determining the total rate dip while adjusting the total pump rate of the one or more target pumps (see the discussion from col 13 lines 37 thru col 14 line 9; note especially from col 13 lines from col 13 lns 39-48: “A transition schedule is then generated 520 based on whether a total rate change request is an increase or a decrease and by selecting transitions from the generated up/down pump lists in the order that is most conducive for avoiding spikes and dips. Special transition steps may also be generated 530 for shifting pump gears, such as by estimating the dip that would be caused due to the gear shift, and by stacking pumps that can compensate for such dip by throttling up temporarily and then throttling back down when the dip is over.”; note also col 14 lns 38-52 and TABLE 1 with pumps 1 & 4 compensating for the dips of pumps 2 & 3) ; and adjusting (see Fig. 10) the additional pump rate of the one or more trim pumps (604) while adjusting the total pump rate of the one or more target pumps (602) to compensate for the aggregated total rate dip (note the smooth increase to the new target flow rate of line 606).
With regards to claims 8, Bagulayan et al discloses the method of claim 1 as set forth above further comprising: estimating the total rate dip of the one (see col 13 ln 45) or more target pumps prior (see col 14 lines 11-18) to adjusting the total pump rate of the one or more target pumps; and determining the additional pump rate of the one or more trim pumps (see col 13 lines 43-48, col 14 lines 1-9, and col 14 lines 17-19) to compensate for the aggregated total rate dip.
Response to Arguments
The amendments to the claims have overcome the previously set forth rejections under 35 USC 112(b).
In response to the rejections under 35 USC 102(b) as anticipated by Bagulayan et al the applicant argues that:
As amended, claim 1 requires a system-level determination of an aggregated rate dip attributable to multiple target pumps and a selection and activation of trim pumps based on that aggregated total rate dip. Bagulayan generally relates to compensating for rate dips to maintain a desired pump rate of a fracturing spread. However, Bagulayan discloses compensating for rate dips on a pump-by-pump basis. Bagulayan discloses compensating for a flow rate dip of a first pump unit by throttling up a second pump unit during a gear shift, thereby addressing individual pump-specific rate dips through corresponding compensating pumps (e.g., col. 14). While Bagulayan may coordinate multiple pumps, its disclosed control logic is directed to pairwise compensation of individual pump events (as shown in Bagulayan's Table 1), not to determining and compensating an aggregated total rate dip across multiple target pumps as a unified control variable.
In contrast, the amended claim requires that trim pumps are activated based on the aggregated total rate dip itself, independent of any per-pump correspondence between a target pump experiencing a rate dip and a particular trim pump providing compensation. This aggregate-based selection and compensation is not disclosed or suggested by Bagulayan, which does not teach selecting trim pumps based on a system-level aggregated rate dip. Accordingly, Applicant's representative submits claims 1-8 are patentable over the cited art.
Respectfully, the examiner disagrees. As described in Bagulayan et al, in Fig. 11 (see col. 14 line 38 thru col. 15 line 30) when the system receives a “NEW RATE” it begins to generate a “NEW PLAN” during which, as set forth in col. 14 lines 43-45 that: “When a new target rate is received 704 (from a wellsite operator 164, another user, a controller/processing device, etc.), the controller enters a planning stage and generates 706 a new plan assigning flow rate changes to the available pumps.” It is clear that the planning stage considers all available pumps and for all the pumps that are assigned a flow rate change and a gear change, i.e., those with a rate dip, the amount of rate dip is determined so that all flow rate drips are compensated for. Because the Aggregated Total Rate Dip is Equal to the sum of the Rate Dips of the pumps which have a rate dip by determining the individual flow rate dip for every pump that will have a flow rate dip the Aggregated Total Rate Dip has been determined.
With regards to the argument that Bagulayan et al do not determine and compensate “an aggregated total rate dip across multiple target pumps as a unified control variable”. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a unified control variable) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Lastly, the argument that in Bagulayan et al an “aggregate-based selection and compensation is not disclosed or suggested” is incorrect. As noted above with regards to Fig. 11 and Col. 14 when Bagulayan et al receive a “NEW RATE” Bagulayan et al teaches that “the controller enters a planning stage and generates 706 a new plan assigning flow rate changes to the available pumps.” Thus a system wide response is generated and implemented. This response is “based on the aggregated total rate dip” since the rate dips of every pump that will experience a rate dip is determined and then compensation for all the rate dips is planned for. The examiner also notes that the responses generated in Bagulayan et al are not strictly “pair-wise” as argued by the applicant. The Examiner references all of Col. 2 in the SUMARY OF THE DISCOSURE section and the discussion that when implementing the system wide response to achieve the cumulative pumping rate the adjustments are made “such that each temporary dip or spike of an individual pumping rate of one of the pump units is automatically offset by a predetermined temporary adjustment of an individual pumping rate of another one or more of the pump units (emphasis added by examiner) to thereby reduce effects of the temporary dip or spike on the cumulative pumping rate of the pump units”, see lines 7-13.
For the above reasons the amendments and arguments have not overcome the rejections under 35 USC 102.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES G FREAY whose telephone number is (571)272-4827. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri: 8:00 - 5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Essama Omgba can be reached at (469)295-9278. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHARLES G FREAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
CGF
February 24, 2026