DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office action is responsive to the communication received on 04/27/2026. The claims 1-20 are pending, of which the claim(s) 1, 9, &16 is/are in independent form.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The received amendment dated 04-27-2026 to the specification and drawings are acceptable.
Upon reconsideration, examiner determines that the amended independent claims overcome the outstanding claims rejections under 101 are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 04/27/2026, with respect to the amended limitations of the independent claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of discovery of new prior art to US 20160190808 A1 Lee and its combination with prior cited arts as shown below.
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.
Claim(s) 1- 3, 5- 7, 9- 11, 13- 18, & 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publes et al. (US 11686186 B1, reference of record) in view of Lee et al. (US 20160190808 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Publes teaches a method [“one or process blocks of FIG. 3 may be performed by a controller (e.g., controller 130)”] for preventing a power blackout of a fracturing spread [“hydraulic fracturing system 100 includes a well 102”] configured to hydraulically fracture a subsurface formation comprising: (Figs.1 -3, Col 2 lines 55- 60);
[a] determining an available capacity [Fig. 3, Step 310: “monitoring an available power supply of at least one power source for a system for hydraulic fracturing, and a current power demand of the system”] of one or more power units [fig. 2, items 132] that supply power to one or more electric pumps [“During operation of the hydraulic fracturing system 100, power requirements for operating the pump systems 104 and other power-consuming components”] of the fracturing spread (Col. 5 lines 20-26, Col 9 lines 20-30);
[b] determining an actual power usage [Step 310: “monitoring an available power supply of at least one power source for a system for hydraulic fracturing, and a current power demand of the system (block 310)”] of the one or more electric pumps (Col 9 lines 20-25);
[c] determining if the fracturing spread is at risk [Step 320: “whether a relationship between the current power demand and the available power supply is indicative of an impending power failure (block 320)”. Please note that applicant’s specification in para. 027-028 discuss power supply lagging (e.g., “the available capacity may be compared to the actual power usage to generate a power condition… fracturing spread may be at risk of a power blackout”) the power demand as an example of blackout] of the power blackout based on the available capacity and the actual power usage (1Col 6, lines 30- 45, Col 9 lines 34-45);
[d] determining one or more actions [reduce power consumption or activate inactive power sources as part of determining “adjustment” to the motor speed or reducing flow rate] to mitigate the power blackout; and [e] executing [Step 330] the one or more actions to mitigate the power blackout by implementing the one or more actions into the one or more electric pumps of the fracturing spread; determining, whether a relationship between the current power demand and the available power supply is indicative of an impending power failure” in another time of checking the relationship]; 2Col 10 lines 1-35).
Publes teaches as part of determining and implementing “one or more actions” to mitigate the determined power blackout (based on comparison between available capacity and power usage), determining and executing various actions that comprise “reduction of the current power demand” and “activation of the at least one inactive power source to increase the available power supply” (Col 10, lines 20- 40).
However, Publes is silent about stating whether all of its determined mitigating actions are performed at once or in which other these actions are executed by continue checking whether the action resolved the blackout or not as shown above with strikethrough emphasis. Simply put, Publes fails to teach the steps of:
determining, after executing the one or more actions, whether the available capacity and the actual power usage satisfy a threshold;
and in response to determining that the available capacity and the actual power usage do not satisfy the threshold, determining one or more additional actions to mitigate the power blackout as claimed but are cured by Lee.
Lee teaches a method and system for managing a supply of electric power by controlling a power generator for determining one or more actions to mitigate the power blackout due to imbalance of the available amount of power and electric power use amount ([001] Abstract). Lee teaches its power management system includes a plurality of power generators 100, an electric power management device 200, an Energy Storage System (ESS) 300, and a plurality of electric power use devices 400 ([020]). Specifically, Lee teaches A method for preventing a power blackout using a processor [“electric power management device 200”] comprising:
executing the one or more actions to mitigate the power blackout [“of power failures due to the rapid increase of electricity use” such as available power is “less than the amount of electric power use”], by implementing the one or more actions into the one or more electric pumps of the fracturing spread ([002, 043]);
determining, after executing the one or more actions [“control the first power generator 110 to be operated first”, “and the second power generator 120 may be controlled to operate when an amount of power supplied is insufficient”, “the third power generator 130 may be controlled to operate”, “ascending order of priority”], whether the available capacity and the actual power usage satisfy a threshold; and in response to determining that the available capacity and the actual power usage do not satisfy [“the electric power interruption control unit may interrupt electric power supplied to the second electric power use device 420 having the second priority when the electric power supply amount is still insufficient”] the threshold, determining one or more additional actions [step 312 (activating of the 3rd generator) and S316 (interrupting power loads) are additional mitigating steps even when the step S308 (activating of the 2nd generator) cannot solve the amount of generation being less than power use] to mitigate the power blackout ([044, 047, 062-063], Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to (1) combine Lee and Publes because they both related to preventing power blackouts by using multiple mitigating actions and (2) modify the system/method of Publes to include steps of determining, after executing the one or more actions, whether the available capacity and the actual power usage satisfy a threshold and in response to determining that the available capacity and the actual power usage do not satisfy the threshold, determining one or more additional actions to mitigate the power blackout as in Lee. Doing so would provide consistent power to the fracturing spread and resolve the power blackouts without degrading power generation efficiency (Lee [002-003]). Furthermore, Lee teaches missing details for Publes about in which sequence its various power blackout mitigation actions (increasing generation before deciding to performing demand reduction) can be executed so that the mitigating actions will be more efficient and power supply can be more reliable (Lee [003]). Thus, the invention of the claim 1 would have been obvious over Publes in view of Lee.
Regarding claim 2, Publes further teaches/suggests the method of claim 1, wherein the power units include one or more generators [“sources 132 may include an electrical utility grid, an electrical micro grid, one or more turbines, one or more generator”] and an electric grid (Fig. 2, Col 4 lines 41- 45, claim 5 & Lee [023]).
Regarding claim 3, Publes further teaches/suggests the method of claim 1 further comprising: comparing the available capacity to the actual power usage to generate a power condition [“as a ratio of available power supply to current power demand.”]; determining if the power condition indicates the one or more electric pumps is at risk of the power blackout; and determining the one or more actions [“the ratio of available power supply to current power demand may indicate a flow rate reduction and/or motor speed reduction”] to mitigate the power blackout (Col 6 lines 20-60 & Lee Fig. 3, [046]).
Regarding claim 5, Publes further teaches/suggests the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more actions include (i) sending a warning message [“ In such cases, the controller 130 may provide a notification (e.g., on an operator interface) indicating that the command was not executed or only partially executed”] to users, (ii) suggesting fracturing parameters to the users, or3 (iii) communicating the fracturing parameters [“flow rate” speed, “torque”, “load distribution” etc., having different selectable settings are mapped as fracturing parameters. “For example, the controller 130 may set a torque setting (e.g., a torque speed setting (e.g., a speed target setting or a speed limit setting)”, “the controller 130 may transmit an activation signal to the inactive power source”] to a control system to implement into hydraulic fracturing operations (Col 7 lines 35-45, Col. 8 lines 1- 60).
Regarding claim 6, Publes further teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the fracturing parameters include a suggested rate setpoint and a suggested chemical setpoint (Col 3, lines 62- 68. Please further note that the claim 6 depends on claim 5 where only one claim element out of 3 elements shown with (i) to (iii) are required. Hence, the future defining of the option (iii) is an optional claim element. Thus, Publes meets the requirement of the claim 6 without having to disclose rate setpoint or chemical setpoint since it is an optional limitation).
Regarding claim 7, Publes further teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the suggested fracturing parameters are determined based on the available capacity and expected treating pressure (Fig. 3, step 330 & associated texts).
Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Thus, only in summary, Publes teaches a non-transitory, computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon that are executable by a processor [CPU of the controller 130 of fig. 2] to perform operations comprising:
determining an available capacity of one or more power units that supply power to one or more electric pumps of a fracturing spread, wherein the fracturing spread is configured to hydraulically fracture a subsurface formation; determining an actual power usage of the one or more electric pumps (Fig. 3, step 310 & associated texts);
determining [step 320] if the fracturing spread is at risk [“controller 130 may determine whether a relationship between the current power demand and the available power supply is indicative of an impending power failure”] of a power blackout based on the available capacity and the actual power usage (Fig. 3, Step 320, Col 6 lines 20- 40);
determining one or more actions [“controller 130 may determine an adjustment to a speed of a motor 134 (e.g., respective adjustments for each of the motors 134), for a fluid pump 108”] to mitigate the power blackout; and executing the one or more actions to mitigate the power blackout (Fig. 3, Step 330, Col 6 lines 61- 68).
Publes fails to teach but Lee teaches determining, after executing the one or more actions [after in S308 checking again in S309 and performing of additional steps S311 and S316’s interruption of the power accordance to priority], whether the available capacity and the actual power usage satisfy a threshold; and in response to determining that the available capacity and the actual power usage do not satisfy the threshold, determining one or more additional actions to mitigate the power blackout ([044, 047, 062-063], Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to (1) combine Lee and Publes because they both related to preventing a power blackouts by using multiple mitigating actions and (2) modify the system/method of Publes to include missing limitations as in Lee. Doing so would allow to provide consistent power to the fracturing spread and resolve the power blackouts without degrading power generation efficiency (Lee [002-003]). Thus, the claim 9 would have been obvious over Publes in view of Lee.
Regarding claim 10, Publes teaches/suggests the non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 9, wherein the power units include one or more generators [“one or more generator sets”] and an electric grid (Fig. 2, claim 5).
Regarding claim 11, Publes teaches/suggests the non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 9 further comprising: comparing the available capacity to the actual power usage to generate a power condition [“the current power demand exceeds the available power supply (e.g., the ratio is 1:>1”]; determining if the power condition indicates the one or more electric pumps is at risk of the power blackout; and determining the one or more actions to mitigate the power blackout (Col 6 lines 25- 35).
Regarding claim 13, Publes teaches/suggests the non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 9, wherein the one or more actions include sending a warning message [“the controller 130 may provide a notification”] to users, suggesting fracturing parameters to the users, or communicating the fracturing parameters [torque, speed of motor, load distribution] to a control system to implement into hydraulic fracturing operations (Col 7 lines 40-45, Col 8 lines 1- 25, claim 3).
Regarding claim 14, Publes teaches/suggests the non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 13, wherein the fracturing parameters include a suggested rate setpoint and a suggested chemical setpoint (Col 8, lines 1- 25).
Regarding claim 15, Publes teaches/suggests the non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 13, wherein the fracturing parameters are determined prior to the hydraulic fracturing operations or during the hydraulic fracturing operations (Col 2 lines 48- 55, Col 6 lines 5- 15).
Regarding claim 16, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Thus, only in summary, Publes teaches a system [“fracturing system 100”] comprising: (Fig. 1);
[a] one or more electric pumps [“fracturing fluid may be achieved by one or more pump systems 104 that may be mounted”] of a fracturing spread, wherein the fracturing spread is configured to hydraulically fracture a subsurface formation (Col 2 lines 65- 68);
[b] one or more power units [power sources 132] configured to supply power to the one or more electric pumps (Fig. 2);
[c] a processor; and a computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon that are executable by the processor to cause the processor to (controller 130 has a processor and computer-readable medium, Col 4, lines 25- 35),
determine an available capacity of the one or more power units [step 310 monitoring available power supply]; determine an actual power usage [step 310 monitoring current power demand] of the one or more electric pumps; determine if the fracturing spread is at risk [transitioning into step 330 from step 320 after determining an indication of an impending power failure with comparison of the supply and demand] of a power blackout based on the available capacity and the actual power usage; determine one or more actions [reduction of flow rates/activation of inactive power source] to mitigate the power blackout; and execute the one or more actions to mitigate the power blackout by implementing the one or more actions into the one or more electric pumps of the fracturing spread; determine,
and the actual power usage satisfy a threshold;
Publes does not teach limitations shown with strikethrough emphasis but are cured by Lee as stated above in claims 1 and 9 by activating additional generators first and start prioritizing the load reduction if the activated additional generators do not resolve the power blackout. That is, Lee teaches cause the processor to determine, after executing the one or more actions, whether the available capacity and the actual power usage satisfy a threshold; and in response to determining that the available capacity and the actual power usage do not satisfy [“still insufficient in step S313] the threshold, determine one or more additional actions to mitigate the power blackout. (Fig. 3 & associated texts, [063]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to (1) combine Lee and Publes because they both related to preventing a power blackouts by using multiple mitigating actions and (2) modify the system/method of Publes to include missing limitations as in Lee. Doing so would allow to provide consistent power to the fracturing spread and resolve the power blackouts without degrading power generation efficiency (Lee [002-003]). Thus, the claim 16 would have been obvious over Publes in view of Lee.
Regarding claim 17, Publes teaches/suggests the system of claim 16, wherein the power units include one or more generators and an electric grid (Claim 5).
Regarding claim 18, Publes teaches/suggests the system of claim 16 further comprising: comparing the available capacity to the actual power usage to generate a power condition; determining if the power condition indicates the one or more electric pumps is at risk of the power blackout; and determining the one or more actions to mitigate the power blackout (Fig. 3 & associated texts).
Regarding claim 20, Publes further teaches/suggests the system of claim 16, wherein the one or more actions include sending a warning [“controller 130 may provide a notification”] message to users, suggesting fracturing parameters to the users, or communicating the fracturing parameters to a control system to implement into hydraulic fracturing operations (Col 7 lines 35-40).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publes et al. (US 11686186 B1) in view of Lee (US 20160190808 A1), and in further view of Yeung et al., (US 20210381358 A1, reference of record).
Regarding claim 8, Publes in view of Lee teaches/suggests the method of claim 7 further comprising: determining an estimated available capacity of the one or more power units
However, Publes in view of Lee may or may not explicitly teach its determining an estimated available capacity and estimated power usages is prior to the hydraulic fracture operations as claimed and shown with strikethrough emphasis but this deficiency is cured by Yeung.
Yeung relates to a controller [supervisory control unit 30] monitoring electrical power requirements to operate hydraulic fracturing system (Fig. 1). Yeung teaches a method [actions performed at the “supervisory control unit 30”] for preventing a power blackout of a fracturing spread [“well pad site 1000”] configured to hydraulically fracture a subsurface formation comprising: ([072]);
determining an estimated available capacity [“an electrical supply”] of the one or more power units prior to the hydraulic fracturing operations [prior to operating in second configuration. The claim covers every possible type of the fracturing operations] ([058-059, 065]);
determining an estimated power usage [“the electrical power requirements of the units 410, 420, 430 may be calculated for a wellhead” and “the total electrical power requirement of the well pad layout 1000”] of the one or more electric pumps prior to the hydraulic fracturing operations ([040-042, 066]);
determining if the one or more electric pumps will be at risk of the power blackout during hydraulic fracturing operations based on the estimated available capacity and the estimated power usage; and adjusting operation parameters [“changing a supply or electrical power from the electrical generator 300”] to mitigate the power blackout (Fig. 10, [068-069, 072-075]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to (1) combine Yeung and Publes because they both related to preventing power supply and requirement imbalance in a fracturing spread operation and (2) modify the system/method of Publes in view of Lee to estimate determine estimated available power and estimated power usage prior to the hydraulic fracturing operations as in Yeung to ensure sufficient power is already made available before attempting to operate the loads even if the flow rate were to be at maximum anticipated flow rate during operations (Yeung, [040]). Furthermore, doing so would avoid the situation of unexpected/accidental actual available power being less than the required power to operate the power loads in the fracturing system 100 as can be clear to PHOSITA.
Claim(s) 4, 12, & 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publes et al. (US 11686186 B1) in view of Lee, and further in view of Rodriguez-Llorente et al4. (US 20140073933 A1, hereinafter Rodgriguez).
Regarding claim 4, Publes in view of Lee further teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the power condition [“The relationship between the current power demand and the available power supply”] includes (i) a ratio [“power demand and the available power supply may be expressed as a ratio of available power supply to current 30 power demand.”] of the available capacity and the actual power usage, (ii) and (iii) function [“the current power demand is greater than 80%, greater than 90%, greater than 95%, or the like”] of the available capacity and the actual power usage, and wherein the power condition is compared against a threshold [“example, the controller 130 may control the flow rate based on the current power demand corresponding to ( e.g., equaling, exceeding, or being within a threshold of) the available power supply”] to determine if the one or more electric pumps is at risk of the power blackout (Publes Fig. 3, Col 6 lines 25- 60, Col 7 lines 25- 30).
Publes in view of Lee clearly teaches comparing of the power condition (the relationship) with the threshold between a monitored first metric (capacity/supply) and a monitored second metric (demand). Publes’ controller already have both supply and demand value already available but it is not used to calculate the difference therebetween these two values and hence used to calculate the power condition. Publes fails to state the relationship to consider (ii) “a difference between the available capacity and the actual power usage” as claimed and shown with strikethrough emphasis.
However, PHOSITA knows that as part of the comparing between two metrics, calculating their differences is well-known in the art.
For example, Rodgriguez relates to signal processing and analysis for the received data metrics/values ([001]). Specifically, Rodgriguez teaches a method comprising a calculating a relationship metric [“the ratio and difference may be combined into a single metric,”] between a first metric [“averages of the second” quartiles] and a second metric [averages of the third quartiles], wherein the relationship metric includes a ratio of the first metric and the second metric, a difference [“the ratio (or the difference) of the averages of the second and third quartiles of second difference signal 2022 may be determined”] between the first metric and the second metric, and function [the ratio already includes function between two metrics] of the first metric and the second metric, and wherein the relationship metric is compared [“the ratio and difference may be combined into a single metric, which may be compared to a threshold.”] against a threshold to determine one or more condition ([0314, 0378]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to (1) combine the concept of Rodgriguez with Publes in view of Lee because they both related to solving the technical problem of performing statistical analyzing between two or more monitored values/metrics and (2) modify the determined “relationship between the current power demand and the available power supply” of Publes in view of Lee to consider all of the three items (differences, ratio, and function between demand and supply) and compare such determined relationship value with corresponding threshold as in Rodgriguez. Doing so would further increase the accuracy of the risk of the power blackout determination by analyzing the supply and power demand (e.g., by avoiding possible false positive and false negative) as can be clear to PHOSITA (Publes, Col 6 lines 20- 23). Therefore, the invention of this claim would have been obvious to PHSOITA based on the combined teachings of Publes, Lee, and Rodgriguez.
Regarding claims 12 & 19, Publes, Lee, and Rodgriguez teaches/suggests inventions of these claims for the similar reasons set forth above in claim 4.
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.
Contacts
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANTOSH R. POUDEL whose telephone number is (571)272-2347. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (8:30 am - 5:00 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, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571) 272-2279. 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.
/SANTOSH R POUDEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115
1 “The current power demand exceeds the available power supply (e.g., the ratio is 1:>1), or the current power demand is within a threshold of the available power supply (e.g., the current power demand is greater than 80%, greater than 90%, greater than 95%, or the like, of the available power supply). The relationship between the current power demand and the available power supply may indicate an impending power failure due”
2 As further shown in FIG. 3, process 300 may include causing, based on determining that the relationship between the current power demand and the available power supply indicates the impending power failure, reduction of flow rates of one or more fluid pumps of the system to reduce the current power demand (block 330). For example, the controller (e.g., using a processor, a memory, a communication component, or the like) may cause, based on determining that the relationship between the current power demand and the available power supply indicates the impending power failure, reduction of flow rates of one or more fluid pumps of the system to reduce the current power demand, as described above
3 Please note that the claim requires only one element out of the 3 elements due to recitation of “or”.
4 Reference of record.
Prosecution Insights