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 11/21/2023. The claims 1-20 are pending, of which the claim(s) 1, 9, & 16 is/are in independent form.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In para. 037, line 2, “rate setpoints for each pump that satisfies the suggester rate setpoint” should be “rate setpoints for each pump that satisfies the suggested rate setpoint” to improve the clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because
As to Fig. 3, in Step 306, the word “suggester” should be changed to “suggested” to improve the clarity.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1- 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to Judicial Exception (“abstract idea”) without significantly more.
As to claim 1, the claim is reproduced below for convenience
1. A method for preventing a power blackout of a fracturing spread configured to hydraulically fracture a subsurface formation comprising:
[a] determining an available capacity of one or more power units that supply power to one or more electric pumps of the fracturing spread;
[b] determining an actual power usage of the one or more electric pumps;
[c] determining if the fracturing spread is at risk of the power blackout based on the available capacity and the actual power usage;
[d] determining one or more actions to mitigate the power blackout; and
[e] executing the one or more actions to mitigate the power blackout.
1. Step 1: Yes. The claim is to a process with series of method steps, which is one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
2. Step 2A, Prong 1: Yes. The claim recites limitations [a] to [e] comprising various determining steps and a executing step. These limitations are considered an abstract idea (“Mental Processes”) based exception because the BRI of these limitations cover performance of the limitation in the mind at most with the aid of the pen and paper.
For example, the limitation [a] covers a human mind to observe (read) the available capacity values that represent capacity of one power unit used in the fracturing spread. The specification in paras. 034, 042 describe available capacity as a mathematical variable Pavailable. Similarly, the limitation [b] requires human mind observing/reading actual power usage information, see spec, para. 043. The limitation [c] recites comparing (judging and providing opinion) of the collected (observed) two variables, namely the available power capacity and “actual power usage” and if the capacity is smaller than the actual power usages, there is a risk of power blackout per para. 066 of the specification. The limitation [d] requires identifying any possible actions that can help/mitigate the imbalance of the power supply and power demand, which can be user thinking of one or more actions such as need to increase available power supply value. The limitation [e] is overly broad even though it recites the word ‘executing’. The executing the actions encompasses mere changing (increasing/decreasing) of the variable/settings value which can be called executing of the value changes. The limitation of the preamble is not positively recited and hence cannot provide a patentable weight. Here, just because these variables represent the information about fracture a subsurface formation, it does not automatically mean that these variables can be read and processed in human’s mind.
Thus, the limitations [a]- [e] clearly fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Please note that the claim 1 does not include any computer elements. The specification in paras. 026-027 clearly show that mere comparing of the actual power usage data with available capacity helps to determine whether the fracturing spread is at risk of power blackout or not. Again, all of these limitations are simple operations for human mind to perform mentally even though the variables/parameters of the claim are in the technological field of blackout prevention in fracturing spread. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
3. Step 2A, Prong 2: No. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements. Therefore, there is nothing meaningful limitations in the claim to place the mental processes into a practical application.
Arguendo only for the sake of the argument, even if the limitation [e] executing the one or more actions to mitigate the power blackout is to be treated as an additional element, the limitation [e] is recited at very high level of generality such that it amounts to mere adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception or adding an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g). This is so because the limitation covers every possible types of the executions of the determined mitigating actions. The determined actions also cover every possible types of the actions. Accordingly, there is nothing in the claim to integrate the abstract idea into the practical application. The arguendo “apply it” concept or adding of insignificant extra-solution activity also cannot provide a practical application. Hence, the disputable individual/combination of additional element(s) fail(s) to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it/they do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the above abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
4. Step 2B: No. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional elements. Even if the last limitation, were to treated as additional element, this goes nothing beyond adding an “apply it” or adding of well-understood, routine, and conventional insignificant extra-solution activity and examiner takes an Official notice (by relying on the cited prior arts) to that effect for Berkheimer memo. Accordingly, the additional elements when considered separately and in combination, do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 9:
1. Step 1: Yes. The claim is to a non-transitory, computer-readable medium, which is one of the four statutory category of invention.
2. Step 2A, Prong 1: Yes. The claim recites the limitations of “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; determining if the fracturing spread is at risk of a power blackout based on the available capacity and the actual power usage; determining one or more actions to mitigate the power blackout; and executing the one or more actions to mitigate the power blackout”.
These limitations, as drafted and under BRI, cover performance of the limitations in the human mind but for the recitation of the generic computer component, namely a processor. See preamble of the claim. For example, but for the recitation of “executable by a processor” language, nothing in the claim limitations preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind for the similar reasons set forth above in claim 1. If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components as in this case for a processor, then they fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
3. Step 2A, Prong 2, No. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – using a processor to perform all of the steps. The processor in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
4. Step 2B, No. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the method step amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
As to claim 16, The claim is reproduced below.
16. A system comprising:
[i] one or more electric pumps of a fracturing spread, wherein the fracturing spread is configured to hydraulically fracture a subsurface formation;
[ii] one or more power units configured to supply power to the one or more electric pumps;
[ii] a processor; and a computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon that are executable by the processor to cause the processor to,
[a] determine an available capacity of the one or more power units;
[b] determine an actual power usage of the one or more electric pumps;
[c] determine if the fracturing spread is at risk of a power blackout based on the available capacity and the actual power usage;
[d] determine one or more actions to mitigate the power blackout; and
[e] execute the one or more actions to mitigate the power.
1. Step 1: Yes. The claim is to a system with various hardware elements, which is one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
2. Step 2A, Prong 1: Yes. The claim(s) recite(s) limitations shown above with bold emphasis. These limitations are considered an abstract idea based exception because the cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer component namely a processor for the similar reasons set forth above in claim 1. That is, the limitation shown with bold emphasis are simple enough to perform in human’s mind at most with the aid of the pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components as in this case, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
3. Step 2A, Prong 2: No. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional element(s) shown with elements (i) to (iii) without bold emphasis. Here, the element (iii)’s processor and computer readable storage medium are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Similarly, the element (i) and (ii) cover structural elements commonly used in fracturing spread hence are akin to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h), namely computer controlled fracking . Thus, additional elements go nothing beyond using the computer as a tool to perform abstract idea into a technological environment- computer controlled hydraulic fracture. Accordingly, the individual/combination of additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the above abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
4. Step 2B: No. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) (i) to (iii) amount(s) to no more than mere linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (computer controlled fracking) and using computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, the additional elements when considered separately and in combination, do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 2- 4, they depend on claim 1 and therefore recite the same abstract idea and additional elements of the claim 1. The claims 2- 4 recite other new limitations but they too can be practically performed in human’s mind hence still abstract. Please note that a narrower abstract idea is still an abstract idea as in this case since the limitations of the claim 2- 4 are more narrowing the abstract idea of the claim 1. The claims 2-4 do not recite any new additional elements. Therefore, the claims 2- 4 fail to provide a practical application and an inventive step. The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 5, this claim depend on claim 1 hence recites the same abstract idea and additional elements of the claim 1. The claim clarifies that the “one or more actions” of the limitation [e] of the claim 1 to include “sending a warning message to users, suggesting fracturing parameters to the users, or communicating the fracturing parameters to a control system to implement into hydraulic fracturing operations”.
This clarification of executing action is an additional element. However, mere sending a warning or suggesting fracturing parameters or communicating the fracturing parameters are akin to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) since they are applied at very high level. Mere adding of the insignificant extra-solution activity cannot provide a practical application. The claim is continued to be directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element introduced in the claim 5 is an insignificant extra solution activity that is well-understood, routine, conventional activities and examiner takes an Official notice to that effect by relying on the cited prior arts for Berkheimer memo. Additional elements individually or in combination do not provide an inventive concept. The claim 5 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 6- 8, these claims depend on claim 5 hence recite the same abstract idea and additional elements set forth above in claim 5. These claims add other limitations but all of them can be practically performed in human’s mind hence are mental processes based abstract idea. Thus, claims 6- 8 fail to provide a practical application and inventive step. The claims 6- 8 are not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 10- 15, these claims depend on claim 9 hence recite the same abstract idea and additional elements set forth in claim 9 above. These claims recite new limitation but they too can be practically performed in human’s mind (except the limitation of claim 13 as in claim 5 but are well-understood, routine, conventional extra-solution activities) hence still abstract. The claims do not provide practical application and an inventive step for the similar reasons discussed above in claims 2- 8.
Regarding claims 17- 20, they depend on claim 16, hence recite the same abstract idea and additional elements of the claim 16. These claims add new limitations but they too can be practically performed in human’s mind hence still abstract. The claim 17, states the power is generator or electric grid and can be an additional element but it goes nothing beyond mere generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, the claims 17- 20 do not provide a practical application and an inventive step. These claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1- 3, 5- 7, 9- 11, 13- 18, & 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Publes et al. (US 11686186 B1, Publication Date: 2023-06-27).
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 (Col 9 lines 45- 68, 2Col 10 lines 1-35).
Regarding claim 2, Publes further teaches 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).
Regarding claim 3, Publes further teaches 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).
Regarding claim 5, Publes further teaches 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).
Regarding claim 10, Publes teaches 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 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 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 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 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 (Fig. 3 & associated texts).
Regarding claim 17, Publes teaches 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 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 teaches 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 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) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publes et al. (US 11686186 B1) in view of Yeung et al., (US 20210381358 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Publes teaches the method of claim 7 further comprising: determining an estimated available capacity of the one or more power units
However, Publes 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 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 Rodriguez-Llorente et al. (US 20140073933 A1, hereinafter Rodgriguez).
Regarding claim 4, Publes 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 (Fig. 3, Col 6 lines 25- 60, Col 7 lines 25- 30).
Publes 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 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 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 and Rodgriguez.
Regarding claims 12 & 19, Publes in view of Rodgriguez teaches/suggests inventions of these claims for the similar reasons set forth above in claim 4.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1) As to claims 1, 9, & 16, Yeung (US 20210381358 A1) teaches inventions of these claims. Specifically, Yeung teaches a method [actions performed at “supervisory control unit 30”] for preventing a power blackout of a fracturing spread configured to hydraulically fracture a subsurface formation comprising: (Fig. 12);
[a] determining an available capacity [step 1320 provides supply information, e.g., “display the current electrical supply and fluid supply of the well pad site 1000 based on the signals received.”] of one or more power units that supply power to one or more electric pumps of the fracturing spread ([071]);
[b] determining an actual power usage [“supervisory control unit 30 may calculate energy demands of the well pad 1000 by monitoring or receiving feedback”, “receiving one or more signals indicative of an electrical demand…of well pad site”] of the one or more electric pumps ([066, 069, 4075]);
[c] determining [No in step 1330 after performing “supervisory control unit 30 may compare the electrical demand to the electrical supply”, “electrical demand of the well pad site 1000 is greater than the electrical supply” in “first configuration” or “that the electrical supply is greater than the electrical demand” even in second configuration of step 1370] if the fracturing spread is at risk of the power blackout5 based on the available capacity and the actual power usage ([069, 072, 075]);
[d] determining one or more actions to mitigate the power blackout; and [e] executing [step 1340 and entering into second configuration from first configuration or change to 1st configuration from 2nd configuration] the one or more actions to mitigate the power blackout ([072, 075]).
2) Hinderliter (US 20190245348 A1) teaches software control package can be implemented to allow equipment that draws power to be automatically shut down when power demand is too high for the power generation equipment to supply, or if a generator failure causes an unexpected loss in available power supply ([031]).
3) Hinderliter et al. (US 11542786 B2) teaches fast response electricity storage, or power storage system (PSS) can be provided to supply power to the power generation equipment of an electric hydraulic fracturing fleet when demand is high or in the event of a generator failure (Col 3 lines 45- 50).
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 “compare the electrical demand to the electrical supply or the fluid requirements to the fluid capacity (Step 1370)”
5 Please note that applicant’s specification in para. [027] describes blackout as a condition where power demand exceeds power supply.