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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 22 September 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention:
In independent claim 1, it is unclear if the mixing tub is a required element of the claimed structure. There is lack of antecedent basis for “the mixing tub of the blender”. There is no previous statement that the mixing tub is an element of the blender. Initially, the mixing tub is merely mentioned in the context of what the blender is configured to do during an intended operation “a blender configured to receive and mix liquid and proppant within a mixing tub”. This is not a positive recitation of the blending tub as an element of the blender or as an element of the claimed structure. Claims 2-7 fall with claim 1 concerning this issue.
In independent claim 8, it is unclear if the mixing tub is a required element of the claimed structure. There is lack of antecedent basis for “the mixing tub of the blender”. There is no previous statement that the mixing tub is an element of the blender. Initially, the mixing tub is merely mentioned in the context of what the blender is configured to do during an intended operation “a blender configured to receive and mix liquid and proppant within a mixing tub”. This is not a positive recitation of the blending tub as an element of the blender or as an element of the claimed structure. Claims 9-13 fall with claim 8 concerning this issue.
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.
Claims 1-4, 8, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Coughlin (US 2016/0167095):
Regarding claim 1, Coughlin discloses a system, comprising a fluid supply system including a blender (20) configured to receive and mix liquid and proppant within a mixing tub to form a proppant slurry; a proppant source (65,68) configured to discharge proppant; and an electrically (see [0082]) driven conveyor (15) extending between the proppant source and the mixing tub of the blender, wherein the conveyor is configured to meter delivery of proppant to the mixing tub of the blender (see [0074] and [0081]).
Regarding claim 2, the proppant source is configured to choke feed proppant to the conveyor, such that a speed of the conveyor defines a rate at which proppant is discharged from the proppant source to the conveyor (see [0081]).
Regarding claim 3, the proppant source is coupled to an enclosure substantially encompassing the conveyor, the enclosure configured to limit a maximum proppant depth on the conveyor (see Figs. 2 and 4).
Regarding claim 4, the proppant source includes a plurality of proppant containers (see [0088]), each of the plurality of proppant containers configured to discharge proppant onto the conveyor through a discharge chute extending into the enclosure.
Regarding claim 8, Coughlin discloses a system, comprising a fluid supply system including a blender (20) configured to receive and mix liquid and proppant within a mixing tub to form a proppant slurry; a proppant source (65,68) configured to discharge proppant; an electrically (see [0082]) driven conveyor (15) extending between the proppant source and the mixing tub of the blender, the conveyor configured to metered delivery of proppant to the mixing tub of the blender (see [0074] and [0081]); and a control system for controlling a speed of the conveyor to control a rate at which proppant is delivered to the blender (see [0081]). A pumpable slurry is capable of being made in the blender because water is capable of being added in a desired amount (see [0066]).
Regarding claim 10, a first sensor is located below a distal end of the conveyor, first sensor in signal communication with the control system and configured to monitor the rate at which proppant is delivered to the blender (see [0081]).
Regarding claim 12, a second sensor is located within a passage guiding proppant slurry out of the blender, the second sensor in signal communication with the control system and configured to monitor a concentration of the proppant slurry (see [0081).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 5-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coughlin (US 2016/0167095). The system of Coughlin was discussed above:
Regarding claim 5, Coughlin further discloses the conveyor having first (165) and second (115) portions both leading to blender (20) (see [0097]), although it is not expressly stated that they are at an angle. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have selected the orientation of the two portions, such as at an angle, to delivery material from two locations to the blender as disclosed.
Regarding claim 6, Coughlin further discloses the conveyor having first (165) and second (115) portions both leading to blender (20) (see [0097]), although it is not expressly stated that they are adjacent and parallel. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have selected the orientation of the two portions, such as at and parallel, to deliver material from two locations to the blender as disclosed.
Regarding claim 7, Coughlin further discloses plural containers (see [0088] and [0096]).
Regarding claim 9, Coughlin further teaches a variable frequency drive (see [0019] and [0081]); however, the drive is not for the conveyor. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have utilized a variable frequency drive for the conveyor to achieve the conveyor speed control discussed in [0074] and [0081].
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coughlin (US 2016/0167095) in view of Petri (US 2016/0207657). The system of Coughlin was discussed above. The first sensor being ultrasonic is not explicitly disclosed. Petri teaches providing a conveyor with an ultrasonic senor to measure flow rate (see [0096] and [0097]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have utilized an ultrasonic sensor as taught by Petri to measure flow rate.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coughlin (US 2016/0167095) in view of Scharmach (US 2017/0212029). The system of Coughlin was discussed above. A nuclear densitometer is not disclosed. Scharmach explains in [0006] to [0011] that nuclear densitometers are well known for measuring concentration. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have employed a nuclear densitometer to measure concentration because Scharmach explains that such is "common".
Response to Arguments
Concerning the phrase “configured to”, in an apparatus claim there is not requirement that the steps associated with the phrase “configured to” be performed by the prior art. For example, the Board and Federal circuit, in 11/533,826, affirmed that a bathtub anticipated the limitation "a semiconductor processing tool ... configured to process a semiconductor component", even though there was no mention of a semiconductor in the prior art. In the same case, the limitation “a controller configured to maintain at least one compound within a selected concentration range in the chemical solution bath, wherein the controller controls at least one of: operation of the blender unit to maintain the concentration of the at least one compound within a selected concentration range within the solution delivered to the tank; and a change in flow rate of solution into and out of the tank when a concentration of the at least one compound within the chemical solution bath falls outside of a target range” was held anticipated by the hot and cold water valves of the bathtub, even though there was no mention of any concentration of anything in the prior art. The standard is clear, the prior art need only be capable of preforming the recited function.
In the instant claims, “hydraulic fracturing operation” is an intended operation, not a structure.
Similarly, pumpable slurry is not a structural element of the claimed structure. Coughlin discloses pumping water to the blender, therefore the blender is capable of producing a pumpable slurry. A step of making a pumpable slurry is not required.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID L SORKIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1148. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-3:30pm.
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, Claire X Wang can be reached at (571) 270-1051. 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.
DAVID L. SORKIN
Examiner
Art Unit 1774
/DAVID L SORKIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
