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 September 24, 2026 which amended claims 18 and 21.
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 18-21 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.
Claim 18 is vague and indefinite because in lines 28-30 there is no antecedent basis for the steps of “determining the data indicative…ability to be operated at the maximum power output includes evaluating…”. Further, it is unclear if the “determining” and the “evaluating” steps are to be done by the supervisory controller or prior to being included in the relevant profile (see lines 25 and 26).
The examiner suggests amending claim 18 in a manner similar to claim 19 and setting forth: “wherein the supervisory controller further includes instructions, when executed by the processor, to: evaluate at least one of the maintenance cycle for the pump and a maintenance cycle for the engine to determine the data indicative of the respective hydraulic fracturing unit’s ability to be operated at the maximum power output”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 and 6-17 are allowed.
Claims 18-21 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 2-4 and 6-17 are allowable, and furthermore claims 18-21 would be allowable if the above rejection under 35 USC 112(b) is overcome, for the reasons set forth in the office action of March 25, 2026 at lines 4-6.
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.
/CHARLES G FREAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
CGF
September 29, 2026
