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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 20, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: in the second to the last line of the claim, after “unit profile” “for each of the one or more hydraulic fracturing units” should be inserted. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 3 the claim should be amended to make clear reference to the intended one or more gas turbine engines and the one or more pumps. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The amendments have overcome the previous rejections under 35 USC 112(a).
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) 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Chretien (USPN 11,629,708).
With regards to claim 18, Chretien et al further discloses a wellsite hydraulic fracturing system 150 (see col. 4 lines 29-44 which sets forth the system 150 pumps a stimulation fluid, sand, a slurry, a treatment fluid, water a composite etc.) to operate hydraulic fracturing units (106a,b,c), the system comprising: one or more hydraulic fracturing units configured to provide a slurry (see col. 4 line 40) to a wellhead 114 in hydraulic fracturing stages (the stages of a hydraulic fracturing system are the various operational states, such as the pumping of fluid down the well mentioned at col 4 line 35) when positioned at a hydrocarbon well site 152, each of the one or more hydraulic fracturing units including: a gas turbine engine (see col. 5 lines 24-27), a transmission 110 connected to the gas turbine engine, a pump 112 connected to the transmission and powered by the gas turbine engine via the transmission, a local controller (104a,b,c) for the pump, and a supervisory controller 102 to control the one or more hydraulic fracturing units 106, the supervisory controller in signal communication with a terminal (see col. 3 line 30), the supervisory controller including a processor (CPU of col. 3 line 34) and a memory (col. 3 lines 24 and 25) storing instructions (see col. 3 lines 37-40), the instructions, when executed by the processor, configured to: for each of the one or more hydraulic fracturing units, obtain hydraulic fracturing unit parameters (see the paragraph of col. 5 line 35 to col. 6 line 29, especially at col. 5 lines 51-56; and also col 6 lines 56-62), and build a hydraulic fracturing unit profile (see col. 6 lines 56-62, and at least col. 8 lines 31-67, note a profile is a data collection representing the hydraulic fracturing) for each of the one or more hydraulic fracturing units, the hydraulic fracturing unit profile to include the hydraulic fracturing unit parameters (see in particular col. 6 lines 58 and 59 stating that the control system is configured to store “any information received from any one or more sources, for example, any one or more sensors, devices components or equipment”; and, the pressure rating, the temperature, age and “any other characteristic or operational parameter” of col. 8 lines 51-55), update the hydraulic fracturing unit profile during operation based on sensor data received from one or more sensors associated with the respective hydraulic fracturing unit (from the disclosure at col. 6 line 56 through col. 7 line 56 it is clear the supervisory controller receives information from the sensors during operation and stores this data in the profile to perform various monitoring and control functions; for example in col. 7 line21 the “lock-up state” and the “clutch application state” are real time conditions and in col. 7 lines 32- 37 additionally make clear that the sensor data is obtained and stored/ the profile updated either continuously or periodically during operation when it discusses that a triggering event or condition “has occurred, is about to or anticipated to occur, may occur or any combination thereof”).
With regards to claim 19, Chretien et al further discloses a wellsite hydraulic fracturing system of claim 18, wherein the supervisory controller further includes instructions, when executed by the processor, to: determine which of the one or more hydraulic fracturing units not to utilize (note the discussion of powering down as a mitigation step at col. 11 lines 38-54) in a hydraulic fracturing operation based on each of the one or more hydraulic fracturing units' hydraulic fracturing unit profile (see Fig. 4 which notes the mitigation step 408 is in response to determining an event has occurred in step 406 which is done in response to the gathered data, i.e., the profile). This updating would satisfy the desired result of “such that the hydraulic fracturing unit profile reflects historical and current operational characteristics of the hydraulic fracturing unit over time.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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.
Claim(s) 20 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chretien et al as applied to claims 18 above, and further in view of Zhang et al (USPAP 2018/0320483).
As set forth above Chretien et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed but does not disclose that the supervisory controller prompts a user of a cavitation event (claims 13 and 20) and in response to the cavitation event lowers the maximum power output of the engine. Zhang et al teaches of an engine 30 driving a fracturing pump 34 via a transmission 32 and includes a controller 42 having a processor 48 and memory 50 obtaining hydraulic fracturing unit operating parameters via sensors 38. The controller determines receives component durability data 56, including an indication or prompt to the user in the form of the pump cavitation prediction data 60, which is sent to the data base/profile in the controller (see [0018] at least). Zhang et al then utilizes this data in an optimization program 90 to control and adjust power outputs (see for example the engine speed adjustments described at [0026]) in response to the pump cavitation event (see [0023] which sets forth that the flow rates from the plurality of pumps are controlled to avoid cavitation).
At the time of the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include cavitation monitoring and fracturing pump engine control based upon the cavitation event such that the engine and its speed is controlled to avoid cavitation and thus premature damage to the pump (see [0023]). While Zhang et al do not specifically mention lowering a maximum power output of the engine they do discuss adjusting the engine speed in response to the cavitation event as noted above. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the technique of adjusting the speed of the engine, which is directly related to the engine power, and since the speed adjustment has a limited number of options (raise, maintain or lower speed/power) as taught by Zhang et al, to lower the engine power/speed to improve the durability and useful life of the Chretien et al fracturing pump by lowering the engine speed/power for the predictable result of optimizing the pump performance KSR Int’l Co. V. Teleflex Inc. 550 U.S. ___, 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (Supreme Court 2007) (KSR).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 and 6-17 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to the rejection under 35 USC 102 of claims 18 and 19 the Applicant argues that “Chertien et al. does not disclose or suggest tying the profile to historical and current operational characteristics and to recite continuous or periodic updating.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted above Chertien et al disclose at col. 6 line 56 through col. 7 line 56 it is clear the supervisory controller receives information from the sensors during operation and stores this data in the profile to perform various monitoring and control functions; for example in col. 7 line21 the “lock-up state” and the “clutch application state” are real time conditions and in col. 7 lines 32- 37 additionally make clear that the sensor data is obtained and stored/ the profile updated either continuously or periodically during operation when it discusses that a triggering event or condition “has occurred, is about to or anticipated to occur, may occur or any combination thereof”.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9 line 14-28, filed February 20, 2026, with respect to claims 2 and 11 (having the similar amendment) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 2-4 and 6-17 has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
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 on (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
March 21, 2026