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 .
Request for Continued Examination
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/29/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7, 9-17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 states “a controller configured with program language to receive the time-based signal and process the same for frequency analysis to identify a deviation from one or more periodicities of the time-based periodic signal indicating a need for pump maintenance”.
Claim 17 states “identifying the deviation from the one or more periodicities of the time-based periodic signal indicating a need for pump maintenance”.
There appears to be no support for these specific limitations in the specification as filed. Therefore, they are considered new matter. It is noted that applicant did not appear to show any support for these specific limitations in the specification as filed. As per MPEP 2163 II A, with respect to newly added or amended claims, applicant should show support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims. See, e.g., Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1370, n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Dependent claims are rejected based on their dependency to the claims rejected in detail above.
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 1-7, 9-17 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 1 states “a controller configured with program language to receive the time-based signal and process the same for frequency analysis to identify a deviation from one or more periodicities of the time-based periodic signal indicating a need for pump maintenance”.
Claim 17 states “identifying the deviation from the one or more periodicities of the time-based periodic signal indicating a need for pump maintenance”.
The intended scope of these limitations is unclear as applicant has not pointed out specific support for these limitations. Therefore, when read in light of the specification, the intended scope of these limitation is unclear as there does not appear to be support in the specification as filed for these specific limitations. Because applicant appears to show no support in the specification consistent with the claim language, these claims are indefinite when read in light of the specification. See In Re Paul G. Anderson, John A. Mcmennamy, Andrew P. Burke and Thomas A. Rak, 106 F.3d 425 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“Because appellants show no structure in their specification consistent with this claim language ”the claim“ is indefinite”).
Dependent claims are rejected based on their dependency to the claims rejected in detail above.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urdaneta US 20170082101 in view of Condition monitoring and fault diagnosis of diesel engines using instantaneous angular speed analysis, by Lin, published 2014 as evidenced by or in view of usdigital.com published 08/01/2023.
Urdaneta discloses:
1. A hydraulic pump, comprising: a plurality of reciprocating pistons 222 each mounted in co-axial alignment with a corresponding one of a plurality of cylinders (see annotated Fig 3 herein); each of the cylinders being in fluidic communication with a corresponding intake opening (opening corresponding to inlet valve 228) and a corresponding discharge opening (opening corresponding to discharge valve 236); at least one prime mover 204; a drive linkage coupling each of the plurality of reciprocating pistons with the at least one prime mover (see e.g. Fig 4), the drive linkage being operable for rotational motion that at different times produces a first axial shifting motion 221 such that each of the plurality of reciprocating pistons respectively within each corresponding one of the cylinders moves in a first direction to perform an intake stroke capable of drawing fluid through the intake opening and into the corresponding one of the cylinders, and thereafter produces a second axial shifting motion 223 such that each of the plurality of reciprocating pistons within each of the cylinders moves in a second direction opposite the first direction to perform a discharge stroke capable of expelling the fluid from the cylinder through the corresponding one of the discharge openings; and as to each cylinder a suction valve 228 mounted proximate the corresponding intake opening for the cylinder, structure mounting the suction valve for movement between a closed intake position and an open intake position (see e.g. Fig 3 including 230, 232, and valve seat for valve 228), the closed intake position being normally operable for sealing of the intake opening during the discharge stroke, the open intake position being normally operable for permitting passage of the fluid into the cylinder during the intake stroke (see e.g. Fig 3), the intake valve and the structure mounting the intake valve being subject to wear such that the intake valve ceases to be normally operable for sealing of the intake opening during the discharge stroke (see e.g. fracturing fluid in 0020); a discharge valve 236 mounted proximate the corresponding discharge opening for the cylinder, structure mounting the discharge valve for movement between a closed discharge position and an open discharge position (see e.g. Fig 3 including 238, 240, and valve seat for valve 236), the closed discharge position being normally operable for sealing of the intake opening during the intake stroke, the open discharge position being normally operable for expelling the fluid from the cylinder during the discharge stroke (see Fig 3), the discharge valve and the structure mounting the discharge valve being subject to wear such that the valve ceases to be normally operable for sealing of the discharge opening during the discharge stroke (see e.g. fracturing fluid in 0020); a rotational drive member (256, 260, or 252) of the drive linkage is constructed and arranged to vary in rotational position over time concomitant with the first axial shifting motion and the second axial shifting motion (see e.g. Fig 3); the rotational drive member being provided with a plurality of targets, at least one sensor positioned to detect rotation of the plurality of targets and to provide a time-based periodic signal characterizing such rotation (see e.g. the speed sensors in e.g. 0043 including the encoder which produce a speed signal as in 0043 wherein the speed is periodic as the motion of the pump itself is periodic as per “The fluid flow rate generated by the pump assembly 200 may depend on the physical size of the reciprocating members 222 and fluid chambers 218, as well as the pump operating speed, which may be defined by the speed or rate at which the reciprocating members 222 cycle or move within the fluid chambers 218.” in 0036. Additionally, the encoder signal itself is a periodic signal.); and a controller 310 configured with program language (see e.g. 0045) to receive the time-based signal [see e.g. speed (operating/pumping frequency) in 0042-0043] and process the same for frequency analysis to identify a deviation from one or more periodicities of the time-based periodic signal indicating a need for pump maintenance [The limitation “process the same for” does not require the claimed frequency analysis be performed. It merely requires that some processing be done e.g. to prepare the signal for frequency analysis. See e.g. 0053-0054 including “The harmonics occur at integer multiples of the pump operating speed or frequency (i.e., fundamental frequency)”. Thus, the pump speed is processed by the controller to determine harmonics for frequency analysis as in 0054 including (emphasis added): “If a first order harmonic (i.e., fundamental harmonic) corresponds to the pumping frequency, the presence of just M.sup.th order harmonics associated with a pump 202 may indicate that the pump 202 is properly functioning or otherwise healthy, where M is the product of N and i (i.e., N×i), N is the number of reciprocating members 222 (or displacement chambers 218) of the pump 202, and i is an integer. The presence of harmonics other than the M.sup.th order harmonics may indicate that the pump 202 is functioning improperly or otherwise defective.”]. Thus, it is believed Urdaneta discloses the limitations above.
Additionally, Lin discloses processing the raw encoder signal (see e.g. Fig 2) for frequency analysis (see e.g. Fig 4). It is noted that the frequency analysis is used to determine IAS spectra which deviate from the expected periodic IAS spectra thereby indicating leaky valves in a reciprocating piston machine as on page 314 at paragraph 1 of col 2: “In addition to being used for the estimation of engine loading conditions, IAS analysis can also be employed for condition monitoring and fault detection of combustion-related faults in a diesel engine. It was illustrated in this study that the amplitude of the order component of IAS spectra corresponding to the engine firing frequency in the leaking exhaust valve case is substantially less than that of the normal engine operating case for the same loading condition”.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to process the raw encoder signal of Urdaneta taught by Lin to gain the benefit of changing the analog signal into a digital signal for digital processing including frequency analysis.
In the event that the encoder of Urdaneta does not meet the limitations of the claim because Urdaneta does not explicitly disclose the encoder components, the examiner uses the usdigital.com reference to teach these limitations as indicated in the rejection above including the targets (e.g. alternating magnets of the magnetic encoder, or the alternating reflective/transmissive lines of the optical encoder) and the at least one sensor positioned to detect rotation of the plurality of targets and to provide a time-based signal characterizing such rotation (e.g. sensor of the magnetic encoder, or photos sensor/photodetector of the optical encoder). A simple substitution of one known encoder for another with the predictable result of measuring a rotational speed has been held obvious as per MPEP 2143 I (B).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize an encoder as disclosed by usdigital.com as a simple substitution for the encoder of Urdaneta to gain the benefit of using a known encoder design.
Urdaneta as modified above discloses (all references to Urdaneta unless noted otherwise):
2. The hydraulic pump of claim 1, wherein the hydraulic pump is operable for hydraulic fracturing operations in the nature of well stimulation (see e.g. 0001, and Fig 1 and associated description including 0018).
3. The hydraulic pump of claim 2, wherein the hydraulic pump is a triplex pump (see e.g. 0041 of Urdaneta).
4. The hydraulic pump of claim 2, wherein the hydraulic pump is a quintuplex pump (see e.g. 0041 of Urdaneta).
Regarding claim 5 and the limitations wherein the hydraulic pump is an octuplex pump, applicant has not provided any details of the octuplex pump. Urdaneta discloses the use of at least one pump 202 on each trailer 200 including triplex/quintuplex pumps as in e.g. 0041. Taken together, these pumps would meet the limitations of an octuplex pump. Furthermore, the addition of more cylinders to the pumps of Urdaneta as modified above would be a mere duplication of parts which has been held obvious since it has held that a mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04. VI. B. Use of an octuplex pump would also be a simple substitution of one known pump for another with the predictable result of pumping fluid which has been held obvious as per MPEP 2143 I (B).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize an octuplex pump in the system of Urdaneta as modified above to gain the benefit of increasing the capacity of the pump.
6. The hydraulic pump of claim 1, wherein the plurality of targets comprise a plurality of optical targets mounted on the rotational member (transmissive/reflective disk of usdigital.com) and an optical detector configured to produce the signals as a result of sensing the optical targets (see e.g. optical photo sensor/detector of usdigital.com).
7. The hydraulic pump of claim 1, wherein the plurality of targets comprise a plurality of magnets mounted on the rotational member (see e.g. magnetic disk of usdigital.com) and a magnetic pickup configured to produce the signals as a result of sensing the magnets (see sensor for magnetic disk of usdigital.com).
9. The hydraulic pump of claim 8, wherein the frequency analysis includes a Fourier transform-based frequency analysis to isolate a frequency indicative of a washout condition (The frequency analysis is not required in claim 1. In any event, see e.g. 0053-0054 and Figs 7 and 9 and associated description. See also equation 7 of Lin wherein the frequency analysis is used to determine IAS spectra which deviate from the expected periodic IAS spectra thereby indicating leaky valves in a reciprocating piston machine as on page 314 at paragraph 1 of col 2: “In addition to being used for the estimation of engine loading conditions, IAS analysis can also be employed for condition monitoring and fault detection of combustion-related faults in a diesel engine. It was illustrated in this study that the amplitude of the order component of IAS spectra corresponding to the engine firing frequency in the leaking exhaust valve case is substantially less than that of the normal engine operating case for the same loading condition”.).
10. The hydraulic pump of claim 8, wherein the program language utilizes a time domain of the frequency analysis to associate the frequency indicative of a washout condition with a particular one of the plurality of cylinders (The frequency analysis is not required in claim 1. In any event, see 0054 including “The controller 310 may also be operable to determine and/or compare relative amplitudes of the harmonics measured at different pumps 202 to identify which pump 202 is defective. The controller 310 may also or instead be operable to determine the phase difference or tracking between the harmonics and the pump phase or rotational position to identify which pump 202 is defective” and Fig 13 and associated description including 0071-0079).
11. The hydraulic pump of claim 1, wherein the frequency analysis includes a Fourier transform-based frequency analysis to isolate a frequency indicative of a washout condition (The frequency analysis is not required in claim 1. In any event, see e.g. 0053-0054 and Figs 7 and 9 and associated description including 0071-0079. See also equation 7 of Lin wherein the frequency analysis is used to determine IAS spectra which deviate from the expected periodic IAS spectra thereby indicating leaky valves in a reciprocating piston machine as on page 314 at paragraph 1 of col 2: “In addition to being used for the estimation of engine loading conditions, IAS analysis can also be employed for condition monitoring and fault detection of combustion-related faults in a diesel engine. It was illustrated in this study that the amplitude of the order component of IAS spectra corresponding to the engine firing frequency in the leaking exhaust valve case is substantially less than that of the normal engine operating case for the same loading condition”.).
12. The hydraulic pump of claim 1, wherein the program language utilizes a time domain of the frequency analysis to associate the frequency indicative of the washout condition with a particular one of the plurality of cylinders (The frequency analysis is not required in claim 1. In any event, see 0054 including “The controller 310 may also be operable to determine and/or compare relative amplitudes of the harmonics measured at different pumps 202 to identify which pump 202 is defective. The controller 310 may also or instead be operable to determine the phase difference or tracking between the harmonics and the pump phase or rotational position to identify which pump 202 is defective” and Fig 13 and associated description including 0071-0079).
13. The hydraulic pump of claim 1, wherein the prime mover is an internal combustion engine (see e.g. 0037).
14. The hydraulic pump of claim 13, wherein the internal combustion engine is a diesel engine (see e.g. 0037).
15. The hydraulic pump of claim 13, wherein the internal combustion engine is a reciprocating gas engine (see e.g. 0037).
16. The hydraulic pump of claim 1, wherein the prime mover is an electric motor (see e.g. 0037).
17. A method comprising; placing a well in fluidic communication with a plurality of hydraulic pumps respectively as set forth in claim 1 (see e.g. Fig 1 and associated description and see the rejection of claim 1 above); supplying a frac fluid material to the plurality of pumps (see e.g. 0020); actuating the respective drive members on each of the plurality of pumps to perform the first axial shifting motion and the second axial shifting motion (221, 223) to pump the frac fluid through the wellhead for purposes of hydraulically stimulating a well (see e.g. hydraulic fracturing in 0020).
Regarding the limitations “identifying the deviation from the one or more periodicities of the time-based periodic signal indicating a need for pump maintenance”, the limitation “process the same for” in claim 1 does not require the claimed frequency analysis be performed. It merely requires that some processing be done e.g. to ready the signal for frequency analysis. See 0053-0054 including “The harmonics occur at integer multiples of the pump operating speed or frequency (i.e., fundamental frequency)”. Thus, the pump speed is processed by the controller to determine harmonics for frequency analysis as in 0054 including (emphasis added): “If a first order harmonic (i.e., fundamental harmonic) corresponds to the pumping frequency, the presence of just M.sup.th order harmonics associated with a pump 202 may indicate that the pump 202 is properly functioning or otherwise healthy, where M is the product of N and i (i.e., N×i), N is the number of reciprocating members 222 (or displacement chambers 218) of the pump 202, and i is an integer. The presence of harmonics other than the M.sup.th order harmonics may indicate that the pump 202 is functioning improperly or otherwise defective.”. See also e.g. 0002 and leaking inlet/outlet valves in 0054.
Regarding the limitations thereafter, performing maintenance on the pump in need of maintenance to repair the washout condition, in 0001-0003 Urdaneta discloses detecting defects and performing maintenance after receiving alarms. It would be understood that in response to detecting defects such as leaking valves in 0054, maintenance on those defects would obviously be performed. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to perform maintenance on the detected defects including leaking valves as in 0054 in the system of Urdaneta as modified above to gain the benefit of avoiding pump failures during pumping operations and/or in severe damage to the pumps and other equipment as taught by Urdaneta in 0002.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments directed to the pending claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
Nowhere does Urdaneta teach or suggest processing a time-based periodic signal from its rotary sensors 302 for frequency analysis to identify a deviation from one or more periodicities of the time-based periodic signal indicating a need for pump maintenance, as required by amended claim 1. Accordingly, Urdaneta does not disclose or suggest the claimed invention as recited in amended claim 1.
Examiner’s reply:
Claim 1 does not actually require the frequency analysis given the language “process the same for”, so applicant appears to be arguing limitations which are not required in the claims. Additionally, it appear the specific limitations in claim 1 and 17 are not supported in the specification as filed.
See e.g. the speed sensors in e.g. 0043 including the encoder which produce a speed signal as in 0043 wherein the speed signal of an encoder is a period signal, and the reciprocating motion of the pump itself is periodic as per “The fluid flow rate generated by the pump assembly 200 may depend on the physical size of the reciprocating members 222 and fluid chambers 218, as well as the pump operating speed, which may be defined by the speed or rate at which the reciprocating members 222 cycle or move within the fluid chambers 218.” in 0036.
See also e.g. 0053-0054 including “The harmonics occur at integer multiples of the pump operating speed or frequency (i.e., fundamental frequency)”. Thus, the pump speed is processed by the controller to determine harmonics for frequency analysis as in 0054 including (emphasis added): “If a first order harmonic (i.e., fundamental harmonic) corresponds to the pumping frequency, the presence of just M.sup.th order harmonics associated with a pump 202 may indicate that the pump 202 is properly functioning or otherwise healthy, where M is the product of N and i (i.e., N×i), N is the number of reciprocating members 222 (or displacement chambers 218) of the pump 202, and i is an integer. The presence of harmonics other than the M.sup.th order harmonics may indicate that the pump 202 is functioning improperly or otherwise defective.”
Conclusion
“Instantaneous angular speed and power for the diagnosis of single-stage, double-acting reciprocating compressor” discloses the use of time based speed signals to identify pump faults.
“A practical signal processing approach for fault detection of axial piston pumps using instantaneous angular speed” discloses the use of time based speed signals and frequency analysis to identify pump faults.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS ANDREW FINK whose telephone number is (571)270-3373. The examiner can normally be reached on M-W 9-7.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mark Laurenzi can be reached on (571) 270-7878. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-4373.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Thomas Fink/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights