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 .
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 9-10 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.
Claims 9-10 depend from a canceled claim (claim 8) and are therefore indefinite.
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) 1-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urdaneta US 20170082101 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 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); 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 (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.”] to identify one or more periodicities indicating a need for pump maintenance [see 0054 including (emphasis added): “The presence of harmonics other than the M.sup.th order harmonics may indicate that the pump 202 is functioning improperly or otherwise defective.” wherein harmonics are periodicities. Thus, the speed (pumping/operating frequency as in 0026) is an essential part of the frequency analysis as it is used to determine the M.sup.th order harmonics. This corresponds to applicant’s specification at 0030 (emphasis added): “A Fourier transform may be utilized to identify or isolate frequencies outside of an expected periodic value”.].
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 (see e.g. 0053-0054 and Figs 7 and 9 and associated description).
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 (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 (see e.g. 0053-0054 and Figs 7 and 9 and associated description including 0071-0079).
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 (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), identifying the one or more periodicities indicating a need for pump maintenance (see 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:
Contrary to claim 1, as amended, Urdaneta '101 only analyzes pressure frequency harmonics and does not disclose or suggest time domain periodicities sensed from rotation of the drive shaft. Accordingly, Urdaneta '101 does not disclose or suggest the claimed invention, as a whole, as recited in claim 1, as amended. US Digital was cited for its disclosure of various types of encoders. US Digital, however, does not disclose or suggest the above-noted elements of claim 1, as amended, that are missing from Urdaneta '101. Accordingly, Urdaneta '101 and US Digital, alone or in any combination, do not disclose or suggest each and every element of claim 1, as amended. Therefore, it is clear that Urdaneta '101 as evidenced by or in view of US Digital does not disclose or suggest the hydraulic pump of independent claim 1, as amended. In addition, as noted by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988): "If an independent claim is nonobvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, then any claim depending therefrom is nonobvious." For the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully requested that the rejection of claims 1-7 and 9-17 under 35 U.S.C. §103 over Urdaneta '101 as evidenced by or in view of US Digital be withdrawn.
Examiner’s reply:
Given the actual limitations of claim 1, it is unclear what applicant is arguing that Urdaneta is lacking. It is noted that claim 1 does not require any “time domain periodicities” as applicant appears to argue. Also, claim 1 does not require the time-based signal (encoder speed signal) be transformed to the frequency domain. Regarding the actual limitations of claim 1, Urdaneta discloses 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 (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.”] to identify one or more periodicities indicating a need for pump maintenance [see 0054 including (emphasis added): “The presence of harmonics other than the M.sup.th order harmonics may indicate that the pump 202 is functioning improperly or otherwise defective.” wherein harmonics are periodicities. Thus, the speed (pumping/operating frequency as in 0026) is an essential part of the frequency analysis as it is used to determine the M.sup.th order harmonics. This corresponds to applicant’s specification at 0030 (emphasis added): “A Fourier transform may be utilized to identify or isolate frequencies outside of an expected periodic value”.].
The examiner suggests an interview to clarify what applicant is attempting to claim and overcome the Urdaneta reference.
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.
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-TH 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