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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Examiner notes that the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submissions (see attachments) are extremely long, citing over at least 500 references for consideration. Applicant is reminded of MPEP § 2004, paragraph 13:
It is desirable to avoid the submission of long lists of documents if it can be avoided. Eliminate clearly irrelevant and marginally pertinent cumulative information. If a long list is submitted, highlight those documents which have been specifically brought to applicant’s attention and/or are known to be of most significance. See Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea Lark Boats, Inc., 359 F. Supp. 948, 175 USPQ 260 (S.D. Fla. 1972), aff ’d, 479 F.2d 1338, 178 USPQ 577 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 874 (1974). But cf. Molins PLC v. Textron Inc., 48 F.3d 1172, 33 USPQ2d 1823 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
Moreover, an IDS should comply with 37 CFR 1.56 (b) which states that "information is material to patentability which is not cumulative to information already of record or being made of record in the application …" [emphasis added]. The cited references, in addition to being extensive in volume, also appear to be largely cumulative, therefore, based upon the large number of references cited, the initialed references have been considered in a cumulative manner. Examination of over 500-references in the IDS(s) is considered burdensome without further information from Applicant. For example, if only 3 minutes are spent per reference in order to ascertain the pertinence of the reference as determined by Applicant for inclusion in the IDS, then the examination of these over 500-references would take at least three work days. If Applicant is aware of pertinent material in the references, it should be stated in a response to this Office action.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 – 6, 10, 17 and 22 – 29 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, lines 2-3: “an actuator configured to” should read --the actuator configured to--.
Claim 6, lines 1-2: “a jackscrew” should read --the jackscrew--.
Claim 10, lines 2-3: “from one of a platform on which the power end is mounted or a base on which the pump frame is supported” should read --from one of a platform on which the pump frame is mounted or a base on which the pump frame is supported--. The phrase “power end” and “pump frame” are intended to mean same thing or same structure {note the independent claim 23, where limitations are similarly present as recited in independent claim 1 except for the phrase “pump frame” in claim 1 is replaced with “power end” in claim 23} [pump frame is 76 and power end is 72 in fig. 4; ¶67 of pg. pub of the instant application states “the single power end 72 may include a pump frame 76, the crankshaft 78, and/or plungers 84 and/or 88” and ¶87 of pg. pub of the instant application which states “In some embodiments, the support frame 122 may include one or more uprights 151 (see, e.g., FIGS. 8, 9A, and 9B) configured to space the pump frame 76 and/or the fluid ends 74 from a platform on which the pump frame 76 and/or the fluid ends 74 are mounted or a base on which the pump frame 76 and/or fluid end 74 are supported, such as the platform 42 of the hydraulic fracturing unit 10 (see, e.g., FIGS. 1, 3A, and 3B)”].
Claim 17, lines 1-2: “the ramp support comprises a pump frame connector configured to connect the pump frame to the ramp support” should read --a ramp support comprises the pump frame connector configured to connect the pump frame to the ramp support--.
Claim 22, line 2: “a direction substantially” should read --the direction substantially--.
Claim 23, line 18: “an actuator configured to” should read --the actuator configured to--.
Claim 27, lines 1-2: “a jackscrew” should read --the jackscrew--.
Claims 3 – 6 are objected to for being dependent on claim 2.
Claims 24 – 29 are objected to for being dependent on claim 23.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a lifting mechanism for lifting the lift adaptor and the fluid end” in claims 1 and 23.
“a lifting mechanism” [Wingdings font/0xE0] read as mechanism (generic placeholder) for lifting (functional language)
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof: (see ¶82 of pg. pub of the instant application) a fork truck, a telehandler, a hoist, a crane, and/or any other lifting mechanism capable of lifting.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 – 29 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 1 and 23 recites the limitation “a high-power pump” in line 2. The term “high” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Each of the claims 1, 11, 14, 18, 22, 23 and 29 recite the limitation “substantially parallel”. The term “substantially” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “ranging from about 15 degrees to about 75 degrees” in line 3. The term “about” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 2 – 22 are rejected for being dependent on claim 1.
Claims 24 – 29 are rejected for being dependent on claim 23.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 10, 17 and 19 – 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Grime, Thomas (US 4,655,693 – herein after Grime).
In reference to claim 1, Grime discloses a fluid end handling system (see fig. 1) for facilitating assembly and disassembly of a fluid end (5) relative to a pump frame (15) of a high-power pump (1), the fluid end handling system comprising:
a lift adaptor (see fig. A below: shaded structure) including:
a lift connector (“bottom surface” in the central portion of the adapter) configured to be connected to a lifting mechanism (human hands or moving straps) for lifting the lift adaptor and the fluid end (the “bottom surface” of the adapter is viewed as “a lift connector” because the lift adaptor is capable of lifted by using the hands or moving straps for being positioned on air reservoir 3 to be fastened); and
a fluid end support (flange portion defining holes for fastener(s)) positioned to support the fluid end (5) and orient the fluid end (5) relative to the pump frame (15) for assembly and removal of the fluid end relative to the pump frame; and
a support frame (formed by housing of air reservoir 3 and pivotal base 19 shown in embodiment of fig. 1 or pivotal base 86 shown in embodiment of fig. 5 – herein after referred as 3+19/86) including:
a pump frame connector (26) positioned to connect the support frame (3+19/86) to the pump frame (15);
a ramp (formed by member 27, see fig. 2 for instance) having a ramp face extending in a direction (→ direction) substantially parallel to a direction (← direction for instance) in which the fluid end (5) is moved for connection of the fluid end (5) to the pump frame (15); and
an actuator connector (39, in fig. 2 or 96, in fig. 5) associated with the ramp and positioned to connect to an actuator (51/35, in fig. 2 or 97, in fig. 5).
PNG
media_image1.png
1018
1332
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. A: Edited fig. 1 of Grime to show claim interpretation.
In reference to claim 10, Grime discloses the fluid end handling system, wherein the support frame (3+19/86) comprises an upright (see fig. A above) configured to space the fluid end (5) from one of a platform (26, in fig. 2) on which the pump frame (15) is mounted or a base (26, in fig. 2) on which the pump frame (15) is supported.
In reference to claim 17, Grime discloses the fluid end handling system, wherein a ramp support comprises the pump frame connector (26) configured to connect the pump frame (15) to the ramp support (26) when the fluid end (5) is connected to the pump frame (15).
In reference to claim 19, Grime discloses the fluid end handling system, wherein one or more of: (a) the lift adaptor comprises a first lift adaptor (fastener “f1” labelled in fig. A above, for instance) configured to engage a first end (end corresponding to top right corner) of the fluid end (5), and the fluid end handling system further comprises a second lift adaptor (fastener “f2” labelled in fig. A above, for instance) configured to engage a second end (end corresponding to bottom left corner) of the fluid end (5) opposite the first end of the fluid end; (b) the pump frame connector comprises a first power end connector configured to be connected to a first end of a power end of the high-power pump, and the support frame further comprises a second power end connector configured to be connected to a second end of the power end opposite the first end of the power end; (c) the ramp comprises a first ramp at a first end of the support frame, and the support frame further comprises a second ramp at a second end of the support frame opposite the first end of the support frame; or (d) the actuator connector comprises a first actuator connector at a first end of the support frame, and the support frame further comprises a second actuator connector at a second end of the support frame opposite the first end of the support frame.
In reference to claim 20, Grime discloses the fluid end handling system, wherein the pump frame (15) includes a power end (15 is a motor), and the fluid end support (flange portion defining holes for fasteners, see fig. A above) is configured to support the fluid end (5) and orient the fluid end (5) relative to the power end for assembly and removal of the fluid end relative to the power end.
In reference to claim 21, Grime discloses the fluid end handling system, wherein the pump frame (15) includes a power end (15 is a motor), and the pump frame connector (26) comprises a power end connector (i.e. connector for motor 15) positioned to connect the support frame (3+19/86) to the power end (15).
In reference to claim 22, Grime discloses the fluid end handling system, wherein the pump frame (15) includes a power end (15 is a motor), and the ramp face extends in the direction (→ direction) substantially parallel to the direction (← direction for instance) in which the fluid end (5) is moved for assembly of the fluid end (5) to the power end (15).
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.
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grime in view of Imel et al. (US 2024/0352841 – herein after Imel).
Grime remains silent on the fluid end handling system, wherein the lift connector of the lift adaptor comprises one or more of: (a) a lifting sleeve configured to receive a fork of a fork truck or (b) a lifting eye configured to be connected to one or more of a crane or a hoist.
However, Imel teaches a fluid end handling system (100, in fig. 1) wherein a lift adaptor (130, in fig. 2A) includes a lift connector (lift components 113, see fig. 2A and ¶37), and wherein the lift connector of the lift adaptor comprises one or more of: (a) a lifting sleeve configured to receive a fork of a fork truck or (b) a lifting eye (see ¶37) configured to be connected to one or more of a crane or a hoist (see ¶23).
It would have been an obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the lift adaptor of Grime for provision of lift connector comprising lifting eyes as taught by Imel for the well-known purpose of its use in lifting/removing the pump module from the base structure, as recognized by Imel (see ¶23).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grime in view of Mantle B.W. (US 2,448,379 – herein after Mantle).
Grime discloses the fluid end handling system, wherein (see fig. A above) the fluid end support (flange portion defining holes for fastener(s)) of the lift adaptor comprises a fluid end support face (surface that contacts the corresponding wall portion on component 3) extending (in horizontal direction) relative to the lift connector (“bottom surface” in the central portion of the adapter).
Grime remains silent on the fluid end handling system, wherein the fluid end support face extends obliquely relative to the lift connector.
However, Mantle teaches a similar fluid end handling system, wherein the fluid end support (flange portion defining holes for fastener(s) 18) comprises the fluid end support face (surface that contacts the corresponding wall portion on component 15) extending obliquely (“i.e. not straight”) relative to the lift connector (“bottom surface”; see fig. B below).
PNG
media_image2.png
916
2050
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. B: Edited figs. 1 and 2 of Mantle to show claim interpretation.
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the fluid end support in Grime for having the fluid end support face extend obliquely relative to the lift connector as taught by Mantle since such a modification would have involved a mere change in shape of the component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Please note that in the instant application, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation of having the “oblique” extension of the fluid end support face relative to the lift connector.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 – 6, 9, 11 – 13, 14 – 16 and 18 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 23 – 29 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior arts of record alone or in combination fails to teach the claimed fluid end handling system wherein “the actuator being positioned to move the fluid end along the ramp during assembly of the fluid end to the pump frame”, as in claim 2; “the fluid end support face is positioned to face and abut an outer surface of the fluid end opposite an inner surface of the fluid end to which the pump frame is connected once the fluid end is connected to the pump frame”, as in claim 9; “the ramp face is configured to extend in a direction substantially parallel to a plane in which plungers of the high-power pump reciprocate relative to the fluid end”, as in claim 11; “the pivotable support fixture… is configured to move from a first orientation in which the support face extends in a direction substantially parallel to the ramp face and provides an extension of the ramp face to a second orientation in which the pivotable support fixture is configured to support a conduit associated with the high-power pump”, as in claim 14; “the ramp face is configured to extend in a direction substantially parallel to the plurality of fluid end connection studs”, as in claim 18; and “the actuator being positioned to move the fluid end up the ramp toward the power end during assembly of the fluid end to the power end and lower the fluid end down the ramp during disassembly of the fluid end from the power end”, as in claim 23.
The closest reference considered with respect to above claimed features is Yeung, Tony (US 2022/0372857). However, Yeung has the same assignee as of the instant application and thus, in view of Yeung’s publication date, does not qualify as a prior art {35 USC 102(b)(1) applies}.
The other relevant references considered are as follows. However, any conclusion of obviousness would be based upon improper hindsight reasoning, using knowledge gleaned only from the applicant’s disclosure:
Kushnarev et al. (US 2014/0328706), Zhang et al. (US 2022/0290549), Ramnarain et al. (US 2011/0142536), Volk et al. (US 2023/0374979), Zhao, Jun-zheng (CN 204003650U) and Yanaka (JPS 5826678Y2) teach a fluid end handling system without an actuator connector associated with the ramp and positioned to connect to an actuator.
Ikeda et al. (JP 2006117035A) teaches a support frame with a movable load receiving platform.
He et al. (CN 216898891U) teaches a slope testing platform.
Claims 3 – 6 depend on claim 2.
Claims 12 and 13 depend on claim 11.
Claims 15 and 16 depend on claim 14.
Claims 24 – 29 depend on claim 23.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHIRAG JARIWALA whose telephone number is (571)272-0467. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM-5 PM.
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 at 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.
/CHIRAG JARIWALA/Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/ESSAMA OMGBA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights