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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/12/25 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1 and 10 have been amended. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 12/12/25, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-3, 7-12, and 14-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeung et al. (U.S. 2022/0403723) in view of Hinderliter (U.S. 2019/0010793) and as evidenced by Abad (U.S. 2010/0224365) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Yeung in view of Noles, Jr. (U.S. 2012/0127822), further in view of Hinderliter, and as evidenced by Abad.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7-12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeung et al. (U.S. 2022/0403723) in view of Noles, Jr. (U.S. 2012/0127822), further in view of Hinderliter (U.S. 2019/0010793), and as evidenced by Abad (U.S. 2010/0224365).
PNG
media_image1.png
678
540
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re claim 1:
Yeung discloses a method (Fig. 2A) comprising:
operating at least one chemical pump (415, suction pump - Para 38) installed on a chemical additive trailer (see Fig. 2A and Para 39 - “…. In some embodiments, mixer 416, pump 415, transport system 412, discharge pump 418, or combination thereof, may be configured as a modular system. The modular systems of blender system 410 can be formed on a mobile platform or trailer. Each independent support frame…”) to pump a chemical additive (Para 38 - “…gelling agents…”) from a chemical source (430, chemical additive unit - Para 38) to a blender trailer (416, mixer/tub - Para 38)(see Fig. 2A and Paras 38-39), the chemical source (430) comprising a chemical container (see Fig. 2A and para 38 - “…mixed with gelling agents dispensed by a chemical additive unit…” (for gelling agents to be dispensed by element 430 requires element 430 to have a type of container to dispense the gelling agents from))
receiving, at a pump inlet (Modified Fig. 2A above - A (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element A as a type of pump inlet)) of the first chemical pump (415), the chemical additive (Para 38 - “…gelling agents…”) from the chemical source (430)(see Modified Fig. 2A above and Para 38);
discharging, at a pump outlet (Modified Fig. 2A above - B (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element B as a type of pump outlet)) of the first chemical pump (415), the chemical additive at a specified chemical additive flow rate (see Modified Fig. 2A above and Para 38)
providing the chemical additive from the pump outlet (Modified Fig. 2A above - B) to the blender trailer (416) for addition to a fracturing slurry (Para 38 - “…form a slurry…”) produced by the blender trailer (416)(see Modified Fig. 2A above and Para 38);
Yeung fails to disclose the chemical source comprising a chemical container disposed on the chemical additive trailer.
Noles teaches operating at least one chemical pump (61, pump - Para 27) installed on a chemical additive trailer (60, trailer - Para 27) to pump a chemical additive (Para 27 - “…Tanks 43 for chemicals…”) from a chemical source (see Fig. 6 at 43 and Para 27 - “…Tanks 43 for chemicals…”), the chemical source (see Fig. 6 at 43) comprising a chemical container (43, tank - Para 27) disposed on the chemical additive trailer (60)(see Figs. 5-6 and Paras 25-27).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the chemical additive trailer of Yeung after that of Noles, thereby disposing the chemical container of Yeung on the chemical additive trailer of Yeung in the way taught by Noles, for the advantage of being able to precisely control an amount of chemical volumetric output (Noles; Para 26) while also permitting transportability (Noles; see Fig. 6 and Para 27).
Yeung fails to disclose operating an electric motor installed on the chemical additive trailer to drive the first chemical pump; nor operating a variable frequency drive installed on the chemical additive trailer to control the electric motor.
Hinderliter teaches a method (Fig. 1) comprising operating an electric motor (Para 63 - “…one or more electric motor…”) installed on a chemical additive trailer (170, chemical additive unit - Para 60) to drive a first chemical pump (140, chemical pumps - Para 60)(see Fig. 1 and Paras 60-63 (especially Para 63 - “…electric motors can operate components of the chemical pump 140 in lieu of the use of hydraulic power…”)); and operating a variable frequency drive (130-d, VFD housing - Para 52) installed on the chemical additive trailer (170)(see Fig. 1 and Para 60) to control the electric motor (see Fig. 1, Paras 60-63, and Para 15 - “…each VFD can be connected to at least one of the first motor…to control the speed of the first motor…”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the method of Yeung/Noles after that of Hinderliter, thereby installing and operating an electric motor on the chemical additive trailer of Yeung to drive the first chemical pump of Yeung, and installing and operating a variable frequency drive on the chemical additive trailer of Yeung to control the electric motor, all in the way taught by Hinderliter, for the advantage of saving space, enhancing reliability and versatility, improving ecological impact, being lighter, quieter, and safer, and presenting fewer fire hazards (Hinderliter; Para 62).
Yeung/Noles/Hinderliter fails to teach wherein the specified chemical additive flow rate is below 0.165 gallons per minute (gpm).
Abad teaches that specified chemical additive flow rate is a results effective variable that determines performance of fluid formulation (Abad; Para 62). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the specified chemical additive flow rate of Yeung/Noles/Hinderliter to be below 0.165 gallons per minute as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Re claim 2:
Yeung/Noles/Hinderliter/Abad teaches the method (Yeung; Fig. 2A) of claim 1 (as described above).
Yeung/Noles/Hinderliter/Abad fails to teach wherein the specified chemical additive flow rate is between 0.084 gpm and 0.165 gpm.
Abad teaches that specified chemical additive flow rate is a results effective variable that determines performance of fluid formulation (Abad; Para 62). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the specified chemical additive flow rate of Yeung/NolesHinderliter to be between 0.084 gpm and 0.165 gpm as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Re claim 3:
Yeung/Noles/Hinderliter/Abad teaches the method (Yeung; Fig. 2A) of claim 1 (as described above).
Yeung further discloses operating
Yeung fails to disclose a first electric motor to drive the first chemical pump, the first electric motor having a first size; nor a second electric motor to drive a second chemical pump, the second electric motor having a second size
Hinderliter teaches a method (Fig. 1) comprising a first electric motor (Para 63 - “…one or more electric motor…”) to drive a first chemical pump (Para 63 - “…one or more chemical pump 140 of chemical additive unit 170 can include one or more electric motor…”), the first electric motor having a first size (Para 63 (an electric motor inherently includes a size)); and a second electric motor (Para 63 - “…one or more electric motor…”) to drive a second chemical pump (Para 63 - “…one or more chemical pump 140 of chemical additive unit 170 can include one or more electric motor…”), the second electric motor having a second size (Para 63 (an electric motor inherently includes a size)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the method of Yeung after that of Hinderliter, thereby including a first and second motor in Yeung to drive the first and second chemical pumps of Yeung in the way taught by Hinderliter, for the advantage of saving space, enhancing reliability and versatility, improving ecological impact, being lighter, quieter, and safer, and presenting fewer fire hazards (Hinderliter; Para 62).
Yeung/Noles/Hinderliter fails to teach the second motor having a second size different from the first size.
Hinderliter teaches that the size of an electric motor is a results effective variable in that determines heat dissipation (Para 72). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the sizes of the electric motors in Yeung/Hinderliter such that the second motor has a second size different from the first size as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Re claim 7:
Yeung/Noles/Hinderliter/Abad teaches the method (Yeung; Fig. 2A) of claim 1 (as described above).
Yeung fails to disclose the method comprising, by operation of a transformer, transforming electric power provided to operate the electric motor.
Hinderliter teaches a method (Fig. 1) comprising: operating an electric motor (Para 63 - “…one or more electric motor…”) installed on a chemical additive trailer (170, chemical additive unit - Para 60) to drive a first chemical pump (140, chemical pumps - Para 60)(see Fig. 1 and Paras 60-63 (especially Para 63 - “…electric motors can operate components of the chemical pump 140 in lieu of the use of hydraulic power…”)); and operating a variable frequency drive (130-d, VFD housing - Para 52) installed on the chemical additive trailer (170)(see Fig. 1 and Para 60) to control the electric motor (see Fig. 1, Paras 60-63, and Para 15 - “…each VFD can be connected to at least one of the first motor…to control the speed of the first motor…”), the method (Fig. 1) comprising, by operation of a transformer (105-j, transformer - Para 50), transforming electric power provided to operate the electric motor (see Fig. 1, Paras 60-63, and Paras 46 and 49 - “…transformers…can supply power at a stepped-down voltage…to a plurality of variable-frequency drive (VFD) houses…transformers 105-I, 105-j…provide stepped-down voltage…to…chemical additive unit 170…”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the method of Yeung after that of Hinderliter, thereby installing and operating an electric motor on the chemical additive trailer of Yeung to drive the first chemical pump of Yeung, installing and operating a variable frequency drive on the chemical additive trailer of Yeung to control the electric motor, and transforming by a transformer electric power provided to operate the electric motor, all in the way taught by Hinderliter, for the advantage of saving space, enhancing reliability and versatility, improving ecological impact, being lighter, quieter, and safer, and presenting fewer fire hazards (Hinderliter; Para 62).
Re claim 8:
Yeung/Noles/Hinderliter/Abad teaches the method (Yeung; Fig. 2A) of claim 1 (as described above).
Yeung fails to disclose the method comprising, by operation of a generator, generating electric power to operate the electric motor.
Hinderliter teaches a method (Fig. 1) comprising: operating an electric motor (Para 63 - “…one or more electric motor…”) installed on a chemical additive trailer (170, chemical additive unit - Para 60) to drive a first chemical pump (140, chemical pumps - Para 60)(see Fig. 1 and Paras 60-63 (especially Para 63 - “…electric motors can operate components of the chemical pump 140 in lieu of the use of hydraulic power…”)); and operating a variable frequency drive (130-d, VFD housing - Para 52) installed on the chemical additive trailer (170)(see Fig. 1 and Para 60) to control the electric motor (see Fig. 1, Paras 60-63, and Para 15 - “…each VFD can be connected to at least one of the first motor…to control the speed of the first motor…”), the method (Fig. 1) comprising, by operation of a generator, generating electric power to operate the electric motor (Para 12).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the method of Yeung after that of Hinderliter, thereby installing and operating an electric motor on the chemical additive trailer of Yeung to drive the first chemical pump of Yeung, installing and operating a variable frequency drive on the chemical additive trailer of Yeung to control the electric motor, and generating electric power by operation of a generator to operate the electric motor, all in the way taught by Hinderliter, for the advantage of saving space, enhancing reliability and versatility, improving ecological impact, being lighter, quieter, and safer, and presenting fewer fire hazards (Hinderliter; Para 62).
Re claim 9:
Yeung/Noles/Hinderliter/Abad teaches the method (Yeung; Fig. 2A) of claim 1 (as described above).
Yeung discloses wherein the chemical additive is a viscosifier (Para 38 - “…gelling agents…”).
Re claim 10:
Yeung discloses a chemical additive system (Fig. 2A) comprising:
a chemical additive trailer (see Fig. 2A at 415 and Para 39 - “…. In some embodiments, mixer 416, pump 415, transport system 412, discharge pump 418, or combination thereof, may be configured as a modular system. The modular systems of blender system 410 can be formed on a mobile platform or trailer. Each independent support frame…”);
a chemical container (see Fig. 2A and para 38 - “…mixed with gelling agents dispensed by a chemical additive unit…” (for gelling agents to be dispensed by element 430 requires element 430 to have a type of container to dispense the gelling agents from))
at least one chemical pump (415, suction pump - Para 38) installed on the chemical additive trailer (see Fig. 2A at 415 and Para 39), the at least one chemical pump (415) being configured to pump a chemical additive (Para 38 - “…gelling agents…”) from a chemical source (430, chemical additive unit - Para 38) to a blender trailer (416, mixer/tub - Para 38)(see Fig. 2A and Paras 38-39), the chemical source (430) comprising the chemical container (see Fig. 2A and para 38 - “…mixed with gelling agents dispensed by a chemical additive unit 430…” (for gelling agents to be dispensed by element 430 requires element 430 to have a type of container to dispense the gelling agents from)), wherein a first chemical pump (415) of the at least one chemical pump (415) is configured to:
receive, at a pump inlet (Modified Fig. 2A above - A (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element A as a type of pump inlet)) of the first chemical pump (415), the chemical additive (Para 38 - “…gelling agents…”) from the chemical source (430)(see Modified Fig. 2A above and Para 38);
discharge, at a pump outlet (Modified Fig. 2A above - B (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element B as a type of pump outlet)) of the first chemical pump (415), the chemical additive at a specified chemical additive flow rate (see Modified Fig. 2A above and Para 38),
provide the chemical additive from the pump outlet (Modified Fig. 2A above - B) to the blender trailer (416) for addition to a fracturing slurry (Para 38 - “…form a slurry…”) produced by the blender trailer (416)(see Modified Fig. 2A above and Para 38);
Yeung fails to disclose a chemical container installed on the chemical additive trailer.
Noles teaches a chemical container (43, tank - Para 27) installed on a chemical additive trailer (60, trailer - Para 27)(see Figs. 5-6 and Paras 25-27).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the chemical additive trailer of Yeung after that of Noles, thereby installing the chemical container of Yeung on the chemical additive trailer of Yeung in the way taught by Noles, for the advantage of being able to precisely control an amount of chemical volumetric output (Noles; Para 26) while also permitting transportability (Noles; see Fig. 6 and Para 27).
Yeung fails to disclose an electric motor installed on the chemical additive trailer and configured to drive the first chemical pump; nor a variable frequency drive installed on the chemical additive trailer and configured to control the electric motor.
Hinderliter teaches a chemical additive system (Fig. 1) comprising an electric motor (Para 63 - “…one or more electric motor…”) installed on a chemical additive trailer (170, chemical additive unit - Para 60) and configured to drive a first chemical pump (140, chemical pumps - Para 60)(see Fig. 1 and Paras 60-63 (especially Para 63 - “…electric motors can operate components of the chemical pump 140 in lieu of the use of hydraulic power…”)); and a variable frequency drive (130-d, VFD housing - Para 52) installed on the chemical additive trailer (170)(see Fig. 1 and Para 60) and configured to control the electric motor (see Fig. 1, Paras 60-63, and Para 15 - “…each VFD can be connected to at least one of the first motor…to control the speed of the first motor…”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the chemical additive system of Yeung after that of Hinderliter, thereby installing and operating an electric motor on the chemical additive trailer of Yeung to drive the first chemical pump of Yeung, and installing and operating a variable frequency drive on the chemical additive trailer of Yeung to control the electric motor, all in the way taught by Hinderliter, for the advantage of saving space, enhancing reliability and versatility, improving ecological impact, being lighter, quieter, and safer, and presenting fewer fire hazards (Hinderliter; Para 62).
Yeung/Hinderliter fails to teach wherein the specified chemical additive flow rate is below 0.165 gallons per minute (gpm).
Abad teaches that specified chemical additive flow rate is a results effective variable that determines performance of fluid formulation (Abad; Para 62). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have the specified chemical additive flow rate of Yeung/Hinderliter to be below 0.165 gallons per minute as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Re claim 11:
Yeung/Noles/Hinderliter/Abad teaches the system (Yeung; Fig. 2A) of claim 10 (as described above).
Yeung/Noles/Hinderliter/Abad fails to teach wherein the specified chemical additive flow rate is between 0.084 gpm and 0.165 gpm.
Abad teaches that specified chemical additive flow rate is a results effective variable that determines performance of fluid formulation (Abad; Para 62). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the specified chemical additive flow rate of Yeung/Noles/Hinderliter to be between 0.084 gpm and 0.165 gpm as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Re claim 12:
Yeung/Noles/Hinderliter/Abad teaches the system (Yeung; Fig. 2A) of claim 10 (as described above).
Yeung further discloses
Yeung fails to disclose a first electric motor configured to drive the first chemical pump, the first electric motor having a first size; nor a second electric motor configured to drive a second chemical pump, the second electric motor having a second size different from the first size.
Hinderliter teaches a system (Fig. 1) comprising: a first electric motor (Para 63 - “…one or more electric motor…”) configured to drive a first chemical pump (Para 63 - “…one or more chemical pump 140 of chemical additive unit 170 can include one or more electric motor…”), the first electric motor having a first size (Para 63 (an electric motor inherently includes a size)); and a second electric motor (Para 63 - “…one or more electric motor…”) configured to drive a second chemical pump (Para 63 - “…one or more chemical pump 140 of chemical additive unit 170 can include one or more electric motor…”), the second electric motor having a second size (Para 63 (an electric motor inherently includes a size)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the system of Yeung after that of Hinderliter, thereby including a first and second motor in Yeung to drive the first and second chemical pumps of Yeung in the way taught by Hinderliter, for the advantage of saving space, enhancing reliability and versatility, improving ecological impact, being lighter, quieter, and safer, and presenting fewer fire hazards (Hinderliter; Para 62).
Yeung/Noles/Hinderliter fails to teach the second motor having a second size different from the first size.
Hinderliter teaches that the size of an electric motor is a results effective variable in that determines heat dissipation (Para 72). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the sizes of the electric motors in Yeung/Noles/Hinderliter such that the second motor has a second size different from the first size as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Re claim 14:
Yeung/Noles/Hinderliter/Abad teaches the system (Yeung; Fig. 2A) of claim 10 (as described above).
Yeung fails to disclose a housing installed on the chemical additive trailer, wherein the housing houses the variable frequency drive and electronics.
Hinderliter teaches a chemical additive system (Fig. 1) comprising an electric motor (Para 63 - “…one or more electric motor…”) installed on a chemical additive trailer (170, chemical additive unit - Para 60) and configured to drive a first chemical pump (140, chemical pumps - Para 60)(see Fig. 1 and Paras 60-63 (especially Para 63 - “…electric motors can operate components of the chemical pump 140 in lieu of the use of hydraulic power…”)); and a variable frequency drive (130-d, VFD housing - Para 52) installed on the chemical additive trailer (170)(see Fig. 1 and Para 60) and configured to control the electric motor (see Fig. 1, Paras 60-63, and Para 15 - “…each VFD can be connected to at least one of the first motor…to control the speed of the first motor…”), and a housing (Para 60 - “…VFD housing 130-d…”) installed on the chemical additive trailer (170)(see Fig. 1 and Para 60), wherein the housing houses the variable frequency drive and electronics (see Fig. 1 and Para 60 - “…a VFD housing 130-d…” (see Para 30 - “…. In this space, it is possible to install a VFD housing similar to one that is installed on the fracturing pump trailers. For example, the blender VFD housing can contain a motor control center (MCC) for control of all electrically powered chemical pumps, proppant augers, paddles, water pumps, and blower motors for the discharge pump's large electric motor (known as the SPU). Lighting control, power cable connections, and the SPU VFD drive can all be housed…”)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the chemical additive system of Yeung after that of Hinderliter, thereby installing and operating an electric motor on the chemical additive trailer of Yeung to drive the first chemical pump of Yeung, and installing and operating a variable frequency drive on the chemical additive trailer of Yeung to control the electric motor, and housing the VFD and electronics in a housing installed on the chemical additive trailer of Yeung, all in the way taught by Hinderliter, for the advantage of saving space, enhancing reliability and versatility, improving ecological impact, being lighter, quieter, and safer, and presenting fewer fire hazards (Hinderliter; Para 62).
Re claim 15:
Yeung/Noles/Hinderliter/Abad teaches the system (Yeung; Fig. 2A) of claim 10 (as described above).
Yeung further discloses wherein the chemical pump (415) is configured to pump a plurality of chemical additives to the blender trailer (416)(see Fig. 2A and Para 38 - “…gelling agents…”).
Yeung/Noles/Hinderliter/Abad fails to teach the system comprising at least eight chemical pumps installed on the chemical additive trailer, wherein the at least eight chemical pumps are configured to pump chemical additives from at least four distinct chemical sources.
Hinderliter teaches a chemical additive system (Fig. 1) comprising at least eight chemical pumps (Para 61 - “…up to a dozen or more chemical pumps…”) installed on the chemical additive trailer (170)(see Fig. 1 and Para 61), wherein the at least eight chemical pumps are configured to pump chemical additives from at least
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the system of Yeung after that of Hinderliter, thereby including at least eight chemical pumps configured to pump chemical additives in the system of Yeung as taught by Hinderliter, for the advantage of being able to supplement blenders when hydraulic fracturing operation requires multiple different chemicals or a particular chemical pump redundancy (Hinderliter; Para 61).
Yeung/Noles/Hinderliter/Abad fails to disclose at least four distinct chemical sources.
Hinderliter teaches distinct chemical sources are a results effective variable which determines the number of blenders which can be supplemented (Hinderliter; Para 61). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the number of distinct chemicals Yeung/Hinderliter such that there are at least four distinct chemical sources as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Re claim 16:
Yeung/Noles/Hinderliter/Abad teaches the system (Yeung; Fig. 2A) of claim 10 (as described above).
Yeung fails to disclose the system comprising a transformer that provides power to operate the electric motor.
Hinderliter teaches a chemical additive system (Fig. 1) comprising an electric motor (Para 63 - “…one or more electric motor…”) installed on a chemical additive trailer (170, chemical additive unit - Para 60) and configured to drive a first chemical pump (140, chemical pumps - Para 60)(see Fig. 1 and Paras 60-63 (especially Para 63 - “…electric motors can operate components of the chemical pump 140 in lieu of the use of hydraulic power…”)); a variable frequency drive (130-d, VFD housing - Para 52) installed on the chemical additive trailer (170)(see Fig. 1 and Para 60) and configured to control the electric motor (see Fig. 1, Paras 60-63, and Para 15 - “…each VFD can be connected to at least one of the first motor…to control the speed of the first motor…”), and a transformer (105-j, transformer - Para 50) that provides power to operate the electric motor (see Fig. 1, Paras 60-63, and Paras 46 and 49 - “…transformers…can supply power at a stepped-down voltage…to a plurality of variable-frequency drive (VFD) houses…transformers 105-I, 105-j…provide stepped-down voltage…to…chemical additive unit 170…”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the chemical additive system of Yeung after that of Hinderliter, thereby installing and operating an electric motor on the chemical additive trailer of Yeung to drive the first chemical pump of Yeung, and installing and operating a variable frequency drive on the chemical additive trailer of Yeung to control the electric motor, and transforming by a transformer electric power provided to operate the at least one electric motor, all in the way taught by Hinderliter, for the advantage of saving space, enhancing reliability and versatility, improving ecological impact, being lighter, quieter, and safer, and presenting fewer fire hazards (Hinderliter; Para 62).
Re claim 17:
Yeung/Noles/Hinderliter/Abad teaches the system (Yeung; Fig. 2A) of claim 10 (as described above).
Yeung fails to disclose the system comprising a generator that provides power to operate the electric motor.
Hinderliter teaches a chemical additive system (Fig. 1) comprising an electric motor (Para 63 - “…one or more electric motor…”) installed on a chemical additive trailer (170, chemical additive unit - Para 60) and configured to drive a first chemical pump (140, chemical pumps - Para 60)(see Fig. 1 and Paras 60-63 (especially Para 63 - “…electric motors can operate components of the chemical pump 140 in lieu of the use of hydraulic power…”)); a variable frequency drive (130-d, VFD housing - Para 52) installed on the chemical additive trailer (170)(see Fig. 1 and Para 60) and configured to control the electric motor (see Fig. 1, Paras 60-63, and Para 15 - “…each VFD can be connected to at least one of the first motor…to control the speed of the first motor…”), and a generator that provides power to operate the at least one electric motor (Para 12).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the chemical additive system of Yeung after that of Hinderliter, thereby installing and operating an electric motor on the chemical additive trailer of Yeung to drive the first chemical pump of Yeung, and installing and operating a variable frequency drive on the chemical additive trailer of Yeung to control the electric motor, and generating electric power by operation of a generator to operate the electric motor, all in the way taught by Hinderliter, for the advantage of saving space, enhancing reliability and versatility, improving ecological impact, being lighter, quieter, and safer, and presenting fewer fire hazards (Hinderliter; Para 62).
Re claim 18:
Yeung/Noles/Hinderliter/Abad teaches the system (Yeung; Fig. 2A) of claim 10 (as described above).
Yeung discloses wherein the chemical additive is a viscosifier (Para 38 - “…gelling agents…”).
Re claim 19:
Yeung/Noles/Hinderliter/Abad teaches the system (Yeung; Fig. 2A) of claim 10 (as described above).
Yeung further discloses wherein a first subset of chemical pumps (415) is configured to pump chemical additives from a first subset of chemical sources (430) to a first blender trailer (416), and a second subset of chemical pumps (415) is configured to pump chemical additives from a second subset of chemical sources (430) to a second blender trailer (416)(see Fig. 2A and Para 43).
Re claim 20:
Yeung/Noles/Hinderliter/Abad teaches the system (Yeung; Fig. 2A) of claim 10 (as described above).
Yeung further discloses comprising a plurality of chemical pumps (415, 409) configured to pump a plurality of chemical additives (Para 38 - “…gelling agents…”) from
Yeung fails to disclose a plurality of chemical pumps configured to pump a plurality of chemical additives from a plurality of chemical sources.
Hinderliter teaches a system (Fig. 1) plurality of chemical pumps (Para 61 - “…several chemical pumps….) configured to pump a plurality of chemical additives (Para 61 - “…multiple different chemicals…”) from a plurality of chemical sources (Para 61 - “…the chemical pumps can be dry chemical augers…a small, screw-type auger can pull the powder chemical from the hopper…Each blender can include one or more of these hopper and auger combinations…”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the system of Yeung after that of Hinderliter, thereby including a plurality of chemical sources in the system of Yeung in the way taught by Hinderliter, for the advantage of redundancy (Hinderliter; Para 61).
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeung et al. (U.S. 2022/0403723) in view of Noles, Jr. (U.S. 2012/0127822) and Hinderliter (U.S. 2019/0010793), and as evidenced by Abad (U.S. 2010/0224365), as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Carlson (U.S. 6,007,227).
Re claim 4:
Yeung/Noles/Hinderliter/Abad teaches the method (Yeung; Fig. 2A) of claim 1 (as described above).
Yeung/Noles/Hinderliter/Abad fails to teach measuring a flow rate of the pump outlet of the first chemical pump.
Carlson teaches a method (Fig. 1A) comprising measuring (see Fig. 1A at 430a and Col. 30, Line 53 - Col. 31, Line 5) a flow rate (Col. 30, Line 53 - Col. 31, Line 5 - “…chemical additive rates are also monitored by coreolis effect mass flow meters 430a, 430b, and 430c which generate the additive flow rate signals…) of a pump outlet (see Fig. 1 at 425a leading to 430a) of a first chemical pump (425a, first positive displacement additive pump - Col. 19, Line 65 - Col. 20, Line 6)(see Fig. 1A and Col. 30, Line 53 - Col. 31, Line 5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the method of Yeung/Noles/Hinderliter/Abad after that of Carlson, thereby measuring a flow rate of the pump outlet of the first chemical pump of Yeung in the way taught by Carlson, for the advantage of being able to form a basis for a PID control loop to proportion the chemical additive (Carlson; Col. 30, Line 66 - Col. 31, Line 5).
Re claim 13:
Yeung/Noles/Hinderliter/Abad teaches the system (Yeung; Fig. 2A) of claim 10 (as described above).
Yeung/Noles/Hinderliter/Abad fails to teach a flow meter configured to measure a flow rate of the pump outlet of the first chemical pump.
Carlson teaches a system (Fig. 1A) comprising a flow meter (430a, mass flow meters - Col. 30, Line 53 - Col. 31, Line 5) configured to measure a flow rate of a pump outlet (see Fig. 1 at 425a leading to 430a) of a first chemical pump (425a, first positive displacement additive pump - Col. 19, Line 65 - Col. 20, Line 6)(see Fig. 1A and Col. 30, Line 53 - Col. 31, Line 5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the system of Yeung/Noles/Hinderliter/Abad after that of Carlson, thereby measuring a flow rate of the pump outlet of the first chemical pump of Yeung in the way taught by Carlson, for the advantage of being able to form a basis for a PID control loop to proportion the chemical additive (Carlson; Col. 30, Line 66 - Col. 31, Line 5).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeung et al. (U.S. 2022/0403723) in view of Noles, Jr. (U.S. 2012/0127822) and Hinderliter (U.S. 2019/0010793), and as evidenced by Abad (U.S. 2010/0224365), as applied to claim 1 above, and further as evidenced by Lopez (U.S. 2017/0115674).
Re claim 5:
Yeung/Noles/Hinderliter/Abad teaches the method (Yeung; Fig. 2A) of claim 1 (as described above).
Yeung further discloses wherein, while operating the at least one chemical pump (415), a fracturing slurry flow rate of the fracturing slurry (Para 38 - “…form a slurry…”) produced by the blender trailer (416) is
Yeung/Noles/Hinderliter/Abad fails to teach wherein the fracturing slurry flow rate is between 20 barrels per minute (bpm) and 120 bpm.
Lopez teaches fracturing slurry flow rate is a results effective variable that determines creation and maintenance of fracture of rock strata (Lopez; Paras 1-3, especially Para 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the fracturing slurry flow rate of Yeung/Noles/Hinderliter/Abad such that the fracturing slurry flow rate is between 20 barrels per minute (bpm) and 120 bpm as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Re claim 6:
Yeung/Noles/Hinderliter/Abad/Lopez teaches the method (Yeung; Fig. 2A) of claim 5 (as described above) comprising operating the at least one chemical pump (Yeung; 415) continuously (Yeung; Fig. 2A and Para 38) while the fracturing slurry flow rate is between 20 bpm and 120 bpm (Yeung; see Fig. 2A and Para 38 (flow rate of fracturing slurry of Yeung has been modified to claimed range as described above in the rejection of claim 5)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Loren C Edwards whose telephone number is (571)272-7133. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6AM-430PM.
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, Mark Laurenzi can be reached at (571) 270-7878. 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.
/LOREN C EDWARDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746 2/27/26