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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 7 Jan 2025 and 28 May 2025 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 7 fails to further limit Claim 1, from which Claim 7 depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 6-10, 15-16, 21-22, 28-29 and 38-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kajaria et al (US 9127545).
Regarding Claim 1, Kajaria et al disclose a system (Figure 2). The system comprising:
a station (40 generally) positionable in the vicinity of suction and discharge manifolds (26 and 24 respectively),
the station comprising:
a support frame (44);
suction and discharge flow components mounted on the support frame (see Annotated Figure A); and
suction and discharge conduits connected to, and extending from, the suction and discharge flow components (33 and 47 respectively), respectively; and
suction and discharge fittings adapted to be operably coupled to a hydraulic fracturing pump (35 and 37 of Figure 2 with 16 being the pump truck);
wherein, when the station is positioned in the vicinity of the suction and discharge manifolds (Figure 2):
the suction conduit (33) is adapted to be operably coupled to the suction manifold (26) so that the suction conduit is, or is at least adapted to be, in fluid communication with each of the suction manifold and the suction flow component (Figure 2);
the discharge conduit (47) is adapted to be operably coupled to the discharge manifold (24) so that the discharge conduit is, or is at least adapted to be, in fluid communication with each of the discharge manifold and the discharge flow component (Figure 2); and
the hydraulic fracturing pump (16) is positionable in the vicinity of the station (Figure 2); and
wherein, when the suction and discharge conduits (33 and 47 respectively) are operably coupled to the suction and discharge manifolds (26 and 24 respectively), respectively, the suction and discharge fittings (35 and 37) are operably coupled to the hydraulic fracturing pump (16), and the hydraulic fracturing pump (16) is positioned in the vicinity of the station (Figure 2):
the suction flow component (see Annotated Figure A) is operably couplable to the suction fitting (35 of Figure 2) so that the suction flow component is, or is at least adapted to be, in fluid communication with each of:
the hydraulic fracturing pump via the suction fitting (via 35); and
the suction manifold via the suction conduit (via 33 to 26); and
the discharge flow component (see Annotated Figure A) is operably couplable to the discharge fitting (37) so that the discharge flow component is, or is at least adapted to be, in fluid communication with each of:
the hydraulic fracturing pump via the discharge fitting (via 37); and
the discharge manifold via the discharge conduit (47).
PNG
media_image1.png
579
849
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure A – Kajaria et al
Regarding Claim 6, Kajaria et al disclose a hydraulic fracturing missile, wherein the hydraulic fracturing missile (Figures 1 and 2) comprises the suction and discharge manifolds (Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 7, Kajaria et al disclose the hydraulic fracturing pump (16).
Regarding Claim 8, Kajaria et al disclose the hydraulic fracturing pump (16) and a hydraulic fracturing missile, wherein the hydraulic fracturing missile (Figures 1 and 2) comprises the suction and discharge manifolds (Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 9, Kajaria et al disclose a method (Figure 2). The method comprising:
positioning a station (40 generally) in the vicinity of suction and discharge manifolds (26 and 24 respectively),
the station comprising:
a support frame (44);
suction and discharge flow components mounted on the support frame (see Annotated Figure A); and
suction and discharge conduits connected to, and extending from, the suction and discharge flow components (33 and 47 respectively), respectively;
operably coupling the suction conduit (33) to the suction manifold (26) so that the suction conduit is, or is at least adapted to be, in fluid communication with each of the suction manifold and the suction flow component (Figure 2); and
operably coupling the discharge conduit (47) to the discharge manifold (24) so that the discharge conduit is, or is at least adapted to be, in fluid communication with each of the discharge manifold and the discharge flow component (Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 10, Kajaria et al disclose positioning a hydraulic fracturing pump (16) in the vicinity of the station (40 generally; Figure 2);
operably coupling the suction flow component (see Annotated Figure A) to a suction fitting (35) operably coupled to the hydraulic fracturing pump so that the suction flow component is, or is at least adapted to be, in fluid communication with each of:
the hydraulic fracturing pump via the suction fitting (Figure 2); and
the suction manifold via the suction conduit (Figure 2); and
operably coupling the discharge flow component (see Annotated Figure A) to a discharge fitting (37) operably coupled to the hydraulic fracturing pump (16) so that the discharge flow component is, or is at least adapted to be, in fluid communication with each of:
the hydraulic fracturing pump via the discharge fitting (37); and
the discharge manifold via the discharge conduit (Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 15, Kajaria et al disclose a station (40 generally) positionable in the vicinity of suction and discharge manifolds (26 and 24 respectively),
the station comprising:
a support frame (44);
suction and discharge flow components mounted on the support frame (see Annotated Figure A); and
suction and discharge conduits connected to, and extending from, the suction and discharge flow components (33 and 47 respectively), respectively; and
suction and discharge fittings adapted to be operably coupled to a hydraulic fracturing pump (35 and 37 of Figure 2 with 16 being the pump truck);
wherein, when the station is positioned in the vicinity of the suction and discharge manifolds (Figure 2):
the suction conduit (33) is adapted to be operably coupled to the suction manifold (26) so that the suction conduit is, or is at least adapted to be, in fluid communication with each of the suction manifold and the suction flow component (Figure 2);
the discharge conduit (47) is adapted to be operably coupled to the discharge manifold (24) so that the discharge conduit is, or is at least adapted to be, in fluid communication with each of the discharge manifold and the discharge flow component (Figure 2); and
the hydraulic fracturing pump (16) is positionable in the vicinity of the station (Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 16, Kajaria et al disclose wherein, when the suction and discharge conduits (33 and 47 respectively) are operably coupled to the suction and discharge manifolds (26 and 24 respectively), respectively, the suction and discharge fittings (35 and 37) are operably coupled to the hydraulic fracturing pump (16), and the hydraulic fracturing pump (16) is positioned in the vicinity of the station (Figure 2):
the suction flow component (see Annotated Figure A) is operably couplable to the suction fitting (35 of Figure 2) so that the suction flow component is, or is at least adapted to be, in fluid communication with each of:
the hydraulic fracturing pump via the suction fitting (via 35); and
the suction manifold via the suction conduit (via 33 to 26); and
the discharge flow component (see Annotated Figure A) is operably couplable to the discharge fitting (37) so that the discharge flow component is, or is at least adapted to be, in fluid communication with each of:
the hydraulic fracturing pump via the discharge fitting (via 37); and
the discharge manifold via the discharge conduit (47).
Regarding Claim 21, Kajaria et al disclose where the station is a swap station (Figure 2 at 40).
Regarding Claim 22, Kajaria et al disclose where the suction flow component (see Annotated Figure A) is detachably connectable to the suction fitting (35) operably coupled to the hydraulic fracturing pump (16; via at least the shown connection flanges of Figure 2); and wherein the discharge flow component (see Annotated Figure A) is detachably connectable to the discharge fitting (37) operably coupled to the hydraulic fracturing pump (16; via at least the shown connection flanges of Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 28, Kajaria et al disclose where the station is a swap station (Figure 2 at 40).
Regarding Claim 29, Kajaria et al disclose operably coupling the suction flow component (see Annotated Figure A) to the suction fitting (35) operably coupled to the hydraulic fracturing pump (16) comprises detachably connecting the suction flow component to the suction fitting (via at least the shown connection flanges of Figure 2); and wherein operably coupling the discharge flow component (see Annotated Figure A) to the discharge fitting (37) operably coupled to the hydraulic fracturing pump (16) comprises detachably connecting the discharge flow component to the discharge fitting (via at least the shown connection flanges of Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 38, Kajaria et al disclose where the station is a swap station (Figure 2 at 40).
Regarding Claim 39, Kajaria et al disclose where the suction flow component (see Annotated Figure A) is detachably connectable to the suction fitting (35) operably coupled to the hydraulic fracturing pump (16; via at least the shown connection flanges of Figure 2); and wherein the discharge flow component (see Annotated Figure A) is detachably connectable to the discharge fitting (37) operably coupled to the hydraulic fracturing pump (16; via at least the shown connection flanges of Figure 2).
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.
Claim(s) 2-5, 11-14, 17-20, 23, 30 and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kajaria et al (US 9127545) in view of Croy et al (US 4191256).
Regarding Claim 2, Kajaria et al disclose all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly disclose where the station further comprises:
one or more actuators adapted to effect relative movement between the suction flow component of the station and the suction fitting, when the suction fitting is operably coupled to the hydraulic fracturing pump, to sealingly engage the suction fitting with the suction flow component; and
a lock assembly adapted to secure the suction fitting in sealing engagement with the suction flow component.
Croy et al teach a station (Figures 3-4) with one or more actuators (56) adapted to effect relative movement between the suction flow component of the station (50; where Kajaria et al disclose the port is a suction flow component as seen in Annotated Figure A) and the suction fitting (34; with the fitting of Kajaria et al at 35), when the suction fitting is operably coupled to the hydraulic fracturing pump (disclosed by Kajaria at 16; with the equivalent structure of Croy et al being the chamber 24), to sealingly engage the suction fitting with the suction flow component (shown sealed in Figure 7); and
a lock assembly (74) adapted to secure the suction fitting in sealing engagement with the suction flow component (Figure 7; Col 4, lines 7-12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the station of Kajaria et al with the actuators and lock as taught by Croy et al for the advantage of providing a secure fluid-tight connection that can be achieved remotely, without having to move other flowline components, as taught by Croy et al (Col 4, lines 55-61).
Regarding Claim 3, Kajaria et al disclose all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly disclose where the one or more actuators is, or are, further adapted to effect relative movement between the discharge flow component of the station and the discharge fitting, when the discharge fitting is operably coupled to the hydraulic fracturing pump, to sealingly engage the discharge fitting with the discharge flow component; and
wherein the lock assembly is further adapted to secure the discharge fitting in sealing engagement with the discharge flow component.
Croy et al teach a station (Figures 3-4) with one or more actuators (56) adapted to effect relative movement between the discharge flow component of the station (50; where Kajaria et al disclose the port is a discharge flow component as seen in Annotated Figure A) and the discharge fitting (34; with the fitting of Kajaria et al at 37), when the discharge fitting is operably coupled to the hydraulic fracturing pump (disclosed by Kajaria at 16; with the equivalent structure of Croy et al being the chamber 24), to sealingly engage the discharge fitting with the discharge flow component (shown sealed in Figure 7); and
a lock assembly (74) adapted to secure the discharge fitting in sealing engagement with the discharge flow component (Figure 7; Col 4, lines 7-12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the station of Kajaria et al with the actuators and lock as taught by Croy et al for the advantage of providing a secure fluid-tight connection that can be achieved remotely, without having to move other flowline components, as taught by Croy et al (Col 4, lines 55-61).
Regarding Claim 4, Kajaria disclose where both the suction fitting and the discharge fitting are part of an adapter (at least the surface of 16 into which the fittings are attached at 35 and 37).
Regarding Claim 5, Kajaria et al disclose all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly disclose where the one or more actuators is, or are, further adapted to effect relative movement between the discharge flow component of the station and the discharge fitting, when the discharge fitting is operably coupled to the hydraulic fracturing pump, to sealingly engage the discharge fitting with the discharge flow component; and
wherein the lock assembly is further adapted to secure the discharge fitting in sealing engagement with the discharge flow component.
Croy et al teach a station (Figures 3-4) with one or more actuators (56) adapted to effect relative movement between the discharge flow component of the station (50; where Kajaria et al disclose the port is a discharge flow component as seen in Annotated Figure A) and the discharge fitting (34; with the fitting of Kajaria et al at 37), when the discharge fitting is operably coupled to the hydraulic fracturing pump (disclosed by Kajaria at 16; with the equivalent structure of Croy et al being the chamber 24), to sealingly engage the discharge fitting with the discharge flow component (shown sealed in Figure 7); and
a lock assembly (74) adapted to secure the discharge fitting in sealing engagement with the discharge flow component (Figure 7; Col 4, lines 7-12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the station of Kajaria et al with the actuators and lock as taught by Croy et al for the advantage of providing a secure fluid-tight connection that can be achieved remotely, without having to move other flowline components, as taught by Croy et al (Col 4, lines 55-61).
Regarding Claim 11, Kajaria et al disclose operably coupling the suction flow component (see Annotated Figure A) to the suction fitting (35) operably coupled to the hydraulic fracturing pump (16) but fails to expressly disclose effecting, using one or more actuators, relative movement between the suction flow component of the station and the suction fitting operably coupled to the hydraulic fracturing pump to sealingly engage the suction fitting with the suction flow component; and
securing, using a lock assembly, the suction fitting in sealing engagement with the suction flow component.
Croy et al teach effecting, using one or more actuators (56) adapted to effect relative movement between the suction flow component of the station (50; where Kajaria et al disclose the port is a suction flow component as seen in Annotated Figure A) and the suction fitting (34; with the fitting of Kajaria et al at 35), when the suction fitting is operably coupled to the hydraulic fracturing pump (disclosed by Kajaria at 16; with the equivalent structure of Croy et al being the chamber 24), to sealingly engage the suction fitting with the suction flow component (shown sealed in Figure 7); and
Securing, using a lock assembly (74) the suction fitting in sealing engagement with the suction flow component (Figure 7; Col 4, lines 7-12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the station of Kajaria et al with the actuators and lock as taught by Croy et al for the advantage of providing a secure fluid-tight connection that can be achieved remotely, without having to move other flowline components, as taught by Croy et al (Col 4, lines 55-61).
Regarding Claim 12, Kajaria et al disclose operably coupling the discharge flow component (see Annotated Figure A) to the discharge fitting (35) operably coupled to the hydraulic fracturing pump (16) but fails to expressly disclose effecting, using the one or more actuators, relative movement between the discharge flow component of the station and the discharge operably coupled to the hydraulic fracturing pump to sealingly engage the discharge fitting with the discharge flow component; and
securing, using the lock assembly, the discharge fitting in sealing engagement with the discharge flow component.
Croy et al teach a station (Figures 3-4) and effecting, using one or more actuators (56) relative movement between the discharge flow component of the station (50; where Kajaria et al disclose the port is a discharge flow component as seen in Annotated Figure A) and the discharge fitting (34; with the fitting of Kajaria et al at 37), when the discharge fitting is operably coupled to the hydraulic fracturing pump (disclosed by Kajaria at 16; with the equivalent structure of Croy et al being the chamber 24), to sealingly engage the discharge fitting with the discharge flow component (shown sealed in Figure 7); and
Securing, using the lock assembly (74) the discharge fitting in sealing engagement with the discharge flow component (Figure 7; Col 4, lines 7-12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the station of Kajaria et al with the actuators and lock as taught by Croy et al for the advantage of providing a secure fluid-tight connection that can be achieved remotely, without having to move other flowline components, as taught by Croy et al (Col 4, lines 55-61).
Regarding Claim 13, Kajaria disclose where both the suction fitting and the discharge fitting are part of an adapter (at least the surface of 16 into which the fittings are attached at 35 and 37).
Regarding Claim 14, Kajaria et al disclose operably coupling the discharge flow component (see Annotated Figure A) to the discharge fitting (35) operably coupled to the hydraulic fracturing pump (16) but fails to expressly disclose effecting, using the one or more actuators, relative movement between the discharge flow component of the station and the discharge operably coupled to the hydraulic fracturing pump to sealingly engage the discharge fitting with the discharge flow component; and
securing, using the lock assembly, the discharge fitting in sealing engagement with the discharge flow component.
Croy et al teach a station (Figures 3-4) and effecting, using one or more actuators (56) relative movement between the discharge flow component of the station (50; where Kajaria et al disclose the port is a discharge flow component as seen in Annotated Figure A) and the discharge fitting (34; with the fitting of Kajaria et al at 37), when the discharge fitting is operably coupled to the hydraulic fracturing pump (disclosed by Kajaria at 16; with the equivalent structure of Croy et al being the chamber 24), to sealingly engage the discharge fitting with the discharge flow component (shown sealed in Figure 7); and
Securing, using the lock assembly (74) the discharge fitting in sealing engagement with the discharge flow component (Figure 7; Col 4, lines 7-12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the station of Karjaria et al with the actuators and lock as taught by Croy et al for the advantage of providing a secure fluid-tight connection that can be achieved remotely, without having to move other flowline components, as taught by Croy et al (Col 4, lines 55-61).
Regarding Claim 17, Kajaria et al disclose all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly disclose where the station further comprises:
one or more actuators adapted to effect relative movement between the suction flow component of the station and the suction fitting, when the suction fitting is operably coupled to the hydraulic fracturing pump, to sealingly engage the suction fitting with the suction flow component; and
a lock assembly adapted to secure the suction fitting in sealing engagement with the suction flow component.
Croy et al teach a station (Figures 3-4) with one or more actuators (56) adapted to effect relative movement between the suction flow component of the station (50; where Kajaria et al disclose the port is a suction flow component as seen in Annotated Figure A) and the suction fitting (34; with the fitting of Kajaria et al at 35), when the suction fitting is operably coupled to the hydraulic fracturing pump (disclosed by Kajaria at 16; with the equivalent structure of Croy et al being the chamber 24), to sealingly engage the suction fitting with the suction flow component (shown sealed in Figure 7); and
a lock assembly (74) adapted to secure the suction fitting in sealing engagement with the suction flow component (Figure 7; Col 4, lines 7-12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the station of Kajaria et al with the actuators and lock as taught by Croy et al for the advantage of providing a secure fluid-tight connection that can be achieved remotely, without having to move other flowline components, as taught by Croy et al (Col 4, lines 55-61).
Regarding Claim 18, Kajaria et al disclose all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly disclose where the one or more actuators is, or are, further adapted to effect relative movement between the discharge flow component of the station and the discharge fitting, when the discharge fitting is operably coupled to the hydraulic fracturing pump, to sealingly engage the discharge fitting with the discharge flow component; and
wherein the lock assembly is further adapted to secure the discharge fitting in sealing engagement with the discharge flow component.
Croy et al teach a station (Figures 3-4) with one or more actuators (56) adapted to effect relative movement between the discharge flow component of the station (50; where Kajaria et al disclose the port is a discharge flow component as seen in Annotated Figure A) and the discharge fitting (34; with the fitting of Kajaria et al at 37), when the discharge fitting is operably coupled to the hydraulic fracturing pump (disclosed by Kajaria at 16; with the equivalent structure of Croy et al being the chamber 24), to sealingly engage the discharge fitting with the discharge flow component (shown sealed in Figure 7); and
a lock assembly (74) adapted to secure the discharge fitting in sealing engagement with the discharge flow component (Figure 7; Col 4, lines 7-12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the station of Kajaria et al with the actuators and lock as taught by Croy et al for the advantage of providing a secure fluid-tight connection that can be achieved remotely, without having to move other flowline components, as taught by Croy et al (Col 4, lines 55-61).
Regarding Claim 19, Kajaria disclose where both the suction fitting and the discharge fitting are part of an adapter (at least the surface of 16 into which the fittings are attached at 35 and 37).
Regarding Claim 20, Kajaria et al disclose all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly disclose where the one or more actuators is, or are, further adapted to effect relative movement between the discharge flow component of the station and the discharge fitting, when the discharge fitting is operably coupled to the hydraulic fracturing pump, to sealingly engage the discharge fitting with the discharge flow component; and
wherein the lock assembly is further adapted to secure the discharge fitting in sealing engagement with the discharge flow component.
Croy et al teach a station (Figures 3-4) with one or more actuators (56) adapted to effect relative movement between the discharge flow component of the station (50; where Kajaria et al disclose the port is a discharge flow component as seen in Annotated Figure A) and the discharge fitting (34; with the fitting of Kajaria et al at 37), when the discharge fitting is operably coupled to the hydraulic fracturing pump (disclosed by Kajaria at 16; with the equivalent structure of Croy et al being the chamber 24), to sealingly engage the discharge fitting with the discharge flow component (shown sealed in Figure 7); and
a lock assembly (74) adapted to secure the discharge fitting in sealing engagement with the discharge flow component (Figure 7; Col 4, lines 7-12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the station of Kajaria et al with the actuators and lock as taught by Croy et al for the advantage of providing a secure fluid-tight connection that can be achieved remotely, without having to move other flowline components, as taught by Croy et al (Col 4, lines 55-61).
Regarding Claim 23, Kajaria et al disclose where the station is a swap station (Figure 2 at 40); and wherein the adapter is a swap adapter (at least the surface of 16 into which the fittings are attached at 35 and 37; where the fittings can be swapped from one pump truck to another as the station 40 or the pump truck is moved).
Regarding Claim 30, Kajaria et al disclose where the station is a swap station (Figure 2 at 40); and wherein the adapter is a swap adapter (at least the surface of 16 into which the fittings are attached at 35 and 37; where the fittings can be swapped from one pump truck to another as the station 40 or the pump truck is moved).
Regarding Claim 40, Kajaria et al disclose where the station is a swap station (Figure 2 at 40); and wherein the adapter is a swap adapter (at least the surface of 16 into which the fittings are attached at 35 and 37; where the fittings can be swapped from one pump truck to another as the station 40 or the pump truck is moved).
Claim(s) 24, 31 and 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kajaria et al (US 9127545) in view of Larsson (US 9080699).
Regarding Claim 24, Kajaria et al disclose all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly disclose a panel having opposing first and second sides spaced in a parallel relation; and wherein, when the station is positioned in the vicinity of the suction and discharge manifolds and the hydraulic fracturing pump is positioned in the vicinity of the station: the first side of the panel is positioned between the suction and discharge manifolds and the second side of the panel; and the second side of the panel is positioned between the first side of the panel and the hydraulic fracturing pump.
Larsson teaches a station (Figure 1) with a panel (8) where the panel (8) having opposing first and second sides spaced in a parallel relation (Figure 1); and wherein, when the station is positioned in the vicinity of the suction and discharge manifolds (as disclosed by Kajaria et al with the equivalent structure being the manifold as attached to connecting part 1; Col 4, lines 21-24) and the hydraulic fracturing pump is positioned in the vicinity of the station (disclosed by Kajaria et al with the equivalent structure being connection part 2 of Larsson): the first side of the panel (the far side not seen in Figure 1 but shown in Figure 2) is positioned between the suction and discharge manifolds and the second side of the panel (the close side shown in Figure 1 but not shown in Figure 2); and the second side of the panel is positioned between the first side of the panel and the hydraulic fracturing pump (Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the station of Kajaria et al with the panel as taught by Larsson for the advantage of supporting the end of the pipe or conduit, as taught by Larsson (Col 5, lines 57-58).
Regarding Claim 31, Kajaria et al disclose all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly disclose positioning a panel having opposing first and second sides spaced in a parallel relation; and wherein, when the station is positioned in the vicinity of the suction and discharge manifolds and the hydraulic fracturing pump is positioned in the vicinity of the station: the first side of the panel is positioned between the suction and discharge manifolds and the second side of the panel; and the second side of the panel is positioned between the first side of the panel and the hydraulic fracturing pump.
Larsson teaches a station (Figure 1) with a panel (8) where the panel (8) having opposing first and second sides spaced in a parallel relation (Figure 1); and wherein, when the station is positioned in the vicinity of the suction and discharge manifolds (as disclosed by Kajaria et al with the equivalent structure being the manifold as attached to connecting part 1; Col 4, lines 21-24) and the hydraulic fracturing pump is positioned in the vicinity of the station (disclosed by Kajaria et al with the equivalent structure being connection part 2 of Larsson): the first side of the panel (the far side not seen in Figure 1 but shown in Figure 2) is positioned between the suction and discharge manifolds and the second side of the panel (the close side shown in Figure 1 but not shown in Figure 2); and the second side of the panel is positioned between the first side of the panel and the hydraulic fracturing pump (Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the station of Kajaria et al with the panel as taught by Larsson for the advantage of supporting the end of the pipe or conduit, as taught by Larsson (Col 5, lines 57-58).
Regarding Claim 41, Kajaria et al disclose all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly disclose a panel having opposing first and second sides spaced in a parallel relation; and wherein, when the station is positioned in the vicinity of the suction and discharge manifolds and the hydraulic fracturing pump is positioned in the vicinity of the station: the first side of the panel is positioned between the suction and discharge manifolds and the second side of the panel; and the second side of the panel is positioned between the first side of the panel and the hydraulic fracturing pump.
Larsson teaches a station (Figure 1) with a panel (8) where the panel (8) having opposing first and second sides spaced in a parallel relation (Figure 1); and wherein, when the station is positioned in the vicinity of the suction and discharge manifolds (as disclosed by Kajaria et al with the equivalent structure being the manifold as attached to connecting part 1; Col 4, lines 21-24) and the hydraulic fracturing pump is positioned in the vicinity of the station (disclosed by Kajaria et al with the equivalent structure being connection part 2 of Larsson): the first side of the panel (the far side not seen in Figure 1 but shown in Figure 2) is positioned between the suction and discharge manifolds and the second side of the panel (the close side shown in Figure 1 but not shown in Figure 2); and the second side of the panel is positioned between the first side of the panel and the hydraulic fracturing pump (Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the station of Kajaria et al with the panel as taught by Larsson for the advantage of supporting the end of the pipe or conduit, as taught by Larsson (Col 5, lines 57-58).
Claim(s) 25-27, 32-34 and 42-44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious over Kajaria et al (US 9127545) in view of Larsson (US 9080699).
Regarding Claim 25, Kajaria et al disclose the support frame (44) and Larsson teaches the panel (8) on a support frame (4 generally).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the location of the panel to be on the support frame of Kajaria et al since rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to secure the pipe or conduit to the support frame.
Regarding Claim 26, Larsson teaches where the panel (8) of the support frame (4 generally) extends within a plane that intersects the extension of one or more of the following:
the suction flow component mounted on the support frame (where the suction flow component is disclosed by Kajaria et al, with the equivalent structure E1 of Larsson; Figure 1);
the discharge flow component mounted on the support frame;
the suction conduit mounted on the support frame;
the discharge conduit mounted on the support frame.
Regarding Claim 27, Kajaria et al disclose where the suction flow component (see Annotated Figure A) and the suction conduit (33) extend in alignment with each other (see Annotated Figure A);
wherein the discharge flow component (see Annotated Figure A) and the discharge conduit (47) extend in alignment with each other (see Annotated Figure A); and
but fails to expressly disclose wherein each of the extension of the suction flow component and the suction conduit, and the extension of the discharge flow component and the discharge conduit, includes a directional component that is perpendicular to the panel of the support frame.
Larsson teaches wherein each of the extension of the suction flow component and the suction conduit (disclosed by Kajaria et al with the equivalent structure at E1), and the extension of the discharge flow component and the discharge conduit (disclosed by Kajaria et al with the equivalent structure at E1), includes a directional component that is perpendicular to the panel of the support frame (of 8 as seen in Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the station of Kajaria et al with the panel as taught by Larsson for the advantage of supporting the end of the pipe or conduit, as taught by Larsson (Col 5, lines 57-58).
Regarding Claim 32, Kajaria et al disclose wherein the support frame (44) and Larsson teaches the panel (8) on a support frame (4 generally); and but fails to expressly disclose wherein positioning the station in the vicinity of suction and discharge manifolds comprises positioning the panel in the vicinity of the hydraulic fracturing pump.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the location of the panel to be on the support frame of Kajaria et al since rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to secure the pipe or conduit to the support frame. Therefore, by positioning the support frame of Kajaria et al in the vicinity of suction and discharge manifolds (26 and 24 respectively) would comprise positioning the panel in the vicinity of the hydraulic fracturing pump (16).
Regarding Claim 33, Larsson teaches where the panel (8) of the support frame (4 generally) extends within a plane that intersects the extension of one or more of the following:
the suction flow component mounted on the support frame (where the suction flow component is disclosed by Kajaria et al, with the equivalent structure E1 of Larsson; Figure 1);
the discharge flow component mounted on the support frame;
the suction conduit mounted on the support frame;
the discharge conduit mounted on the support frame.
Regarding Claim 34, Kajaria et al disclose where the suction flow component (see Annotated Figure A) and the suction conduit (33) extend in alignment with each other (see Annotated Figure A);
wherein the discharge flow component (see Annotated Figure A) and the discharge conduit (47) extend in alignment with each other (see Annotated Figure A); and
but fails to expressly disclose wherein each of the extension of the suction flow component and the suction conduit, and the extension of the discharge flow component and the discharge conduit, includes a directional component that is perpendicular to the panel of the support frame.
Larsson teaches wherein each of the extension of the suction flow component and the suction conduit (disclosed by Kajaria et al with the equivalent structure at E1), and the extension of the discharge flow component and the discharge conduit (disclosed by Kajaria et al with the equivalent structure at E1), includes a directional component that is perpendicular to the panel of the support frame (of 8 as seen in Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the station of Kajaria et al with the panel as taught by Larsson for the advantage of supporting the end of the pipe or conduit, as taught by Larsson (Col 5, lines 57-58).
Regarding Claim 42, Kajaria et al disclose the support frame (44) and Larsson teaches the panel (8) on a support frame (4 generally).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the location of the panel to be on the support frame of Kajaria et al since rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to secure the pipe or conduit to the support frame.
Regarding Claim 43, Larsson teaches where the panel (8) of the support frame (4 generally) extends within a plane that intersects the extension of one or more of the following:
the suction flow component mounted on the support frame (where the suction flow component is disclosed by Kajaria et al, with the equivalent structure E1 of Larsson; Figure 1);
the discharge flow component mounted on the support frame;
the suction conduit mounted on the support frame;
the discharge conduit mounted on the support frame.
Regarding Claim 44, Kajaria et al disclose where the suction flow component (see Annotated Figure A) and the suction conduit (33) extend in alignment with each other (see Annotated Figure A);
wherein the discharge flow component (see Annotated Figure A) and the discharge conduit (47) extend in alignment with each other (see Annotated Figure A); and
but fails to expressly disclose wherein each of the extension of the suction flow component and the suction conduit, and the extension of the discharge flow component and the discharge conduit, includes a directional component that is perpendicular to the panel of the support frame.
Larsson teaches wherein each of the extension of the suction flow component and the suction conduit (disclosed by Kajaria et al with the equivalent structure at E1), and the extension of the discharge flow component and the discharge conduit (disclosed by Kajaria et al with the equivalent structure at E1), includes a directional component that is perpendicular to the panel of the support frame (of 8 as seen in Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the station of Kajaria et al with the panel as taught by Larsson for the advantage of supporting the end of the pipe or conduit, as taught by Larsson (Col 5, lines 57-58).
Claim(s) 35-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious over Kajaria et al (US 9127545) in view of Randle et al (US 20140290768).
Regarding Claim 35, Kajaria et al disclose operating the hydraulic fracturing pump (16) to communicate fluid from the suction manifold (26) to the discharge manifold (24) via the suction and discharge conduits (33 and 47 respectively), the suction and discharge flow components (see Annotated Figure A), and the suction and discharge fittings (35 and 37 respectively);
during the operation of the hydraulic fracturing pump, operating another hydraulic fracturing pump to communicate fluid to the discharge manifold (Figure 2 shows other pumps 16 in operations and connected to both the manifold and the conduits);
but fails to expressly disclose
during the operation of the another hydraulic fracturing pump, bringing the hydraulic fracturing pump off line for maintenance and/or repair;
wherein the another hydraulic fracturing pump is operated to communicate fluid to the discharge manifold before, during, and after the step of bringing the hydraulic fracturing pump off line for maintenance and/or repair.
Randle et al teach a system (Figure 1A) with a fracturing pump (102; Figure 1a) where during the operation of the another hydraulic fracturing pump, bringing the hydraulic fracturing pump off line for maintenance and/or repair (¶ 14-15 and ¶ 25);
wherein the another hydraulic fracturing pump is operated to communicate fluid to the discharge manifold before, during, and after the step of bringing the hydraulic fracturing pump off line for maintenance and/or repair (¶ 14-15 and ¶ 25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pump system of Kajaria et al with the pump system as taught by Randle et al for the advantage of preventing operation and production time loss, as taught by Randle et al (¶ 15).
Regarding Claim 36, Randle et al teach where after bringing the hydraulic fracturing pump off line for maintenance and/or repair (¶ 25), replacing the hydraulic fracturing pump with yet another hydraulic fracturing pump (102; by at least bringing another truck 102 online as shown in Figure 1A); and
initiating operation of the yet another hydraulic fracturing pump to communicate fluid from the suction manifold to the discharge manifold (Figure 1A);
wherein the another hydraulic fracturing pump is operated to communicate fluid to the discharge manifold before, during, and after the step of initiating operation of the yet another hydraulic fracturing pump (¶ 14-15 and ¶ 25).
Regarding Claim 37, Randle et al teach operating the another hydraulic fracturing pump to communicate fluid to the discharge manifold comprises: operating the another hydraulic fracturing pump to communicate fluid from the suction manifold to the discharge manifold (104; Figure 1A).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE GARDNER whose telephone number is (571)270-0144. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8AM-4PM EST.
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 supervisors, KENNETH RINEHART (571-272-4881) or CRAIG SCHNEIDER (571-272-3607) can be reached by telephone. 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.
/NICOLE GARDNER/
Examiner, Art Unit 3753