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 .
Status of the claims
Claim(s) 1 is/are amended, claim(s) 20 is/are cancelled and claim(s) 21,22 is/are added. Currently claims 1-19, 21, 22 are pending in this application.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: The recitation “stainer basket” should be corrected to “strainer basket”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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) 1, 6, 8-10, 12, 21, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lucas et al (20140318810) in view of Mayberry et al (WO 9932206 A1), further in view of Oliver et al (4352739) and Ostrowski (WO 0018487 A1).
Regarding claim(s) 1, 6, 8, Lucas, (Fig. 2), discloses a straining system, comprising: an intake manifold having an intake plenum 204; a plurality of strainers 300; a discharge manifold having a discharge plenum 212; the outlet of each strainer being in fluidic communication with the discharge plenum for delivery of flow thereto.
Lucas fails to disclose an intake valve upstream of dividing intake plenum 204. Mayberry (Fig. 1) teaches an intake valve 108 in fluidic communication with dividing intake plenum (branching pipe between 108 and 121,131,141); each of the intake valves would be inherently moveable between a first intake valve position that is open to admit flow through the intake valve into the intake plenum and a second intake valve position that is closed to prevent flow through the intake valve into the intake plenum.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the device disclosed by Lucas with an intake valve upstream of dividing intake plenum as taught by Mayberry in order to additional control options.
Lucas as modified disclose one intake valve but fails to disclose multiple intake valves. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided a second intake valve, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine sill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Thus, claiming a mere plurality of prior art elements is not an unobvious distinction over the prior art of record, because using plural elements would have produced a predictable result.
Lucas as modified discloses plurality of the strainers having a rising section that contains a capped access port (at 218), an inlet, an outlet, and a flow pathway placing the inlet in fluidic communication with the outlet, the inlet being in fluidic communication with the intake plenum but fails to disclose strainer as a strainer tube with flow pathway extending in a downstream direction from the inlet towards the outlet and through a rising section, the flow pathway including a strainer hanger and a strainer basket located between the inlet and the outlet. Oliver, Fig 5, 6, teaches a filter mechanism comprising a plurality of strainer tubes 168+192,170+194 (with details given in Fig 6, col 9, line 50-55); each of the strainer tubes having a rising section 196 that contains a capped access port 208, an inlet 198, an outlet (outlet of 192,194), and a flow pathway placing the inlet in fluidic communication with the outlet, the flow pathway extending in a downstream direction from the inlet towards the outlet and through at least the rising section, the flow pathway including a strainer hanger 204 and a strainer basket 206 located between the inlet and the outlet. Each strainer tube of the plurality of strainer tubes is formed as an elbow 192,194, the elbow having a horizontal section transitioning in the downstream direction from the rising section towards the discharge manifold, and the rising section rising from horizontal at an angle of 90°. The capped access port 208 of each strainer tube is located at an upper end of the rising section above the inlet, the capped access port having a compressively-sealing cap 210 that is selectively removable, the strainer basket 206 being of dimensions permitting passage of the strainer basket through the capped access port when the cap is removed. A system of clamps 212 mounted proximate the capped access port, the system of screws being constructed and arranged to exert a compressive force sealing the cap in position on the capped access port.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the device disclosed by Lucas as modified with strainer baskets in strainer tubes as described above as taught by Oliver in order to enable entrapment and removal of filtered debris.
Lucas fails to disclose a discharge valve upstream of recombining discharge plenum 212. Mayberry (Fig. 1) teaches a discharge valve 160 in fluidic communication with recombining discharge plenum (branching pipe between 160 and 129,139,149); the discharge valve would be inherently moveable between open/close positions.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the device disclosed by Lucas with a discharge valve downstream of recombining discharge plenum as taught by Mayberry in order to additional control options.
Lucas as modified discloses one discharge valve but fails to disclose multiple discharge valves. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided a second discharge valve, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine sill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Thus, claiming a mere plurality of prior art elements is not an unobvious distinction over the prior art of record, because using plural elements would have produced a predictable result.
Lucas as modified discloses a strainer basket (in view of Oliver) in each of strainer tube but fails to disclose strainer basket comprises a cone at a downstream end thereof, the cone tapering in an upstream direction from the downstream end.
Ostrowski teaches a strainer basket comprising a mesh screen which comprises a cone at a downstream end thereof, the cone tapering in an upstream direction from the downstream end.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the device disclosed by Lucas as modified with strainer basket comprising a mesh screen which comprises a cone at a downstream end thereof, the cone tapering in an upstream direction from the downstream end as taught by Ostrowski as an art-recognized functionally equivalent filter basket mechanism yielding predictable results of removing unwanted large matter.
As to claims 9 and 10, Lucas as modified discloses means 216,222 for isolating a selected one of the strainer tubes which would allow maintenance operations while frac fluid (Para 28) is flowing through the straining system (from the other strainer). The means for isolating comprises a pair of valves 216,222 comprising: a first valve 216 located in the selected one of the strainer tubes at a location upstream of the strainer basket; and a second valve 222 located in the selected one of the strainer tubes at a location downstream of the strainer basket; the first and second valves being constructed and arranged such that: opening both of the first and second valves permits flow of frac fluid through the strainer basket when the cap is in place atop the capped access port, and closure of both of the first and second valves isolates the strainer basket from the flow of frac fluid such that one is capable of removing the cap from atop the capped access port for the performance of maintenance operations to remove debris from the strainer basket.
As to claim 12, Lucas as modified fails to disclose pressure sensors at inlet and discharge manifolds of strainers for measuring pressure drop across strainers. However, Official Notice is taken (now considered Applicant admitted prior art since Applicant did not traverse the Official Notice in prior office action) that providing pressure sensor at inlet and discharge manifolds of strainers for measuring pressure drop across strainers, for the purpose of improved system monitoring are widely known and notoriously old in the art. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to employ pressure sensors at inlet and discharge manifolds of strainers for measuring pressure drop across strainers in the device of Lucas as modified for the purpose of improved system monitoring as is widely known and notoriously old in the art.
As to claim 21, Lucas as modified (in view of Ostrowski) discloses strainer basket comprising a mech screen which is seen as capable of remove debris from frac fluid passing through the screen.
As to claim 22, Lucas as modified teaches another flowline 162 downstream of frac fluid blender 112 and in Para 21 teaches that the straining system (MFS 200) may be in incorporated within any flowline. As such the straining system of Lucas as modified when placed in flowline 162 would have frac fluid blender 112 in fluidic communication with the intake plenum via the intake valves.
Claim(s) 7, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lucas et al (20140318810) in view of Mayberry et al (WO 9932206 A1) and Oliver et al (4352739) and Ostrowski (WO 0018487 A1), further in view of Duesel et al (20150122498).
Lucas as modified discloses the system as a frac fluid processing equipment but fails to disclose the frac fluid processing equipment on a skid with gantry above the equipment. Duesel, Fig 4, teaches a frac fluid processing equipment on a skid 34 with gantry (with platform 136) above the equipment.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the device disclosed by Lucas as modified with the frac fluid processing equipment on a skid with gantry above the equipment as taught by Duesel in order to facilitate transport/system access.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lucas et al (20140318810) in view of Mayberry et al (WO 9932206 A1) and Oliver et al (4352739) and Ostrowski (WO 0018487 A1), further in view of Thorat et al (20180361282).
Lucas as modified (as taught by Oliver) teaches the cap 210 clamped to the opening 208 but fails to disclose cap screwed to the access port. Thorat teaches a system of screws 42 mounted proximate the capped access port, the system of screws being constructed and arranged to exert a compressive force sealing the cap 40 in position on the capped access port.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the device disclosed by Lucas as modified with screws as taught by Thorat as an art-recognized functionally equivalent substitute clamping mechanism yielding predictable results of fixing the cap to the port.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 2-5, 14-19 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment has overcome the rejection of record for claim 1. However, a new ground of rejection is applied to the amended claims. Ostrowski is cited to show prior art teaching/incorporation of cone shape of strainer basket bottom.
Applicant's arguments filed 02/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments that “proposed modification would require a complete reworking of Lucas' invention to achieve the functions already taught by Lucas (entrapping and removing debris). Further, the Examiner's proposed modifications of Lucas in view of Oliver would unnecessarily complicate the design in Lucas. This contradicts the teachings of Lucas, at [0039], wherein the MFS may be "portable (e.g., carried by hand) and/or positionable by an operator” are not persuasive since providing strainer baskets of Oliver would make removal of debris from flowline easier by just removing the basket and cleaning the baskets.
In response to applicant's argument that Oliver is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, both Lucas and Oliver teach inline strainers.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Atif Chaudry at phone number 571-270-3768. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (9:30AM-6:00PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors can be reached by phone. Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881, or Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607. 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.
/ATIF H CHAUDRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753