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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/26/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 recites the limitation “direct the flow of fluids form the pumping unit”. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that this limitation was intended to read as “direct the flow of fluids FROM the pumping unit”. Appropriate correction or clarifications is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5, 8-13, 15 and 19-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the sensory information relates to fluid conditions in a conduit between the pumping unit and the bleed-off receiver and between the bleed-off receiver and the fracturing missile”. It is unclear if this limitation requires:
a single conduit that is between the pumping unit and bleed-off receiver and between the bleed-off receiver and the fracturing missile; or
a first conduit between the pumping unit and the bleed-off receiver and a second conduit between the bleed-off receiver and the fracturing missile.
Claim 13 recites a similarly ambiguous limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Scott et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0372858).
In reference to claim 25, Scott discloses a method for changing a footprint of a dynamic redzone, the method comprising the steps of:
(a) establishing a first footprint of the dynamic redzone by operating a pumping system 102 (Fig. 1);
(b) stopping at least a portion of the pumping system's operation (par. 0021);
(c) receiving first sensory information about fluid conditions between a pump of the pumping system 102 and a bleed-off receiver 206 (par. 0041, “signals from pressure or position sensors located near the missile side valve, the pump side valve, and the bleed valve”);
(d) receiving second sensory information about fluid conditions between the bleed-off receiver and a frac missile (par. 0041, “signals from pressure or position sensors located near the missile side valve, the pump side valve, and the bleed valve”);
(e) determining if it is safe to change fluid flow between the pump 102 and the bleed-off receiver 206 based upon the received first sensory information and the received second sensory information (par. 0042);
(f) if it is determined to be safe to change fluid flow, actuating one or more valve assemblies (par. 0021, “bleed valve”) for directing high pressure fracturing fluids to the bleed-off receiver 206 and for stopping at least a portion of a supply of fluids from a source 112 to the pumping system 102; and
(g) establishing a second footprint of the dynamic redzone, wherein the second footprint is smaller than the first footprint (par. 0034, “Once the pump truck has pulled away”, a second smaller footprint is established by pulling away the pump truck).
In reference to claim 26, Scott discloses a step of stopping fluid communication between the pump 102 and the fracturing missile 114 (par. 0021, “first closing both of the selectively actuated valves 204, 202”).
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.
Claims 1-5, 8-13, 15, 19 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0372858) in view of Haddad et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0292513).
In reference to claim 1, Scott discloses a method for operating a hydraulic fracturing system, the method comprising steps of
(a) establishing fluid communication between a pumping unit 102 and a fracturing missile 114 (Figs. 1 and 2);
(b) stopping the fluid communication between the pumping unit 102 and the fracturing missile 114 (Figs. 1 and 2, par. 0021);
(c) establishing fluid communication between the pumping unit 102 and a bleed-off receiver 206, wherein the bleed-off receiver 206 is in fluid communication between the pumping unit 102 and the fracturing missile 114 (Fig. 2, par. 0019);
(d) determining if fluids are flowing between the pumping unit 102 and the fracturing missile 114, the step of determining comprises: determining fluid flow conditions between the pumping unit 102 and the fracturing missile 114;
wherein the sensory information relates to fluid conditions in a conduit between the pumping unit 102 and the bleed-off receiver 206 and between the bleed-off receiver 206 and the fracturing missile 114 (par. 0041, “signals from pressure or position sensors located near the missile side valve, the pump side valve, and the bleed valve”).
Scott fails to disclose that the step of determining the fluid flow conditions comprises a step of receiving sensory information for determining whether a predetermined requirement has been met.
Haddad discloses receiving sensory information for determining whether a predetermined requirement has been met (par. 0059, “the first predetermined threshold corresponds to a first predetermined value related to operational failure”). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to determine whether a predetermined requirement has been met with a reasonable expectation of success so that problems with fluid flow can be identified and remedied.
In reference to claim 2, Scott discloses a step of disconnecting a fluid conduit 210 that is operatively coupled between the pumping unit 102 and the fracturing missile 114 (par. 0021, “fluid conduit 210 to be connected to or disconnected from the fracking system 300”).
In reference to claim 3, Scott discloses performing a maintenance operation on the pumping unit 102 (par. 0024, “the pump truck 102 to going into maintenance or repair”).
In reference to claim 4, Scott discloses reconnecting the fluid conduit 210 and re-establishing fluid communication between a second pumping unit 102 and the fracturing missile (par. 0034). However, Scott also discloses that the first pumping unit 102 is removed for “maintenance or repair” (par. 0024). Repairing the pumping unit 102 implies that it would subsequently be reconnected to the conduit 210 for future use.
In reference to claim 5, Scott discloses moving the pumping unit 102 and operatively connecting a second pumping unit 102 to the fracturing missile 114 to establish fluid communication therebetween (par. 0034, “Once the pump truck has pulled away, a second pump truck may replace the removed pump truck”).
In reference to claim 8, Scott fails to disclose the step of determining the operating conditions of the pumping unit or that the step comprises a step of receiving sensory information for determining whether a predetermined requirement has been met.
Haddad discloses determining operating conditions of a pumping unit (par. 0059) and receiving sensory information for determining whether a predetermined requirement has been met (par. 0059, “if the generated (525) residual data for discharge pressure exceeds the higher 5,000 PSI threshold, then the pump assembly 200 may be deemed to have degraded a severe amount and thus has very poor health, perhaps indicating that failure is imminent and/or that maintenance and/or replacement”). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention determine operating conditions of the pump and determine whether a predetermined requirement has been met with a reasonable expectation of success so that an operator can determine when a pump needs to be repaired.
In reference to claim 9, Scott discloses that the step of stopping fluid communication between the pumping unit 102 and the fracturing missile 114 is performed by actuating a valve (par. 0031, “a bleed valve”) that is operatively coupled to a fluid conduit 210 for regulating fluid flow between the pumping unit 102 and the fracturing missile 114.
In reference to claim 10, Scott discloses that the valve is actuated directly, automatically or remotely (par. 0041).
In reference to claim 11, Scott discloses that the step of establishing fluid communication between the pumping unit 102 and the bleed-off receiver 206 is performed directly, automatically or remotely (par. 0041).
In reference to claim 12, Scott discloses that the sensory information is received by a controller circuit (par. 0041, “microprocessor computer configured to receive the signals, process the signals”), then the controller circuit may send a command to an actuator system to remotely actuate the desired valve, wherein the desired valve regulates fluid flow fluid between the pumping unit 102 and the fracturing missile 114 (par. 0045, “system may be a remotely controlled, automated or manual system to enable the disconnection of the assembly from the inlet fluid stream”).
Scott fails to disclose determining whether the predetermined requirement has been met. Haddad discloses receiving sensory information for determining whether a predetermined requirement has been met (par. 0059, “the first predetermined threshold corresponds to a first predetermined value related to operational failure”). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to determine whether a predetermined requirement has been met with a reasonable expectation of success so that problems with fluid flow can be identified and remedied.
In reference to claim 13, Scott discloses a system for regulating a flow of fluids during a hydraulic fracturing operation, the system comprising:
(a) a pumping unit 102 for pressurizing fluids from a source 104 (Fig. 1);
(b) a fluid conduit 210 (Fig. 2) for communicating the pressurized fluids to a fracturing missile 114 (Fig. 2);
(c) a first valve assembly (par. 0021, “bleed valve”) for regulating a flow of fluids from the pumping unit to a bleed-off receiver 206, the first valve assembly is in fluid communication between the pumping unit 102 and the fracturing missile 114 (Fig. 2)
(d) a valve 204 for regulating fluid flow between the pumping unit 102 and the fracturing missile 114, the valve 204 downstream of the first valve assembly (Fig. 2);
(e) a first sensor for determining fluid flow conditions within the fluid conduit 210 between the pumping unit 102 and the bleed-off receiver 206 and a second sensor for determining fluid flow conditions between the valve and the fracturing missile (par. 0041, “signals from pressure or position sensors located near the missile side valve, the pump side valve, and the bleed valve”);
(f) a controller circuit (par. 0041, “microprocessor computer configured to receive the signals, process the signals”) for receiving sensory information from the first sensor and the second sensor for further determining if it safe to actuate the valve 204 to a closed position and the actuate the first valve assembly to direct the flow of fluids form the pumping unit 102 to the bleed-off receiver 206 (pars. 0041 and 0042).
Scott fails to disclose determining if a predetermined requirement has been met.
Haddad discloses receiving sensory information for determining whether a predetermined requirement has been met (par. 0059, “the first predetermined threshold corresponds to a first predetermined value related to operational failure”). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to determine whether a predetermined requirement has been met with a reasonable expectation of success so that problems with fluid flow can be identified and remedied.
In reference to claim 15, Scott discloses that the valve 204 can be actuated to a closed position (par. 0021, “closing both of the selectively actuated valves 204, 202”) and the first valve assembly can be actuated to direct the flow of fluids from the pumping unit 102 to the bleed-off receiver 206 (par. 0021, “opening the bleed valve in communication with the bleed line 206”).
In reference to claim 19, Scott discloses an actuation system that is configured to receive a command from the controller circuit to remotely actuate the valve (par. 0045, “system may be a remotely controlled, automated or manual system to enable the disconnection of the assembly from the inlet fluid stream”).
In reference to claims 21 and 22, Scott discloses that pumping unit 102 is operatively coupled to the fluid conduit 206 by a manual or controlled connector 302 (par. 0021, par. 0045, “automated or manual system to enable the disconnection of the assembly”).
In reference to claim 23, Scott discloses a second pumping unit 102 that can be operatively coupled to the fluid conduit 206 at the connector 302 when the pumping unit 102 is disconnected (par. 0034).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0372858) in view of Haddad et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0292513) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Martin et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0224513).
In reference to claim 20, Scott fails to disclose a user interface for receiving a command from the controller circuit to generate a visual signal for indicating the valve can be directly actuated.
Martin discloses a user interface for receiving a command from the controller circuit to generate a visual signal for indicating the valve can be directly actuated (par. 0185, “the user interface can indicate when it is safe for a valve-position regulator to be moved manually to and between the first and second positions”). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a user interface to generate a visual signal for indicating that the valve can be directly actuated with a reasonable expectation of success so that the system can notify a human operator that the valve can be actuated.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0372858) in view of Haddad et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0292513) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Bartos et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0159376).
In reference to claim 24, Scott fails to disclose a blast shield system for positioning about the valve assembly the blast shield configured to protect an individual positioned proximal the valve assembly.
Bartos discloses blast shield system 24 for positioning about a valve assembly 22, the blast shield 24 configured to protect an individual positioned proximal the valve assembly 22 (par. 0010, “blast-resistant material functions to contain potential projectiles or other debris that may disperse in the event of deterioration in the pressure containing performance of the pressure containing device”). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to position a blast shield around the valve assembly with a reasonable expectation of success so that individuals near the valve are not damaged by projectiles or debris that may disperse in the event of valve failure.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that claim 13 has been amended to address the previous objection. However, this is not the case as claim 13 still recites “direct the flow of fluids FORM the pumping unit to the bleed-off receiver”.
In reference to claim 25, Applicant argues that the examiner expressly acknowledges on page 4 of the previous Office Action that Scott is silent as to the use of sensory information to inform the opening or closing of any valves. The examiner disagrees with this assertion as page 4 of the previous Office Action conceded only that “Scott fails to disclose that the step of determining the fluid flow conditions comprises a step of receiving sensory information for determining whether a predetermined requirement has been met.”
Applicant’s other arguments are substantially the same issues discussed above.
The rejection has been amended to reflect the new limitations added to claims 1, 13 and 25.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRAD HARCOURT whose telephone number is (571)272-7303. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9am to 6pm.
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, Doug Hutton can be reached at (571)272-4137. 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.
/BRAD HARCOURT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674
3/30/26