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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a pumping system” in claim 1 and “a retaining mechanism” in claim 6.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 10 is 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 10 (dependent on claims 6, 5, 2, and 1) recites “the retaining mechanism”. This limitation lacks clear antecedent basis. It is unclear what is being referred to and/or whether the dependencies are correct.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oehring et alia (US Patent Number 10,119,381), hereinafter “Oehring”, alone or in combination with Bishop (US Patent Number 10,830,029).
Re claim 1, Oehring discloses a mobile fracking unit comprising: a trailer (81, see col. 6, lines 17-40 including line 32 referring to the trailer); a pumping system (36 or 361), the pumping system having a fluid end (86, see Fig. 3), the pumping system mounted on the trailer (see col. 6, lines 17-40 and Fig. 2); and a hose mounting and support system mounted to the trailer, the hose mounting and support system including: a fluid end clamp (including 88, 90, see Fig. 3), the fluid end clamp attached to a first hose end of a hose (74 or 78) and the fluid end of the pumping system (36 or 361, see Fig. 3); a midpoint saddle (which can be read as dampener 82, 84 or various of the cable coil assemblies 104 near the midpoint), the midpoint saddle affixed to the trailer, the midpoint saddle adapted to receive the hose (74 or 78). Oehring is silent as to any detail of the second end of the hose and a hose end clamp. However, based on the teachings of Oehring, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have used the end clamp disclosed in Oehring to both ends of the hose for the pivotable connection and vibration reduction as taught by Oehring.
Additionally, or alternatively, Bishop discloses a similar mobile fracking unit comprising: a trailer (see Fig. 10 and other Figs. with chassis 105); a pumping system (130, 146, 147), the pumping system having a fluid end (at 146, see Fig. 9), the pumping system mounted on the trailer; and a hose mounting and support system (with pipe clamps 169 holding hose 166, 167) mounted to the trailer, the hose mounting and support system including: connections at the fluid end (the connection at a first hose end of a hose 167 and the fluid end of the pumping system at 147); a midpoint saddle (the center clamp 169 holding the hose 166), the midpoint saddle affixed to the trailer (at chassis 105), the midpoint saddle adapted to receive the hose; and a hose end connection to a second hose end of the hose (the connection at a second hose end of a hose 167 and the fluid end of the pumping system at 146). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have added the end clamp of Oehring to both connection ends as shown in Bishop as the hose is connected at both ends. It would have also been obvious to have the saddle of Oehring be at the midpoint to support the hose as taught in Bishop in order to support the hose symmetrically as shown in Fig. 9 of Bishop.
Re claim 2, the modified Oehring discloses the mobile fracking unit of claim 1 further comprising a spring isolator (104) between the fluid end clamp and the midpoint saddle through which the hose passes (see Fig. 2 showing various locations of the spring isolators as well as Figs. 4, 6, and 7 with many of these being between the fluid end clamp and midpoint saddle in the modified Oehring).
Re claim 3, the modified Oehring discloses the mobile fracking unit of claim 2, wherein the spring isolator includes springs (coils 106, 106B) supporting a pass-through hose clamp (see Figs. 4, 6, and 7 in Oehring).
Re claim 4, the modified Oehring discloses the mobile fracking unit of claim 2, wherein the spring isolator is mounted on a mounting arm, the mounting arm attached to the trailer (in Fig. 6, the unnumbered vertical structure on the right-most spring isolator is considered a mounting arm and the entire structure is attached to the trailer).
Re claim 5-7, the modified Oehring discloses the mobile fracking unit of claim 2 further comprising: a hose tray, the hose tray positioned between the midpoint saddle and the hose end clamp along the hose, the hose tray mounted to the trailer; wherein a hose tray isolator is positioned between the hose tray and the trailer, and wherein the hose tray isolator is adapted to damp vibration of the hose (any of the spring isolators are considered hose trays with isolators as the portion that the hose rests in can reasonably be considered a tray and the spring coils damp vibration. Since there are multiple structure that can be considered both spring isolators and hose trays that dampen vibration, claims 2-4 as well as claims 5-7 are met by the modified Oehring).
Re claim 11, the modified Oehring discloses the mobile fracking unit of claim 1, wherein the midpoint saddle includes a pivot (see Oehring, Figs. 4, 6, and 7 and Bishop, Figs. 9 and 10).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oehring in view of Bishop as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Buckner (US Patent Application Publication 2013/0340297 A1).
The modified Oehring discloses the mobile fracking unit of claim 1, but is silent as to handles on the hose end clamp. Buckner discloses a similar pump system with hoses. Buckner also discloses handle (104) on hose clamp (105). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have use the handle of Buckner with the mobile fracking unit of the modified Oehring in order to allow easy connection and disconnection as taught by Buckner (see paragraph 0016).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 9, and 13 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.
Claim 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims (assuming the amendment is to make claim 10 dependent on claim 9).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric Keasel whose telephone number is (571) 272-4929. The examiner works a part-time schedule and can normally be reached on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday.
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 and Craig Schneider can be reached on 571-272-4881 and 571-272-3607, respectively. 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.
/ERIC KEASEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights