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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 9 and 14 depend from claims 8 and 7 respectively; claims 7 and 8 are cancelled. The claims have been examined as if depending from claim 1 in each case.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris (US PGPub No. 2020/0040878) in view of Kono et al (US Patent No. 4,462,491) in view of Ishijima et al (US PGPub No. 2023/0246582).
Morris teaches:
limitations from claim 1, a method of operating a fracturing apparatus (100), comprising: a plunger pump (120a-b; paragraph 43); a prime mover (110); coupling a power input shaft (132) to a power output shaft (118) with a clutch (200; paragraph 55); further comprising: providing hydraulic oil to the clutch (see paragraph 55 disclosing a hydraulic clutch)
Morris does not teach controlling the clutch based upon a difference between an input and output shaft speed;
limitations from claim 1, a method of operating a fracturing apparatus (FIG. 1 teaches a plunger pump/compressor, capable of use for different fluid systems requiring pumped fluid; FIG. 2 teaching a flow chart for a method), comprising: detecting a first rotational speed of a power input shaft of a plunger pump (at 13 in FIG. 2); detecting a second rotational speed of a power output shaft of a prime mover (at 16 in FIG. 2); coupling the power input shaft to the power output shaft with a clutch (see FIG. 1 and clutch 8); and disengaging the clutch if a ratio of the first rotational speed to the second rotational speed is smaller than a first preset ratio or greater than a second preset ratio (FIG. 2 shows a comparison step 15 outputting a control signal “to the clutch”; C. 2 Line 36 through C. 3 Line 36…particularly C. 3 Lines 7-21);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of pumps at the time the invention was filed to provide a speed ratio-based control in the system of Morris, as taught by Kono, in order to prevent damage caused by the pump operating improperly (see insufficient lubrication; C. 3 Lines 7-21 of Kono).
Morris does not teach a pressure at which the clutch is disengaged;
Ishijima teaches a pump (5) driven by a motor (6), and supplying oil to a hydraulic clutch (paragraph 24); and including a clutch engagement hydraulic pressure which is a lower pressure limit at which the clutch is disengaged (paragraphs 27 and 58);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, that a lower pressure oil limit is established for the clutch of Morris, as taught by Ishijima, such that the system can accurately control the disengagement of the clutch (as the clutch opening and closing is based on oil pressure).
Morris further teaches:
limitations from claim 17, further comprising: supplying electrical power to the prime mover (see paragraph 25 teaching that the prime mover is an electric motor and therefore utilizes a power source), and driving the plunger pump with the prime mover (paragraph 27);
limitations from claim 18, further comprising: receiving control instructions from a user via a remote-control unit (see data van 70; paragraph 40);
limitations from claim 19, wherein the prime mover is a diesel engine, an electric motor, or a turbine engine (paragraph 59);
limitations from claim 20, wherein the plunger pump is a five-cylinder plunger pump (paragraph 51);
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris (US PGPub No. 2020/0040878) in view of Kono et al (US Patent No. 4,462,491) in view of Ishijima et al (US PGPub No. 2023/0246582) as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Baskin (US PGPub No. 2021/0040836).
Morris does not explicitly teach supplying a lubricating oil;
Baskin teaches a multi-plunger pump (10) having an oil reservoir (52) and an oil pump (54) providing lubricant to a pump (54; paragraph 52);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of pumps at the time the invention was filed to utilize a pump and oil tank to provide lubrication to the pump of Morris, as taught by Baskin, in order to reduce wear on the pump by using a continuous source of lubricant.
Claim(s) 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris (US PGPub No. 2020/0040878) in view of Kono et al (US Patent No. 4,462,491) in view of Ishijima et al (US PGPub No. 2023/0246582) in view of Baskin (US PGPub No. 2021/0040836) as applied to claims 1-2, and in further view of Hjorth et al (US PGPub No. 2017/0292789).
Regarding claims 3-6:
Neither Morris nor Baskin teaches cooling the lubricant used in the compressor;
Hjorth teaches a cooling system/radiator (300, 304a, 304b; paragraphs 70, 247-249) to be used to cool fluids related to pumps (paragraph 3), including fans (paragraph 20, 253-255) for blowing through the cooler;
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide an oil cooler and fan as taught by Hjorth in the system of Morris, in order to extend the life of the lubricant by reducing the cooling temperature.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris (US PGPub No. 2020/0040878) in view of Kono et al (US Patent No. 4,462,491) in view of Ishijima et al (US PGPub No. 2023/0246582) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Saeki et al (US PGPub No. 2003/0064858).
Morris teaches a generic hydraulic clutch (paragraph 22, 55) but no temperature sensors;
However, Saeki teaches a hydraulic clutch (12), wherein a temperature of the clutch is monitored (via sensor 40; paragraphs 16-20, 56, 99);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of pumps at the time the invention was filed to provide the hydraulic clutch of Morris with a temperature sensor in the clutch as taught by Saeki, in order to control the clutch, including disengagement, and or drive speed based on system temperatures to achieve a reliable coupling (see paragraph 16-20 of Saeki);
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris (US PGPub No. 2020/0040878) in view of Kono et al (US Patent No. 4,462,491) in view of Ishijima et al (US PGPub No. 2023/0246582) as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and in further view of Eto et al (US PGPub No. 2021/0199161).
Regarding Claim 14:
Morris teaches a generic hydraulic clutch (paragraph 22, 55) but no temperature sensors;
Eto teaches a hydraulic clutch (C) including a temperature sensor (41) detecting a temperature of hydraulic oil within the oil supply system (10; paragraph 14);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of pumps at the time the invention was filed to provide the hydraulic clutch of Morris with a temperature sensor in the hydraulic oil system as taught by Eto, in order to control the clutch, including disengagement, and or drive speed based on system temperatures to achieve a reliable coupling (see paragraph 24 of Eto);
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris (US PGPub No. 2020/0040878) in view of Kono et al (US Patent No. 4,462,491) in view of Ishijima et al (US PGPub No. 2023/0246582) in view of Eto et al (US PGPub No. 2021/0199161) as applied to claims 1 and 7-8 above, and in further view of Dhindsa et al (US Patent No. 5,846,056).
Morris does no teach a display;
Dhindsa teaches a reciprocating pump system (300; FIG. 5), and wherein a display (222) is provided to display information about parameters of the pump system (C. 8 Lines 42-53);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of pumps at the time the invention was filed to provide a display in the pump system of Morris, as taught by Dhindsa, in order to allow a user to easily acquire information about the pump operation.
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris (US PGPub No. 2020/0040878) in view of Kono et al (US Patent No. 4,462,491) in view of Ishijima et al (US PGPub No. 2023/0246582) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Mu et al (US PGPub No. 2021/0040830).
Morris does not teach detecting a pressure of the pump output fluid;
Mu further teaches:
limitations from claims 10, a pump apparatus (150) including a reciprocating pump (150, paragraph 35) and a discharge manifold (235, 140; paragraph 37), and a pressure sensor (205) disposed at a pressure output (210) of the pump (see FIG. 2; paragraph 39); and wherein the pump is deactivated (paragraph 51; the pump of Morris uses a clutch to deactivate the pump);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of pumps at the time the invention was filed to monitor the output pressure of Morris and to subsequently control the pump, as taught by Mu, in order to prevent excessive pressure harmful to the pump and/or system.
Regarding Claims 11-12:
Neither Morris nor Mu teaches a particular pressure at which to deactivate the pump (disengage the clutch); However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to choose a high-pressure value for the pump of Morris as a matter of design choice based upon the limits of the pump and/or system. Different systems, due to size, fluid, or use, will obviously have different safe output pressures, and choosing a pressure based on these considerations would be routine for one of ordinary skill.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris (US PGPub No. 2020/0040878) in view of Kono et al (US Patent No. 4,462,491) in view of Ishijima et al (US PGPub No. 2023/0246582) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Dhindsa et al (US Patent No. 5,846,056).
Regarding claim 15:
Morris does not teach vibration sensors;
Dhindsa teaches:
limitations from claim 15, a pump (10) including a vibration sensor (42) mounted on the pump (FIG. 1A; C. 5 Lines 9-15), the pump being shut down if the vibration is higher than a preset value (C. 11 Lines 39-47);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of pumps at the time the invention was filed to provide vibration sensors on the pump of Morris, as taught by Dhindsa, in order to control the pumping apparatus to reduce vibrations and detect malfunction (C. 11 Lines 39-47 of Dhindsa).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris (US PGPub No. 2020/0040878) in view of Kono et al (US Patent No. 4,462,491) in view of Ishijima et al (US PGPub No. 2023/0246582) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Pruitt et al (US PGPub No. 2021/0102530) as evidenced by Dhindsa et al (US Patent No. 5,846,056).
Regarding claim 16:
Morris does not teach vibration sensors;
Pruitt teaches:
limitations from claim 16, a pumping system (FIG. 1-2) including a pump (220n…) and a motor (230n…); wherein vibration sensors are provided on the motor (630, 632…; paragraph 38; FIG. 6);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of pumps at the time the invention was filed to provide vibration sensors on the motor of Morris, as taught by Pruitt, in order to control the pumping apparatus to reduce vibrations and detect malfunction (C. 11 Lines 39-47 of Dhindsa).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see response, filed 12/17/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under Kono and Morris have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Ishijima, which is relied upon to teach pressure-based control of a clutch.
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 CHRISTOPHER S BOBISH whose telephone number is (571)270-5289. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5.
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, Essama Omgba can be reached at 469-295-9278. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER S BOBISH/Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights