DETAILED ACTION
Non-Final Rejection
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group 1, Claims 1-8, in the reply filed on 23 April 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 9-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 23 April 2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 27 November 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beason (U.S. Patent 11,959,358) in view of Curry (U.S. Patent 11,976,541).
Regarding claim 1, Beason discloses an automated bleed-off system for a hydraulic fracturing system, comprising:
a bleed-off manifold 152, comprising:
one or more fluid inputs (from 154, 155, 130; See FIG. 3) to receive pressurized fluid from the hydraulic fracturing system;
a bleed-off line (See FIG. 3) fluidly coupling the one or more fluid inputs to an output; and
a plurality of isolation valves 228a/228b to control flow through the one or more fluid inputs and the bleed-off line;
a valve greasing system 154, comprising:
a grease conduit (see FIG. 3) fluidly coupling the greasing system to an isolation valve 228a/228b of the plurality of isolation valves; and
a control system 156/220, comprising:
a valve actuator 235a/235b, comprising an actuation sensor 226, to control actuation of the isolation valve; and
a controller 156 configured to cause actuation of one or more of the plurality of isolation valves to bleed-off pressure via the bleed-off line (FIG. 1-4; Col. 2 ln 52-Col. 3 ln 12, Col. 3 ln 65-Col. 4 ln 53, Col. 7 ln 1-56, Col. 10 ln 7-46, Col. 11 ln 54-67).
Beason is silent regarding a grease reservoir to hold grease; and the grease conduit fluidly coupling the grease reservoir to an isolation valve of the plurality of isolation valves.
However, Curry teaches an automated bleed-off system for a hydraulic fracturing system, comprising: a valve greasing system 120, comprising:
a grease reservoir 122 to hold grease; and
a grease conduit 126 fluidly coupling the grease reservoir to an isolation valve of the plurality of isolation valves FIG. 1A-1C; Col. 10 ln 55-Col. 11 ln 33).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, to modify Beason by adding a grease reservoir as a component of the valve greasing system connected to an isolation valve of the plurality of isolation valves by the grease conduit, as taught by Curry, for the purpose of providing a known means to store grease that is readily available when the grease is needed in the bleed-off system.
Regarding claim 2, Beason, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above from claim 1.
Beason further discloses the controller is configured to cause actuation responsive to receiving an instruction between stages of a hydraulic fracturing operation (Col. 7 ln 1-56).
Regarding claim 3, Beason, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above from claim 1.
Beason/Curry further teaches the controller is further configured to:
monitor, using the actuation sensor, a valve actuation history of the isolation valve; and cause, based on the valve actuation history, the isolation valve to be greased using the valve greasing system (Curry Col. 4 ln 5-16, Col. 6 ln 9-62, Col. 8 ln 21-29).
Regarding claim 4, Beason, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above from claim 3.
Beason/Curry further teaches the controller, to cause the isolation valve to be greased, is configured to cause pumping of a pump configured to pump the grease from the grease reservoir through the grease conduit (Curry Col. 10 ln 35-45).
Regarding claim 5, Beason, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above from claim 1.
Beason further discloses the bleed-off line comprises a multi-stage choke assembly (Col. 10 ln 7-29).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beason in view of Curry in further view of Cook (U.S. Patent 10,422,483).
Regarding claim 6, Beason, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above from claim 1.
Beason is silent regarding a bypass line fluidly coupling the one or more fluid inputs to the output,
wherein the bypass line bypasses the bleed-off line.
However, Cook teaches a well isolation unit comprising: a bypass line 130 fluidly coupling the one or more fluid inputs 104 to the output 126,
wherein the bypass line bypasses the bleed-off line 112a (FIG. 1; Col. 6 ln 23-35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, to modify Beason by adding a bypass line connecting the one or more inlets to the outlet, as taught by Cook, for the purpose of providing a path for which the fluid can pass from the inlet to the outlet without passing through the valve greasing system when the valve greasing system requires maintenance.
Regarding claim 7, Beason, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above from claim 6.
Beason further discloses the controller is further configured to cause actuation of one or more of the plurality of isolation valves to flush fluid via the bypass line (Col. 14 ln 25-Col. 15 ln 4).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior art fails to anticipate or make obvious a first fluid input to receive pressurized fluid from a pump side of the hydraulic fracturing system, wherein the pump side is upstream of a valve, and a second fluid input to receive pressurized fluid from a well side of the hydraulic fracturing system, wherein the well side is downstream of the valve, along with the other limitations of the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Beason (U.S. Patent 11,473,399) discloses a fluid system similar to the one described in the present application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER D BALLMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9984. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 6:00-3:00.
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, Craig M 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.
/CHRISTOPHER D BALLMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/CRAIG M SCHNEIDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights