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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 12,196,067. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the pending application presents claims covered by the parent patent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 2, 4-11, 13-17 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Fripp et al. (US 11,598,191).
As concerns claim 2, Fripp shows a hydraulic fracturing system (Fig. 3), comprising: a blender (130) having: a first blender unit (130c) that mixes and delivers a first fluid (slurry) to a fleet of pumpers (120), a second blender unit (130a) that mixes and delivers a second fluid (clean fluid and/or additive fluid) to the fleet of pumpers (120); and a pump (130b; col 5, ln 11-21) that delivers a third fluid (clean fluid) to the fleet of pumpers (120), wherein at least one pumper (120a-120d) of the fleet of pumpers is in fluid communication with at least two of: the first blender unit, the second blender unit, or the pump (Fig. 3).
As concerns claim 4, Fripp shows wherein: the first fluid (slurry) includes a greater amount of solid particulates than the second fluid (clean fluid and/or additive fluid) and the third fluid (clean fluid).
As concerns claim 5, Fripp shows a controller (275) in communication with the first blender unit, the second blender unit, and the pump (Fig. 3); and wherein the controller is configured to operate the system in a state in which: the first blender unit (130c) delivers the first fluid to a first set of pumpers (120a) of the fleet of pumpers; the second blender unit (130a) delivers the second fluid to a second set of pumpers (120b) of the fleet of pumpers; and the pump (130b) delivers the third fluid to a third set of pumpers (120c) of the fleet of pumpers.
As concerns claim 6, Fripp shows a controller (275) in communication with the first blender unit, the second blender unit, and the pump (Fig. 3); and wherein, based on a failure, the controller is configured to operate the system in a state in which: the second blender unit (130a) delivers a fourth fluid (additive fluid) having solid particulates to at least one of a first set of pumpers (120a) of the fleet of pumpers; and the pump (130b) delivers the third fluid to a third set of pumpers (120c) of the fleet of pumpers.
As concerns claim 7, Fripp shows a fleet of second pumpers (110), wherein: the fleet of pumpers (120) are fluidly connected to a first well (150), the fleet of second pumpers (110) are fluidly connected to a second well (150), and the second blender unit (130a) and the pump (130b) are configured to be in communication with the fleet of second pumpers (Fig. 3).
As concerns claim 8, Fripp shows a controller (275) in communication with the first blender unit, the second blender unit, and the pump (Fig. 3); wherein, the controller is configured to operate the system in a state in which: the first blender unit (130c) delivers the first fluid to a first set of pumpers (120a) of the fleet of pumpers; the pump (130b) delivers the third fluid to a second set of pumpers (120c) of the fleet of pumpers; the second blender unit (130a) delivers the second fluid to a first set of pumpers (110a) of the fleet of second pumpers; and the pump (130b) delivers the third fluid to a second set of pumpers (110c) of the fleet of second pumpers.
As concerns claim 9, Fripp shows a controller (275) in communication with the first blender unit, the second blender unit, and the pump (Fig. 3); wherein, based on a failure, the controller is configured to operate the system in a state in which the second blender unit (130a) delivers the second fluid to the first set of pumpers (120a) of the fleet of pumpers and the first set of pumpers (110a) of the fleet of second pumpers.
As concerns claim 10, Fripp shows wherein: the first fluid (slurry) and the second fluid (additive fluid) each include a greater amount of solid particulates than the third fluid (clean fluid).
As concerns claim 11, Fripp shows wherein the pump (130b) includes one or more centrifugal pumps (col 5, ln 11-21).
As concerns claim 13, Fripp shows a method (Fig. 3) comprising: mixing a first fluid (slurry) using a first blender unit (130c) of a blender (130); delivering, using the first blender unit (130c), the first fluid to a fleet of pumpers (120); mixing a second fluid (clean fluid and/or additive fluid) using a second blender unit (130a) of the blender (130); delivering, using the second blender unit (130a), the second fluid to the fleet of pumpers (120); and delivering, using a pump (130b; col 5, ln 11-21), a third fluid (clean fluid) to the fleet of pumpers (120), wherein at least one pumper (120a-120d) of the fleet of pumpers is in fluid communication with at least two of: the first blender unit, the second blender unit, or the pump (Fig. 3).
As concerns claim 14, Fripp shows wherein: in a first operation state of the blender: the first fluid is delivered to a first set of pumpers (120a) of the fleet of pumpers, the second fluid is delivered to a second set of pumpers (120b) of the fleet of pumpers, and the third fluid is delivered to a third set of pumpers (120c) of the fleet of pumpers, and in a second operation state of the blender: the first fluid is delivered to at least one pumper (120b) of the second set of pumpers or at least one pumper (120c) of the third set of pumpers, the method further comprising switching an operation state of the blender from the first operation state to the second operation state (Fig. 3).
As concerns claim 15, Fripp shows wherein: the first set of pumpers (120a) is connected to a first well (150a) and the second set of pumpers (120b) is connected to a second well (150b).
As concerns claim 16, Fripp shows wherein: the first fluid (slurry) includes a greater amount of solid particulates than the second fluid (clean fluid and/or additive fluid) and the third fluid (clean fluid).
As concerns claim 17, Fripp shows a hydraulic fracturing system (Fig. 3), comprising: a blender (130) having: a first blender unit (130c) that mixes and discharges a first fluid (slurry), and a second blender unit (130a) that mixes and discharges a second fluid (clean fluid and/or additive fluid); a pump (130b; col 5, ln 11-21) that pumps a third fluid (clean fluid); and a pumper (120) that injects fluid into a wellbore (150), the pumper having a first fluid end (Fig. 3: inner end of pump 120) and a second fluid end (Fig. 3: outer end of pump 120); wherein: the first fluid end (inner end) is in fluid communication with the first blender unit (130c); and the second fluid end (outer end) is in fluid communication with the second blender unit (130a) or the pump (130b).
As concerns claim 19, Fripp shows wherein the pump (130b) includes one or more centrifugal pumps (col 5, ln 11-21).
As concerns claim 20, Fripp shows a first proppant transport system (140) configured to deliver proppant to the first blending unit (130c); a second proppant transport system (135a) configured to deliver proppant to the second blending unit (130a); and one or more water tanks (125b) configured to deliver water to the pump (130b).
As concerns claim 21, Fripp shows a controller (275) in communication with the first blender unit, the second blender unit, and the pump (Fig. 3), wherein, in the absence of a failure, the controller is configured to operate the system in a first state in which: the first blender unit (130c) delivers the first fluid to a first set of pumpers (120a) of the fleet of pumpers, the second blender unit (130a) delivers the second fluid to a second set of pumpers (120b) of the fleet of pumpers, and the pump (130b) delivers the third fluid to a third set of pumpers (120c) of the fleet of pumpers, and wherein, based on the failure, the controller is configured to operate the system in a second state in which: the second blender unit (130a) delivers a fourth fluid (additive fluid) having solid particulates to at least one of a first set of pumpers (120a) of the fleet of pumpers; and the pump (130b) delivers the third fluid to a third set of pumpers (120c) of the fleet of pumpers.
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.
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 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fripp et al. alone.
As concerns claim 18, Fripp shows a first set of plungers (inner side of pump 120) associated with the first fluid end (Fig. 3) and a second set of plungers (outer side of pump 120) associated with the second fluid end (Fig. 3). Fripp discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the first set of plungers have a stroke length less than a stroke length of the second set of plungers. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have formed the pumper such that the first set of plungers have a stroke length less than a stroke length of the second set of plungers, as Applicant has not disclosed that it solves any stated problem of the prior art or is for any particular purpose other than being an alternative to forming the pumper such that the first set of plungers have a stroke length equal to a stroke length of the second set of plungers. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the invention to perform equally well with a pumper formed with the first set of plungers having a stroke length equal to a stroke length of the second set of plungers because the fluid would still have been capable of being pumped. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that forming the pumper such that the first set of plungers have a stroke length less than a stroke length of the second set of plungers would have provided predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Fripp to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fripp et al. as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Grimland et al. (US 6,193,402).
As concerns claim 3, Fripp discloses the claimed invention except for wherein: the first blender unit includes a suction pump, the second blender unit includes a tub, and the suction pump is in fluid communication with the tub via a crossover line. Grimland teaches wherein a first blender unit (14) includes a suction pump (36), a second blender unit (12) includes a tub (86), and the suction pump (36) is in fluid communication with the tub (12, 86) via a crossover line (64; Fig. 6). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Fripp, as taught by Grimland, to include a crossover line for the expected benefit of providing fluid communication between the first blender unit and the second blender unit. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that using a crossover line in the blender between the first blender unit and the second blender unit would have provided predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since the expected result of this configuration improves versatility/adaptability/efficiency of the hydraulic fracturing system design.
As concerns claim 12, the combination teaches wherein the first blender unit (Grimland: 14) and the second blender unit (Grimland: 12) are disposed on a first trailer (Grimland: 10).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Fisher et al. (US 11,506,032) and Coli et al. (US 11,255,173) each show a combined blender having two tubs for supplying fracturing fluids.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW R BUCK whose telephone number is (571)270-3653. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30-5.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached at (571)272-5405. 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.
/MATTHEW R BUCK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672