DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed March 12, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1 – 18 and 20 – 23 are pending in the application with claim 19 being cancelled. The amendment to the claims has overcome the claim objections and 35 USC 112 rejections set forth in the last Non-Final Action mailed December 15, 2025.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 – 18 and 20 – 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Curry et al. (US 2021/0131410 – herein after Curry) in view of Mawby, Terry (US 2017/0298927 – herein after Mawby), Ogawa et al. (US 2022/0034723– herein after Ogawa) and further in view of Peng et al. (US 2023/0241624 – herein after Peng).
In reference to claim 1, Curry teaches a pumping system (82/102) comprising (see figs. 8-11):
a plurality of pumps (96a, 96b; see ¶97);
the plurality of pumps having inlets (the inlets are not labelled in the drawings; however, “inlets” are inherent features of the pumps);
the plurality of pumps having outlets (the outlets are not labelled in the drawings; however, “outlets” are inherent features of the pumps and one of ordinary skilled in the art in view of Curry’s disclosure would understand the “outlets” being the ones shown in fig. A below; furthermore see figs. 2-3 that shows fluid from “outlet” of the pump(s) being pumped into a wellbore (12/12A) at a tie-in point (74) upstream of a wellhead of the wellbore);
wherein liquid (fluid, see abstract) is configured to enter the plurality of pumps through the inlets and exit the plurality of pumps through the outlets;
a plurality of engines (94a, 94b or 108a, 108b; see ¶101);
wherein the plurality of engines are configured to provide power to the plurality of pumps (as discussed in ¶101);
a plurality of tubes (see fig. A below: each pump having its corresponding “tube” connected to the corresponding “outlet”);
wherein the plurality of tubes are operably connected to the outlets such that the liquid exiting the plurality of pumps flows through the plurality of tubes in a parallel manner (see fig. A below: fluid flow direction indicated by “dotted arrows”);
wherein the plurality of tubes converge at an intersection (see fig. A below: intersection is labelled “i”) and flow into an output tube (see fig. A below);
wherein the liquid flowing through the plurality of tubes converge at the intersection (as seen in fig. A below).
PNG
media_image1.png
871
1063
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. A: Edited fig. 11 of Curry to show claim interpretation.
Curry remains silent on the pumping system, wherein the intersection is configured to “increase in diameter from an inlet diameter at a first end, where the plurality of tubes connect to the intersection, to an outlet diameter at a second end, where the outlet tube connects to the intersection”, i.e. a Y-shaped intersection.
However, Mawby teaches a pumping system (see abstract and fig. 3) that utilizes a generally Y-shaped output tube (114, see ¶25). Thus, Mawby teaches the pumping system, wherein: the first tube is connected to the first pump (first tube = discharge pipe corresponding to pump assembly 26), the second tube is connected to the second pump (second tube = discharge pipe corresponding to pump assembly 28), a generally Y-shaped intersection (in the output tube 114 seen in fig. 3) configured to connect the first tube and the second tube fluidly to a third tube (tube with outlet 30, see fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the intersection of Curry by substituting T-shaped geometry with the generally Y-shaped geometry as taught by Mawby for the purpose improving the flow characteristics of the pumped material. Mawby is directed toward a pumping unit designed to pump material “with a minimum of disruptions” and to avoid “smearing or tearing” (see abstract). A skilled artisan would recognize that a Y-shaped intersection (taught by Mawby) provides a smoother convergence of fluid streams compared to a T-shaped intersection (as in Curry), reducing turbulence and shear forces at the merge point. Therefore, applying the Y-shaped intersection geometry of Mawby to the pumping system of Curry would be a predictable use of known prior art elements to achieve the beneficial result of smoother fluid handling and reduced flow disruption. KSR Int’l Co. V. Teleflex Inc. _ _ 550 U.S. ---, 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (Supreme Court 2007) (KSR).
Furthermore, Ogawa teaches a Y-shaped intersection (see figs. 1, 7 and 9) that visually depicts the geometric configuration where the diameter increases at the intersection. The combined downstream passage (equivalent to third tube) is depicted as having a larger cross-sectional width than individual upstream branch passages (equivalent to first and second tubes) to accommodate the combined flow of materials A and B. Thus, the specific geometry of the intersection and the relative diameters of the tubes are result effective variables since varying it affects the fluid flow efficiency and pressure drop.
A skilled artisan implementing the Y-shaped intersection taught by Mawby would look to analogous fluid handling art to determine the optimal geometry for merging streams while also minimizing turbulence. Ogawa teaches and visually enables a Y-shaped junction used to merge two fluid streams into one. Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure the Y-shaped intersection in the modified pumping system of Curry and Mawby “to increase in diameter from an inlet diameter at a first end, where the plurality of tubes connect to the intersection, to an outlet diameter at a second end, where the outlet tube connects to the intersection” since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Curry, as modified, does not teach the pumping system, comprising: “a baffle; wherein the baffle is a generally planar shaped member; wherein the baffle is positioned at the intersection; wherein a fixed end of the baffle is connected at the intersection where the plurality of tubes converge; wherein a free end of the baffle extends a distance into the output tube; wherein the baffle is configured to smooth the convergence of the liquid flowing through the plurality of tubes”.
However, Peng teaches a pumping system comprising (see fig. 1, ¶43): a plurality of tubes (labeled “tube 1, tube 2” in fig. B below), wherein the plurality of tubes converge at an intersection (“i”, see fig. B below) and flow into an output tube (34); wherein the liquid flowing through the plurality of tubes converge at the intersection (see ¶43); a baffle (separation baffle 17; see ¶43); wherein the baffle is positioned at the intersection (as seen in fig. B below); wherein the baffle is a generally planar shaped member; wherein the baffle is positioned at the intersection; wherein a fixed end (bottom end in view of fig. B below) of the baffle is connected at the intersection where the plurality of tubes converge; wherein a free end (top end in view of fig. B below; see circled region) of the baffle extends a distance into the output tube (34); wherein the baffle is configured to smooth the convergence of the liquid flowing through the plurality of tubes (see ¶27: “The present disclosure adopts the separation baffle structure, which reduces the impact loss caused by the high-speed effluent tailing water on the left and right sides colliding with each other”).
PNG
media_image2.png
458
1220
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. B: Edited fig. 1 of Peng to show claim interpretation.
Curry teaches a system where high-pressure fluid streams from multiple pumps merge at the intersection. A skilled artisan would recognize that merging high-velocity fluid streams often results in turbulence and kinetic energy loss due to fluid collision, which reduces pumping efficiency and increases wear on the piping. Peng addresses this specific problem in a similar fluid handling context. Peng teaches that placing a separation baffle at the intersection of converging pipes “reduces the impact loss” caused by colliding fluids. Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide Peng’s baffle to the intersection in the modified Curry’s pumping system for the purpose of guiding the merging flow and reduce turbulence/impact loss at the junction, as recognized by Peng (see ¶27), thereby improving the overall efficiency of the pumping system.
With respect to the limitations “wherein the extension of the generally planar baffle the distance into the output tube provides a reciprocal Venturi effect upon the flow of liquid through the plurality of tubes, and wherein, when one of the plurality of pumps operates at a lower rotational speed or is not operating compared to the other of the plurality of pumps, the reciprocal Venturi effect created by the extension of the baffle into the output tube is configured to alternatively pull and prime either of the plurality of pumps operating at the lower rotational speed”:
The above limitations are considered to be a functional results and therefore, are natural results in the modified system of Curry [structure of Peng (baffle; see ¶23, ¶43) having the modified intersection with the operation of Curry (variable speed pumps; see ¶116, ¶120-¶121)]. The claimed function describes the well-known physical principle of an eductor or jet pump. When two fluid streams merge at a baffled intersection – a structure taught by the combination of Curry, Mawby, Ogawa and Peng – and one stream flows significantly faster than the other (taught by Curry’s variable speed operation), the high-velocity stream creates a low-pressure zone at the tip of the baffle (Bernoulli’s principle/ Venturi effect). Thus, the functional results (above claimed limitations) are necessarily present.
In reference to claim 2, Curry teaches the pumping system, further comprising (see figs. 8-11):
a trailer (84);
wherein the plurality of pumps (96a, 96b) are operably connected to the trailer;
wherein the plurality of engines (94a, 94b or 108a, 108b) are operably connected to the trailer;
wherein the plurality of tubes (shown in fig. A above) are operably connected to the trailer;
wherein the trailer is configured to support the plurality of pumps, the plurality of engines, and the plurality of tubes (as seen in figs. 8-11);
wherein the trailer is transportable (see ¶93).
In reference to claim 3, Curry, as modified, teaches the pumping system, further comprising:
the plurality of tubes includes a first tube and a second tube (see fig. A above);
wherein the baffle (17 of Peng) is configured to prevent the liquid flowing through the first tube (Curry’s first tube, shown in fig. A above) from disturbing the liquid flowing through the second tube (Curry’s second tube, shown in fig. A above) when the liquid flowing through the plurality of tubes converge at the intersection; and
wherein the baffle (17 of Peng) is configured to prevent the liquid flowing through the second tube (Curry’s second tube, shown in fig. A above) from disturbing the liquid flowing through the first tube (Curry’s first tube, shown in fig. A above) when the liquid flowing through the plurality of tubes converge at the intersection [Peng’s baffle 17 is capable of having the claimed feature of preventing one fluid flow from disturbing another fluid flow; see fig. B above: baffle 17 prevents fluid flowing through one tube from disturbing the fluid flowing through another tube and vice versa, i.e. the fluids do not collide with one another in horizontal direction].
In reference to claim 4, Curry, as modified, teaches the pumping system, further comprising:
the plurality of tubes includes a first tube and a second tube (see fig. A above);
wherein the baffle (17 of Peng) is configured to prevent the liquid flowing through the first tube from entering the second tube (Curry’s first and second tubes are shown in fig. A above);
wherein the baffle (17 of Peng) is configured to prevent the liquid flowing through the second tube from entering the first tube [Peng’s baffle 17 is capable of having the claimed feature of preventing fluid/liquid in one tube from entering into another tube; see fig. B above: baffle 17 prevents fluid flowing through one tube from entering into another tube and vice versa].
In reference to claim 5, Curry, as modified, teaches the pumping system, wherein the baffle (17 of Peng) helps to create a venturi effect in an event that flow rates of the liquid flowing through the plurality of tubes vary [in view of fig. A above and the proposed modification: there exists “fluid/liquid at first pressure” in first tube, “fluid/liquid at second pressure” in second tube and “baffle” at the intersection “i"; furthermore, Curry’s pumps are also centrifugal pumps similar to the pumps in the instant application; thus, since the proposed modification teaches the claimed invention, in an event if the flow rates vary as claimed, this claimed “venturi effect” would flow naturally from the proposed modification (in similar way as discussed in the instant application in ¶98 of pg. pub of the instant application) in the modified pumping system of Curry due to constriction created by the baffle].
In reference to claim 6, Curry teaches the pumping system, wherein the liquid enters the plurality of pumps at an inlet pressure, wherein the liquid is expelled from the plurality of pumps at an outlet pressure, and wherein the outlet pressure is greater than the inlet pressure (this claimed feature of “fluid entering at inlet pressure and exiting at outlet pressure, wherein the outlet pressure is greater than the inlet pressure” is an inherent feature).
In reference to claim 7, Curry teaches the pumping system, further comprising:
a control system (86; see figs. 8-9 and ¶93);
wherein the control system is configured to monitor and control a pressure and a flow rate of the liquid moving through the pumping system (the control system is capable of performing the claimed function of “monitoring and controlling the pressure and the flow rate of liquid” in view of disclosure ¶91 and ¶93; please note the following: ¶91 discussed features of the control system related to pump 48, however as per ¶97: “The pump 96a, 96b may include the features previously described herein in connection with pump 48”).
In reference to claim 8, Curry teaches a pumping system (82/102) comprising (see figs. 8-11):
a first pump (96a; see ¶97);
the first pump having an inlet (inlet is not labelled in the drawings; however, “inlet” being an inherent feature of the first pump);
the first pump having an outlet (outlet is not labelled in the drawings; however, “outlet” being an inherent feature of the first pump and one of ordinary skilled in the art in view of Curry’s disclosure would understand the “outlet” being the one shown in fig. A above; furthermore see figs. 2-3 that shows fluid from “outlet” of the pump(s) being pumped into a wellbore (12/12A) at a tie-in point (74) upstream of a wellhead of the wellbore);
wherein liquid (fluid, see abstract) is configured to enter the first pump through the inlet of the first pump and exit the first pump through the outlet of the first pump (fluid entering and exiting the first pump as claimed being an inherent feature);
a first engine (94a or 108a; see ¶101);
wherein the first engine is configured to provide power to the first pump (as discussed in ¶101);
a first tube (see fig. A above);
wherein the first tube is operably connected to the outlet of the first pump such that the liquid exiting the first pump flows through the first tube (see fig. A above: fluid flow direction indicated by “dotted arrows”);
a second pump (96b; see ¶97);
the second pump having an inlet (inlet is not labelled in the drawings; however, “inlet” being an inherent feature of the second pump);
the second pump having an outlet (outlet is not labelled in the drawings; however, “outlet” being an inherent feature of the second pump and one of ordinary skilled in the art in view of Curry’s disclosure would understand the “outlet” being the one shown in fig. A above; furthermore see figs. 2-3 that shows fluid from “outlet” of the pump(s) being pumped into a wellbore (12/12A) at a tie-in point (74) upstream of a wellhead of the wellbore);
wherein the liquid (fluid, see abstract) is configured to enter the second pump through the inlet of the second pump and exit the second pump through the outlet of the second pump (fluid entering and exiting the second pump as claimed being an inherent feature);
a second engine (94b or 108b; see ¶101);
wherein the second engine is configured to provide power to the second pump (as discussed in ¶101);
a second tube (see fig. A above);
wherein the second tube is operably connected to the outlet of the second pump such that the liquid exiting the second pump flows through the second tube (see fig. A above: fluid flow direction indicated by “dotted arrows”);
wherein the first tube and the second tube converge at an intersection (see fig. A above: intersection is labelled “i”) and flow into a third tube (see fig. A above: labeled “output tube”);
wherein the liquid flowing through the first tube and the liquid flowing through the second tube converge at the intersection (as seen in fig. A above).
Curry remains silent on the pumping system, wherein the intersection is configured to “increase in diameter from an inlet diameter at a first end, where first tube and the second tube connect to the intersection, to an outlet diameter at a second end, where the third tube connects to the intersection”, i.e. a Y-shaped intersection.
However, Mawby teaches a pumping system (see abstract and fig. 3) that utilizes a generally Y-shaped output tube (114, see ¶25). Thus, Mawby teaches the pumping system, wherein: the first tube is connected to the first pump (first tube = discharge pipe corresponding to pump assembly 26), the second tube is connected to the second pump (second tube = discharge pipe corresponding to pump assembly 28), a generally Y-shaped intersection (in the output tube 114 seen in fig. 3) configured to connect the first tube and the second tube fluidly to a third tube (tube with outlet 30, see fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the intersection of Curry by substituting T-shaped geometry with the generally Y-shaped geometry as taught by Mawby for the purpose improving the flow characteristics of the pumped material. Mawby is directed toward a pumping unit designed to pump material “with a minimum of disruptions” and to avoid “smearing or tearing” (see abstract). A skilled artisan would recognize that a Y-shaped intersection (taught by Mawby) provides a smoother convergence of fluid streams compared to a T-shaped intersection (as in Curry), reducing turbulence and shear forces at the merge point. Therefore, applying the Y-shaped intersection geometry of Mawby to the pumping system of Curry would be a predictable use of known prior art elements to achieve the beneficial result of smoother fluid handling and reduced flow disruption. KSR Int’l Co. V. Teleflex Inc. _ _ 550 U.S. ---, 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (Supreme Court 2007) (KSR).
Furthermore, Ogawa teaches a Y-shaped intersection (see figs. 1, 7 and 9) that visually depicts the geometric configuration where the diameter increases at the intersection. The combined downstream passage (equivalent to third tube) is depicted as having a larger cross-sectional width than individual upstream branch passages (equivalent to first and second tubes) to accommodate the combined flow of materials A and B. Thus, the specific geometry of the intersection and the relative diameters of the tubes are result effective variables since varying it affects the fluid flow efficiency and pressure drop.
A skilled artisan implementing the Y-shaped intersection taught by Mawby would look to analogous fluid handling art to determine the optimal geometry for merging streams while also minimizing turbulence. Ogawa teaches and visually enables a Y-shaped junction used to merge two fluid streams into one. Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure the Y-shaped intersection in the modified pumping system of Curry and Mawby “to increase in diameter from an inlet diameter at a first end, where the first tube and the second tube connect to the intersection, to an outlet diameter at a second end, where the third tube connects to the intersection” since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Curry, as modified, does not teach the pumping system, comprising: “a baffle; wherein the baffle is a generally planar shaped member; wherein the baffle is positioned at the intersection; wherein a fixed end of the baffle is connected at the intersection where the first tube and the second tube converge; wherein a free end of the baffle extends a distance into a first end of the third tube”.
However, Peng teaches a pumping system comprising (see fig. 1, ¶43): a first tube (labeled “tube 1” in fig. B above), a second tube (labeled “tube 2” in fig. B above), wherein the first tube and the second tube converge at an intersection (“i”, see fig. B above) and flow into a third tube (34); wherein the liquid flowing through the first tube and the liquid flowing through the second tube converge at the intersection (see ¶43); a baffle (separation baffle 17; see ¶43); wherein the baffle is a generally planar shaped member; wherein the baffle is positioned at the intersection (as seen in fig. B above); wherein a fixed end (bottom end in view of fig. B above) of the baffle is connected at the intersection where the first tube and the second tube converge; wherein a free end (top end in view of fig. B above; see circled region) of the baffle extends a distance into a first end of the third tube (34).
Curry teaches a system where high-pressure fluid streams from multiple pumps merge at the intersection. A skilled artisan would recognize that merging high-velocity fluid streams often results in turbulence and kinetic energy loss due to fluid collision, which reduces pumping efficiency and increases wear on the piping. Peng addresses this specific problem in a similar fluid handling context. Peng teaches that placing a separation baffle at the intersection of converging pipes “reduces the impact loss” caused by colliding fluids. Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide Peng’s baffle to the intersection in the modified Curry’s pumping system for the purpose of guiding the merging flow and reduce turbulence/impact loss at the junction, as recognized by Peng (see ¶27), thereby improving the overall efficiency of the pumping system.
With respect to the limitations “wherein in the event that the first pump and the second pump operate at different speeds, the baffle is configured to reduce differences between flow rates through the first tube and the second tube by: inducing a first Venturi effect to increase a flow of liquid from the first tube when the flow rate in the second tube is greater than the flow rate in the first tube; and inducing a second Venturi effect to increase a flow of liquid from the second tube when the flow rate in the first tube is greater than the flow rate in the second tube; wherein the first Venturi effect and the second Venturi effect combine to provide a reciprocating Venturi effect which can be alternatively applied to either the first pump or the second pump; wherein the reciprocating Venturi effect created by the baffle extending into the third tube pulls liquid through a lower-flow pump of the first pump and the second pump when the lower-flow pump is operating at a lower rotational speed or is not operating; and wherein the reciprocating Venturi effect primes and pulls liquid through the lower-flow pump”:
The above limitations are considered to be functional results and therefore, are natural results in the modified system of Curry [structure of Peng (baffle; see ¶23, ¶43) having the modified intersection with the operation of Curry (variable speed pumps; see ¶116, ¶120-¶121)]. The claimed function describes the well-known physical principle of an eductor or jet pump. When two fluid streams merge at a baffled intersection – a structure taught by the combination of Curry, Mawby, Ogawa and Peng – and one stream flows significantly faster than the other (taught by Curry’s variable speed operation), the high-velocity stream creates a low-pressure zone at the tip of the baffle (Bernoulli’s principle/ Venturi effect). Thus, the functional results (above claimed limitations) are necessarily present.
In reference to claim 9, Curry, as modified, teaches the pumping system, wherein the baffle is configured to prevent the liquid flowing through the first tube from entering the second tube in an event that a pressure in the second tube is less than a pressure in the first tube; and wherein the baffle is configured to prevent the liquid flowing through the second tube from entering the first tube in an event that a pressure in the first tube is less than a pressure in the second tube [inherent property in the modified system of Curry [structure of Peng (baffle; see ¶23, ¶43) with the operation of Curry (variable speed pumps; see ¶116, ¶120-¶121)].
In reference to claim 10, Curry teaches the pumping system, further comprising (see figs. 8-11):
a trailer (84);
wherein the first pump and the second pump (first pump = 96a; second pump = 96b) are operably connected to the trailer;
wherein the first engine and the second engine (first engine = 94a/108a; and second engine = 94b/108b) are operably connected to the trailer;
wherein the first tube and the second tube (shown in fig. A above) are operably connected to the trailer;
wherein the trailer is configured to support the first pump, the second pump, the first engine, the second engine, the first tube and the second tube (as seen in figs. 8-11);
wherein the trailer is transportable (see ¶93).
In reference to claim 11, Curry, as modified, teaches the pumping system, further comprising:
wherein the baffle (17 of Peng) is configured to prevent the liquid flowing through the first tube (Curry’s first tube, shown in fig. A above) from disturbing the liquid flowing through the second tube (Curry’s second tube, shown in fig. A above) when the liquid flowing through the first tube and the second tube converge at the intersection; and
wherein the baffle (17 of Peng) is configured to prevent the liquid flowing through the second tube (Curry’s second tube, shown in fig. A above) from disturbing the liquid flowing through the first tube (Curry’s first tube, shown in fig. A above) when the liquid flowing through the first tube and the second tube converge at the intersection [Peng’s baffle 17 is capable of having the claimed feature of preventing one fluid flow from disturbing another fluid flow; see fig. B above: baffle 17 prevents fluid flowing through one tube from disturbing the fluid flowing through another tube and vice versa, i.e. the fluids do not collide with one another in horizontal direction].
In reference to claim 12, Curry, as modified, teaches the pumping system, wherein the baffle (17 of Peng) helps to create a venturi effect in an event that flow rates of the liquid flowing through the first tube and the second tube vary [in view of fig. A above and the proposed modification: there exists “fluid/liquid at first pressure” in first tube, “fluid/liquid at second pressure” in second tube and “baffle” at the intersection “i"; furthermore, Curry’s pumps are also centrifugal pumps similar to the pumps in the instant application; thus, since the proposed modification teaches the claimed invention, in an event if the flow rates vary as claimed, this claimed “venturi effect” would flow naturally from the proposed modification (in similar way as discussed in the instant application in ¶98 of pg. pub of the instant application) in the modified pumping system of Curry due to constriction created by the baffle].
In reference to claim 13, Curry teaches the pumping system, wherein the liquid enters the first pump and the second pump at an inlet pressure, wherein the liquid is expelled from the first pump and the second pump at an outlet pressure, and wherein the outlet pressure is greater than the inlet pressure (this claimed feature of “fluid entering at inlet pressure and exiting at outlet pressure, wherein the outlet pressure is greater than the inlet pressure” is an inherent feature).
In reference to claim 14, Curry teaches the pumping system, further comprising:
a control system (86; see figs. 8-9 and ¶93);
wherein the control system is configured to monitor and control a pressure and a flow rate of the liquid moving through the pumping system (the control system is capable of performing the claimed function of “monitoring and controlling the pressure and the flow rate of liquid” in view of disclosure ¶91 and ¶93; please note the following: ¶91 discussed features of the control system related to pump 48, however as per ¶97: “The pump 96a, 96b may include the features previously described herein in connection with pump 48”).
In reference to claim 15, Curry, as modified, teaches the pumping system, wherein the baffle (17 of Peng) extends a distance into the third tube (“output tube” in fig. A above or “34” in Peng) and is configured to direct a first flow of liquid from the first tube and a second flow of liquid from the second tube into parallel directions prior to the first flow and the second flow converging in the third tube (see fig. 1 in Peng or fig. B above).
In reference to claim 16, Curry, as modified, teaches the pumping system (see figs. A and B above: in presence of baffle at the intersection of Curry’s pumping system), wherein a first path from the first tube, through the intersection, and into the third tube is symmetrical to a second path from the second tube, through the intersection, and into the third tube.
In reference to claim 17, Curry, as modified, teaches the pumping system, wherein the baffle (baffle 17 of Peng) is a planar member (see fig. B above) extending between the fixed end (bottom end) and the free end (top end); wherein the fixed end is connected to a wall at the intersection (“i”) that is located between the first tube and the second tube.
In reference to claim 18, Curry, as modified, teaches the pumping system, wherein the baffle (baffle 17 of Peng) is a vertically-oriented planar member (see fig. B above) extending between the fixed end (bottom end) and the free end (top end); wherein the fixed end is connected to a wall at the intersection (“i”) that is located between the first tube and the second tube.
In reference to claim 20, Curry teaches a pumping trailer system (82/102) comprising (see figs. 8-11):
a trailer (84);
a first engine (94a or 108a; see ¶101) connected to the trailer;
a first pump (96a; see ¶97) connected to the first engine;
a first tube (see fig. A above) connected to the first pump;
wherein the first tube has a first diameter (inherent feature); the first tube configured to receive pressurized fluid from the first pump (inherent feature);
a second engine (94b or 108b; see ¶101) connected to the trailer;
a second pump (96b; see ¶97) connected to the second engine;
a second tube (see fig. A above) connected to the second pump;
wherein the second tube has a second diameter (inherent feature); the second tube configured to receive pressurized fluid from the second pump (inherent feature);
an intersection (labeled “i” in fig. A above) configured to connect the first tube and the second tube fluidly connect to a third tube (labeled “output tube” in fig. A above); wherein the third tube has a third diameter (inherent feature).
Curry remains silent on the pumping system, wherein the intersection is “generally Y-shaped”.
However, Mawby teaches a pumping system (see abstract and fig. 3) that utilizes a generally Y-shaped output tube (114, see ¶25). Thus, Mawby teaches the pumping system, wherein: the first tube is connected to the first pump (first tube = discharge pipe corresponding to pump assembly 26), the second tube is connected to the second pump (second tube = discharge pipe corresponding to pump assembly 28), a generally Y-shaped intersection (in the output tube 114 seen in fig. 3) configured to fluidly connect the first tube and the second tube to a third tube (tube with outlet 30, see fig. 3).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the intersection of Curry by substituting T-shaped geometry with the generally Y-shaped geometry as taught by Mawby for the purpose improving the flow characteristics of the pumped material. Mawby is directed toward a pumping unit designed to pump material “with a minimum of disruptions” and to avoid “smearing or tearing” (see abstract). A skilled artisan would recognize that a Y-shaped intersection (taught by Mawby) provides a smoother convergence of fluid streams compares to a T-shaped intersection (as in Curry), reducing turbulence and shear forces at the merge point. Therefore, applying the Y-shaped intersection geometry of Mawby to the pumping system of Curry would be a predictable use of known prior art elements to achieve the beneficial result of smoother fluid handling and reduced flow disruption. KSR Int’l Co. V. Teleflex Inc. _ _ 550 U.S. ---, 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (Supreme Court 2007) (KSR).
Curry, as modified, remains silent on the pumping system, wherein “the third diameter is larger than the first diameter of the first tube; wherein the third diameter is larger than the second diameter of the second tube; wherein the Y-shaped intersection is configured to increase in diameter from an inlet diameter at a first end, where the first tube and the second tube connect to the Y-shaped intersection, to an outlet diameter at a second end, where the third tube connects to the Y-shaped intersection”.
However, Ogawa teaches a Y-shaped intersection (see figs. 1, 7 and 9) that visually depicts the geometric configuration where the diameter increases at the intersection. The combined downstream passage (equivalent to third tube) is depicted as having a larger cross-sectional width than individual upstream branch passages (equivalent to first and second tubes) to accommodate the combined flow of materials A and B. Thus, the specific geometry of the intersection and the relative diameters of the tubes are result effective variables since varying it affects the fluid flow efficiency and pressure drop.
A skilled artisan implementing the Y-shaped intersection taught by Mawby would look to analogous fluid handling art to determine the optimal geometry for merging streams while also minimizing turbulence. Ogawa teaches and visually enables a Y-shaped junction used to merge two fluid streams into one. Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure the Y-shaped intersection in the modified pumping system of Curry and Mawby such that “the third diameter is larger than the first diameter of the first tube; wherein the third diameter is larger than the second diameter of the second tube; wherein the Y-shaped intersection is configured to increase in diameter from an inlet diameter at a first end, where the first tube and the second tube connect to the Y-shaped intersection, to an outlet diameter at a second end, where the third tube connects to the Y-shaped intersection” since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Curry, as modified, does not teach the pumping system, comprising: “a baffle; wherein the baffle is a generally planar shaped member that connects at a fixed end to the where interior walls of first tube and second tube meet to form the intersection and extends a distance away from the first tube and the second tube before terminating at a free end; wherein the free end of the generally planar shaped baffle extends beyond the second end of the Y-shaped intersection and a distance into the third tube; wherein the baffle positioned at the intersection of the first tube and the second tube smooths the convergence of flow of pressurized fluid from the first pump through the first tube and from the second pump through the second tube into the third tube”.
However, Peng teaches a pumping system comprising (see fig. 1, ¶43): a first and second tubes (labeled “tube 1, tube 2” in fig. B above), wherein the plurality of tubes converge at an intersection (“i”, see fig. B above) and flow into a third tube (34); wherein the liquid flowing through the first and second tubes converge at the intersection (see ¶43); a baffle (separation baffle 17; see ¶43); wherein the baffle is a generally planar shaped member that connects at a fixed end (bottom end) to the where interior walls of first tube and second tube meet to form the intersection (“i”, see fig. B above) and extends a distance away from the first tube and the second tube before terminating at a free end (top end); wherein the free end of the generally planar shaped baffle (as evident from fig. B above) extends beyond the second end of the intersection and a distance into the third tube (34); wherein the baffle positioned at the intersection of the first tube and the second tube smooths the convergence of flow of pressurized fluid from the first pump through the first tube and from the second pump through the second tube into the third tube (see ¶27: “The present disclosure adopts the separation baffle structure, which reduces the impact loss caused by the high-speed effluent tailing water on the left and right sides colliding with each other”).
Curry teaches a system where high-pressure fluid streams from multiple pumps merge at the intersection. A skilled artisan would recognize that merging high-velocity fluid streams often results in turbulence and kinetic energy loss due to fluid collision, which reduces pumping efficiency and increases wear on the piping. Peng addresses this specific problem in a similar fluid handling context. Peng teaches that placing a separation baffle at the intersection of converging pipes “reduces the impact loss” caused by colliding fluids. Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide Peng’s baffle to the intersection in the modified Curry’s pumping system for the purpose of guiding the merging flow and reduce turbulence/impact loss at the junction, as recognized by Peng (see ¶27), thereby improving the overall efficiency of the pumping system.
With respect to the limitations “wherein the extension of the generally planar baffle beyond the second end of the Y-shaped intersection provides a reciprocal Venturi effect upon the flow of pressurized fluid through the first tube and the second tube; wherein, when one of the first pump and the second pump operates at a lower rotational speed or is not operating compared to the other of the first pump and the second pump, the reciprocal Venturi effect created by the extension of the baffle into the third tube is configured to alternatively pull and prime either of the first pump or the second pump operating at the lower rotational speed”:
The above limitations are considered to be functional results and therefore, are natural results in the modified system of Curry [structure of Peng (baffle; see ¶23, ¶43) having the modified intersection with the operation of Curry (variable speed pumps; see ¶116, ¶120-¶121)]. The claimed function describes the well-known physical principle of an eductor or jet pump. When two fluid streams merge at a baffled intersection – a structure taught by the combination of Curry, Mawby, Ogawa and Peng – and one stream flows significantly faster than the other (taught by Curry’s variable speed operation), the high-velocity stream creates a low-pressure zone at the tip of the baffle (Bernoulli’s principle/ Venturi effect). Thus, the functional results (above claimed limitations) are necessarily present.
In reference to claim 21, Curry, as modified, teaches the pumping system, wherein the first tube and the second tube come together at the intersection at certain angles relative to the third tube.
Curry, as modified, remains silent on the pumping system, wherein the first tube and the second tube come together at the intersection at 45 degree angle relative to the third tube.
The angle at which fluid streams converge is a result-effective variable known to affect flow characteristics such as turbulence, shear stress, and mixing efficiency.
A skilled artisan would recognize that 45-degree angle (as suggested by visual disclosure of Ogawa, see fig. 9) provides a balance between compactness of the piping manifold and smoothness of the flow path. Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure the angle of first and second tubes relative to the third tube in the modified pumping system of Curry for 45 degree since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
In reference to claim 22, Curry, as modified, teaches the pumping system, wherein the generally planar shaped baffle (17; see fig. B above) is vertically oriented.
In reference to claim 23, Curry, as modified, teaches the pumping system, wherein the first tube and the second tube connect to the third tube in a generally symmetric manner (inherent feature in the modified pumping system of Curry).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 12, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Arguments with respect to analogous art and reasonable expectation of success:
The Applicant argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not look to a mining tailings apparatus (Peng) when designing an oilfield fracturing system (Curry) because the fields are too dissimilar. This argument fails under the criteria set forth in MPEP 2141.01(a).
To be analogous art, a reference must either be from the same field or endeavor or be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved. Both references (Curry and Peng) as well as the inventor deal with the identical mechanical engineering problem: fluid handling and managing flow dynamics at the junction of converging fluid conduits. A person of ordinary skill in the art seeking to reduce turbulence and kinetic energy loss when fluid streams merge would look to general fluid transport disclosures across relevant arts, including mining slurries, since fluid mechanics principle apply universally regardless of the specific industrial setting.
Arguments with respect to simultaneous vs. sequential operation:
The Applicant asserts that Curry operates its pumps sequentially rather than simultaneously, meaning there is no “collision” of high-velocity fluid. However, Curry explicitly contemplates (see ¶120-¶121) simultaneous operation, noting that the fluid can be pumped to the outlet by the first pump and optionally the second pump, and that the pumps can work in tandem. Therefore, the problem of fluid collision at the merge point is highly relevant to Curry’s disclosure.
Arguments with respect to Venturi Effect:
The Applicant’s newly added limitations assert that the specific structural configuration of the baffle generates a “reciprocating Venturi effect” to prime or pull liquid from the lower-flow pump. This physical behavior flows naturally from the proposed structural combination. When a planar baffle (Peng) is positioned at the intersection of converging conduits where fluids flow at different velocities (Curry’s variable-speed operation), Bernoulli’s principle dictates that a low-pressure zone is inherently created at the tip of the baffle. This structural arrangement operates exactly like a well-known jet pump or eductor. Claiming the functional result of an inherent physical property does not impart patentability to an otherwise obvious combination (MPEP 2112).
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 CHIRAG JARIWALA whose telephone number is (571)272-0467. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM-5 PM.
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.
/CHIRAG JARIWALA/Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/ESSAMA OMGBA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights