DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a first office action on the merits. All currently pending claims have been considered below. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
No IDS has been filed in the present case. If applicable, the Examiner respectfully notes Applicant's duty to submit to the Office information which is material to patentability, as per MPEP §609, and the time limits for such a filing set forth under 37 CFR 1.97.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because figure 5 is grayscale, which "are not ordinally permitted" per MPEP 608.02, subsection VII(B). The standard is thick, legible black and white, with strong, easily reproducible black lines, and cross-hatching where appropriate. Figure 5 has very poor legibility in the examiner's copy and will not reproduce well.
The examiner notes that figures 2-4 are similarly grayscale. And while this is "not originally permitted", they are legible for what they intend to show, and therefore the examiner does not make a formal drawing objection for claims 2-4. That said, Applicant is informed that potential amendments which rely on drawings which do not legibly show the feature in question may warrant a drawing objection and/or 112(a) rejection in the future.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 760, fig 5, is not in the specification
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claims 9 and/or 16 be found allowable, claims 13 and 17 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claims 9 & 16, respectively. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 6-8 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites "wherein each of the plurality of dosing tanks contains a different solution". The examiner holds this to be indefinite because the "solution" is conspicuously not a positively recited feature of the system, as defined in claim 1. Rather the "chemical" and "freshwater" that make up the "solution" are intended use of the features of claim 1 ("…the plurality of eductors being configured to receive a chemical" is not a positive recitation of the chemical; there is no positive recitation "freshwater", just a "freshwater tank", as further shown by the intended use phrasing of claim 3: "…configured to receive freshwater"). Therefore, claim 6 is indefinite because it is unclear how or if it further structurally limits claim 1. Any two "tanks" are inherently capable of holding "a different solution". In other words, if the "chemical", "freshwater", and the "solution" they form together are all intended use, what additional structural limitation does claim 6 present? What is allowed by claim 1 that is subsequently excluded by claim 6?
Claims 7 & 8 depend from claim 6.
Claim 7 recites "the different solutions contain different ratios of the chemical to the freshwater". However the "chemical", "freshwater", and the "solution" they form are all intended use, not structural limitations. Any two tanks are capable of holding different ratios of chemical. As similarly described for claim 6 above, it is unclear how or if this further structurally limits the claims.
Claim 8 recites "the different solutions contain different chemicals". As similarly described for claims 6 & 7 above, it is unclear how or if this further structurally limits the claims.
Claim 20 recites "mixing the at least one chemical and the freshwater in the eductor" to form the "first solution" "and providing the first solution to the first of the plurality of dosing tanks". However parent claim 18 already recites "mixing, in a first of the plurality of dosing tanks, at least one chemical and the freshwater to create a first solution". These discrete mixing steps are recited with no relationship to each other. It is unclear how or if these "mixing" steps differ from each other. In claim 18 the "first solution" is made in the "dosing tank" but in claim 20 the "first solution" is made before being delivered to the "dosing tank".
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.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0287778 (Keilers) in view of US 2002/0092681 (Patel).
Independent claim 18. Keilers discloses a process for providing chemistries for downhole conditions in a drilling or mining operation comprising (abstract; hydraulic fracturing is held to be a "mining operation" at the level of generality currently recited: it is used to extract resources from the ground. Broadly speaking, fracturing also "drills" into the formation through the fractures):
supplying water to a sweep tank ("water tanks 134" - fig 5) and a plurality of dosing tanks (three "modular unit[s] 68 [each] comprise its own mixing system 20" - ¶ 43 - are shown in fig 5 - with "venturi mixer 24" therein - fig 1 & ¶ 19; "proppant blender 136" - ¶ 44 is also a "dosing tank" as currently recited);
mixing, in a first of the plurality of dosing tanks (one of 24 is one of the three "modular units 68" shown in fig 5), at least one chemical and the water to create a first solution ("The flow of fluid through the Venturi 40 creates suction at a suction port/inlet 42 which draws in a desired additive 44. In the example illustrated, the additive 44 may be in the form of a dry powder material 46, e.g. a dry HVFR powder or other suitable powder, which may be supplied from a container 48 and mixed with liquid, e.g. water" - ¶ 21; "a larger remainder, e.g. eight barrels per minute, of the output flow may be supplied to the manifold 138" - ¶ 43);
mixing, in a second of the plurality of dosing tanks ("proppant blender 136" - ¶ 44 & fig 5), at least one second chemical ("various liquid additives may be provided to the proppant blender 136 via a liquid additive supply 142" - ¶ 44) and the water ("water may be supplied to the proppant blender 136 from water tanks 134" - ibid) to create a second solution (ibid);
receiving a command to inject at least one of the two solutions (The user / computer that inherently controls the system and operation of the pumps. In other words, the system is not operating / started randomly. Someone is turning the pumps on, for example. "control system 126, e.g. a computer/processor-based control system, which receives feedback from various sensors, e.g. sensors 70, 77, 78, 80, to enable appropriate system responses" - ¶ 39. "the control system 126 also may be programmed to establish a set point with respect to suction at downstream discharge pump 66 while monitoring the actual pressure at this location via sensor 78 (see control loop 132)" - ¶ 41); and
injecting the least one solution (the "first solution" directed to "manifold 138" is injected downhole via wellhead 146. Same for the fluid exiting "proppant blender 136" - fig 5) in a mudline ("manifold 138") slurry (Both solutions are slurry: ¶s 44, 48, & 49) being conveyed downhole (via "wellhead 146").
While Keilers discloses the use of water, as cited above, Keilers does not explicitly disclose "freshwater".
Patel discloses the use of fresh water as the base of a fluid for use in drilling wells and other operations (abstract, ¶ 27) that may also be used for fracturing fluid (¶s 125, 128, claim 5), such as the fracturing fluid taught by Keilers.
Therefore it would have been obvious to PHOSITA at the time of filing to use fresh water as taught by Patel as the more general water taught by Keilers. Patel teaches that such water is known for use in an analogous fluid (¶s 125, 128, claim 5), among other variations of water (ibid), thus showing fresh water to have art recognized suitability. Further, for many inland well sites, local fresh water may be the only available, as is readily apparent.
19. The process as recited in claim 18 further comprising:
monitoring the downhole conditions (The fluid is being constantly measured with a direct feedback loop therefrom: ¶s 16, 24, 26, 39. This fluid is being pumped downhole and therefore represents "downhole conditions" at the level of generality recited. Further, as the job progresses, and the stages of the fracturing job progress, the concentrations / mixtures are changed: ¶s 16, 34. This is likewise "downhole conditions" because, by the "end stage", a certain amount of fluid and chemical has been injected downhole and the mixture is changed: ¶ 34); and
determining a required solution on the basis of the monitored conditions (ibid); and
generating the command to inject at least one of the two solutions based on the determination (¶s 16, 24, 26, 34, 39).
20. The process as recited in claim 18 further comprising:
receiving parameters from an operator for the first solution ("to form a desired fluid mixture" - ¶ 15 & 18; "an additional sensor 80 …to monitor the desired parameter(s) of the output mixture 62" - ¶ 26; "desired" clearly implies a setpoint. ¶ 34 expressly teaches forming a "desired" mixture. "sensors 70, 77, 78, 80, and compares the sensor feedback to corresponding set points (SP) for each control loop" - ¶ 40. " Again, based on deviations from the set point, system adjustments/responses may be performed" - ¶ 41);
providing measured amounts of the at least one chemical (46 - figs 1 & 2 - is provided in a controlled and measured amount: ¶ 29 & 30) and the freshwater ("water pumped via pump 30 to Venturi mixers 24, 26. A pressure sensor 70 or other appropriate sensor may be positioned between pump 30 and the Venturi mixers 24, 26 to provide feedback as to supply pressure" - ¶ 24. Sensor 70, fig 2, is taught as being part of the measuring / metering feedback loop: ¶s 39, 40) to an eductor ("flush bowl 50" - fig 2, ¶ 21);
mixing the at least one chemical and the freshwater in the eductor ("the additive 44 may be in the form of a dry powder material 46, e.g. a dry HVFR powder or other suitable powder, which may be supplied from a container 48 and mixed with liquid, e.g. water, at a flush bowl 50 or other appropriate mixing device" - ¶ 21); and
providing the first solution to the first of the plurality of dosing tanks (the mixture exits 50 and enters 24: fig 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Independent claims 1 & 11 are allowable over the prior art of record. The prior art does not teach nor suggest the features of these claims all within a single container, as recited in the final clause of both claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Blake Michener whose telephone number is (571)270-5736. The examiner can normally be reached Approximately 9:00am to 6:00pm CT.
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, Tara Schimpf can be reached at 571.270.7741. 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.
/BLAKE MICHENER/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676