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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 4/24/26 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US Patent 12180817 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed 4/24/26 have been entered. The amendments have not resolved the drawing objection. The new drawings are of insufficient quality, as discussed below.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejection of the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Figures 1-10 and 12-14 have poor line quality such that they would result in unsatisfactory reproduction characteristics. See 37 CFR 1.84(L). The lines are faint and/or they impermissibly use grayscale.
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
Claim 36 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 36 recites “guides located on an internal bore surface of the housing”. However, the parent claim recites “at least one guide”. It appears that these are the same claim elements and so the appropriate antecedent term should be used for the later recitations.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 25-28 and 30-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Comeaux (US 20210102432 A1) , in view of Liu (US 20210275978 A1).
Regarding claim 25, Comeaux teaches a debris separator, comprising:
a housing (Fig 33A, housing 3305A, 3305B, and middle portion therebetween) having an inlet end (Fig AAA, around housing portion 3305a), an outlet end (Fig 33A, 3325b), and an internal bore therebetween having a tapered discharge transitioning to the outlet end (Fig 33A, bore at 3305b tapers);
at least one guide disposed on a surface of the internal bore (Fig 33B, see Fig 5 for detailed view of filter 500/3340, structure of housing engaged with 575 of debris filter, see Para 0447); and
a filter basket (Fig 33A/B, see Fig 5 for detailed view of filter 500/3340) connected to the housing at the inlet end and extending into the internal bore (Fig 33A/B, filter connected as seen), thereby forming an annulus between the filter basket and the housing through which a filtered fluid flows to the outlet end (Fig 33A/B, filter 500/3340 and housing portion 33102 annulus), wherein the filtered fluid flows in one direction from the inlet end to the outlet end (Fig 33A/B, fluid is able to flow in the direction recited),
wherein the filter basket rests on the at least one guide to centralize the filter basket and maintain the annulus (Fig 33B, see Fig 5 for detailed view of filter 500/3340, structure of housing engaged with 575 of debris filter, see Para 0447. Retains the basket in its position and thus centralizes the filter and spaces it from the housing to maintain the annulus).
Comeaux is silent on the filter basket having a mesh size smaller than 120 mesh (approx. 124 micron).
Liu teaches “pore size of filter 1130a can be between about 1 microns and about 1000 microns. For example, suitable pore sizes include, but are not limited to, about 1 μm, about 10 μm, about 100 μm […]” (Para 0048).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Comeaux by having the filter basket have a mesh size smaller than 120 mesh (approx. 124 micron) and use it in the fracturing applications as disclosed by Liu because Comeaux teaches a largely generic wellsite usable filter (see Para 0427 of Comeaux) and Liu teaches a specific system in which a well fracturing system would require the use of such a filter, see e.g. Para 0048, and the Liu teaches that as a particle size whose removal is desirable because presence of the particles of the large particles discussed by Liu may “adversely impact the preparation of a fracturing fluid”.
Regarding claim 26, Comeaux teaches wherein the debris separator is configured to: receive a slurry comprising a fluid and solid objects at the inlet end of the housing (Fig 5, Fig 33A Para 0427-0429); separate the fluid from the solid objects to produce a filtered fluid (Fig 5, Fig 33A Para 0427-0429); and discharge the filtered fluid from the outlet end of the housing (Fig 5, Fig 33A, Para 0427-0429).
Regarding claim 27, Comeaux teaches wherein the slurry passes through the filter basket and into the annulus, thereby retaining the solid objects within the filter basket (Fig 5, Fig 33A, Para 0427-0429, the fluid is filtered/screened and retained in basket).
Regarding claim 28, in the embodiment relied upon, Comeaux is not explicit on wherein the inlet end comprises an inlet connector having a plurality of connection ends for receiving a plurality of flows of the slurry.
In an alternative embodiment, Comeaux teaches wherein the inlet end comprises an inlet connector having a plurality of connection ends for receiving a plurality of flows of the slurry (Fig 7B, plurality of connection ends 765a and 765a’).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by the first embodiment of Comeaux by having an inlet connector having a plurality of connection ends for receiving a plurality of flows of the slurry as disclosed by another embodiment of Comeaux because it would allow for a plurality of different fluid streams to be sent to the same filter (see e.g. Para 0557, 0561).
Regarding claim 30, while Comeaux teaches an annulus size (see parent claim, inherently has a size) and that the diameter of the portions including that surrounding the filter has a relationship to the flow rate (Para 0053), but is not explicit on wherein the annulus has a size ranging from 2 to 50% of a diameter of the housing.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Comeaux by having the annulus have a size ranging from 2 to 50% of a diameter of the housing since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In other words, narrowing a general condition taught by the prior art to a specific numerical value has been held to be an obvious variation thereof. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Moreover, as discussed above, the diameter and consequently the annular flow size is a result effective variable whose optimization implicates flow rate management.
Regarding claim 31, Comeaux teaches wherein a housing inner surface, a filter basket inner surface, and a filter basket outer surface comprise an abrasion resistant coating (Para 0198, “the first body and/or filter has a hardened coating”, note in coating the totality of the filter the inner and outer surfaces would be coated, see Para 0196 where the first body is the housing).
Regarding claim 32, Comeaux teaches at least one flange located proximate the inlet end, the outlet end, or both (Fig 33a, flange located by at least 3310a).
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Comeaux (US 20210102432 A1) , in view of Liu (US 20210275978 A1), in view of Lucas (US 20140318810 A1).
Regarding claim 29, Comeaux is silent on one or more pressure gauges or transducers configured to detect a pressure change in the debris separator.
Lucas teaches one or more pressure gauges or transducers configured to detect a pressure change in the debris separator (Para 0043, “the flow rate of the fluid and/or the pressure of the fluid within the flow paths may be monitored for changes tending to indicate blockage, alternatively, substantial blockage, of one or more filters 300” the pressure monitoring means are a gauge or transducer).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Comeaux by having one or more pressure gauges or transducers configured to detect a pressure change in the debris separator as disclosed by Lucas because it would allow an operator to detect blockages and take remedial action (Para 0043).
Claim(s) 33-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Comeaux (US 20210102432 A1) , in view of Lucas (US 20140318810 A1).
Regarding claim 33, Comeaux teaches a system comprising:
one or more debris separators (see following elements) configured to receive a slurry comprising a fluid and solid objects, filter the slurry to remove at least a portion of the solid objects and produce a filtered fluid, and deliver the filtered fluid to the a well system (Fig 5, Fig 33A Para 0427-0249), wherein the one or more debris separators comprises:
a housing (Fig 33A, housing 3305A, 3305B, and middle portion therebetween) having an inlet end (Fig AAA, around housing portion 3305a), an outlet end (Fig 33A, 3325b), and an internal bore therebetween having a tapered discharge transitioning to the outlet end (Fig 33A, bore at 3305b tapers);
at least one guide disposed on a surface of the internal bore (Fig 33B, see Fig 5 for detailed view of filter 500/3340, structure of housing engaged with 575 of debris filter, see Para 0447); and
a filter basket (Fig 33A/B, see Fig 5 for detailed view of filter 500/3340) connected to the housing at the inlet end and extending into the internal bore (Fig 33A/B, filter connected as seen), thereby forming an annulus between the filter basket and the housing through which a filtered fluid flows to the outlet end (Fig 33A/B, filter 500/3340 and housing portion 33102 annulus), wherein the filtered fluid flows in one direction from the inlet end to the outlet end (Fig 33A/B, fluid is able to flow in the direction recited),
wherein the filter basket rests on the at least one guide to centralize the filter basket and maintain the annulus (Fig 33B, see Fig 5 for detailed view of filter 500/3340, structure of housing engaged with 575 of debris filter, see Para 0447. Retains the basket in its position and thus centralizes the filter and spaces it from the housing to maintain the annulus).
Comeaux is silent on a wellhead.
Lucas teaches a wellhead (Fig 1, surface system/connecting structure of wellbore 116 which is at least implicitly required by the system).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Comeaux by having the filter of Comeaux used in the well system as disclosed by Lucas because it would be a simple substitution of one known element (the filter system of Lucas) for another (the filter system of Comeaux) to obtain predictable results (the selective filtering of wellbore systems).
Regarding claim 34, Comeaux teaches wherein the slurry passes through the filter basket and into the annulus, thereby retaining the solid objects within the filter basket (Fig 5, Fig 33A, Para 0427-0429, the fluid is filtered/screened and retained in basket).
Regarding claim 35, in the embodiment relied upon, Comeaux is not explicit on wherein the inlet end comprises an inlet connector having a plurality of connection ends for receiving a plurality of flows of the slurry.
In an alternative embodiment, Comeaux teaches wherein the inlet end comprises an inlet connector having a plurality of connection ends for receiving a plurality of flows of the slurry (Fig 7B, plurality of connection ends 765a and 765a’).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by the first embodiment of Comeaux by having an inlet connector having a plurality of connection ends for receiving a plurality of flows of the slurry as disclosed by another embodiment of Comeaux because it would allow for a plurality of different fluid streams to be sent to the same filter (see e.g. Para 0557, 0561).
Regarding claim 36, Comeaux teaches wherein the filter basket is configured to be removed and inserted into the housing using guides located on an internal bore surface of the housing, wherein the guides centralize the filter basket within the housing (Fig 33B, see Fig 5 for detailed view of filter 500/3340, structure of housing engaged with 575 of debris filter, see Para 0447; note the plurality of sloped structures/guides. See Para 0085 for removal/insertion).
Claim(s) 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Comeaux (US 20210102432 A1) , in view of Lucas (US 20140318810 A1), in view of Liu (US 20210275978 A1).
Regarding claim 37, Comeaux is silent on the filter basket having a mesh size smaller than 120 mesh (approx. 124 micron).
Liu teaches “pore size of filter 1130a can be between about 1 microns and about 1000 microns. For example, suitable pore sizes include, but are not limited to, about 1 μm, about 10 μm, about 100 μm […]” (Para 0048).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Comeaux by having the filter basket have a mesh size smaller than 120 mesh (approx. 124 micron) as disclosed by Liu because Liu teaches that as a particle size whose removal is desirable because presence of the particles of the large particles discussed by Liu may “adversely impact the preparation of a fracturing fluid”.
Regarding claim 38, Comeaux is silent on wherein the filter basket has a mesh size of between 120 mesh and 2 inches.
Liu teaches “pore size of filter 1130a can be between about 1 microns and about 1000 microns. For example, suitable pore sizes include, but are not limited to […] about 300 μm, about 400 μm, about 500 μm, about 600 μm, about 700 μm, about 800 μm, about 900 μm, about 1000 μm” (Para 0048).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Comeaux by having the filter basket have between 120 mesh (approx. 124 microns) and 2 inches as disclosed by Liu because Liu teaches that as a particle size whose removal is desirable because presence of the particles of the large particles discussed by Liu may “adversely impact the preparation of a fracturing fluid”.
Regarding claim 39, Comeaux teaches wherein the solid objects comprise a proppant and wherein the mesh size is selected to pass the slurry therethrough and retain the solid objects of a larger size than the proppant such that the filtered fluid includes the proppant (Please note the solid objects have been merely recited as being capable of interacting with the debris separator and the instant claim is an apparatus claim; see Para 0427-0429).
Regarding claim 40, Comeaux as modified teaches a blender fluidly connected to the inlet end of the one or more debris separators (Fig 1 of Lucas, blender 112 this would at least indirectly fluidically connect to the debris separator of Comeaux as modified).
While Comeaux as modified teaches the blender (see above), Comeaux as modified is not explicit on wherein the blender is configured to produce the slurry and to discharge the slurry to the one or more debris separators.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Cherewyk by having the one or more debris separators are connected directly to an outlet of the blender 112, thus meeting the limitation, because its arrangement relative to the outlet of the debris separator would be a mere rearrangement of parts, not impacting its ability to deliver its blended contents; additionally, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention in a manner which does not alter its operation involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 41, Comeaux as modified teaches wherein the one or more debris separators are connected directly to an outlet of the blender (Fig 1 of Lucas, blender 112, see modification in parent claim above).
Regarding claim 42, Comeaux as modified teaches a manifold fluidly connected to the outlet end of the one or more debris separators and configured to receive the filtered fluid including the proppant (Fig 1 of Lucas, see modification in parent claim above, manifold 114, note the manifold may also be broadly defined to be inclusive of the blender and downstream elements including the debris separator).
Regarding claim 43, Comeaux as modified teaches wherein the one or more debris separators are located on the manifold (Fig 1 of Lucas, see modification in parent claim above, manifold 114, note the manifold may also be broadly defined to be inclusive of the blender and downstream elements including the debris separator)..
Regarding claim 44, Comeaux as modified teaches one or more frac pumps (Fig 1 of Lucas, pumps 115), fluidly connected to the manifold and configured to receive the filtered fluid including the proppant (Fig 1 of Lucas, pumps 115, note the bi-directional flow 164/166), to pressurize the filtered fluid including the proppant, and to discharge the filtered fluid including the proppant from the one or more frac pumps to the wellhead via the manifold (Para 0029, Fig 1 of Lucas).
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 THEODORE N YAO whose telephone number is (571)272-8745. The examiner can normally be reached typically 8am-4pm ET.
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.
/THEODORE N YAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights