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 .
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 33-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cherewyk (US 20130306304 A1).
Regarding claim 33, Cherewyk teaches a system comprising:
a wellhead (Fig 2, surface structure below 38; note broadly a wellhead is, “the top of or a structure built over a well” please see definition at https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wellhead and the portions of 20 may be identified as a wellhead absent additional limitations); and
one or more debris separators (Fig 2, Fig 5A-5B, 6A-6B, separator 38 and 12) configured to receive a slurry comprising a fluid and solid objects (Fig 6B, fluid “F” received at the inlet), filter the slurry to remove at least a portion of the solid objects and produce a filtered fluid (Fig 6B, fluid “F” is filtered by virtue of solids being retained in openings as seen), and deliver the filtered fluid to the wellhead (Fig 6B, filtered fluid “F” discharged form outlet as seen), wherein the one or more debris separators (see below) comprises:
a housing (Fig 5B, housing 38) having an inlet end (Fig 5B, right side of 12a), an outlet end (Fig 5B, downward facing opening), and an internal bore therebetween (Fig 5B, central bore seen, occupied by 42 and 12a) having a tapered discharge transitioning to the outlet end (Fig 5B, taper seen, at approximately 38); and
a filter basket (Fig 5B, basket 12a on the right) connected to the housing at the inlet end (Fig 5B, at housing inlet as defined above) and extending into the internal bore (Fig 5B, extends into right-hand side internal bore portion on the right), thereby forming an annulus between the filter basket and the housing (Fig 5B, annulus seen defined by 38 and 12a).
Regarding claim 34, Cherewyk teaches wherein the slurry passes through the filter basket and into the annulus, thereby retaining the solid objects within the filter basket (Fig 6B, fluid “F” is filtered by virtue of solids being retained in openings as seen).
Regarding claim 35, Cherewyk teaches wherein the inlet end comprises a plurality of connection ends for receiving a plurality of flows of the slurry (Fig 2, 6A, connection on the right and header 10, Para 0072, “an equalizing header 10, and again has one or more openings formed along the tubular wall for fluidly connecting the insert”).
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, 30-32, and 37-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cherewyk (US 20130306304 A1), in view of Liu (US 20210275978 A1).
Regarding claim 25, Cherewyk teaches a debris separator, comprising:
a housing (Fig 5B, housing 38) having an inlet end (Fig 5B, right side of 12a), an outlet end (Fig 5B, downward facing opening), and an internal bore therebetween (Fig 5B, central bore seen, occupied by 42 and 12a) having a tapered discharge transitioning to the outlet end (Fig 5B, taper seen, at approximately 38); and
a filter basket (Fig 5B, basket 12a on the right) connected to the housing at the inlet end (Fig 5B, at housing inlet as defined above) and extending into the internal bore (Fig 5B, extends into right-hand side internal bore portion on the right), thereby forming an annulus between the filter basket and the housing (Fig 5B, annulus seen defined by 38 and 12a).
Cherewyk 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 Cherewyk 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 26, Cherewyk 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 6B, fluid “F” received at the inlet); separate the fluid from the solid objects to produce a filtered fluid (Fig 6B, fluid “F” is filtered by virtue of solids being retained in openings as seen); and discharge the filtered fluid from the outlet end of the housing (Fig 6B, filtered fluid “F” discharged form outlet as seen).
Regarding claim 27, Cherewyk teaches wherein the slurry passes through the filter basket and into the annulus, thereby retaining the solid objects within the filter basket (Fig 6B, 11, Para 0089, solids retained in openings 26).
Regarding claim 28, Cherewyk 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 2, 6A, connection on the right and header 10, Para 0072, “an equalizing header 10, and again has one or more openings formed along the tubular wall for fluidly connecting the insert”).
Regarding claim 30, while Cherewyk teaches “the annular flow area 32 is provided for receiving fluid flow and can further aid in velocity management” and “the annular flow area and the insert are sized and configured to minimize the introduction of erosion markers” (Para 0090), Cherewyk 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 Cherewyk 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 annular flow area is a result effective variable whose optimization implicates velocity management and erosion.
Regarding claim 31, Cherewyk teaches wherein a housing inner surface (Para 0109, housing 38 may have “a wear coating”), a filter basket inner surface, and a filter basket outer surface comprise an abrasion resistant coating (Para 0093, “the screens can be manufactured […] with a wear coating, surfacing or both.” By virtue of coating and manufacturing the wear coating, it would apply to its surfaces).
Regarding claim 32, Cherewyk teaches at least one flange located proximate the inlet end, the outlet end, or both (Fig 7B, flange of 54 is used to couple to the inlet at defined).
Regarding claim 37, Cherewyk is silent on wherein the filter basket has a mesh size smaller than 120 mesh.
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 Cherewyk 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, Cherewyk is silent on wherein the filter basket has a mesh size of between 120 mesh (approx. 124 microns) 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 Cherewyk 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, Cherewyk 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; nonetheless, Para 0105, “screen inserts are provided to contain debris but another aspect includes the ability of the design and use thereof to diffuse and deflect the sand and proppent-laden fluid”).
Claim(s) 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cherewyk (US 20130306304 A1), in view of Liu (US 20210275978 A1), in view of Frost (US 20210230974 A1).
Regarding claim 36, Cherewyk teaches wherein the filter basket is configured to be removed and inserted into the housing (Para 0061-0062).
Cherewyk is silent on using guides located on an internal bore surface of the housing, wherein the guides centralize the filter basket within the housing.
Frost teaches using guides located on an internal bore surface of the housing, wherein the guides centralize the filter basket within the housing (Fig 2, screen member 26 is centered by centralizers 38 within a housing, as seen).
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 using guides located on an internal bore surface of the housing, wherein the guides centralize the filter basket within the housing as disclosed by Frost because it would allow for the particular screen to be centered within a bore, which would ensure proper annular spacing and flow surrounding the device
Claim(s) 29 and 40-44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cherewyk (US 20130306304 A1), in view of Liu (US 20210275978 A1), in view of Lucas (US 20140318810 A1).
Regarding claim 29, Cherewyk 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 Cherewyk 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).
Regarding claim 40, Cherewyk is not explicit on a blender fluidly connected to the inlet end of the one or more debris separators, wherein the blender is configured to produce the slurry and to discharge the slurry to the one or more debris separators.
Wu teaches a blender fluidly connected to the inlet end of the one or more debris separators (Fig 1, blender 112 this would at least indirectly fluidically connect to the debris separator of Cherwyk), wherein the blender is configured to produce the slurry and to discharge the slurry to the one or more debris separators (Para 0028).
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 recited blender as disclosed by Lucas because it would allow for the onsite formulation and optimization of a fracturing fluid particular to the needs of each fracturing stage (Para 0028).
Regarding claim 41, while Cherewyk as modified by Lucas suggests a blender immediately before the structure used to send fluid into the well (Fig 1 of Lucas), Cherewyk as modified by Lucas is not explicit on wherein the one or more debris separators are connected directly to an outlet of the blender.
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 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 42, Cherewyk teaches a manifold fluidly connected to the outlet end of the one or more debris separators (Fig 2, manifold 10 is at least indirectly connected to the separator) and configured to receive the filtered fluid including the proppant (Fig 2, manifold is fluidically connected and is capable of receiving the filtered fluid at least in the form of flowback, see MPEP 2114(II)).
Regarding claim 43, Cherewyk teaches wherein the one or more debris separators are located on the manifold (Fig 2, Fig 5A-5B, manifold may be defined as additionally including 10 and 38 and its intermediate connections).
Regarding claim 44, Cherewyk is silent on one or more frac pumps, fluidly connected to the manifold and configured to receive the filtered fluid including the proppant, 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.
Lucas teaches one or more frac pumps, fluidly connected to the manifold and configured to receive the filtered fluid including the proppant (Fig 1, pumps 115), to pressurize the filtered fluid including the proppant (Para 0029), and to discharge the filtered fluid including the proppant from the one or more frac pumps to the wellhead via the manifold (Fig 1, discharge via 168).
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 pump and its relative arrangement as disclosed by Lucas because it provides additional implementing details that would be required to implement the fracturing system of Cherewyk including the relative placement of the required pumps; Lucas demonstrates an arrangement which would operate with a reasonable expectation of success.
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 25-32 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of US 12180817 B2 in view of in view of Liu (US 20210275978 A1). The claims of US 12180817 B2 fully encompass the claims of the instant application with the exception of the particulars of the recitation surrounding the mesh size. However, that is taught by Liu, as discussed in the prior art rejections above. Modification of a base reference would be obvious for the reasons discussed in the prior art rejection above.
Claims 33-44 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of US 12180817 B2 in view of Lucas (US 20140318810 A1). The claims of US 12180817 B2 fully encompass the claims of the instant application with the exception of the particulars of the recitation surrounding the wellhead. However, that is taught by Lucas (see Fig 1). 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 reciting by US 12180817 B2 by having the wellhead as disclosed by Lucas because it provides additional implementing details that would be required to implement the fracturing system of US 12180817 B2 including the relative placement of the a fracturing systems relative to a wellhead; Lucas demonstrates an arrangement which would operate with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 25-32 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of copending Application No. 18962527 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of 18962527, including its dependent claims, fully encompass the instant claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 33-44 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of copending Application No. 18962527 in view of Lucas (US 20140318810 A1). The claims of Application No. 18962527 fully encompass the claims of the instant application with the exception of the particulars of the recitation surrounding the wellhead. However, that is taught by Lucas (see Fig 1). 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 reciting by Application No. 18962527 by having the wellhead as disclosed by Lucas because it provides additional implementing details that would be required to implement the fracturing system of US Application No. 18962527 including the relative placement of the a fracturing systems relative to a wellhead; Lucas demonstrates an arrangement which would operate with a reasonable expectation of success.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Packard (US 9095799 B1) teaches a debris catcher and sand trap for removing debris, sand, or both from a pipeline flow is disclosed. The debris catcher includes an upper pipe, a lower pipe, and at least one diagonal pipe.
Wu (US 20200392831 A1) teaches a virtual life meter can track the operational status of equipment used in the oil and gas industry. Historical characteristics corresponding to usage of one or more fracking devices may be received.
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