DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 02, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In this instance, applicant suggests that because US 2023/0175370 A1 (Gomez Conzatti Y Martinex et al.) is describing a centralized “slurry on demand” system, it does not support a case of obviousness. The examiner does not agree. While the reference does disclose most of the limitations in figures 2-4, the reference was provided for its teaching of using lay flat hoses in fracturing operations. Further, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 was based on a combination of references, specifically International Patent Application Publication Number WO 2017/192151 A1 (Surjaatmadja et al.) in view of Gomez Conzatti Y Martinex et al. One cannot show non obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-40, 48-49 and 51-57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In this instance, claim 1 and 37 have been amended and now recite “a second source of water located at the well site”. This constitutes impermissible New Matter and must be cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6-11, 13, 16-19, 28, 34-37, 39, 49-52 and 56-57 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over International Publication Number WO 2017/192151 A1 (Surjaatmadja et al.) in view of US 2023/0175370 A1 (Gomez Conzatti Y Martinez et al.).
As concerns claim 1, Surjaatmadja et al. discloses a flow system for moving a slurry of proppant through a conduit to support hydraulic fracturing of a well, comprising: a mixing station 106; a source of water 118 configured to provide water to the mixing station; a source of sand 102 configured to provide sand to the mixing station; the mixing station being operable for mixing the water and the sand to form a slurry (0007), the mixing station having a first pump 108 with an inlet for receiving the slurry and an outlet 130 for discharging the slurry; a well site 116; a blender located at the well site (see figure 2, proppant storage and mixing system 200 is reasonably interpreted as a ”blender’).
Surjaatmadja et al. does not disclose a lay-flat hose or a second source of water at the well site; nevertheless Gomez Conzatti Y Martinez et al. does, disclosing a process for blending a fracturing slurry is mixed and delivered “via pipeline or temporary transfer lines (such as transfer hoses, lay-flat hoses, polymeric pipes, metallic pipes, etc.) to fracturing sites 52 as needed”. The reference additionally discloses wellsites with multiple sources of water (see figure 2, figure 4). One of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing would have considered it obvious to include lay-flat hoses in the fracturing system of Surjaatmadja et al. with a reasonable expectation of success, as this provides the desirable result of having a hose that is collapsible such that it may lay flat when empty and allows the hose to be wound onto spools, folded into boxes or otherwise stored in a compact manner; and a skilled person in the art would further have considered it obvious to have multiple water sources at the wellsite, as this provides the desirable result of having the water available for reconditioning and for use in fracturing operations (see, 0041).
As concerns claim 4, Gomez Conzatti Y Martinez et al. discloses the flow system of claim 1, wherein the first pump is a centrifugal pump (0063).
As concerns claim 6, Gomez Conzatti Y Martinez et al. discloses the flow system of claim 1 wherein the lay-flat hose has a manufacturer rating of at least 200 psi working pressure (these pressures are disclosed, see at least 0083).
As concerns claims 7-8 and 10-11, the claimed distances for the conduits are disclosed (0042).
As concerns claim 9, Gomez Conzatti Y Martinez et al. discloses flow system of claim 8 further comprising a boost pump that is in fluidic communication with the first pump and which is downstream of the first pump (figure 13).
Considering claim 13, Gomez Conzatti Y Martinez et al. discloses the flow system of claim 12 further comprising a plurality of boost pumps 166 each of which are in fluidic communication with the first pump and which are located downstream of the first pump (see figure 13).
As concerns claim 16, Gomez Conzatti Y Martinez et al. discloses the flow system of claim 1, wherein the sand source is selected from a mobile mine or a central location servicing multiple wells (see at least 0006).
As concerns claim 17, Gomez Conzatti Y Martinez et al. discloses the flow system of claim 1, further comprising a chemical source configured to provide one or more chemicals for mixing into the slurry (Id.).
As concerns claim 18, Gomez Conzatti Y Martinez et al. discloses the flow system of claim 1, wherein the one or more chemicals include a friction reducer material (0023).
As concerns claim 19, Gomez Conzatti Y Martinez et al. discloses the flow system of claim 1, further comprising a means for separating water from the slurry located at the well site (Id.).
As concerns claim 28, Gomez Conzatti Y Martinez et al. discloses the flow system of claim 1, wherein the mixing station and the first pump are co- mounted on a conventional blender for use in hydraulic fracturing operations (blenders are disclosed at 0088 et seq.).
As concerns claim 34, Gomez Conzatti Y Martinez et al. discloses the flow system of claim 1 further comprising an automated flow control system configured with program logic for implementing a scheme of flow control that utilizes sensed measurements of flow parameters including density, flow rate and pressure to adjust one or more of the flow parameters to maintain the sensed measurements within an established range of operator setpoints (0089-0090 et seq.).
As concerns claim 35, Gomez Conzatti Y Martinez et al. discloses the flow system of claim 34, wherein the program logic includes programmatic instructions for performing a mass balance of slurry material flowing into and out of the lay-flat hose (0090).
As concerns claim 36, Gomez Conzatti Y Martinez et al. discloses the flow system of claim 35, wherein the program logic includes programmatic instructions for performing an analysis to ascertain a rate of pressure increase which is used as a factor in maintaining the sensed measurements within an established range of operator setpoints (0082-0083 et seq.).
As concerns claim 37, Surjaatmadja et al. discloses a flow system for moving a slurry of proppant through a conduit to support hydraulic fracturing of a well, comprising: a mixing station 106; a source of water 118 configured to provide water to the mixing station; a source of sand 102 configured to provide sand to the mixing station; the mixing station being operable for mixing the water and the sand to form a slurry, the mixing station having a first pump with an inlet 108 for receiving the slurry and an outlet 130 for discharging the slurry; a well site 116; a blender located at the well site (see figure 2, proppant storage and mixing system 200 is reasonably interpreted as a ”blender’).
Surjaatmadja et al. does not disclose a spoolable conduit or a second source of water at the well site; nevertheless Gomez Conzatti Y Martinez et al. does, disclosing a process for blending a fracturing slurry is mixed and delivered “via pipeline or temporary transfer lines (such as transfer hoses, lay-flat hoses, polymeric pipes, metallic pipes, etc.) to fracturing sites 52 as needed”. The reference additionally discloses wellsites with multiple sources of water (see figure 2, figure 4). One of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing would have considered it obvious to include lay-flat hoses in the fracturing system of Surjaatmadja et al. with a reasonable expectation of success, as this provides the desirable result of having a hose that is collapsible such that it may lay flat when empty and allows the hose to be wound onto spools, folded into boxes or otherwise stored in a compact manner; and a skilled person in the art would further have considered it obvious to have multiple water sources at the wellsite, as this provides the desirable result of having the water available for reconditioning and for use in fracturing operations (see, 0041).
As concerns claim 39, Gomez Conzatti Y Martinez et al. discloses the flow system of claim 37 wherein the spoolable conduit has a working pressure ranging from 250 psi to 1,000 psi (these ranges are disclosed, see 0083).
As concerns claim 49, Gomez Conzatti Y Martinez et al. discloses the flow system of claim 1 wherein the lay-flat hose is constructed and arranged to deliver the slurry directly to a blender located at the well site without first forming a sand pile at the wellsite (0081).
As concerns claim 51, Gomez Conzatti Y Martinez et al. discloses the flow system of claim 50 claim 1,wherein the water source second source of water contains water that has been produced in consequence of hydraulic fracturing operations at the well site (see, figure 2).
As concerns claim 52, Surjaatmadja et al. discloses the flow system of claim 49 wherein the well site is essentially without equipment for the separation of water and sand from the slurry (figure 1).
As concerns claim 56, Surjaatmadja et al. discloses the flow system of claim 1, further comprising a chemical source located at the well site configured to provide one or more chemicals for mixing in the blender (figure 1).
As concerns claim 57, Surjaatmadja et al. discloses the flow system of claim 1, wherein the flow system does not include a source of friction reducer in fluidic communication with the mixing station (there is no disclosure of a friction reducer).
Claim(s) 2-3, 12, 14-15, 24, 29-33, 38, 40 and 48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Surjaatmadja et al., as modified above, and further in view of US 2013/0313353 A1 (Novotny et al.).
As concerns claim 2, the combination discloses the flow system of claim 1, but lacks to disclose wherein the lay-flat hose has a diameter ranging from four inches to sixteen inches. Novotny et al. discloses a method of and apparatus for the rapid deployment of a fracturing water transferring system, along with the rapid picking up and storage of such system after use that includes a lay-flat hose that has a diameter ranging from four inches to sixteen inches (this ranges is disclosed, see, 0026). One of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing, would have incorporated the range of diameters disclosed by Novotny et al. with a reasonable expectation of success, as this provides a flexible and conforming hose of hose that is still of a weight that can be practically handled manually.
As concerns claim 3, Novotny et al. discloses the flow system of claim 2, wherein the lay-flat hose has a diameter of ten inches (Id.).
As concerns claim 5, Novotny et al. discloses a method of and apparatus for the rapid deployment of a fracturing water transferring system, along with the rapid picking up and storage of such system after use that includes a lay-flat hose made of extruded through the weave thermoplastic polyurethane covered material (0027).
As concerns claim 12, Novotny et al. discloses the flow system of claim 1 wherein the lay-flat hose is connected in a plurality of sections, each of which are joined by a stainless steel connector, field fitting or head (couplings 310 will be deemed equivalent here).
As concerns claims 14-15, 24, 29-33 and 48, the combination lacks to show the specifically claimed ranges for the velocities, water content of the sand, horsepower, expansion percentage or design operating pressures; nevertheless it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the claimed parameters, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Further, 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). Refer to MPEP § 2144.05.
As concerns claim 38, Novotny et al. discloses the flow system of claim 37 wherein the spoolable conduit consists essentially of plastic shielded polyethylene pipe (0027).
As concerns claim 40, Gomez Conzatti Y Martinez et al. discloses the flow system of claim 1 further including a rigid pipe located immediately downstream of the first pump and between the first pump and the lay- flat hose (this flows logically from 0084, discussing a mixture of rigid pipes and flexible, lay-flat hoses).
Claim(s) 25-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Surjaatmadja et al., as modified above, and further in view of US 2022/0161212 A1 (Wilson).
As concerns claim 25-27, modified Surjaatmadja et al. discloses the flow system of claim 24, but lacks to explicitly disclose the pumps driven by electric motors or natural gas fired generators; neveretheless Wilson discloses an electrically driven oilfield blender system powered by blender drive system 16, which receives electrical power through conductors 60 from electrical power system 62. Electrical power system 62 includes a generator and prime mover such as a combustion engine which may be a gas turbine engine.
One of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing, would have obviously considered incorporating the power systems described by Wilson into the flow system of modified Surjaatmadja et al. with a reasonable expectation of success, as this provides the desirable result of potentially fueling the system with fuels available at the location as well as reducing the carbon footprint of the blending/fracturing operation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 20-23 and 53-55 are objected to as depending from rejected base claims, but may be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claims and any intervening claims and if the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) is resolved, as the claimed features are not disclosed by the prior art.
Claims 41-47 are considered to be ready for allowance at this time.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JAMES G. SAYRE whose telephone number is (571)270-7045. The examiner can normally be reached from 9:30-6:00 Monday-Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicole Coy can be reached at 571-272-5405. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
JAMES G. SAYRE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3672
/JAMES G SAYRE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
