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 .
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claims recite that a first pump is “sized to deliver at least 11.5 fps (claim 14) or 13 fps (claim 15)”. As “fps” is a measure of velocity, it is not exactly clear what the pump is “delivering”. For purposes of examination, this limitation will be interpreted as “slurry being delivered at the claimed velocity”. Correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1, 4, 6-11, 13, 16-21, 28, 34-37, 39 and 49-52 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 configured to provide water to the mixing station (at 118, see figure 1); 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 (at least 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 (at 116); but lacks to expressly disclose a lay-flat hose placing the outlet of the first pump in fluidic communication with the well site.
Gomez Conzatti Y Martinez et al. discloses a flow system for moving a slurry of proppant through a conduit to support hydraulic fracturing of a well wherein (see, 0040, “fracturing slurry (e.g., prepared using sand, water, friction reducers, and/or other chemicals) is mixed at a centralized facility and delivered via pipeline or temporary transfer lines (such as transfer hoses, lay-flat hoses, polymeric pipes, metallic pipes, etc.) to fracturing sites as needed”).
One of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing, would have obviously incorporated the lay-flat hoses of Gomez Conzatti Y Martinez et al. into the flow system of Surjaatmadja et al. with a reasonable expectation of success, as this provides the desirable result of having a flexible hose that is collapsible such that it may lay flat when empty, thus allowing the hose to be wound onto spools, folded into boxes, or otherwise stored in a compact manner.
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 and figure 13).
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 (0023).
As concerns claim 20, Gomez Conzatti Y Martinez et al. discloses the flow system of claim 1, further comprising a vortex separator located at the well site and which is configured to dewater the slurry (see at least 0061 and figure 10, dewatering equipment 120 will be construed as equivalent).
As concerns claim 21, Gomez Conzatti Y Martinez et al. discloses the flow system of claim 20, further comprising a settling pit for the storage of water, the vortex separator having a water discharge and wherein the settling pit is in fluidic communication with the water discharge (see figure 3, 0038).
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 (at 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 (as illustrated), the mixing station having a first pump 108 with an inlet for receiving the slurry and an outlet for discharging the slurry; a well site 116; but lacks to explicitly disclose a spoolable conduit placing the outlet of the first pump in fluidic communication with the well site.
Gomez Conzatti Y Martinez et al. discloses a flow system for moving a slurry of proppant through a conduit to support hydraulic fracturing of a well wherein (see, 0040, “fracturing slurry (e.g., prepared using sand, water, friction reducers, and/or other chemicals) is mixed at a centralized facility and delivered via pipeline or temporary transfer lines (such as transfer hoses, lay-flat hoses, polymeric pipes, metallic pipes, etc.) to fracturing sites as needed”. The examiner additionally notes that lay-flat hoses, similar to fire hoses are inherently “spoolable”).
One of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing, would have obviously incorporated the lay-flat hoses of Gomez Conzatti Y Martinez et al. into the flow system of Surjaatmadja et al. with a reasonable expectation of success, as this provides the desirable result of having a flexible hose that is collapsible such that it may lay flat when empty, thus allowing the hose to be wound onto spools, folded into boxes, or otherwise stored in a compact manner.
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 50, Gomez Conzatti Y Martinez et al. discloses the flow system of claim 49 further including a water source 22 located at the well site, the water source being in fluidic communication with the blender for diluting the slurry at the blender (0081).
As concerns claim 51, Gomez Conzatti Y Martinez et al. discloses the flow system of claim 50 wherein the water source contains water that has been produced in consequence of hydraulic fracturing operations at the well site (figure 5).
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).
Claim(s) 2-3, 12, 14-15, 23-24, 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, 23-24, 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.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Surjaatmadja et al., as modified, and further in view of US 2022/0333473 A1 (Snyder et al.).
As concerns claim 22, modified Surjaatmadja et al. discloses the flow system of claim 20, but lacks to disclose the system further comprising a radial stacker supporting the vortex separator at a distance above ground and a pile of sand located beneath the vortex separator.
Snyder et al. discloses a proppant delivery system that utilizes a radial stacker (see, 0087 and figure 26) for use to transfer sand to a hopper/conveyor system.
One of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing, would have obviously considered incorporating Snyder et al.’s radial stacker into the flow system with a reasonable expectation of success, as this obviously allows the bulk stand to be optimally arranged to facilitate transfer to a conveyor or other blending system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 41-47 are objected to as depending from a rejected base claim, but may be allowable if rewritten or incorporated into independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, as the claimed configuration including the lay-out for the discharge into the boost station and a series arrangement of a pair of centrifugal pumps to receive the discharge and increase the pressure as it transfers the slurry to a further section of lay-flat hose is not disclosed, taught or suggested by the prior art.
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.
Claim 1, 4 and 37 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-36 of copending Application No. 19/680,236 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the reference application, more narrowly drawn to the same subject matter, obviously encompasses the limitations of claims 1, 4 and 37.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2004/0112822 A1 (Salk) discloses a trailer mounted apparatus for dewatering and recovering formation sand. The apparatus is mounted to a truck towable trailer so that it may be transported to remote sites. Mounted to the truck towable trailer is a container adapted to accept and dewater a sand-water slurry pumped from the oil storage tank. The slurry is formed by injecting high pressure water from a water reservoir mounted to the truck towable trailer into the approximate center of mass of the formation sand by way of a pipe having a nozzle generating a spherical spray pattern within the slurry.
US 2012/0273206 A1 (Zamora et al.) discloses an oilfield mixing process that comprises: (a) feeding quantity of dry composition into radial mixing zone (134) of vortex mixing apparatus (100), while directing first portion of base fluid into radial mixing zone to create centrifugal or cyclonic flow of base fluid and dry composition in radial mixing zone at rates sufficient to form partially hydrated fluid.
US 2013/0233542 A1 (Shampine et al.) discloses a system and method for preparing a pump-ready treatment fluid that is delivered to a location operationally coupled to a wellsite for immediate treatment of a subterranean formation.
US 2014/0151049 A1 (Sanborn et al.) discloses an apparatus and method for delivering a fluid mixture using direct injection to a mixing apparatus. The apparatus including a proppant storage vessel configured to contain therein a proppant material and output a proppant output flow at ambient pressure to a solid feed pump assembly. The apparatus further including a fracturing fluid storage vessel configured to contain therein a fracturing fluid and output a fracturing fluid output flow at a fracture fluid blending pressure.
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
Prosecution Insights