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 .
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12270271. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of ‘271 contain all the limitations of the pending claims; they are merely more narrow versions of the claimed invention. Therefore, one of ordinary skill of art would find it obvious to arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Dille et al. (US 20170122060).
CLAIM 1: Dille discloses a fluid conduit assembly for a fluid supply system. The assembly comprises a low-pressure monobore conduit assembly (120) comprising a low-pressure monobore conduit (130), at least one low-pressure inlet (125), and a plurality of low-pressure outlets (to pumps), wherein the at least one low- pressure inlet is configured to direct low-pressure fluid from a fluid source (tanks, not shown) to the low-pressure monobore conduit. The plurality of low-pressure outlets is configured to direct the low-pressure fluid from the low-pressure monobore conduit to a plurality of fluid pumps (paragraph 0021). At least one first low- pressure outlet of the plurality of low-pressure outlets is positioned on a first side of the low- pressure monobore conduit, and at least one second low-pressure outlet of the plurality of low- pressure outlets is positioned on a second side of the low-pressure monobore conduit, opposite the first side of the low-pressure monobore conduit (see Fig. 1). A high-pressure monobore conduit assembly (140) comprising a high-pressure monobore conduit (paragraph 0022), a plurality of high-pressure inlets (155), and at least one high-pressure outlet (145), wherein the plurality of high-pressure inlets is configured to direct high-pressure fluid from the plurality of fluid pumps to the high-pressure monobore conduit (paragraph 0023), the at least one high-pressure outlet is configured to direct the high-pressure fluid toward a well (paragraph 0022, tree not shown). At least one first high-pressure inlet of the plurality of high-pressure inlets is positioned on a first side of the high-pressure monobore conduit, and at least one second high-pressure inlet of the plurality of high-pressure inlets is positioned on a second side of the high-pressure monobore conduit, opposite the first side of the high-pressure monobore conduit (see Fig. 1).
CLAIM 2: A longitudinal axis of the low- pressure monobore conduit is substantially parallel to a longitudinal axis of the high-pressure monobore conduit (see Fig. 1).
CLAIM 3: The longitudinal axis of the low- pressure monobore conduit is substantially aligned with the longitudinal axis of the high-pressure monobore conduit along a lateral axis of the fluid conduit assembly (see Fig. 1).
CLAIM 4: The at least one low-pressure inlet comprises a plurality of low-pressure inlets (see Fig. 1, multiple openings into manifold), and each low-pressure inlet of the plurality of low-pressure inlets comprises a fluid passage configured to independently direct the low-pressure fluid from the fluid source to the low-pressure monobore conduit (see Fig. 1).
CLAIM 5: At least one first low-pressure inlet of the plurality of low-pressure inlets is positioned on the first side of the low-pressure monobore conduit, and at least one second low-pressure inlet of the plurality of low-pressure inlets is positioned on the second side of the low-pressure monobore conduit (see Fig. 1, showing inlets on the left and right).
CLAIM 7: The low-pressure monobore conduit assembly and the high-pressure monobore conduit assembly are supported on a ground by a plurality of stands (see Fig. 1, supported by trailer 100).
CLAIM 8: The at least one first low-pressure outlet comprises a plurality of first low-pressure outlets (to plurality of pumps), the at least one second low-pressure outlet comprises a plurality of second low-pressure outlets (to plurality of pumps), and each first low-pressure outlet of the plurality of first low-pressure outlets is aligned with a respective opposing second low-pressure outlet of the plurality of second low-pressure outlets along a longitudinal axis of the low-pressure monobore conduit (see Fig. 1).
CLAIM 9: Dille discloses a fluid conduit assembly for a fluid supply system. The assembly comprises a low-pressure monobore conduit assembly (120) comprising a low-pressure monobore conduit (130), at least one low-pressure inlet (125), and a plurality of low-pressure outlets (to pumps), wherein the at least one low- pressure inlet is configured to direct low-pressure fluid from a fluid source (tanks, not shown) to the low-pressure monobore conduit. The plurality of low-pressure outlets is configured to direct the low-pressure fluid from the low-pressure monobore conduit to a plurality of fluid pumps (paragraph 0021). A high-pressure monobore conduit assembly (140) comprising a high-pressure monobore conduit (paragraph 0022), a plurality of high-pressure inlets (155), and at least one high-pressure outlet (145), wherein the plurality of high-pressure inlets is configured to direct high-pressure fluid from the plurality of fluid pumps to the high-pressure monobore conduit (paragraph 0023), the at least one high-pressure outlet is configured to direct the high-pressure fluid toward a well (paragraph 0022, tree not shown). A longitudinal axis of the low-pressure monobore conduit is substantially parallel to a longitudinal axis of the high-pressure monobore conduit, and the longitudinal axis of the low- pressure monobore conduit is substantially aligned with the longitudinal axis of the high-pressure monobore conduit along a lateral axis of the fluid conduit assembly (see Fig. 1).
CLAIMS 10-13: See claims 4-7 above.
CLAIM 14: See claim 1 above, discussion of low pressure system covers this claim.
CLAIM 15: Dille discloses a fluid conduit assembly for a fluid supply system. The assembly comprises a low-pressure monobore conduit assembly (120) comprising a low-pressure monobore conduit (130), a plurality of low-pressure inlets (125), and a plurality of low-pressure outlets (to pumps). Each low- pressure inlet of the plurality of low-pressure inlets comprises a fluid passage configured to independently direct low-pressure fluid from a fluid source to the low-pressure monobore conduit (see Fig. 1). The plurality of low-pressure outlets is configured to direct the low-pressure fluid from the low-pressure monobore conduit to a plurality of fluid pumps (paragraph 0021). A high-pressure monobore conduit assembly (140) comprising a high-pressure monobore conduit (paragraph 0022), a plurality of high-pressure inlets (155), and at least one high-pressure outlet (145). The plurality of high-pressure inlets is configured to direct high-pressure fluid from the plurality of fluid pumps to the high-pressure monobore conduit, and the at least one high-pressure outlet is configured to direct the high-pressure fluid toward a well (paragraphs 0022-23).
CLAIM 16: See claim 1 above, discussion of low pressure system covers this claim.
CLAIM 17: See claim 6 above.
CLAIM 18: See claim 7 above.
CLAIM 19: See claim 2 above.
CLAIM 20: See claim 1 above, discussion of low pressure system covers this claim.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dille.
Dille discloses the elements of claim 5 as discussed above.
Dille further discloses the at least one first low-pressure inlet comprises a plurality of first low-pressure inlets (Fig. 1), the at least one second low-pressure inlet comprises a plurality of second low-pressure inlets (Fig. 1).
Dille fails to disclose each first low-pressure inlet of the plurality of first low-pressure inlets is aligned with a respective opposing second low-pressure inlet of the plurality of second low-pressure inlets along a longitudinal axis of the low-pressure monobore conduit.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Dille to be arranged as claimed as rearrangement of parts in which the inlets and outlets would still perform the same function and the rearrangement would allow the system to fit different systems based on the geometry of the jobsite.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited art shows similar structures for low and high pressure systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK F LAMBE whose telephone number is (571)270-1932. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10-4.
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.
/PATRICK F LAMBE/Examiner, Art Unit 3679
/TARA SCHIMPF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676