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 § 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) 12-15, 17-18, 23-26, and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Discenzo et al (US Patent No. 7,143,016).
limitations from claims 12 and 31, a method/system for reducing consumable component wear of at least one fracturing pump (C. 5 Lines 43-46 teaching compressors and pumps, the control process of Discenzo is therefore capable of controlling a fracturing pump; C. 5 Lines 54-57 in which life cycle and expectancy are optimizable variables) including a processor and memory (C. 10 Lines 9-23), comprising: establishing a pump operating envelope, the pump envelope comprising a plurality of ranges of values of pump operational measurements (C. 6 Lines 14-24) related to wear of a plurality of consumable components (C. 15 Lines 30-31 teaching the degradation of system components and Lines 45-50 teaching values relating to the degradation diagnosis); operating the pump (C. 6 Lines 8-10); obtaining, with a processor (controller 66; C. 9 Lines 58-59), an operating value for each of the pump operational measurements (C. 7 Line 64 through C. 8 Line 5 for example); diagnosing, with the processor, an individual wear status of each consumable component of the plurality of consumable components of the at least on fracturing pump (C. 15 Lines 30-31 teaching the degradation of system components) using the pump operational measurements with respect to the pump operating envelope (C. 8 Lines 5-11 and 26-53, via the use of an optimizing component 70 for example; C. 15 Lines 45-50 teaching values relating to the degradation diagnosis), wherein the individual wear status of each consumable component is independent of the other consumable components of the plurality of consumable components; and responsive to the individual wear status (C. 15 Lines 30-31 and 39-41; determining the operating conditions includes detecting degradation of one or more system components), performing, with the processor, at least one action to alter the operation of the pump to ensure the operational measurements are within the operating envelope (C. 8 Lines 11-21; operating within an allowable range) and thereby reduce the wear of at least one consumable component of the pump of the plurality of consumable components (C. 4 Lines 19-35, C. 15 Lines 24-50, and C. 8 Lines 21-24; “optimize…life expectancy”);
limitations from claim 13, wherein the at least one fracturing pump comprises a plurality of fracturing pumps each connected to a common supply and discharge (FIG. 8-10; C. 12 Line 65 through C. 13 Line 17);
limitations from claim 14, wherein performing the at least one action includes altering the operation of the at least one fracturing pump to increase an operational life of the plurality of consumable components of the pump (C. 8 Lines 11-18 “min/max”; C. 8 Lines 21-24 “optimize…life expectancy”; C. 15 Lines 39-45);
limitations from claim 15, wherein the values of the pump operating envelope include an upper limit and a lower limit of discharge pressure, a pump flow rate, a revolutions per minute (RPM) of the pump, a pump plunger size, and a pump output horsepower (C. 8 Lines 11-18 “min/max speeds, min/max flows, min/max pump power levels, min/max pressures allowed, NPSHR values, and the like”);
limitations from claim 17, further comprising calculating, with the processor, a wear rate of at least one of the consumable components (C. 15 Lines 24-50);
limitations from claim 18, wherein the pump comprises at least one sensor configured to detect the pump and provide the operating value of at least one of the pump operational measurements (sensors 44, 24, 40, 38…; C. 7 Line 60 through C. 8 Line 8);
limitations from claim 23, wherein diagnosing the individual ear status includes calculating, with the processor, a wear rate of at least one of the plurality of consumable components of the pump (C. 15 Lines 24-50);
limitations from claim 24, wherein performing the at least one action reduces the wear rate of at least one of the consumable components of the pump (C. 8 Lines 21-24; “optimize…life expectancy”; C. 15 Lines 39-45);
limitations from claim 25, wherein the at least one sensor includes a plurality of sensors (sensors 44, 24, 40, 38…; C. 7 Line 60 through C. 8 Line 8), and wherein each consumable component of the plurality of consumable components includes a corresponding sensor of the plurality of sensors (C. 15 Lines 35-39 in which sensor signals are utilized to determine the conditions; C. 15 Lines 45-50 teaching particular sensor values relating to the degradation diagnosis);
limitations from claim 26, wherein the plurality of sensors include a plurality of different sensors configured to measure different parameters of the pump operational measurements (C. 15 Lines 45-50 for example);
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) 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Discenzo et al (US Patent No. 7,143,016) as applied to claims 12 and 18 above, and in further view of Gambier et al (US Patent No. 8,874,383).
Discenzo teaches sensors of the pump providing signals to the processor (44, 24, 40, 38…; C. 7 Line 60 through C. 8 Line 8), but does not teach RFID sensors;
Gambier teaches a fracturing pump (4), at least one internal sensor (10) positioned on one or more internal components (C. 7 Lines 7-12) of the fracturing pump, a processor-based data analyzer (C. 7 Lines 42-44 and C. 8 Lines 32-42) configured to analyze the fracturing pump operation data and, based on the analysis, diagnose a wear of the one or more internal components (C. 8 Lines 35-39); and
limitations from claim 19, wherein the at least one sensor comprises an RFID sensor positioned within a housing of the pump (C. 3 Lines 49-50);
limitations from claim 20, wherein the RFID sensor at least one passive RFID sensor (C. 6 Lines 50-52);
limitations from claim 21, wherein the pump further comprises an RFID access point (interface 18 and/or computer network 14; C. 8 Lines 1-31) that is configured to wirelessly power the at least one passive RFID sensor (Gambier does not explicitly teach that the access point 14, 18 powers the RFID sensor; However, this is a known feature of passive RFID);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of pumps at the time the invention was filed to embody the sensors of Discenzo as RFID sensors, as taught by Gambier, in order to reduce the need for hard-wiring and other connection components.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Discenzo et al (US Patent No. 7,143,016) as applied to claims 12 and 18 above, and in further view of Harris et al (US PGPub No. 2023/0044928).
Discenzo teaches sensing the degradation of consumable components of the pump (C. 15 Lines 24-50), but does not explicitly teach bearings as one of the components;
Harris teaches a pump for fracking (paragraph 3), and a system for detecting wear of consumable pump parts, particularly various bearing types (paragraph 32);
While Discenzo is not specific about the components being monitored for wear, it would have been obvious to monitor a bearing health as taught by Harris, as bearings are known pumping components that incur wear over time (paragraph 32 of Harris).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Discenzo et al (US Patent No. 7,143,016) as applied to claims 12-13 and 22 above, and in further view of Tamminen et al (US Patent No. 9,091,259).
Regarding claim 22:
Discenzo teaches the use of multiple pumps (FIG. 8-10; C. 12 Line 65 through C. 13 Line 17), but does not expressly teach selecting one or the other pump;
Tamminen teaches a multiple pump system (FIG. 5, pumps 1-2) in which pumps are selectively added and dropped from operation (C. 2 Lines 19-44 for example);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of pumps at the time the invention was filed to allow for the addition/subtraction of pumps from the system of Discenzo, as taught by Tamminen, in order to control an output of the system while optimizing the energy required from the system (C. 1 Lines 36-53 of Tamminen).
Claim(s) 27-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Discenzo et al (US Patent No. 7,143,016) as applied to claims 12 and 18 above, and in further view of Harris et al (US PGPub No. 2023/0044928).
Discenzo does not teach a lubrication system and sensors related specifically to the lubrication system;
Harris teaches:
a pump (60) supplied with lubricant via a lubricant reservoir (80; FIG. 4; paragraph 29), and a pressure/temperature sensor (94, 96) included in the lubricant circuit (paragraph 38); and
limitations from claim 27, wherein the at least one sensor includes a set of sensors located at a lubrication system (temperature and pressure; paragraph 38), and wherein diagnosing the individual wear status includes diagnosing a packing status of lubrication fluid in the lubrication system (paragraph 38; FIG. 7);
limitations from claim 28, wherein the set of sensors includes a pressure sensor at a delivery point of the lubrication fluid in the lubrication system (paragraph 38), and wherein diagnosing the packing status includes diagnosing the packing status based on a measured pressure by the pressure sensor (paragraph 38; FIG. 7);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of pumps at the time the invention was filed to provide a diagnosable lubrication and sealing circuit in the pumps of Discenzo, as taught by Harris, to allow for the lubrication of moving parts in the pump while monitoring those components for degradation such that the pumps of Discenzo have reduced wear and increased lifetimes.
Claim(s) 27 and 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Discenzo et al (US Patent No. 7,143,016) in view of Harris et al (US PGPub No. 2023/0044928) as applied to claims 12, 18, and 27 above, and in further view of O’Callaghan et al (US PGPub No. 2022/0127982).
Harris teaches temperature and pressure sensors to monitor packing status through lubricant monitoring, but neither Discenzo nor Harris teaches monitoring a fill level of a lubricant reservoir;
O’Callaghan teaches a pump (100) including a lubrication system (120) having a reservoir (110), and
limitations from claims 29-30, wherein a reservoir fluid level sensor (140), and wherein diagnosing the packing status includes diagnosing the packing status based on a pressure measured by the pressure sensor, a temperature measured by the temperature (see Harris above), and a fluid level measured by the reservoir fluid level sensor (paragraph 22-23 of O’Callaghan); and wherein a lubrication motor is adjusted (see paragraphs 16-17, 55 in which the pump is shut down if the liquid level is low, the lubrication of the system is driven via the pump motor; paragraph 20; Discenzo further teaches the control of the pump to maintain desirable ranges);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of pumps at the time the invention was filed to provide a diagnosable reservoir of a lubrication and sealing circuit in the pumps of Discenzo, as taught by O’Callaghan, to allow for monitoring seal components for degradation (failure or irregularity; paragraph 22) such that the pumps of Discenzo have reduced wear and increased lifetimes.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive:
“Applicant has amended Claim 12 to recite “diagnosing, with the processor, an individual wear status of each consumable component of the plurality of consumable components of the at least one fracturing pump using the pump operational measurements with respect to the pump operating envelope, wherein the individual wear status of each consumable component is independent of the other consumable components of the plurality of consumable components.” (see Pages 7-8 of the response). Applicant argues that Discenzo does not teach these limitations.
The examiner maintains that Discenzo teaches diagnosing a wear of pump system components (C. 15 Lines 39-41 for example) using sensed conditions (C. 15 Lines 28-32). In diagnosing degradation and wear of one or more system components, Discenzo necessarily diagnoses a wear status of each component (at least to the extent of whether the components is worn or not worn to the level of detection). Further, the phrase “wherein the individual wear status of each consumable component is independent…” is anticipated in the sense that each component will be diagnosed as worn regardless of the condition of the other components; Discenzo does not present the diagnosis of each component as an either/or scenario.
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.
/CHRISTOPHER S BOBISH/Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights