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 May 20, 2026, have been fully considered.
Applicant has argued that the Double Patenting rejection is “moot in view of the claim amendments” (Remarks, bottom of page 6). Examiner agrees, and has withdrawn the Double Patenting rejection.
Applicant has argued that the amendments to claims 2 and 9-11 have overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) (Remarks, top of Page 7). Examiner agrees, and has withdrawn the 112 rejection.
Regarding the prior art rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, applicant has argued that the amendments to the claims have overcome the Oehring reference (US 2017/0030177). Examiner agrees, and has withdrawn the rejections based on Oehring. However, the amended claims stand rejected under newly discovered prior art.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-8, 12-15, and 22-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeung et al. (US 2022/0403723, hereinafter Yeung ‘723) in view of “BJ Energy Solutions Titan Platform-Drone Footage” YouTube video (hereinafter BJ Energy).
With regard to claim 1, Yeung ‘723 discloses a shielded work platform (901, Fig. 9E; note that the claim does not establish any structural features that would be required to be considered “shielding”) for use adjacent a pump of a pumping unit that is in fluid communication with a wellbore services manifold system having a ballistic barrier (the claim is considered to be directed to a shielded work platform only, and does not require the manifold system or ballistic barrier), the shielded work platform comprising:
various walls (note that the work platform shown in Fig. 9E likely has additional walls other than what is shown in Fig. 9E, those walls are not explicitly illustrated).
Yeung ‘723 does not explicitly teach a first wall and a second wall as required by claim 1. Yeung ‘723 only shows one view of the trailer, from a single viewing angle. Thus, there are gaps in the disclosure of Yeung ‘723 which force one of ordinary skill in the art to look elsewhere for ascertaining a more complete understanding of what the complete system entails.
BJ Energy discloses a blender trailer having identical structure to that of the Yeung ‘723 reference (which is also assigned to BJ Energy Solutions, LLC). BJ Energy shows different angles of the control cabin than what is shown in the Yeung ‘723 reference, thus filling the aforementioned gaps in Yeung ‘723’s disclosure). BJ Energy discloses a first wall (see annotated Fig. provided below) configured to be disposed between a fluid end of the pump and a power end of an adjacent pumping unit pump (again, note that claim 1 is directed only to a shielded work platform and does not positively recite a pump or a pumping unit. Additionally, the claim does not identify any structural element of the work platform that configures it to be positioned in relationship to a pump or pumping unit. Thus, BJ Energy’s first wall is considered capable of being disposed in any relationship to a pump and a pumping unit); and
a second wall (see annotated Fig. below) configured to face the ballistic barrier and the wellbore services manifold system (the claim does not positively recite the ballistic barrier or the wellbore services system, thus this claim limitation is deemed to merely require the capability of facing such wellsite components. BJ energy’s second wall is configured to face any desired wellsite component), wherein the second wall is further configured to protect a worker from projectiles or spray from the wellbore services manifold system (the second wall is solid and thus will protect at least from light spray and light projectiles such as small stones thrown at low velocity).
PNG
media_image1.png
486
795
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have combined the teachings of Yeung ‘723 and BJ Energy, as both references are clearly directed to the same blender trailer system (as evidenced by their identical visual structure and assignment to the same entity), and because each reference provides complementary information that allows one of ordinary skill to arrive at an understanding of a real-world embodiment of the system. Once combined, the two references teach a shielded work platform that comprises the claimed first and second walls.
With regard to claim 3, Yeung ‘723 discloses a floor (note that the floor is not explicitly shown, but because Yeung ‘723 describes element 901 as a “control cabin,” a floor is inherently necessary for operator’s to be able to utilize the cabin), wherein the first wall and the second wall extend from the floor (see Fig. 9E of Yeung ‘723).
With regard to claim 4, Yeung ‘723 teaches that the shielded work platform further comprises a cover (i.e. the top surface shown in Fig. 9E of Yeung ‘723).
With regard to claim 5, Yeung ‘723 teaches that the shielded work platform has an elevated base (i.e. the floor of the trailer, which is elevated by the presence of the trailer wheels).
With regard to claim 6, Yeung ‘723 teaches that the shielded work platform is configured to provide access to the fluid end of the pump for a worker on the shielded work platform (note that the claim does not recite any structure that allows such “access” to be provided. Also, the claim is directed only to a shielded work platform and does not positively recite the pump. Therefore, the door shown in fig. 9E is considered to be sufficient structure to “provide access” to a pump).
With regard to claim 7, Yeung ‘723 fails to teach a set of stairs leading to the elevated base. However, Yeung ‘723 does show a doorway in Fig. 9E that immediately drops off to ground level. Presumably, Yeung ‘723 intends the doorway to be accessible to an operator.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Yeung ‘723 by providing stairs up to the doorway of Fig. 9E, in order to allow an operator to easily reach the level of the door, and to prevent an operator from falling to the ground when exiting the cabin.
With regard to claims 8 and 29, Yeung ‘723, as modified by BJ Energy teaches that the elevated base comprises a lift component, where the lift component comprises rectangular holes in the first wall (see annotated Fig. below, noting that the claims do not recite what the function of a “lift component” actually is, and thus this claim term is considered to be mere nomenclature. It is further noted that the rectangular holes shown in the Fig. below are at least capable of “lifting” heat from the cabin as it escapes through the holes).
PNG
media_image2.png
456
920
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 12, Yeung ‘723 discloses that the shielded work platform further comprises a roof disposed above the elevated base (see top surface of cabin ‘901 in Fig. 9E).
With regard to claim 13, Yeung ‘723 and BJ Energy, in combination, teach that the first wall, the second wall, and the roof are configured to enclose a worker (Yeung ‘723 calls element 901 a “control cabin” and provides an unlabeled door. BJ Energy shows the other sides of the cabin and teaches that a worker would be enclosed inside).
With regard to claim 14, Yeung ‘723, as modified by BJ Energy, teaches that the first wall is longer than the second wall (see annotated Fig. above).
With regard to claim 15, Yeung ‘723, as modified by BJ Energy, teaches that a length of the first wall is equal to a length of the roof, and a width of the second wall is equal to a width of the roof (see annotated Fig. above).
With regard to claim 22, Yeung ‘723, as modified by BJ Energy, teaches a sliding, folding, or hinged panel (i.e. the doorway shown in Fig. 9E of Yeung ‘723) configured to close an opening opposite to the first wall (the door of Yeung ‘723 Fig. 9E is opposite to the first wall, shown in the BJ Energy still image provided above).
With regard to claim 23, Yeung ‘723 in view of BJ Energy teaches that the first wall (see annotated Fig. above) is configured to protect a worker from projectiles or spray from the power end of the adjacent pump (note that the pump is not positively recited, and thus the wall must simply have the capability of protecting from spray).
With regard to claim 24, Yeung ‘723, as modified by BJ Energy teaches that the first wall and the second wall form a right angle (see annotated Fig. above).
With regard to claim 25, Yeung ‘723 in view of BJ Energy teaches that the stairs are disposed opposite to the first wall, rather than the second wall (please refer to the rejection of parent claim 7, set forth above).
Nevertheless, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Yeung ‘723 in view of BJ Energy to have positioned the doorway and stairs of the control cabin on the rear wall of the cabin, opposite to the second wall and facing the rear of the trailer, rather than opposite the first wall facing the side of the trailer, as a simple matter of design choice depending on various considerations such as the amount and type of equipment being positioned within the interior of the cabin and the layout of the site where the cabin will be used.
With regard to claim 26, Yeung ‘723 in view of BJ Energy teaches that the shielded work platform is configured to be spaced apart from the pumping unit (the claim does not recite any structure that provides such a capability, nor does the claim positively recite a pumping unit—thus the platform of Yeung ‘723 in view of BJ Energy is considered as being capable of being positioned in essentially any relationship to a pumping unit).
With regard to claim 27, Yeung ‘723 in view of BJ Energy teaches that the shielded work platform comprises an open side for providing access to a fluid end of the pump (the doorway provided in Fig. 9E of Yeung ‘723 is interpreted as providing an “open side,” given that when the door is opened, an unobstructed opening to the outside is provided).
With regard to claim 28, Yeung ‘723 in view of BJ Energy teaches that the first wall, the second wall, the elevated base, and the roof define an enclosure (see Fig. 9E of Yeung ‘723 and the annotated Fig. above from BJ Energy).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeung ‘723 in view of BJ Energy as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Soulard (US 5,404,757).
With regard to claim 21, Yeung ‘723 in view of BJ Energy does not explicitly teach that the floor of the work platform is configured to be anchored to the ground.
Soulard teaches a mobile trailer system for performing borehole-related operations, where the trailer is configured to be anchored to the ground (see guys 40 and anchors 38 in Fig. 3).
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Yeung ‘723 in view of BJ Energy by providing the anchors of Soulard, in order to hold the trailer on the ground (Soulard, column 3, lines 15-23).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT E FULLER whose telephone number is (571)272-6300. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM - 5:30PM.
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.
/ROBERT E FULLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights