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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on February 17, 2026.
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 1-6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,312,928.
Note: This Double Patenting rejection is permitted under Exception “E” in MPEP 804.01, because the restriction requirement was withdrawn in parent application serial No. 18/205,309, in the Notice of Allowance mailed March 7, 2025. It is also noted that this Double Patenting rejection may no longer apply upon amendment of the claims during prosecution of the instant application.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the instant application are broader than those of the ‘928 patent (given that pending claim 1 does not require the ballistic barrier, pumping unit, and flowlines of patented claim 8), and are thus fully encompassed by the claims in the ‘928 patent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2, 9, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 2, 9, 10, and 11 do not further limit claim 1, due to the fact that they do not recite additional structure of the secondary barrier. For example, claim 2 states that the “secondary barrier is less protective than the ballistic barrier.” However, claim 1 does not actually require a ballistic barrier, but is merely “for use adjacent a pump of a pumping unit that is in fluid communication with a wellbore services manifold system having a ballistic barrier.” Thus, claim 2 only has meaning in the context of a system that includes both a secondary barrier and a ballistic barrier, but claim 1 is only directed to a secondary barrier. Claim 2 does not say anything about the structure of the secondary barrier itself, and does further limit claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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) 1-3, 5-11, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oehring et al. (US 2017/0030177, hereinafter Oehring).
With regard to claim 1, Oehring discloses a secondary barrier (i.e. the platform assembly 30 with its associated railings) for use adjacent a pump of a pumping unit that is in fluid communication with a wellbore services manifold system having a ballistic barrier (note that the phrase “for use adjacent a pump of a pumping unit…” is being treated as merely intended use, given that the claim is directed to a secondary barrier—thus the claims are interpreted to not require any structures other than the secondary barrier), the secondary barrier comprising:
a first portion (i.e. the rear railing of the platform as identified in the Fig. below) configured to be disposed in proximity to a fluid end of the pump (the first portion is “in proximity” of the pump 12) and configured to be disposed between the fluid end of the pump and a power end of an adjacent pumping unit pump (an “adjacent pumping unit” can be positioned anywhere around the platform shown in Fig. 1—thus, any part of the platform assembly 30 can be positioned between the pump 12 and another pumping unit, if the pumping unit is arbitrarily positioned in the required manner. Again, examiner notes that claim 1 is only directed to a “secondary barrier,” and the claim does not positively recite any pumps or other structures); and
a second portion (i.e. the side railing as identified in the Fig. provided below) configured to face the ballistic barrier and the wellbore services manifold system (note that the claim is only directed to the secondary barrier and does not require the ballistic barrier. Thus, the second portion is capable of facing any particular object on the wellsite if so placed).
PNG
media_image1.png
352
624
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 2, Oehring teaches that the secondary barrier (platform assembly 30) is less protective than the ballistic barrier, and wherein the secondary barrier and the ballistic barrier differ in material or thickness (the secondary barrier is made of a different material or thickness than a conceivable ballistic barrier, noting that the claim does not actually require a ballistic barrier, and is only directed to the secondary barrier).
With regard to claim 3, Oehring discloses a shielded work platform (36—the platform 36 is at least shielded by the railings), wherein the first portion and the second portion are disposed on the shielded work platform (the first portion and second portion are rails mounted on the platform—see annotated Fig. above).
With regard to claim 5, Oehring discloses that the shielded work platform (36) further comprises an elevated base (72, which is elevated upon the trailer).
With regard to claim 6, the shielded work platform (36) is configured to provide access to the fluid end of the pump (12) for a worker on the shielded work platform (see Fig. 2).
With regard to claim 7, Oehring discloses a set of stairs (46) leading to the elevated base.
With regard to claim 8, Oehring teaches that the elevated base comprises a lift component (elements 84 mentioned in paragraph 0023 can all be considered “lift components.” Note that applicant’s specification states that the lifting components “are not particularly limited,” and that examples are “forklift pockets” and “lifting eyes.” Thus, holes 84 can receive hooks or cables for lifting, and thus can be considered “lift components”).
With regard to claim 9, Oehring teaches that the secondary barrier (30) is configured to be positioned in an array of other secondary barriers (see Fig. 1, however, in any case the claim only requires one secondary barrier).
With regard to claim 10, Oehring teaches that the secondary barrier is configured to be positioned in a line of other secondary barriers that is aligned with the ballistic barrier (note that the claims only require a secondary barrier, thus Oehring meets the claims by teaching a barrier that is at least capable of being placed in a line of secondary barriers that are aligned with a ballistic barrier).
With regard to claim 11, Oehring teaches that the secondary barrier and the other secondary barriers are identical (note that the claim does not actually require other secondary barriers, however, Oehring does teach at least one other secondary barrier 30 mounted on the same trailer).
With regard to claim 14, the first portion is longer than the second portion (see annotated Fig. provided above).
Claim(s) 4, 12, 13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oehring in view of Oehring et al. (US 2020/0109616, hereinafter ‘616).
With regard to claims 4, 12, 13, and 15, Oehring fails to disclose a cover or roof over the platfom/base. Thus, Oehring fails to teach that the worker is enclosed, or that the roof has the same length as the first portion and the same width as the second portion.
‘616 discloses a fracturing pump trailer having an enclosed platform area adjacent the frac pump (412), where the platform area is covered by a roof (422). The roof also has the same dimensions as the enclosing structure below it.
PNG
media_image2.png
310
300
media_image2.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 modified Oehring by providing a roof to cover the platform area as shown by ‘616, for “rain protection” (‘616, paragraph 0088) for operators, tools, and equipment that will utilize the work platform. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to have made the roof of the same dimensions as the first and second members, as the first and second members delimit the space that will be occupied by a user during use of the platform.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited references provide further examples of secondary barrier structures for sheltering or protecting personnel.
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