DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed on 06/12/2026. As directed by the amendment: claims 1, 8 and 15 have been amended, claims 7 and 11 have been canceled, and no claims have been added. Thus, claims 1-6, 8-10 and 12-20 are currently pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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 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.
4. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
5. Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-9, 10, 12, 14-15, 16-18 and 20 are rejected 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnett (Pub. No.: US 2017/0204852 A1) in view of Belshan et al. (hereinafter “Belshan”) (Pub. No.: US 2023/0340859 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 10, 12, 15 and 16-17, Barnett discloses a valve system (as presented in Paragraphs [0104]-[0107]) for controlling fluid flow into or out of a fluid chamber of a fluid end of a hydraulic fracturing pump (hydraulic fracturing pump or frac pump), the fluid flow to be caused by a reciprocating plunger (reciprocating plunger 256 within the fluid end 264, see Paragraphs [0102]&[0104]-[0105]) that is driven by a power end (driven by a power frame 250, as stated in Paragraphs [0116]&[0120]-[0121]) of the hydraulic fracturing pump, the valve system comprising:
a valve seat (valve seat 177, as depicted in annotated Figure 28 and discussed in Paragraph [0183] or valve seat assembly S177 comprising identical intake or pressure valve seats 177, as best seen in annotated Figure 28) defining multiple bores (the identical valve seats are undoubtedly being the primary components that define the operational geometry of the multiple bores or openings or bottle bores 156 of the frac pump multi-bore architecture; in other words, because the seats are identical, they ensure hydraulic symmetry or define an aligned vertical axis or maintain the same internal geometry or ensuring the “bore” characteristics); and
multiple valves (multiple valves 175 that, as detailed in Paragraphs [0167] & [0192], are housed within the pressure head 116) configured to sealingly engage the valve seat at respective bores of the multiple bores (plurality of valves 175 being undoubtedly configured to be sealingly engaged with the valve seats 177 of the valve seat assembly S177, as otherwise, the system cannot normally operate),
wherein the multiple valves (multiple valves 175) have a uniform size (all valves 175 are sized to match the bottle bores 156 and having an identical dimensions or uniform size, as best seen immediately below).
Particularly, Barnett demonstrates a segmented fluid end comprising interchangeable plunger manifolds, intake heads, pressure valve seat 177, valve 175, valve spring 173, and two retainer nuts 181 per cylinder.
Notably, Barnett, in Paragraph [0185], discloses as how: The design of the discharge retainer nut 181 of the present invention is threadedly inserted into the discharge opening 379 (see FIG. 22) and increases the ratio of wrench to retainer diameter and is much easier to machine and is much safer to use. A wrench opening 182 is machined as an octagon shape groove 182 machined in a continuous path at a depth the same as the width of the groove 182. This ratio may change due to the application. No center hole access is required because of other access locations designed into the plunger manifold 26. In the conventional designs liquids enter through the Allen wrench openings and rust the discharge retainer 186, 241 their mating discharge covers together making them very hard to remove. With the discharge retainer 181 of the present disclosure, there is no center access to the nut 181, thus, no oxidation between parts. Each segmented head 20 only uses one discharge retainer 181. No rear access is required for intake valve assembly removal and placement.
Further, Barnett, in Paragraph [0157], states as how: the intake head 85 uses the valve spring retainer 169. As shown in FIGS. 22 and 27, to maintain a symmetry of the head mounting sides of the plunger manifold 26, the pressure head 116 comprises a valve spring retainer replacement spacer 167 to make up for the lack of the valve spring retainer 169.
PNG
media_image1.png
702
833
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, most importantly in Barnett is his idea of utilizing a single layer or single portion of retaining structure consisting of retainer replacement spacer 167&169 that is surely being common with the multiple valves 175, as instantly claimed in claim 6.
Essentially, Barnett’s valve system is certainly designed such that single portion of retaining structure consisting of retainer replacement spacer 167&169 is being common with the multiple valves 175 while the multiple valves 175 having a uniform size. As best seen immediately below, the multiple bores or bottle bores 156 being arranged in parallel. With reference to annotated Figure 28 again, Barnett evidently illustrates as how the valve system includes the fluid end 264, the reciprocating plunger 256, and the power end or power frame 250 and/or how all valves 175 being sized to match the bottle bores 156 and having an identical dimensions or uniform size.
PNG
media_image2.png
702
833
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
702
833
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Although Barnett discloses the majority of Applicant’s claimed elements, he is silent as to the fact that the multiple valves being configured to open simultaneously.
Nonetheless, Belshan in the same field of endeavor teaches another fracturing pump, very similar to that seen in annotated Figure 28, and performs as how the system 100 may include multiple unloading mechanisms 142 that correspond with a number of suction valves 118 in the fluid end 112. In other words, the system 100 may include an unloading mechanism 142 for each suction valve 118 in the fluid end 112. In some examples, individual unloading mechanisms 142 may be configured to position individual suction valves 118 independent of other unloading mechanisms 142. However, operation of the unloading mechanisms 142 may be coordinates such that the unloading mechanisms 142 open and close the suction valves 118 sequentially or simultaneously. In some examples, the unloading mechanisms 142 As such, the unloading mechanisms 142 are configured to close or open the suction valves 118 in a specific sequence in order to reduce a rate of load being applied to the prime mover 102 during operation of the pump 104. Control of the unloading mechanisms 142, either in sequence or substantially synchronous, may be controlled by the controller 108. As described further herein, the controller 108 may include an electronic controller and/or the controller 108 (e.g., such as a lever, switch, or other manually controlled apparatus) may be manually controlled (see Paragraph [0030]).
Specifically, in Paragraph [0029], Belshan states that: The unloading mechanism 142 may be configured to maintain the suction valve 118 in an open position while the prime mover 102 starts up, winds down, or otherwise operates. Maintaining the suction valve 118 in the open position while the pump 104 operates permits fluid to circulate between the pump chamber 140 and the fluid intake manifold 122.
More specifically, in Paragraph [0040], Belshan notes that: the actuator 144 may be coupled to an exterior surface of the fluid intake manifold 122 and the rod 146 may be coupled to the actuator 144 and may extend through an aperture 315 formed in the fluid intake manifold 122.
Further, in Paragraph [0043], Belshan specifies: The fluid end 112 further includes a discharge bore 134 formed in the block 130 and extending approximately along the first axis 300. The discharge bore 134 forms a fluid passageway extending between an exterior surface of the block 130 and the pump chamber 140. The discharge bore 134 allows fluid to be discharged from the fluid end 112 to a fluid discharge manifold 126 via an outlet 318 of the fluid end 112. The fluid end 112 includes a discharge valve 124 disposed within the discharge bore 124 that is configured to control fluid flow through the discharge bore 134. The discharge bore 134 also includes a discharge valve seat 320 disposed within the discharge bore 134. In some examples, the discharge valve seat 320 provides a surface against which the discharge valve 124 rests when the discharge valve 124 is closed, creating a fluid seal between the discharge valve 124 and the discharge valve seat 320. In some examples, when the plunger 110 moves in the second direction 116, the plunger 110 displaces the fluid within the pump chamber 140 until a pressure of the fluid within the pump chamber 140 reaches and/or exceeds a threshold pressure, thereby forcing the discharge valve 124 to unseat (e.g., lift), opening the discharge valve 124. The plunger 110 directs the fluid out of the outlet 318 of the fluid end 112 and into a fluid discharge manifold 126 or other component.
Still further, in Paragraph [0046], Belshan states: the fluid intake manifold 122 may include a port 328 formed in the fluid intake manifold 122. The port 328 may include a cap 330 that is configured to fluidly seal the port 328 when the cap 330 is coupled to the port 328. In some examples, the cap 330 may be removed from the port 328 to allow fluid to drain out of the fluid intake manifold 122.
Clearly, each suction valve 118 or all of the multiple valves being configured to control inward flow though the intake manifold 122 and/or all of the multiple valves being configured to control outward flow through a single fluid outlet or discharge manifold 126 of the fluid end 122 from the fluid chamber, as otherwise, the system cannot normally operate.
Hence, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of using to the unloading mechanisms, as taught by Belshan, to the valve system of Barnett, in order to further reduce a rate of load being applied to the prime mover during operation of the pump, as motivated by Belshan in Paragraph [0030].
Thus modified, one skilled in the art would have been reasonably appraised that all of the multiple valves would be further configured to further open simultaneously during a single stroke of the reciprocating plunger and/or all of the multiple valves would be configured to further control inward flow through a single fluid inlet of the fluid end into the fluid chamber, or all of the multiple valves would be further configured to further control outward flow through a single fluid outlet of the fluid end from the fluid chamber and/or the multiple valves would be further having a uniform size, as instantly claimed.
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 16, Barnett and Belshan substantially disclose the valve system, as claimed and detailed above. Additionally, in Paragraph [0104], Barnett specifically teaches as how: The plunger 256 action moves fluid through valves 258, 268 in an out of the fluid end 264. An intake valve 258 opens on the suction stroke of the plunger 256 and closes on pressure stroke. Conventional pressure and intake valve springs 173, similar to automobile intake and exhaust valve springs, are available in cone and straight designs. Spring 173 rates are designed for the application. They are compression springs 173. The valve springs 173 assist in returning the valves 268 back into a closed position
More specifically, in Paragraph [0120], Barnett further states: Conventional stay rods 254 are large rods that hold and support the fluid end 264, to a certain distance required by the stroke of the power frame 250, to the power frame 250. Conventional power frame attachment threads 255 attach the stay rods 254 to the power frame 250.
In fact, according to the combination, one of ordinary skill in the art would surely recognize that Barnett certainly exhibits as how the valve system includes the fluid end 264, the reciprocating plunger 256, and the power end or power frame 250, as instantly claimed.
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Barnett and Belshan substantially disclose the valve system, as claimed and detailed above.
Additionally, as best seen in annotated Figure 28, Barnett evidently illustrates as how multiple valves 175 and multiple seats 177 become a unitary part through an integrated manifold or monoblock design which is fastened or secured by studs 80.
PNG
media_image4.png
702
833
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In other words, according to the combination, Barnett explicitly teaches as how the valve seat and the multiple valves comprise a unitary part, as instantly claimed.
Regarding claim 18, Barnett and Belshan substantially disclose the valve system, as claimed and detailed above.
Additionally, in Paragraph [0157], Barnett especially notes as how: only the intake head 85 uses the valve spring retainer 169. The valve spring retainer 169 offers a great support to the valve spring 173 and can be produced out of many long wearing materials and is easily replaced. The valve spring retainer 169 is a very open design. It has a stronger design than the conventional design spring retainers. Conventional spring retainers are changed every time the springs are replaced. The new spring retainer 169 will last for several valve changes. The intake valve spring retainer 169 is pinched between the plunger manifold opening 90 and the intake head 85. This makes it the easiest to install, remove and most reliable spring retainer available. To keep the heads, 85 and 116 completely interchangeable for fit on either side of the plunger manifold 26 a spacer has to be placed under the pressure head.
PNG
media_image2.png
702
833
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, most importantly in Barnett is his idea of utilizing a single layer or single portion of retaining structure consisting of retainer replacement spacer 167&169 that is surely being common with the multiple valves 175, as instantly claimed.
In fact, according to the combination, one skilled in the art would surely recognize that Barnett/ Belshan’s valve system is certainly designed such that single portion of retaining structure consisting of retainer replacement spacer 167&169 is being common with the multiple valves 175, as instantly claimed.
Regarding claim 20, Barnett and Belshan substantially disclose the valve system, as claimed and detailed above.
PNG
media_image4.png
702
833
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Additionally, as best seen immediately above, Barnett evidently illustrates as how multiple valves 175 and multiple seats 177 become a unitary part through an integrated manifold or monoblock design which is fastened or secured by studs 80. In other words, Barnett explicitly teaches as how the valve seat and the multiple valves comprise a unitary part, as instantly claimed.
As such, according to the combination, one of ordinary skill in the art would surely recognize that the valve seat and the multiple valves comprising a unitary part, as instantly claimed.
6. Claims 4, 13 and 19 is rejected 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnett in view of Belshan, and further in view of Belshan et al. (hereinafter “Belshan’588”) (Pub. No.: US 2016/0215588 A1).
Regarding claims 4, 13 and 19, Barnett and/or Barnett in view of Belshan substantially discloses the valve system, as claimed and detailed above.
However, although Barnett and/or combination of Barnett and Belshan discloses the vast majority of Applicant’s claimed elements, it is still silent as to the fact that the multiple valves have a diameter of 0.9 inches to 1.1 inches.
Nevertheless, Belshan’588 in the same field of endeavor teaches another valve system, very similar to that seen in annotated Figure 28, and performs as how “valve contact surface angle θ2 is inclined at an angle of 30°. In one example, the contact area between valve contact surface 10 and seat 6 can be 1.92 square inches. Where valve contact surface 10 and seat 6 are composed of metal, and outer diameter D2 of seat 6 is 4.57 inches, the metal-to-metal contact area between valve contact surface 10 and seat 6 is 1.92 square inches, which is 80% more metal-to-metal contact than is known in the prior art. In another example, the contact area between valve contact surface 10 and seat 6 can be 3.12 square inches. Where valve contact surface 10 and seat 6 are composed of metal, and outer diameter D2 of seat 6 is 5.07 inches, the metal-to-metal contact area between valve contact surface 10 and seat 6 is 3.12 square inches, which is 99% more metal-to-metal contact than is known in the prior art” (see Paragraph [0031]).
Further, in Paragraph [0036], Belshan’588 specifies: An increase to the lift of the valve directly results in an increase to the flow area between valve 7 and seat 6. The valve assembly flow area is restricted by either the flow area between valve 7 and seat 6, or the flow area through seat 6. In one example, the restricted flow area can be 5.07 square inches, which can be as much as 5.3% to 14.5% more than other standard valves having similar diameters. In addition, increasing the flow area allows the pump to experience less of a pressure drop across intake valve assembly 4, and reduces the risk of cavitation caused by starvation of fluid flowing into the pump.
As such, in view of prior art teachings, the variations of valve dimensions, as taught by Belshan’588, is found to be a result-effective variables which effects the operating condition of the valve assembly. It has been held that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. In re Antoine, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2144.05 II(B).
Furthermore, it has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the invention of Barnett and/or Barnett/ Belshan and apply the teachings of Belshan’588 to optimize the valve diameter through routine experimentation in order to further increase the contact area of deformable seal that is in contact with seat contact surface, as motivated by Belshan’588 in Paragraph [0032].
Thus modified, one skilled in the art would have been reasonably apprised that the multiple valves would be further having a diameter of 0.9 inches to 1.1 inches, as instantly claimed.
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant’s argument resides in contention that “the applied references do not disclose one or more features recited in the amended independent claims. For example, the applied references do not teach that "the multiple valves are configured to open simultaneously during a single stroke of the reciprocating plunger" or that "all of the multiple valves are configured to control inward flow through a single fluid inlet of the fluid end into the fluid chamber, or all of the multiple valves are configured to control outward flow through a single fluid outlet of the fluid end from the fluid chamber," as recited in the amended independent claims” (see Applicants’ Remarks at page 9, last paragraph).
Applicant argues that, because “in BARNETT, the valves do not "all open simultaneously during a single stroke of the reciprocating plunger" as recited in the amended independent claims” (see Applicants’ Remarks at page 9, first paragraph), and because BELSHAN describes: [M]ultiple unloading mechanisms 142 that correspond with a number of suction valves 118 in the fluid end 112. In other words, the system 100 may include an unloading mechanism 142 for each suction valve 118 in the fluid end 112. In some examples, individual unloading mechanisms 142 may be configured to position individual suction valves 118 independent of other unloading mechanisms 142. However, operation of the unloading mechanisms 142 may be coordinates [sic] such that the unloading mechanisms 142 open and close the suction valves 118 sequentially or simultaneously (see Applicants’ Remarks at page 10, first paragraph), the Applicant disagrees with the combination of the references in arriving at the claimed invention. More specifically, Applicant argues that since BELSHAN describes the unloading mechanisms opening and closing the suction valves simultaneously, rather than by "a single stroke of the reciprocating plunger," and thus, BELSHAN does not resolve the deficiencies of BARNETT (see Applicants’ Remarks at page 10, second paragraph).
However, Applicant’s attention is drawn to the fact that BELSHAN reference was brought solely for the purpose of showing how “operation of the unloading mechanisms 142 may be coordinates such that the unloading mechanisms 142 open and close the suction valves 118 sequentially or simultaneously”. BELSHAN, in Paragraph [0029], explicitly teaches that: The unloading mechanism 142 may be configured to maintain the suction valve 118 in an open position while the prime mover 102 starts up, winds down, or otherwise operates. Maintaining the suction valve 118 in the open position while the pump 104 operates permits fluid to circulate between the pump chamber 140 and the fluid intake manifold 122.
Clearly, each suction valve 118 or all of the multiple valves being configured to control inward flow though the intake manifold 122 and/or all of the multiple valves being configured to control outward flow through a single fluid outlet or discharge manifold 126 of the fluid end 122 from the fluid chamber, as otherwise, the system cannot normally operate.
Hence, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of using to the unloading mechanisms, as taught by Belshan, to the valve system of Barnett, in order to further reduce a rate of load being applied to the prime mover during operation of the pump, as motivated by Belshan in Paragraph [0030].
Certainly, just because the combination of BARNETT/ BELSHAN demonstrates another arrangement of the valve system and/or piston not envisioned by the Applicant, these do not discredit the valve system and/or piston also disclosed by combination of BARNETT/ BELSHAN.
Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed.Cir.1993). Whether or not the structure is used in such a manner is dependent on a future act of use and not any structural differences (MPEP 2114). Furthermore, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck& Co., 800 F.2d 1091,231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The Examiner recognizes that references cannot be arbitrarily combined and that there must be some reason why one skilled in the art would be motivated to make the proposed combination of primary and secondary references. In re Nomiya,184 USPQ 607 (CCPA 1975). Moreover, the Examiner asserts that the test for combining references is what the combination of disclosures taken as a whole would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re McLauqhlin, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Indeed, there is no specific structure claimed or otherwise disclosed by Applicant which makes this interpretation unreasonable.
For clarity, the Examiner notes that "under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (see MPEP 2111).
Applicant's assertions of the allowability of claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-9, 10, 12, 14-15, 16-18 and 20 are based on the alleged distinction between the BARNETT/ BELSHAN references and the claimed invention. Since the arguments related to the BARNETT/ BELSHAN references were unpersuasive, it is believed that the rejections of claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-9, 10, 12, 14-15, 16-18 and 20 under 35 USC §103 are deemed appropriate.
Due to the aforementioned reason, the Applicant’s arguments are not considered persuasive and so the current rejections are not being withdrawn.
Conclusion
8. 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
extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LILYA PEKARSKAYA whose telephone number is (571)272-1158. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday, 9:00-5:00 EST.
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, Essama Omgba can be reached on 469-295-9278.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHARLES G FREAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/L.P/Examiner, Art Unit 3746
