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
Claim 8-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/6/26.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “oil distribution outlet” of claim 4 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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, 2, 4, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waldhoer et al., U.S. Patent Publication 2025/0389269 (hereinafter “Waldhoer”) in view of Maxwell III, U.S. Patent 10,288,081 (hereinafter “Maxwell”).
In Reference to Claim 1:
Waldhoer discloses a cast power end frame comprising a pair of end plates and an outer casing extending between the end plates and defining an interior therein; a crank shaft housing extending between the end plates and within the interior of the outer casing, and a plurality of crosshead tubes, each crosshead tube extending substantially perpendicular to the crank shaft housing, wherein the outer casing, crank shaft housing, and crosshead tubes are cast as a single part. See, Figure 4 and Abstract.
Waldhoer fails to disclose wherein the steel for the power end frame comprises a steel comprising a carbon constituent of 0.06% - 1.99% carbon.
However, in the same field of endeavor the power end of a pump, Maxwell discloses a power end frame wherein the frame is composed of carbon steel.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the material of Waldhoer (a cast steel) with that of a Maxwelll (a carbon steel) because such a modification is a simple substitution of one known material used for the power frame for another providing the same predictable results. Furthermore, Examiner notes that the it is well known by a person having ordinary skill in the art that most of the carbon steels fall within the range of .06-1.99 (with the exception being some Ultra High Carbon Steels being above 1.99%).
In Reference to Claim 2:
Waldhoer further discloses cast from alloy steel. Examiner notes that carbon steel is a well known steel alloy and as such the modification of Maxwell disclose the use of a cast from alloy steel.
In Reference to Claim 4:
Waldhoer further discloses wherein at least one oil distribution outlet is provided in the outer casing at a lower portion of the power end frame. Examiner notes that there is a central opening at the bottom of the power end frame between the locations of plates 432 which would allow for the lubrication oil to be drained and as such would serve as a oil outlet.
In Reference to claim 7:
Waldhoer further discloses A reciprocating pump (Figure 1) comprising a power end according to claim 1, and also comprising a fluid end coupled to the power end by a plurality of stay rods (175).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waldhoer et al., U.S. Patent Publication 2025/0389269 (hereinafter “Waldhoer”) in view of Maxwell III, U.S. Patent 10,288,081 (hereinafter “Maxwell”) as applied to claim 1, in further view of Byrne et al., Chinese Patent Publication CN 107208625 (hereinafter “Byrne”).
In Reference to Claim 3:
Waldhoer as modified discloses all the limitations set forth in claim 1, but fails to disclose a drainage hole provided in a lower surface of the crosshead tube.
However, in the same field of endeavor, power ends of pump/compressors, Byrne discloses a drainage hole provided in a lower surface of the crosshead tube (via port that connects tubing 57 and 59) to reduce frictional wear and improve longevity of the system
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to further modify Waldhoer with the teachings of Bryne, namely placing a hole into the circumference of the crosshead tube because as taught by Byrne such a port allows for the system to place lubrication into the sidewall reducing the frictional wear between the crosshead and the crosshead tube and improving the longevity of the system without requiring maintenance.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 and 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “wherein a rear portion of the power end frame comprises a plurality of vertical struts having widened portions than other portions of the struts.” Examiner notes that while struts are known in the field of endeavor the modification of having widened portions and narrow portions within the same strut is nowhere to be seen and is not merely a design choice per the discussion in Applicants specification.
Claim 6 recites “comprising at least three inwardly projecting ribs within an upper portion of the frame, the ribs extending between the end plates”. Examiner has reviewed the specification wherein Applicant discloses that the configuration of said ribs and how they extend are not merely a design choice but provide a technical advantage of “provide additional structural strength to the power end frame 100 by minimizing lateral movement and resulting vibrations. In some forms, as illustrated, three evenly spaced, inwardly projecting ribs 106a, 106b, 106c are provided at the upper portion 150”. The prior art fails to disclose said ribs and as such would be allowable for this reason.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL S. COLLINS whose telephone number is (313)446-6535. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8:00-5:30.
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, Nathaniel Wiehe can be reached at (571) 272-4648. 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.
/DANIEL S COLLINS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745