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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/30/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed on 6/30/2026 have been fully considered.
With respect to claim 1, the applicant argues that Pettus is directed towards paint mixing and cannot be combined with Oehring’s fracturing system. However, the rejection does rely on Pettus for the fracturing environment. Oehring supplies the fracturing system and control instructions teachings, while Pettus supplies applying updated instructions at a valid transition selected according to the current execution state. In the opinion of the examiner, incorporating that synchronization technique into Oehring would predictably permit instructions to be updated during an ongoing pumping sequence without modifying an active instruction.
Applicants’ arguments regarding the dependent claims that rely solely on the patentability of claim 1 are unpersuasive for at least the same reasons.
With respect to claim 29, the applicant argues that Oehring and Pettus do not disclose a modeled frac fluid rate or composition within a stage script. The present rejection additionally relies on ‘451 for the modeled frac fluid rate and Pettus for the recipe corresponding to the stage script. Accordingly, this combination appears to adequately address the argued limitation.
With respect to claims 30 and 38, the applicant argues that Oehring does not disclose identifying a sequence of spare equipment for exception steps. The examiner has relied upon ‘894 which assigns standby pumps a priority sequence and activates the next priority standby pump when an operating pump or an earlier standby pump fails. Accordingly, this combination appears to adequately address the argued limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 22-23, 25-26 and 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oehring, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0112910 A1 (hereinafter: ‘910), in view of Pettus, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0150995 A1 (hereinafter: ‘995).
As per claim 1, ‘910 discloses a method of fracturing (e.g., See ‘910; [0035]), comprising:
using a managing application executing on a computer to control the fracturing, wherein the managing application directs a pumping stage of a pumping sequence based on sensor data from one or more frac units or a wellbore (e.g., See ‘910; [0034] – [0036], which disclose a control center of a hydraulic fracturing system receiving sensor data from one or more hydraulic fracturing components and using the sensor data to control a hydraulic fracturing operation); and
modifying one or more instructions of the managing application in response to the sensor data indicating a current state of the pumping stage (e.g., See ‘910; [0034] and [0038] – [0039], which disclose the control center determining a condition of the hydraulic fracturing system from the sensor data and generating one or more control instructions to adjust operation of the one or more hydraulic fracturing components based on the condition),
wherein the one or more instructions are for operating the one or more frac units to conduct the pumping sequence (e.g., See ‘910; [0035] – [0037], which disclose the one or more control instructions operating the one or more hydraulic fracturing components during the hydraulic fracturing operation).
However, ‘910 does not specifically disclose that the modifying is based on a state of completion of the one or more instructions.
‘995 discloses this feature by disclosing a batch subsystem that applies an updated recipe to a suspended batch after identifying a current step or a current transition of the updated recipe and determining that synchronization is allowable, while prohibiting changes that affect an active step of the updated recipe (e.g., See ‘995; [0068] – [0070]). Therefore, the batch subsystem applies the updated recipe to the suspended batch according to an execution state of the suspended batch, including the current step or the current transition and whether an affected step is active.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teachings of ‘995 into ‘910’s control center to apply updated control instructions during an ongoing pumping sequence at a valid transition selected according to the state of completion of the control instructions, thereby increasing the responsiveness while avoiding errors caused by modifying an active control instruction.
As per claim 2, ‘910’s combined system (‘910 in view of ‘995) further discloses an algorithm being used to calculate pumping equipment settings, and wherein the pumping equipment settings comprise flow rate and pressure (e.g., See ‘910; [0036] – [0037] and [0040], which disclose using an machine learning model for predicting one or more control parameters, the one or more control parameters comprising a flow rate and a pressure).
As per claim 4, ‘910’s combined system further discloses that the managing application automatically directs the pumping stage, and wherein the modifying is performed automatically (e.g., See ‘910; [0034], [0036] and [0038] – [0039], which disclose the control center automatically generating the one or more control instructions based on sensor data and automatically adjusting operation of the one or more hydraulic fracturing components in response to the condition).
As per claim 22, ‘910’s combined system further discloses controlling, by the managing application, a fracturing fleet in accordance with the pumping sequence to place a fracturing fluid in a treatment well (e.g., See ‘910; [0034] – [0037], which disclose the control center generating the one or more control instructions for the one or more hydraulic fracturing components to supply, blend, pump, and inject a fracturing fluid into a well).
As per claim 23, ‘910’s combined system further discloses controlling, by the managing application, a frac unit in accordance with the pumping sequence to place a fracturing fluid in a treatment well (e.g., See ‘910; [0034] and [0036] – [0037], which disclose the control center generating the one or more control instructions for a pump and using the one or more control instructions to operate the pump to inject a fracturing fluid into a well).
As per claim 25, ‘910’s combined system further discloses executing automatically, by the managing application, a frac job from start to finish with substantially no manual intervention (e.g., See ‘910; [0035] – [0036] and [0038], which discloses automatically start, monitoring, and controlling the fracturing operation with little o no manual help).
As per claim 26, ‘910’s combined system further discloses executing automatically, by the managing application, to slow a pump rate of a frac fluid and to power down a frac pump or placing automatically, by the managing application, the one or more frac units in a standby or off condition (e.g., See ‘910; [0030] – [0031], which disclose the hydraulic fracturing system automatically shutting down or dropping out a pump).
As per claim 31, ‘910’s combined system further discloses that the one or more instructions are part of a sub-stage script associated with the pumping stage, and wherein the modifying of the one or more instructions results in modifying execution of the sub-stage script during the pumping stage (e.g., See ‘995; [0043], [0055] and [0068] – [0069], which disclose the updated recipe being organized into steps, unit procedures, and operations, the batch subsystem modifying a unit procedure or an operation of the updated recipe, applying the updated recipe to the suspended batch, and resuming execution of the suspended batch).
As per claim 32, ‘910’s combined system further discloses that the modifying of the one or more instructions comprises transitioning from executing a first set of instructions associated with a first sub-stage script to executing a second set of instructions associated with a second sub-stage script, in response to the sensor data indicating a transition from a first sub-stage of the pumping stage to a second sub-stage of the pumping stage (e.g., See ‘910; [0038] – [0039], which disclose the control center determining the condition of the hydraulic fracturing system from the sensor data and adjusting operation of the one or more hydraulic fracturing components based on the condition; further See ‘995 [0043] – [0044], which disclose the updated recipe including a first step and a second step separated by a transition, the transition being triggered when a transition condition associated with the first step is satisfied).
Claims 12 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oehring, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0112910 A1 (hereinafter: ‘910), in view of Pettus, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0150995 A1 (hereinafter: ‘995), as applied to claim 1, from above, in further view of Pitcher, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0352968 A1 (hereinafter: ‘968).
As per claim 12, ‘910’s combined system does not specifically disclose that the managing application further directs the pumping stage for two or more wellbores simultaneously, and wherein the one or more instructions of the managing application further comprise instructions for directing the pumping stage for each of the two or more wellbores based on sensor data received from the two or more wellbores.
‘968 discloses this feature by disclosing a controller simultaneously controlling the fracturing of multiple wells, receiving measurements of one or more fluid parameters for each of the multiple wells, and independently controlling a flow of fracturing fluid to each of the multiple wells based on the measurements (e.g., See ‘968; [0026] and [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teachings of ‘968 into ‘910’s combined system for the purpose of reducing total pumping time and expense while independently controlling fluid flow to each well based on the measured parameters.
As per claim 19, ‘910’s combined system does not specifically disclose determining, by the managing application, a sequence of pump stages with stage targets from an automated pumping sequence for a simultaneous treatment.
‘968 discloses this feature by disclosing the controller executing application instructions to simultaneously fracture the multiple wells through successive fracturing stages according to desired fracturing volumes, flow rates, or fracturing times (e.g. See [0030] – [0031], [0036] - [0037] and [0039]).
It would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to have incorporated the teachings of ‘968 into ‘910’s combined system for the purpose of coordinating the treatment of multiple wells while reducing total pumping time and expense.
As per claim 20, ‘910’s combined system does not specifically disclose modifying, by the managing application, the pumping sequence for a first well, a second well, or both based on the sensor data received from one or more wells.
‘968 discloses this feature by disclosing monitoring the one or more fluid parameters for each of the multiple wells and operating manifold valves to adjust the flow of fracturing fluid into each of the multiple wells based on the measurements (e.g., See [0030]).
It would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to have incorporated the teachings of ‘968 into ‘910’s combined system for the purpose of improving operation by controlling the individual flow of fracturing fluid to each well based on the monitored parameters.
As per claim 21, ‘910’s combined system does not specifically disclose determining, by the managing application, if a target volume of a frac fluid has been pumped.
‘968 discloses this feature by disclosing the controller receiving a desired fracturing volume and a measured volumetric flow rate, calculating a desired fracturing time for pumping the desired fracturing volume from the measured volumetric flow rate, and determining that the desired fracturing volume has been pumped when the desired fracturing time has passed (e.g., See ‘968; [0036] – [0037]).
It would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to have incorporated the teachings of ‘968 into ‘910’s combined system to determine and monitor a target fracturing fluid volume for a pumping stage, thereby enabling the managing application to control the pumping operation based on whether the target fluid volume has been delivered.
Claims 14, 16 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oehring, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0112910 A1 (hereinafter: ‘910), in view of Pettus, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0150995 A1 (hereinafter: ‘995), as applied to claim 1, from above, in further view of LIU, CN 107299894 A (hereinafter: ‘894) (English translation relied upon for citations).
As per claim 14, ‘910’s combined system does not specifically disclose utilizing an exception to interrupt or modify the pumping stage in real time, and re-allocating, by the managing application, pumping tasks among the one or more frac units.
That is, although ‘910 discloses automatically stopping or adjusting one or more functions of the hydraulic fracturing system in response to the condition (e.g., See ‘910; [0038]), ‘910 does not disclose the re-allocation features as claimed.
Further with respect to claim 16, ‘910’s combined system does not specifically disclose re-distributing, by the managing application, an amount of frac fluid pumped by the one or more frac units.
‘830 discloses these missing features by disclosing automatically engaging one or more available pump units and redistributing a remaining pumping rate among the engaged pump units (e.g., See ‘830; [0069] - [0072]), and automatically allocating a master rate set point among the available pump units, thereby redistributing fracturing fluid flow among the available pump units (e.g., See ‘830; [0075] and [0080] – [0082]).
It would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to have incorporated the teachings of ‘830 into ‘910’s combined system for the purpose of allowing the managing application to re-allocate pumping tasks among available frac units so the pumping stage can maintain the intended pump rate with fewer interruptions and less need for manual adjustments.
As per claim 38, ‘910’s combined system does not specifically disclose modifying the one or more instructions of the managing application to re-allocate the one or more frac units in real time, wherein the re-allocating comprises identifying a sequence of spare equipment to allocate for exception steps associated with the pumping sequence.
‘894 discloses identifying a priority sequence of standby pumps and automatically starting the next standby pump in the priority sequence when an operating pump or a prior standby pump fails (e.g., See ‘894; [0044] and [0065]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teachings of ‘894 into ‘910’s combined system so that, when a pump fails, the control center automatically allocates the next standby pump in the sequence, thereby maintaining continuous pumping, minimizing process fluctuations, and reducing manual intervention.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oehring, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0112910 A1 (hereinafter: ‘910), in view of Pettus, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0150995 A1 (hereinafter: ‘995), as applied to claim 1, from above, in further view of Tang, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0273346 A1 (hereinafter: ‘346).
As per claim 24, ‘910’s combined system does not specifically disclose generating, by the managing application, a report comprising a comparison between a model target and actual target for the pumping stage.
‘346 discloses generating, by a processing unit, a pressure change pattern from measurement data collected during the hydraulic fracturing operation, comparing the pressure change pattern to a historical pressure change pattern, and determining whether the pressure change pattern is sufficiently similar to the historical pressure change pattern (e.g., See ‘346; [0045] – [0046]). The historical pressure change pattern is interpreted to correspond to the model target, and the pressure change pattern is interpreted to correspond to the actual target. ‘910 further discloses displaying and storing data from the hydraulic fracturing operation (e.g., See ‘910; [0030]).
It would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to have incorporated ‘346’s comparison into ‘910’s control center and generate a report containing the comparison so that deviations from the modeled pumping stage target could be identified in time to take corrective action before an undesirable condition occurs.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oehring, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0112910 A1 (hereinafter: ‘910), in view of Pettus, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0150995 A1 (hereinafter: ‘995), as applied to claim 1, from above, in further view of Moore, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0125906 A1 (hereinafter: ‘906).
As per claim 33, ‘910’s combined system does not specifically disclose that the one or more instructions comprise a sequence of instructions, and wherein the modifying of the one or more instructions comprises stopping automatic execution of the sequence of instructions and executing an exception script in response to an exception being produced, and continuing automatic execution of the sequence of instructions in response to the exception being cleared.
‘906 discloses the missing features by disclosing that, when a problem or other situation arises during execution of a batch recipe, the batch recipe is paused, and auxiliary recipe is executed to address the problem or other situation, and the batch recipe is resumed after the auxiliary recipe has completed (e.g., See ‘906; [0018] and [0066] - [0067]). The problem or other situation has been interpreted to correspond to the exception, and completion of the auxiliary recipe has been interpreted to correspond to clearing the exception.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teachings of ‘906 into ‘910’s combined system so that an exception could be handled by an exception script without terminating the sequence of instructions, after which automatic execution of the sequence could resume, thereby reducing downtime and avoiding the need to restart the sequence.
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oehring, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0112910 A1 (hereinafter: ‘910), in view of Pettus, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0150995 A1 (hereinafter: ‘995), as applied to claim 1, from above, in further view of Weng, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0183451 A1 (hereinafter: ‘451).
As per claim 37, ‘910’s combined system does not specifically disclose comparing, by the managing application, the current state of the pumping stage to a pumping sequence target, wherein the pumping sequence target comprises a modeled frac-fluid rate or a modeled frac-fluid composition within a stage script for the pumping stage of the pumping sequence.
‘451 discloses the missing features by disclosing a pumping schedule designed using a fracture design model, the pumping schedule specifying a pump rate and a proppant concentration schedule (e.g., See ‘451; [0004]). Further, ‘995 discloses the updated recipe being organized into steps separated by transitions (e.g., See ‘995; [0043] – [0044]). The pump rate and the proppant concentration schedule have been interpreted to correspond to the modeled frac fluid rate and the modeled frac fluid composition, respectively, and the updated recipe has been interpreted to correspond to the stage script.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teachings of ‘451 into ‘910’s combined system to provide a modeled frac fluid rate in the stage script, thereby helping ensure an adequate pump rate, avoid premature screenout, and achieve the desired fracture.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oehring, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0112910 A1 (hereinafter: ‘910), in view of Pettus, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0150995 A1 (hereinafter: ‘995), in further view of Weng, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0183451 A1 (hereinafter: ‘451).
As per claim 29, ‘910 discloses a method of fracturing (e.g., See ‘910; [0035]), comprising:
using a managing application executing on a computer to control the fracturing, wherein the managing application directs a pumping stage of a pumping sequence based on sensor data from one or more frac units or a wellbore (e.g., See ‘910; [0034] – [0036], which disclose a control center of a hydraulic fracturing system receiving sensor data from one or more hydraulic fracturing components and using the sensor data to control a hydraulic fracturing operation); and
receiving, by the managing application, the sensor data, wherein the sensor data is indicative of a current state of the pumping stage of the pumping sequence (e.g., See ‘910; [0034] and [0039], which disclose the control center receiving the sensor data and determining a condition of the hydraulic fracturing system from the sensor data);
determining, by the managing application, the current state of the pumping stage of the pumping sequence (e.g., See ‘910; [0039], which discloses the control center determining the condition of the hydraulic fracturing system from the sensor data);
comparing, by the managing application, the current state of the pumping stage to a pumping sequence target (e.g., See ‘910; [0038], which discloses the control center detecting that a monitored parameter is outside an acceptable threshold),
modifying one or more instructions of the managing application in response to the current state of the pumping stage failing to satisfy the pumping sequence target (e.g., See ‘910; [0034] and [0038], which disclose the control center generating one or more control instructions to adjust operation of the one or more hydraulic fracturing components in response to detecting that the monitored parameter is outside the acceptable threshold).
However, ‘910 does not specifically disclose that the modifying is based on a state of completion of the one or more instructions.
‘995 discloses this feature by disclosing a batch subsystem that applies an updated recipe to a suspended batch after identifying a current step or a current transition of the updated recipe and determining that synchronization is allowable, while prohibiting changes that affect an active step of the updated recipe (e.g., See ‘995; [0068] – [0070]). Therefore, the batch subsystem applies the updated recipe to the suspended batch according to an execution state of the suspended batch, including the current step or the current transition and whether an affected step is active.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teachings of ‘995 into ‘910’s control center to apply updated control instructions during an ongoing pumping sequence at a valid transition selected according to the state of completion of the control instructions, thereby increasing the responsiveness while avoiding errors caused by modifying an active control instruction.
Further, ‘910’s combined system (‘910 in view of ‘995) does not specifically disclose that the pumping sequence target comprises a modeled frac-fluid rate or a modeled frac-fluid composition within a stage script for the pumping stage of the pumping sequence.
‘451 discloses designing a pumping schedule using a fracture design model, the pumping schedule specifying a pump rate and a proppant concentration schedule (e.g., See ‘451; [0004]). Further, ‘995 discloses the updated recipe being organized into steps separated by transitions (e.g., See ‘995; [0043] – [0044]). The pump rate and the proppant concentration schedule have been interpreted to correspond to the modeled frac fluid rate and the modeled frac fluid composition, respectively, and the updated recipe has been interpreted to correspond to the stage script.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teachings of ‘451 into ‘910’s combined system to provide a modeled frac fluid rate in the stage script, thereby helping ensure an adequate pump rate, avoid premature screenout, and achieve the desired fracture.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oehring, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0112910 A1 (hereinafter: ‘910), in view of Pettus, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0150995 A1 (hereinafter: ‘995), in further view of LIU, CN 107299894 A (hereinafter: ‘894) (English translation relied upon for citations).
As per claim 30, ‘910 discloses a method of fracturing (e.g., See ‘910; [0035]), comprising:
using a managing application executing on a computer to control the fracturing, wherein the managing application directs a pumping stage of a pumping sequence based on sensor data from one or more frac units or a wellbore (e.g., See ‘910; [0034] – [0036], which disclose a control center of a hydraulic fracturing system receiving sensor data from one or more hydraulic fracturing components and using the sensor data to control a hydraulic fracturing operation); and
modifying one or more instructions of the managing application in response to the sensor data indicating a current state of the pumping stage (e.g., See ‘910; [0034] and [0038] – [0039], which disclose the control center determining a condition of the hydraulic fracturing system from the sensor data and generating one or more control instructions to adjust operation of the one or more hydraulic fracturing components based on the condition),
However, ‘910 does not specifically disclose that (1) the modifying interrupts the pumping stage in real time, or that (2) the modifying is based on a state of completion of the one or more instructions.
‘995 discloses missing feature (1) by disclosing a batch subsystem that interrupts a running batch at a transition, applies an updated recipe, and resumes execution from the suspended state (e.g., See ‘995; [0039] and [0074]); further, ‘995 discloses missing feature (2) by disclosing the batch subsystem that applies the updated recipe to a suspended batch after identifying a current step or a current transition of the updated recipe and determining that synchronization is allowable, while prohibiting changes that affect an active step of the updated recipe (e.g., See ‘995; [0068] – [0070]). Therefore, the batch subsystem applies the updated recipe to the suspended batch according to an execution state of the suspended batch, including the current step or the current transition and whether an affected step is active.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teachings of ‘995 into ‘910’s control center to apply updated control instructions during an ongoing pumping sequence at a valid transition selected according to the state of completion of the control instructions, thereby increasing the responsiveness while avoiding errors caused by modifying an active control instruction.
Further, ‘910’s combined system does not specifically disclose modifying the one or more instructions of the managing application to re-allocate the one or more frac units in real time, wherein the re-allocating comprises identifying a sequence of spare equipment to allocate for exception steps associated with the pumping sequence.
‘894 discloses identifying a priority sequence of standby pumps and automatically starting the next standby pump in the priority sequence when an operating pump or a prior standby pump fails (e.g., See ‘894; [0044] and [0065]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teachings of ‘894 into ‘910’s combined system so that, when a pump fails, the control center automatically allocates the next standby pump in the sequence, thereby maintaining continuous pumping, minimizing process fluctuations, and reducing manual intervention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7, 10-11, 34-36 and 39-40 are 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.
As per claim 6, the prior art of record fails to teach or adequately suggest modifying the control instructions based on a fracture growth rate determined from strain changes in a fiber optic cable along the wellbore during fracturing, in combination with the other claimed features and/or limitations as claimed.
As per claim 7, the prior art of record fails to teach or adequately suggest identification of the fracturing units using RFID tags, GPS trackers, IoT devices, edge devices, bar code scanning, or manual equipment entry in combination with the recited pumping sequence and fracturing unit components, in combination with the other claimed features and/or limitations as claimed.
As per claim 10, the prior art of record fails to teach or adequately suggest dual fuel powered fracturing pumps in combination with using DAS data generated by a fiber optic cable proximate perforation cluster to determine the current state of the pumping stage relative to a pumping sequence target, in combination with the other claimed features and/or limitations as claimed.
As per claim 11, the prior art of record fails to teach or adequately suggest modifying the control instructions based on a comparison of a measured fracture length to a modeled fracture length, wherein the measured fracture length is determined from DAS based micro seismic monitoring data, in combination with electrically powered fracturing pumps, in combination with the other claimed features and/or limitations as claimed.
As per claim 34, the prior art of record fails to teach or adequately suggest detecting a mismatch between actual and expected equipment output and based on the mismatch, and altering one or more unit level scripts linked to the stage script, in combination with the other claimed features and/or limitations as claimed.
As per claim 35, the prior art of record fails to teach or adequately suggest executing an exception script to modify stage targets and returning to the initiation block of an automated substage routine after determining that each modified stage target is within a corresponding range, in combination with the other claimed features and/or limitations as claimed.
As per claim 36, the prior art of record fails to teach or adequately suggest coordinated response to loss of a fracturing [pump, activating sequence identified spare equipment, shutting down the lost pump, and distributing fracturing fluid among the remining fracturing pumps, in combination with the other claimed features and/or limitations as claimed.
As per claim 39, the prior art of record fails to teach or adequately suggest that during the modification, re-allocating fracturing units according to a sequence of spare equipment to allocate for exception steps, in combination with the other claimed features and/or limitations as claimed.
As per claim 40, the prior art of record fails to teach or adequately suggest a pumping sequence target that fails is a modeled frac fluid rate or composition within stage script, in combination with the other claimed features and/or limitations as claimed.
References Considered but Not Relied Upon
The following references were considered but were not relied upon with respect to any prior art rejections:
(1) US 10,961,835 B2, which discloses controlling the flow rates of multiple frac pumps using a master controller that changes targets based on measured wellbore parameters;
(2) US 10,815,764 B2, which discloses operating a frac pump fleet by calculating required horsepower and automatically distributing work and start/stop commands among the pumps;
(3) US 9,970,287 B2, which discloses a central control unit that monitors sensors on an electric frac fleet and issues commands to coordinate pumping operations from one central location;
(4) US 11,939,854 B2, which discloses a controller that monitors a rate of pressure increase to detect a likely screen-out condition and which automatically changes pumping behavior to mitigate it; and
(5) US 11,473,413 B2, which discloses a power-output controller that uses sensor signals and job parameters to autonomously adjust multiple frac units in order to reduce manual intervention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONALD D HARTMAN JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3684. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 - 4:30 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, Mohammad Ali can be reached at (571) 272-4105. 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.
/RONALD D HARTMAN JR/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119 July 17, 2026
/RDH/
Prosecution Insights