DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Claims 1-22 are pending.
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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function of the connecting means of claim 1, and equivalents thereof, includes
(a) the disclosures of paragraphs [0044] – [0052], which includes, e.g., “3(a)”, which includes any “hydraulic type connector” actuated by remote control (paragraph [0046]), which includes, but is not limited to, such a connector having the “deformable slip” (paragraph [0047]);
(b) the suction flow component 340a and the discharge flow component 340b (and the figures and text associated therewith) of US20220098964 [Johnson964], both of which are part of the present application disclosure in that Johnson964 has been incorporated by 12breference into the present application disclosure (paragraph [0012]); and/or
(c) the connectors 106 and 302 (and the figures and text associated therewith) of US20200386359 [Johnson359], all of which are part of the present application disclosure in that Johnson359 has been incorporated by reference into Johnson964 (Johnson964 paragraph [0032]).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “support structure” in claim 15 and “hoisting system” in claim 15. The corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof, is identified as (15) and (16), Figs. 8-10, and application paragraphs [0059]-[0063] for the support structure. See the related Section 112(a) rejection with respect to the hoisting system.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 hydraulic piston and deformable slip (claims 13 and 22), the “hoisting system” (claim 15), and the slidable support structure, which allows lateral or longitudinal movements with respect to the axial axis of the truck, and associated rails and bearings (claims 19 and 20), must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). See the related Section 112(a) rejection. 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.
The drawings are objected to because the arrowed line from SUCTION MISSILE 1’ to “ZIPPER MANIFOLD” should extend from DISCHARGE MISSILE 1” (Fig. 1). 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 Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “discharge pin” should be “connection pin”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 13-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 13 Nothing in the specification nor drawings provides the required description of the “deformable slip” and the “hydraulic piston”. Claims 14-21 depend from claim 13. Claims 14-21 depend from claim 13.
Claim 19 Nothing in the specification nor drawings provides the required description of the slidable support structure, configured to perform lateral or longitudinal movements relative to the axial axis of the truck. Claims 20 and 21 depend from claim 19.
Claim 20 Nothing in the specification nor drawings provides the required description of the slidable structure’s bearings mounted on rails secured on the structure of the truck chassis. Claim 21 depends from claim 20
Claim 22 Nothing in the specification nor drawings provides the required description of the “deformable slip”.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
NOTE: Drawing reference numbers in the claims are ignored for purposes of antecedent basis and inter-claim association of recited elements. Appropriate textual words are required for such purposes and some of the following rejections stem from that requirement. The examiner has included italicized text which provides clarification and might prospectively be used by the applicant.
Claim 1 This claim is confusing in that, absent drawing reference numerals, the same phrase is used for both the discharge associated automatic connector and the suction associated automatic connector. See the italicized text in the Section 102 rejection herein. Claims 2-22 depend from claim 1.
Claim 1 As discussed with respect to Section 112(f) above, this claim has invoked Section 112(f) as to the recited connector means but the specification is unbounded with regard to corresponding structure, in that Johnson359 (incorporated by reference into the present application, as discussed above) states that “Other connector configurations are possible, and contemplated herein.” This is an unbounded limitation, thus the corresponding structure for the recited connection means in this claim is not duly limited as required when Section 112(f) is invoked. Claims 2-22 depend from claim 1.
Claim 3 There is insufficient antecedent basis in the claim for “said fracturing pump”, in that this claim depends from claim 1 which recites “at least one fracturing pump” and no one of such at least one fracturing pumps has been recited/identified, as such. Claims 4-7 depend from claim 3.
Claim 4 This claim recites “fracturing pump” and depends from claim 1 which recites “at least one fracturing pump”, making it unclear whether a fracturing pump in addition to the “at least one fracturing pump” is required. See the italicized text in the Section 102 rejection herein. Claims 5-7 depend from claim 4.
Claim 4 This claim recites “a priming duct” and depends from claim 3 which recites “a priming duct”, making it unclear whether the priming duct in each claim is the same or different. See the italicized text in the Section 102 rejection herein. Claims 5-7 depend from claim 4.
Claim 6 This claim recites “missile” and depends from claim 1 which recites “a missile”, making it unclear whether an additional missile is required. See the italicized text in the Section 102 rejection herein. Claim 7 depends from claim 6.
Claim 7 This claim recites “a plurality of actuated valves” and depends from claim 6 which recites “a plurality of valves”, making it unclear whether an additional plurality of valves is required. See the italicized text in the Section 102 rejection herein.
Claim 11 This claim recites “a suction missile” and “a discharge missile” and depends from claim 1 which recites “a missile”, making it unclear whether one or more additional missiles are required. See the italicized text in the Section 103 rejection herein. Claim 12 depends from claim 11.
Claim 15 Section 112(f) has been invoked for the recited “hoisting system”. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function. No discussion is present in the specification, beyond a cursory reference, and the drawings do not depict any related structure that discloses the manner in which information is transmitted, nor the destination of the transmission. Claims 16-21 depend from claim 15.
Claim 15 Use of pronouns, e.g. “it,” “its,” etc. render the claim indefinite in that it is unclear to which noun or other term the pronoun refers. Claims 16-21 depend from claim 15.
Claim 15 There is insufficient antecedent basis in the claim for “the truck chassis”. Claims 16-21 depend from claim 15.
Claim 16 There is insufficient antecedent basis in the claim for “the truck chassis”. Claims 17-21 depend from claim 16.
Claim 18 This claim is confusing in that, at least one automatic connector is recited in claim 1 for each of the high-pressure line and the low-pressure line, making it unclear whether “the automatic connectors” refers to one of each or a plurality of only the high (or low) pressure line connectors. Claims 19-21 depend from claim 18.
Claim 22 There is insufficient antecedent basis in the claim for “the deformable slip”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Johnson et al. (US20220098964) [Johnson964].
NOTE: As discussed above regarding Section 112(f), Johnson et al. (US20200386359) [Johnson359] has been incorporated by reference into Johnson964 and is thereby included within the Johnson964 disclosure.
NOTE: The drawing reference numbers in the claims do not change the scope of the claims (MPEP § 608.01(m)), thus they are not set forth herein.
Claim 1 Johnson964 discloses a hot-swap system [Johnson964 100,155 (Figs. 1A,1B; title; abstract para. 0034,0036,0041-0044); Johnson359 1 (Figs. 1,2; para. 0014,0039)], comprising:
a missile [Johnson964 125,130 (Figs. 1A,1B, para. 0032-0035); Johnson359 220,7 (Figs. 1,2, para. 0014,0021)] comprising a high-pressure line [Johnson964 160b (Fig. 1B; para. 0034-0036); Johnson359 12b (Fig. 2; para. 0018,0020)] with at least one first connection pin [Johnson964 inserts 275a into connector 340b to make the connection (Johnson964 Figs. 2A-5C; para. 0049,0052); Johnson359 stabs 12b into the connector 106 to make the connection (Johnson359 Fig. 2; para. 0020,0022), the inserted portions thus constituting pins] and a low-pressure line [Johnson964 160a (Fig. 2; para. 0034-0036); Johnson359 12a (Fig. 2; para. 0018,0020)] with at least one second connection pin [Johnson964 inserts 270 into connector 340a to make the connection (Johnson964 Figs. 2A-5C; para. 0049,0052,0057,0058); Johnson359 stabs 12a into the connector 106 to make the connection (Johnson359 Fig. 2; para. 0020,0022); the inserted portions thus constituting pins],
at least one fracturing pump [Johnson964 180; Johnson359 5], said fracturing pump being connected in fluid communication to said high-pressure line by means of at least one first automatic connector [Johnson964 inserts 275a into connector 340b to make the connection (Johnson964 Figs. 2A-5C; para. 0052); Johnson359 stabs 12b into the connector 106 to make the connection (Johnson359 Figs. 2,7; para. 0020,0022,0025,0030,0033)] and to said low-pressure line by means of at least one second automatic connector, and [Johnson964 inserts 270 into connector 340a to make the connection (Johnson964 Figs. 2A-5C; para. 0049,0052); Johnson359 stabs 12a (and line 312 for the Fig. 3A embodiment) into the connector 106,302 to make the connection (Johnson359 Fig. 2; para. 0020,0022,0025,0030,0033)],
wherein said at least one first automatic connector is configured to be connected to said at least one first respective connection pin, and said at least one second automatic connector is configured to be connected to said at least one second respective connection pin [as discussed in the foregoing].
Claim 2 Johnson964, as discussed with respect to claim 1, discloses that said at least one fracturing pump is connected in fluid communication to said high-pressure line by means of at least one first automatic connector present in a discharge duct [Johnson964 185b (Fig. 2A,2B; para. 0035); Johnson359 12b (i.e., the portion adjacent the 12b portion “stabbed” into the connector 106, as discussed at claim 1 herein; Fig. 2)], and to said low-pressure line by means of at least one second automatic connector present in a suction duct [Johnson964 185a (Fig. 2A,2B; para. 0035); Johnson359 12a (i.e., the portion adjacent the 12a portion “stabbed” into the connector 106, as discussed at claim 1 herein; Fig. 2)].
Claim 3 Johnson964, as discussed with respect to claim 1, discloses that said at least one fracturing pump is additionally connected to a priming tank [Johnson964 190 (Fig. 2; para. 0036)] by means of a first priming duct [Johnson964 195b (Fig. 1B; para. 0036], where said priming tank is in fluid communication with a priming pump [Johnson964 200 (Fig. 1B; para. 200)].
Claim 4 Johnson964, as discussed with respect to claim 3, discloses that said priming pump is connected in fluid communication to said at least one fracturing pump through a second priming duct [Johnson964 195a (Fig. 1B; para. 0036)].
Claim 5 Johnson964, as discussed with respect to claim 4, discloses that said first and second priming ducts comprise a first plurality of priming valves [Johnson964 215a,215b (Fig. 1B; para. 0036)] and a second plurality of priming valves [Johnson964 210 and a “check valve” (Fig. 1B; para. 0036)] , respectively.
Claim 6 Johnson964, as discussed with respect to claim 5, discloses that said high-pressure line of the missile comprises a first plurality of actuated valves [Johnson964 170a,170b (Fig. 1B; para. 0034,0036)], and said low-pressure line of the missile comprises a second plurality of actuated valves [Johnson964 165 and a check valve (Fig. 1B; para. 0034)].
Claim 7 Johnson964, as discussed with respect to claim 5, discloses that said first plurality of priming valves, first plurality of actuated valves, second plurality of priming valves, and second plurality of actuated valves comprise operating valves and bleed valves [Johnson964 e.g., at least 210, 215a,b being bleed valves, check valves operating to control flow direction (para. 0034,0036)].
Claim 8 Johnson964, as discussed with respect to claim 1, discloses that the hot-swap system further comprises a hydraulic power unit [Johnson964 necessarily provided for at least powering the hydraulic piston 400 of the linear actuator 375a,b (Figs. 5A-6C; para. 0053-0055); Johnson359 necessarily provided for at least the hydraulically actuated connector 302 (para. 0025,0036)] in communication with a remote control and actuation unit [Johnson964 220 (Figs. 1B,10; para. 0053,0040); Johnson359 51 (Figs. 9, para. 0018,0019,0014,0017)].
Claim 9 Johnson964, as discussed with respect to claim 8, discloses that said at least one first automatic connector and said at least one second automatic connector are actuated by the hydraulic power unit in communication with a control and actuation unit [Johnson359 e.g., 106,302 (para. 0018,0019)].
Claim 10 Johnson964, as discussed with respect to claim 1, discloses that the fracturing pump is installed on a pump truck [Johnson964 140ba (Fig. 1B, para. 0032); Johnson359 8 (Fig. 2; para. 0016)].
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson964.
Claim 11 Johnson964, as discussed with respect to claim 1, discloses that the missile comprises a suction missile [Johnson964 125 (Figs. 1A,1B, para. 0032,0034); Johnson359 e.g., the “low side” of 220,7 (para. 0017-0021)] and a discharge missile [Johnson964 130 (Figs. 1A,1B, para. 0032,0034); Johnson359 e.g., the “high side” of 220,7 (para. 0017-0021)], and otherwise discloses all the limitations of this claim, but does not explicitly disclose that said at least one first connection pin is present on the suction missile and said at least one discharge pin is present on the discharge missile [Johnson964 and Johnson359 discloses the reverse of such positionings, i.e., the pins are “on” the fracturing pump side of the connectors, as discussed at claim 1 herein].
Nonetheless it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have reversed such positionings, e.g., the pins were on the missile side, i.e., said at least one first connection pin is present on the suction missile and said at least one discharge pin is present on the discharge missile, since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson964, in view of McGowan (US20120255957).
Claim 12 Johnson964, as modified with respect to claim 11, otherwise discloses all the limitations of this claim, but does not explicitly disclose that the hydraulic power unit is installed on the pump truck.
For operations such as fracturing operations, McGowen discloses placing a hydraulic power unit on a truck [para. 0034].
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the apparatus and methods of Johnson964, as modified, to position the hydraulic power unit on the truck with the pump. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected that this combination of prior art elements and techniques would have been within the skill of the art and would successfully yield and achieve the expected and predictable result that less of an areal, site footprint would be used by pump and hydraulic power unit transportation vehicles.
Claims 13, 14, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson964, in view of Mohr (US3784234)
Claim 13 Johnson964, as discussed with respect to claim 1, discloses that the automatic connector that each of the at least one first automatic connector and the at least one second automatic connector, comprises a main body [Johnson964 e.g., at least the housing structure for each of 340b and 340a, respectively (Fig. 5A, para. 0052,0057,0058); Johnson359 at least 304 (Figs. 3A,3B, para. 0025)] with a securing end [Johnson964 e.g., rearward portions of each of 340b and 340a (Figs. 5B,5C, para. 0052,0057,0058); Johnson359 e.g., at least the side secured to line 310 (Figs. 3A,3B,5, para. 0330] and a connection end [Johnson964 e.g., frontward portions of each of 340b and 340a (Figs. 5B,5C, para. 0052,0057,0058); Johnson359 e.g., at least the side receiving the stabbed line 312 (Figs. 3A,3B,5, para. 00330], and further discloses that the use of hydraulic first and second automatic connectors [Johnson359 (para. 0025,0036)], and otherwise discloses all the limitations of this claim, but does not explicitly disclose said main body being configured to house a hydraulic piston and a deformable slip.
For connecting to an insertable member 12, Mohr discloses a connector [abstract], which, when hydraulically actuated uses a piston 23,24 to deform seals 18 against the insertable member, thus completing the connection [Figs. 1,2; col. 3, lines 17-23, col. 3, lines 40-61].
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the apparatus and methods of Johnson964 to utilize first and second automatic connectors having a connecting configuration including a hydraulic piston and deformable slip for the Johnson359 hydraulic connectors and the Johnson964 connectors (configured for hydraulic operation), such a hydraulic piston and deformable slip being disclosed by Mohr. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected that this combination of prior art elements and techniques would have been within the skill of the art and would successfully yield and achieve the expected and predictable result that the inserted pins (discussed at claim 1 herein) would be properly secured using hydraulics already on site.
Claim 14 Johnson964, as modified with respect to claim 13, discloses that said connection ends each comprises a guide collar [Johnson964 e.g., adjacent the front side of each of 340b and 340a (Fig. 5A, para. 0052,0057,0058); Johnson359 110,602 (Figs. 2,7, para. 0020,0033)] for aligning and connecting each of the at least one first automatic connector and the at least one second automatic connector to the respective connection pins [as discussed at claim 1 herein].
Claim 22 Johnson964, as discussed with respect to claim 1, discloses that the at least one first connection pin and the at least one second connection pin each comprise a main body [Johnson964 e.g., as to the first connection pin, the portion of 275a proximate the adapter body 235 (Fig. 3, para. 0048,0049); Johnson359 e.g., as to the first connection pin, the portion of 12b between the stabbed portion and the discharge duct (as discussed at claim 2 herein) (Fig. 2); Johnson964 e.g., as to the second connection pin, the portion of 270 proximate the adapter body 235 (Fig. 3, para. 0048,0049); Johnson359 e.g., as to the second connection pin, the portion of 12a between the stabbed portion and the suction duct (as discussed at claim 2 herein) (Fig. 2)] and a connection end with a profile configured to engage the deformable slip of the respective automatic connector [Johnson964 e.g., as to the first connection pin, the portion proximate the distal end of 275a showing the profile necessarily provided for Johnson964’s disclosed engagement with 340b (Figs. 3,5A); Johnson359, e.g., as to the first connection pin, the portion of 12b proximate the distal end, necessarily having a profile providing Johnson359’s disclosed engagement with 106 on the high side, (Fig. 2); Johnson964 e.g., as to the second connection pin, the portion proximate the distal end of 270 showing the profile necessarily provided for Johnson964’s disclosed engagement with 340a (Figs. 3,5A); Johnson359, e.g., as to the second connection pin, the portion of 12a proximate the distal end, necessarily having a profile providing Johnson359’s disclosed engagement with 106 on the low side, (Fig. 2)], and further discloses that the use of hydraulic first and second automatic connectors [Johnson359 (para. 0025,0036)], and otherwise discloses all the limitations of this claim, but does not explicitly disclose that the engaging profile is with a deformable slip of the respective automatic connector.
For connecting to an insertable member 12, Mohr discloses a connector [abstract], which, when hydraulically actuated uses a piston 23,24 to deform seals 18 against the insertable member, thus completing the connection [Figs. 1,2; col. 3, lines 17-23, col. 3, lines 40-61].
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the apparatus and methods of Johnson964 to utilize first and second automatic connectors having a connecting configuration including a hydraulic piston and deformable slip for the Johnson359 hydraulic connectors and the Johnson964 connectors (configured for hydraulic operation), such a hydraulic piston and deformable slip being disclosed by Mohr. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected that this combination of prior art elements and techniques would have been within the skill of the art and would successfully yield and achieve the expected and predictable result that the inserted pins (discussed at claim 1 herein) would be properly secured using hydraulics already on site.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Duncan et al. (US20250116181) discloses swapping fracture pumps using a hydraulically powered connector 101 [Figs. 1-3; para. 0048,0028,0029]. For connecting to an insertable member 9, Arnold (US3598429) discloses a connector 1, which, when hydraulically actuated uses a piston 30,31 to deform seals 22,23 against the insertable member, thus completing the connection [Figs. 1,2].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE STERLING GRAY whose telephone number is (313)446-4820. The examiner can normally be reached 7-4 Eastern - M-F.
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.
/GEORGE S GRAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights