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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 10 August 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-6, 8-17 and 19-36 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 12 May 2026.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-6, 8-17 and 19-36 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 21 recite the limitation “after bringing the first fracturing pump off line for maintenance and/or repair, initiating operation of either the first fracturing pump or a third fracturing pump with which the first fracturing pump has been replaced; wherein the operation of either the first fracturing pump or the third fracturing pump draws fluid from the suction manifold and discharges pressurized fluid to the discharge manifold”. This limitation is unclear because it is unclear how after the first fracturing pump is brought off line, operation to draw fluid from the suction manifold and discharge pressurized fluid to the discharge manifold is initiated, since the operation of drawing fluid from the suction manifold and discharging pressurized fluid to the discharge manifold is the operation of the fracturing pumps being on line (in use). Therefore, this limitation is unclear.
Claims 1 and 21 recite the limitation “communicating hydraulic fracturing fluid between the suction manifold and the inlet of either the first fracturing pump or the third fracturing pump via a first valve; and communicating the hydraulic fracturing fluid between an outlet of either the first fracturing pump or the third fracturing pump and the discharge manifold via a second valve” in lines 30-36. This limitation is unclear because it is unclear if the hydraulic fracturing fluid is the same as or different from the fluid and pressurized fluid from Claim 1, lines 3-4 (or Claim 21, lines 7-8). For purposes of examination the hydraulic fracturing fluid will be interpreted as being the same as the fluid and pressurized fluid from earlier in the Claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “an outlet of the first fracturing pump” in line 3. This limitation is unclear because it is unclear if this is the same outlet from Claim 1, line 34 or a different outlet. For purposes of examination, they will be interpreted as being the same.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “an inlet of the first fracturing pump” in line 4. This limitation is unclear because it is unclear if this is the same inlet from Claim 1, line 25 or a different inlet. For purposes of examination, they will be interpreted as being the same.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “an outlet of the first fracturing pump” in line 6. This limitation is unclear because it is unclear if this is the same outlet from Claim 1, line 34 or a different outlet. For purposes of examination, they will be interpreted as being the same.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “an outlet of the third fracturing pump” in line 4. This limitation is unclear because it is unclear if this is the same outlet from Claim 1, line 34 or a different outlet. For purposes of examination, they will be interpreted as being the same.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “an inlet of the first fracturing pump” in line 6. This limitation is unclear because it is unclear if this is the same inlet from Claim 1, line 25 or a different inlet. For purposes of examination, they will be interpreted as being the same.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “an inlet of the third fracturing pump” in line 4. This limitation is unclear because it is unclear if this is the same inlet from Claim 1, line 25 or a different inlet. For purposes of examination, they will be interpreted as being the same
Claim 27 recites the limitation “an outlet of the first fracturing pump” in line 3. This limitation is unclear because it is unclear if this is the same outlet from Claim 21, line 43 or a different outlet. For purposes of examination, they will be interpreted as being the same.
Claim 29 recites the limitation “an inlet of the first fracturing pump” in line 4. This limitation is unclear because it is unclear if this is the same inlet from Claim 21, line 32 or a different inlet. For purposes of examination, they will be interpreted as being the same.
Claim 33 recites the limitation “the hydraulic fracturing fluid” in line 1. This limitation is unclear because it is unclear if the hydraulic fracturing fluid is the same as or different from the fluid and pressurized fluid from Claim 21, lines 38-42. For purposes of examination the hydraulic fracturing fluid will be interpreted as being the same as the fluid and pressurized fluid.
Claim 34 recites the limitation “the hydraulic fracturing fluid” in line 1. This limitation is unclear because it is unclear if the hydraulic fracturing fluid is the same as or different from the fluid and pressurized fluid from Claim 1, lines 3-4. For purposes of examination the hydraulic fracturing fluid will be interpreted as being the same as the fluid and pressurized fluid.
Claim 36 recites the limitation “the hydraulic fracturing fluid” in line 1. This limitation is unclear because it is unclear if the hydraulic fracturing fluid is the same as or different from the fluid and pressurized fluid from Claim 1, lines 3-4. For purposes of examination the hydraulic fracturing fluid will be interpreted as being the same as the fluid and pressurized fluid.
Claims not specifically referenced are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 20-25, 27-31, 33-34 and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coli et al (US 20150314255) in view of Lopez et al (US 20140277772).
Regarding Claim 1, Coli et al disclose a method (¶ 77). The method comprising:
operating a first fracturing pump (22 within each of the modules of 20 in Figure 3),
wherein operating the first fracturing pump draws fluid from a suction manifold and discharges pressurized fluid to a discharge manifold (¶ 77 discloses connecting each module to low pressure suctions and high pressure discharges of a manifold system);
during operating the first fracturing pump (¶ 77 discloses where fracturing module 20 can be removed from service and replaced without shutting down or compromising the fractioning spread during replacement of a module 20),
operating a second fracturing pump (another of modules 20 of Figure 3),
wherein operating the second fracturing pump (another of modules 20 of Figure 3) discharges pressurized fluid to the discharge manifold (¶ 77 discloses connecting each module to low pressure suctions and high pressure discharges of a manifold system);
during operating the second fracturing pump (another of modules 20 of Figure 3), bringing the first fracturing pump off line for maintenance and/or repair (¶ 77 discloses removing and replacing a module 20 via a forklift; where fracturing module 20 can be removed from service and replaced without shutting down or compromising the fractioning spread during replacement of a module 20),
wherein the second fracturing pump is continuously operated before, during, and after the step of bringing the first fracturing pump off line for maintenance and/or repair (¶ 77 discloses where fracturing module 20 can be removed from service and replaced without shutting down or compromising the fractioning spread during replacement of a module 20); and
after bringing the first fracturing pump off line for maintenance and/or repair, initiating operation of either the first fracturing pump or a third fracturing pump with which the first fracturing pump has been replaced (¶ 77 by either reinserting the same repaired pump or another (ie third) pump module);
wherein the operation of either the first fracturing pump or the third fracturing pump draws fluid from the suction manifold and discharges pressurized fluid to the discharge manifold (¶ 77 discloses connecting each module to low pressure suctions and high pressure discharges of a manifold system),
wherein initiating the operation of either the first fracturing pump or the third fracturing pump comprises:
pressurizing either the first fracturing pump or the third fracturing pump by at least communicating fluid between a fluid source and an inlet of either the first fracturing pump or the third fracturing pump (¶ 77 discloses connecting each module to low pressure suctions and high pressure discharges of a manifold system; of the fluid from the suction manifold system); and
after pressurizing either the first fracturing pump or the third fracturing pump, bringing either the first fracturing pump or the third fracturing pump on line (by discharging to the discharge manifold; ¶ 77) by at least:
communicating hydraulic fracturing fluid between the suction manifold and the inlet of either the first fracturing pump or the third fracturing pump (¶ 77); and
communicating the hydraulic fracturing fluid between an outlet of either the first fracturing pump or the third fracturing pump and the discharge manifold (¶ 77); and
wherein the second fracturing pump is continuously operated before, during, and after the steps of: pressurizing either the first fracturing pump or the third fracturing pump: and bringing either the first fracturing pump or the third fracturing pump on line (¶ 77 discloses where fracturing module 20 can be removed from service and replaced without shutting down or compromising the fractioning spread during replacement of a module 20),
but fails to expressly disclose communicating hydraulic fracturing fluid between the suction manifold and the inlet of either the first fracturing pump or the third fracturing pump via a first valve, communicating the hydraulic fracturing fluid between an outlet of either the first fracturing pump or the third fracturing pump and the discharge manifold via a second valve.
Lopez et al teach a fracturing pump system (Figure 3) communicating hydraulic fracturing fluid between the suction manifold and the inlet of either the first fracturing pump or the third fracturing pump via a first valve (¶ 40; Figures 1-2; with the low pressure manifold being the suction manifold and connected via valve 54) and communicating the hydraulic fracturing fluid between an outlet of either the first fracturing pump or the third fracturing pump and the discharge manifold via a second valve (¶ 42; Figures 1-2; with the second valve 72 of the connection 58).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Coli et al with the first and second valves as taught by Lopez et al for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (providing a valve of Lopez et al as an isolation device of the system of Coli et al) to yield predictable results (to isolate the suction and discharge manifolds from the fracturing pump).
Regarding Claim 3, Coli et al, as modified by Lopez et al teach where bringing the first fracturing pump off line for maintenance and/or repair comprises closing the second valve (taught by Lopez et al at 72) to discontinue fluid communication between an outlet of the first fracturing pump and the discharge manifold (wherein the pump is isolated from the fluid lines, unplugged, un-pinned and removed by a forklift (¶ 77)).
Regarding Claim 4, Coli et al disclose all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly disclose wherein bringing the first fracturing pump off line for maintenance and/or repair further comprises opening a third valve to bleed off residual pressure from the outlet of the first fracturing pump.
Lopez et al teach a fracturing pump system (Figure 3) with a third valve (64) wherein bringing the first fracturing pump off line for maintenance and/or repair further comprises opening a third valve to bleed off residual pressure from the outlet of the first fracturing pump (¶ 42 to bleed pressure at the connection 58 as shown in Figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Coli et al with the bleed off valve as taught by Lopez et al for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (providing a valve of Lopez et al as an bleed device of Coli et al) to yield predictable results (to bleed high pressure fluid via the discharge manifold from the fracturing pump).
Regarding Claim 5, Coli et al as modified by Lopez et al teach wherein bringing the first fracturing pump off line for maintenance and/or repair further comprises closing the first valve (Lopez et al: ¶ 40; Figures 1-2; with the low pressure manifold being the suction manifold and connected via first valve 54) to discontinue fluid communication between the suction manifold and an inlet of the first hydraulic fracturing pump (wherein the pump is isolated from the fluid lines, unplugged, un-pinned and removed by a forklift (¶ 77)).
Regarding Claim 6, Coli et al disclose all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly disclose wherein bringing the first fracturing pump off line for maintenance and/or repair further comprises opening a third valve to bleed off residual pressure from the inlet of the first fracturing pump.
Lopez et al teach a fracturing pump system (Figure 3) with a second valve (64) wherein bringing the first fracturing pump off line for maintenance and/or repair further comprises opening a second valve to bleed off residual pressure from the outlet of the first fracturing pump (¶ 42 to bleed pressure at the connection 58 as shown in Figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Coli et al with the valve as taught by Lopez et al for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (providing a valve of Lopez et al as an bleed device of Coli et al) to yield predictable results (to bleed high pressure fluid via the discharge manifold from the fracturing pump).
Therefore, since Lopez et al teach a bleed valve at the outlet of the fracturing pump at the discharge manifold, providing a bleed valve at the inlet of the fracturing pump at the suction manifold would involve duplicating the bleed valve of the outlet at the inlet.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bleed valve to include a bleed valve at the inlet since a mere duplication of essential working part of device involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to provide for an ability to bleed pressure at both the inlet and outlet of the fracturing pump.
Regarding Claim 20, Coli et al disclose wherein operating the second fracturing pump draws fluid from the suction manifold (via the low pressure suctions of ¶ 77).
Regarding Claim 21, Coli et al disclose a system (Figure 3). The system comprising:
a control system (¶ 65) and a method (¶ 77), the method comprising:
operating a first fracturing pump (22 within each of the modules of 20 in Figure 3),
wherein operating the first fracturing pump draws fluid from a suction manifold and discharges pressurized fluid to a discharge manifold (¶ 77 discloses connecting each module to low pressure suctions and high pressure discharges of a manifold system);
during operating the first fracturing pump (¶ 77 discloses where fracturing module 20 can be removed from service and replaced without shutting down or compromising the fractioning spread during replacement of a module 20),
operating a second fracturing pump (another of modules 20 of Figure 3),
wherein operating the second fracturing pump (another of modules 20 of Figure 3) discharges pressurized fluid to the discharge manifold (¶ 77 discloses connecting each module to low pressure suctions and high pressure discharges of a manifold system);
during operating the second fracturing pump (another of modules 20 of Figure 3),
bringing the first fracturing pump off line for maintenance and/or repair (¶ 77 discloses removing and replacing a module 20 via a forklift; where fracturing module 20 can be removed from service and replaced without shutting down or compromising the fractioning spread during replacement of a module 20),
wherein the second fracturing pump is continuously operated before, during, and after the step of bringing the first fracturing pump off line for maintenance and/or repair (¶ 77 discloses where fracturing module 20 can be removed from service and replaced without shutting down or compromising the fractioning spread during replacement of a module 20), and
after bringing the first fracturing pump off line for maintenance and/or repair, initiating operation of either the first fracturing pump or a third fracturing pump with which the first fracturing pump has been replaced (¶ 77 by either reinserting the same repaired pump or another (ie third) pump module);
wherein the operation of either the first fracturing pump or the third fracturing pump draws fluid from the suction manifold and discharges pressurized fluid to the discharge manifold (¶ 77 discloses connecting each module to low pressure suctions and high pressure discharges of a manifold system),
wherein initiating the operation of either the first fracturing pump or the third fracturing pump comprises:
pressurizing either the first fracturing pump or the third fracturing pump by at least communicating fluid between a fluid source and an inlet of either the first fracturing pump or the third fracturing pump (¶ 77 discloses connecting each module to low pressure suctions and high pressure discharges of a manifold system; of the fluid from the suction manifold system); and
after pressurizing either the first fracturing pump or the third fracturing pump, bringing either the first fracturing pump or the third fracturing pump on line (by discharging to the discharge manifold; ¶ 77) by at least:
communicating hydraulic fracturing fluid between the suction manifold and the inlet of either the first fracturing pump or the third fracturing pump (¶ 77); and
communicating the hydraulic fracturing fluid between an outlet of either the first fracturing pump or the third fracturing pump and the discharge manifold (¶ 77); and
wherein the second fracturing pump is continuously operated before, during, and after the steps of: pressurizing either the first fracturing pump or the third fracturing pump: and bringing either the first fracturing pump or the third fracturing pump on line (¶ 77 discloses where fracturing module 20 can be removed from service and replaced without shutting down or compromising the fractioning spread during replacement of a module 20),
but fails to expressly disclose a non-transitory storage media; and
instructions contained by the non-transitory storage media;
wherein the instructions contained by the non-transitory storage media cause one or more processors to perform a method; and
communicating hydraulic fracturing fluid between the suction manifold and the inlet of either the first fracturing pump or the third fracturing pump via a first valve, communicating the hydraulic fracturing fluid between an outlet of either the first fracturing pump or the third fracturing pump and the discharge manifold via a second valve.
Lopez et al teach a fracturing pump system with a control system (¶ 8) and a non-transitory storage media (¶ 8);
and instructions contained by the non-transitory storage media (the executable code of ¶ 8);
wherein the instructions contained by the non-transitory storage media cause one or more processors to perform a method (¶ 8), and
communicating hydraulic fracturing fluid between the suction manifold and the inlet of either the first fracturing pump or the third fracturing pump via a first valve (¶ 40; Figures 1-2; with the low pressure manifold being the suction manifold and connected via valve 54) and communicating the hydraulic fracturing fluid between an outlet of either the first fracturing pump or the third fracturing pump and the discharge manifold via a second valve (¶ 42; Figures 1-2; with the second valve 72 of the connection 58).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Coli et al with the control system as taught by Lopez et al for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (the processor, instructions and non-transitory storage media of Lopez et al with the system of Coli et al) to yield predictable results (to control the method of Coli et al).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Coli et al with the first and second valves as taught by Lopez et al for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (providing a valve of Lopez et al as an isolation device of the system of Coli et al) to yield predictable results (to isolate the suction and discharge manifolds from the fracturing pump).
Regarding Claim 22, Lopez et al teach a controller (¶ 53),
the controller comprising: the non-transitory storage media (¶ 8);
the instructions contained by the non-transitory storage media (¶ 8);
and the one or more processors (¶ 53).
Regarding Claim 23, Lopez et al teach a controller (¶ 53),
the controller comprising one or more of the following:
at least a portion of the non-transitory storage media (¶ 8);
at least a portion of the instructions contained by the at least a portion of the non-transitory storage media (¶ 8);
and at least one of the one or more processors (¶ 53).
Regarding Claim 24, Lopez et al teach a controller (¶ 53),
the controller comprising two or more of the following:
at least a portion of the non-transitory storage media (¶ 8);
at least a portion of the instructions contained by the at least a portion of the non-transitory storage media (¶ 8);
and at least one of the one or more processors (¶ 53).
Regarding Claim 25, Lopez et al teach a controller (¶ 53),
the controller comprising:
at least a portion of the non-transitory storage media (¶ 8);
at least a portion of the instructions contained by the at least a portion of the non-transitory storage media (¶ 8);
and at least one of the one or more processors (¶ 53).
Regarding Claim 27, Coli et al disclose where bringing the first fracturing pump off line for maintenance and/or repair comprises wherein the pump is isolated from the fluid lines, unplugged, un-pinned and removed by a forklift (¶ 77) but fails to expressly disclose the second valve to discontinue fluid communication between an outlet of the first fracturing pump and the discharge manifold.
Lopez et al teach a fracturing pump system (Figure 3) with the second valve (72 of connection 58) to discontinue fluid communication between an outlet of the first fracturing pump (to high pressure manifold 40; Figures 1 and 3) and the discharge manifold (40; Figures 1 and 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Coli et al with the valve as taught by Lopez et al for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (providing a valve of Lopez et al as an isolation device of Coli et al) to yield predictable results (to isolate the discharge manifold from the fracturing pump).
Regarding Claim 28, Coli et al disclose all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly disclose wherein bringing the first fracturing pump off line for maintenance and/or repair further comprises opening a third valve to bleed off residual pressure from the outlet of the first fracturing pump.
Lopez et al teach a fracturing pump system (Figure 3) with a second valve (64) wherein bringing the first fracturing pump off line for maintenance and/or repair further comprises opening a third valve to bleed off residual pressure from the outlet of the first fracturing pump (¶ 42 to bleed pressure at the connection 58 as shown in Figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Coli et al with the valve as taught by Lopez et al for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (providing a valve of Lopez et al as an bleed device of Coli et al) to yield predictable results (to bleed high pressure fluid via the discharge manifold from the fracturing pump).
Regarding Claim 29, Coli et al disclose all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly disclose wherein bringing the first fracturing pump off line for maintenance and/or repair further comprises closing the first valve to discontinue fluid communication between the suction manifold and an inlet of the first fracturing pump.
Lopez et al teach a fracturing pump system (Figure 3) with a second valve (54 of connection 44; ¶ 40) wherein bringing the first fracturing pump off line for maintenance and/or repair further comprises closing the first valve to discontinue fluid communication between the suction manifold and an inlet of the first fracturing pump (where the suction manifold is the low pressure manifold of ¶ 40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Coli et al with the valve as taught by Lopez et al for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (providing a valve of Lopez et al as an isolation device of Coli et al) to yield predictable results (to isolate the suction manifold from the fracturing pump).
Regarding Claim 30, Coli et al disclose all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly disclose wherein bringing the first fracturing pump off line for maintenance and/or repair further comprises opening a third valve to bleed off residual pressure from the inlet of the first fracturing pump.
Lopez et al teach a fracturing pump system (Figure 3) with a second valve (64) wherein bringing the first fracturing pump off line for maintenance and/or repair further comprises opening a second valve to bleed off residual pressure from the outlet of the first fracturing pump (¶ 42 to bleed pressure at the connection 58 as shown in Figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Coli et al with the valve as taught by Lopez et al for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (providing a valve of Lopez et al as an bleed device of Coli et al) to yield predictable results (to bleed high pressure fluid via the discharge manifold from the fracturing pump).
Therefore since Lopez et al teach a bleed valve at the outlet of the fracturing pump at the discharge manifold, providing a bleed valve at the inlet of the fracturing pump at the suction manifold would involve duplicating the bleed valve of the outlet at the inlet.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bleed valve to include a bleed valve at the inlet since a mere duplication of essential working part of device involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to provide for an ability to bleed pressure at both the inlet and outlet of the fracturing pump.
Regarding Claim 31, Coli et al, as modified by Lopez et al teach where communicating the hydraulic fracturing fluid between the suction manifold and the inlet of either the first fracturing pump or the third fracturing pump via the first valve comprises opening the first valve (¶ 77 of Coli et al with the valve and Lopez et al: ¶ 40; Figures 1-2; with the low pressure manifold being the suction manifold and connected via valve 54 and ¶ 36 teaches opening the valve to initiate the fluid connection).
Regarding Claim 33, Coli et al, as modified by Lopez et al teach where communicating the hydraulic fracturing fluid between the outlet of either the first fracturing pump or the third fracturing pump and the discharge manifold (¶ 77 of Coli et al) via the second valve comprises opening the second valve (¶ 42; Figures 1-2; with the second valve 72 of the connection 58 and ¶ 36 teaches opening the valve to initiate the fluid connection).
Regarding Claim 34, Coli et al, as modified by Lopez et al teach where communicating the hydraulic fracturing fluid between the suction manifold and the inlet of either the first fracturing pump or the third fracturing pump via the first valve comprises opening the first valve (¶ 77 of Coli et al with the valve and Lopez et al: ¶ 40; Figures 1-2; with the low pressure manifold being the suction manifold and connected via valve 54 and ¶ 36 teaches opening the valve to initiate the fluid connection).
Regarding Claim 36, Coli et al, as modified by Lopez et al teach where communicating the hydraulic fracturing fluid between the outlet of either the first fracturing pump or the third fracturing pump and the discharge manifold (¶ 77 of Coli et al) via the second valve comprises opening the second valve (¶ 42; Figures 1-2; with the second valve 72 of the connection 58 and ¶ 36 teaches opening the valve to initiate the fluid connection).
Claim(s) 2, 19 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coli et al (US 20150314255) in view of Lopez et al (US 20140277772) in further view of Beisel et al (US 20190316456).
Regarding Claim 2, Coli et al, as modified by Lopez et al teach all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly disclose wherein bringing the first fracturing pump off line for maintenance and/or repair comprises ramping down the first fracturing pump.
Beisel et al teach a fracturing pump system (Figure 1) where bringing the first fracturing pump off line for maintenance and/or repair comprises ramping down the first fracturing pump (¶ 26 via the engine 142a which drives the pumps 120a shown in Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Coli et al, as modified by Lopez et al, with the ramping as taught by Beisel et al for the advantage of use of known technique to improve similar devices (ramping up and down a fracturing pump) in the same way (to control the flow of fluid through the fracturing pump and therefore through the fracturing manifold).
Regarding Claim 19, Coli et al disclose all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly disclose wherein initiating operation of the third fracturing pump further comprises ramping up the third fracturing pump.
Beisel et al teach a fracturing pump system (Figure 1) and ramping up the third fracturing pump (¶ 26 via the engine 142a which drives the pumps 120a shown in Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Coli et al as modified by Lopez et al with the ramping as taught by Beisel et al for the advantage of use of known technique to improve similar devices (ramping up and down a fracturing pump) in the same way (to control the flow of fluid through the fracturing pump and therefore through the fracturing manifold).
Regarding Claim 26, Coli et al as modified by Lopez et al teach all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly disclose wherein bringing the first fracturing pump off line for maintenance and/or repair comprises ramping down the first fracturing pump.
Beisel et al teach a fracturing pump system (Figure 1) where bringing the first fracturing pump off line for maintenance and/or repair comprises ramping down the first fracturing pump (¶ 26 via the engine 142a which drives the pumps 120a shown in Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Coli et al with the ramping as taught by Beisel et al for the advantage of use of known technique to improve similar devices (ramping up and down a fracturing pump) in the same way (to control the flow of fluid through the fracturing pump and therefore through the fracturing manifold).
Claim(s) 8 and 12-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coli et al (US 20150314255) in view of Lopez et al (US 20140277772) in further view of Kajaria et al (US 20130284455).
Regarding Claim 8, Coli et al as modified by Lopez et al teach replacing the first fracturing pump with the third fracturing pump (Coli et al: ¶ 77) but fails to expressly disclose operably decoupling a discharge flow component from a discharge fitting;
wherein the discharge flow component is operably coupled to the discharge manifold via a discharge conduit;
and wherein the discharge fitting is operably coupled to an outlet of the first fracturing pump.
Kajaria et al teach a fracturing pump (16; Figure 1) operably decoupling a discharge flow component (Annotated Figure A) from a discharge fitting (37);
wherein the discharge flow component (see Annotated Figure A) is operably coupled to the discharge manifold (24) via a discharge conduit (47);
and wherein the discharge fitting (37) is operably coupled to an outlet of the first fracturing pump (the portion of 16 into which 37 is attached).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Coli et al with the connection system as taught by Kajaria et al for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (the connection junction of Kajaria et al with the system of Coli et al) to yield predictable results (to secure the fracturing pump to the manifold).
PNG
media_image1.png
579
849
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure A – Kajaria et al
Regarding Claim 12, Coli et al disclose replacing the first fracturing pump with the third fracturing pump (¶ 77) but fails to expressly disclose operably decoupling a suction flow component from a suction fitting;
wherein the suction flow component is operably coupled to the suction manifold via a suction conduit;
and wherein the suction fitting is operably coupled to an inlet of the first fracturing pump.
Kajaria et al teach a fracturing pump (16; Figure 1) operably decoupling a suction flow component (Annotated Figure A) from a suction fitting (35);
wherein the suction flow component (see Annotated Figure A) is operably coupled to the suction manifold (26) via a suction conduit (33);
and wherein the suction fitting (35) is operably coupled to an inlet of the first fracturing pump (the portion of 16 into which 35 is attached).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Coli et al with the connection system as taught by Kajaria et al for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (the connection junction of Kajaria et al with the system of Coli et al) to yield predictable results (to secure the fracturing pump to the manifold).
Regarding Claim 13, Kajaria et al teach where both the suction flow component and the discharge flow component are mounted to a support frame (Annotated Figure A; with support frame 44) of a station positioned in the vicinity of the suction and discharge manifolds (Annotated Figure A).
Regarding Claim 14, Kajaria et al teach where the station is a swap station (Figure 2 at 40).
Regarding Claim 15, Kajaria et al teach where both the suction fitting and the discharge fitting are part of an adapter (at least the surface of 16 into which the fittings are attached at 35 and 37).
Regarding Claim 16, Kajaria et al teach where the adapter is a swap adapter (at least the surface of 16 into which the fittings are attached at 35 and 37; where the fittings can be swapped from one pump truck to another as the station 40 or the pump truck is moved).
Regarding Claim 17, Coli et al disclose replacing the first fracturing pump with the third fracturing pump (¶ 77) but fails to expressly disclose operably coupling a suction flow component to another suction fitting;
and wherein the another suction fitting is operably coupled to an inlet of the third fracturing pump.
Kajaria et al teach a fracturing pump (16; Figure 1) operably coupling a suction flow component (Annotated Figure A) to another suction fitting (35);
and wherein the another suction fitting (35) is operably coupled to an inlet of the third fracturing pump (the portion of 16 into which 35 is attached).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Coli et al with the connection system as taught by Kajaria et al for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (the connection junction of Kajaria et al with the system of Coli et al) to yield predictable results (to secure the fracturing pump to the manifold).
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coli et al (US 20150314255) in view of Lopez et al (US 20140277772) in further view of Kajaria et al (US 20130284455) in further view of Croy et al (US 4191256).
Regarding Claim 9, Coli et al, as modified by Lopez et al and Kajaria et al, teach all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly teach wherein operably decoupling the discharge flow component from the discharge fitting comprises effecting,
using one or more actuators,
relative movement between the discharge flow component and the discharge fitting to sealingly disengage the discharge flow component from the discharge fitting.
Croy et al teach a station (Figures 3-4) wherein operably decoupling the discharge flow component from the discharge fitting (as taught by Kajaria et al as discussed above) comprises effecting using one or more actuators (56) to effect relative movement between the discharge flow component (50; where Kajaria et al disclose the port is a discharge flow component as seen in Annotated Figure A) and the discharge fitting (34; with the fitting of Kajaria et al at 37), to sealingly disengage the discharge fitting with the discharge flow component (shown disengaged in Figure 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the station of Kajaria et al with the actuators as taught by Croy et al for the advantage of providing a secure fluid-tight connection that can be achieved remotely, without having to move other flowline components, as taught by Croy et al (Col 4, lines 55-61).
Regarding Claim 10, Coli et al, as modified by Lopez et al and Kajaria et al teach wherein replacing the first fracturing pump with the third fracturing pump (¶ 77 of Coli et al) further comprises operably coupling the discharge flow component to another discharge fitting (Annotated Figure A of Kajaria et al which modified Coli et al as discussed above);
and wherein the another discharge fitting is operably coupled to an outlet of the third fracturing pump (¶ 77 of Coli et al and Annotated Figure A of Kajaria et al).
Regarding Claim 11, Coli et al, as modified by Lopez et al and Kajaria et al, teach all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly teach wherein operably coupling the discharge flow component to the another discharge fitting comprises effecting,
using one or more actuators,
relative movement between the discharge flow component and the another discharge fitting to sealingly engage the discharge flow component with the discharge fitting.
Croy et al teach a station (Figures 3-4) wherein operably coupling the discharge flow component to the another discharge fitting comprises effecting (as taught by Coli et al, as modified by Kajaria et al as discussed above) using one or more actuators (56) to effect relative movement between the discharge flow component (50; where Kajaria et al disclose the port is a discharge flow component as seen in Annotated Figure A) and the another discharge fitting (34; with the fitting of Kajaria et al at 37), to sealingly engage the discharge flow component with the discharge fitting (shown sealed in Figure 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the station of Kajaria et al with the actuators and lock as taught by Croy et al for the advantage of providing a secure fluid-tight connection that can be achieved remotely, without having to move other flowline components, as taught by Croy et al (Col 4, lines 55-61).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 32 and 35 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment has overcome the rejection of record. However, a new ground of rejection is applied to the amended claims.
Applicant amends Claims 1 and 21 and argues that Coli et al fails to disclose the Claim as amended. However, as discussed above, Coli et al, as modified by Lopez et al teach these limitations.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE GARDNER whose telephone number is (571)270-0144. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8AM-4PM 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 supervisors, KENNETH RINEHART (571-272-4881) or CRAIG SCHNEIDER (571-272-3607) can be reached by telephone. 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.
/NICOLE GARDNER/
Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights