PTAB

IPR2018-00733

Proppant Express Investments LLC v. Oren Technologies LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Proppant Discharge System and Process
  • Brief Description: The ’785 patent is directed to systems and methods for providing proppant for hydraulic fracturing operations. The challenged claims describe methods for unloading proppant at a well site, which involve removing multiple transportable containers from vehicles and placing them onto a mobile support structure that includes a common conveyor for discharging the proppant.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Sheesley, Harris, Hurst, and Luharuka - Claims 1, 3, 6, 9, 10, 13, and 15 are obvious over Sheesley in view of Harris, Hurst, and Luharuka.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Sheesley (Application # 2013/0206415), Harris (Application # 2014/0083554 or # 2016/0332809), Hurst (Patent 5,413,154), and Luharuka (Patent 9,624,036).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Sheesley taught the foundational method of transporting proppant in containers to a frac site and unloading them onto a support structure with a belt system for delivery to a blender. Petitioner asserted that Harris taught a more manageable container design with an external frame and funnel-shaped portion that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have used in place of Sheesley's less stable, modified cargo containers. Hurst taught a modular system with support bases featuring guide elements (claimed as "cradles") to receive and align containers. Luharuka taught an oilfield delivery vehicle with a conveyor that runs beneath compartments and angles upward to deliver material into a blender via a chute.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued a POSITA would combine these references to create a more efficient, stable, and reliable proppant handling system. A POSITA would substitute Harris’s better-fitting containers into Sheesley’s method to reduce dangerous overhang on the transport trailer, improve stability, and ease placement. To further improve alignment and reduce spillage, a POSITA would add Hurst’s guide cradles to Sheesley’s support structure. Finally, a POSITA would incorporate a chute as taught by Luharuka to better contain proppant dust and reliably direct the proppant flow from the conveyor into a blender, a known objective in the field.
    • Expectation of Success: The petition asserted that combining these elements was predictable. The combination involved applying known solutions (e.g., better-fitting containers, alignment guides, transfer chutes) to solve well-understood problems in the field of bulk material handling (e.g., transport instability, container misalignment, dust control), and would have yielded predictable results.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Sheesley, Harris, Hurst, Luharuka, and Wietgrefe - Claims 7, 8, 11, 14, 16-19, and 21-23 are obvious over the combination of Sheesley, Harris, Hurst, and Luharuka in view of Wietgrefe.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Sheesley (Application # 2013/0206415), Harris (Application # 2014/0083554 or # 2016/0332809), Hurst (Patent 5,413,154), Luharuka (Patent 9,624,036), and Wietgrefe (Patent 8,387,824).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the combination asserted in Ground 1 and further incorporated the teachings of Wietgrefe. Petitioner argued that Wietgrefe taught an apparatus for dispensing bulk product that included gated hoppers positioned below a container to meter the flow of material onto a conveyor. A POSITA would have integrated similar gated hoppers into the support structure of the combined Sheesley/Hurst system, positioning them between the Harris containers and the underlying Luharuka-style conveyor.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted the motivation for adding Wietgrefe's gated hoppers was to gain precise control over the proppant discharge rate. This modification would prevent overloading the conveyor, reduce waste from spillage, and ensure proper distribution of material. It would also increase the system's utility by allowing it to handle various container types with different discharge opening sizes. Petitioner also argued a POSITA would recognize a cost advantage in placing sophisticated, controllable gates on the stationary support structure's hoppers rather than equipping every mobile container with one.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner contended that a POSITA would have had a high expectation of success, as integrating a gated hopper into a conveyor system was a well-known and predictable modification for metering the flow of bulk solids. Modifying the support structure framework to accommodate such hoppers was presented as a straightforward engineering task.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 1, 3, 6-11, 13-19, and 21-23 of Patent 9,440,785 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.