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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 32-33 are objected to because of the following informalities: the recitation of “retain liquid” in claim 32 and “retaining liquid” in claim 33 should read --retain the liquid-- and --retaining the liquid--, respectively as a liquid has already been recited in claims 1 and 11. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 5, 8-9, 11-12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Green et al. (US20230105967), hereinafter Green, in view Higgins et al. (US9463971), hereinafter Higgins.
Regarding claim 1, Green discloses an apparatus for hydraulically displacing gas in gas pipelines, the apparatus comprising: a liquid reservoir (Fig. 4A element 161, 0049, where purging media tank corresponds to a liquid reservoir) enabled to store a liquid and corresponding to an interior volume of a pig terminal (0031, 0051, and 0053, where an incompressible fluid corresponds to a liquid, a pig launcher/receiver (Fig. 3 element 100) corresponds to a pig terminal, and an internal volume of the pig launcher/receiver corresponds to an interior volume of the pig terminal), the pig terminal enabled for fluid communication with a gas pipeline (Fig. 3 element 150 corresponds to a gas pipeline; 0029 and 0042, where gas is considered a fluid); a first liquid pump (Fig. 4A element 162) enabled for fluid communication with both the liquid reservoir and the pig terminal (0053); and a recovery line (Fig. 3 element 140) enabled for fluid communication with the pig terminal via a valve (Fig. 3 element 144, 0046), wherein the recovery line is further enabled to remove a gas from the interior volume of the pig terminal in response to the first liquid pump causing the gas to be hydraulically displaced from the pig terminal by the liquid from the liquid reservoir (0046 and 0061).
Green fails to disclose a float actuator coupled to the valve, the float actuator configured to close the valve when the liquid enters the recovery line from the pig terminal.
Higgins is also concerned with preventing overflow of a liquid in a container and teaches a float actuator (Fig. 1 element 38) coupled to the valve (Fig. 1 element 32) the float actuator configured to close the valve (2:42-3:14). Pursuant of MPEP 2144.06-II, it has been held obvious to substitute equivalents for the same purpose. Green, discloses the invention except that the valve is a check valve instead of a valve with a float actuator coupled to the valve (i.e. a float valve). Higgins shows that a float valve is an equivalent structure known in the art (i.e. both valves are used to allow fluid to flow in only one direction). Therefore, because these two valve types were art-recognized equivalents at the time of the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to substitute a float valve for a check valve. Examiner further finds that it 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 to modify the apparatus of Green to include a float actuator coupled to the valve, the float actuator configured to close the valve, as taught by Higgins, because Higgins teaches that a float actuator prevents overfilling (2:42-3:14). Examiner notes that this modification requires the embodiment of Green where the vent valve (Fig. 3 element 145) is coupled directly to the housing (Fig. 3 element 110) instead of the recover line (140) which is discussed in the last sentence of paragraph 0046 of Green. Examiner further notes that Green considers using other types of valves other than a check valve (0046, “While a check valve is described herein, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that in one or more embodiments, any valve that can allow flow in one direction but prevent flow back in the other direction may be used”) and examiner notes that Applicant has also considered a check valve and a float valve to be equivalent structures (0076 of Applicant’s specification, “a float valve (not shown) or similar type of liquid check valve can be used”).
Green, as modified, then yields the float actuator configured to close the valve when the liquid enters the recovery line from the pig terminal (Higgins, 2:42-3:14, where when the float actuator (Higgins, 38) is coupled to the valve (Green, 144), the float actuator is configured to close the valve when the liquid enters the recovery line from the pig terminal because the float actuator is located within the recovery line and therefore the float actuator will not close the valve until the liquid enters the recovery line from the pig terminal).
Regarding claim 2, Green, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the recovery line is further enabled for fluid communication with the gas pipeline and enabled to remove the gas into the gas pipeline (Green, Fig. 3, 0061).
Regarding claim 5, Green, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses a pressure source (Green, Fig. 4B element 164) enabled for fluid communication with the pig terminal and further enabled to displace the liquid from the pig terminal in response to pressurizing the pig terminal with air (Green, 0053, where pumping media into the purging media tank corresponds to displacing the liquid from the pig terminal in response to pressurizing the pig terminal with air).
Regarding claim 8, Green, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the pig terminal (Green, Fig. 3), and wherein the apparatus is located on a skid (Green, Fig. 3 shows at least the pig terminal (100) being located on a skid).
Regarding claim 9, Green, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the apparatus is located on a vehicle (Green, Figs. 4A and 4B shows at least the liquid reservoir (161) and the first pump (162) located on a vehicle).
Regarding claim 11, Green discloses a method for hydraulic displacement, the method comprising: using a liquid (0031, where an incompressible fluid corresponds to a liquid) in a liquid reservoir (Fig. 4A element 161, 0049, where purging media tank corresponds to a liquid reservoir) corresponding to an interior volume of a pig terminal (0051 and 0053, where a pig launcher/receiver (Fig. 3 element 100) corresponds to a pig terminal, and an internal volume of the pig launcher/receiver corresponds to an interior volume of the pig terminal), the pig terminal enabled for fluid communication with a gas pipeline (Fig. 3 element 150 corresponds to a gas pipeline; 0029 and 0042, where gas is considered a fluid), causing a first liquid pump (Fig. 4A element 162) enabled for fluid communication with both the liquid reservoir and the pig terminal (0053) to remove a gas from the interior volume of the pig terminal in response to the first liquid pump causing the gas to be hydraulically displaced from the pig terminal by the liquid from the liquid reservoir (0061), removing the gas from the pig terminal through a recovery line (Fig. 3 element 140, 0046 and 0061) enabled for fluid communication with the pig terminal via a valve (Fig. 3 element 144, 0046).
Green fails to disclose closing the valve using a float actuator when the liquid enters the recovery line from the pig terminal.
Higgins is also concerned with preventing overflow of a liquid in a container and teaches closing the valve (Fig. 1 element 132) using a float actuator (Fig. 1 element 38, 2:42-3:14). Pursuant of MPEP 2144.06-II, it has been held obvious to substitute equivalents for the same purpose. Green, discloses the invention except that the valve is a check valve instead of a valve using a float actuator (i.e. a float valve). Higgins shows that a float valve is an equivalent structure known in the art (i.e. both valves are used to allow fluid to flow in only one direction). Therefore, because these two valve types were art-recognized equivalents at the time of the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to substitute a float valve for a check valve. Examiner further finds that it 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 to modify the method of Green to close the valve using a float actuator, as taught by Higgins, because Higgins teaches that a float actuator prevents overfilling (2:42-3:14). Examiner notes that this modification requires the embodiment of Green where the vent valve (Fig. 3 element 145) is coupled directly to the housing (Fig. 3 element 110) instead of the recover line (140) which is discussed in the last sentence of paragraph 0046 of Green. Examiner further notes that Green considers using other types of valves other than a check valve (0046, “While a check valve is described herein, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that in one or more embodiments, any valve that can allow flow in one direction but prevent flow back in the other direction may be used”) and examiner notes that Applicant has also considered a check valve and a float valve to be equivalent structures (0076 of Applicant’s specification, “a float valve (not shown) or similar type of liquid check valve can be used”).
Green, as modified, then yields closing the valve using a float actuator when the liquid enters the recovery line from the pig terminal (Higgins, 2:42-3:14, where the float actuator (Higgins, 38) closes the valve (Green, 144) when the liquid enters the recovery line from the pig terminal because the float actuator is located within the recovery line and therefore the float actuator will not close the valve until the liquid enters the recovery line from the pig terminal).
Regarding claim 12, Green, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 11, as described above, and further discloses the recovery line is further enabled for fluid communication with the gas pipeline, the method further comprising: removing the gas into the gas pipeline using the recovery line (Green, Fig. 3, 0061).
Regarding claim 15, Green, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 11, as described above, and further discloses using a pressure source (Green, Fig. 4B element 164) enabled for fluid communication with the pig terminal, displacing the liquid from the pig terminal in response to pressurizing the pig terminal with air (Green, 0053, where pumping media into the purging media tank corresponds to displacing the liquid from the pig terminal in response to pressurizing the pig terminal with air).
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Green et al. (US20230105967), hereinafter Green, in view of Higgins et al. (US9463971), hereinafter Higgins, and in further view of Price (US5980645).
Regarding claim 6, Green, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 5, as described above, but fails to disclose the pressure source is an air compressor.
Price is also concerned with an apparatus for a pig and teaches the pressure source is an air compressor (Fig. 1 element 14, 3:36-53). Pursuant of MPEP 2144.06-II, it has been held obvious to substitute equivalents for the same purpose. Green, as modified, discloses the invention except that the pressure source is a vacuum pump instead of an air compressor. Price shows that an air compressor is an equivalent structure known in the art (i.e. both are used to move liquid through a pipe). Therefore, because these two pressure source types were art-recognized equivalents at the time of the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to substitute an air compressor for a vacuum pump.
Regarding claim 16, Green, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 15, as described above, but fails to disclose the pressure source is an air compressor.
Price is also concerned with an apparatus for a pig and teaches the pressure source is an air compressor (Fig. 1 element 14, 3:36-53). Pursuant of MPEP 2144.06-II, it has been held obvious to substitute equivalents for the same purpose. Green, as modified, discloses the invention except that the pressure source is a vacuum pump instead of an air compressor. Price shows that an air compressor is an equivalent structure known in the art (i.e. both are used to move liquid through a pipe). Therefore, because these two pressure source types were art-recognized equivalents at the time of the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to substitute an air compressor for a vacuum pump.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Green et al. (US20230105967), hereinafter Green, in view of Higgins et al. (US9463971), hereinafter Higgins, and in further view of Kiichi (JPH08327495), attached as a PDF in office action filed 3/18/2025.
Regarding claim 19, Green, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 11, as described above, and further discloses monitoring a first pressure of the liquid displacing the gas in the pig terminal (Green, Fig. 3, 0043, where the pressure gauge (114) measures a first pressure of the liquid displacing the gas in the pig terminal).
Green, as modified, fails to disclose monitoring a second pressure of the gas displaced by the liquid; and monitoring a flow rate of the liquid.
Kiichi is also concerned with monitoring pipes and teaches monitoring a second pressure (Fig. 2, 0021-0022, where the pressure sensor (105) monitors a second pressure of a gas); and monitoring a flow rate (Fig. 2, 0018-0019 and 0022, where the flow sensors (102 and 103) monitor a flow rate). It 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 to modify the method of Green, as modified, to include monitoring a second pressure and monitoring a flow rate, as taught by Kiichi, because Kiichi teaches that monitoring the pressure and flow rate allows for detecting if a possible leak has occurred (0022).
Modifying Green with the teachings of Kiichi, as described above, yields monitoring a first pressure of the liquid displacing the gas in the pig terminal (Green, Fig. 3, 0043, where the pressure gauge (114) measures a first pressure of the liquid displacing the gas in the pig terminal), monitoring a second pressure of the gas displaced by the liquid (KiichiFig. 2, 0021-0022, where the pressure sensor (105) monitors a second pressure of a gas); and monitoring a flow rate of the liquid (Kiichi, Fig. 2, 0018-0019 and 0022, where the flow sensors (102 and 103) monitor a flow rate).
Regarding claim 20, Green, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 19, as described above, and further discloses detecting a leak of the liquid from the pig terminal based on at least one of: the first pressure, the second pressure, and the flow rate (Kiichi, 0022, where the detection of a leak can be detected based on the first pressure, the second pressure, or the flow rate).
Claims 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Green et al. (US20230105967), hereinafter Green, in view of Higgins et al. (US9463971), hereinafter Higgins, and in further view of McCully (US7749308).
Regarding claim 32, Green, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to disclose a liquid trap coupled to the recovery line, the liquid trap configured to retain liquid while the gas passes through the recovery line.
McCully is also concerned with an apparatus for hydraulically displacing gas in gas pipelines and teaches a liquid trap (Fig. 2 element 440) coupled to the recovery line (see annotated Fig. 2 below), the liquid trap configured to retain liquid while the gas passes through the recovery line (last paragraph of column 13, where “Liquid Knock Out Drum The liquid knock out drum recovers entrained liquid in the vapor stream to the vacuum pump” means that the liquid is retained, but the gas is not retained and therefore passes through the recovery line). It 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 to modify the apparatus of Green, as modified, to include a liquid trap coupled to the recovery line, the liquid trap configured to retain liquid while the gas passes through the recovery line, as taught by McCully, because McCully teaches that a liquid trap coupled to the recovery line prevents “entrained liquid in the vapor stream” from getting to/damaging downstream equipment, such as a vacuum pump (last paragraph of column 13).
PNG
media_image1.png
550
751
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 33, Green, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 11, as described above, but fails to disclose retaining liquid in a liquid trap coupled to the recovery line while the gas passes through the recovery line.
McCully is also concerned with a method for hydraulic displacement and teaches retaining liquid in a liquid trap (Fig. 2 element 440) coupled to the recovery line (see annotated Fig. 2 above) while the gas passes through the recovery line (last paragraph of column 13, where “Liquid Knock Out Drum The liquid knock out drum recovers entrained liquid in the vapor stream to the vacuum pump” means that the liquid is retained, but the gas is not retained and therefore passes through the recovery line). It 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 to modify the method of Green, as modified, to retain liquid in a liquid trap coupled to the recovery line while the gas passes through the recovery line, as taught by McCully, because McCully teaches that a liquid trap coupled to the recovery line prevents “entrained liquid in the vapor stream” from getting to/damaging downstream equipment, such as a vacuum pump (last paragraph of column 13).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the float actuator of Higgins being applied to Green is improper because the float actuator of Higgins is located inside of a vessel and therefore the float actuator would close before the liquid exits the pig terminal instead of when the liquid enters the recovery line as required in claims 1 and 11. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds that Applicant has brought in a new limitation of “a valve” which is disclosed by Green as element 144 in Fig. 3. Examiner finds that Higgins is then used to teach a float actuator (Fig. 1 element 38) coupled to a valve (Fig. 1 element 32), and that with this teaching of Higgins brought into Green, the float actuator will now be located within the recovery line and will therefore meet the limitations of claims 1 and 11. See rejection of claims 1 and 11 above.
Applicant argues that modifying Green to include the float actuator of Higgins would render the apparatus of Green inoperative for the stated purpose of Green because Higgins closes the valve before the vessel is completely full and therefore not all of the residual fluids in Green would be displaced. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds that Green, as modified by Higgins, as explained in the bullet point above, does allow for all of the residual fluid to be displaced. Examiner further notes that Higgins teaches closing the valve when the vessel is “in a full or nearly full condition” (2:51-57) and therefore Higgins does teach filling a vessel entirely, which when taught into Green would allow all of the residual fluid to be displaced. See rejection of claims 1 and 11 above.
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 CALEB A HOLIZNA whose telephone number is (571)272-5659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-4:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Monica Carter can be reached on 571-272-4475. 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.
/C.A.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3723 /MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights