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 .
This is a response to Applicant's amendment filed on December 31, 2025.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-5, 19-20 and 31-32 have been amended. Claims 6, 8, 11, 13, 17, 22, 26, 28, 30 and 34 have been cancelled. Claims 19-21, 23-25, 27, 29 and 31-33 have been withdrawn. New claims 35-36 have been added. Claims 1-5, 7, 9-10, 12, 14-16, 18-21, 23-25, 27, 29, 31-33 and 35-36 are pending. Claims 1-5, 7, 9-10, 12, 14-16, 18 and 35-36 are examined herein.
Response to Amendments
The Amendments to Claims filed 12/31/2025 have been entered. The minor informalities have been addressed by amendments and objections to claim 16 thereto are withdrawn accordingly. The previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph rejections of claims 1-5 are withdrawn in view of the Applicant's amendments and arguments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's Remarks/Arguments and Amendments to the Claims both filed 12/31/2025 have been fully considered.
It is noted that claim 1, an independent claim from which all of the claims ultimately depend, has been amended to recite that “wherein the secondary cooler inlet system comprises a plurality of secondary cooler inlets enabling inflow of recycled fluid from the return conduit to the heat exchange conduit at a plurality of inflow positions along the hydrocarbon flow system, upstream of the return location”, incorporating some features of claim 2 into claim 1, in the context of a cooler system for a hydrocarbon flow system as recited in claim 1.
Applicant argues that the claim 1 and its dependent claims are not anticipated nor prima facie obvious over cited prior art(s), Strommegjerde et al. (US 2019/0084016 A1), this is because the cited prior art does not teach or suggest the amended features of the cooler system for a hydrocarbon flow system. Applicant argues that: The return conduit 1801 in the embodiment of Figure 17 of Strommegjerde delivers recycled fluid into only a single inflow position - specifically at a portion of pipe that is upstream of a distribution manifold. The fluid flowing into the heat exchange system, mixed with the recycled fluid, is then distributed by the manifold into a plurality of heat exchange conduits. Strommegjerde fails to disclose an embodiment that includes a plurality of secondary cooler inlets enabling inflow of recycled fluid from the return conduit to the heat exchange conduit at a plurality of inflow positions along the hydrocarbon flow system, as recited in claim 1. As a result, the embodiment disclosed in Figure 17 of Strommegjerde cannot selectively deliver recycled fluid into different inlet positions to selectively seed and precipitate wax compounds and/or hydrate compounds. Also, the embodiment disclosed in Figure 17 of Strommegjerde cannot selectively deliver recycled fluid into different inlet positions to adjust for changing conditions (temperature and pressure) of the fluid flowing into the heat exchange system. See Remarks, pages 8-9.
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
For clarification purposes, Figure 10 and Figure 17 are excerpted from the Strommegjerde reference set forth below.
As discussions presented in the Office action dated 09/05/2025 (see pages 6-8), Strommegjerde discloses a return conduit (1801, Fig. 17), fluidly connected to the heat exchange conduit (1001, Fig. 10, a multiple, stacked heat exchange conduits) at a return location (the point near a power supply 107, Fig. 10 is located). Strommegjerde discloses a plurality of vertical conduit portions (designated as “A” in Figure 10 and Figure 17 below) connected to the manifold (1001, Fig. 10) and also connected to the return conduit (1801, Fig. 17) as shown in Fig. 17.
PNG
media_image1.png
633
930
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (A)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
633
941
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (A)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
Choosing the return conduit (1801, Fig. 17) in conjunction with the plurality of vertical conduit portions (designated as “A” in Figure 17) as the “secondary cooler inlet system that comprises a plurality of secondary cooler inlets” is considered prima facie obvious because this simply involves selecting a known portion of fluid transporting conduits in a known cooler system for a hydrocarbon flow system for subsea cooling of an oil well product. Moreover, claim 1 utilizes the transitional word “comprising”. Consequently, claim 1 does not exclude the multiple subcomponents in designating recited subcomponent in claim 1.
Upon further consideration and search, a modified ground of rejections to claims 1-5, 7, 9-10, 12, 14-16, 18 and 35-36 are presented in the instant Office action.
MODIFIED REJECTIONS
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9-10, 12, 14-16, 18 and 35-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strommegjerde et al. (US 2019/0084016 A1, hereinafter “Strommegjerde”).
In regard to claim 1, Strommegjerde discloses a cooler system for a hydrocarbon flow system for subsea cooling of an oil well product (Abstract; paragraphs [0001]; [0142]).
The cooler system, shown in Fig. 17, which is a modification based on the embodiment of Fig. 10, comprises (Fig. 10 and Fig. 17; paragraphs [0158]-[0160]; [0173]-[0174]):
(i) a heat exchange conduit (101, Fig. 10, a multiple, stacked heat exchange conduits) comprising a primary inlet (104, Fig. 10) for receiving a fluid to be cooled and a primary outlet (105, Fig. 10);
(ii) a return conduit (1801, Fig. 17), fluidly connected to the heat exchange conduit (101, Fig. 10, a multiple, stacked heat exchange conduits) at a return location (the point near a power supply 107, Fig. 10 is located) downstream of the primary inlet (104, Fig. 10), and configured to direct at least a proportion of fluid in the heat exchange conduit from the return location to a secondary cooler inlet system (one or more of the plurality vertical conduit portions connected to the manifold (1001, Fig. 10) as shown in Fig. 17, in conjunction with the return conduit (1801, Fig. 17), meets the recited “secondary cooler inlet system”);
wherein the secondary cooler inlet system enabling inflow of recycled fluid from the return conduit to the heat exchange conduit at a plurality of parallel inflow positions along the hydrocarbon flow system, upstream of the return location (there are plurality of inlets to the multiple cooling conduits as shown in Fig. 17, refer to the multiple conduits designated as “A” in Figure 17, set forth above in the Response to Arguments section).
Choosing the multiple points wherein a power supply 107, Fig. 10 is located as the recited “return location”, and choosing the return conduit (1801, Fig. 17) in conjunction with the plurality of vertical conduit portions (designated as “A” in Figure 17, set forth above in the Response to Arguments section) as the “secondary cooler inlet system that comprises a plurality of secondary cooler inlets” is considered prima facie obvious because this simply involves selecting a known portion(s) in a known cooler system as “return location” and “secondary cooler inlet system”, respectively, in a known cooler system for a hydrocarbon flow system for subsea cooling of an oil well product. Moreover, claim 1 utilizes the transitional word “comprising”. Consequently, claim 1 does not exclude the multiple subcomponents in designating recited subcomponent in claim 1. It is also noted that the detailed mechanism and/or structure of the “return location” and “secondary cooler inlet system” are not the scopes of claimed invention.
In regard to claim 2, Strommegjerde discloses the secondary cooler inlet system (one or more of the plurality vertical conduit portions connected to the manifold (1001, Fig. 10)) comprises a plurality of secondary cooler inlets configured to be located at a plurality of positions along a length of the hydrocarbon flow system (i.e., along a longitudinal axis of the hydrocarbon fluid flow from the primary inlet (104, Fig. 10) to the primary outlet (105, Fig. 10)), and each of the secondary cooler inlets enables inflow of return fluid to the hydrocarbon flow system at a different position in (i.e., inflow to respective, different heat exchange conduit of the multiple, stacked heat exchange conduits) along the length of the hydrocarbon flow system (i.e., along a dimension of longitudinal axis of the fluid flow from the primary inlet (104, Fig. 10) to the primary outlet (105, Fig. 10)). The configuration shows the location of at least one secondary cooler inlet is downstream of the primary inlet of the heat exchange conduit.
In regard to claims 3-5, as set forth above, Strommegjerde discloses at least one secondary cooler inlet is located downstream of the primary inlet (104, Fig. 10) of the heat exchange conduit (101, Fig. 10, a multiple, stacked heat exchange conduits). In light of teachings from Strommegjerde, the claimed features of at least one secondary cooler inlet upstream of the primary inlet of the heat exchange conduit (claim 4), or at least one secondary cooler inlet at or near to the primary cooler inlet (claim 5) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation in an effort to optimize cooler system activity and utility taking into consideration the operational parameters of fluid cooling operation (time, temperature, pressure, throughput), the geometry of the cooler system bodies, the physical and chemical make-up of the fluid feedstock as well as the nature of the cooled fluid end-products.
In regard to claim 7, Strommegjerde discloses the secondary cooler inlet system (one or more of the plurality vertical conduit portions connected to the manifold (1001, Fig. 10)) comprises a plurality of secondary cooler inlets, and the secondary cooler inlet system is operable to provide inflow of return fluid at each of the plurality of secondary cooler inlets simultaneously (Fig. 17; paragraphs [0158]-[0160]; [0173]-[0174]).
In regard to claim 9, Strommegjerde discloses the secondary cooler inlet system (one or more of the plurality vertical conduit portions connected to the manifold (1001, Fig. 10)) comprises a plurality of secondary cooler inlets, and the secondary cooler inlet system is operable to provide inflow of return fluid at each of the plurality of secondary cooler inlets simultaneously (Fig. 17; paragraphs [0158]-[0160]; [0173]-[0174]). Strommegjerde discloses wax and hydrates may form in this situation because of pressure drop or cooling. The same cleaning system described for embodiments of the cooling system also applies for pipe separators and the pipe separators may be occasionally heated to remove deposits. Such a separator can be seen as a segment of embodiments of the cooling system or even integrated within the cooling system (paragraph [0144]).
It has long been held that “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“An intended use or purpose usually will not limit the scope of the claim because such statements usually do no more than define a context in which the invention operates.”); In re Michlin, 256 F.2d 317, 320 (CCPA 1958) (“It is well settled that patentability of apparatus claims must depend upon structural limitations and not upon statements of function.”).
Since Strommegjerde discloses the secondary cooler inlet system (one or more of the plurality vertical conduit portions connected to the manifold (1001, Fig. 10)) comprises a plurality of secondary cooler inlets, and the secondary cooler inlet system is operable to provide inflow of return fluid at each of the plurality of secondary cooler inlets simultaneously (Fig. 17; paragraphs [0158]-[0160]; [0173]-[0174]), and Strommegjerde also discloses the need to remove/clean wax and hydrates formed in this situation because of pressure drop or cooling (paragraph [0144]), the claimed feature of “the secondary cooler inlet system enables inflow of return fluid to the heat exchange conduit at a first position optimised for seeding of a wax compound from the fluid to be cooled, and a second position optimised for seeding of a hydrate compound from the fluid to be cooled” is expected to be functionally encompassed by the secondary cooler inlet system (one or more of the plurality vertical conduit portions connected to the manifold (1001, Fig. 10)) taught by Strommegjerde.
In regard to claim 10, Strommegjerde discloses the presence of a pump (1802, Fig. 17) that control the flow of the recycled fluid from the return conduit to the heat exchange conduit at a plurality of parallel inflow positions along the hydrocarbon flow system (Fig. 17; paragraph [0174]).
In regard to claim 12, Strommegjerde discloses an optimized process for treating fluid from wells or fluid source including the cooler system for a hydrocarbon flow system (Fig. 31; paragraphs [0233]-[0237]). In light of teachings from Strommegjerde, the claimed feature of the secondary cooler inlet system is operable to change one or more inflow positions in response to one or more changed conditions of the apparatus and/or fluid to be cooled would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation in an effort to optimize cooler system activity and utility taking into consideration the operational parameters of fluid cooling operation (time, temperature, pressure, throughput), the geometry of the cooler system bodies, the physical and chemical make-up of the fluid feedstock as well as the nature of the cooled fluid end-products.
In regard to claims 14 and 15, Strommegjerde discloses that: embodiments also include the provision and use of thermometers on the surface of the pipes and measuring the ambient temperature of the seawater, and other sensors, for providing feedback to a control system for controlling the heating of the pipes. In embodiments in which the cooling system is re-configurable, the control system preferably also controls the configuration of the cooling system and also preferable is configured to automatically control the operation of the cooling system (paragraph [0216]). Strommegjerde discloses flow composition meter in conjunction with the cooler system for a hydrocarbon flow system (Fig. 31; paragraphs [0233]-[0237]). This renders the features of comprising pressure and temperature sensors in the cooling system prima facie obvious.
In regard to claim 16, Strommegjerde discloses the cooler apparatus comprises a cleaning system, configured to remove deposits of precipitated solids from the inner walls of the hydrocarbon flow system (paragraph [0055]).
In regard to claim 18, Strommegjerde discloses the cooler system is a subsea cooler system (paragraph [0001]).
In regard to claim 35, Strommegjerde discloses an embodiment of the secondary cooler inlets (the return conduit (1801, Fig. 17) in conjunction with the plurality of vertical conduit portions (designated as “A” in Figure 17)) enables inflow of return fluid to the heat exchange conduit at the same position along the length of the heat exchange conduit downstream of the primary cooler inlet. Though one example in Strommegjerde employed “the same position along the length of the heat exchange conduit downstream of the primary cooler inlet”, the teachings of the Strommegjerde reference is not limited to example(s) but to its entirety and what it suggests to one skilled in the art. The claimed feature of “each of the secondary cooler inlets enables inflow of return fluid to the heat exchange conduit at a different position along the length of the heat exchange conduit downstream of the primary cooler inlet” would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation in an effort to optimize cooler system activity and utility taking into consideration the operational parameters of the cooling operation (residence time, temperature, pressure, throughput), the geometry of the heat exchange conduit bodies, the physical and chemical make-up of the feedstock as well as the nature of the cooling process end-products.
In regard to claim 36, Strommegjerde discloses the secondary cooler inlet system comprises a plurality of inlet conduits (the return conduit (1801, Fig. 17) in conjunction with the plurality of vertical conduit portions (designated as “A” in Figure 17)) disposed between the return conduit (1801, Fig. 17) and the heat exchange conduit (101, Fig. 10, a multiple, stacked heat exchange conduits). Strommegjerde discloses the system further comprises one or more pumps and valves for providing a flow of fluid through the return pipe (paragraph [0038]), and discloses the system further comprises a valve system for controlling the fluid flow in each of the plurality of pipe assemblies (paragraph [0038]). This renders the recitation “the one or more flow control components comprises a valve in each of the inlet conduits” prima facie obvious.
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 YOUNGSUL JEONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1494. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached on 571-272-5954. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YOUNGSUL JEONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772