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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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, 3, 6–8, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites:
1. A gas-liquid separation device comprising…
wherein the gas discharge passage is formed in shape of a pipe that penetrates a rear surface portion of the housing and is formed to have a radius smaller than half of the radius of the housing... Emphasis added.
Claim 1 is indefinite because “the radius of the housing” lacks antecedent basis.
For the purpose of compact prosecution, claim 1 is interpreted to read:
1. A gas-liquid separation device comprising…
wherein the gas discharge passage is formed in shape of a pipe that penetrates a rear surface portion of the housing and is formed to have a radius smaller than half of [[the]] radius of the housing...
Claims 3, 6–8, 10 and 11 are indefinite because they depend from claim 1.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 6–8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haland, US 2003/0115843 A1 in view of Boyle, US 7,650,944 B1.
Regarding claim 1, Haland teaches a liquid separator, which reads on the claimed “gas-liquid separation device.” See Haland Fig., [0021].
The liquid separator comprises a “housing,” which is the structure of the apparatus seen in the Fig. The housing has a “fluid inlet passage,” which is the portion of casing 1 extending from an inlet end 2 to outlet element 10, an outlet means for liquid into container 16 (the “liquid discharge passage”) and the outlet element 10 for gas (the “gas discharge passage”). See Haland Fig., [0021], [0027], [0029].
The apparatus also comprises a spin element 4 mounted inside the housing and disposed at a rear side of the fluid inlet passage, which reads on the “gas-liquid separation unit.” See Haland Fig., [0022]. The spin element 4 is configured to separate a mixed fluid into a liquid and gas by inducing rotation of the mixed fluid into the housing through the fluid inlet passage. Id.
The apparatus further comprises a tapered part 8 with lips 9 provided at a rear end of the spin element 4 and configured to maintain a flow state of the liquid and the gas separated by the spin element 4. See Haland Fig., [0026]. The tapered part 8 and lips 9 collectively read on the “flow stabilization member.”
The spin element 4 further comprises a “conical body” inside the housing, which is the structure surrounding the central cavity 18. See Haland Fig., [0030]. The location at the top, left-hand side of the spin element 4 where the top of line 17 meets the solid body of the spin element 4 reads on “a vertex provided at a front end [of the conical body] faces the fluid inlet passage.” Note that a “vertex” is as a point where two or more lines or edges meet, forming a corner or angular point.
The spin element also comprises guide vanes 7 protruding from an outer peripheral surface of the conical body and extending in a flow direction of the mixed fluid. See Haland, Fig., [0024]. The guide vanes 7 read on the “curved wings.”
An outer edge and an inner edge of the curved wings is formed in a cycloid curved shape, due to their pitched angle. See Haland Fig., [0024].
The tapered part 8 of the flow stabilization member is formed in a conical shape and disposed inside the housing such that a vertex (the downstream end of tapered part 8) faces the outlet element 10, as seen in the Fig. The vertex of the tapered part 8 is disposed on the same line as a radial center of a front end portion of the outlet element 10, as seen in the Fig.
The outlet element 10 is formed in the shape of a pipe that penetrates a rear surface portion of the housing, as seen in the Fig. The outlet element 10 has a radius smaller than the housing, as seen in the Fig.
A front end portion of the outlet element 10 is disposed in the radial center of the housing, as seen in the Fig.
PNG
media_image1.png
1060
1443
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Haland differs from claim 1 because it is silent as to the dimensions of the device. Therefore, Haland fails to provide enough information to teach that the radius of the outlet element 10 (the “gas discharge passage”) is smaller than “half of the radius of the housing,” as claimed.
But the radius of the outlet element 10 is illustrated as being about half a radius of inner casing 1 of the housing, as seen in the Fig. Also, an annulus 12 is formed between the exterior surface of the outlet element 10 and an inner casing 1 of the housing—with the size of the annulus being dependent on the size differential between the radius of the outlet element and the inner casing (i.e., the larger the outlet element relative to the inner casing, the smaller the annulus 12). See Haland Fig., [0027]. The annulus 12 is an area where liquid flows through zone 6 of the device. Id. Further, Haland teaches that the design of the outlet element 10 can be adapted to the relevant application of the device. Id. at [0028]. With this in mind, it would have been obvious for the radius of the outlet element 10 to be half the radius of the casing 1 of the housing, to ensure that the annulus 12 is large enough for liquid to flow through zone 6 with the Fig. of Haland illustrating that the radius of the outlet element 10 is about half the radius of the inner casing 1.
Haland also differs from claim 1 because it is silent as to the outlet element 10 (the “gas discharge passage”) including a rear end portion that protrudes to an outside of the housing and is bent upward.
But the outlet element 10 is a section of the liquid separator that expels purified gas from the separator. Also, Haland teaches that the separator is intended for connection to into a pipeline (not shown) so that the tubular casing 1 of the separator is part of the pipeline. See Haland [0021]. Haland further teaches that the pipeline can be used in an offshore recovery environment with the separated gas phase being transported from the pipeline through a riser to a relevant production platform. Id. at [0002].
With this in mind, Boyle teaches a pipeline 20 that can be used in an offshore environment, with the pipeline 20 comprising a storage unit 55 that is connected to the pipeline 20 by an elbow section of pipe that is bent upward. See Boyle Fig. 1, col. 8, ll. 11–25. This configuration is beneficial because the elbow transfers hydrocarbons from a section of pipeline 20 below the water to the storage unit 55 above the water so that the hydrocarbons can be stored for further use.
PNG
media_image2.png
934
1242
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious for the outlet element 10 of Haland to connect to an elbow section of pipe that is bent upward so that the hydrocarbon gas exiting the outlet element 10 can be sent to a storage unit for storage for further use. With this modification, the outlet element 10 and the elbow would collectively read on the “gas discharge passage” and the elbow would read on the “rear end portion that protrudes to an outside of the housing and is bent upward.”
Regarding claim 3, Haland teaches that the guide vanes 7 (the “curved wings”) are formed to extend from the front end of the conical element of the spin body 4 to an end of the conical body where the tapered part 8 begins (the “rear end”). See Haland Fig., [0024]. All of the guide vanes 7 are bent in the same direction. Id.
Regarding claim 6, Haland teaches that the portion of the casing 1 extending from inlet end 2 to outlet element 10 (the “fluid inlet passage”) is formed to extend linearly from a front end of the housing, as seen in the Fig.
Regarding claim 7, Haland teaches that the spin element 4 (the “gas-liquid separation unit”) is disposed adjacent to a rear end of the portion of the casing 1 extending from inlet end 2 to outlet element 10 (the “fluid inlet passage”), as seen in the Fig.
Regarding claim 8, Haland teaches that the “gas discharge passage” (the outlet element 10 and the elbow of Boyle) is disposed on an opposite of the portion of the casing 1 extending from inlet end 2 to outlet element 10 (the “fluid inlet passage”), as seen in the Fig.
Regarding claim 10, Haland teaches that the “liquid discharge passage” (the outlet means for liquid into container 16) is formed in the shape of a pipe that extends to a lower side of a rear surface portion of the housing, as seen in the Fig.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haland, US 2003/0115843 A1 in view of Boyle, US 7,650,944 B1 and in further view of Vissers, US 2020/0282334 A1.
Regarding claim 11, Haland in view of Boyle teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
The prior art combination differs from claim 11 because it is silent as to the “fluid inlet passage” of Haland being connected to an inlet of a liquid storage tank with the structure of the separator of Haland (the “housing”) being disposed inside the liquid storage tank.
But the separator of Haland can be used to separate gas and liquid from petroleum fluid produced from a well. See Haland [0002]. Also, the separator collects liquid in container 16 with the liquid being drained through liquid outlet pipe 24. See Haland Fig., [0029], [0034].
With this in mind, Vissers teaches a fluid treatment system for separating liquid and gas from fluid produced by a petroleum well, where the system comprises a separating chamber 4 (a “liquid storage tank”) with a cyclonic separator 12 which forms the inlet of the chamber 4 and with the cyclonic separator 12 being located within the chamber 4. See Vissers Fig. 1, [0037]. The cyclonic separator 12 is used to separate fluid entering the chamber 4 into gas and liquid with liquid falling into the chamber 4 through nozzle 16, and with gas exiting the cyclonic separator through an outlet 8. Id. The configuration is beneficial because the chamber 4 provides a location for storing the liquid separated by the cyclonic separator 12 with the chamber 4 also being used to separate water and oil from the liquid that collects therein. Id. at [0038].
PNG
media_image3.png
558
608
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious for the separator of Haland to be located within the chamber 4 of Vissers, with the fluid inlet passage of Haland being connected to the inlet of the chamber 4 (in the same way as the cyclonic separator 12 of Vissers) to provide a location to store liquid expelled through liquid outlet pipe 24 while also providing a mechanism to further separate this liquid.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3 and 6–11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 T. BENNETT MCKENZIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5327. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7:30AM-6:00PM.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 571-270-7872. 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.
T. BENNETT MCKENZIE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1776
/T. BENNETT MCKENZIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776