DETAILED ACTION
This detailed action is in response to the amendments and arguments filed on 02/10/2026, and any subsequent filings.
Notations “C_”, “L_” and “Pr_” are used to mean “column_”, “line_” and “paragraph_”.
Claim 2 is canceled. Claims 1 and 3-20 are pending.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Due to the Applicant’s amendments, the previous 35 USC § 112 rejections have been removed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 1
The Applicant argues that Roberts does not teach “directing a majority portion of the oil constituent radially outward through the second radial aperture spaced from the end wall that includes the at least one axial outlet aperture” (pg. 2). This argument is unpersuasive because Roberts was not relied upon to teach this limitation.
The Applicant argues that Roberts does not include a water constituent (pg. 2-3). This argument is unpersuasive because Mayse was relied upon to teach a water constituent.
In response to applicant's argument that Roberts does not include a water constituent, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
The Applicant argues that Mayse primarily uses gravitational separation (pg. 3). This argument is unpersuasive because this argument is incommensurate with the scope of the claims. The claims do not preclude gravitational separation.
The Applicant argues that Mayse does not disclose or teach that centrifugal forces can be used to separate liquid oil from liquid water (pg. 3-4). This argument is unpersuasive because Mayse teaches that rotary motion can provide centrifugal force to assist in separating the immiscible phases (Mayse, C5/L61-64), and oil and water are immiscible.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually (pg. 2-5), one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Response to Amendment
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, 3-5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent US8470080B1 (‘Ball 2’) in view of U.S. Patent US3672127A (‘Mayse’).
The Applicant’s claims are directed towards a method.
Regarding Claims 1 and 3-5, Ball 2 teaches a method of separating a flow of multi-phase fluid including at least a gas constituent, an oil constituent, and a water constituent (abstract), the method comprising:
directing the flow of multi-phase fluid through an inlet opening (Fig. 1, C4/L40-43, inlet 24) of an enclosed tubular body (Fig. 1, C4/L40-43, horizontal tank or vessel 20), the tubular body comprising a tubular sidewall with opposed end walls (Fig. 1, C4/L40-46, inlet end 22 and outlet end 26) centered about a substantially horizontal longitudinal axis (Fig. 1), the tubular body also including first and second radial outlet apertures (Fig. 1, C4/L43-46) formed through the tubular sidewall at locations spaced from the inlet opening (Fig. 1);
directing the flow of multi-phase fluid onto at least one swirl plate (Fig. 1, C4/L50-56, the first pair of fins or plates 33) positioned within the tubular body between the inlet opening and the at least one radial outlet aperture (Fig. 1), the at least one swirl plate having angled surfaces configured so as to initiate separation of the constituents of the multi-phase fluid within the tubular body (Fig. 11 and 14, C4/L56-63);
directing at least a majority portion of the gas constituent (Fig. 1, C4/L36-38 and C5/L18-26, gas 12) axially outward from the tubular body (Fig. 1);
directing at least a majority portion of the water constituent (Fig. 1, C5/L18-26, separated water 16) radially outward from the tubular body through the first radial outlet aperture (Fig. 1, C6/L54-59, water outlet 30) proximate an end wall (Fig. 1, C4/L43-49); and
directing a majority portion of the oil constituent (Fig. 1, C5/L18-26, separated oil 18) radially outward through the second radial aperture (Fig. 1, C7/L4-11, oil outlet 32) spaced from the end wall (Fig. 1, C4/L43-49).
Ball 2 does not teach that the end wall includes at least one axial outlet aperture, that the at least one swirl plate has angled surfaces configured to impart a cyclonic motion of the flow of multi-phase fluid within the tubular body, and directing at least a majority portion of the gas portion through the at least one axial outlet aperture.
Mayse also relates to a method of separating a flow of multi-phase fluid including at least a gas constituent, an oil constituent, and a water constituent (C2/L25-27), including that:
the tubular body also including at least one axial outlet aperture formed through the opposed end walls (Fig. 1, C3/L47-66, outlets 54, 58 and 62);
angled surfaces configured to impart a cyclonic motion of the flow of multi-phase fluid within the tubular body (C5/L61-64); and
directing at least a majority portion of the gas portion through the at least one axial outlet aperture (Fig. 1, C3/L47-66, outlet 54).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 3: a center of the first radial aperture is in angular alignment, with respect to the longitudinal axis of the tubular body, with a center of the second radial aperture (Ball 2, Fig. 1-2).
Claim 4: the first radial aperture and the second radial aperture are substantially circular (Mayse, C4/L46-51. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the first and second radial apertures of Ball 2 and Mayse to be substantially circular because openings may be formed of any opening configurations providing that they serve in the same function, Mayse, C4/L46-51).
Claim 5: directing at least a majority portion of a solids constituent (Ball 2, Fig. 1, C4/L36-40, sediment 14) included in the flow of multi-phase fluid out of the tubular body in a radially outward and downward direction through at least one elongate (Ball 2, Fig. 1, C43-55) aperture (Ball 2, Fig. 1, C5/L52-55, sediment blow down drains 78) formed through a bottom portion of the tubular body (Ball 2, Fig. 1, C5/L52-55, underside 80).
Regarding Claim 12, Ball 2 teaches a method for initiating the separation of constituents of a flow of multi-phase fluid including a gas constituent, an oil constituent, a water constituent, and a solids constituent (abstract), the method comprising:
directing the flow of multi-phase fluid through an inlet opening (Fig. 1, C4/L40-43, inlet 24) of an enclosed tubular body (Fig. 1, C4/L40-43, horizontal tank or vessel 20), the tubular body comprising a tubular sidewall with opposed end walls (Fig. 1, C4/L40-46, inlet end 22 and outlet end 26) centered about a substantially horizontal longitudinal axis (Fig. 1), the tubular body including an inlet opening (Fig. 1), first and second radial outlet apertures (Fig. 1, C4/L43-46) formed through the tubular sidewall at locations spaced from the inlet opening (Fig. 1), and at least one elongate (Fig. 1, C43-55) aperture (Fig. 1, C5/L52-55, sediment blow down drains 78) formed through a bottom portion of the tubular body (Fig. 1, C5/L52-55, underside 80);
directing the flow of multi-phase fluid onto at least one swirl plate (Fig. 1, C4/L50-56, the first pair of fins or plates 33) positioned within the tubular body between the inlet opening and the at least one radial outlet aperture (Fig. 1), the at least one swirl plate having angled surfaces configured so as to initiate separation of the constituents of the multi-phase fluid within the tubular body (Fig. 11 and 14, C4/L56-63);
directing at least a majority portion of the gas constituent (Fig. 1, C4/L36-38 and C5/L18-26, gas 12) axially outward from the tubular body (Fig. 1);
directing at least a majority portion of the water constituent (Fig. 1, C5/L18-26, separated water 16) radially outward from the tubular body through the first radial outlet aperture (Fig. 1, C6/L54-59, water outlet 30) proximate an end wall (Fig. 1, C4/L43-49); and
directing a majority portion of the oil constituent (Fig. 1, C5/L18-26, separated oil 18) radially outward through the second radial aperture (Fig. 1, C7/L4-11, oil outlet 32) spaced from the end wall (Fig. 1, C4/L43-49); and
directing at least a majority portion of a solids constituent (Fig. 1, C4/L36-40, sediment 14) included radially outward and downward direction from the tubular body through the at least one elongate (Fig. 1, C43-55) aperture (Ball 2, Fig. 1, C5/L52-55, sediment blow down drains 78) formed through a bottom portion of the tubular body (Ball 2, Fig. 1, C5/L52-55, underside 80).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the end wall of Ball 2 to include at least one axial aperture, as demonstrated by Mayse, because gas can be directed through both axial and radial outlets (Mayse, Fig 1 and 3, compare gas outlet 54 and 115, C3/L50-55 and C8/L30-37). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the angled surfaces of Ball 2 may impart a cyclonic motion, as demonstrated by Mayse, because both the plates 33 of Ball 2 and the plurality of openings 74 of Mayse divide an input fluid into multiple streams that are directed to the sides or walls of the tubular body (Ball 2, C4/L52-63 and Mayse, Fig. 2) and the plurality of openings of Mayse impart the fluid a rotary motion so as to provide centrifugal force to assist in separating the immiscible phases (Mayse, C5/L61-64).
Claims 6, 9, 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent US8470080B1 (‘Ball 2’) and U.S. Patent US3672127A (‘Mayse’) as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent US4617031A (‘Suh’).
The Applicant’s claims are directed towards a method.
Regarding Claims 6, 9, 13 and 16, the combination of Ball 2 and Mayse teaches the methods of Claims 1 and 12, including splitting the flow of multiphase fluid into a first stream and a second stream upon entry of the flow of multi-phase fluid into the tubular body through the inlet opening (Ball 2, Fig. 1, C4/L50-52, inlet 24 communicates with inlet diverter 36), except that the first stream and the second stream being directed in opposite directions along the longitudinal axis of the tubular body to the opposed end walls.
Suh also relates to a method of separating a flow of multi-phase fluid (abstract), including splitting the flow of multi-phase fluid into a first stream and a second stream upon entry of the flow of multi-phase fluid into the tubular body through the inlet opening (Fig, C3, L28-31), the first stream and the second stream being directed in opposite directions along the longitudinal axis of the tubular body to the opposed end walls (Fig).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the first stream and the second stream can be directed in opposite directions along the longitudinal axis of the tubular body to the opposed end walls, as demonstrated by Suh, in the combination of Ball 2 and Mayse, because both Ball 2 and Mayse relate to a method of separating a flow of multi-phase fluid including at least a gas constituent, an oil constituent, and a water constituent (Ball 2, abstract and Suh, abstract) including splitting the flow of multi-phase fluid into a first stream and a second stream upon entry of the flow of multi-phase fluid into the tubular body through the inlet opening (Ball 2, Fig. 1, C4/L50-52 and Suh, Fig, C3, L28-31).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claims 9 and 16: directing the at least a majority portion of the gas constituent axially outward from the tubular body further comprises directing a majority portion of the gas constituent of the first stream and the second stream axially outward (Suh, Fig, C3, L28-41) through axial apertures formed through each of the opposed end walls (It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the end walls of Ball 2, Mayse and Suh to include at least one axial aperture, as demonstrated by Mayse, because gas can be directed through both axial and radial outlets (Mayse, Fig 1 and 3, compare gas outlet 54 and 115, C3/L50-55 and C8/L30-37).
Claims 7-8 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent US8470080B1 (‘Ball 2’), U.S. Patent US3672127A (‘Mayse’) and U.S. Patent US4617031A (‘Suh’) as applied to claims 6 and 13 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent US9643105B1 (‘Walker’).
The Applicant’s claims are directed towards a method.
Regarding Claims 7-8 and 14-15, the combination of Ball 2, Mayse and Suh teaches the methods of Claims 6 and 13, including that splitting the flow of multi-phase fluid into a first stream and a second stream further comprises directing the flow of multi-phase fluid onto a forward edge of a splitter plate (Ball 2, Fig. 11, C4/L50-C5/L2, final pair of plates 33) located within the tubular body, except that directing the flow of multi-phase fluid onto the at least one swirl plate further comprises directing the first stream and the second stream onto swirl plates located downstream and on opposite sides of the splitter plate.
Walker also relates to a method of separating a flow of multi-phase fluid (abstract), wherein splitting the flow of multi-phase fluid into a first stream and a second stream further comprises directing the flow of multi-phase fluid onto a forward edge of a splitter plate located within the tubular body of the cyclonic separator (Fig. 3, C5, L33-36, leading edge 144A), and
wherein directing the flow of multi-phase fluid onto the at least one swirl plate further comprises directing the first stream and the second stream onto swirl plates (Fig. 3, C4, L46-57, innermost vanes 110 and 140) located downstream and on opposite sides of the splitter plate (Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to direct the flow of multi-phase fluid onto the at least one swirl plate, as demonstrated by Walker, in the method of the combination of Ball 2, Mayse and Suh to serve to route a multiphase mixture, providing for efficient separation (Walker, C3/L48-65).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claims 8 and 15: wherein the inlet opening further comprises a radial inlet aperture formed through a center portion of the tubular sidewall and equally spaced between the opposed end walls, and wherein the splitter plate is located at the center portion of the tubular sidewall and aligned with the inlet opening (Walker, Fig. 7, C8/L53-C9, L9).
Claims 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent US8470080B1 (‘Ball 2’), U.S. Patent US3672127A (‘Mayse’) and U.S. Patent US4617031A (‘Suh’) as applied to claims 6 and 13 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent US3360903A (‘Meyer’).
The Applicant’s claims are directed towards a method.
Regarding Claims 10 and 17, the combination of Ball 2, Mayse and Suh teaches the methods of Claims 6 and 13, including directing at least a majority portion of the oil constituent and at least a majority portion of the water constituent radially outward from the tubular body further comprises directing a majority portion of the oil constituent through a second radial aperture to form an opposing pair of second radial apertures (Suh, Fig, C3, L15-20, liquid outlet pipe 24, a second liquid outlet can be provided), except directing a majority portion of the water constituent radially outward through a first radial aperture proximate each opposed end wall and a second radial aperture adjacent each first radial aperture.
Meyer also relates to a method of separating a flow of multi-phase fluid (C3, L13-24 and Fig. 1), comprising directing at least a majority portion of the oil constituent and at least a majority portion of the water constituent radially outward from the tubular body further comprises directing a majority portion of the oil constituent and a majority portion of the water constituent radially outward through a first radial aperture proximate each opposed end wall and a second radial aperture adjacent each first radial aperture to form opposing pairs of first and second radial apertures (Fig. 1, C2, L70-C3, L5, conduits 15 and 16 lead to vessels 3 and 4, which each has a water outlet and an oil outlet (C3, L13-23, Fig. 2)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form pairs of first and second radial apertures, as demonstrated by Suh and Meyer, in the combination of Ball, Mayse and Suh to remove water and oil separately (Meyer, C3, L13-23).
Claims 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent US8470080B1 (‘Ball 2’) and U.S. Patent US3672127A (‘Mayse’) as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of U.S. Publication US20180093203A1 (‘Husveg’).
The Applicant’s claims are directed towards a method.
Regarding Claims 11 and 18, the combination of Ball 2 and Mayse teaches the method of Claims 1 and 12, except controlling an average velocity of the flow of multi-phase fluid so as to be maintained above a minimum inlet velocity for imparting the cyclonic motion within the tubular body.
Husveg also relates to a method of separating a flow of multi-phase fluid ([0001]) including at least a gas constituent, an oil constituent, and a water constituent (Fig. 2, [0067] and Fig. 3, [0068]), the method comprising controlling an average velocity of the flow of multi-phase fluid ([0041], controlling flow) so as to be maintained above a minimum inlet velocity for imparting the cyclonic motion within the tubular body ([0020], separation effect depends on inlet pressure and flow rate or flow velocity).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control the velocity of the flow, as demonstrated by Husveg, in the method of the combination of Ball 2 and Mayse because the separation effect depends on inlet pressure and flow rate or flow velocity (Husveg, [0020]) and to ensure delivery of clean phases at any variation of inlet pressure (Husveg, [0044]).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent US8470080B1 (‘Ball 2’) and U.S. Patent US3672127A (‘Mayse’) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent US4617031A (‘Suh’) and U.S. Patent US3360903A (‘Meyer’).
The Applicant’s claims are directed towards a method.
Regarding Claims 19-20, the combination of Ball 2 and Mayse teaches a method of separating the constituents of the flow of multi-phase fluid comprising the method of claim 12 (see analysis of Claim 12) and further comprising collecting each of the majority portion of the gas constituent, the majority portion of the oil constituent, the majority portion of the water constituent, and the majority portion of the solids constituent within an elongate separator vessel having an inlet end, a discharge end opposite the inlet end (Ball 2, Fig. 1, C4/L40-46, inlet end 22 and outlet end 26), and separator sidewalls extending between the inlet end and the discharge end (Ball 2, Fig. 1),
wherein the separator vessel is partially filled with a bulk fluid so as to define a fluid level of the bulk fluid (Ball 2, Fig. 1, C4/L36-40) and a head space above the bulk fluid (Ball 2, Fig. 1, C4/L36-40),
wherein the tubular body is positioned within the separator vessel proximate the inlet end of the separator vessel (Ball 2, C2/L10-12 and C4/L40-43, separator employs horizontal vessel), and
wherein the majority portion of the gas constituent is configured to flow directly into the head space of the separator vessel (Ball 2, Fig. 1, C4/L36-40), and the majority portion of the solids constituent is configured to flow downwards into the bulk fluid contained within the separator vessel (Ball 2, Fig. 1, C4/L36-40).
The combination of Ball 2 and Mayse does not teach that the tubular body is positioned above the fluid level of the bulk fluid and that the majority portion of the oil constituent and the majority portion of the water constituent are configured to flow toward an inlet end cap of the separator vessel.
Suh also relates to a method of separating the constituents of the flow of multi-phase fluid (abstract), wherein the tubular body is positioned above the fluid level of the bulk fluid (Fig) and wherein the majority portion of the oil constituent and the majority portion of the water constituent are configured to flow toward an inlet end cap of the separator vessel (Fig, C2/L66-C3/L4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the tubular body of the combination of Ball 2 and Mayse can be positioned above the fluid level of the bulk fluid, as demonstrated by Suh, to separate the liquid and gas by gravity force (Suh, C3/L45-47).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 20: wherein the separator vessel includes a separator longitudinal axis defining a horizontal centerline plane and a vertical centerline plane, and wherein a longitudinal axis of the tubular body is orientated substantially perpendicular to the vertical centerline plane of the separator vessel and substantially parallel with and spaced above the horizontal centerline plane of the separator vessel (Suh, Fig).
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 BOI-LIEN THI NGUYEN whose telephone number is (703)756-4613. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8 am to 6 pm.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at (571) 270-3240. 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.
/BOI-LIEN THI NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1779
/Bobby Ramdhanie/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights