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 .
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s response filed 09 December 2025 containing remarks and amendments to the claims.
Claims 1-18 are pending, with claims 1-9 withdrawn from consideration.
The previous rejections have been updated as necessitated by amendments to the claims. The updated rejections follow.
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.
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 10-15 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vu (US 2007/0267325) in view of Hays (WO 98//54441) and Soliman (US 2018/0187095).
Regarding claims 10-11, Vu teaches sending crude oil to a heat exchanger 3, followed by a three phase high temperature high pressure separation 2, followed by desalting and dehydration in vessel 12 [0025]-[0038]. Vu teaches using known desalter/dehydration steps in electrostatic separator [0037]. Examiner notes that it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have appropriately selected desalting/dehydration conditions, including “high pressures” as claimed.
Vu teaches that it is known in the art to remove BSW to less than 0.5 wt % [0049], overlapping with the claimed range.
Vu does not explicitly disclose (1) rotary separation turbine steps (2) stabilizing the desalted/dehydrated crudes.
Regarding (1), Hays teaches that crude recover from oils is subject to treatment in a rotary separation turbine, in order to recover gas and water, as well as generate energy (pages 2-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have performed the Hays rotary separation turbine steps, for the benefit of removing gas, water, and recovering energy.
Regarding (2), Soliman teaches that it is well known in the art to send dehydrated crude to stabilization column, for the benefit of recovering further desirable products [0002-0004].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have used the Soliman stabilization column, for the benefit of removing undesirable hydrogen sulfide materials.
Regarding claim 12, Vu does not disclose VIEC in the HPHT separator.
However, Soliman teaches that VIEC may be included in separation vessels, in order to improve the separations [0060].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated known electrostatic VIEC systems, into the separator of Vu, for the benefit of improving the separation.
Regarding claim 13, Vu teaches using electrostatic coalescer [0037].
Vu does not explicitly disclose that the coalescer is a VIEC.
However, Soliman teaches that such VIEC are well known electrostatic coalescer internals for separation of water and gas from crude oils [0060].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have used the well-known VIEC units, in order to provide the desired electrostatic coalescence.
Regarding claims 14 and 17-18, Vu teaches separation of gases (see figure).
Further, Soliman teaches a similar staged gas separation, including a common gas compression recovery unit [0060], see figures.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have used the Soliman gas recovery, in order to perform the desired compression and recovery.
Regarding claim 15, Soliman teaches that demulsifiers can be injected into recovery units in order to improve separation of water and oil phases [0059].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have provided demulsifier injection, in order to improve the separation. It is not seen where such a modification would result in any new or unexpected results.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vu (US 2007/0267325) in view of Hays (WO 98//54441) and Soliman (US 2018/0187095) as applied to claim 10 above and further in view of Khan (US 2021/0317371).
Regarding claim 16, the previous combination teaches the limitations of claim 10 above. Soliman teaches that stabilized crudes are sent to sweetening steps to remove hydrogen sulfide [0003]. Examiner notes that the person having ordinary skill in the art would know to select an appropriate hydrogen sulfide scavenger, in order to perform the hydrogen sulfide sweetening.
The previous combination does not explicitly disclose heat exchange as described.
However, Khan teaches a similar process. Khan teaches sending stabilized crude effluent to heat exchange with feed to dehydrator in order to heat the feedstock and cool the effluent (see figure, [0013], [0025], [0026]). Khan teaches that any process stream can be used as the heat exchange medium [0026].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have used appropriate heat exchange of process streams, as described by Khan, for the benefit of obtaining the desired cooling/heating of streams.
Double Patenting
Claims 10-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,325,831. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are drawn to overlapping subject matter regarding staged high pressure high temperature separator and high pressure desalting and dehydrating.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner considers Applicant’s argument to be:
The prior art does not disclose “high pressure”.
In response to Applicant’s, Examiner notes that as discussed in the rejections, Vu teaches pressures above atmospheric pressure [0027], [0035]. Further, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have appropriately selected operation conditions. It is not seen where “high pressure” results in any new or unexpected results. Further, the instant claims do not specify a particular pressure range.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Davies (US 5,678,423) -teaches treating crude oil in a rotary separation vessel to remove VOCs.
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 MICHELLE STEIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1680. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 AM-5:00 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, Prem C Singh can be reached at 571-272-6381. 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.
/MICHELLE STEIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights