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
This is the response to amendment filed 04/04/2026 for application 18312906.
Claims 25-32, 34-43 and 45-46 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
Claims 1-24, 33, and 44 have been cancelled.
Claim 46 has been added.
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.
Claim(s) 25-32, 34-43 and 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ADAM (USPGPUB 2006/0272503) in view of LANSFORD (US 4960443) and ZUBRIN (USPGPUB 2015/0233634) and COHEN (USPGPUB 2013/0008557) and ANDERSEN (US 4787450).
The claims are directed toward an apparatus.
"[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding claim 25, ADAM teaches a system for processing of multiphase liquid.
ADAM teaches in paragraph 18 a 2 phase inlet separator from the output of a group of wells to form a liquid and a gas (2-phase separator configured to accept crude oil and form a sales gas stream and a liquid hydrocarbon stream).
The gas is taught in paragraphs 18 and 19 to be compressed and used as fuel.
The liquid is taught in paragraph 21 to comprise crude oil and water and is sent to a heat exchanger prior to a heater/treater to produce a second gas and a treated oil (heater treater configured to accept the liquid hydrocarbon stream to form an oil stream and a first rich gas stream).
The second gas is passed to a compression unit through a conduit and the treated oil is cooled and flowed through a pipe to a storage tank (one of more first conduits for providing the first rich gas stream to a compressor configured to compress the first rich gas stream).
The treated oil is taught in paragraph 21 to be cooled and sent to storage tanks (an oil storage tank configured to accept the oil stream).
LANSFORD is relied on to teach a storage tank that forms a second rich gas composition in a headspace.
LANSFORD teaches in lines 25-63 of column 2 a treatment of an admixture of crude oil, hydrocarbon gas and water by flowing an oil containing entrained C1-C5 hydrocarbon gas from a heater treater to a vapor recovery unit for separation of entrained gas from the oil.
In the vapor recovery unit, the entrained gas vapors are separated from the liquid and the gas is withdrawn from the vapor recovery unit by means of a line through compressor (second rich gas in a headspace) and is passed through a control valve which may be used to maintain pressure in the vapor pressure unit.
The gas from the vapor recovery unit may be compressed (second compressor) and sent to a gas plant to be liquefied and fractionated into various products such as ethane-propane and butane-pentane fractions. (one or more second conduits for providing the second rich gas composition from the storage tank to a compressor wherein the compressor is configured to compress the second rich gas composition)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the vapor pressure unit taught in LANSFORD as the storage tank in ADAM.
The motivation to do so can be found in lines 13-24 of column 1 of LANSFORD. LANSFORD teaches the process allows for the recovery of the considerable amount of hydrocarbon vapors entrained in the oil passed from the heater treater.
COHEN is relied on to teach that it is known to combine two compressed gaseous streams into a combined stream through a convergent junction.
COHEN teaches blending compressed gases. COHEN teaches in paragraphs 60, 63-65 and 70, a setup in which a first compressed gas passes through a pressure regulated flow control valve and a critical flow venturi and a second compressed gas passes through another pressure regulated flow control valve and a critical flow venturi into a mixing junction 148. The combination of pressure regulated flow control valves and critical flow venturi and the mixing junction has been construed as the convergent junction.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the second gas from ADAM and the gas from the vapor recovery unit in LANSFORD in a vapor mixer to form a combined stream with the setup of combinations of pressure regulated flow control valves and critical flow venturi and the mixing junction that is taught in COHEN prior to feeding the combined stream to be liquefied and fractionated into various products such as ethane-propane and butane-pentane fractions.
The motivation to do so can be found in lines 13-24 of column 1 of LANSFORD. LANSFORD teaches the process allows for the recovery of the considerable amount of hydrocarbon vapors entrained in the oil. This improves the yield of hydrocarbon vapors to be treated.
The motivation to use the combination taught in COHEN is taught in paragraphs 4 and 5 of COHEN. COHEN teaches that the setup allows for the blending of compressed gases from multiple sources and accurate blending that is tolerant of variations of system pressure.
ZUBRIN is relied on to teach a motivation to produce a first rich gas stream with less than 50% methane and a second rich gas stream of less than 50% methane. ZUBRIN teaches in paragraph 59 that natural gas liquids are C4+ components and in paragraph 10 that natural gas liquids are highly profitable.
ZUBRIN teaches that in paragraph 13 that it is known in the art to flare methane as it is unusable at the time in existing gensets.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the 2 phase inlet separator to remove as much of the methane as possible.
Alternatively/additionally, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the heater treater unit in ADAM and the vapor recovery unit of LANSFORD recover as much of the NGLs and as little or less than 50% of methane in the gases from both heater treater unit and the vapor recovery unit.
Condensers to liquefy gas is well known in the art (one or more condensers).
For example, ZUBRIN teaches condensers for liquefying gases.
ADAM teaches in paragraph 18 that second gases that are compressed are compressed for subsequent injection into gas re-injection wells.
ANDERSEN is relied on to teach what pressures are employed for gas re-injection wells.
ANDERSEN teaches in lines 14-22 of column 4 that gases that are to be injected into reservoirs are compressed to the pressures equal to or greater than the pressures at the depth at where the gases are injected.
ANDERSEN further teaches in lines 1-7 of column 9 an example of a reservoir with pressures between 165 psig to 800 psig. (1137 kPa – 5515 kPa)
Depending on the depth of the reinjection well, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ a pressure between 1379 kPa – 2068 kPa since it has been held that wherein the general conditions are known, optimization or workable ranges involve only routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
The gases that are recovered from the vapor pressure unit, taught in LANSFORD used as the storage tank in ADAM, may also be recycled to be reinjected into a well such as the second gas in ADAM. The pressures employed would also be expected to be the same as the second gases that may be reinjected into a gas re-injection well.
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 45, the first compressed gas and second compressed gas in COHEN are taught to pass through pressure regulated flow control valves. The pressure regulated flow control valves are taught in paragraph 63 to regulate the pressures of the compressed gases downstream of the valve. The blend of compressed gases would be expected to be maintained at a constant pressure if the pressure regulated flow control valves regulate the pressure of all the compressed gases that pass through.
Regarding claim 26, the vapor mixer such as the one taught in COHEN may be considered a convergent 2-way junction. The vapor mixer would receive the second gas from ADAM and the gas from the vapor recovery unit in LANSFORD. The lines feeding from the compressors to the vapor would be considered one or more third conduits.
Using a line to feed gas compositions from compressors to the vapor mixer would be well understood to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 27, ZUBRIN does teach in paragraphs 21 and 25 that the apparatus taught can handle pressures from 80 psig to 500 psig.
Regarding claim 28, LANSFORD teaches in lines 40-43 and lines 54-56 of column 2 that the gases withdrawn may be passes to a gas plant where they are liquefied and fractionated into various products such as ethane.
One of ordinary skill in the art would expect products to be stored in one or more storage means.
Products are separated into different fractions using known techniques such as with a condenser. A condenser functions by liquefying out product fractions based on their difference in boiling temperatures. Once separated, it would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art that those product fractions would be sent to one of more storage means to collect those product fractions.
Regarding claim 29, ADAM teaches in paragraph 21 the use of storage tanks. Using a storage tank as a storage means is well within one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 30, ZUBRIN teaches in Fig 2 and condenser 201 which comprises an air blown condenser which appears to show a fan.
Using a fan-cooled condenser is well within one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 31, ADAM in view of LANSFORD teaches collecting gases from a heater treater and a vapor pressure unit. Combining feeds from multiple heater treaters and vapor pressure units would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The court has held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced
Regarding claim 32, LANSFORD teaches in lines 25-53 a control valve to maintain pressure which may be used to maintain pressure in the vapor pressure unit. ZUBRIN teaches in paragraphs 178 and 179 that a control subsystem may be used to control pressure.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a control unit to maintain the proper pressure in the system and to turn on or off the pressure based on need.
Regarding claims 34-35, ZUBRIN teaches dehydrators.
ZUBRIN also teaches in reference claim 7 and paragraph 197 a module for removing sulfur that is upstream of compressors and condensers.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to place the dehydrator or module for removing sulfur that is upstream of condensers to remove water and sulfur with a reasonable expectation of success.
The motivation to do so would be to remove water and sulfur from the product gases.
Regarding claim 36, ADAM teaches only burning flare gas until confirmation of desired gases at which point, the gases from the 2-phase inlet separator are no longer burned. ZUBRIN is related to reducing flare gas burnt.
Regarding claims 37-38, no process would be expected to be 100% effective and some amount of non-condensed gases would be expected to be present. Given that the desired products are NGLs, the non-condensed gases would be expected to have a higher proportion of methane compared to the gases collected from the treater heater and the vapor pressure unit.
Regarding claims 39 and 40, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to recycle the non-condensed gases back in the system to try to improve the yield of the process whether it is back to the vapor pressure unit or to the heater treater.
Regarding claim 41, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to recycle the non-condensed gases back into the system through a third compressor try to improve the yield of the process.
Regarding claim 42, ZUBRIN teaches in paragraph 24 a power generator is configured to run on ethane-rich gas adapted to provide the electricity to other system components.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt the power generator and burn ethane rich gas for the system taught in ADAM and LANSFORD to provide power for the system.
Regarding claim 43, ADAM teaches in paragraphs 18 and 19 to be compressed and used as fuel. LANSFORD also teaches in lines 40-43 and lines 54-56 of column 2 that the gases withdrawn may be passed to a gas plant where they are liquefied and fractionated into various products such as propane. ZUBRIN teaches in paragraph 30 that product gas streams may be used in natural gas engines or transported in standard pressure vessels.
Claim(s) 46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ADAM (USPGPUB 2006/0272503) in view of LANSFORD (US 4960443) and ZUBRIN (USPGPUB 2015/0233634) and COHEN (USPGPUB 2013/0008557) and ANDERSEN (US 4787450) as applied to claims 25-32, 34-43 and 45 above, and further in view of MUELLER (US 9334109)
The above discussion of ADAM in view of LANSFORD and ZUBRIN and COHEN and ANDERSEN is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding claim 46, ADAM teaches in paragraph 21 the use of storage tanks. Using a storage tank as a storage means for liquefied gas and liquefied gas vapor from a condenser is well within one of ordinary skill in the art.
ADAM teaches in paragraph 18 that second gases that are compressed are compressed for subsequent injection into gas re-injection wells.
ANDERSEN is relied on to teach what pressures are employed for gas re-injection wells.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to maintain the pressure in the conduit exiting the storage tank at the pressure needed for subsequent injection into gas re-injection wells.
MUELLER is relied on to teach that a backpressure regulator is known in the art for maintaining the pressure for a conduit.
MUELLER teaches a system that comprises a gas output.
A gas is taught in lines 12-23 of column 8 to pass through a compressor and cooler and exits as a gas output.
MUELLER teaches in lines 32-34 of column 8 that a backpressure regulator may be provided in the line for the gas output
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a backpressure regulator the conduit exiting the storage tank
MUELLER teaches in lines 32-34 of column 8 that a backpressure regulator can be used to elevate or maintain the effective system discharge pressure.
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/04/2026 in regards to claims 25-32, 34-43 and 45 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
New claim 46 has been addressed above.
Applicant argues that the motivation to combine COHEN as “blending of compressed gases from multiple sources and accurate blending that is tolerant of variations of system pressure” does not apply as there is no need for such in the proposed combination of ADAM and LANSFORD as both hydrocarbon gas streams are destined for the same downstream processing and there is no target blend ratio.
This is not persuasive as the motivation to combine COHEN includes blending of compressed gases from multiple sources.
Furthermore, additional control of different flow rates for 2 different streams to be combined into a combined stream would be seen as beneficial to one of ordinary skill in the art by being more tolerant of variations of system pressure.
Applicant argues that ANDERSEN does not provide a basis for the claimed pressure of 1379 kPa – 2068 kPa. Applicant argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would compress and condense rich hydrocarbon gas based on dew point characteristics of the gas composition at the relevant temperature and not the depth of the geothermal reservoir.
This is not persuasive as ANDERSEN explicitly teaches gases fed into gas reservoirs are compressed to pressures that are equal to or greater than the pressures at that depth in the reservoirs. ANDERSEN further teaches reservoirs with depths that are at pressures that overlap those that are claimed.
ADAM teaches that the second gases produced may be reinjected into a gas well. Gas wells are taught in paragraph 19 to include underground reservoirs.
It would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art to compress the gases to be reinjected into the reservoirs based on the pressures at the depths in the reservoirs.
Applicant argues that the rich gas compositions have less than 50% methane and that the process cannot be a product of routine optimization or workable ranges as the claimed pressure range has not been established as a result effective variable.
This is not persuasive as ZUBRIN is relied on to teach a motivation to produce a first rich gas stream with less than 50% methane and a second rich gas stream of less than 50% methane.
ZUBRIN teaches that methane should be flared.
The motivation to employ the range of pressures employed in the present rejection that overlaps those that are claimed is found in ANDERSEN.
This is not persuasive because ANDERSEN explicitly teaches that the pressure necessary for the gases fed into gas reservoirs pressures that are compressed to equal to or greater than the pressures at that depth in the reservoirs. ANDERSEN further teaches reservoirs with depths that are at pressures that overlap those that are claimed.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Furthermore, the claims are directed toward an apparatus.
"[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
For example, in claim 1, a condenser “for cooling the combined rich gas” is a recitation of intended use.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
COHEN (USPGPUB 2012/0318403) teaches pressure cycle management in compressed gas dispensing systems in which pressure from a gas manifold to a receiving vessel is controlled by a coupling at a gas coupling pressure.
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 MING CHEUNG PO whose telephone number is (571)270-5552. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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 SINGH can be reached at 5712726381. 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.
/MING CHEUNG PO/ Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/ELLEN M MCAVOY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights