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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 13-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/18/2026.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: blowdown units in claims 1, 8, 11, 12, 22, and blowdown valve assembly in claim 22, each interpreted to include at least one valve.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 7 is 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 7 recites the sensor of the separator comprises an density, acoustic, or electromagnetic tomography measurement sensor and wherein acoustic measurement sensor provide a signal representing whether or not a sand level in the accumulator has reached the acoustic measurement sensor, this is unclear, A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language (density, acoustic, or electromagnetic tomography measurement sensor) is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pitcher (US 11,351,481, applicant provided prior art), in view of as Coombe (US 2021/0205735, Examiner notes that the priority date for this continuation-in-part application is the filing date of the application, the parent application published qualifies as prior art.)
With respect to claim 1, Pitcher teaches controlling sand discharge from a plurality of sand separators with a controller (abstract, a method for operating a sand separation system, and separating sand from a fluid using a plurality of separators), as is known in the art sand separators must be periodically purged to remove slurry (C1/L10-40, the separators each temporarily store the sand therein), the control system selectively purges multiple separators on an individually selected basis (C1/L45-C3/L6, Fig. 2, selecting, using a control unit, one of the plurality of separators to blowdown), dump lines 20/20A connected to separate vessels 10/10A with valves 26/26A, connect to common discharge line 28, and the controller can actuate valve 26/26A to allow flow into discharge line 28 (C2/L8-55, a plurality of manifold valves are each coupled to a respective one of the separators), the controller can determine the status of each separator and decide which separator to dupe and prevent other separators from dumping (C3/L1-15), signaling, from the control unit, to one of the manifold valves, the one of the manifold valves being coupled to the selected one of the plurality of separators, for the one of the manifold valves to open, opening one of the manifold valves, wherein the other manifold valves remain closed) the controller is connected to all of the valves, valves 22, 24 a blowdown unit, and executing a blowdown (C3/C4); discharge line 28 dumps into sand pit 38 (C2, Fig. 2, receiving the sand from the selected one of the separators into a sand disposal unit, wherein the sand passes through the manifold valve that is opened and through the blowdown unit), and transducers 18/18A which measure pressure in the separator (C2, a sensor of the separators).
While Pitcher does not explicitly teach opening one or more valves of the blowdown unit in response to the signaling, so as to blowdown the selected one of the separators; or measuring the sand that was separated in the one of the separators using a sensor of the one of the separators, a load cell of the sand disposal unit, or both.
Coombe teaches a sand separation method using a separator, and signaling for a blowdown unit to blowdown the separator and opening one or more blowdown valves of the blowdown unit coupled to the separator in response to the signaling, and includes measuring a weight of at least some of the sand that was separated in the separator using a load cell of the separator, a load cell of the sand disposal unit, or both (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to open the valves in order to dump the solids, and to measure the sand as described by Coombe as according to Coombe is may be desirable to determine the amount of solids separated from the fluid, and may indicate the tank is near capacity or needs to be blown down (0004, 0026).
With respect to claims 2, 4, the method of claim 1, is taught above. Pitcher teaches selective purging (blowdown) of separators as discussed above. Coombe teaches determining a blowdown interval for blowdown operations based in part on the weight of the sand (abstract) determining that it is time to execute blowdown operations based on measuring the sand that was separated in the one or more separators using the sensor of the one or more separators.
With respect to claim 12, the method of claim 1, is taught above. Pitcher teaches an actuated choke valve 34 (C2/L30-32, comprising adjusting a choke that is positioned downstream of the blowdown unit and upstream of the sand disposal unit, to tune the blowdown and reduce a pressure drop across the blowdown unit.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pitcher (US 11,351,481), in view of as Coombe (US 2021/0205735), in view of Jiang (US PG Pub 2020/0378815).
With respect to claim 3, the method of claim 2, is taught above. Pitcher teaches the controller responds to various parameters to initiate a dump cycle (C2/L35-55), Coombe teaches the controller used to determine when the tank is nearly full to prevent overfill (0042, determine overfill), determining the rate at which solids accumulate in the tank and plots of the historical sand accumulation data (0004, 0049), and determining that it is time to execute the blowdown operation based on the sensor measuring a certain amount of sand in the separator as discussed above.
The taught combination does not explicitly teach determining a maximum quantity of sand before an overfill of the separator based on past sand production rate; setting a safety interval between blowdowns that is less than the maximum quantity of sand before an overfill divided by the past sand production rate; and determining that it is time to execute the blowdown operation based on the sensor measuring a certain amount of sand in the separator, or upon expiration of the safety interval, whichever comes first.
Jiang teaches a solid separator control system comprising a controller that determines the presence and extent of solids in the sand separator to estimate the rate at which sand or other solid particles are produced, configured to determine amount of solids accumulated in the sand separator over a set or variable period of time, and using the known sample period and the measured solids accumulating over that period, the solid separator control system can calculate solids accumulation rates and the controller configured to adjust to optimize the flow rates through the sand separator and can determine that a threshold level has been reached, and open the dump valve to discharge solids into the solids tank.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize dumping interval of the combination of Pitcher and Coombe to optimize the interval, taking into account the rate of accumulation of solids as deserved by Jiang, and determine a maximum quantity of sand before an overfill of the separator based on past sand production rate; setting a safety interval between blowdowns that is less than the maximum quantity of sand before an overfill divided by the past sand production rate; and determining that it is time to execute the blowdown operation based on the sensor measuring a certain amount of sand in the separator, or upon expiration of the safety interval, whichever comes first, in order to optimize separation and maintain safe and efficient operation of the separator (0005).
Claim(s) 5, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pitcher (US 11,351,481), in view of as Coombe (US 2021/0205735), in view Lyon (US PG Pub 20180333657).
With respect to claim 5, the method of claim 1, is taught above. Pitcher teaches the controller responds to various parameters to initiate a dump cycle (C2/L35-55), and the use of transducers as discussed above; Coombe teaches the separators can use different types of sensors (0023). The taught combination does not explicitly teach the sensor of the separator comprises a nuclear emitter and receiver that are positioned outside of an accumulator of the separator.
Lyon teaches methods and apparatus for determining the level of contents within a sand separator and controlling dumping of sand using radiation (abstract, 0002), comprising a nuclear radiation source and a radiation monitor mounted outside the body of the separator (0018-0042, 0114-0124 the sensor of the separator comprises a nuclear emitter and receiver that are positioned outside of an accumulator of the separator). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use detect the amount of sand in the separators of the taught combination with radiation as shown by Lyon as according to Lyon, the detector is advantageous because all of the components necessary to determine the level of material within the separator may be mounted on the exterior of the separator(s) facilitating easy exchange, and weigh scales depend of flow parameters and other variables and the detectors are robust, can operate in conjunction with high-pressure vessels and are easily moveable from one separator unit to another (0080-0089).
With respect to claim 6, the method of claim 5, is taught above. Lyon teaches a radiation source and detector as discussed above the nuclear emitter emits a field of radiation, and wherein the method comprises detecting a level of the sand in the accumulator), absent evidence of differences over the art based on the sand obstructing at least a portion of the field of radiation is inherent, examiner notes "Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed. A “whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.” Id. (quoting Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003); MPEP §2111.04). Where a reference discloses the terms of the recited method steps, and such steps necessarily result in the desired and recited effect, the fact that the reference does not describe the recited effect in haec verba is of no significance because the reference meets the claim under the doctrine of inherency."
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pitcher (US 11,351,481), in view of as Coombe (US 2021/0205735), in view of Malone (US PG Pub 2021/0299595).
With respect to claim 7, the method of claim 1, is taught above. See 112(b) rejection above. Pitcher teaches the controller responds to various parameters to initiate a dump cycle (C2/L35-55), and the use of transducers as discussed above; Coombe teaches the separators can use different types of sensors (0023) measuring the sand that was separated in the separator comprises using the sensor of the separator. The taught combination does not explicitly teach a density, acoustic, or electromagnetic tomography measurement sensor positioned at least partially in an accumulator of the separator, and wherein acoustic measurement sensor provide a signal representing whether or not a sand level in the accumulator has reached the acoustic measurement sensor. Malone teaches automated sand dump control systems utilizing level sensors (0009), a solids level sensor positioned inside of the separator vessel detects the level of the accumulated sand particles and sends a signal to the control panel (0058) and an acoustic sensor (0072) and density sensor (0074-0075). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an acoustic or density sensor inside the separator as taught by Malone as Pitcher and Coombe each teach the use of different types of sensors, and as shown by Malone, these types of sensors are known for use in sand separation and the courts have held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date, see MPEP §2143.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-11 are allowed. While Pitcher teaches discharge line 28 dumps into sand pit 38, the controller responds to various parameters, and the use of transducers and Coombe teaches blowdown line 307 connected to 309, and sand disposal unit 126 and pressure sensor 326 downstream of the blowdown unit (0028-0032). The prior art does not provide teaching or suggestion for the a debris catcher and measuring a pressure downstream of a debris catcher, the debris catcher positioned between the separator and the blowdown unit; determining that the pressure measured downstream of the debris catcher is out of a predetermined range; and in response to determining that the pressure measured downstream of the debris catcher is out of the predetermined range, executing one or more mitigation actions in response to the debris catcher being plugged, in combination with the other limitations of claim 1. Claims 9-11 depend from claim 8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sayers (US PG Pub 2023/0025302)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEANNIE MCDERMOTT whose telephone number is (571)272-4479. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5:00 EST.
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.
/JEANNIE MCDERMOTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/BRADLEY R SPIES/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights