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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/21/26 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3 and 6 are listed as “Previously Presented” however appear to disagree with amendments filed 6/24/25 – for purposes of examination missing language, addressed below, is treated as still present in claims 1 3 and 6.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments submitted 1/21/26 have been fully and carefully considered.
Regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC 112(a) and 35 USC 112(b) the arguments and amendments submitted the cancellation of claim 7 has overcome these rejections.
Regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC 112(a) of claims 8, 16 and 19, applicant argues that the device inherently performs the claims methane content as claimed (see arguments P7 and P10-11), this is respectfully found persuasive, because the skilled artisan at the time of invention understood that many factors contribute to results in distillation and separation systems and methods, beyond the hardware, and therefore applicant’s arguments that the hardware necessarily achieves the claimed methane levels is not found persuasive, because many factors, such as how the hardware is operated, contributes to the separation achieved, therefore the ranges claimed based upon model runs are still found to be new matter and must be deleted from the claims. Additionally it is noted that RVP and phase separator pressure and more needed to be entered into the models, which are not claimed, and further are not in the originally filed specification.
Regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC 103, applicant argues that the claims are not fairly taught or suggested by the closest relevant prior art applied of Pegg (US 4,223,728) taken in combination with Parkhurst (US 2,324,172) and Kresnyak et al (US 6,536,523), because the claimed system and method are able to achieve 50% reduction in VRU usage in the bulk oil separator receiving the stabilized crude oil fluid, indicating reduced gases that could escape as emissions, Reduced maintenance activities due to reduced gas-lift compressor downtime, Product gas energy content reduction from 1,400 to 1,322 BTU/ft3 (5.6% reduction), indicating improved recovery of hydrocarbons from the gaseous product fluid, and Stabilized crude oil fluid volume increase of 11.3% (see arguments p 8), this is respectfully not found persuasive. The argued advantages are not found in the claims as written, therefore in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., to achieve 50% reduction in VRU usage in the bulk oil separator receiving the stabilized crude oil fluid, indicating reduced gases that could escape as emissions, Reduced maintenance activities due to reduced gas-lift compressor downtime, Product gas energy content reduction from 1,400 to 1,322 BTU/ft3 (5.6% reduction), indicating improved recovery of hydrocarbons from the gaseous product fluid, and Stabilized crude oil fluid volume increase of 11.3%) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding Pegg, applicant argues that Pegg does not teach producing “stabilized crude oil fluids” because in Pegg the liquid intermediate hydrocarbons are used for reinjection (see arguments page 12), this is not found persuasive, as the final disposition of the liquid intermediate hydrocarbons, i.e. for reinjection, does not provide sufficient evidence that this cannot be equated with “stabilized crude oil fluids”, therefore under broadest reasonable interpretation this is considered to read upon this limitation. Other teachings Pegg lacks examiner conceded in the prior rejections.
Regarding Kresnyak as having additional separators in between pressure reducer (see arguments P8) this is respectfully not found persuasive, it is noted that applicant’s claims all use open claim language, i.e. “comprising” therefore are not excluded from having additional components or steps in the system or methods as claimed. Further regarding operating pressure differences (see arguments page 14) both references when compared with the claims are considered relevant prior art and the skilled artisan would have reasonable expectation of success, further examiner notes that applicant hasn’t specified any operating pressures in the claims, therefore both Kresnyak and Pegg are relevant to the instantly claimed system and methods, and the arguments between low pressure and high pressure are not found persuasive because applicant’s own claims do not specify pressure of the system or method, which are directed to method of use.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 8, 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 8, 16 and 19 these claimed ranges of reduction of methane do not have support in the originally filed specification because the model run in the arguments on 6/24/25 is new matter not part of the original specification therefore these limitations are new matter.
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 1-6, 8-9 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.
Regarding claims 1-6 and 8-9, in claims 1, 3 and 6, these claims are listed as “Previously Presented” however appear to disagree with amendments filed 6/24/25 – for purposes of examination missing language, addressed below, is treated as still present in claims 1 3 and 6; the missing language further leads to clarity issues in each case because the limitations become unclear in view of the missing language underlined:
Claim 1: "a fractionation column that processes the liquid hydrocarbons"
Claim 3: “wherein said separator and said fractionation column”
Claims 6: “wherein said separator comprises”
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 depends upon cancelled claim 7, for purpose of examination this is treated as if depending upon claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, the recitation “said gaseous content” has insufficient antecedent basis because the antecedent basis was deleted when claim 7 was cancelled, clarification is required.
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) 1-6 and 8-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pegg (US 4,223,728) taken in combination with Parkhurst (US 2,324,172) and Kresnyak et al (US 6,536,523).
Regarding claim 1, Pegg teaches system for processing a crude produced from at least one well 2,6 having a well head (2,6 to line 12) wherein said crude is separate into at least one fluid comprising a wastewater fluid 50, a stabilized crude oil fluid 18, a gaseous product fluid 16 and an optional NGLs fluid 36 (optionally reinjected), using a simplified production facility which integrates a separation system 14 and a fractionation system 26 into steps, comprising: c. initial separating system 14 separating said cooled at least one fluid into three streams: a first wastewater fluid 50, a liquid hydrocarbons fluid 18, and gaseous hydrocarbons fluid 16, d. conveying said liquid hydrocarbon fluid 16 to a fractionation column 26 and said fractionation column outputs at least one distillate fluid and said at least one distillate fluid comprising said stabilized crude oil fluid (“The liquid intermediate hydrocarbons may be processed by well-known means forming no part of this invention to further recover valuable C6 and other fractions or they may be accumulated in storage for later use” C3:L62-67); said gaseous product fluid 16; said NGLs fluid 36; and said wastewater fluid 50 and evacuating the said at least one distillate fluid through traditional means (“The liquid intermediate hydrocarbons may be processed by well-known means forming no part of this invention to further recover valuable C6 and other fractions or they may be accumulated in storage for later use”) with fluids alternately provided back to wells 42/46 for reinjection (see Fig 1, C3:L15-C4:L28).
However Pegg is silent the system comprising a pressure regulator that adjusts the pressure of the initial well fluid forming a pressure adjusted well fluid.
Parkhust teaches a system and method of processing well fluids (title, P1:C1:L1-10), and teaches producing well 10, with pressure regulating valve 11 through line 12 to driers 26 provides well fluids to subsequent cooler 13, pressure reducing valve 14 and separator 15 producing gas phase predominantly methane with other light hydrocarbons, liquid phase is passed through line 22, where it is ultimately provided to fractionator 180 and stabilizer 32, that all together with absorber 177 form fractionator tower, where liquid output 59 is drawn through cooler 61 to oil product tank 63; the gases from separator and absorber are combined into gas line 190 for well reinjection to input well 152 (see Fig 1, P3:C1:L20-P3:C2:L72), Parkhurst teaches the advantage of the invention being to increase liquid phase products from high pressure and normal pressure wells (P1:C1:L51-P1:C2:L55).
Kresnyak teaches a water treatment process for heavy oil recovery (see title abstract), Kresnyak teaches a heavy oil recovery facility where the thermal conditions of the production fluids after the producing well bore 155 and well head 160 in order to enhance the performance of the heavy oil recovery; where the hot production fluids pass through the degassing separator 161 as the pressure is reduced at 162 to feed the oil/water separation unit with better heat recovery (see Fig 2, C11:L22-39).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Pegg to include a pressure regulator that adjusts the pressure of the initial well fluid forming a pressure adjusted well fluid as taught by Parkhurst and/or Kresnyak motivated to improve efficiencies of Pegg as taught by Kresnyak which teaches better heat recovery by expanding the gas, and improve liquid distillates recovered from high pressure wells as taught by Parkhurst, and to further cool the distillate product as taught by Parkhurst to allow product to be stored at safe temperatures as suggested by Parkhurst.
Regarding claim 2, in Pegg as modified above, NGL fluids and gaseous products fluids are obtained in the separator as well as distillation columns with columns overheads provided for reinjection to the well as EOR fluid.
Regarding claim 3-4, in modified Pegg as set forth above, the units are integrated, under broadest reasonable interpretation, i.e. they are connected, and to make integral in a single piece of equipment/vessel would be obvious motivated to reduce capital construction costs, see MPEP 2144.04 (V)(B).
Regarding claim 5, in modified Pegg as set forth above, Parkhust has taught cooler 13 in combination with pressure adjuster and adjusting the order would not have significant change in the overall system and method of use of modified Pegg without expected result of both cooling and reducing pressure of the hot well fluid.
Regarding claim 6, Kresnyak has taught plural separators 161/165 at different pressures with heater treater flashing of waste steam (see Fig 2).
Regarding claim 8, all limitations of the system as claimed are taught, therefore the expected result of the stabilized crude oil fluid has methane and VOC content reduced below ambient pressure flash point in order to reduce subsequent emissions from the stabilized crude oil fluid at atmospheric pressure, wherein such reduction results in the stabilized crude oil fluid having at least one measurement of methane content that meets a criterion from the group of: less than 0.28 mol% methane, less than 2.80 scf/bbl of methane, and less than 161 CO2 equivalent kg/bbl of methane, would be expected absent claimed difference.
Regarding claims 9, Parkhust has taught combining gaseous overhead streams as set forth above.
Regarding claim 10, Pegg teaches system and method of operating said system for processing a crude produced from at least one well 2,6 having a well head (2,6 to line 12) wherein said crude is separate into at least one fluid comprising a wastewater fluid 50, a stabilized crude oil fluid 18, a gaseous product fluid 16 and an optional NGLs fluid 36 (optionally reinjected), using a simplified production facility which integrates a separation system 14 and a fractionation system 26 into steps, comprising: c. initial separating system 14 separating said cooled at least one fluid into three streams: a first wastewater fluid 50, a liquid hydrocarbons fluid 18, and gaseous hydrocarbons fluid 16, d. conveying said liquid hydrocarbon fluid 16 to a fractionation column 26 and said fractionation column outputs at least one distillate fluid and said at least one distillate fluid comprising said stabilized crude oil fluid (“The liquid intermediate hydrocarbons may be processed by well-known means forming no part of this invention to further recover valuable C6 and other fractions or they may be accumulated in storage for later use” C3:L62-67); said gaseous product fluid 16; said NGLs fluid 36; and said wastewater fluid 50 and evacuating the said at least one distillate fluid through traditional means (“The liquid intermediate hydrocarbons may be processed by well-known means forming no part of this invention to further recover valuable C6 and other fractions or they may be accumulated in storage for later use”) with fluids alternately provided back to wells 42/46 for reinjection (see Fig 1, C3:L15-C4:L28).
However Pegg is silent the system comprising a pressure regulator that adjusts the pressure of the initial well fluid forming a pressure adjusted well fluid or cooling the stabilized crude oil fluid.
Parkhust teaches a system and method of processing well fluids (title, P1:C1:L1-10), and teaches producing well 10, with pressure regulating valve 11 through line 12 to driers 26 provides well fluids to subsequent cooler 13, pressure reducing valve 14 and separator 15 producing gas phase predominantly methane with other light hydrocarbons, liquid phase is passed through line 22, where it is ultimately provided to fractionator 180 and stabilizer 32, that all together with absorber 177 form fractionator tower, where liquid output 59 is drawn through cooler 61 to oil product tank 63; the gases from separator and absorber are combined into gas line 190 for well reinjection to input well 152 (see Fig 1, P3:C1:L20-P3:C2:L72), Parkhurst teaches the advantage of the invention being to increase liquid phase products from high pressure and normal pressure wells (P1:C1:L51-P1:C2:L55).
Kresnyak teaches a water treatment process for heavy oil recovery (see title abstract), Kresnyak teaches a heavy oil recovery facility where the thermal conditions of the production fluids after the producing well bore 155 and well head 160 in order to enhance the performance of the heavy oil recovery; where the hot production fluids pass through the degassing separator 161 as the pressure is reduced at 162 to feed the oil/water separation unit with better heat recovery (see Fig 2, C11:L22-39).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Pegg to include a pressure regulator that adjusts the pressure of the initial well fluid forming a pressure adjusted well fluid as taught by Parkhurst and/or Kresnyak motivated to improve efficiencies of Pegg as taught by Kresnyak which teaches better heat recovery by expanding the gas, and improve liquid distillates recovered from high pressure wells as taught by Parkhurst, and to further cool the distillate product as taught by Parkhurst to allow product to be stored at safe temperatures as suggested by Parkhurst.
Regarding claims 11 and 13-14, in modified Pegg as set forth above, Parkhust has taught cooler 13, which would be obvious to cool with airflow and/or refrigeration through well-known means, in combination with pressure adjuster 14; Kresnyak has taught adjust pressure at 161, and also the fluid from well flows through lines which would also serve to passively cool the hot well fluid naturally.
Regarding claim 12, in Pegg as modified above, NGL fluids and gaseous products fluids are obtained in the separator as well as distillation columns with columns overheads provided for reinjection to the well as EOR fluid.
Regarding claim 15, Kresnyak has taught plural separators 161/165 at different pressures with heater treater flashing of waste steam (see Fig 2).
Regarding claim 16, all limitations of the system as claimed are taught, therefore the expected result of the stabilized crude oil fluid has methane and VOC content reduced below ambient pressure flash point in order to reduce subsequent emissions from the stabilized crude oil fluid at atmospheric pressure, wherein such reduction results in the stabilized crude oil fluid having at least one measurement of methane content that meets a criterion from the group of: less than 0.28 mol% methane, less than 2.80 scf/bbl of methane, and less than 161 CO2 equivalent kg/bbl of methane, would be expected absent claimed difference.
Regarding claims 17, Parkhust has taught combining gaseous overhead streams as set forth above.
Regarding claim 18 and 20, Pegg teaches system for processing a crude produced from at least one well 2,6 having a well head (2,6 to line 12) wherein said crude is separate into at least one fluid comprising a wastewater fluid 50, a stabilized crude oil fluid 18, a gaseous product fluid 16 and an optional NGLs fluid 36 (optionally reinjected), using a simplified production facility which integrates a separation system 14 and a fractionation system 26 into steps, comprising: c. initial separating system 14 separating said cooled at least one fluid into three streams: a first wastewater fluid 50, a liquid hydrocarbons fluid 18, and gaseous hydrocarbons fluid 16, d. conveying said liquid hydrocarbon fluid 16 to a fractionation column 26 and said fractionation column outputs at least one distillate fluid and said at least one distillate fluid comprising said stabilized crude oil fluid (“The liquid intermediate hydrocarbons may be processed by well-known means forming no part of this invention to further recover valuable C6 and other fractions or they may be accumulated in storage for later use” C3:L62-67); said gaseous product fluid 16; said NGLs fluid 36; and said wastewater fluid 50 and evacuating the said at least one distillate fluid through traditional means (“The liquid intermediate hydrocarbons may be processed by well-known means forming no part of this invention to further recover valuable C6 and other fractions or they may be accumulated in storage for later use”) with fluids alternately provided back to wells 42/46 for reinjection (see Fig 1, C3:L15-C4:L28).
However Pegg is silent the system comprising at least one cooler that cools the initial well fluid, or the cooler for the stabilized crude oil fluid.
Parkhust teaches a system and method of processing well fluids (title, P1:C1:L1-10), and teaches producing well 10, with pressure regulating valve 11 through line 12 to driers 26 provides well fluids to subsequent cooler 13, pressure reducing valve 14 and separator 15 producing gas phase predominantly methane with other light hydrocarbons, liquid phase is passed through line 22, where it is ultimately provided to fractionator 180 and stabilizer 32, that all together with absorber 177 form fractionator tower, where liquid output 59 is drawn through cooler 61 to oil product tank 63; the gases from separator and absorber are combined into gas line 190 for well reinjection to input well 152 (see Fig 1, P3:C1:L20-P3:C2:L72), Parkhurst teaches the advantage of the invention being to increase liquid phase products from high pressure and normal pressure wells (P1:C1:L51-P1:C2:L55).
Kresnyak teaches a water treatment process for heavy oil recovery (see title abstract), Kresnyak teaches a heavy oil recovery facility where the thermal conditions of the production fluids after the producing well bore 155 and well head 160 in order to enhance the performance of the heavy oil recovery; where the hot production fluids pass through the degassing separator 161 as the pressure is reduced at 162 to feed the oil/water separation unit with better heat recovery (see Fig 2, C11:L22-39).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Pegg to include a cooler and/or pressure regulator that adjusts the pressure of the initial well fluid forming a pressure adjusted well fluid as taught by Parkhurst and/or Kresnyak motivated to improve efficiencies of Pegg as taught by Kresnyak which teaches better heat recovery by expanding the gas, and improve liquid distillates recovered from high pressure wells as taught by Parkhurst.
Regarding claim 19, all limitations of the system as claimed are taught, therefore the expected result of the stabilized crude oil fluid has methane and VOC content reduced below ambient pressure flash point in order to reduce subsequent emissions from the stabilized crude oil fluid at atmospheric pressure, wherein such reduction results in the stabilized crude oil fluid having at least one measurement of methane content that meets a criterion from the group of: less than 0.28 mol% methane, less than 2.80 scf/bbl of methane, and less than 161 CO2 equivalent kg/bbl of methane, would be expected absent claimed difference.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-1603. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 - 5.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached on (571) 272-5954. 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.
/JONATHAN MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772