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 .
Status of Claims
The Office Action is in response to the remarks and amendments filed on 11/04/2025. Claim 6 and 8 are cancelled. The objections to the Drawings have been withdrawn in light of the amendments filed. The objections to the Specification have been withdrawn in light of the amendments filed. The objections to the claims have been withdrawn in light of the amendments filed. The rejections pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn in light of the amendments filed. Accordingly, claims 1-5, 7 and 9-20 are pending for consideration in this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-10,12-15 and 17-20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Christensen et al. (US20080087328A1).
Regarding Claims 1, Christensen teaches a method of transporting a hydrocarbon gas [0008], the method comprising:
Adding a modifier gas [where dry gas is injected into natural gas; 0047;0048] to form a gas mixture [where dry gas is primarily methane and natural gas comprises methane in a mixture of heavier hydrocarbons;0028;0029]; and
passing the gas mixture through a pipeline [where the subsea unit 2 comprises a main pipeline 3, Figure 1; 0031],
wherein the modifier gas alters at least one of a critical pressure, a critical temperature, a cricondenbar, and an anomalous state of the gas or a combination thereof [where dry gas is injected into natural gas to lower the cricondenbar and cricondentherm; 0047;0048],
wherein the modifier gas comprises ethane, [where the dry gas injected into the natural gas is primarily methane and some ethane; 0036] and
wherein the gas mixture has a critical pressure, a critical temperature [where the natural gas and dry gas comprise of methane and inherently have a critical pressure and a critical temperature; 0028-0030], and wherein the gas is above the critical pressure and the critical temperature, during the passing of the gas through the pipeline [where condensation is avoided by maintaining a gas mixture of natural gas and dry gas temperature above cricondentherm and pressure above cricondenbar; 0026; where the cricondentherm and the cricondenbar are higher than critical pressure and critical temperature; see pertinent art Aursand].
Regarding Claim 2, Christensen teaches the method of claim 1 and further teaches where the gas mixture has a cricondenbar, and a cricondentherm [where the natural gas and dry gas comprise of methane and inherently have a critical pressure and a critical temperature; 0028-0030] and wherein the gas is above the critical pressure, the critical temperature, the cricondenbar, and the cricondentherm during the passing of the gas mixture through the pipeline [where condensation is avoided by maintaining a gas mixture of natural gas and dry gas temperature above cricondentherm and pressure above cricondenbar; 0026; where the cricondentherm and the cricondenbar are higher than critical pressure and critical temperature; see pertinent art Aursand].
Regarding Claim 3, Christensen teaches the method of claim 1 and further teaches where the gas is above the critical pressure, the critical temperature, the cricondenbar, and the cricondentherm [where to avoid condensation of a gas, the temperature of the gas is higher than the cricondentherm of the gas and the pressure of the gas is higher than the cricondenbar of the gas; 0026 where the cricondentherm and the cricondenbar are higher than critical pressure and critical temperature; see pertinent art Aursand] between an inlet to the pipeline to an outlet of the pipeline [where natural gas is transported in a pipeline from a gas field to a terminal; 0008] .
Regarding Claim 5, Christensen teaches the invention of claim 1 and further teaches where the gas comprises natural gas or a mixture of gases [where dry gas is primarily methane and natural gas comprises methane in a mixture of heavier hydrocarbons;0028;0029].
Regarding Claim 7, Christensen teaches the invention of claim 5 and further teaches where a composition of the gas mixture is selected so that the critical pressure, the critical temperature, the cricondenbar, the cricondentherm, and an anomalous state are correspond to the surrounding conditions through which the pipeline passes [where in subsea pipelines the temperature of the gas rapidly reduces to the ambient temperature of about +4 degrees Celsius and friction loss reduces pressure, such that the pressure may fall at or below the cricondenbar and condensation will occur. Condensation is avoided by injecting dry gas otherwise the ambient temperature may cause the natural gas to reach or fall below cricondentherm. Condensation, which also occurs below the critical temperature and/or below the critical pressure, is avoided through optimal transport of natural gas; 0027;0030;0034].
Regarding Claim 9, Christensen teaches the invention of claim 1 and further teaches where the pipeline passes through land, underground, water bodies, and/or ocean [where the plant comprises subsea unit 2 where subsea unit 2 comprises a main pipeline 3; 0031] with polar, tropical, arid, desert-like conditions, or any combination thereof [where the dry gas is cooled to different temperatures based on the climate of available water such as tropical waters or a colder climate zone in the North Sea; 0035].
Regarding Claim 10, Christensen teaches the invention of Claim 1 and further teaches where the gas [where the cricondenbar of the gas mixture is below 90 bar, for example 86.8 bar, which is 8.68 MPA, and the cricondentherm is below 0 degrees Celsius, for example -7.5 degrees Celsius; 0048] has a pressure, P > 6 MPa and a temperature, T > -30 °C [where condensation is avoided by maintaining a gas mixture of natural gas and dry gas temperature above cricondentherm and pressure above cricondenbar; 0026].
Regarding Claim 12, The method of claim 1, further comprising: increasing an inlet supercritical pressure [where dry gas is injected at a pressure of 300 bar, which is 30 MPa, to prevent pressure loss from the gas well; 0059] to reduce a pressure loss per unit length [where subsea cooling leads to pressure loss along the pipeline; 0027; where the dry gas is injected to both boost gas pressure and reduce the gas mixture cricondenbar such that there is a wide margin between gas pressure and the cricondenbar; 0050;0059] and a pumping power per unit length [refer to pertinent art Morris].
Claim 12 recites “to reduce pressure loss per unit length and a pumping power unit length.” The claim language does not require the prior art to perform an additional method step nor does it require additional structure beyond increasing an inlet supercritical pressure. Therefore, the recited claim limitation is presumed to be inherent. MPEP § 2112.01.
Regarding Claim 13, Christensen teaches the invention of claim 1 and further teaches passing the gas mixture [where dry gas is added to the primary mixing unit 10 for longer pipelines, Figure 1; 0032] in the pipeline from a first region [subsea unit 2, Figure 1;0031] to a second region [onshore unit 1; 0031], wherein the first region is colder than the second region [where in the subsea pipelines the temperature of the gas is rapidly reduced to ambient temperature; 0027]; decreasing a viscosity of the gas mixture [where methane with a mean molar weight of 16.8 kg/kgmol is injected into a natural gas with a mean molar weight of 22.2 kg/kgmol, where reducing the mean molar weight of a gas mixture reduces viscosity; 0047; Further where the viscosity of supercritical methane decreases as temperature increases at high pressures; Applicant Specification, 0065 and Figure 2D] in the pipeline [main pipeline 3, Figure 1] when passing from the first region through the second region [where injector pipes 6 inject along main pipeline 3 leading into the onsite unit 1, Figure 1]; and reducing a pressure loss per unit length [where subsea cooling leads to pressure loss along the pipeline; 0027; where the dry gas is injected to both boost gas pressure and reduce the gas mixture cricondenbar such that there is a wide margin between gas pressure and the cricondenbar; 0050;0059] and a power requirement per unit length [refer to pertinent art Morris] when passing from the first region through the second region [where injector pipes 6 inject along main pipeline 3 leading into the onsite unit 1, Figure 1; where most of the injection gas is applied near the terminal, the onsite unit, such that the gas arrives to the terminal at a high enough pressure; 0059].
Regarding Claim 14, The method of claim 1, wherein the pipeline passes through a cold region [subsea unit 2, Figure 1], and wherein the pipeline is configured to exchange heat between the gas and an atmosphere outside of the pipeline [where in the subsea pipelines the temperature of the gas is rapidly reduced to ambient temperature; 0027].
Regarding Claim 15, The method of claim 1, where the gas mixture [where dry gas is injected into natural gas; 0047;0048] exits the pipeline [main pipeline 3, Figure 1] above a supercritical pressure [where leading into the terminal gas is injected to boost gas pressure such that it is well above the cricondenbar, which is above critical pressure, and, at the same time, reduce the gas mixture cricondenbar; 0050;0059], and wherein the method further comprises: distributing the gas to an end user without recompression [where if the gas in the main pipeline has a pressure higher than 100 bar the compressor may be omitted; 0035 and the liquid line 30 leaves the plant for export, such that there is an implied end user; 0036].
Regarding Claim 17, Christensen teaches a transportation system [a plant for transporting natural gas; 0031], the system comprising:
a pipeline [main pipeline 3, Figure 1; 0031] having an inlet and an exit [from the gas wells to the onshore unit, Figure 1;0031]; and
a hydrocarbon or natural gas [where natural gas comprises methane in a mixture of heavier hydrocarbons, which includes ethane and propane and higher carbon-number hydrocarbons;0028;0029] combined with a gas modifier [where the dry gas injected into the natural gas is primarily methane where some ethane in addition to minor amounts of propane and heavier components remain; 0036] to form a gas mixture disposed within the pipeline [where dry gas is injected into natural gas; 0047;0048],
wherein the gas mixture has a critical pressure, a critical temperature, a cricondenbar, and a cricondentherm [where the natural gas and dry gas comprise of methane and inherently have a critical pressure and a critical temperature; 0028-0030], and wherein the gas is above the critical pressure, the critical temperature, the cricondenbar, the cricondentherm [where condensation is avoided by maintaining a gas mixture of natural gas and dry gas temperature above cricondentherm and pressure above cricondenbar; 0026; where the cricondentherm and the cricondenbar are higher than critical pressure and critical temperature; see pertinent art Aursand], and beyond an anomalous state within the pipeline [where condensation is avoided by maintaining a gas mixture of natural gas and dry gas temperature above cricondentherm and pressure above cricondenbar; 0026], and
wherein the modifier gas comprises ethane [where the dry gas injected into the natural gas is primarily methane where some ethane in addition to minor amounts of propane and heavier components remain; 0036]
Claim 17 recites functional limitations drawn toward the intended use or manner of operating the claimed apparatus. The functional limitations are: “wherein the gas is above the critical pressure, the critical temperature, the cricondenbar, and the cricondentherm, and beyond an anomalous state within the pipeline.” When the cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus, it will be held that the prior art apparatus is capable of performing all of the claimed functional limitations of the claimed apparatus. MPEP § 2114.
Regarding Claim 18 Christensen teaches the invention of claim 17 and further teaches a compressor station [compressor 40, Figure 5, an additional embodiment of the dry gas injection point; 0043] fluidly coupled to the pipeline [main pipeline 3, Figure 5], wherein the compressor station is configured to receive the hydrocarbon or natural gas in the pipeline [where during normal operation gas flows through the main pipeline and through compressor 40; 0043], compress the gas [in compressor 40; 0043], and pass the gas back into the pipeline [where gas continues in the main pipeline 3, Figure 3] between the inlet and the exit [where subsea unit 2 comprises the main pipeline 3 and is between gas wells, as in the inlet, and the onshore unit, as in the exit; 0031].
Regarding Claim 19. Christensen teaches the invention of claim 18 and further teaches where the compressor station [compressor 40, Figure 5; 0043] does not have an active cooling system [where the injection point includes a compressor 40, a valve45, and expander 41, and does not disclose or suggest a cooling system, Figure 5; 0043].
Regarding Claim 20, Christensen teaches a transportation system [a plant for transporting natural gas; 0031], the system comprising:
a pipeline [main pipeline 3; 0031] passing through an ocean, lakes, or a combination of land, lakes and ocean [where subsea unit 2 comprises two pipelines, a main pipeline 3 and a dry gas pipeline 4; 0031]; and
a gas [where the main pipeline transports natural gas; 0031], and a gas modifier [where dry gas is injected into natural gas; 0047;0048] to form a gas mixture disposed within the pipeline [where dry gas is injected into natural gas; 0047;0048] wherein the gas mixture has a critical pressure, a critical temperature, a cricondenbar, and a cricondentherm [where the natural gas and dry gas comprise of methane and inherently have a critical pressure and a critical temperature; 0028-0030], and wherein the gas is above the critical pressure, the critical temperature, the cricondenbar, and the cricondentherm [where condensation is avoided by maintaining a gas mixture of natural gas and dry gas temperature above cricondentherm and pressure above cricondenbar; 0026; where the cricondentherm and the cricondenbar are higher than critical pressure and critical temperature; see pertinent art Aursand], and beyond an anomalous state within the pipeline [where condensation is avoided by maintaining a gas mixture of natural gas and dry gas temperature above cricondentherm and pressure above cricondenbar; 0026]. And
wherein the modifier gas comprises ethane, [where the dry gas injected into the natural gas is primarily methane where some ethane in addition to minor amounts of propane and heavier components remain; 0036].
Claim 20 recites functional limitations drawn toward the intended use or manner of operating the claimed apparatus. The functional limitations are: “wherein the gas is above the critical pressure, the critical temperature, the cricondenbar, and the cricondentherm, and beyond an anomalous state within the pipeline.” When the cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus, it will be held that the prior art apparatus is capable of performing all of the claimed functional limitations of the claimed apparatus. MPEP § 2114.
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christensen et al. (US20080087328A1) in view of Moshfeghian (Moshfeghian, M. “Variation of properties in the dense phase region; Part 2 – Natural Gas,” PetroSkills John M. Campbell Consulting, January 2010, [retrieved on 30 July 2025]. Retrieved from Internet <https://www.jmcampbell.com/tip-of-the-month/2010/01/variation-of-properties-in-the-dense-phase-region-part-2-%E2%80%93-natural-gas/>)
Regarding Claim 4, Christensen teaches the invention of claim 1 and does not explicitly teach where the gas is at a condition that is beyond an anomalous state, where thermophysical properties of gases and their mixtures change significantly and inversions/inflexions in certain properties occur.
However, Moshfeghian teaches variation in thermophysical properties of natural gas in the dense phase and neighboring phases [p.1, last paragraph] where the gas [natural gas comprising 80 mole % methane, Table 1] is at a condition that is beyond an anomalous state [at point D where the thermophysical properties of viscosity, density and heat capacity plateau as temperature increases above the cricondentherm of 98.86 degrees Celsius and above the cricondenbar of 15.35 MPa, Figures 2, 3 and 6] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying routine optimization of a known result effective variable to achieve a recognized result, i.e., optimizing for stable single-phase gas in a natural gas pipeline around the dense phase region where properties vary abnormally [Moshfeghian, Conclusion].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Christensen to have where the gas is at a condition that is beyond an anomalous state, where thermophysical properties of gases and their mixtures change significantly and inversions/inflexions in certain properties occur, in view of the teachings of Moshfeghian where the modification constitutes routine optimization of a known result-effective variable to achieve a recognized result, i.e., optimizing for stable single-phase gas in a natural gas pipeline around the dense phase region where properties vary abnormally [Moshfeghian, Conclusion].
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christensen et al. (US20080087328A1) in view of Stinson (Stinson, D., “Optimum Transportation of Natural Gas Under Arctic Conditions,” Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, ICAM 1994 Conference Proceedings, September 1994, [retrieved 31 July 2025]. Retrieved from <https://www.boem.gov/about-boem/icam-94-resource-potential-hydrocarbons>).
Regarding Claim 11. Christensen teaches the invention of claim 1 and further teaches where the gas mixture comprises at least one other modifier gas [where the dry gas comprises propane; 0036] to manage stable flow conditions and where the gas mixture has a pressure, P
≥
6 MPa [where the cricondenbar of the gas mixture may be below 90 bar, for example 86.8 bar, which is 8.68 MPa, and the pressure is maintained above cricondenbar; 0026; 0048] but
Christensen does not explicitly teach the gas mixture has temperature, -50°C < T < -30°C.
However, Stinson teaches lowering the flowing temperature of natural gas to increase capacity of a pipeline [Abstract] where the gas [a methane ethane mixture, Table 1] has a temperature reduced from -17.8 degrees Celsius to -51.1 degrees Celsius [case 3 to case 4, Table 2; p. 304, para. 1] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying routine optimization of a known result effective variable, temperature of the gas, to achieve a recognized result, i.e., increasing the capacity of a large volume pipeline for economical design under permafrost conditions [Stinson, Conclusion].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Christensen to have where the gas has temperature, -50°C < T < -30°C in view of the teachings of Stinson where the modification constitutes routine optimization of a known result-effective variable to achieve a recognized result, i.e., increasing the capacity of a large volume pipeline for economical design under permafrost conditions [Stinson, Conclusion].
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christensen et al. (US20080087328A1) in view of Moshfeghian and Singhe (US9248424B2).
Regarding Claim 16, Christensen teaches the invention of claim 1 and further teaches where the gas comprises methane [where the natural gas and dry gas comprise of methane; 0028-0030], feeding the gas to the pipeline [from gas wells;0031]; and transporting the gas above the critical pressure, the critical temperature, the cricondenbar, the cricondentherm [refer to the rejection of Claim 3 above], and beyond the anomalous state [refer to Moshfeghian as applied to the rejection of Claim 4 above] from gas wells [where natural gas is transported from gas wells; 0031] to sea surface or coastlines [onshore unit 1, Figure 1; 0031] and does not explicitly teach extracting the methane from subsea hydrates.
However, Singhe teaches a method of producing gaseous methane from solid hydrate deposits [0001] extracting methane from subsea hydrates [where dissociated methane is then transported from production wells through subsea pipelines, Figure 1; 0026;0044] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e., Leveraging an economically feasible and abundant natural gas as an alternative fuel source [Singhe, 0019].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Christensen to where the gas comprises methane and is extracted from subsea hydrates in view of the teachings of Singhe where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results, i.e., Leveraging an economically feasible and abundant natural gas as an alternative fuel source [Singhe, 0019].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/04/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 2-12 of the remarks, Applicant argues in regards to the rejection of claims 1, 17 and 20 under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Christensen that Christensen fails to teach or suggest adding a modifier gas to a gas to form a gas mixture wherein the modifier gas comprises carbon dioxide, nitrogen, an inert gas, ethane, propane or a higher carbon-number hydrocarbon because of the first two paragraphs of p.8, paragraphs 0028-0029, and p.2, paragraph 0036. Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Christensen discloses a modifier gas, dry gas, including ethane, as described in 0036. The claim where the modifier gas comprises carbon dioxide, nitrogen, an inert gas, ethane, propane or a higher carbon-number hydrocarbon doesn't require all the recited structures but the claim is written in the alternative and only one is required. Please refer to the rejections of Claims 1, 17 and 20 above. Accordingly, the rejections of record are considered proper and remain.
Applicant does not separately argue the rejection of claims 2-5,7,9-16,18 and 19 except for their dependence upon claims 1 and 17. Accordingly, the rejections of record are considered proper and remain.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KEONA LAUREN BANKS whose telephone number is (571)270-0426. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30- 6:00 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, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at 5712705054. 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.
/KEONA LAUREN BANKS/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/ELIZABETH J MARTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763