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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-14, method of filtering, in the reply filed on 2/10/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that: no arguments given.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Specification/Drawings
Figure 6 shows NO and YES reversed at block 614, compared to the specification at [0029].
Claim Objections
Claim14 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 2. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
Claims 2-6, 10, 11 and 14 are 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.
As understood, claims are directed to diverting sand flow from a full vessel to an empty vessel. Technology used to determine the fill level of a vessel is by weight, level and differential pressure. The problem is, the vessel is switched in claim 1 using weight as controlling the process. Then in claim 2, the differential pressure is introduced as the control variable. This leads to two confusing situations, (1) by the sequence of presentation, the vessel is already switched in claim 1, before the differential pressure variable is considered; (2) unclear if both these conditions are to be met before the switch can take place, or when one of these conditions are met, the switching takes place without waiting for the second (safety), or are these alternate methods.
Same issue with weight and level control in claim 10 and differential pressure and weight in claim 14.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 103
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.
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(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Sinker et al (US 2021/0010364).
Sinker teaches in the “Background of the invention” at [0006-0007] that MPD systems with sand cyclone and sand filter are well-known in the art, and control is using differential pressure (pressure drop.) Once the pre-determined maximum pressure drop (threshold) is reached, the first vessel is switched with a second vessel, and the first vessel is then purged (flushed), and this cycle switching between vessels one and two is repeated. Measuring pressure drop requires pressure sensors – implied.
Claim(s) 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Sinker et al (US 2021/0010364) in view of Magnus et al (US 11,724,241) and Malone et al (US 2021/0299595).
Teaching of Sinker is detailed above in rejection 1.
Sinker does not teach controlling the system using weight or level control, or using a combination of weight, pressure and level control as claimed in this set of claims.
Magnus teaches (abstract, figures, col. 8, line 46 – col. 9 line 30, col 17, lines 23-57) a method for emptying a vessel 120 of sand and liquids as the tank gets full based on both volume and mass for control of the system, to a containment vessel 130, which in turn is also emptied similarly when full.. It uses load cells to measure mass (weight.) Level control is the same a volume control, since level (height) in a tank is directly correlated to the volume. The process is manual or automated with SCADA. Also, in col. 10, lines 44-67, Magnus teaches using pressure as controlling factor to evacuate the vessel 520, similar to 120.
Malone teaches controlling based on differential pressure, volume or weight of the sand. [0086.] Malone also teaches that time or level based control is well-known in the art [0008, 0009]. Particularly, Malone teaches that a combination of DP, volume and weight based control is advantageous to provide data over a wider range of operation conditions, and to have more accuracy in the control system [0086]. The examiner considers the logic behind the combination as: weight and level control as safety redundancies for the primary DP control; and since the material collected is sand and liquid mixture, a weight-limited control may overflow the vessel if sand (sand being denser than liquids) content is less, whereas a level control system may overload the system if sand content is high (too much weight before the full volume of the vessel is reached.) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teachings of Malone and Magnus in the controlling the process of Sinker more effectively. Malone teaches using level sensors [0021], and pressure sensors [0039], [0059] and detect level, volume or weight [0080]. . This covers claims 1-3, 5, 7 and 10-14.
Claims 4, 8, 9: manual and/or automated activity: Both Malone [0057] and Magnus (col. 17, lines 40-47) teach the automated system with PLC or SCDA Magnus: col 17, lines 60-67.)
Claim 6: this claim only states that the first vessel is isolated only after the second vessel is brought online, which would have been obvious to have a continuous operation, and prevent disruption.
Claim 12: depressurizing the tank before opening the flush valves would be prima facie obvious for safety and prevent spillage or sand/liquid mixture spray. These process steps for dumping sand from the vessel are obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art – common sense.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISHNAN S MENON whose telephone number is (571)272-1143. The examiner can normally be reached Flexible, but generally Monday-Friday: 8:00AM-4:30PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Prem C Singh can be reached at 571-272-6381. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KRISHNAN S MENON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777