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 05/12/2026 for application 18/400459.
Claims 1-2, 4, and 6-8 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
Claims 3 and 5 have been cancelled.
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, 2, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of CHRISTENSEN et al. (USPGPUB 2008/0087328) in view of ZUBRIN et al. (USPGPUB 2014/0366577).
CHRISTENSEN et al. teach a process for transporting rich gas through a pipeline from a gas field to a terminal. CHRISTENSEN et al. teach in paragraphs 1 and 2 that the process is applied to offshore gas fields that employ sub-sea production facilities and sub-sea pipelines. (diverting a first portion of a raw gas through a first pipeline from an upstream facility to a first downstream facility).
CHRISTENSEN et al. teach in paragraph 8 that dry gas is added to prevent condensation in the pipeline and to reduce the cricondentherm.
The dry gas is further taught in paragraph 13 to be injected at predetermined injection points of the pipeline. (injecting dry gas in the first pipeline downstream of the upstream facility and upstream of the first downstream facility to transfer heat to the raw gas and promote fluid flow through the first pipeline)
CHRISTENSEN et al. teach in paragraph 10 that there may be liquids such as water present and the addition of the dry gas will also serve to sweep the liquids out of the pipeline. (raw gas comprises a plurality of liquid contaminants)
CHRISTENSEN et al. teach in paragraph 26 that condensation of a natural gas is based on the cricondentherm. The temperature of the natural gas is taught to, in subsea pipelines, rapidly fall to 4°C. The cricondentherm of a natural gas having a molar weight of 22.2 kg/mol is taught in paragraph 30 to have a cricondentherm of 31°C.
Based on the teaching of CHRISTENSEN et al., imparting a dry gas that is at a higher temperature than 4°C and mixed with the natural gas to arrive at a temperature of greater than 31°C or the cricondentherm of the mixed gas would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to prevent condensation. (raw gas at a lower temperature than the dry gas)
The dry gas is also taught in paragraph 10 to increase the velocity of the gas in the pipeline.
An example is presented in paragraph 58 of CHRISTENSEN et al. wherein an exemplary natural gas having a mean molar weight of 22.2 kg/kgmol would require a rate of 1,500,000 Sm3/h at an initial pressure of about 182 bara and arrival pressure of about 125 bara. CHRISTENSEN et al. further teach in paragraph 59 that should the rate drop, the dry gas can impart the necessary rate by supplementing. Depending on the necessary supplement of the rate, the velocity of the dry gas may be expected to be from about 170 to 230 MMSCFD. (controlling a rate of the dry gas in the first pipeline of 170 to 230 MMSCFD)
"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Dry gas is taught in paragraph 29 to mostly comprise methane.
Although CHRISTENSEN et al. states that dry gas normally comprises more 90% methane, an 80% to 85 mol% methane dry gas would also be considered to mostly comprise methane and one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that would be a workable range absent evidence to the contrary. (wherein the dry gas comprises methane in a range of 80% to 85 mol%)
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Although CHRISTENSEN et al. teach a main pipeline to the onshore unit, it would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art to duplicate the main pipeline as a second main pipeline and the associated second onshore unit.
The court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Providing a second main pipeline and an associated second onshore unit and the respective second dry gas pipeline would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art.
Having a second main pipeline would provide for unexpected changes such as the main pipeline being inoperable for any reason or for repairs or maintenance to be performed. (second pipeline to second downstream facility)
ZUBRIN et al. teach in the abstract that raw gas streams can be separated into a methane stream, a NGLs stream and an ethane-rich stream with the use of a system that employs a separation subsystem.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that at the onshore unit and second onshore units to separate the ethane rich stream. (recovering ethane from the first portion raw gas from the first downstream facility and recovering ethane from the second portion raw gas from the second downstream facility)
The motivation to do so can be found in the abstract of ZUBRIN et al.
The ethane-rich stream is taught to be usable to provide power to the system. The ethane-rich stream has value as a fuel and can be used to power the separation in the onshore unit and second onshore unit.
It would be obvious to optimize the process to remove ethane from the natural gas in the onshore unit and the second onshore unit. The flow rate of the dry gas is tied to the recovery of the methane stream as the dry gas comprises primarily methane. The optimization of recovery of ethane is also tied to recovery of the methane stream and NGL stream. Optimizing the separation of the methane stream and NGL stream would also result in a more pure separation of ethane.
It has been established that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
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 claims 2, CHRISTENSEN et al. teach in paragraph 10 that there may be liquids such as water present and the addition of the dry gas will also serve to sweep the liquids out of the pipeline. (plurality of contaminants selected from a group consisting of water) Natural gas directed from a seawell would also be expected to comprise other impurities.
Regarding claim 4, the dry gas is further taught in paragraph 9 to be used to increase the pressure in the pipeline. (further comprises monitoring pressure in the first pipeline)
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.
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHRISTENSEN et al. (USPGPUB 2008/0087328) in view of in view of ZUBRIN et al. (USPGPUB 2014/0366577) as applied to claims 1, 2, and 4 above, and further in view of SOLIMAN (USPGPUB 2018/0066194).
The above discussion of CHRISTENSEN et al. in view of ZUBRIN et al. is incorporated herein by reference.
SOLIMAN teach integrated gas oil separation plant for crude oil and natural gas processing.
SOLIMAN teach in paragraph 56 that a compressed atmospheric off-gas stream may be mixed with wet crude oil to allow for more efficient separation of gases from crude oil and allows for increased water separation efficiency.
SOLIMAN is directed toward integration of not only crude oil but also natural gas processing and teach in paragraph 5 that the integrated GOSP systems and processes may be done with pre-existing gas/oil separating systems.
One of ordinary skill in the art would expect similar benefits in processing natural gas such as increased water separation efficiency.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce compressed atmospheric off gas streams and provide them to both the main pipeline and the second main pipeline in CHRISTENSEN et al. as CHRISTENSEN et al. recognize issues with water being present in the natural gas. CHRISTENSEN et al. teach in paragraph 10 that water is present and advantageously swept out by a high velocity dry gas.
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 05/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that hindsight reasoning is applied and that there is no motivation provided in CHRISTENSEN et al. to supply from a single upstream processing facility.
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).
This is not persuasive as CHRISTENSEN et al. teach in paragraph 15 a plant for transporting natural gas from a gas field to a terminal with the plant comprising a main pipeline for transporting the natural gas. The facilities on the subsea gas field could only be from a location with a gas field.
CHRISTENSEN et al. teach in paragraph 2 that certain offshore gas fields make traditional production platforms impractical and makes it more preferable to use sub-sea production facilities and subsea pipelines for transporting the gas ashore before treatment.
Applicant’s argument in regards to one of ordinary skill in the art applying from distinct separate upstream facilities is not persuasive as subsea gas wells are chosen because of the availability of natural gas. Duplicating the main pipeline to an onshore unit with a second main pipeline and a second onshore unit would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art.
Having a second main pipeline would provide for unexpected changes such as the main pipeline being inoperable for any reason such as inaccessibility or for repairs or maintenance to be performed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
LANDRY (USPGPUB 2005/0061396) teach employing an integrated energy hub that receives all aspects of hydrocarbon such as reception, storage, processing, collection, and transmission downstream. The hydrocarbons include natural gas. LANDRY teaches in paragraphs 5-6 that the integrated energy hub results minimized capital investments and operating costs.
REKUNYK (USPGPUB 2020/0133212) teaches a method for storing natural gas and natural gas liquids and a variable flow splitter. REKUNYK teaches a single action can split the gas stream into injection for storage and the sales pipeline for transportation.
JONES et al. (USPGPUB 2010/0048963) teach that natural gas comprises undesirable components such as carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and hydrogen sulfide.
SAYED et al. (US 11,208,588) teaches that gas hydrates are formed under low temperature and high pressure and presents a major problem of forming blockages in pipelines.
AL-KHALIFA et al. (U.S. 7,452,390) AL-KHALIFA et al. teach controlled transmission of natural gas. AL-KHALIFA et al. teach dividing a stream of natural gas into a first portion 108 and a second portion 202. The first portion 108 is heated in a heat exchanger 112 and the second portion 202 is passed to an aftercooler.
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