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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/10/2025 has been entered.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of CHRISTENSEN et al. (USPGPUB 2008/0087328) in view of MURRAY (USPGPUB 2016/0024409).
CHRISTENSEN et al. teach a process for transporting rich gas through a pipeline from a gas field to a terminal (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, a 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).
MURRAY JR et al. teach a process for gas processing and blending wet well head natural gas with compressed natural gas.
MURRAY JR et al. teach an embodiment in paragraph 95 in which wellhead gas exits a processing system through inlet 104. Pipelines 16 (second pipeline) extend from inlet 104 and proceed to coalescer 40, dryer 42, and particulate filter 44. (second downstream facility)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to divert a portion of the natural gas in the process that CHRISTENSEN et al. teach to the process that MURRAY JR et al. teach.
MURRAY JR et al. teach in paragraph 8-10 that gas well drilling and extraction utilize combustion engines driving pumps, electricity generators, and drills. MURRAY JR et al. teach a process that produces processed fuel near the well to operate heavy machinery necessary for the well.
Combining the teachings of CHRISTENSEN et al. and MURRAY JR et al. would allow for the transport of natural gas from a well, with decreased risk of condensation, to be processed at alternative sites as well as mitigate some of the costs and complexity by processing some of the natural gas on site to general fuel for the well itself
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 MURRAY JR et al. (USPGPUB 2016/0024409) 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 MURRAY 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 pipeline in CHRISTENSEN et al. and the pipeline in MURRAY JR et al. as both 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. MURRAY JR et al. teach in paragraph 96 that coalescers 40 are used to remove water.
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 has amended the claims to require the dry gas to comprise a methane content of between 80 -85 mol%.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2, 4, and 6-8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 11208588) 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. 7452390) 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.
HILL (GB2084653A) teaches natural gas from a reservoir is delivered under pressure through a pipeline to one or more distribution centers.
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