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 without traverse of Invention I, claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 9/8/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9/8/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) dated 8/30/2023 has been received and considered.
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, 5-7, and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin Zhong-can (CN111664356)(hereinafter “Lin”, reference and translation supplied herewith and referred to below) in view of Hepner (U.S. 6,021,677).
Lin discloses a pipeline system, comprising: a pipeline (110) that conveys natural gas (intended use that has not been given patentable weight, but see also para. 2); a choke valve (107, which is described as a ball valve and can rotate to choke the flow of fluid into any number of partially open positions, a closed position, and a fully open position) arranged within the pipeline; one or more restriction orifices (205-208) arranged within the pipeline upstream from the choke valve and spaced from each other to thereby define at least a first pipeline section and a second pipeline section within the pipeline (see figs. 2 and 6); a first pressure gauge (203) in communication with the first pipeline section (fig. 2), and a second pressure gauge (209) in communication with the second pipeline section (fig. 2).
Lin does not appear to disclose the restriction orifices being adjustable and including an actuation mechanism with a control system in communication with the first and second pressure gauges and the actuation mechanism of each adjustable restriction orifice, wherein the control system communicates with the actuation mechanism to adjust a size of the one or more adjustable restriction orifices when at least one of the first and second pressure gauges measures and reports a pressure below or exceeding a predetermined pressure threshold, thereby altering a pressure within the pipeline.
Hepner teaches it was known in the art to have a pipeline system for the distribution of flow with restrictors that are adjustable (variable restrictors V1, V2, V3) that can adjust the mass flow and thus the pressure (see abstract) and have actuators and a control system to control the restrictors (not particularly depicted but necessarily present in order to be able to adjust the degree of restriction to control the mass flow to the desired degree based on the measured pressure from PM1, PM2, PM3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lin by having the restrictions be adjustable with actuators and a control system as taught by Hepner as Lin desires to provide specific pressure drops at each stage (see para. 73-74 and the “step-down” and also fig. 5) and the control system and adjustable restrictions allow for a user desired degree of step-down pressure for a particular application and especially as it has been held that the provision of adjustability involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP2144.04.
Regarding claim 5, Lin as modified further discloses wherein the pipeline extends from a wellhead (108, see para. 43 and 62) operable to receive and transmit the natural gas from a wellbore.
Regarding claim 6, Lin as modified further discloses wherein one or more adjustable orifices include: a first adjustable restriction orifice exhibiting a first diameter and interposing the first and second pipeline sections; and a second adjustable restriction orifice exhibiting a second diameter smaller than the first diameter and arranged downstream from the first adjustable restriction orifice (see fig. 6, notice each restriction (totaling four) having smaller diameters along the fluid flow direction from left to right, which are shown schematically as elements 205-208 in fig. 2, further see the teaching of Hepner above for the adjustability).
Regarding claim 7, Lin as modified discloses the claimed invention and while Lin discloses a step-down of pressures provided by each restriction (para. 73-74 and also fig. 5), Lin is silent as to a pressure of the natural gas upstream from the first adjustable restriction orifice is about 8,000 - 10,000 psi, and the pressure of the natural gas traversing the choke valve is about 2,000 psi.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lin (such as by changing the relative sizing of each restrictor orifice) such that a pressure of the natural gas upstream from the first adjustable restriction orifice is about 8,000 - 10,000 psi, and the pressure of the natural gas traversing the choke valve is about 2,000 psi since a change in size of a component has been held to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP2144.04. The motivation for doing so would be to have the final pressure and the step-down pressures be those as desired by a user for a particular purpose and as Lin contemplates having an end resultant pressure (see para. 17) to reduce/eliminate hydrates (see para. 73-74 describing the step-down pressures).
Regarding claim 10, Lin as modified further discloses wherein the one or more adjustable restriction orifices are selected from the group consisting of an adjustable iris, radially adjustable orifice plates, angularly adjustable orifice plates, and any combination thereof (as disclosed by Lin, the restrictors are orifice plates, see para. 16, 73-75, and fig. 6, the adjustability is as taught by Hepner above, which would be one of radial adjustment or angular to adjust the radial opening of the plate).
Regarding claim 11, Lin as modified discloses the claimed invention but does not appear to disclose the control system comprising a plurality of discrete control systems communicably coupled to and forming an integral part of each actuation mechanism.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lin such that there are a plurality of discrete control systems coupled to and forming an integral part of each actuation mechanism, since it has been held that a duplication of parts is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP2144.04. The motivation for doing so would be to have an individual control system for each actuator such that there is a potential reduction in communication line for each actuator and especially to provide a redundancy in the event of failure of one of the control systems the others will still be able to operate and provide pressure step-downs.
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Hepner as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Eck et al. (U.S. 6,009,940).
Lin as modified discloses the claimed invention and further discloses a first temperature gauge (204) communicably coupled to the control system and arranged to measure a first temperature within the first pipeline section; a second temperature gauge (210) communicably coupled to the control system and arranged to measure a second temperature within the second pipeline section.
Lin additionally discloses controlling the temperature of the natural gas to be above the critical temperature of forming natural gas hydrates (para. 16, 31, 43, etc. and providing insulation to retain heat (para. 77).
Lin does not appear to disclose a heating element mounted to the pipeline at one or both of the first and second pipeline sections and in communication with the control system, wherein the control system operates the heating element to increase a temperature of the pipeline when at least one of the first and second temperatures descends below a predetermined temperature threshold.
Eck teaches it was known in the art to have heat tracing cable that heats a fluid line to prevent freezing and hydrate formation by increasing the temperature to be above a predetermined threshold to prevent the freezing and hydrate formation (col, 3, ll. 46-47 describing keeping the temperature above a hydrate forming temperature with heat trace cable 20, 20a, see for instance col. 3, ll. 53-63, by automatically maintaining the temperature above a setpoint via temperature sensing, see col. 4, ll. 61 – col. 5, ll. 11).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Lin by having a heat trace cable that is controlled to increase the temperature of the fluid as taught by Eck as Lin desires to keep the temperature of the gas above the critical temperature of forming natural gas hydrates (para. 16, 31, 43) and Eck teaches this can be done by automatically heating with a heat trace cable to prevent the freezing and hydrate formation, preventing unexpected and/or undesired potential temperature drops to below a temperature that could form unwanted hydrates.
Regarding claim 3, Lin as modified discloses the claimed invention but does not appear to disclose the predetermined temperature being 120 degrees F.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Lin by heating the gas to any temperature desired by a user (such as 120 degrees F) to prevent the undesired formation of hydrates while the pressure is decreased in stages as contemplated by both Lin and Lu.
Regarding claim 4, Lin as modified further discloses wherein the heating element comprises a heat trace cable (see the teaching above of Eck and heat trace cable 20, 20a).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Hepner as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mhaskar (U.S. 2018/0328139).
Lin as modified discloses the claimed invention but does not appear to the restriction orifices made of an erosion-resistant material selected from the group consisting of tungsten carbide, stainless steel, a metal alloy, and any combination or alloy thereof.
Mhaskar teaches it was known to have well system components be made of tungsten carbide to provide erosion-resistance including a restriction opening (para. 50, nozzle 160).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Lin by having the restriction orifice be made of tungsten carbide as taught by Mhaskar in order to better prevent erosion (para. 50) and increase the durability and longevity of the restrictor.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Hepner as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cook et al. (U.S. 7,231,985).
Lin as modified discloses the claimed invention but is silent as to the actuation mechanism configured for at least one of hydraulic actuation, pneumatic actuation, mechanical actuation, electromechanical actuation, and any combination thereof.
Cook teaches it was known in the art to have a wellbore device that has actuators (2110) that can be conventional, commercially available actuators such as a hydraulic motor or hydraulic piston/cylinder (col. 63, ll. 61 – col. 64, ll. 5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Lin by having the actuators be hydraulic actuators as taught by Cook as Cook teaches these are conventional, commercially available actuators (col. 63, ll. 61 – col. 64, ll. 5) and thus easy to acquire and relatively inexpensive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Clark et al. (U.S. 9,957,774) discloses a staged pressure reduction system with variable restrictors for a wellhead system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL R REID whose telephone number is (313)446-4859. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9am-5pm 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 supervisors can be reached by phone. Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607, or Ken Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/MICHAEL R REID/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753