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 .
Summary
This is the initial Office action based on application 18503927 filed 11/7/23.
Claims 1-15 are pending and have been fully considered.
Information Disclosure Statement
IDS filed on 11/7/23 have been considered by the examiner and copies of the Form PTO/SB/08 are attached to the office action.
Drawings
The Drawings filed on 11/7/23 are acknowledged and accepted by the examiner.
Specification
The Specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. MPEP § 608.01
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SOLIMAN ET AL. (US PG PUB 20220380684) in view of MACALUSO ET AL. (US 5484574) and SOLIMAN ET AL. (US PG PUB 20200080007) in their entirety. Hereby referred to as SOLIMAN, MACALUSO and SOLIMAN’007.
Regarding claims 1-15:
SOLIMAN teaches in para [0013] Therefore, disclosed herein are integrated gas oil separation plant systems with integrated process control, one system including a crude oil inlet feed stream comprising crude oil, a low pressure production trap (LPPT) fluidly coupled to the crude oil inlet feed stream operable to separate gas from the crude oil in the crude oil inlet feed stream, a low pressure degassing tank (LPDT) fluidly coupled to the LPPT, a desalting vessel fluidly coupled to the LPDT operable to remove dissolved solids and separate water from the crude oil, and a crude stabilizer column fluidly coupled to the desalting vessel operable to remove gas and impurities from the crude oil. The system also includes an atmospheric pressure off-gas compressor fluidly coupled to the LPDT operable to compress off-gas from the LPDT for production of compressed atmospheric gas for direct injection into the crude oil preceding introduction to the LPPT, a low pressure off-gas compressor fluidly coupled to the LPPT operable to compress off-gas from the LPPT for production of compressed low pressure gas for use in the GOSP, a high pressure off-gas compressor fluidly coupled to the LPPT for production of compressed high pressure gas for use in indirect heating in a first reboiler of the crude stabilizer column, and a first reboiler fluidly coupled to the high pressure off-gas compressor and operable to transfer heat from the compressed high pressure gas to crude oil removed from and recycled to the crude stabilizer column.
SOLIMAN teaches in para [0017] In some embodiments, the operating pressure within the LPPT is greater than the operating pressure in the LPDT. In some embodiments, the export gas stream generated from the high pressure off-gas compressor and the high pressure discharge KOD is recycled to the crude stabilizer column for use as a stripping gas. In some embodiments, an amount of the compressed high pressure gas used in indirect heating in the first reboiler is controlled by a high pressure bypass valve, and further where the high pressure bypass valve is controlled by a first temperature sensor located proximate to the crude oil removed from and recycled to the crude stabilizer column. In some further embodiments, an amount of the compressed low pressure gas used in indirect heating in the second reboiler is controlled by a low pressure bypass valve, and further where the low pressure bypass valve is controlled by a second temperature sensor located proximate to the crude oil removed from and recycled to the crude stabilizer column.
SOLIMAN teaches in para [0002] In general, a GOSP is a continuous separation process used to refine crude oil that often includes a high pressure production trap (HPPT), a low pressure production trap (LPPT), a low pressure degassing tank (LPDT), a dehydrator unit, first and second stage desalting units, a water/oil separation plant (WOSEP), a stabilizer column, centrifugal pumps, heat exchangers, and reboilers. In a GOSP, the pressure is often reduced in several stages to allow the controlled separation of volatile components, such as entrained vapors. Goals of a GOSP include achieving maximum liquid recovery with stabilized oil separated from gas, and water separated from gases and oil. In other words, one purpose of a GOSP is to remove water, salt, and volatile hydrocarbon gases from wet crude oil after it is obtained from a hydrocarbon-bearing reservoir.
SOLIMAN teaches in para [0052] After crude oil is degassed, dehydrated, and desalted, the crude can be sent to a hot or cold crude stabilizer column, if needed, which performs sweetening and stabilization to meet the crude specification for H.sub.2S in the range of 10 to 60 ppmw, for safety and corrosion prevention. The stabilization process begins by heating the unstabilized crude. Crude is distributed onto the top tray of the stabilizer column, and flows through the trays to a draw-off tray. The crude stabilizer column can have, for example, up to sixteen trays. A stripping gas stream injection at approximately 12 lb/1000 barrel can be injected into the bottom of the crude stabilizer column. Light components in the crude oil vaporize and rise through the stabilizer trays. H.sub.2S and light components are removed in the gas stream. The crude stabilizer column is used to meet RVP and H.sub.2S specifications. The operating temperature of a hot crude stabilizer column with reboilers can be in the range of 140° F. to 160° F. and the pressure ranges from 3 to 5 psig.
SOLIMAN teaches in para [0009] In certain embodiments, systems and methods are provided to treat wet and sour, unstabilized crude oil to meet shipping and transport specifications by simultaneously dehydrating, desalting, stabilizing, and sweetening the crude oil. In some embodiments, three conventional stages of processing crude oil will be done in only one stage, system, or process. In some embodiments, crude oil desalting, dehydration, sweetening, and stabilization will be integrated within existing three phase separation vessels within a GOSP along with gas compression and gas recycle for indirect heating. Dehydrating crude oil involves the separation of formation water, while desalting includes washing the crude with fresh water in addition to or alternative to recycle water to meet the required salt content and BS&W content.
SOLIMAN teaches in para [0053] In embodiments described herein, model or multivariable predictive controllers (MPC's) and multivariable controllers (MVC's) can be used to control dried, desalted crude oil product specifications below the set process variables of salt content in PTB less than about 10 PTB and BS&W of less than about 0.2 volume percent. MPC's and MVC's can be used to control the plant specifications below the max allowable limits discussed above. Signals can be wired in addition to or alternative to wireless, and can provide information one way to MPC's or MVC's or two ways between an MPC or an MVC and a control unit or measurement unit.
SOLIMAN teaches the disclosure above with heaters for catalysts; however MACALUSO implicitly disclose catalyst heater pads.
MACALUSO teaches that the apparatus hereof includes a plurality of spaced-apart catalytic pads or beds arranged to be heated within a catalytic vessel. The catalytic pads are advantageously oriented transversely to the axis of gas flow and positioned to define a serpentine effluent gas flow path. Preferably, the pads are elevated to a temperature sufficient to react the V.O.C.s by at least one catalytic heater located in spanning relationship to a plurality of catalytic pads (col. 2 ln 36-44).
MACALUSO teaches each of catalytic pads 38, 40, 42, 44, 46, 48, 50, 52, 54, and 56 includes a track 102 extending around the perimeter containing a catalytic material 104 sandwiched between a pair of stainless steel screens 106 and 108. The track 102 includes a plurality of holes for receiving screws 100 therein thus securing the respective pad to the channel 92. The track is preferably formed of stainless steel. The screens 106 and 108 are of a fine mesh sufficient to retain the catalytic material 104 therein. Catalytic material typically useful in connection with the present invention includes transition metals such as iron, nickel, cobalt, rhenium, osmium, iridium, ruthenium, rhodium, palladium and platinum. More particularly, the catalytic material may be pellets, available as Poison Resistant Oxidation Technology (col 4 ln 20-34).
SOLIMAN’007 teaches in para [0017] disclosed herein is a method for treating a rag layer in a gas oil separation plant process, the method including the steps of withdrawing the rag layer from a vessel proximate an oil water interface; conveying the rag layer to a separation device, the separation device operable to effect electrostatic coalescence on the rag layer to separate oil and water; and recycling separated oil from the separation device back to the gas oil separation plant process. In some embodiments of the method, the step of withdrawing the rag layer from the vessel occurs in a vessel selected from the group consisting of: a low pressure production trap; a dehydrator; and a desalter. In certain embodiments, the separation device is selected from the group consisting of: a three-phase separation device equipped with fully insulated electrostatic electrodes and a spool of pipe equipped with fully insulated electrostatic electrodes.
SOLIMAN’007 teaches in para [0059] Wet crude oil in crude oil outlet stream 110 from LPDT 106 is pumped through crude charge pumps 116 and is conveyed to a trim heat exchanger 118 to increase the temperature of the crude oil to above 150° F.,
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the method and system of SOLIMAN by incorporating the heater pad of MACALUSO and heating temperature of SOLIMAN’007 for the benefit to remove water, salt, and volatile hydrocarbon gases from wet crude oil after it is obtained from a hydrocarbon-bearing reservoir, which is one purpose of a GOSP as taught by SOLIMAN in para [0002].
From the teachings of all the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Also, a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)
In addition, “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Furthermore, “[i]nclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). In In re Young, a claim to a machine for making concrete beams included a limitation to the concrete reinforced members made by the machine as well as the structural elements of the machine itself. The court held that the inclusion of the article formed within the body of the claim did not, without more, make the claim patentable
Additionally, the claimed changes in the sequence of performing steps is considered to be prima facie obvious because the time at which a particular step is performed is simply a matter of operator preference, especially since the same result is obtained regardless of when the step occurs. See Ex parte RUBIN, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959). See also In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results).
Nevertheless, an intended result of a process being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims when the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art. Furthermore, it has been held that obviousness is not rebutted by merely recognizing additional advantages or latent properties present in the prior art process and composition. Further, the fact that applicant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd.Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected appropriate conditions, as guided by the prior art, in order to obtain the desired products. It is not seen where such selections would result in any new or unexpected results. Please see MPEP 2144.05, II: noting obviousness within prior art conditions or through routine experimentation.
If it is the applicant's position that this would not be the case, evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant's position.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANTEL GRAHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5563. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH 9:00 am - 7:00 pm.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHANTEL L GRAHAM/
Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/ELLEN M MCAVOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771