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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites rheological evaluation of precipitated paraffin fraction under production stoppage conditions falls within the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts; as the claimed evaluation dependents on mathematical concepts to quantify how the solidified, gel-like wax changes the fluid behavior. As discussed in applicant’s filed specification, the evaluation involves mathematical models such as yield stress models and thermal/kinetic equations.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because paraffinic oil merely links these mathematical concepts to a field of use; as the paraffinic oil is not improved or bettered by the performance or result of the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(h)
The recited “determining yield stress (TLE) through parameters of differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) tests” reads as an insignificant pre-solution activity of mere data gathering without integrating the abstract idea into a practical application; as the result or performance of the abstract idea does not improve the data gathering steps or tests. MPEP 2106.05(g)
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element of paraffinic oil generically links the mathematic operations to a field of use. The claimed additional element of differential scanning calorimetry tests reads as a data collection step which feeds the abstract idea the needed data to perform the abstract idea. These elements are not found to be improved or bettered during the performance of the abstract idea and therefore fail to amount to significantly more.
Claim 2 recites determining heat flow corresponding to phase transition of paraffins through differential scanning calorimetry tests. The limitation was determined to further define the abstract idea falling into the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts, as it involves measuring the differential power required to maintain zero temperature difference between a sample and reference, plotted as a function of time or temperature. The math primarily involves integrating the heat flow curve (area calculation) to determine latent heat/enthalpy of fusion; as read in [0048] of applicant’s filed specification. Therefore, the claim fails to provide significantly more or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 3 further defines the insignificant pre-solution activity of mere data gathering, as “conducting oscillatory stress amplitude scanning tests in rheometers at specified temperatures below gelling temperature in conjunction with differential scanning calorimetry tests” merely feeds the abstract idea the needed data to perform the mathematic operations. Therefore, the claim fails to provide significantly more or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(g)
Claim 4 further defines the abstract idea by reciting mathematic equations for obtaining an estimate of the precipitated paraffin fraction. Therefore, the claim fails to provide significantly more or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 5 further defines the abstract idea by reciting mathematic equations used to adjust data with rheological data. The adjustment of data using a mathematical operation results only in more data, as currently recited. The produced adjusted data does not improve or better the additional elements recited in the claims and therefore, fails to provide significantly more or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 6 defines a computational fluid dynamics simulator, where the previously defined equations are incorporated. Therefore, under the broadest interpretation, the claim defines a computer tasked to perform simulations using the defined equations; hence, the simulator merely acts as a tool for performing the abstract idea without providing significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(a)
Claim 7 further defines determining a cooling of a piping section using a set of recited equations. The energy balance equations further define the abstract idea falling into the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts. The recited additional element of a pipeline section merely links the mathematic operations to a field of use, as the pipeline is not affected or improved based on these calculations. Therefore, the claim fails to provide significantly more or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(h)
Claim 8 further defines simulated data. The defined simulated data relative to a pipeline section merely links the abstract idea to a field of use without providing significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(h)
Claim 9 further defines mere data gathering steps needed to perform the identified abstract idea. Therefore, the claim fails to provide significantly more or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(g)
The claim generally links the data to a straight transverse section of a tub; however neither the result or performance of the abstract idea or data gathering steps improve this section of the pipe, and therefore does not provide significantly more or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 21.06.05(h)
Claim 10 further defines the sample without providing significantly more or integrating the abstract idea, as neither the result of performance of the abstract idea has an impact on these samples. They are merely directed towards a field of use without having an improvement to those samples or the simulator doing the evaluation. MPEP 2106.05(h)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Marinho et al. (RHEOLOGICAL BEHAVIOR AND STRUCTURAL INTERPRETATION OF MODEL WAXY OILS UNDER GELLING CONDITIONS).
With respect to claim 1, Marinho et al. teaches a method for predicting restart of paraffinic oil (insofar as how predicting restart of paraffinic is structural defined within the claim), comprising determining yield stress (TLE) through parameters of differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) tests (as Marinho et al. teaches on page 39, 2.5 Scaling Models, structural properties are investigated using DCS tests and page 53, Differential Scanning Calorimetry under various conditions) and rheological evaluation (page 25, 2.3 Yield Stress) of precipitated paraffin fraction under production stoppage conditions (as Marinho discloses performing test under blocked conditions; page 30, lines 29; which details a sample being the gelled structure maintained along the experimental time, which is translated in negligible angular velocity, i.e. a blocked condition).
With respect to claim 2, Marinho et al. teaches the method further comprising determining heat flow corresponding to phase transition of paraffins through differential scanning calorimetry tests (as Marinho et al. teaches when performing tests using DSC, the technique measures heat flow from or to the sample when the sample is heated or cooled; page 22, lines 2-9).
With respect to claim 3, Marinho et al. teaches the method wherein carrying out the rheological evaluation comprises conducting oscillatory stress amplitude scanning tests in rheometers at specified temperatures below gelling temperature (as Marinho et al. teaches a temperature of testing to be 4ºC; Fig. 11) in conjunction with differential scanning calorimetry tests (as Marinho et al. teaches using oscillatory rheology by applying stress according to equation 2 and using DSC scan tests to determine the yield stress).
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.
Claim(s) 4-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marinho et al. (RHEOLOGICAL BEHAVIOR AND STRUCTURAL INTERPRETATION OF MODEL WAXY OILS UNDER GELLING CONDITIONS).
With respect to claim 4, Marinho et al. teaches all that is claimed in the above rejection of claim 1, but remains silent regarding wherein obtaining an estimate of the precipitated paraffin fraction is conducted according to Equations 1 to 5:
PNG
media_image1.png
336
582
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein Φps is the precipitated paraffin fraction and Θ represents heat flow corresponding to phase transition of paraffins; wherein Δhc is an average value of enthalpy of pure paraffin corresponding to 200 J/g, q is cooling rate applied in the differential scanning calorimetry experiment, R is gas universal constant, T is temperature, t is time and Φ₀, AAT, EAT and ₖₐᵣ are parameters to be determined through an adjustment of heat flow data from differential scanning calorimetry tests.
Marinho et al. teaches similar equations throughout the disclosure, where testing is performed at various temperatures using DSC tests; as read on page 39, 2.5 Scaling Methods, as scaling models using equations derived to relate material structure to mechanical prosperities of some class of material as used; see equations 10-19).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing the instant invention to derive the claimed equations describing the physical system of the pipeline carrying paraffin phase changes using typical engineering calculations based on the disclosed equations and material properties taught in Marinho et al., as there are only a finite number of predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of deriving the recited equations from the taught variables of the prior art; thereby creating a behavior model of a fluid. MPEP 2141 III.
With respect to claim 5, Marinho et al. teaches all that is claimed in the above rejection of claim 4, but remains silent regarding wherein adjusting paraffin fraction data with rheological data, according to Equation 6:
PNG
media_image2.png
64
264
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein (Cr) is a proportionality factor and (D) is a structure factor or fractal dimension.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing the instant invention to derive the claimed equations describing the physical system of the pipeline carrying paraffin phase changes using typical engineering calculations based on the disclosed equations and material properties taught in Marinho et al., as there are only a finite number of predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of deriving the recited equations from the taught variables of the prior art; thereby creating a behavior model of a fluid. MPEP 2141 III.
With respect to claim 6, Marinho et al. teaches wherein equations 1 to 6 are incorporated into flow assurance and computational fluid dynamics simulators for the predication of stress fields and production stoppage time (as Marinho et al. teaches using computation simulators to determine Newtonian behavior of fluids; see page 151, last paragraph).
With respect to claim 7, Marinho et al. teaches all that is claimed in the above rejection of claim 4, but remains silent regarding determining cooling of a piping section through he following Equations 7 to 18:
PNG
media_image3.png
128
418
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
779
532
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein (øps) represents the balance of precipitated paraffin, in the TIAC is the initial temperature at which crystals appear.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing the instant invention to derive the claimed equations describing the physical system of the pipeline carrying paraffin phase changes using typical engineering calculations based on the disclosed equations and material properties taught in Marinho et al., as there are only a finite number of predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of deriving the recited equations from the taught variables of the prior art; thereby creating a behavior model of a fluid. MPEP 2141 III.
With respect to claim 8, Marinho et al. teaches wherein a temperature profile, the paraffin fractions in solid and liquid phases, and the cooling rate were simulated (as seen in Fig. 48, which depicts various viscosities over various cooling rates) but remains silent regarding a period being from zero to 14 days of quiescent cooling, for different heat exchange global coefficients.
Marinho et al. is concerned with analyzing cooling rates relative to yield stress calculations, where consideration are made as longer times were tested; page 30, lines 1-9.
The examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention would have the engineering knowledge to try different quiescent cooling periods, including the claimed “zero to 14 days” with reasonable expectation that the specifically claimed period would result in the needed data to predict a restart of paraffinic oil, accurately.
With respect to claim 9, Marinho et al. teaches the method wherein average yield stress profiles (as seen in Fig. 49 and its caption, page 104) for oils with different precipitated paraffin fractions and variation of critical stress were obtained along a straight transverse section of a tube (as Marinho et al. teaches using these averages for different oil compositions; Table 8).
With respect to claim 10, Marinho et al. teaches the method wherein kinetic behavior of samples, obtained through differential exploratory calorimetry (the disclosed DSC testing) and rheological behavior data (see page 25, 2.3 Yield Stress), was evaluated by simulations of paraffinic oil production stoppages (via the taught computational simulations; page 151) in an underwater pipeline (as Marinho et al. teaches kinetic behavior of the samples relative to a pipeline on page 3-4, note: the pipeline is capable of being underwater, insofar as how the type of pipe further defines the recited method over the prior art).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gould et al. (8,452,548) which teaches a method for determining properties of an oil using computational models.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW G MARINI whose telephone number is (571)272-2676. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 571-272-2149. 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.
/MATTHEW G MARINI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853