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 .
Response to Arguments
101 Rejection
Based on applicant’s filed amendments and arguments, see page 9 of applicant’s arguments filed 23 June 2026, the previously set forth 101 rejection has been withdrawn.
102 Rejection
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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 the argued teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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) 1-11 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) in view of D’ANTONA et al. (2011/0162722A1).
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) in an underwater pipe, 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).
Marinho et al. remains silent regarding defining operational conditions for restarting production based on the determined yield stress, wherein restarting production comprises imposing a pressure greater than the determined yield stress to break a gelled structure in the underwater pipeline.
D’ANTONA et al. teaches defining operational conditions (a generation of sound or infra-sound waves; [0105]) for restarting production based on determined yield stress (as D’ANTONA et al. teaches in [0006] "yield stress" is the most representative parameter, as it directly expresses the threshold value necessary for generating the flow and in [0137] which discloses the calculated threshold yield stress from restarting), wherein restarting production comprises imposing a pressure greater than the determined yield stress to break a gelled structure (a waxy gelled obstruction) in an underwater pipeline (as [0024-0032] describe creating a pressure greater than the yield stress to break the blockage; [0003] teaches the pipe being underwater).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to modify the method of Marinho et al. to include the step of defining operational conditions that break up the blockage, as taught by D’ANTONA et al., because D’ANTONA et al. teaches such a modification aids in stopping unexpected outages, thereby improving the method of Marhinho et al.
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).
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 the underwater pipeline (as Marinho et al. teaches kinetic behavior of the samples relative to a pipeline on page 3-4 and D’ANTONA teaches the pipe being underwater, as described above in the rejection of claim 1).
With respect to claim 11, Marinho et al. teaches the method wherein the determined yield stress is used to calculate a minimum pressure required to restart flow in the underwater pipeline stress (as D’ANTONA et al. teaches in [0006] "yield stress" is the most representative parameter, as it directly expresses the threshold value necessary for generating the flow and in [0137] which discloses the calculated threshold yield stress from restarting).
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.
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 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
Prosecution Insights