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 .
The amended claims filed 1/2/26 are acknowledged; claims 1, 6, 8, 9, 15, 18, 24, 28, 30-34, 37, 39-41, 45, 47, 48, 55, 60, 68, 77, 79-81, 87, 90, 94, 99, 100, 102, 105, 107, 108 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the Remarks is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 6, 8, 9, 15, 18, 24, 28, 30-24, 37, 39-41, 45, 47, 48, 55, 60, 68, 74-77, 79-81, 87, 90, 94, 99, 100, 102, 105, 107, and 108 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “effective for efficient separation”” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “effective for efficient” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. One of ordinary skill in the art is not given guidance as to what type of separation is covered by the claim.
The remaining claims depend on claim 1.
Regarding claim 30, the limitation “specific patterns or randomly distributed” is unclear on what distribution would not be covered by either description. Further, it is unclear if the “rhombic or polygonal or rectangular patterns” are subsets of the specific or random pattern, or a different pattern set.
Regarding claim 31, the limitation “accesses have any shape, wherein one such shape comprises a cylindrical shape…” is unclear. It is unclear if Applicant is describing a shape that would be an “any shape”, or if Applicant is attempting to claim the cylindrical shape.
Regarding claim 60, the phrase "can be" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 80, it is unclear what part of the solids collection and monitoring system “has a geometry”. It is unclear if the whole system has a single geometry or if any individual part of the system may have the claimed geometry.
Applicant is requested to review the claims for any additional 112 issues to assure the claimed invention is properly defined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 8, 9, 15, 18, 24, 28, 30-24, 37, 39-41, 45, 47, 48, 55, 60, 68, 74-77, 79-81, 87, 90, 94, 99, 100, 102, and 105 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baaren (US 11007542) in view of Briant (US 6036870).
CLAIM 1: Baaren discloses a system comprising: (a) a subsystem for receiving a fluid liquid matrix mixed with solids (inlet 14); (b) a subsystem for the controlled separation of solids embedded in a fluid liquid matrix by means of a solids separation module (within body 26); (c) a subsystem comprising both the solids outlet conduit (18) and the fluid matrix outlet conduit (16). The system is effective for efficient separation of granular solid materials embedded in a fluid liquid matrix from hydrocarbon wells under conditions of high pressure up to 2000 psi and temperatures up to 150 C as this is functional language which describes how the system is used and not the physical elements of the system.
Baaren fails to disclose a solids capture and monitoring (FIC) subsystem for analysis of the granular solids and measurement and diagnosis of their production in the target well.
Briant discloses a system for wellbore fluid recovery.
Briant discloses a separator (17) and analyzing the solid remains in the tank (11) to monitor the well (see col. 6, lines 23-44).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the monitoring system of Briant with the separating system of Baaren with a reasonable expectation of success as Briant teaches the testing can indicate the treatments required for the system (see col. 6, lines 23-44).
CLAIM 6: The separation of the fluid liquid matrix and the solids embedded therein is carried out with one or a plurality of solids separation modules (within body 26), each of which includes a main body (72) and a plurality of embodiments (vanes 74).
CLAIM 8: The solids separation module subsystem comprises a main body comprising: a) cylindrical section (70); b) inlet tube (see Fig. 1); c) fixing ring (see flange, Fig. 1); d) top cap-plug (top of cylinder); and e) bottom cap-plug (bottom cylinder).
CLAIM 9: The solids separation module subsystem comprises the following embodiments: f) slotted tube (openings 42); g) wear sleeves (interior of 26); h) cylinder-cover (top of system); i) outlet pipe (see Fig. 1).
Baaren-Briant fails to disclose a j) strainer (CED); and k) impact plate (PIM).
Examiner takes official notice that strainers and impact plates are both well known in the art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the claimed invention to include well known strainers and impact plates with the system of Baaren-Briant with a reasonable expectation of success as they would perform their known function of controlling the debris in the system.
CLAIM 15: The inlet tube is longitudinally hollow and conveys the fluid matrix containing the solids towards the main body (see Fig. 1).
CLAIM 18: The fixing ring is in the form of a ring having an inner diameter, an outer diameter and a thickness, and is fixed to the main body without any possibility of displacement, concentric to it, in its cylindrical section, wherein its outer diameter fits tightly within the cylindrical section and is nominally equal to the inner diameter of the cylindrical section of the main body and coaxial to it, functioning as a simultaneous support for the grooved tube, the wear sleeves and the wear tube (see Fig. 1).
CLAIM 24: Baaren-Briant fails to disclose wherein the upper cap-plug has a hollow hemispherical geometry, with a concave side and a convex side, and an axial symmetry axis, coaxial to the symmetry axis of the main body, having an access, in its central area to house and hermetically fix an outlet pipe (TSA), wherein the access follows the shape and dimensions of the cross section of the outlet pipe, with a flange at the lower end of the upper cap-plug connecting to the upper end of the cylindrical section for disassembly and maintenance and/or inspection of the solids separation module, and wherein the height of the upper cap-plug is in the range of 5.31 inches to 9.54 inches and the ratio of its height to its outer diameter is in the range of 0.18 to 0.81, wherein its outer diameter and wall thickness are selected equal to the outer diameter and wall thickness of the cylindrical section.
It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at the described dimensions as routine optimization of the parts to allow for maintenance and inspection of the system.
CLAIM 28: The slotted tube is a hollow cylindrical element of straight section, whose perimeter shape follows the shape of the cylindrical section of the main body and is concentric to it (see Fig. 1).
Claim 30: The side wall of the slotted tube has a plurality of accesses (openings) whose number and distribution are specific patterns or randomly distributed therein (see Fig. 1).
CLAIM 31: The slotted tube accesses have any shape.
CLAIMS 32 and 33: Baaren-Briant fails to disclose wherein the distribution of the accesses on the circumference of the slotted tube is every 360/n degrees, these angles measured from the center of symmetry in a cross section, wherein n is an integer lying in the interval from 5 to 12, or wherein the angle of inclination of the accesses with respect to lines perpendicular to radial lines drawn at every 360/n degrees is in the interval from 13.5 degrees to 17.0 degrees.
It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at the described dimensions as routine optimization of the parts to allow for proper flow of the system.
CLAIM 34: The space between the outer face of the slotted tube and the inner face of the cylindrical section receives the fluid matrix with solids coming from the inlet tube and initiates the separation of the solids from the fluid matrix by confining the fluid, increasing its velocity and forcing the separation through the existing accesses in the slotted tube (see Fig. 1).
CLAIM 37: Baaren-Briant fails to disclose wherein the height of the cylindrical wall of the slotted tube is in the range of 7.20 inches to 9.67 inches without exceeding, the upper end of the cylindrical section of the main body, once it is supported on the fixing ring.
It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at the described dimensions as routine optimization of the parts to allow for proper flow of the system.
CLAIM 39: Baaren-Briant fails to disclose wherein the vertical distance between centers of every two adjacent accesses on the slotted tube is equal to HTUR/t, taken from the horizontal plane, wherein t is in the range of 8.00 to 10.27.
It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at the described dimensions as routine optimization of the parts to allow for proper flow of the system.
CLAIM 40: The wear sleeves are a plurality of plates mechanically fixed to the inner wall of the cylindrical section, and are supported on the fixing ring (see Fig. 1).
CLAIM 41: The wear sleeves are installed adjacent to each other until they cover the entire inner wall of the cylindrical section in the height range of the slotted tube, likewise, they cover the perimeter area of the cylindrical section at the same height of the slotted tube (see Fig. 1).
CLAIM 45: Baaren-Briant fails to disclose wherein the radius of the circular section of the wear sleeves is equal toDIsc/2, and the angle y, which is measured at the perimeter of the of the of the wear sleeves is 360°/m, wherein m is an integer, such that the plurality of wear sleeves completely covers the inner wall of the cylindrical section in the height range of the slotted tube.
It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at the described dimensions as routine optimization of the parts to allow for proper flow of the system.
CLAIM 47: Baaren-Briant fails to disclose wherein the cover-cylinder (TAC) is a flat plate-shaped element, whose geometry follows the perimeter shape of the cylindrical section of the main body and covers the entire upper area of the slotted tube, except in its central region.
It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at the described dimensions as routine optimization of the parts to allow for proper flow of the system.
CLAIM 48: The cover-cylinder is installed mechanically fixed on the slotted tube and includes in its central region, an access through which the outlet pipe passes (see Fig. 1).
CLAIM 55: The length of the outlet pipe starts from the lower space of the main body, passes through the slotted tube, the cylinder-cover, the damping chamber and exits through the upper Cap-plug (see Fig. 1).
CLAIM 60: The strainer (CED) is a tubular element, preferably cylindrical of straight circular cross-section with a multiplicity of holes in its longitudinal area, which is rigidly and mechanically connected to the outlet pipe at its lowermost end would be a well known type of strainer, obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
CLAIM 68: Conveying the fluid matrix and solids to the outlet of the solids separation module is carried out via two separated outlet piping lines: the solids outlet conduit and the fluid matrix outlet conduit (see Fig. 1).
CLAIM 77: The solids collection and monitoring system receives and monitors the already separated solids coming from the main body of the solids separation module (see Briant).
Flow is channeled through the solids outlet conduit, and includes a main body, an inlet tube, an outlet pipe incorporated therein (see Baaren, Fig. 1).
See above regarding strainers.
CLAIM 79: The solids collection and monitoring system receives granular solids in a wet condition through the upper inlet tube to be deposited within the solids collection and monitoring system strainer, which has multiple perforations, such that the remaining fluids are channeled through the lower outlet pipe (see Fig. 1; wet condition is function of the claimed structure).
CLAIM 80: The main body of the solids collection and monitoring system has cylindrical geometry (see Figures).
CLAIM 81: The main body of the solids collection and monitoring system includes an inlet tube, an outlet pipe and a cylindrical section with two terminations (see Fig. 1).
Baaren-Briant fails to disclose one hemispherical and the other threaded cylindrical.
It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at the described dimensions as routine optimization of the parts to allow for proper flow of the system.
CLAIM 87: The inlet pipe of the solids collection and monitoring system is conduit for conveying the granular solids in wet condition to the main body of the solids collection and monitoring system, and is mechanically rigidly connected thereto (see Fig. 1).
CLAIM 90: The outlet pipe of the solids collection and monitoring system is a hollow tubular element with an axis of longitudinal symmetry (see Fig. 1).
CLAIM 94: A strainer of the solid capture and monitoring system is a hollow tubular element with a multiplicity of holes in its longitudinal area, with a fixing ring in the form of a hoop at its upper end, and a plate that closes its lower end would be an obvious type of strainer to one having ordinary skill in the art.
CLAIM 99: The fixing ring of the strainer of the solid capture and monitoring system, is rigidly and mechanically attached to the upper end of the strainer of the solid capture and monitoring system, and its outer diameter is nominally equal to the inner diameter of the main body of the solid capture and monitoring system would be an obvious attachment of the strainer to one having ordinary skill in the art.
CLAIM 100: The fixing ring of the strainer of the solid capture and monitoring system allows the insertion and extraction of the strainer, and includes frames made of the same material, which function as reacting elements when the strainer is installed inside the main body and a composite cap is placed on it would be an obvious attachment of the strainer to one having ordinary skill in the art.
CLAIM 102: Baaren-Briant fails to disclose the composite cap is formed by a cylindrical coupling element that starts with an inner thread at one end, and ends with a drag stop at the other, such that it makes contact with the drag stop of the coupling element, forming a safety mechanism by reaction, so that the contact pressure between the latter and the frames of the fixing ring of the sieve causes rigid fixation to the main body, as the threaded coupling element advances.
It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at the described dimensions as routine optimization of the parts to allow for proper flow of the system.
CLAIM 105: The separation of fluids and solids embedded in them, when carried out with a plurality of solid separation modules connected in parallel, wherein the system operates each module independently to increase or reduce the flowrate of solids and fluid separation, and they operation and maintenance is accomplished independently, and when connected in series, the system allows all modules to operate at the same time to increase the volume of solid separation and reduce, with each added module, the size range of the separated granular solids is functional language which fails to limit the scope of the physical structure claimed.
CLAIM 107: The minimum size of the separated granular solids is 35 microns (see Briant, claim 3).
CLAIM 108: The maximum size of the separated granular solids is 1200 microns (see Briant, claim 3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/2/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Primarily, arguments presented by Applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See MPEP 2145(I). Arguments by Applicant cannot take the place of evidence. See MPEP 716.01(c). Objective evidence needs to be supported by appropriate affidavit or declaration.
With respect to the 112 rejections, Applicant addressed several of the issues but more remain. The scope of the claims must be clear to one of ordinary skill in the art.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant describes the various differences they perceive between the cited art and the Applicant’s disclosure. However, the discussion does not focus on Applicant’s claimed invention. It is unclear what limitations of the claims Applicant argues are not disclosed by the prior art. For example, Applicant discusses the effect of different openings (see sections a, b on page 14). However, the openings are not a claimed limitation of claim 1. Nor are any of the details discussed linked to any opening claimed in a dependent claim. The arguments fail to address any specific limitation or reasoning to combine the two references.
Similarly, the discussion of Briant fails to address any specific limitation. The big picture differences between the disclosure and the prior art fails to address the specific limitations and reasonings of the rejection.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PATRICK F LAMBE whose telephone number is (571)270-1932. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10-4.
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, Amber Anderson can be reached at (571)270-5281. 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.
/PATRICK F LAMBE/Examiner, Art Unit 3676
/TARA SCHIMPF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676