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 Group I, claims 1-11 and 20 in the reply filed on 8/25/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Allen (US 2014/0265326 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Allen discloses an apparatus comprising: a flow-through electric generator 150/600 connected to a well head (paragraph 51) comprising a turbine wheel 610 configured to receive a first portion of the natural gas stream and rotate in response to expansion of the first portion of the natural gas stream flowing into an inlet of the turbine wheel and out of an outlet of the turbine wheel; a rotor 620 coupled to the turbine wheel and configured to rotate with the turbine wheel; and a stator 625, wherein the flow-through electric generator is configured to generate electrical power upon rotation of the rotor within the stator (paragraph 98); a throttle valve 140 defining an adjustable flow restriction configured to reduce a pressure of a second portion of the natural gas stream as the second portion of the natural gas stream flows through the throttle valve (paragraph 54); a separator vessel 120 configured to receive the first portion of the natural gas stream from the flow-through electric generator and configured to separate phases of the first portion of the natural gas stream to produce at least a gaseous phase and an aqueous phase (paragraph 52); and an absorption tower 130 configured to receive the gaseous phase from the separator vessel and contact the gaseous phase with an absorbent configured to absorb water from the gaseous phase and produce a dehydrated natural gas stream (paragraph 52). Allen discloses an embodiment where a first portion of the methane is sent to generator 50 and a second portion to throttle valve 840 (see Figure 8). It should be noted that the natural gas well is not positively recited and therefore the natural gas is not necessarily present in the claimed system.
Regarding claim 2, the temperature of material exiting a turbine will be lower than material not exiting the turbine because of the Joule-Thompson effect (paragraph 72).
Regarding claim 3, Allen discloses a controller configured to control upstream pressure from the throttle valve (paragraph 55).
Regarding claim 4, Allen discloses oil in the natural gas stream (paragraph 51) and that it gets separated (paragraph 52). It should be noted that the natural gas well is not positively recited and therefore the natural gas and oil are not necessarily present in the claimed system.
Regarding claim 20, Allen discloses an apparatus comprising: a flow-through turboexpander generator 850 configured to receive a first portion of the natural gas stream and generate electrical power in response to expansion of the first portion of the natural gas stream flowing through the flow-through turboexpander generator (paragraph 114); a throttle valve 840 configured to reduce a pressure of a second portion of the natural gas stream as the second portion of the natural gas stream flows through the throttle valve (see Figure 8); a knockout separator 820 configured to receive the first portion of the natural gas stream from the flow-through turboexpander generator and configured to separate phases of the first portion of the natural gas stream to produce at least a gaseous phase and an aqueous phase (paragraph 112); and an absorption separator configured to receive the gaseous phase from the separator vessel and separate water from the gaseous phase to produce a dehydrated natural gas stream (paragraph 52).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Mak (US 2004/0237580 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Allen discloses an absorption column but not trays. Mak—in an invention for a natural gas recovery system—discloses dehydration trays to ensure that liquid throughput does not freeze in the upper section (paragraph 22). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize trays in the absorption column of Allen to increase the efficacy of separation as suggested by Mak.
Regarding claims 6-8, Allen does not disclose a second separator and absorption tower. Mere duplication of parts is not grounds for patentability, however. See MPEP 2144.04 VI B. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to duplicate the separation means of Allen to duplicate their benefits.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: while claims 6-8 are unpatentable for duplicating elements of Allen, there is no motivation in the prior art of record to differentiate the sizes of the duplicated elements from one another.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IMRAN AKRAM whose telephone number is (571)270-3241. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-5p.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/IMRAN AKRAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights