DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Claims 9-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected claim group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 6/5/26.
Applicant argues that examination of groups II and III would not impose a serious burden because all three inventions involve an inner conduit or liner positioned within an outer conduit to define an annular volume through which the sweep gas may flow. Although the claimed inventions share the general jacketed-pipe arrangement, the existence of a common subject matter does not establish that the respective inventions require the same field of search or can be examined without serious burden.
Specifically, Group I is directed to separation, recovery, and compression of product gas. Group II is directed to hydrogen pipeline pressure control, monitoring and protection of a carbon steel pipe. Group III is directed to a method for mechanically deploying a liner using a higher strength line. These distinct features require materially different searches concerning gas-separation systems, hydrogen-pipeline controls, and trenchless liner-installation techniques, respectively. Accordingly, the shared jacketed pipe structure does not eliminate the serious search and examiner burden.
The Applicant’s traversal of the restriction requirement has been fully considered but is not found persuasive. Accordingly, the restriction requirement is maintained and made FINAL.
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 1-3, and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ewan et al. US Patent 11,236,864 in view of Molter et al. US Publication 2022/0339578.
Regarding claim 1, Ewan teaches a system comprising:
a) An inner conduit 308 having an inner volume, wherein the inner conduit is configured to store the product gas within the inner volume (column 16 lines 44-46);
b) An outer conduit 309 positioned around the inner conduit to define an annular volume between the inner and outer conduits, wherein the inner and outer conduits are configured to transport the sweep gas through the annular volume to collect product gas that has leaked from the inner volume to the annular volume (column 16 lines 48-55, column 18 lines 42-50); and
c) A compressor 110 configured to pressurize at least one of the product gases from the inner volume of the inner conduit or the product gas from the separation unit to an output pressure for sales and distribution (column 11 lines 17-20).
Ewan does not explicitly teach a separation unit configured to receive the sweep gas from the annular volume and configured to separate the product gas from the sweep gas, wherein the inner and outer conduits are configured to receive the sweep gas from the separation unit through the annular volume.
However, Molter teaches a system to separate a product gas comprising helium and/or hydrogen from a mixed gas comprising natural gas ([0014]). In figure 3, hydrogen 62 and helium 84 product streams are recovered from the mixed gas 42 ([0017]). The mixed gas in Molter is analogous to the sweeper gas in Ewan since its composition is similar (including natural gas, helium, and hydrogen). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to take the sweeper gas in Ewan to the separation system of Molter to recover valuable helium and/or hydrogen product gas.
Regarding claim 2, the product gas contains hydrogen (column 17 lines 10-20).
Regarding claim 3, the sweep gas contains carbon dioxide or nitrogen (column 5 line 39-40).
Regarding claim 5, Ewan teaches compression upstream the annular volume 205. Ewan does not explicitly teach a compressor of the sweep gas before the separation stage, however Molter teaches compression of the mixed gas prior to separating helium and hydrogen ([0019]). Since the sweeper gas is taken from Ewan to the separation steps in Molter as the mixed gas, a compression step of the sweeper gas (mixed stream) before further separation is obvious.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Ewan teaches valves that control the flow therethrough (column 7 lines 34-35). There further includes pressure gages to detect the flow rate at the valve, and the delivery lines 308 and sweep lines (column 19 lines 1-15).
Regarding claim 8, Ewan teaches valves 316 and pressure gages upstream the inner conduit (Figure 3d) and another valve 219 (Figure 2) downstream of the inner conduit (from Figure 3d) to control the flow of product gas (column 19 lines 6-15).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ewan et al. US Patent 11,236,864 in view of in view of Molter et al. US Publication 2022/0339578 and in further view of Hale et al. US 2005/0217479.
Regarding claim 4, the combination applied to claim 1 does not expressly teach a gas well configured to add more product gas to the sweep gas at a location upstream of the separation unit.
However, Hale teaches that a gas source comprising helium may be sourced from a well as part of a mixed gas feed for separation ([0076]). Hale further teaches combining a helium containing process stream with a recycle stream upstream of the separation unit ([0130]-[0132]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to introduce Hale’s helium-containing well stream with the helium-containing sweep stream of Ewan upstream of the separation unit in the modified system of Ewan and Molter, thereby permitting helium from both the well stream and sweep stream to be processed by a common separation unit thus increasing helium recovery and avoiding extra equipment costs.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARON PREGLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5051. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571) 272-5954. 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.
/SHARON PREGLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights