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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species (1-5 and 23) in the reply filed on 06/09/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stewart et al (US 20170065929; hereinafter Stewart).
As regarding claim 1, Stewart discloses the claimed invention for a method of removing H2S from a fluid ([0012]-[0013]), said method comprising introducing an H2S scavenger upstream of a pipe loop (114) of at least 25 feet in length, said pipe loop having a uniform degree of curvature and lacking any 900 bends (fig. 1), said pipe loop transporting said fluid containing H2S, wherein less H2S scavenger is used in said pipe loop than in a straight pipe (very ‘short’ straight section of the coiled tubing member inlet) of a same length and a same diameter.
Stewart does not disclose to bring an H2S level to less than 1 ppm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide to bring an H2S level to less than 1 ppm in order to enhance process performance, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen H2S level or upon another variable recited in the claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen H2S level is critical and unexpected results.
As regarding claim 2, Stewart as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Stewart as modified discloses the claimed invention for said pipe loop being of at least 50 feet in length ([0013]).
As regarding claim 3, Stewart as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Stewart as modified discloses the claimed invention for said pipe loop is wound around a spool (fig. 1; no number).
As regarding claim 4, Stewart as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Stewart as modified discloses the claimed invention except for said pipe loop is wound around a spool of at least 4-5 feet in diameter. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide said pipe loop is wound around a spool of at least 4-5 feet in diameter in order to provide further loop pipe support, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 23 is likewise rejected with similar reasons as recited in claim 1 above.
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stewart et al (US 20170065929; hereinafter Stewart), as applied supra, and further in view of Long (US 20200207001).
As regarding claim 3, Stewart as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Stewart as modified discloses the claimed invention except for said pipe loop is wound around a spool. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide said pipe loop is wound around a spool in order to provide support for the loop pipe, since it was known in the art as shown in Long (500 of fig. 6).
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stewart et al (US 20170065929; hereinafter Stewart), as applied supra, and further in view of Mosina et al (US 20230193113; hereinafter Mosina).
As regarding claim 5, Stewart as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Stewart as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein said H2S scavenger is an amine, a triazine, an aldehyde, or combinations thereof. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein said H2S scavenger is an amine, a triazine, an aldehyde, or combinations thereof in order to provide enhance the process of H2S sweetening, since it was known in the art as shown in Mosina ([0012]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUNG H BUI whose telephone number is (571)270-7077. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:30 ET.
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, Benjamin L. Lebron can be reached at (571) 272-0475. 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.
/DUNG H BUI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights