DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims:
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “an isolation valve…configured…to be closed to permit fluid communication…” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 9-13 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.
Regarding Claim 9:
The claim refers to “the fluid received in the second accumulator”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation within the claims.
Regarding Claim 10:
The claim states “an isolation valve…configured to be opened to permit the movement of the solids…and to be closed to permit fluid communication…”. It is not clear how the same valve permits movement between the same two locations in both the opened and closed states. In view of the specification, which states the isolation valve is closed to “prevent” fluid communication (see para. 0040 of published application), “closed to permit” will be interpreted as a typographical error and interpreted as “closed to prevent”.
Claims 11-13 are indefinite because they depend from an indefinite claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 and 14-20 are allowed.
Claims 9-13 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The claims contain limitations not disclosed or rendered obvious by the prior art. Regarding Claims 1-9, the prior art teaches a separator (separator vessel 110) configured to receive a mixture of solids and fluid from a wellhead; a first accumulator (accumulator vessel 120) configured to receive the solids separated from the mixture by the separator; a second accumulator (containment vessel 130) configured to receive the solids from the first accumulator (see Magnus et al US 2019/0381427, para. 0066). Magnus does not teach the transfer of rotation (TOR) device configured to receive a high-pressure, relative to a pressure in the first accumulator, fluid and to remove the solids from the first accumulator and deliver the solids to the second accumulator. This limitation is not disclosed in this or related prior arts, therefore it would not have been obvious to one skilled in the art to add a transfer of rotation device to the system of Magnus.
Regarding Claims 14-20, the prior art teaches receiving a mixture of solids and fluid from a wellhead in a separator (separator 110); removing at least some of the solids from the mixture using the separator; storing the removed solids in a first accumulator (accumulator 120); delivering the removed solids from the first accumulator to a second accumulator (containment device 130) (see Magnus para. 0066-0075); and delivering the removed solids from the second accumulator to a sand disposal hopper (transportation device) (see Magnus para. 0075, 0092), a sand cleaning system, or both. The prior art does not teach providing a high-pressure, relative to a pressure in the first accumulator, fluid to a transfer of rotation (TOR) device coupled to the first accumulator, wherein providing the high-pressure fluid to the TOR device causes the removed solids to be evacuated from the first accumulator. This limitation is not known in this or related prior arts.
Regarding Claims 10-13, the prior art teaches the system comprising a separator (separator 110) configured to receive a mixture of solids and fluid from a wellhead; a first accumulator (accumulator) configured to receive the solids separated from the mixture by the separator; a second accumulator (containment vessel) configured to receive the solids from the first accumulator (see Magnus para. 0066), wherein the second accumulator is maintained at a relatively low pressure relative to the first accumulator, such that a pressure differential causes the solids to move from the first accumulator to the second accumulator (accumulator pressure has a pressure head and the pressure is released when transferred to the containment vessel) (see Magnus para. 0069, 0073); an isolation valve (valve 123) between the first and second accumulators, wherein the isolation valve is configured to be opened to permit the movement of the solids from the first accumulator to the second accumulator, and to be closed to permit (prevent) fluid communication between the first and second accumulators (see Magnus para. 0073). The prior art does not teach a pump configured to deliver a liquid to the second accumulator, so as to remove the solids therefrom. Magnus teaches that the solids (sand) are removed without the use of added liquid (see Magnus para. 0075) and further teaches that it is desirable to separate the sand from the liquid (liquids are pushed out) (see Magnus para. 0069), therefore one skilled in the art would not have been motivated to add liquid to the second accumulator (containment) vessel of Magnus.
The transfer of rotation device is interpreted as a vortex or cyclone-based outlet. Vortex or cyclone-based separators for the movement of streams from wellheads are known in the prior art, see for example Lee et al (USPN 9,329,856) and Yong et al (CN 114542046, English machine translation provided). Lee teaches a separator comprising a hydrocyclone (see col. 4 lines 4-7), however the cyclone is not configured to receive a high-pressure fluid, and there is no separate fluid inlet. Yong teaches a rotational flow sand removing device (see abstract), however the device is not configured to receive a high-pressure fluid and there is no separate fluid inlet.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAIRE A NORRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-5133. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-5 F: 8-12.
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, Ramdhanie Bobby can be reached at 571-270-3240. 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.
/CLAIRE A NORRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779 8/26/2026
Prosecution Insights