DETAILED ACTION
The amendment filed 3/9/2026 has been entered.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the applicability of the previous 102 rejection under Stachowiak et al. to the instantly amended claims have been considered, are persuasive and those rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the applicability of the previous 103 rejection under Stachowiak et al. in view of Trainer to the instantly amended claims have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill would not modify Stachowiak et al. with Trainer as in the rejection because the use of a new structural connector would create a new failure point that Stachowiak et al. teaches away from. The examiner respectfully disagrees as it is not clear that the modification of including a connector member as claimed is what Stachowiak et al. seeks to avoid. Stachowiak et al. provides the lower connection in order to ensure no separator components fall into the well after erosion (as in col. 6, lines 5-10). Providing a connector as taught by Trainer (as claimed) would appear to provide additional support which would enhance the retaining of components as desired by Stachowiak et al. and therefore applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive as directed to the combination of Stachowiak et al. in view of Trainer.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-8, and 10-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stachowiak et al. (US in view of Trainer (US 5,295,537).
In regard to claim 1, Stachowiak et al. disclose a separator, comprising: an inner tubular member (110, see fig 4B) having an upper end, a lower end, and a sidewall extending between the upper end and the lower end, the lower end of the inner tubular member having an opening (lower end of 112), the upper end of the inner tubular member connectable to a lower end of a tubing string positionable in a wellbore (as connected above 102); and an outer tubular member (140) having an upper end, a lower end, and a sidewall extending between the upper end of the outer tubular member and the lower end of the outer tubular member, the outer tubular member positioned about at least a portion of the inner tubular member (as in fig 4B) and connected to the inner tubular member to define an annulus (146) between the inner tubular member and the outer tubular member, the upper end of outer tubular being free from the inner tubular member to define a circumferential inlet (at top of 140) between the upper end of the outer tubular member and the inner tubular member, the circumferential inlet being in fluid communication with the lower open end of the inner tubular member (col. 5, lines 56-65), wherein reservoir fluid passes into the annulus formed between the inner tubular member and the outer tubular member via the circumferential inlet (col. 5, lines 56-67), the reservoir fluid guided downwardly to the opening of the inner tubular member so the fluid continues to travel up through the inner tubular member (as into 112). Stachowiak et al. do not disclose a connector member positioned between the upper end of the outer tubular end and the opening at the lower end of the inner member to support the outer tubular member relative to the inner tubular member.
Trainer discloses a separator wherein a connector member (13) is positioned between an upper end of an outer tubular member (16) and an opening at a lower end of an inner tubular member (11) to support the outer tubular member relative to the inner tubular member in a way that permits fluid communication between a circumferential inlet and the opening at a lower end of the inner tubular member (as in fig 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to provide the connector as taught by Trainer with the separator of Stachowiak et al. in order to rigidly support the circumferential inlet and since combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill.
In regard to claim 3, Trainer discloses the connector member having a plurality of flow ports (14) extending therethrough.
In regard to claim 4, Stachowiak et al. discloses wherein the inner tubular member has at least one spiral protrusion (124, col. 5, lines 60+) extending outwardly from the sidewall to cooperate with an interior side of the outer tubular member to form a spiral channel, wherein reservoir fluid passes into the annulus formed between the inner tubular member and the outer tubular member via the circumferential inlet (col. 5, lines 56+), the reservoir fluid guided downwardly into the spiral channel so the spiral channel induces a cyclonic flow that causes heavier particles to be forced outwardly and to fall to the lower end of the outer tubular member (col. 5, lines 56+), the separated fluid flows into the lower open end of the inner tubular member so the fluid continues to travel up through the inner tubular member (col. 5, lines 56+).
In regard to claim 5, Stachowiak et al. and Trainer, as applied to claim 4 above, disclose all the limitations of this claim except for wherein a lower portion of the outer tubular member includes a funnel-shaped bore. Trainer additionally discloses wherein a lower portion of the outer tubular member includes a funnel-shaped bore (20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to provide the separator of Stachowiak et al. with the funnel shaped bore as taught by Trainer in order to better direct solids away from the production opening and since combining prior art element according to known methods to yield predictable results is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill.
In regard to claim 6, Stachowiak et al. disclose a collector section (40) having an upper end connected to the lower end of the outer tubular member.
In regard to claim 7, Stachowiak et al. and Trainer disclose all the limitations of this claim, as applied above, but Stachowiak does not disclose details of the collector section. Trainer discloses a collector section (17) comprising a tubular member (17) having an upper end, a closed lower end (18), and a sidewall defining a chamber extending between the upper end and the lower end (as in fig 1), the upper end of the collector section connected to the lower end of the outer tubular member (as in fig 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to provide the collector section of Stachowiak et al. as disclosed by Trainer since the choosing from a finite number of identified predictable solutions (for a collector section) with a reasonable expectation of success is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill.
In regard to claim 8, Stachowiak et al. disclose a separator, comprising: a tubing string (102) positioned in a wellbore, the tubing string having an upper end and a lower end; an inner tubular (110) member having an upper end, a lower end, and a sidewall extending between the upper end and the lower end, the lower end of the inner tubular member having an opening (bottom of 112), the upper end of the inner tubular member connected to the lower end of the tubing string (as in fig 4A); and an outer tubular member (140) having an upper end, a lower end, and a sidewall extending between the upper end of the outer tubular member and the lower end of the outer tubular member, the outer tubular member positioned about at least a portion of the inner tubular member (as in fig 4A/4B) and connected to the inner tubular member to define an annulus (146) between the inner tubular member and the outer tubular member, the upper end of outer tubular being free from the inner tubular member to define a circumferential inlet between the upper end of the outer tubular member and the inner tubular member (at top of 140), the circumferential inlet being in fluid communication with the lower open end of the inner tubular member (col. 5, lines 56-67), wherein reservoir fluid passes into the annulus formed between the inner tubular member and the outer tubular member via the circumferential inlet, the reservoir fluid guided downwardly to the opening of the inner tubular member so the fluid continues to travel up through the inner tubular member to the tubing string (col. 5, lines 56-67). Stachowiak et al. do not disclose a connector member positioned between the upper end of the outer tubular end and the opening at the lower end of the inner member to support the outer tubular member relative to the inner tubular member.
Trainer discloses a separator wherein a connector member (13) is positioned between an upper end of an outer tubular member (16) and an opening at a lower end of an inner tubular member (11) to support the outer tubular member relative to the inner tubular member in a way that permits fluid communication between a circumferential inlet and the opening at a lower end of the inner tubular member (as in fig 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to provide the connector as taught by Trainer with the separator of Stachowiak et al. in order to rigidly support the circumferential inlet and since combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill.
In regard to claim 10, Trainer discloses the connector member having a plurality of flow ports (14) extending therethrough.
In regard to claim 11, Stachowiak et al. discloses wherein the inner tubular member has at least one spiral protrusion (124, col. 5, lines 60+) extending outwardly from the sidewall to cooperate with an interior side of the outer tubular member to form a spiral channel, wherein reservoir fluid passes into the annulus formed between the inner tubular member and the outer tubular member via the circumferential inlet (col. 5, lines 56+), the reservoir fluid guided downwardly into the spiral channel so the spiral channel induces a cyclonic flow that causes heavier particles to be forced outwardly and to fall to the lower end of the outer tubular member (col. 5, lines 56+), the separated fluid flows into the lower open end of the inner tubular member so the fluid continues to travel up through the inner tubular member (col. 5, lines 56+).
In regard to claim 12, Stachowiak et al. and Trainer, as applied to claim 11 above, disclose all the limitations of this claim except for wherein a lower portion of the outer tubular member includes a funnel-shaped bore. Trainer additionally discloses wherein a lower portion of the outer tubular member includes a funnel-shaped bore (20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to provide the separator of Stachowiak et al. with the funnel shaped bore as taught by Trainer in order to better direct solids away from the production opening and since combining prior art element according to known methods to yield predictable results is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill.
In regard to claim 13, Stachowiak et al. disclose a collector section (40) having an upper end connected to the lower end of the outer tubular member.
In regard to claim 14, Stachowiak et al. and Trainer disclose all the limitations of this claim, as applied above, but Stachowiak does not disclose details of the collector section. Trainer discloses a collector section (17) comprising a tubular member (17) having an upper end, a closed lower end (18), and a sidewall defining a chamber extending between the upper end and the lower end (as in fig 1), the upper end of the collector section connected to the lower end of the outer tubular member (as in fig 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to provide the collector section of Stachowiak et al. as disclosed by Trainer since the choosing from a finite number of identified predictable solutions (for a collector section) with a reasonable expectation of success is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill.
In regard to claim 15, Stachowiak et al. disclose wherein the tubing string includes a pump assembly (20) positioned uphole of the inner tubular member.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stachowiak et al. in view Trainer and further in view of Raglin (US 2013/0032341).
In regard to claim 16, Stachowiak et al. and Trainer disclose all the limitations of this claim, as applied to claim 15 above, except for the details of the pump. Raglin discloses a separator comprising a pump assembly (44) comprising: a pump barrel (29) having an upper end, a lower end, and a chamber extending through the pump barrel from the upper end to the lower end, the chamber being in fluid communication with an inner tubular member (as connected in fig 1, or as connected within 42 in fig 2); a standing valve (30) located in the pump barrel to permit one-way flow of fluid into the chamber of the pump barrel; a plunger (19) disposed in the chamber of the pump barrel above the standing valve and below the upper end of the pump barrel and adapted for reciprocating movement through at least a portion of the chamber of the pump barrel; a traveling valve (31) located in the plunger to permit one-way flow of fluid into the plunger; and a pull rod (25) having one end connected to the plunger and an opposite end connected to a sucker rod string (13) to affect reciprocating movement of the plunger (as in paragraph 13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to provide the pump of the separator of Stachowiak et al., as modified by Trainer, with the details of a pump as disclosed by Raglin since choosing from a finite number of identified predictable solutions (for a downhole pump in a separator combination) with a reasonable expectation of success is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 D Andrews whose telephone number is (571)272-6558. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7-3.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached at 571-272-5405. 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.
/D. ANDREWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
4/8/2026