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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/30/2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
In light of the amendments, arguments, and filing of an RCE, the restriction requirement made in the final action mailed 03/30/2026 pertaining to the election by original presentation is hereby withdrawn, and no claims are currently held as being withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Younes (US 20210140684 A1).
With respect to claim 1, With respect to claim 1, Younes discloses a system comprising: a separator (210) for separating one or more of liquid, oil, gas, and debris from a fluid produced from a wellbore (160), the separator comprising: a vessel defining an interior chamber; an inlet (inlet for 202) for delivering the fluid produced from the wellbore into the vessel at a first pressure (pgph. 27); and a gas outlet (outlet for 204) for discharging the gas from the vessel at a pressure substantially equal to the first pressure (pgph. 27); an expander (250) configured to f expand the gas to a second pressure that is less than the first pressure (pgph. 30); a generator coupled to the expander for supplying electrical power produced by expansion of the gas by the expander (pgph. 30, converting to electrical energy requires a generator); and a molecular dryer (240 or portion of 240 with molecular gate materials, pgph. 29) configured to substantially remove water vapor from the gas (using molecular gates/filters to adsorb water (moisture) constitutes a molecular dryer, see pgph. 29), the molecular dryer configured to be fluidly coupled upstream of the expander (fig. 2) ;wherein the gas is directed out of the molecular dryer at a pressure substantially equal to the first pressure (pgph. 30, pressure drops are not mentioned before the stream reaches 250); and wherein the first pressure is substantially equal to the pressure at which the fluid exits the wellbore and of at least 1,500 psig (pgph. 27, fig. 1, no device which alters the pressure is shown or described between 160 and 210).
The limitations of claim 16 are substantially similar to those of claim 1, rejected supra.
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) 25 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Younes in light of Malone (US 20200141221 A1).
With respect to claim 25, Younes discloses an additional separator (portion of 240 which separates co2) fluidly coupled in series with the separator (pgph.29, shown in fig. 2).
However, Younes fails to disclose the elements on a skid.
Nevertheless, Malone discloses providing multiple elements of a separation system together on a skid (18, fig. 1, pgph. 44).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the elements of Younes on a skid in order to reduce set-up time as taught by Malone (pgph. 44). If applicant disagrees that another portion of 240 does not qualify as an additional separator, it would have been obvious to have added desander 12 of Malone to Younes either upstream or downstream of element 210 of Younes in order to remove sand as is well-known in the art.
With respect to claim 26, Younes discloses receiving the gas output from the separator into an additional separator (desander of Younes) at the first pressure, the additional separator being fluidly coupled in series with the separator on a skid (discussed supra in light of Malone);and directing the gas out of the additional separator at a pressure substantially equal to the first pressure (pgph. 29, 30, Younes); wherein the additional separator is configured to separate debris (sand) from the gas.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-13, 18, 19, 21, and 23 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIPP CHARLES WALLACE whose telephone number is (571)270-1162. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 12:00 PM - 8:00 PM.
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, Doug Hutton can be reached at (571) 272-4137. 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.
/KIPP C WALLACE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674 07/15/2026
Prosecution Insights