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 .
Summary
This is the initial Office action based on application 18858605 filed 10/21/24.
Claims 1-40 are pending and have been fully considered.
Information Disclosure Statement
IDS filed on 3/24/26 and 10/21/24 have been considered by the examiner and copies of the Form PTO/SB/08 are attached to the office action.
Drawings
The Drawings filed on 10/21/24 are acknowledged and accepted by the examiner.
Specification
The Specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. MPEP § 608.01
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BYLIN, ET AL. "Designing the ideal offshore platform methane mitigation strategy." SPE International Conference and Exhibition on Health, Safety, Environment, and Sustainability? SPE, 12 April 2010; and alone or in combination with SIRCAR ET AL. (US 4,770,676), and KELLEY ET AL. (US PG PUB 2008/0282884) in their entirety. Hereby referred to as BYLIN, SIRCAR and KELLEY.
Regarding claims 1-40:
BYLIN teaches in the abstract - Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas and the primary component of natural gas and minimizing methane emissions creates both environmental and commercial benefits. Offshore production platform air emissions have been studied and characterized in detail by the U.S. Minerals Management Service (MMS)1, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Natural Gas STAR Program has gathered information on methane emission reduction technologies and practices applicable to these facilities. This paper analyzes and summarizes methane emission volumes and sources from offshore production platforms, outlines mitigation technologies and practices, and provides a methodology for conducting full cost-benefit economic analyses to prioritize mitigation actions to yield the maximum environmental benefits at the lowest cost. The information presented can help companies better understand emissions from their offshore facilities and provide guidance they can use to optimize their own operations.
BYLIN teaches that MMS provides a significant body of knowledge about overall operations and methane emissions from offshore oil and natural gas production platforms. New research and data gathering was utilized to develop a comprehensive analysis of methane emissions from individual platform operations. In doing so, this information was synthesized for the first time in a comprehensive way to identify mitigation technologies and practices that could be applied to the most significant emission sources. Marginal abatement cost curve analyses were then developed to prioritize mitigation actions. This analysis indicated that up to 85% of an individual platform’s methane emissions can be reduced cost-effectively through replacement of centrifugal compressor wet seals with dry seals; routing vent sources such as storage tanks, dehydrators, and pig launcher to a vapor recovery system; and implementing a directed inspection and maintenance program to target fugitive emissions. Optimizing platform design to reduce methane emissions contributes climate change benefits, given methane’s role as a greenhouse gas, and also enhances operational safety on offshore platforms. These pillars of environmental and safety benefits, along with economic benefits of conserving and utilizing a valuable clean energy source, contribute to overarching principles of corporate social responsibility. (see pg 1 para 3-4)
BYLIN teaches on pg 5 para 1, while the GOADS-2005 data is a useful basis for generally understanding major methane emissions sources, additional analysis must be done to apply these results to individual platforms. Development of a platform-level estimate of methane emissions requires understanding of the various operating units installed on the platform and the flow of oil, gas, and other process streams. The process units and emissions sources on an offshore platform are related to each other through the flow of material and energy, as shown in the flow diagram in Exhibit 1.
SIRCAR teaches a system for recovering high purity methane from landfill gas, comprising a pressure swing adsorption system which has four adsorption columns operated in parallel, where each of the four columns is connected to a methane vent line, and the vent line is connected to a vapor recovery unit for storing methane (Figure 1, A and B and 55 and 80; and Abstract, High purity methane and carbon dioxide are recovered from landfill gas - cleaned gas being fed to a pressure swing adsorption section – PSA - for bulk separation of CO2 from methane; and col 3 In 24-36, The impurity-freed gas discharged from the pretreatment section, comprised of about equal parts of CH4 and CO2.may be passed directly to one of the PSA columns, then on the adsorption stroke. The PSA system illustrated comprises four adsorption Columns A, B, C, D, operated sequentially in parallel. The system further comprises vessels 35 and 80; and col 5 In 51-60, Assuming that column A is on the adsorption stroke, having been previously brought to designed adsorption pressure, the feed ·gas comprised essentially of CO2 and CH4, is introduced into column A through then opened valve 41. The feed gas passes through the bed of adsorbent in column. A whereby the CO2 is selectively adsorbed and an effluent stream of substantially pure methane is discharged through open valve 51, into gas discharge manifold 55; Note that gas discharge manifold 55 is interpreted as a vent line, and the storage tank 80 is interpreted as the vapor recovery unit).
KELLEY teaches a system or method comprising: an oil and gas production facility comprising at least one separator; a first and second horizontal methane recovery vessel including a vent; and a vapor recovery unit connected to the vent (Figure 1; and Figure 2; and Figure 14; and Abstract, A process for the separation of one or more heavy hydrocarbon gases from a gas mixture containing heavy hydrocarbon gas components and methane; and para [0075], The preferred gas mixture is natural gas or gas associated with the production of oil, more preferably natural gas; and para [0095], FIG. 1 hereof is a representation of a parallel channel contactor of the present invention in the form of a monolith formed directly from a microporous adsorbent plus binder and containing a plurality of parallel flow channels.,. An example of a cylindrical monolith 1 is shown schematically in FIG. 1 hereof The cylindrical monolith 1 contains a plurality of parallel flow channels 3 - The space between the channels is occupied by the adsorbent 5; and para [0096], FIG. 2 is a cross-sectional view along the longitudinal axis showing feed channels 3 extending through the length of the monolith with the walls of the flow channels formed entirely from adsorbent 5 plus binder; and para [0167], FIG. 14 hereof shows a process scheme - A sour gas stream 811 - is produced from a gas field and fed to the process; and para [0169], Before the stream is passed through turboexpander 821, it may optionally be sent through a process 813 to remove any particles, or a portion of the wax, or optionally some of the heavy hydrocarbons, H2S and/or water - Stream 837 is then sent to a process block 839 that at least removes the liquid droplets from the stream; and para [0841], PSA unit 841 is used to separate most of the CO2 and a fraction of the H2S out of stream 871. in a preferred embodiment, PSA unit 841 contains a parallel channel contactor - In a preferred embodiment more than 90% of the methane and heavy hydrocarbon fed to PSA unit 841 is recovered in the methane enriched stream 815 - The CO2 enriched stream 881 coming from the PSA 841 can be sent through an optional process block 851 to remove water vapor; and para [0172], The CO2 in stream 881 is ultimately sent to a compressor 829 - The compressed CO2 rich gas stream 895 is injected into an underground formation for CO2 disposal/sequestration; Note that with reference to Figure 14, the at least separator is interpreted as either the process 813 and/or the block 839. The first and second horizontal methane recovery vessel are interpreted as the PSA unit 841 which may be a parallel channel contactor, which is depicted in Figures 1 and 2. This parallel channel contactor is interpreted as a first and second horizontal methane recovery vessel since it is effective to produce methane stream 815, and is a cylindrical body with a horizontal shape· as shown in Figures 1-2, with any of the individual flow channels 3 interpreted as the first and second methane recovery vessel. The vent is then interpreted as the outlets of the fl ow channels 3, and with reference to Figure 14, the vent is interpreted as the CO2 stream 881, which is communication with the compressor 829 and stream 895 to be sequestered, where 829 and/or 895 interpreted as the vapor recovery unit; and See Instant Claim 16, wherein the horizontal methane recovery vessel includes a cylindrical body with a ratio of horizontal length to diameter greater than 2:1 ).
KELLEY also teaches a process for separating out methane from a gas mixture, comprising using a horizontal methane recovery vessel (Figure 1; and Figure 2; and Abstract, A process for the separation of one or more heavy hydrocarbon gases from a gas mixture containing heavy hydrocarbon gas components and methane. The process is conducted in swing adsorption apparatus containing adsorbent contactor having a plurality of flow channels and wherein 20 volume percent or less of the open pore volume of the contactors, is in the mesopore and macropore range; and para [0075], The preferred gas mixture is natural gas or gas associated with the production of oil, more preferably natural gas; and para [0095], FIG. 1 hereof is a representation of a parallel channel contactor of the present invention in the form of a monolith formed directly from a microporous adsorbent plus binder and containing a plurality of parallel flow channels - An example of a cylindrical monolith 1 is shown schematically in FIG. 1 hereof The cylindrical monolith 1 contains a plurality of parallel flow channels 3 - The space between the channels is occupied by the adsorbent 5; and para [0096], FIG. 2 is a cross-sectional view along the longitudinal axis showing feed channels 3 extending through the length of the monolith with the walls of the flow channels formed entirely from adsorbent 5 plus binder; and para [0068], As previously mentioned, the present invention can be used to obtain methane recovery of greater than about 80 vol. %, more preferably greater than about 85 vol. %, even more preferably greater than about 90 vol. %, and most preferably greater than about 95 vol. %; Note that the parallel channel contactor, which is depicted in Figures 1 and 2, is interpreted as defining a horizontal methane recovery vessel; and See Instant Claim 16, wherein the horizontal methane recovery vessel includes a cylindrical body with a ratio of horizontal length to diameter greater than 2:1 ).
From the teachings of the references it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process by varying the claimed ranges; however, no patentable distinction is seen to exist between the reference and the claimed invention absent evidence to the contrary. Especially, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Furthermore, the claimed changes in the sequence of performing steps is considered to be prima facie obvious because the time at which a particular step is performed is simply a matter of operator preference, especially since the same result is obtained regardless of when the step occurs. See Ex parte RUBIN, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959). See also In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results). With regard to any differences in the claimed conversion amounts, the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the process conditions in order to obtain the desired conversions. Moreover, it is well-established that merely selecting proportions and ranges is not patentable absent a showing of criticality. In re Becket, 33 USPQ 33 (CCPA 1937). In re Russel, 439 F.2d 1228, 169 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1971)
Still, a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)
Additionally, “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Furthermore, “[i]nclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). In In re Young, a claim to a machine for making concrete beams included a limitation to the concrete reinforced members made by the machine as well as the structural elements of the machine itself. The court held that the inclusion of the article formed within the body of the claim did not, without more, make the claim patentable
In conclusion, an intended result of a process being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims when the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art. Furthermore, it has been held that obviousness is not rebutted by merely recognizing additional advantages or latent properties present in the prior art process and composition. Further, the fact that applicant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd.Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected appropriate conditions, as guided by the prior art, in order to obtain the desired products. It is not seen where such selections would result in any new or unexpected results. Please see MPEP 2144.05, II: noting obviousness within prior art conditions or through routine experimentation.
If it is the applicant's position that this would not be the case, evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant's position.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANTEL GRAHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5563. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH 9:00 am - 7:00 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, Prem Singh can be reached on 571-272-6381. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHANTEL L GRAHAM/
Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/ELLEN M MCAVOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights