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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-2, 4-5, 8, 10-11, 14-16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Minta (US 20100186445 A1).
Regarding claim 1:
Minta discloses a system for processing a gas produced from an oil and gas well (Fig. 1; [0013]), the system comprising:
a plurality of fluid flow paths ((i) path through #10a and (ii) path through #11) in fluid communication with a wellbore (inherently present. Feed gas is extracted from a wellbore), the plurality of fluid flow paths comprising:
a first segment #10a in fluid communication with one or more containers (either #80 or any structure that receives LNG #15. Also note that “one or more containers” has not been claimed as part of the invention. Thus, the phrase “in fluid communication with one or more containers” is a functional or relational limitation); and
a second segment #11 in fluid communication with a pipeline ([0024]: #11 is in fluid communication with loop #5; which is a pipeline. Loop #5 qualifies as a pipeline at least because it is used to transport gas. Also note that “a pipeline” has not been claimed as part of the invention. Thus, the phrase “in fluid communication with a pipeline” is a functional or relational limitation; rather than a structural component of the device. Thus, even if applicant argues that loop #5 is not a pipeline, segment #11 is capable of connecting to a pipeline to allow fluid flow. Accordingly, Minta meets all the limitations of a second segment in fluid communication with a pipeline);
at least one heat exchanger #50 in thermal communication with the first segment and the second segment (at least via lines #10b & #13a within #50), the at least one heat exchanger configured to cool the gas in the first segment ([0024]); and
a compressor #25 in fluid communication with the first segment, the compressor configured to compress the gas in the first segment ([0024]).
Regarding claim 2:
Minta further discloses an expander #40 in fluid communication with the second segment (see Fig. 1), the expander configured to supply power as the gas in the second segment flows through the expander ([0021]).
Regarding claim 4:
Minta further discloses wherein the gas in the first segment flows through the compressor #25 prior to flowing through the at least one heat exchanger #50 (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5:
Minta further discloses wherein the gas in the second segment is heated by the at least one heat exchanger prior to being delivered to the pipeline ([0021] & [0024]).
Regarding claim 8:
The subject matter claimed here is substantially similar to that of claim 2. Thus, for sake of simplicity, conciseness, and brevity, please refer to the rejection of claim 2 above for the rejection of claims 8.
Regarding claim 10:
Minta further discloses wherein the gas in the first segment flows through the compressor #25 prior to flowing through the at least one heat exchanger #50 (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11:
Minta further discloses wherein the gas in the second segment is heated by the at least one heat exchanger prior to being delivered to the pipeline ([0021] & [0024]).
Regarding claim 14:
If a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. Thus, the method of claim 14, as claimed, would necessarily result from the normal operation of the apparatus of claim 1. See MPEP 2112.02.
Regarding claim 15:
Minta further discloses heating the gas in the second segment with the at least one heat exchanger prior to delivering the gas in the second segment to the pipeline ([0021] & [0024]).
Regarding claim 16:
Minta further discloses wherein the gas in the first segment flows through the at least one compressor prior to flowing through the at least one heat exchanger (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 18:
Minta further discloses supplying power, by an expander #40 in fluid communication with the second segment, as gas in the second segment flows through the expander ([0021]).
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, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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) 7, 13, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minta (US 20100186445 A1) in view of Tremblay (US 20170074583 A1).
Regarding claims 7 and 13:
Minta discloses all the limitations, except for a plurality of valves coupled to the plurality of fluid flow paths; a controller in electronic communication with at least one valve of the plurality of valves; and
a plurality of sensors coupled to at least one of the wellbore or the plurality of fluid flow paths, the plurality of sensors being in electronic communication with the controller; wherein the controller is configured to actuate at least one valve of the plurality of valves, based at least in part on a signal from the plurality of sensors, to direct a flow of at least one portion of the gas.
In other words, the difference between the prior art and the claim herein so far is the fact that valves along with a controller are provided to control distribution of the gas to the fluid flow paths.
Nonetheless, Because Minta clearly discloses that feed stream is the side stream 11 of feed gas to be used as the refrigerant in expander loop 5 may be withdrawn from the feed gas stream 10 ([0019]); and because it is known in the art to use a valve along with a controller to optimize flow control (see for example Tremblay, [0064-0065]); it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the apparatus/method of Minta with the claimed arrangement above.
One on ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that doing so would have yielded the predictable result of optimizing gas flow to their respective fluid flow paths; whereby optimal processing of gas stream will be achieved.
Regarding claim 17:
If a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. Thus, the method of claim 17, as claimed, would necessarily result from the normal operation of the apparatus of claim 7. See MPEP 2112.02.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 6, 9, 12, and 19-20 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
There is no teaching in the prior art of record that would, reasonably and absent impermissible hindsight, motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of the prior art of record so as to (i) cool the gas in the second segment via the at least one heat exchanger before allowing the gas in the second segment to flow through the expander as required by claims 6, 12, and 19; at least because the at least one heat exchanger of Minta is configured instead to heat the gas in the second segment (see Minta, [0021] & [0024]); and (ii) to provide the plurality of fluid flow paths with at least one of: (a) a third segment in fluid communication with the expander and the pipeline, wherein the gas in the third segment bypasses the at least one heat exchanger as the gas in the third segment is delivered from the wellbore to the expander; or (b) a fourth segment in fluid communication with the one or more storage devices, wherein the gas in the fourth segment bypasses the at least one heat exchanger as the gas in the fourth segment is delivered from the wellbore to the one or more storage devices.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed on 06/17/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant submitted that side stream 11 of Minta is fed to an expander loop 5 as refrigerant; not a pipeline as required by Claim 1. It was pointed out to the applicant that loop #5 qualifies as a pipeline at least because it is used to transport gas ([0024]). Also, “a pipeline” has not been claimed as part of the invention. Thus, the phrase “in fluid communication with a pipeline” is a functional or relational limitation; rather than a structural component of the device. Thus, even if applicant argues that loop #5 is not a pipeline, segment #11 is capable of connecting to a pipeline to allow fluid flow. Accordingly, Minta meets all the limitations of “a second segment in fluid communication with a pipeline”. Accordingly, Minta clearly discloses the arrangement of the plurality of fluid flow paths as required by claim 1.
Applicant further submitted that claim 14 recites, "storing the gas in the first segment in the one or more containers as CNG"; which is not contemplated by Minta. It was pointed out to the applicant that either #80 or any structure that receives LNG #15 is a container that stores the gas in the first segment. Gas-liquid separation unit #80 is clearly a container that stores CNG (see [0025]). It was also pointed out to the applicant that “one or more containers” has not been claimed as part of the invention. Thus, the phrase “in fluid communication with one or more containers” is a functional or relational limitation; rather than a structural component of the device. Thus, Minta disclose all the limitations of independent Claim 14.
Refer to the 102 and 103 rejection sections above for the detailed rejection of the claims.
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 LIONEL W NOUKETCHA whose telephone number is (571)272-8438. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri: 08:00 AM - 04:00 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, Frantz Jules can be reached on 571-272-6681. 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.
/LIONEL NOUKETCHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
