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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-10, in the reply filed on 6/3/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/3/26.
Claims 11-20 will be considered for rejoinder and should be amended to agree with amendments to the elected claims to ensure proper rejoinder.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “steam recovery system” in claim 1.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “steam generation system” in claim 3.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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) 1-7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nierode et al (US 2022/0306949).
Regarding claim 1, Nierode teaches a system for treatment of a crude hydrocarbon feed for production of treated hydrocarbon feed (see title, abstract, i.e. desalting), Nierode teaches the system comprises a crude oil feed storage tank 101, that feeds the oil through lines 103/104 to pumps 107/106 and then heat exchanger 109, and the heated hydrocarbon feed of line 111 (downstream of heat exchanger 109) may undergo further heating. The additional heating can be carried out in one or more additional heat exchangers (not shown), which can be located before and/or after heat exchanger 109. The additional transfer of heat results in an increased temperature of the heated hydrocarbon feed beyond what can be achieved by heat exchanger 109 alone. Doing so decreases the viscosity of the feed, and promote mixing with water, as described below. Suitable heat transfer fluids for the additional heat exchangers include, e.g., (i) steam such as low pressure, medium pressure, high pressure, or super high pressure steam (generally the lowest pressure steam that is effective for carrying out the heat transfer is used, typically medium pressure steam (15 bar-30 bar) or low pressure steam (<15 bar) steam is sufficient), (ii) an oleaginous heat transfer fluid from purification system 151, e.g., a bottoms pump around oil from a primary fractionator, and (iii) an aqueous quench fluid, e.g., one obtained from a quench tower included in purification system 151. For example, in certain aspects heat exchanger 109 is located upstream of a first additional heat exchanger utilizing low pressure steam as a heat transfer fluid (Fig 1, [0037]).
Therefore while Nierode does not explicitly show the heat exchanger for low-pressure steam in the manner as claimed, upon consulting the teachings of using additional low pressure steam as taught by Nierode as set forth above, the skilled artisan would arrive at the claimed system having a first heat exchanger disposed along the crude oil feed, wherein the first heat exchanger is configured to receive the flow of crude oil and the first flow of condensed steam, and wherein the first heat exchanger is further configured to produce, using the first flow of condensed steam, a first flow of treated crude oil from the flow of crude oil through the suggestion of Nierode of using LP steam from the refinery.
Regarding claim 2, Nierode teaches using either LP steam or MP steam from the refinery and therefore producing multiple condensed steam stream in the condenser would be obvious.
Regarding claim 3-4, Nierode teaches using available sources of LP and MP steam from a refinery, which therefore would necessarily include the associated steam generation system, which would receive the spent condensed LP steam to reboiler for the system.
Regarding claim 5, Nierode has taught heat exchanger 109 (i.e. second heat exchanger) along the same flow of crude oil feed.
Regarding claims 6-7, Nierode further teaches a flow of dry crude oil 135 from desalter 119/131 is heat exchanged in second heat exchanger 109 to form second flow of treated crude oil 111 is created from flow of treated fuel oil 107/108 combined, and flow of stable crude oil 136 after the heat exchanger 109 (Fig 1, [0037-0039]).
Regarding claim 9, in Nierode, Nierode has taught branching crude feed oil lines 107/108 that combined with first heat exchanger of LP steam (not shown) and second heat exchanger 109 that receives the flow of crude oil and LP steam (Fig 1, [0037]).
Claim(s) 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nierode et al (US 2022/0306949) as applied above and further in combination with Venkatesh (US 2014/0374322).
Regarding claim 8, Nierode teaches all limitations as set forth above however Nierode does not teach flash tank configured to create the flow of dry crude oil as claimed.
Venkatesh teaches a multiple preflash and exchanger network system for a crude distillation system (title, abstract), Venkatesh teaches the crude pre processing system includes series heat exchangers 410, desalter 420, preflash drum 430 and preflash column 440 to create a system better equipped to handle crude oils with lighter components that can be provided to the crude distillation column 450 (Fig 4, [0021-0026]), efficiency is increased with use of waste heat from the plant [0027].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Nierode to include flash drum system as taught by Venkatesh in the system of Nierode to improve flexibility of the system of Nierode in handling different feed types as taught by Venkatesh.
Further regarding claim 10, Nierode further teaches a flow of dry crude oil 135 from desalter 119/131 is heat exchanged in second heat exchanger 109 to form second flow of treated crude oil 111 is created from flow of treated fuel oil 107/108 combined, and flow of stable crude oil 136 after the heat exchanger 109 (Fig 1, [0037-0039]), and therefore further modifying second heat exchanger 109 of Nierode as taught above would be obvious to include the source of waste heat LP steam to further improve heat efficiency of Nierode.
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Krisa (US 5,116,485) teaches crude oil heat exchanging system. Kresnyak (US 6,355,145 and US 6,536,523) teaches steam generation and recovery in a heavy crude oil recovery process. Noureldin (US 2017/0327752) teaches crude oil pretreatment systems. Soliman (US 2019/0194554) teaches crude oil pre treatment systems. Kamandahalli (US 2025/0093094) teaches waste heat utilization in crude processing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-1603. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 - 5.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571) 272-5954. 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.
/JONATHAN MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights