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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 requires an “integrated flare system”, “a high pressure flare subsystem”, and “a single high pressure flare” in lines 2-7. It is unclear if the high pressure flare an its integrated subsystem is separate from either the upstream or downstream flares claimed in independent claim 1. Since Fig. 2, which is drawn to claim 1 does not show a flare system separate from the upstream or downstream flare systems the high pressure flare subsystem is interpreted as either the upstream or downstream flare system.
Claim 4 requires an “integrated flare system”, “a low pressure flare” in lines 2-6. It is unclear if the low pressure flare an its integrated subsystem is separate from either the upstream or downstream flares claimed in independent claim 1. Since Fig. 2, which is drawn to claim 1 does not show a flare system separate from the upstream or downstream flare systems the low pressure flare subsystem is interpreted as either the upstream or downstream flare system.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dey (Dey, Anup Kumar.What is a Slug Catcher? Its Types, Working, Selection, & Design Steps. Pipeline, Piping Design Basics, Piping Interface, Process. 20211. https://whatispiping.com/slug-catcher/).
With respect to claim 1 Dey discloses a system, comprising: a gas plant [represented by the process flow diagram in Fig. 1], comprising: an inlet slug catcher [see “slug catcher”]; downstream processing equipment [see annotated Fig. below] fluidly connected to the inlet slug catcher; and a downstream flare system [see annotated Fig. below] fluidly connected to the inlet slug catcher; and an upstream plant [see annotated Fig. below] connected to the inlet slug catcher via a transmission pipeline, the upstream plant comprising: an upstream flare system [see annotated Fig. below] fluidly connected to the transmission pipeline; wherein the inlet slug catcher has a design pressure equal to or greater than a transmission pipeline design pressure2.
PNG
media_image1.png
448
869
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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) 2 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (Dey, Anup Kumar.What is a Slug Catcher? Its Types, Working, Selection, & Design Steps. Pipeline, Piping Design Basics, Piping Interface, Process. 20213. https://whatispiping.com/slug-catcher/) in view of Niccum et. al (US 2017/0121610 A1).
With respect to claim 2 Dey does not disclose that the gas plant further comprises an inlet compressor knockout drum fluidly connected downstream to the inlet slug catcher, wherein the inlet compressor knockout drum has a design pressure equal to or greater than the transmission pipeline design pressure.
Niccum discloses a gas plant [see Fig. 1A] having a transmission pipeline [reference character 608] having an inlet compressor knockout drum [reference character 310, see paragraph 0025 and Fig. 1A] fluidly connected upstream of a flare [reference character 442]. Note that the inlet compressor knockout drum is a component of a stabilizer column [reference character 300] which is provided to separate “…the filtered crude and/or removes lighter hydrocarbons from the filtered crude” [paragraph 0024].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the system taught by Dey by placing a stabilizer column having a compressor knockout drum in the transmission pipeline, as taught by Niccum, in order to separate “…the filtered crude and/or removes lighter hydrocarbons from the filtered crude” [paragraph 0024 of Niccum]. Note that placed in the transmission pipeline the inlet compressor knockout drum would have a design pressure equal to or greater than the transmission pipeline design pressure in order to ensure positive flow through the transmission pipeline to the flare.
With respect to claim 6 Dey does not disclose that the plant is a gas compression plant.
Niccum discloses a gas plant [see Fig. 1A] having a transmission pipeline [reference character 608] having an inlet compressor knockout drum [reference character 310, see paragraph 0025 and Fig. 1A] fluidly connected upstream of a flare [reference character 442]. Note that the inlet compressor knockout drum is a component of a stabilizer column [reference character 300] which is provided to separate “…the filtered crude and/or removes lighter hydrocarbons from the filtered crude” [paragraph 0024]. Note that compression is preformed by the compressor knockout drum.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the system taught by Dey by placing a stabilizer column having a compressor knockout drum in the transmission pipeline, as taught by Niccum, in order to separate “…the filtered crude and/or removes lighter hydrocarbons from the filtered crude” [paragraph 0024 of Niccum]. Note that placed in the transmission pipeline the inlet compressor knockout drum would have a design pressure equal to or greater than the transmission pipeline design pressure in order to ensure positive flow through the transmission pipeline to the flare.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (Dey, Anup Kumar.What is a Slug Catcher? Its Types, Working, Selection, & Design Steps. Pipeline, Piping Design Basics, Piping Interface, Process. 20214. https://whatispiping.com/slug-catcher/) in view of Park, Chris (Flare system Design for Oil and Gas Installations. IChemE, Milton Keynes Regional Committee. Oct. 7, 2020. https://www.icheme.org/media/14673/flare-system-design-for-oil-and-gas-installations-chris-park.pdf).
With respect to claim 3 Dey does not disclose that the gas plant further comprises an integrated flare system connected to the inlet slug catcher, the integrated flare system, comprising: a high pressure flare subsystem comprising: a high pressure flare header connected to a single high pressure flare knockout drum; and a single high pressure flare connected to the single high pressure flare knockout drum; wherein the single high pressure flare has a design pressure of at least 75 psig.
Park discloses an integrated flare system connected to an inlet slug catcher [see annotated Fig. below], the integrated flare system, comprising: a high pressure flare subsystem comprising: a high pressure flare header [see annotated Fig. below] connected to a single high pressure flare knockout drum [see annotated Fig. below]; and a single high pressure flare [see annotated Fig. below] connected to the single high pressure flare knockout drum; wherein the single high pressure flare has a design pressure of at least 75 psig [see pp. 12 where the high pressure system has a pressure >10barg (145psig)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the system taught by Dey by configuring either the upstream or downstream flare systems as a high pressure flare system as taught by Park, because the high pressure flare system allows for high allowable back pressure, and reduced header sizes [see pp. 12 of Park].
PNG
media_image2.png
909
1353
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dey (Dey, Anup Kumar.What is a Slug Catcher? Its Types, Working, Selection, & Design Steps. Pipeline, Piping Design Basics, Piping Interface, Process. 20215. https://whatispiping.com/slug-catcher/) in view of Park, Chris (Flare system Design for Oil and Gas Installations. IChemE, Milton Keynes Regional Committee. Oct. 7, 2020. https://www.icheme.org/media/14673/flare-system-design-for-oil-and-gas-installations-chris-park.pdf) and further in view of Moock et. al (US 6,033,447).
With respect to claim 4 the combination of Dey and Park disclose an integrated flare system comprising: an integrated flare header [see annotated Fig. below] fluidly connected to low pressure equipment in the gas plan [see annotated Fig. above]; an integrated knockout drum [see annotated Fig. below] connected to the integrated flare header; and a low pressure flare [see annotated Fig. below] connected to the integrated knockout drum; wherein the low pressure flare has a design pressure of 50 psig or less [see pp. 12 where the low pressure system has a pressure <10barg (145psig)].
Dey and Park do not disclose acid equipment in the gas plant containing an acid gas.
Moock discloses a flare system that includes an upstream process having a sulfur recovery system (acid gas) upstream of an upstream flare [see Fig. 1].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the system taught by the combination of Dey and Park by including an acid gas/sulfur recovery system, as taught by Moock, in order to prevent the issuance of sulfur dioxide from the flare and to recover sulfur as a value added product.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dey (Dey, Anup Kumar.What is a Slug Catcher? Its Types, Working, Selection, & Design Steps. Pipeline, Piping Design Basics, Piping Interface, Process. 20216. https://whatispiping.com/slug-catcher/) in view of Moock et. al (US 6,033,447).
With respect to claim 7 Dey does not disclose that the transmission pipeline comprises sour gas flowing from the upstream plant to the gas plant.
Moock discloses a flare system that includes an upstream process having a sulfur recovery system (acid gas) upstream of an upstream flare [see Fig. 1].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the system taught by the combination of Dey by including an acid gas/sulfur recovery system, as taught by Moock, in order to prevent the issuance of sulfur dioxide from the flare and to recover sulfur as a value added product.
Claim(s) 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, Chris (Flare system Design for Oil and Gas Installations. IChemE, Milton Keynes Regional Committee. Oct. 7, 2020. https://www.icheme.org/media/14673/flare-system-design-for-oil-and-gas-installations-chris-park.pdf) in view of Moock et. al (US 6,033,447).
With respect to claim 8 Park discloses a gas plant [see process flow chart on pp. 17], comprising: an integrated flare system, comprising: a high pressure flare subsystem [see annotated Fig. below], comprising: a high pressure flare header [see “HP FLARE HEADER”]; a high pressure knockout drum [see VZ3601] connected to the high pressure flare header; and a high pressure flare [see FH3601] connected to the high pressure flare knockout drum; wherein the high pressure flare has a design pressure of at least 75 psig [see pp. 12 where the high pressure system has a pressure >10barg (145psig)]; and an integrated flare subsystem, comprising: an integrated flare header [see LP FLARE HEADER]; an integrated knockout drum [see VZ3602] connected to the integrated flare header; and a low pressure flare [see FL3602] connected to the integrated knockout drum; wherein the low pressure flare is configured to contain a gas pressure less than 50 psig [see pp. 12 where the low pressure system has a pressure <10barg (145psig)].
Park does not disclose that the integrated flare header is fluidly connected to two different types of separating equipment.
Moock discloses a flare system that includes an upstream process having a gas purification system [reference character 25] and a sulfur recovery system (acid gas) upstream of an upstream flare [see Fig. 1].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the system taught by Park by including an acid gas/sulfur recovery system, as taught by Moock, in order to prevent the issuance of sulfur dioxide from the flare and to recover sulfur as a value added product.
PNG
media_image3.png
916
1364
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 9 the combination of Park and Moock disclose that the two different types of separating equipment comprise a low pressure equipment having a design pressure less than 150 psig and an acid equipment containing an acid gas [see rejection for claim 8].
With respect to claim 10 Park discloses that the high pressure flare header is fluidly connected to high pressure equipment having a design pressure greater than 150 psig [see pp. 12 where the high pressure system has a pressure >10barg (145psig)].
With respect to claim 11 Park discloses that the high pressure equipment comprises an inlet slug catcher [see VZ1103A/B in the Fig. shown on pp. 18 of Park].
With respect to claim 12 Park discloses that the high pressure flare header has a capacity less than the high pressure equipment [note that in order to catch incoming three phase slugs the slug catcher, reference character VZ1103A/B, must have a greater capacity than the flare header].
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, Chris (Flare system Design for Oil and Gas Installations. IChemE, Milton Keynes Regional Committee. Oct. 7, 2020. https://www.icheme.org/media/14673/flare-system-design-for-oil-and-gas-installations-chris-park.pdf) in view of Moock et. al (US 6,033,447) and further in view of O’Connor (WO 2011092450 A1).
With respect to claim 15 the combination of Park and Moock do not disclose a gas blanketing system comprising an inert gas.
O’Connor discloses an inert gas blanketing system [pp. 6 lines 9-19] which “shall be capable of providing on demand a gas or mixture of gases to the cargo tanks so deficient in oxygen that the atmosphere within a tank may be rendered inert, ie incapable of propagating flame” [pp. 6 lines 16-18].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the system taught by the combination Park and Moock by including an inert gas blanketing system in the slug catcher and knockout drums, as taught by O’Connor, in order to prevent the propagation of flame within those vessels.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-14 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 VIVEK K SHIRSAT whose telephone number is (571)272-3722. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:20AM.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at 571-272-9059. 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.
/VIVEK K SHIRSAT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
1 The earliest comment is Jan. 7, 2021. Per the “wayback machine” the earliest recorded date is Jan. 24 2021.
2 Note that the pressure within the slug catcher must be larger than the pressure in the transmission pipeline in order for the gas to flow from the slug catcher through the transmission pipeline to the upstream flare.
3 The earliest comment is Jan. 7, 2021. Per the “wayback machine” the earliest recorded date is Jan. 24 2021.
4 The earliest comment is Jan. 7, 2021. Per the “wayback machine” the earliest recorded date is Jan. 24 2021.
5 The earliest comment is Jan. 7, 2021. Per the “wayback machine” the earliest recorded date is Jan. 24 2021.
6 The earliest comment is Jan. 7, 2021. Per the “wayback machine” the earliest recorded date is Jan. 24 2021.
