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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20, filed on 07/16/2026, are under consideration. Claim 3 is amended, no claims are added or canceled, and claims 1 and 14 are independent.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments, see pg. 6-9, filed 07/16/2026, with respect to the rejections of the claims as being obvious over Parkinson and Taylor have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made in view of Dugat.
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 (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 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.
Claims 1 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dugat (US 4,725,362).
For claim 1, Dugat teaches (Abstract) process for treatment of oilfield wastes, so that the wastes may be disposed of without harm to the environment or may be recovered as valuable products, wherein the wastes are pretreated to enhance separation of solid materials, the solid materials (i.e. portion of drilling waste) being dried and incinerated (incineration is considered pyrolysis) to char solids, the char solids and the heating gases being cooled by heat exchange to provide hot air for combustion in the dryer-incinerator, thereby saving heating fuel cost, the gases being scrubbed to remove contaminants, and the condensed water-hydrocarbon phases being separated for reuse or for further treatment for recovery.
This disclosure is considered to read on the claimed process for managing drilling waste (disposed of without harm to the environment or may be recovered as valuable products) comprising: pyrolyzing (incinerating) at least a portion of the drilling waste in a pyrolysis reactor (incinerator label 12, Col 3 line 8 to Col 4 line 42) to produce a stream comprising solid carbon and a gaseous pyrolysis product stream; and using heat present in at least a portion of the gaseous pyrolysis product stream to … increase a temperature of a stream through heat exchange (Col 4 line 43 to col 5 line 27): “Waste heat recovery unit 35 is a countercurrent flow indirect heat exchanger, flue gas from heater-incinerator 12 being delivered by blower 35a through heat exchanger 35, and air fed at 35b passing therethrough and exiting at conduit 39a to be delivered to the gas heater 12a”.
This disclosure also reads on pending claim 14.
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.
Claims 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dugat.
It is noted that Dugat does not explicitly disclose using heat present in at least a portion of the gaseous pyrolysis product stream to increase the temperature of the drilling waste fed to the pyrolysis reactor wherein separating the vapor stream to produce the second stream comprising solids and the hydrocarbon stream comprises subjecting at least a portion of the vapor stream to centrifugal force.
However, Dugat teaches using heat from pyrolysis effluent to heat incineration air and thus, it is suggested that heat exchange can be utilized to gain sensible heat/preheat of the pyrolysis: e.g. using heat present in at least a portion of the gaseous pyrolysis product stream to increase a temperature of the drilling waste fed to the pyrolysis reactor.
Also, regarding the use of centrifugation, Dugat suggest that this type of separation is used to obtain solids and liquid effluents of the feed (centrifuge 23, Col 3 lines 55 to 65).
Therefore, and before the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvios to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used known heat exchange techniques and separation techniques in pyrolysis processes with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success—see MPEP 2143 I, 2143 A, 2143 D, and 2143.02.
Reasons for Allowance
Claims 3-12 and 15-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claims but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claims and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
For claims 3-12 and 15-20: no prior art was located to teach or suggest the claimed limitations in combination with pyrolysis of drilling waste as recited in pending claims 1 and 14.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALI Z FADHEL whose telephone number is (571)270-0267. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm PST.
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.
/ALI Z FADHEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
