DETAILED ACTION
Non-Final Rejection
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the filter vessel must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 8-11, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hillburn (U.S. Patent 4,649,734) in view of Fisher (U.S. Patent 10,876,881).
Regarding claim 1, Hillburn discloses a method comprising:
coupling a discharge section (12 at 52) of a meter prover 12 to an inlet section (40 at 50) of a pump 40 or compressor after completing a calibration of an inline meter 16 of an oil and gas flowline 46/42/44/14/50/26;
coupling a discharge section (40 at 26) of the pump or compressor to any one of a downstream section (at 46) of the flowline, a containment pipeline and a pressure vessel;
controlling the pump or compressor to pull a fluid from an upstream section of the flowline, into the meter prover using the pump or compressor, wherein the fluid comprises a mixture of any of gases, liquids and solids (Col. 3 ln 59-68, Col. 4 ln 10-23);
controlling the pump or compressor to pull the fluid from the discharge section of the meter prover at a first pressure (Col. 5 ln 46-Col. 6 ln 10);
cross-compressing the fluid, using the pump or compressor, to raise a pressure of the fluid from the first pressure to a second pressure higher than the first pressure (Col. 5 ln 46-Col. 6 ln 10);
controlling the pump or compressor to pump the fluid at the second pressure into any one of the downstream section (at 46) of the flowline, the containment pipeline and the pressure vessel (FIG. 1; Col. 2 ln 63-Col. 3 ln 14, Col. 3 ln 59-Col. 4 ln 23, Col. 4 ln 54-Col. 6 ln 10).
Hillburn is silent regarding controlling the pump or compressor to stop responsive to determining that the fluid has been evacuated from the meter prover.
However, Fisher teaches controlling a pump 106 to stop responsive to determining that the fluid has been evacuated from the meter prover (FIG. 2A) (FIG. 1, 2A; Col. 4 ln 33-67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Hillburn by adding a controller to stop the pump responsive to determining the fluid has been fully evacuated from the meter prover, as taught by Fisher, for the purpose of providing an outside means for controlling the characteristics of the fluid within the system.
Regarding claim 3, Hillburn, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1.
Hillburn further discloses filtering (via 36) the fluid pulled from discharge section, via a filter vessel 36, prior to the fluid entering the inlet section of the pump or compressor to remove any in situ contaminates from the fluid (FIG. 1; Col. 3 ln 59-68).
Regarding claim 8, Hillburn, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1.
Hillburn/Fisher further teaches the pump or compressor is any one of a piston type (Fisher Col. 3 ln 40-48), screw type, diaphragm type, centrifugal type, gear type, lobe type, metering type, progressive cavity type, plunger type and multi-phase type pump or compressor (Fisher Col. 3 ln 40-48).
Regarding claim 9, Hillburn, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1.
Hillburn/Fisher is silent regarding the pump or compressor is configured to displace the fluid in a range of 0 to 250,000 standard cubic feet per hour or 0 to 100 barrels per hour.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to operate at a rate of 0 to 250,000 standard cubic feet per hour or 0 to 100 barrels per hour, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 10, Hillburn, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1.
Hillburn further discloses the discharge section of the pump or compressor is coupled to the downstream section of the flowline, the method further comprising:
controlling a valve 41 of the flowline to open, causing the upstream section to reestablish fluidic communication with the downstream section (FIG. 1; Col. 3 ln 65-68, Col. 4 ln 10-23).
Regarding claim 11, Hillburn discloses a system comprising:
a pump 40 or compressor comprising an inlet section (40 at 50) and an outlet section (40 at 26);
a first conduit 50 configured to couple the inlet section to a discharge section (12 at 52) of a meter prover 12 after completing a calibration of an inline meter prover of an oil and gas flowline;
a second discharge conduit 26 configured to couple the outlet section (40 at 26) of the pump or compressor to any one of a downstream section (at 46) of the flowline, a containment pipeline and a pressure vessel; and
pulling the fluid from an upstream section (at 14 and 51) of the flowline or vessel, into the meter prover, wherein the fluid comprises a mixture of any of gases, liquids and solids,
pulling the fluid from the discharge section of the meter prover at a first pressure (Col. 5 ln 46-Col. 6 ln 10),
cross-compressing the fluid, to raise a pressure of the fluid from the first pressure to a second pressure higher than the first pressure (Col. 5 ln 46-Col. 6 ln 10),
pumping the fluid at the second pressure into any one of the downstream section (at 46) of the flowline, the containment pipeline and the pressure vessel (FIG. 1; Col. 2 ln 63-Col. 3 ln 14, Col. 3 ln 59-Col. 4 ln 23, Col. 4 ln 54-Col. 6 ln 10).
Hillburn is silent regarding a controller communicatively coupled to the pump or compressor and configured to cause the pump or compressor to perform operations , and
stopping the flow of fluid responsive to determining that the fluid has been evacuated from the meter prover.
However, Fisher teaches a controller 126 coupled (via 156) to a pump 106 to stop the flow of fluid responsive to determining that the fluid has been evacuated from the meter prover (FIG. 2A) (FIG. 1, 2A; Col. 4 ln 33-67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Hillburn by adding a controller to stop the pump responsive to determining the fluid has been fully evacuated from the meter prover, as taught by Fisher, for the purpose of providing an outside means for controlling the characteristics of the fluid within the system.
Regarding claim 18, Hillburn, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 11.
Hillburn/Fisher further teaches the pump or compressor is any one of a piston type (Fisher Col. 3 ln 40-48), screw type, diaphragm type, centrifugal type, gear type, lobe type, metering type, progressive cavity type, plunger type and multi-phase type pump or compressor (Fisher Col. 3 ln 40-48).
Regarding claim 19, Hillburn, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 11.
Hillburn/Fisher is silent regarding the pump or compressor is configured to displace the fluid in a range of 0 to 250,000 standard cubic feet per hour or 0 to 100 barrels per hour.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to operate at a rate of 0 to 250,000 standard cubic feet per hour or 0 to 100 barrels per hour, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Claims 2, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hillburn in view of Fisher in further view of Krause (U.S. Patent 3,940,971).
Regarding claim 2, Hillburn, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1.
Hillburn further discloses the discharge section of the meter prover is coupled to the inlet section of the pump or compressor via a conduit 52 (FIG. 1).
Hillburn is silent regarding a sight glass is present on the conduit, the method further comprising:
monitoring the fluid that is pulled from the discharge section of the meter prover via the sight glass to validate that the fluid is being adequately transferred.
However, Krause teaches a sight glass (Col. 3 ln 34-38) positioned within a conduit 52 downstream of a pump 14; the sight glass allowing for monitoring the fluid that is pulled from the discharge section of the meter prover via the sight glass to validate that the fluid is being adequately transferred Col. 3 ln 34-38).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Hillburn by adding a sight glass to the conduit, as taught by Krause, for the purpose of providing a means by which an operator can manually inspect the flow characteristics within the system without requiring disassembly.
Regarding claim 12, Hillburn, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 11.
Hillburn further discloses the discharge section of the meter prover is coupled to the inlet section of the pump or compressor via a conduit 52 (FIG. 1).
Hillburn is silent regarding a sight glass is present on the conduit, the sight glass being configured to allow an operator to view the fluid that is pulled from the discharge section of the meter prover.
However, Krause teaches a sight glass (Col. 3 ln 34-38) positioned within a conduit 52 downstream of a pump 14; the sight glass allowing for monitoring the fluid that is pulled from the discharge section of the meter prover via the sight glass to validate that the fluid is being adequately transferred Col. 3 ln 34-38).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Hillburn by adding a sight glass to the conduit, as taught by Krause, for the purpose of providing a means by which an operator can manually inspect the flow characteristics within the system without requiring disassembly.
Regarding claim 13, Hillburn, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 12.
Hillburn further discloses a filter vessel 36, wherein the filter vessel is configured to filter the fluid pulled through the system (FIG. 1).
Hillburn is silent regarding the filter vessel being provided along the first conduit between the sight glass and the pump or compressor, wherein the filter vessel is configured to filter the fluid pulled from discharge section of the meter prover prior to the fluid entering the inlet section of the pump or compressor.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to reposition the filter on the first conduit between the sight glass and the pump or compressor, since it has been held that mere relocation of an element would not have modified the operation of the device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7 and 14-17 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: the closest prior art fails to anticipate or make obvious the first flow rate is less than the second flow rate until a pressure within the meter prover is near or below zero psig to ensure desired evacuation is achieved, along with the other limitations of the claims.
Additionally, the closest prior art fails to anticipate or make obvious controlling the pump or compressor to stop responsive to determining that the first pressure is below a first pressure range; and controlling the pump or compressor to stop responsive to determining that the second pressure is above a second pressure range, along with the other limitations of the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER D BALLMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9984. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 6:00-3:00.
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, Craig M Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER D BALLMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/CRAIG M SCHNEIDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights