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 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 discussed below.
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 3 recites “a filtration or sieve device”.
This phrase has been treated as, in effect, reciting --a filtration device or a sieve device--.
Claim limitation --filtration device--, i.e. the filtration device of the claimed “filtration or sieve device”, has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “device” coupled with functional language “filtration” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 3 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification has failed to reveal any corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation. However, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the corresponding structure for the “filtration device” as being at least one filter.
Accordingly, the claimed --filtration device-- has been interpreted as at least one filter, as well as equivalents thereof.
Claim limitation “sieve device” has/have NOT been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because, although it uses/they use a generic placeholder “device”, the generic placeholder is not coupled with functional language, but is instead preceded by a structural modifier “sieve”.
Claim limitation “pumping system” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “system” coupled with functional language “pumping” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 7 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: “In step 18, the slurry may be used directly or transported to an intermediate storage area, or storage facility. According to one example, the slurry can be pumped into one or more storage tanks, which can then be transported (e.g., via tanker truck, train, ship, etc.) to a storage facility, as described herein. The slurry can also be pumped directly to the storage facility, for example, by way of a pipeline running from a petroleum refining facility, or other processing facility where the petroleum coke slurry is produced, to the storage facility,” (paragraph [0023]).
“According to another example, the slurry can also be pumped directly to the live crude oil extraction well, for example, by way of a pipeline running from a petroleum refining facility, or other facility where the petroleum coke slurry is produced, to the live crude oil extraction well. It should be understood that the transportation of the petroleum coke as a slurry can provide advantages over transportation of the petroleum coke in raw form, such as a reduction in resources (e.g., vehicles and labor) required therefor,” (paragraph [0028]).
Accordingly, the claimed “pumping system” has been interpreted as a pipeline, as well as equivalents thereof.
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 4 and 7 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 4 recites “steam cutting the petroleum coke”.
The scope of “steam cutting” is unclear. “Steam cutting” does not appear to be an art recognized term, at least not in the field of petroleum coke production and processing. Furthermore, the scope/meaning of “steam cutting” is not clearly defined in the specification.
In the context of petroleum coke production, specifically delayed coking, Examiner is aware that coke must be cut, i.e. removed, from the delayed coking drum. However, such cutting is usually performed using a high-pressure jet of water. It is Examiner’s understanding that such cutting is carried out after the coke has been cooled and therefore, the water jet will not be vaporized to steam during said cutting. Regardless, even if such cutting were performed at high temperature such that the water jet is converted to steam after initial contact with the coke, Examiner would personally not refer a process of cutting with a water jet as “steam cutting”, as it is water that is doing the cutting, not steam.
In the context of coke production, specifically delayed coking, Examiner is also aware that delayed coke is typically treated with steam in the coke drum prior to cutting operations in order to strip volatile materials from the coke. Though Examiner would not personally describe such steam contacting as “cutting”, it can be reasonably argued that such steam contacting, by stripping volatile material from the coke and yielding a cut (fraction) of said volatile material, can be termed a step of “steam cutting”, i.e. a step which, through the use of steam, produces a cut of volatile material.
For the purposes of examination, the term “steam cutting” has been treated as referring to a step of stripping/contacting coke to remove volatile components therefrom.
To overcome this rejection, Applicant should preferably amend the claim to clarify the scope of “steam cutting”. No new matter should be added.
Alternatively, Applicant may provide some showing that “steam cutting” is an art recognized word. Such a showing must be supported by objective evidence in order to be persuasive.
Claim 7 recites the limitation " the step of transporting the slurry by way of a pumping system." in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Furthermore, it is unclear if the step of transporting the slurry by the pumping system is part of the step of “injecting the slurry into the underground area”, or if transporting the slurry by the pumping system is a separate step.
For the purposes of examination, claim 7 has been treated as requiring that the step of transporting be separate from the step of injecting.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shirley et al. (US 2024/0228866), hereafter referred to as Shirley.
With regard to claim 1 and 5: Shirley teaches a method for petroleum coke (delayed coke) carbon capture and sequestration (abstract, paragraphs [0008]-[0009], [0036], [0047], [0051], and [0057]-[0059]; note paragraph [0036] in particular), the method comprising:
Obtaining petroleum coke (delayed coke granules) (abstract, paragraphs [0047], [0051], and [0057]-[0059]).
Processing the petroleum coke (delayed coke granules) into a petroleum coke particulate by griding the petroleum coke, i.e. by milling, crushing, and/or pulverizing the petroleum coke (delayed coke granules) to a suitable size, shape, and/or particle size distribution (paragraphs [0043]-[0051] and [0057]-[0059], especially paragraphs [0047] and [0051]).
Preparing a slurry (fracturing fluid) including the petroleum coke particulate, the slurry having a viscosity allowing the slurry to flow (paragraphs [0051] and [0054]-[0059]).
Injecting the slurry (which contains the petroleum coke) into an underground area (a subterranean formation) (paragraph [0059]).
The underground area may be a live crude oil extraction well (paragraph [0038], [0039], [0056], [0056], [0059], and [0064], especially paragraph [0064]).
The injection of the slurry (fracturing fluid) into the live crude oil extraction well fractures the oil containing formation in which the extraction well is placed (paragraph [0038], [0039], [0056], [0057], [0059], [0063], and [0064], especially paragraphs [0063] and [0064]). It is understood that, when the slurry (fracturing fluid) fractures an oil containing formation, at least some of the oil contained within said formation will be displaced therefrom as a result.
With regard to claim 3: The step of processing the petroleum coke into the petroleum coke particulate may include processing the petroleum coke with a filtration device and/or sieve device (paragraph [0051]).
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirley in view of Luhr et al. (US 4,304,360), hereafter referred to as Luhr.
With regard to claim 2: Shirley does not explicitly teach that the step of processing the calcined petroleum coke into a calcined petroleum coke particulate includes processing the calcined petroleum coke with a pneumatic cyclone.
However, in Shirley, the step of processing the calcined petroleum coke into a calcined petroleum coke particulate may include processing the calcined petroleum coke in a jet mill (paragraph [0047]). In the context of jet milling processes, it is well-known in the art to include a step of processing particulates produced by the jet mill with a pneumatic cyclone (a cyclone separator) so as to classify the produced particles by their size. For example, such processing of particulates is taught by Luhr (abstract, Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Shirley in view of Luhr by configuring the step of processing step of processing the calcined petroleum coke into a calcined petroleum coke particulate to comprise: i) jet milling the calcined petroleum coke, ii) processing the jet milled calcined petroleum coke in a pneumatic cyclone so as to classify the jet milled calcined petroleum coke, in order to obtain a method wherein the petroleum coke particulate is classified as part of the processing step.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirley in view of Bartilucci et al. (US 4,874,505), hereafter referred to as Bartilucci.
With regard to claim 4: Shirley teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as described in the 102 rejections above.
Shirley is silent to the step of processing the petroleum coke into the petroleum coke particulate including steam cutting the petroleum coke.
However, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, the petroleum coke in Shirley is delayed coke, i.e. coke obtained from a delayed coking process (Shirley: abstract, paragraphs [0047], [0051], and [0057]-[0059]). It is known in the delayed coking art to subject delayed coke to steam cutting, i.e. a step of contacting delayed coke in a coking drum with steam to remove volatile components therefrom. For example, Bartilucci teaches a delayed coking process wherein steam is introduced into a drum containing coke in order to strip volatile products from the coke prior to quenching and cutting such (Column 2 Line 64-Column 3 Line 30, especially Column 3 Lines 23-30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Shirley in view of Bartilucci by including a sub-step of steam cutting the petroleum coke during the step of processing, i.e. by contacting the coke with steam in the coking drum where it is produced, so as to strip volatile components therefrom, in order to remove volatile matter from the coke and obtain a volatile cut (fraction) comprised of said volatile matter.
Note: See 112(b) rejections above for details regarding Examiner’s treatment of the term “steam cutting”.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirley in view of in view of Newman (US 4,713,168), Wang et al. (US 2014/0054087), hereafter referred to as Wang, and Sharma et al. (US 2016/0282502), hereafter referred to as Sharma.
With regard to claim 6: Shirley teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as described in the 102 rejections above.
Shirley is silent to the step of processing including calcining the petroleum coke to produce petroleum coke particulate.
However, Shirley’s method is one of hydraulic fracturing (Shirley: paragraphs [0051] and [0057]). Hydraulic fracturing notoriously has a reputation for being environmental unfriendly. This is due in part to the notion that materials used in hydraulic fracturing, including proppants, can contaminate water supplies. Wang, drawn to an oil drilling system (abstract), demonstrates this sentiment, stating “there are worries that the particular materials used in hydraulic fracturing, and in particular hydraulic fracturing proppants (which often consist of sand or ceramics treated with undesirable chemicals, e.g., hydrochloric acid, biocides, radioactive tracer isotopes, or volatile organic compounds), may have an adverse effect on the quality of local groundwater and surface water,” (paragraph [0019]).
Newman, which is drawn to the manufacture of calcined delayed coke, shows that green coke (uncalcined coke) comprises impurities in the form of volatile matter which can be removed by calcining said coke (Column 1 Lines 19-34 and Column 4 Lines 8-23, especially Column 4 Lines 8-12). It is understood that said volatile mater impurities in green coke are volatile organic compounds (VOCs).
When the fact that green coke comprises VOCs is considered in combination with the concern that substances used in hydraulic fracturing, proppants included, can contaminate water supplies, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to remove the VOCs from the delayed coke to be used as the proppant in Shirley. More specifically, said motivation would be founded on: i) a desire to mitigate contamination of water by VOCs contained in the delayed coke proppant, and/or ii) a desire to assuage any concerns regarding potential contamination.
Furthermore, the use of calcined petroleum coke proppants is known in the art, and the use of calcined coke as a proppant is understood to enable certain advantageous techniques. For example, Sharama teaches a method of carrying out diagnostics on hydraulic fractures by injecting an electrically conductive proppant and applying electromagnetic radiation to the fractures (abstract, paragraphs [0007]-[0008]), wherein the electrically conductive proppant may be calcined petroleum coke (paragraph [0008], claim 1). Thus, it is understood that if calcined petroleum coke is used as a proppant, it enables one to carry out diagnostics on fractures through application of electromagnetic radiation by virtue of its electrically conductive nature.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Shirley in view of Newman, Wang, and Sharma by including a step of calcining the coke to remove impurities (VOCs) prior to the step of griding of the petroleum coke in a petroleum coke particulate, in order to obtain a method wherein: i) VOCs are removed from the coke prior to it being used as a proppant, so as to prevent contamination of water by said VOCs (or at least to assuage any concerns regarding potential contamination); and ii) fracture diagnostics through application of electromagnetic radiation are enabled due to the electrically conductive nature of calcined coke.
In the interest of abundant clarity, it is noted that in the method of modified Shirley (Shirley modified in view of Newman, Wang, and Sharma as proposed above), the petroleum coke which is processed into petroleum coke particulate and subsequently prepared into the slurry is calcined petroleum coke. Thus, the method of modified Shirley comprises steps of processing specifically calcined petroleum coke into a calcined petroleum coke particulate, preparing a slurry including the calcined petroleum coke particulate, the slurry formulated to have a viscosity allowing the slurry to flow, injecting the slurry into an underground area, and storing the slurry (which contains the calcined petroleum coke) in the underground area.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Shirley.
With regard to claim 7: Shirley teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as described in the 102 rejections above.
In the method of Shirley, the injecting of the slurry (fracturing fluid) into the underground area is accomplished by pumping (paragraphs [0005], [0006], [0051], [0059], and [0060]). Therefore, it is understood that the method of Shirley further comprises a step of transporting the slurry by way of a pump.
Furthermore, the method may further comprise a step of transporting the slurry by way of a pipeline (Shirley: paragraph [0058]). It is understood that a pipeline suitable for transporting the slurry will necessarily comprise at least one pump for pressurizing the slurry such that the slurry will actually flow through said pipeline. Therefore, it is understood that the method of modified Shirley further comprises an additional step of transporting the slurry by way of a pump. Said additional step of transporting the slurry by way of a pump represents a step of transporting the calcined coke particulate by way of a pump.
In the exceedingly unlikely alternative, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would be necessary to provide the pipeline of Shirely with a means of inducing flow of the slurry, as in the absence of such means, the pipeline will be ineffective in transporting the slurry. It is notoriously well-known and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art to provide fluid flow systems (including but by no means limited to pipelines) with pumps for the sake of inducing fluid flow. If it were not already the case in Shirley, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Shirley by providing the pipeline with a pump for pumping the slurry, such that the step of transporting the slurry via the pipeline comprises transporting the slurry (and thus the calcined coke particulate therein) via a pump, in order to obtain a method wherein the slurry can be effectively transported via the pipeline.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN "LUKE" PILCHER whose telephone number is (571)272-2691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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 5712725954. 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 LUKE PILCHER/Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights