DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Status of Application
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 have been examined in this application. This communication is a Non-Final Rejection in response to the Application filed on October 16, 2025.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 & 7 each recite “a head comprising a crown and a cylindrical skirt extending therefrom”. As recited, it is unclear whether “therefrom” refers to the head or the crown. Based on the description in at least [0031]-[0033] of the instant specification, it appears that the intent is to claim a cylindrical skirt extending from the head. To improve clarity, language such as “a head comprising a crown and a cylindrical skirt extending from the head” is suggested. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 2-6 & 8-17 are also objected to for being dependent on Claims 1 & 7, respectively.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “and/or”. To improve clarity of the claim, an amendment to recite language such as “or” or “a combination thereof” is recommended. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 9, 19 & 20 each recite one or more limitations in parentheses. Deletion of the limitation(s) within parentheses is required to improve clarity.
Claim 17 recites the limitations “a plurality of perforations” in lines 4-5 and “a plurality of helical pathways” in lines 6-7. As parent Claim 7 previously recites these features, to improve clarity, replacement of these limitations with “the plurality of perforations” and “the plurality of helical pathways”, respectively, is required.
Claim 18 recites the limitations “flowing down of the”, “entering of the”, “exiting of the” and “flowing of the” in one or more instances. Deletion of “of” is required to improve clarity.
Claim 18 appears to have a typographical/grammatical error in lines 15-16 “flowing of the sand particles towards a plurality of hydrocarbon fluid flow passages provided at a body of the spigot” (emphasis added).
Appropriate correction is required. Claims 19 & 20 are also objected to for being dependent on Claim 18.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for a spigot for a sand separator system for an artificial lift pumping system in a wellbore, does not reasonably provide enablement for a spigot for any and all sand separator systems, including sand separator systems outside a wellbore, as broadly claimed. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
Per In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988), the following undue experimentation factors support a determination that the disclosure satisfies the enablement requirement for the full scope of the respective claim:
(B) The nature of the invention – the current invention contemplates a spigot for a sand separator system in a wellbore.
(C) The state of the prior art – a spigot for a sand separator system in a wellbore appears to be known in the art.
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill – one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of selecting a spigot for a sand separator system in a wellbore.
However, the following undue experimentation factors do not support a determination that the disclosure satisfies the enablement requirement for the full scope of the respective claim:
(A) The breadth of the claim – the current claims present a spigot for any and all sand separator systems, including above-ground sand separator systems, but it is not clear how the spigot is made and/or used outside of a wellbore as broadly claimed.
(E) The level of predictability in the art - the current claims present a spigot for any and all sand separator systems, including above-ground sand separator systems, but it is not clear how the spigot is made and/or used outside of a wellbore as broadly claimed.
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor – the current claims present a spigot for any and all sand separator systems, including above-ground sand separator systems, but it is not clear how the spigot is made and/or used outside of a wellbore as broadly claimed.
(G) The existence of working examples – the current claims present a spigot for any and all sand separator systems, including above-ground sand separator systems, but it is not clear how the spigot is made and/or used outside of a wellbore as broadly claimed.
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure - the current claims present a spigot for any and all sand separator systems, including above-ground sand separator systems, but it is not clear how the spigot is made and/or used outside of a wellbore as broadly claimed. As such, the quantity of experimentation is infinite.
That is, 3 of the Wands factors support enablement, while 5 factors do not support enablement. Therefore, there exists a scope of enablement deficiency for the current claims. See MPEP 2164.08.
Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required. Claims 2-6 are also rejected for being dependent on Claim 1. The claims have been examined as best understood.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for a method of separating sand with a sand separator system for an artificial lift pumping system in a wellbore, does not reasonably provide enablement for the method in any and all locations, including outside a wellbore, as broadly claimed. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
Per In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988), the following undue experimentation factors support a determination that the disclosure satisfies the enablement requirement for the full scope of the respective claim:
(B) The nature of the invention – the current invention contemplates a method of separating sand in a wellbore.
(C) The state of the prior art –separating sand in a wellbore appears to be known in the art.
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill – one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of separating sand in a wellbore.
However, the following undue experimentation factors do not support a determination that the disclosure satisfies the enablement requirement for the full scope of the respective claim:
(A) The breadth of the claim – the current claims present a method of separating sand employing a sand separator system, including embodiments outside a wellbore, but it is not clear how the method steps are practiced outside a wellbore as broadly claimed.
(E) The level of predictability in the art - the current claims present a method of separating sand employing a sand separator system, including embodiments outside a wellbore, but it is not clear how the method steps are practiced outside a wellbore as broadly claimed.
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor – the current claims present a method of separating sand employing a sand separator system, including embodiments outside a wellbore, but it is not clear how the method steps are practiced outside a wellbore as broadly claimed.
(G) The existence of working examples – the current claims present a method of separating sand employing a sand separator system, including embodiments outside a wellbore, but it is not clear how the method steps are practiced outside a wellbore as broadly claimed.
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure - the current claims present a method of separating sand employing a sand separator system, including embodiments outside a wellbore, but it is not clear how the method steps are practiced outside a wellbore as broadly claimed. As such, the quantity of experimentation is infinite.
That is, 3 of the Wands factors support enablement, while 5 factors do not support enablement. Therefore, there exists a scope of enablement deficiency for the current claims. See MPEP 2164.08.
Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required. Claims 19 & 20 are also rejected for being dependent on Claim 18. The claims have been examined as best understood.
Claims 3, 4, 14 & 18-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites “wherein the plurality of flow passages allow sand particles to pass through the first body portion, wherein the plurality of flow passages extend only partially around the first body portion”. Further, parent Claim 1 recites “a first body portion coupled to a distal end of the stem and comprising a plurality of flow passages extending therethrough” (emphasis added). It is unclear how the plurality of flow passages extend therethrough, allow sand particles to “pass through the first portion” and “extend only partially around the first body portion”. It appears that the flow passage both passes/extends through and extends partially around the first body portion; which is unclear. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required. The claim has been examined as best understood.
Claim 4 recites “such that each body portion longitudinally overlaps at least one adjacent body portion” (emphasis added). The limitation encompasses embodiments such that each body portion longitudinally overlaps all or a portion of a plurality of adjacent body portions – which is unclear. It is unclear how a plurality of body portions are “adjacent”. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required. The claim has been examined as best understood.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “…wherein the plurality of external helical pathways comprises from 1 to 6 helical pathways”. It is unclear how 1 helical pathway is considered a “plurality”. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required. The claim has been examined as best understood.
Claim 18 recites “an annulus of a separator casing” and ”an annulus defined as a hollow space between the separator casing and a pump inlet tube placed in a center bore of the separator casing”. It is unclear whether or not these limitations refer to the same annulus. If not, it is unclear which annulus “the annulus” in lines 7-8 refers to.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “high cyclonic or swirling motion”, where the term “high” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “high” renders the scope of the claim indefinite as it is unclear as to the motion required to be considered “high” cyclonic or swirling motion.
Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required. Claims 19 & 20 are also rejected for being dependent on Claim 18. The claims have been examined as best understood.
Claim 19 recites “the hydrocarbon fluid including sand particles at an exit of the helical auger”, which is unclear in combination with “exiting of the hydrocarbon fluid from the helical auger with high cyclonic or swirling motion resulting in pushing the sand particles present in the hydrocarbon fluid towards a wall of the separator casing” as recited in parent Claim 18. It appears that the hydrocarbon fluid and sand are separated at the exit of the helical auger as recited in parent Claim 18. As such, it is unclear how the hydrocarbon fluid includes the sand particles at the exit as recited. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required. The claim has been examined as best understood.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ayub (US 2019/0032465).
With respect to Claim 1, Ayub discloses a component for a separator system (Ayub: Sections [0005]-[0013]), comprising: a head comprising a crown and a cylindrical skirt extending therefrom; a stem extending from the head; and a first body portion coupled to a distal end of the stem and comprising a plurality of flow passages extending therethrough (Ayub: Sections [0077]-[0098]; Figures 1 & 5A-8; as a non-limiting example, see lower portion of Fig. 5A adjacent the numerical label “522”). As the component comprises the claimed features, the component is considered a “spigot” as instantly claimed. To the extent there is any difference between this feature as disclosed by Ayub and this feature as instantly claimed, the difference is considered minor and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Ayub further teaches one or more embodiments where the separator system separates fluids containing fines/solids from formations comprising sandstones and carbonates, which are considered to comprise sand, to produce desired fluids, improve hydrocarbon production and/or economics of production (Ayub: Sections [0002]-[0004], [0033] & [0050]). As such, although the reference fails to explicitly disclose the above spigot for a “sand” separator system in combination with the above features, in a single embodiment, as instantly claimed, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ the spigot for a sand separator system as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to produce desired fluids, improve hydrocarbon production and/or improve economics of production; and/or to yield predictable results in hydrocarbon production applications. (Ayub: Sections [0002]-[0004], [0033] & [0050]).
With respect to Claim 2, Ayub teaches the spigot as provided above with respect to Claim 1, and further discloses “…wherein the stem comprises a smaller diameter than the head, wherein the first body portion comprise a larger diameter than the head and the stem” (Ayub: Sections [0077]-[0098]; Figures 1 & 5A-8; as a non-limiting example, see lower portion of Fig. 5A adjacent the numerical label “522”).
With respect to Claim 3, Ayub teaches the spigot as provided above with respect to Claim 1, and further discloses wherein the plurality of flow passages extend only partially around the first body portion (Ayub: Sections [0077]-[0098]; Figures 1 & 5A-8; as a non-limiting example, see lower portion of Fig. 5A adjacent the numerical label “522”); wherein it would appear that the plurality of flow passages in Ayub would allow solid/sand particles to pass through the first body portion as instantly claimed. To the extent there is any difference between this feature as disclosed by Ayub and this feature as instantly claimed, the difference is considered minor and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
With respect to Claim 4, Ayub teaches the spigot as provided above with respect to Claim 1, and further discloses wherein the spigot comprises a plurality of body portions, wherein the plurality of body portions include the first body portion, wherein each of the plurality of body portions comprises a plurality of flow passages, wherein each of the plurality of body portions comprises a tubular protrusion that extends radially from the stem (Ayub: Sections [0077]-[0098]; Figures 1 & 5A-8; as a non-limiting example, see lower portion of Fig. 5A adjacent the numerical label “522”).
Ayub further teaches one or more embodiments where the plurality of body portions comprise baffles of different shapes and dimensions, and one or more embodiments wherein each body portion longitudinally overlaps at least one adjacent body portion, with the body portion configured to be suitable for the quantity and frequency of sludge accumulation and removal (Ayub: Sections [0077]-[0098]; Figures 1 & 5A-8). As such, although the reference fails to explicitly disclose “wherein each of the plurality of body portions comprises a semi-annular baffle” and “wherein each of the plurality of body portions extends at least 180 degrees around the stem, such that each body portion longitudinally overlaps at least one adjacent body portion” in combination with the above features, as instantly claimed, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the body portion as desired based on the quantity and frequency of sludge accumulation and removal, such as body portions comprising a semi-annular baffle, with each body portion extending and overlapping as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to yield predictable results in hydrocarbon production.
Further, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, there had been a recognized need in the art for sand separation systems, and a finite number of identified, predictable solutions including configuring components with a suitable shape/design to handle sludge accumulation and removal as set forth above. As such, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, based on the teachings of Ayub, one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued a desired body portion shape and placement, such as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103."KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
With respect to Claim 5, Ayub teaches the spigot as provided above with respect to Claim 1, and further discloses wherein the spigot is configured to be disposed downhole from a component of a sand separator assembly, and further teaches one or more embodiments wherein the component comprises helical components to create or enhance the flow and separation (Ayub: Sections [0077]-[0084]; Fig. 5A). As such, although the reference fails to explicitly disclose wherein the spigot is configured to be disposed downhole from a “helical auger component” of a sand separator assembly in combination with the above features, in a single embodiment, as instantly claimed, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the spigot to be disposed downhole from a helical auger component as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to create and/or enhance the flow and separation.
With respect to Claim 6, Ayub teaches the spigot as provided above with respect to Claim 1, wherein Ayub does not disclose separating sand above-ground from hydrocarbon fluids produced to the surface; which would appear to provide for the spigot configured to remove sand particles as instantly claimed.
To the extent there is any difference between this feature as provided for by Ayub and this feature as instantly claimed, it is further noted that Ayub teaches employing a spigot with the body portion configured to be suitable for the quantity and frequency of sludge accumulation and removal (Ayub: Sections [0077]-[0098]; Figures 1 & 5A-8). As such, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the body portion/spigot as desired based on the quantity and frequency of sludge accumulation and removal, such as for a desired sand/solid removal as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to yield predictable results in hydrocarbon production.
With respect to Claim 7, Ayub discloses a separator system, comprising: a perforated inlet comprising a plurality of perforations; a separator casing coupled to the perforated inlet; a pump inlet tubing disposed through a central bore of the perforated inlet and forming an annulus with the separator casing; a first component disposed at a distal end of the pump inlet tubing (Ayub: Sections [0005]-[0032], [0053]-[0098]; Figures 1 & 5A-8; as non-limiting examples, Ayub discloses perforated inlet with perforations such as “11”, “540”, casing such as “7”, pump inlet tubing such as “8”, “530”); and a second component disposed downhole from the first component, wherein the second component comprises a head comprising a crown and a cylindrical skirt extending therefrom, a stem extending from the head, and a body portion coupled to a distal end of the stem and comprising a plurality of fluid flow passages extending therethrough (Ayub: Sections [0077]-[0098]; Figures 1 & 5A-8; as a non-limiting example, see lower portion of Fig. 5A adjacent the numerical label “522”). As the second component comprises the claimed features, the second component is considered a “spigot” as instantly claimed. To the extent there is any difference between this feature as disclosed by Ayub and this feature as instantly claimed, the difference is considered minor and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Ayub further teaches one or more embodiments where the separator system separates fluids containing fines/solids from formations comprising sandstones and carbonates, which are considered to comprise sand, to produce desired fluids, improve hydrocarbon production and/or economics of production (Ayub: Sections [0002]-[0004], [0033] & [0050]). As such, although the reference fails to explicitly disclose the above system as a “sand” separator system in combination with the above features, in a single embodiment, as instantly claimed, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ the system as a sand separator system as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to produce desired fluids, improve hydrocarbon production and/or improve economics of production; and/or to yield predictable results in hydrocarbon production applications. (Ayub: Sections [0002]-[0004], [0033] & [0050]).
Ayub further teaches one or more embodiments wherein the first component comprises helical components to create or enhance the flow and separation (Ayub: Section [0083]; Fig. 5A). As such, although the reference fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first component is a helical auger component and comprising a plurality of external helical pathways in combination with the above features, in a single embodiment, as instantly claimed and described in at least [0029] of the instant specification, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ a helical auger component as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to create or enhance the flow and separation.
With respect to Claim 8, Ayub teaches the system as provided above with respect to Claim 7, and further discloses “…wherein the plurality of perforations comprise angled, spiraled, and/or helical passages that impart a cyclonic or swirling rotation to a hydrocarbon fluid that enters the perforated inlet” (Ayub: Sections [0005]-[0032]).
With respect to Claim 9, Ayub teaches the system as provided above with respect to Claim 7, and further teaches one or more embodiments wherein the helical components are configured to create or enhance the flow and separation (Ayub: Sections [0077]-[0084]; Fig. 5A). As such, although the reference fails to explicitly disclose “wherein the crown of the spigot is disposed between at least 1 inch (2.54 cm) to not greater than 6 inches (15.24 cm) from the helical auger component” in combination with the above features, as instantly claimed, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the helical auger component, and thereby the distance between the crown and the helical auger component, as desired based on operational requirements, such as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to create and/or enhance the flow and separation.
Further, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, there had been a recognized need in the art for sand separation systems, and a finite number of identified, predictable solutions including configuring components with a suitable shape/design to create or enhance flow and separation as set forth above. As such, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, based on the teachings of Ayub, one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued a desired distancing between the crown and the helical auger component, such as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103."KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
With respect to Claim 10, Ayub teaches the system as provided above with respect to Claim 7, wherein Ayub does not disclose a non-stationary spigot and, as such, it would appear that “the spigot is affixed within the separator casing to remain stationary during hydrocarbon production operations, sand separation operations, or both” as instantly claimed. To the extent there is any difference between this feature of Ayub and this feature as instantly claimed, the difference is considered minor and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
With respect to Claim 11, Ayub teaches the system as provided above with respect to Claim 7, wherein Ayub does not disclose separating sand above-ground from hydrocarbon fluids produced to the surface; which would appear to provide for the spigot configured to remove sand particles as instantly claimed.
To the extent there is any difference between this feature as provided for by Ayub and this feature as instantly claimed, it is further noted that Ayub teaches employing a spigot with the body portion configured to be suitable for the quantity and frequency of sludge accumulation and removal (Ayub: Sections [0077]-[0098]; Figures 5A-8). As such, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the body portion/spigot as desired based on the quantity and frequency of sludge accumulation and removal, such as for a desired sand/solid removal as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to yield predictable results in hydrocarbon production.
With respect to Claim 12, Ayub teaches the system as provided above with respect to Claim 7, and further discloses the system comprising a purge valve disposed downhole from the spigot and configured to collect separated sand/solid particles that have been permanently removed from a hydrocarbon fluid by the sand separator system, wherein the spigot is positioned in the separator casing between the helical auger component and the purge valve, wherein the purge valve is configured to perform a dumping operation to expel the separated sand/solid particles to a wellbore in which the sand separator system is disposed (Ayub: Section [0082]; Fig. 5A).
With respect to Claim 13, Ayub teaches the system as provided above with respect to Claim 7, and Ayub further teaches one or more embodiments where the body portion is configured with different shapes and dimensions to be suitable for the quantity and frequency of sludge accumulation and removal (Ayub: Sections [0077]-[0098]; Figures 5A-8). As such, although the reference fails to explicitly disclose “wherein an outer diameter of the body portion is equal to an inner diameter of the separator casing” in combination with the above features, as instantly claimed, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the body portion as desired based on the quantity and frequency of sludge accumulation and removal, such as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to yield predictable results in hydrocarbon production.
Further, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, there had been a recognized need in the art for sand separation systems, and a finite number of identified, predictable solutions including configuring components with a suitable shape/design to handle sludge accumulation and removal as set forth above. As such, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, based on the teachings of Ayub, one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued a desired body portion configuration, such as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103."KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
With respect to Claims 14 & 16, Ayub teaches the system as provided above with respect to Claim 7, and further teaches one or more embodiments wherein the helical components are configured to create or enhance the flow and separation (Ayub: Sections [0077]-[0084]; Fig. 5A). As such, although the reference fails to explicitly disclose the features of the helical auger component, in combination with the above features, as respectively claimed, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the helical auger component as desired based on operational requirements, such as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to create and/or enhance the flow and separation.
Further, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, there had been a recognized need in the art for sand separation systems, and a finite number of identified, predictable solutions including configuring components with a suitable shape/design to create or enhance flow and separation as set forth above. As such, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, based on the teachings of Ayub, one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued a desired configuration of the helical auger component, such as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103."KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
With respect to Claim 15, Ayub teaches the system as provided above with respect to Claim 7, and further discloses wherein a direction of the plurality of external helical pathways is clockwise or counterclockwise (Ayub: Sections [0005]-[0013], [0053]-[0098]; Figures 1 & 5A-8).
With respect to Claim 17, Ayub teaches the system as provided above with respect to Claim 7, and further discloses a method of producing hydrocarbon fluids from a subterranean formation, comprising: providing the sand separator system of claim 7; drawing hydrocarbon fluid into the perforated inlet through a plurality of perforations that form a fluid pathway between a subterranean formation and the annulus; flowing the hydrocarbon fluid through the annulus and through the first component to impart a cyclonic motion to the hydrocarbon fluid; drawing the hydrocarbon fluid through a central bore of the first component that forms a fluid flow path with the pump inlet tubing to separate the hydrocarbon fluid from a plurality of sand/solid particles disposed therein; and passing the plurality of sand/solid particles separated from the hydrocarbon fluid around the spigot, through the spigot, or around and through the spigot (Ayub: Sections [0005]-[0013], [0053]-[0098]; Figures 1 & 5A-8).
Further, Ayub does not disclose separating sand above-ground from hydrocarbon fluids produced to the surface; which would appear to provide for removing sand particles as instantly claimed.
To the extent there is any difference between this feature as provided for by Ayub and this feature as instantly claimed, it is further noted that Ayub teaches employing a spigot with the body portion configured to be suitable for the quantity and frequency of sludge accumulation and removal (Ayub: Sections [0077]-[0098]; Figures 5A-8). As such, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the body portion/spigot as desired based on the quantity and frequency of sludge accumulation and removal, such as for a desired sand/solid removal as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to yield predictable results in hydrocarbon production.
With respect to Claim 18, Ayub discloses a method of separating solid particles from hydrocarbon fluid: entering the hydrocarbon fluid including solid particles in an annulus of a separator casing through a perforated inlet coupled at an upper end of the separator casing; flowing down of the hydrocarbon fluid in an annulus defined as a hollow space between the separator casing and a pump inlet tube placed in a center bore of the separator casing; entering of the hydrocarbon fluid into a first component placed at a distal end of the annulus to produce a cyclonic or swirling motion in the hydrocarbon fluid and the solid particles; exiting of the hydrocarbon fluid from the first component with high cyclonic or swirling motion resulting in pushing the solid particles present in the hydrocarbon fluid towards a wall of the separator casing (Ayub: Sections [0005]-[0013], [0053]-[0098]; Figures 1 & 5A-8; as non-limiting examples, Ayub discloses perforated inlet with perforations such as “11”, “540”, casing such as “7”, pump inlet tubing such as “8”, “530”); flowing down of the solid particles towards a head of a second component to guide the solid particles towards the wall of the separator casing; and flowing of the solid particles towards a plurality of hydrocarbon fluid flow passages provided at a body of the second component to accumulate the solid particles on a purge valve (Ayub: Sections [0077]-[0098]; Figures 1 & 5A-8; as a non-limiting example, see lower portion of Fig. 5A adjacent the numerical label “522”). As the second component comprises the claimed features, the second component is considered a “spigot” that reduces velocity as instantly claimed. To the extent there is any difference between this feature as disclosed by Ayub and this feature as instantly claimed, the difference is considered minor and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Ayub further teaches one or more embodiments of separating fluids containing fines/solids from formations comprising sandstones and carbonates, which are considered to comprise sand, to produce desired fluids, improve hydrocarbon production and/or economics of production (Ayub: Sections [0002]-[0004], [0033] & [0050]). As such, although the reference fails to explicitly disclose the above methods steps in combination with the particles as “sand” particles, in a single embodiment, as instantly claimed, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ the methods steps for sand particles, as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to produce desired fluids, improve hydrocarbon production and/or improve economics of production; and/or to yield predictable results in hydrocarbon production applications. (Ayub: Sections [0002]-[0004], [0033] & [0050]).
Ayub further teaches one or more embodiments wherein the first component comprises helical components to create or enhance the flow and separation (Ayub: Section [0083]; Fig. 5A). As such, although the reference fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first component is a “helical auger” in combination with the above features, in a single embodiment, as instantly claimed, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ a helical auger component as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to create or enhance the flow and separation.
With respect to Claim 19, Ayub teaches the method as provided above with respect to Claim 18, and further teaches one or more embodiments wherein the helical components are configured to create or enhance the flow and separation (Ayub: Sections [0077]-[0084]; Fig. 5A). As such, although the reference fails to explicitly disclose a velocity at an exit of the helical auger component as instantly claimed, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the helical auger component for a desired exit velocity based on operational requirements, such as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, insofar as because it has been held. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233,235 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, based on the actual conditions encountered in the formation, one of ordinary skill would recognize the optimal velocity to employ therein in order to obtain the desired result.
Further, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, there had been a recognized need in the art for increasing oil recovery, and a finite number of identified, predictable solutions including removal of undesired material from produced fluids by configuring components to create or enhance flow and separation as desired, as set forth above. As such, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, based on the teachings of Ayub, one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued a desired velocity, such as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103."KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
With respect to Claim 20, Ayub teaches the method as provided above with respect to Claim 18, and further teaches one or more embodiments wherein one or more components of the spigot is configured with different shapes and dimensions to be suitable for the quantity and frequency of sludge accumulation and removal (Ayub: Sections [0077]-[0098]; Figures 1 & 5A-8). As such, although the reference fails to explicitly disclose a velocity at an exit of the spigot as instantly claimed, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the spigot component(s) for a desired exit velocity based on operational requirements, such as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, insofar as because it has been held. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233,235 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, based on the actual conditions encountered in the formation, one of ordinary skill would recognize the optimal velocity to employ therein in order to obtain the desired result.
Further, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, there had been a recognized need in the art for increasing oil recovery, and a finite number of identified, predictable solutions including removal of undesired material from produced fluids by configuring components for sludge accumulation and removal as desired, as set forth above. As such, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, based on the teachings of Ayub, one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued a desired velocity, such as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103."KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cobb (US 6,382,317) discloses a sand separator system and method in a wellbore comprising flow control and helical components.
Raglin (US 11,274,541) discloses a sand separator system and method in a wellbore comprising flow control and helical components.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANURADHA AHUJA whose telephone number is (571)272-3067. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday.
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, Doug Hutton can be reached at 571-272-4137. 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.
/ANURADHA AHUJA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674
Prosecution Insights