DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 because
Figures 2A, 2B: These figures have poor reproductive quality. The lines are blurry/fading in the USPTO filing system and the drawings way too small which makes it difficult to determine what the drawings are showing. See example of one of the figures below.
PNG
media_image1.png
315
606
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites “the inhibitor tank” and “scaling inhibitor tank”. The claim recite “the inhibitor tank” OR “scaling inhibitor tank”, not both, to maintain consistent nomenclature and avoid confusion.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites “the MIC” but this limitation has been adequately defined in the claim. This limitation should be properly defined in the following manner “minimum injection concentration (MIC)” to ensure that it is clear what “MIC” means.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the scaling inhibitor". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation of “the two flow lines”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 is indefinite for the following reasons:
The recitation of “a filtered industrial water tank” is indefinite because it’s unclear if this limitation requires that the “water tank” contains a filter element or that the water tank contains filtered water.
The recitation of “…a flow rate that prevents production string breakdown (7) in the vertical portion of the chemical injection line (8)” indefinite because it is unclear if the claim requires prevention of production string breakdown of the production string (7) AND the chemical injection line (8) or prevention of production string breakdown of ONLY the production string (7).
It is further unclear if the claim requires “production string” and “chemical injection line” because the claim does not positively recite these elements. As such, it’s unclear what is actually structurally required by the claim. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret the claim as not requiring “production string” and “chemical injection line” but merely having the capability to “achieve a flow rate that prevents production string breakdown (7) in the vertical portion of the chemical injection line (8)”.
The recitation of “…mixing between the two flow lines” is indefinite because it’s unclear what two flow lines are being referred to absent of the claim requiring “a first flow line” and “a second flow line”.
The recitation of “in order to achieve a flow rate” is indefinite because it’s unclear what the limitation of “a flow rate” is being applied to. “a flow rate” of what element? Is it the water and the inhibitor mixture? Production fluid?
Claim 3 recites “the minimum inhibitory concentration of the scaling inhibitor”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 3 recites “a range that maintains the minimum inhibitory concentration” which is indefinite because the claim does not disclose any specific numerical range. Therefore, a POSITA would be left to guess is a value falls within the “a range that maintains the minimum inhibitory concentration” because the claim fails to define such a range. As such, the metes and bounds of this claim is definite.
Claim 4 recites “the industrial water tanks” and “the inhibitor tank”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 4 recites “the scaling inhibitor”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites “the main chemical injection pump”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites “the water flow rate”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites “the auxiliary chemical injection pump”. here is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites “(iv) regulating the flow rate of the pump connected to the inhibitor tank (4) until the desired dilution is achieved, so that the MIC is respected” is indefinite. The claim does not adequately define the boundaries of the term “MIC” and what concentration of water and scaling inhibitor is required to achieve “MIC”. Therefore, it would be unclear to a POSITA what the numerical boundaries are of “MIC” and would be left to guess whether or not a specific value is a “MIC”.
Claim 4 recites “(v) maintaining the flow rate in the pumps dependent on the well flow conditions” which is indefinite because it is unclear what this step functionally requires. Does the claim merely require “maintaining the flow rate in the pumps” or are there particular flow conditions/parameters being adjusted/used to maintain flow rate of the pumps?
Claim 2-3 and 5 rejected under this statute as the claims depend from claim 1 or 4.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Peters et al. (US Patent No. 4869555).
Regarding claim 1, Peters teaches a subsea scaling inhibitor dilution system to prevent production string breakdown, comprising:
a filtered industrial water tank (43; Fig.3) connected at its outlet to a main chemical injection pump that controls the flow rate of industrial water coming from the tank (“main chemical injection pump” connected to tank 43 on line 56 and 60 is implicit because appropriate valves, pumps and other devices are utilized to provide the necessary flow rates and movement of liquids in the system; Fig.3, Col. 7 lines 46-59, Col. 9 lines 13-22) through a flow meter (56);
a tank (63) containing the scaling inhibitor (scale inhibitor; Col. 9 lines 23-35) connected at its outlet (62) to an auxiliary chemical injection pump that controls the flow rate of the scaling inhibitor coming from the tank (“auxiliary pump” implicit because appropriate valves, pumps and other devices are utilized to provide the necessary flow rates and movement of liquids in the system; Fig.3, Col. 7 lines 46-59);
both filtered industrial water tank (1) and scaling inhibitor tank (4) being connected in (43 and 63 are connected in parallel; Fig. 3) through a regulating valve (6) that promotes mixing between the two flow lines (filtered industrial water and scaling inhibitor) (“regulating valve” implicit because appropriate valves, pumps and other devices are utilized to provide the necessary flow rates and movement of liquids in the system; Fig.3, Col. 7 lines 46-59), in order to achieve a flow rate that prevents production string breakdown in the vertical portion of the chemical injection line (the scale inhibitor and water mix in the mixer 61 which will result in preventing production string breakdown).
Regarding claim 2, Peters teaches the system, according to claim 1, wherein the water from the industrial water tank (1) dilutes the scaling inhibitor (mixing of water and scale inhibitor will create a diluted scale inhibitor; Fig. 4, Col. 9 lines 23-35).
Regarding claim 3, Peters teaches the system, according to claim 1, wherein the auxiliary chemical injection pump (5) promotes an increase in flow rate and a decrease in fluid density in the injection line within a range that maintains the minimum inhibitory concentration of the scaling inhibitor (implicit because appropriate valves, pumps and other devices are utilized to provide the necessary flow rates and movement of liquids in the system; Fig.3, Col. 7 lines 46-59).
Regarding claim 4, Peters teaches A method for diluting subsea scaling inhibitor to prevent production string break down (mixing of water and scale inhibitor will create a diluted scale inhibitor; Fig. 4, Col. 9 lines 23-35) comprising the following steps:
(i) filling the industrial water tanks (43; Fig. 3) with filtered industrial water (water; Fig. 3) and filling the inhibitor tank (63) with the scaling inhibitor (scale inhibitor; Col. 9 lines 23-35) to be used in the process (Col. 9 lines 23-35);
(ii) starting the main chemical injection pump connected to the industrial water tank “ (“main chemical injection pump” connected to tank 63 is implicit because appropriate valves, pumps and other devices are utilized to provide the necessary flow rates and movement of liquids in the system; Fig.3, Col. 7 lines 46-59).
(iii) with the water flow rate established and stable (via tank 43; Col. 9 lines 23-35) , starting the auxiliary chemical injection pump connected to the scaling inhibitor tank (“auxiliary pump” implicit because appropriate valves, pumps and other devices are utilized to provide the necessary flow rates and movement of liquids in the system; Fig.3, Col. 7 lines 46-59);
(iv) regulating the flow rate of the pump connected to the inhibitor tank (4) until the desired dilution is achieved, so that the MIC is respected (the pumping of water and scale inhibitor within the mixer 61 will achieve desired dilution and MIC; Col. 9 lines 23-35); and
(v) maintaining the flow rate in the pumps dependent on the well flow conditions ( pumps and other devices are utilized to provide the necessary flow rates and movement of liquids in the system; Fig.3, Col. 7 lines 46-59).
Regarding claim 5, Peters teaches the method , according to claim 4, wherein the flow rate in the pumps is simultaneously interrupted when production stops (implicit that when production stops the corresponding pumps will also stop especially considering pumps and other devices are utilized to provide the necessary flow rates and movement of liquids in the system; Fig.3, Col. 7 lines 46-59).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lamia Quaim whose telephone number is (469)295-9199. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10AM - 6PM CST.
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, Tara Schimpf can be reached at (571) 270-7741. 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.
/LAMIA QUAIM/Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights