Patent Application 18326914 - CONDENSATE STABILIZATION - Rejection
Patent Application 18326914 - CONDENSATE STABILIZATION
Title: CONDENSATE STABILIZATION
Application Information
- Invention Title: CONDENSATE STABILIZATION
- Application Number: 18326914
- Submission Date: 2025-05-19T00:00:00.000Z
- Effective Filing Date: 2023-05-31T00:00:00.000Z
- Filing Date: 2023-05-31T00:00:00.000Z
- National Class: 585
- National Sub-Class: 003000
- Examiner Employee Number: 85227
- Art Unit: 1771
- Tech Center: 1700
Rejection Summary
- 102 Rejections: 0
- 103 Rejections: 2
Cited Patents
The following patents were cited in the rejection:
Office Action Text
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 .
Response to Amendment
This is the response to amendment for application 18/326914 filed 02/04/2025.
Claims 1-14 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
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) 1-7 and 9-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MACKENZIE (CA-2999717-A1) in view of KARTINEN (US 4010891) and VAN LEEUWEN et al. (USPGPUB 2017/0191748 A1) and SOLIMAN (USPGPUB 2018/0066194).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, MACKENZIE teaches methods for removing water and/or dissolved solid contaminants from a liquid hydrocarbon such as condensate.
MACKENZIE teach in paragraph 11 that the amount of water present in the overall oil stream is from 1-5%.
An embodiment is taught in paragraphs 26-29 and 35 and Fig. 3 of MACKENZIE.
Feed stream 12 comprising raw hydrocarbons (raw condensate feed) enter feed separator 14 (stabilizer feed drum and feed inlet) for processing.
Contaminants such as salts exits with water (water phase) through exit 16 (water outlet).
Overhead vapors exit through 18 (vapor outlet).
Secondary feed stream 24 (oil phase) exits (condensate outlet) and is feed into a fractionating tower 28 (stabilizer column and an inlet for the stabilizer column).
Overhead vapors exit fractionating tower 28 at 30 (vapour overheads outlet for the stabilizer column).
Hydrocarbon material exiting fractionating tower 28 at fractionating tower bottom 32 (stabilized condensate bottoms outlet for the stabilizer column) is circulated into a reboiler 34.
MACKENZIE teaches in paragraph 37 and Fig 4 that column trays may be used in the fractionating column 28.
KARTINEN is relied on teach adding a weir and parallel plates into the feed separator 14 of MACKENZIE.
KARTINEN teach an apparatus for oil/water separator.
KARTINEN teaches in lines 44-64 of column 3 that the use of a weir and plural baffle plates 27 and 29 that are parallel in a drum aid in the separation.
KARTINEN teaches in lines 64-68 of column 3 and lines 63-68 of column 4 and lines 1-33 of column 5 that there is a support plate 37. The support plate 37 comprises small apertures 57 drilled in a circular pattern about the axis of the separator 11 which present a substantial impediment to liquids but relative small impedience to vapor flow. (turbulence isolation plate separate from the liquid-liquid separation parallel plate pack internals)
VAN LEEUWEN et al. is relied on to teach the pressure that may be employed for the overhead vapors of the fractionating tower 28 of MACKENZIE the temperature that may be employed for the hydrocarbon material exiting fractionating tower bottom 32 of MACKENZIE.
VAN LEEUWEN et al. teach a hydrocarbon condensate stabilizer that comprises a stabilizer column.
VAN LEEUWEN et al. teach in paragraph 5 that vapors discharged from the top of end of the stabilizer column is at an auxiliary pressure that is higher than the pressure of the feed to the stabilizer column.
The pressure of the feed to the stabilizer column is taught in paragraph 90 to be between 2 to 25 bara.
VAN LEEUWEN et al. teach an example in paragraph 69 and Table 3 where the pressure of the vapor discharged is at 12 bara and the temperature of liquid phase exiting the bottom of the stabilizer column is at 150°C.
VAN LEEUWEN et al. teach in paragraph 43 that the process that VAN LEEUWEN et al. can be used to treat mixed phase pressurized unstabilized hydrocarbon stream.
The conditions that VAN LEEUWEN et al. teach may be applied to the fractionating tower in MACKENZIE to remove any remaining water that was not removed in feed separator 14 of MACKENZIE.
Regarding claims 1 and 9, SOLIMAN is relied on to teach modifying the properties of the liquid products of MACKENZIE to specific true vapor pressures and salt concentration.
SOLIMAN teaches in paragraph 2 the general state of the art for gas oil separation plant or GOSP is a continuous separation process for crude il. SOLIMAN teaches the specifications for transport of crude oil are a true vapor pressure of at most of about 13.5 psia and a salt concentration of at most of about 10 pounds/1000 barrels.
MACKENZIE teach in paragraph 8 the production of saleable processed hydrocarbon material.
It would be obvious that the saleable processed hydrocarbon material meets the specifications for transport so that it may be sold in other locations.
Regarding claim 2 VAN LEEUWEN et al. teach in Table 3 the feed comprises C4-C12 hydrocarbons and gaseous hydrocarbons and teach in paragraph 53 that the hydrocarbon stream comprises water and CO2.
The process employed separates out water and water soluble contaminants and a vapor phase
Regarding claim 3, the conditions that VAN LEEUWEN et al. teach may be applied to the fractionating tower in MACKENZIE to remove any remaining water that was not removed in feed separator 14 of MACKENZIE. MACKENZIE also teach that water washing removes salts.
Regarding claims 4-5, and 11-12, the secondary feed stream 24 in MACKENZIE would be expected to have a minuscule amount of water given that MACKENZIE teach in paragraph 11 that water is used to absorb contaminants and the water is removed.
MACKENZIE also teach in paragraph 37 a fresh water injection system to inject water to wash contaminants that have built up.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the amount of water present in the secondary feed stream 24 to be from 1 to 400 ppmv or less than 70 ppmv or from 16 to 66 ppmv.
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the 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).
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 14, VAN LEEUWEN et al. teach an example in paragraph 69 and Table 3 where the pressure of the vapor discharged is at 12 bara and the temperature of liquid phase exiting the bottom of the stabilizer column is at 150°C.
Regarding claim 7, VAN LEEUWEN et al. is relied on teach modifying the apparatus and process that MACKENZIE teach to exchange heat between the secondary feed stream 24 of MACKENZIE and the hydrocarbon stream exiting 32 of MACKENZIE
VAN LEEUWEN et al. teach in paragraph 80 a feed-effluent heat exchanger wherein heated liquid effluent, from stabilizer column, indirectly exchange heat with an incoming pressurized unstabilized hydrocarbon condensate stream, from stabilizer column.
Heat exchanging conserves the heat and provides a more efficient process.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MACKENZIE (CA-2999717-A1) in view of KARTINEN (US 4010891) and VAN LEEUWEN et al. (USPGPUB 2017/0191748 A1) as applied to claims 1-7 and 9-14 above, and further in view of JACKOWSKI (US-2014/0008034-A1).
The above discussion of MACKENZIE in view of KARTINEN and VAN LEEUWEN et al. is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding claim 8, MACKENZIE teaches reboilers.
MACKENZIE teach in paragraph 29 a typical temperature range of 120-140°C in reboilers. It is noted that this does not appear to be a limiting range given that MACKENZIE also teach in paragraph 36 and Table 2 reboiler temperature of 157°C which is outside the typical range. MACKENZIE teach in paragraph 12 that the temperature in the reboiler and pressure in the tower are maintained to prevent boiling of the secondary feed stream.
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the 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).
JACKOWSKI is relied on to teach that thermosiphon reboilers are known in the art.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use thermosiphon reboilers as the reboilers in MACKENZIE.
JACKOWSKI teaches in paragraph 2 that thermosiphon reboilers are commonly used as heat exchangers and receives a liquid stream from a column bottom.
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments, to add a “turbulence isolation plate”, filed 02/04/2025 have necessitated a new grounds of rejection.
KARTINEN teaches in lines 64-68 of column 3 and lines 63-68 of column 4 and lines 1-33 of column 5 that there is a support plate 37. The support plate 37 comprises small apertures 57 drilled in a circular pattern about the axis of the separator 11 which present a substantial impediment to liquids but relative small impedience to vapor flow. (turbulence isolation plate separate from the liquid-liquid separation parallel plate pack internals)
Applicant's other arguments filed 02/04/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that MACKENZIE is directed toward a fractionation column which applicant argues has static internals and KARTINEN is directed toward a centrifugal separator.
This is not persuasive as MACKENZIE teaches an apparatus and a system in which the feed separator is modified by the separator taught in KARTINEN.
Applicant argues that KARTINEN do not teach the claimed parallel plates. Applicant recognizes that KARTINEN teaches internal plural baffle plates. Applicant argues that the internal plural baffle plates are a structure all too different from liquid-liquid separation parallel plate pack internals.
This is not persuasive as the liquid-liquid separation parallel plate pack internals do not have a defined structure in the specification. The passages cited by application in the current specification “may include” or sets forth “for example” but does not explicitly set forth specific structures.
The plural baffle plates in KARTINEN meet the limitations that are set forth. KARTINEN states in lines 44-63 of column 3 that the plural baffle plates are mounted parallel and setup to provide a weir over which water passes to aid in fluid separation. Water and oil are forced in different directions. The plural baffle plates are taught to be parallel and used for liquid-liquid separation.
It is emphasized that the claims do not explicitly provide any additional structure to the terms “liquid-liquid separation parallel plate pack internals” nor “turbulence isolation plate”
Applicant argues that examiner has misunderstood VAN LEEUWEN and that VAN LEEUWEN teaches the opposite limitation as what is claimed as VAN LEEUWEN teaches exchanging heat with “incoming pressurized unstabilized hydrocarbon condensate stream.”
This is not persuasive as it has been cited explicitly that VAN LEEUWEN teaches exchanging heat with “incoming pressurized unstabilized hydrocarbon condensate stream.”
VAN LEEUWEN et al. is relied on teach modifying the apparatus and process that MACKENZIE teach to exchange heat between the secondary feed stream 24 of MACKENZIE and the hydrocarbon stream exiting 32 of MACKENZIE
VAN LEEUWEN et al. teach in paragraph 80 a feed-effluent heat exchanger wherein heated liquid effluent, from stabilizer column, indirectly exchange heat with an incoming pressurized unstabilized hydrocarbon condensate stream, from stabilizer column. The heated liquid effluent stream is stabilized.
It is well known in the art as taught in VAN LEEUWEN et al. the concept of a feed-effluent heat exchanger and the use of a stabilized effluent stream for heat exchanging.
Heat exchanging conserves the heat and provides a more efficient process.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MING CHEUNG PO whose telephone number is (571)270-5552. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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, PREM SINGH can be reached on 5712726381. 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.
/MING CHEUNG PO/ Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/ELLEN M MCAVOY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
