Ex Parte Bhatnagar et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 24, 201813881321 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 24, 2018) Copy Citation United States Patent and Trademark Office UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O.Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 13/881,321 04/24/2013 Gaurav Bhatnagar TH3699-US-PCT 2688 23632 7590 01/26/2018 SHF! T OH miUPANY EXAMINER P 0 BOX 576 LI, AIQUN HOUSTON, TX 77001-0576 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1768 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/26/2018 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): USPatents@Shell.com Shelldocketing@cpaglobal.com shellusdocketing@cpaglobal.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte GAURAV BHATNAGAR, DANIEL LEE CROSBY, GREGORY JOHN HATTON, and ZHONGXIN HUO Appeal 2017-004062 Application 13/881,321 Technology Center 1700 Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, JENNIFER R. GUPTA, and MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL The Examiner finally rejected claims 1, 2, 6—8, 12, 20, 21, 24—26, and 29 of Application 13/881,321 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated. Final Act. 3^4 (mailed Oct. 2, 2015). Appellants1 seek reversal of these rejections pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE. 1 Shell Oil Company is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2017-004062 Application 13/881,321 BACKGROUND The present application generally relates to a system for producing and transporting crude oil comprising a well for producing the crude oil, a processing facility for processing the crude oil, and a pipeline between the well and the processing facility, wherein the pipeline comprises a coating on an inner surface of the pipeline, and wherein the crude oil comprises a surfactant additive. Abstract. Claims 1 and 7 are representative of the pending claims and are reproduced below: 1. A system for producing and transporting crude oil, comprising: a well for producing the crude oil; a processing facility for processing the crude oil; and a pipeline for transporting the crude oil from the well to the processing facility, wherein the pipeline comprises a silicon coating, a ceramic coating, or a minimally adhesive polymer coating prepared from siloxanes or fluorosiloxanes and wherein the crude oil comprises a surfactant. 7. A method of producing and transporting crude oil, comprising: extracting crude oil from a well; placing the crude oil in a pipeline to transport the crude oil away from the well; coating at least a portion of an interior surface of the pipeline with a coating, 2 Appeal 2017-004062 Application 13/881,321 wherein the coating comprises a silicon coating, a ceramic coating, or a minimally adhesive polymer coating prepared from siloxanes or fluorosiloxanes; and adding a surfactant to the crude oil prior to placing the crude oil in the pipeline. Appeal Br. 7 (Claims App.). REJECTION On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejection: Claims 1, 2, 6—8, 12, 20, 21, 24—26, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Duncum et al. (US 6,251,836 Bl, issued June 26, 2001) (hereinafter “Duncumâ€). Final Act. 3^4. DISCUSSION In rejecting the claims at issue, the Examiner found that Duncum teaches a hydrate-inhibiting formulation that is injected into a pipeline. Final Act. 3^4. The Examiner found that such formulation comprises polysiloxanes and fluorosiloxanes which satisfy the “minimally adhesive polymer coating†limitation. Id. The Examiner additionally found that Duncum teaches that the formulation is capable of being deposited as a film on a metal such as a pipeline wall. Id. at 4 (citing Duncum 3:12—19). In an advisory action, the Examiner found that “the polymer formulation will physically spread over or cover the interior surface of the pipeline/conduit/ riser, which meets the limitation of a coating.†Advisory Action 2 (mailed Dec. 14, 2015). Appellants argue that Duncum teaches the use of polysiloxanes and fluorosiloxanes as antifoaming agents, but that “[tjhere is no indication provided in Duncum that these silicon compounds would physically spread 3 Appeal 2017-004062 Application 13/881,321 over or cover the interior surface of a pipeline.†Appeal Br. 5. Appellants further argue that the Examiner appears to rely upon a theory of inherency to support the finding that the antifoaming agents in Duncum would necessarily form a polymer coating. Id. at 4—5. Appellants assert that such reliance is in error as the Examiner has failed to provide a basis in fact or technical reasoning to support the determination that the antifoaming agents of Duncum would necessarily form a polymer coating on the pipeline. Id. at 4-5. Duncum teaches a hydrate-inhibiting formulation that includes (i) a polymer, (ii) a corrosion inhibitor, and (iii) a salt. Duncum 2:1—17. The corrosion inhibitor is taught to be a “film former, capable of being deposited as a film on a metal [e.g.,] a steel surface such as a pipeline wall.†Id. at 3:15—16. Duncum additionally teaches that the formulation preferably includes an anti-foaming agent that may be of polysiloxane or fluorosiloxane. Id. at 8:48—64. Duncum further teaches that the “silicon anti-foaming agents are usually used as water dispersible emulsions.†Id. at 8:58-59. Thus, Duncum lacks an explicit disclosure that the polysiloxane or fluorosiloxane compounds form a coating on the pipeline. Nor does the Examiner provide any persuasive reasoning why a component intended for use as an anti-foaming agent would form such a coating. It has not been shown that the antifoaming agent must (or is intended to) behave in the same manner as the corrosion inhibitor. Accordingly, the Examiner’s findings regarding Duncum’s teaching of a pipeline comprising a “polymer coating prepared from siloxanes or fluorosiloxanes†(claim 1) and its teaching of a method step of “coating at least a portion of an interior surface of the pipeline with a coating, wherein the coating comprises ... a minimally 4 Appeal 2017-004062 Application 13/881,321 adhesive polymer coating prepared from siloxanes or fluorosiloxanes†(claim 7) are unsupported. In view of the foregoing, the rejection of claims 1, 2, 6—8, 12, 20, 21, 24—26, and 29 is reversed. CONCLUSION The rejection of claims 1, 2, 6—8, 12, 20, 21, 24—26, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Duncum is reversed. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation