DETAILED ACTION
This detailed action is in response to the amendments and arguments filed on 10/07/2025, and any subsequent filings.
Notations “C_”, “L_” and “Pr_” are used to mean “column_”, “line_” and “paragraph_”.
Claims 24, 28 and 31 are canceled. Claims 20-22, 25, 27, and 29-30 are pending.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/07/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Due to the Applicant’s amendment, the previous 35 USC § 112 rejection has been removed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The Applicant argues that references Liberman, Collins and Sharif do not teach the claim limitations of the amended Claim 20 (pg. 5-6). This argument is unpersuasive because this is directed towards the amended claim.
Response to Amendment
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, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 20, 22, 25 and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication US20120285886A1 (‘Liberman’) and in further view of U.S. Publication US20150260028A1 (‘Reddy’) and in further view of U.S. Publication US20050022989A1 (‘Heins’) and in further view of U.S. Patent US20090020289A1 (‘Sharif’).
The Applicant’s claims are directed towards a method.
Regarding Claims 20, 22, 25 and 29-30, Liberman relates to a method of desalination ([0003]), comprising:
(a) providing a first stream of water (Fig. 2B, [0037], draw solution received through input 113) having a first salinity at a first pressure (Fig. 2B, symbols defined in [0048]);
(b) pumping said first stream, at said first pressure, to a first side of an osmotic membrane (110, Fig. 2B. Note that membrane 110 may comprises a pressure retarded osmosis (PRO) membrane element, [0046]) by means of an injection pump (Fig. 2A, [0007-0008], high pressure pump 82);
(c) providing a second stream of water (Fig. 2B, [0037], feed solution received through input 79) having a second salinity at a second pressure (Fig. 2B, [0048]);
(d) pumping said second stream, at said second pressure, to a second side of the membrane (Fig. 2B, [0048]);
(e) wherein the first pressure, on the first side of the membrane, is greater than the second pressure, on the second side of the membrane (Fig. 2B, [0048], compare gauge pressure (PG, [0048]) of draw solution 113 and feed solution 79);
(f) wherein the first salinity, on the first side of the membrane, is greater than the second salinity, on the second side of the membrane (Fig. 2B, [0048], compare PO of draw solution 113 and feed solution 79);
(g) whereby water is drawn across the membrane from the second stream into the first stream by osmotic energy ([0049]), against a pressure gradient across the membrane (Fig. 2B, [0049]), to produce a stream of water having a volume flow rate greater than that of the first stream (Fig. 2B, compare flow brine out (Bfo, [0048]) of draw solution at input 113 and output 119, [0044]), at approximately the first pressure (Fig. 2B, [0048], compare PG of draw solution at input 113 and output 119) and having a salinity lower than the first salinity (Fig. 2B, [0048], compare osmotic pressure (PO, [0048]) of draw solution at input 113 and output 119);
(h) the stream includes the water of the first stream and additional water from permeate flow across the membrane (Fig. 2B, [0044] and [0049], compare Bfo of draw solution 117 and output 119), the pressure of the additional water having been elevated to the first pressure by osmotic energy (Fig. 2B, [0049], compare PG of draw solution 113 and output 119) arising from the difference between the first and second salinities.
Liberman does not teach recovering hydrocarbons by injecting water into a first hydrocarbon reservoir, wherein the first stream is produced water from a second hydrocarbon reservoir located deeper than the first hydrocarbon reservoir, and injecting the injection stream of water into the said first hydrocarbon reservoir at approximately the first pressure.
Reddy relates to a method of recovering hydrocarbons by injecting water into a first hydrocarbon reservoir (abstract), wherein the first stream is produced water from a second hydrocarbon reservoir ([0040]);
(g) whereby water is drawn across the membrane from the second stream (Fig. 2-3, [0040], first stream 111) into the first stream (Fig. 2-3, [0040], second stream 112) to produce an injection stream (Fig. 2-3, [0047], product stream 114) of water having a volume flow rate greater than that of the first stream ([0052]), and having a salinity lower than the first salinity ([0047]);
(h) injecting the injection stream of water into the said first hydrocarbon reservoir ([0054]) wherein the injection stream includes the water of the first stream and additional water from permeate flow across the membrane ([0047]).
Heins also relates to a method of recovering hydrocarbons by injecting water ([0004]) into a first hydrocarbon reservoir ([0004]), wherein the first stream is produced water from a second hydrocarbon reservoir (Fig. 4, [0004], oil-water gathering well 30) located deeper (Fig. 4A) than the first hydrocarbon reservoir (Fig. 4, [0004], injection well 16).
Sharif also relates to a method of recovering hydrocarbons by injecting water into a first hydrocarbon reservoir (abstract), comprising injecting the injection stream of water into the said first hydrocarbon reservoir at approximately the first pressure ([0027], flow of water across the selective membrane in the osmosis step may be used to pressurize solution. Also note that water is injected into the petroleum-bearing formation at elevated pressure to drive petroleum from the formation, where pressures of 100 to 4200 psi may be employed ([0027]), or 7 to 290 bar when converted. Note that the stream of Liberman has a gauge pressure of 59 bar (Liberman, Fig. 2B)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the stream of water of Liberman as an injection stream for recovering hydrocarbons by injecting water into a first hydrocarbon reservoir, so that the injection stream may have sufficiently low sulfate and multivalent cation concentration (Reddy, [0053] and Liberman, [0045]) and because low salinity water is typically injected into an oil-bearing reservoir in order to enhance the oil recovery from such reservoirs (Reddy, [0002]. Note that Liberman utilizes forward osmosis (Liberman, Fig. 2B, [0048]) and Reddy teaches that forward osmosis may be used (Reddy, [0004])). It would have been obvious to also use produced water as the first stream of water of Liberman, as demonstrated by Reddy, so that the injection stream is generally compatible with the formation water in the formation (Sharif, [0012]). It would have been obvious to for the second hydrocarbon reservoir to be located deeper than the first reservoir, as demonstrated by Heins, in the combination of Liberman, Reddy and Sharif to fluidize the heavy oil formation, so the resulting oil/water mixture 22 migrates through the formation and is gathered (Heins, [0004]). It would have been obvious to inject the injection stream of water of Liberman, Reddy, Sharif and Heins at approximately the first pressure, as demonstrated by Sharif, because the flow of water across the selective membrane in in the osmosis step may be used for pressurization (Sharif, [0027]) and the pressure of the stream of Liberman falls within the range of injection pressure of Sharif (Sharif. [0027]).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 22: the first pressure is selected from between 4 and 60 bar (0.4 and 6 MPa) greater than the second pressure (Liberman, Fig. 2B).
Claim 25: the second stream is produced water (Reddy, [0040]) of lower salinity than that of the first stream (Reddy, [0050]).
Claim 29: the first stream is diluted between 20 - 40%, with water drawn across the membrane in step (g) (Reddy, [0050] and [0053]).
Claim 30: the first and/or second streams are pretreated prior to being passed across the osmotic membrane (Reddy, Fig. 3, [0041-0042]).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication US20120285886A1 (‘Liberman’), U.S. Publication US20150260028A1 (‘Reddy’), U.S. Publication US20050022989A1 (‘Heins’) and U.S. Patent US20090020289A1 (‘Sharif’) as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of U.S. Publication US20170369338A1 (‘Janson’).
The Applicant’s claim is directed towards a method.
Regarding Claim 21, the combination of Liberman, Reddy, Sharif and Heins teaches the method of Claim 20, except that the first salinity is greater than the second salinity in terms of total dissolved solids by about 80 g/L, 90 g/L, 100 g/L, 110 g/L, or 120 g/L.
Janson also relates to a method of recovering hydrocarbons (abstract), including that the first salinity is greater than the second salinity in terms of total dissolved solids by about 80 g/L, 90 g/L, 100 g/L, 110 g/L, or 120 g/L ([0020-0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the first salinity to be greater than the second salinity in the combination of Liberman, Reddy, Sharif and Heins, as demonstrated by Janson, to provide the necessary osmotic pressure differential (Janson, [0009] and [0019]) to obtain adequate water flow through the membrane (Janson, [0021]).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication US20120285886A1 (‘Liberman’), U.S. Publication US20150260028A1 (‘Reddy’), U.S. Publication US20050022989A1 (‘Heins’) and U.S. Patent US20090020289A1 (‘Sharif’) as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of U.S. Publication US20070246426A1 (‘Collins’).
The Applicant’s claim is directed towards a method.
Regarding Claim 27, the combination of Liberman, Reddy, Sharif and Heins teaches the method of Claim 20, including that the first stream is produced water (Reddy, [0040]), except that the first stream has a salinity selected from between 120 and 290 g/L total dissolved solids.
Collins also relates to a method of recovering hydrocarbons by injecting water into a first hydrocarbon reservoir (abstract), wherein the first stream has a salinity selected from between 120 and 290 g/L total dissolved solids ([0024]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the first stream of the combination of Liberman, Reddy, Sharif and Heins to have a salinity selected from between 120 and 290 g/L total dissolved solids, as demonstrated by Collins, to promote migration of water through the semipermeable membrane (Collins, [0024]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BOI-LIEN THI NGUYEN whose telephone number is (703)756-4613. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8 am to 6 pm.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at (571) 270-3240. 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.
/BOI-LIEN THI NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1779
/Bobby Ramdhanie/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights