DETAILED ACTION
This detailed action is in response to the amendments and arguments filed on 03/25/2026, and any subsequent filings.
Notations “C_”, “L_” and “Pr_” are used to mean “column_”, “line_” and “paragraph_”.
Claims 3-23 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 .
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The Applicant argues that the combination of Siagian with Stefanakis 2 would change the principle of operation of Stefanakis 2 because Siagian concerns use of membrane technology (pg. 11-12). This argument is unpersuasive because Siagian was not relied upon to teach membrane technology, but for rationale to discharge water into an injector well or a water storage structure that is in fluid communication with an injector well because reinjection is beneficial for both economic and environmental aspects (Siagian, pg. 7, right column, last Pr).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references (pg. 11-12), the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to discharge the water of Stefanakis 2 into an injector well or a water storage structure that is in fluid communication with an injector well, as demonstrated by Siagian, because reinjection is beneficial for both economic and environmental aspects (Siagian, pg. 7, right column, last Pr).
In response to applicant's argument that Siagian is nonanalogous art (pg. 11), it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Siagian also relates to a method for utilization of produced water from an oil and/or gas recovery systems (Siagian, abstract). Furthermore, the managed ecosystem of Stefanakis 2 can produce an effluent with oil-in-water below the limit values of <0.5 mg OiW/L (Stefanakis 2, pg. 33, Pr1) and standard quality of produced water reinjection requires an oil content of <5 mg/L (Siagian, pg. 2, left column, last Pr).
In response to applicant's argument that the combination of Siagian with Stefanakis 2 would change the principle of operation of Stefanakis 2 because Siagian concerns use of membrane technology (pg. 11), the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Furthermore, the managed ecosystem of Stefanakis 2 can produce an effluent with oil-in-water below the limit values of <0.5 mg OiW/L (Stefanakis 2, pg. 33, Pr1) and standard quality of produced water reinjection requires an oil content of <5 mg/L (Siagian, pg. 2, left column, last Pr).
The Applicant argues that Stefanakis 2 teaches that leftover water is evaporated in evaporation ponds to produce salt as an end-product (pg. 11-13). This argument is unpersuasive because Stefanakis 2 was not relied upon to teach salt production.
In response to applicant's argument that any combination with Stefanakis 2 requires that leftover water is evaporated to produce salt (pg. 11-13), the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
The Applicant argues that the irrigation areas of Stefanakis 2 are not in fluid communication with an injector well (pg. 13-14). This argument is unpersuasive because the produced water is distributed in the wetlands via a long buffer pond (Stefanakis 2, pg. 28, Pr3).
The Applicant argues that Stefanakis 2 is not a full circular system (pg. 9-10 and 14). This argument is unpersuasive because Stefanakis 2 teaches that the treatment plant is a showcase of circular economy principles applied in practice (Stefanakis 2, pg. 27, Pr3 and section 1.5 Conclusions).
In response to applicant's argument that Ecosan is nonanalogous art (pg. 14-15), it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Ecosan also relates to a managed ecosystem (Ecosan, pg. 23-24).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning (pg. 14-15), it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In response to applicant's argument that Ernest is nonanalogous art (pg. 14-15), it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Ernest also relates to a constructed wetland (Ernest, abstract and [0022]).
In response to applicant's argument that even if wetlands could be used to treat greywater, treating downhole oil and gas water would require more robust techniques (pg. 14-15), the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Response to Amendment
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 16 and 18-22 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 16 recites “a managed ecosystem” in the preamble and in line 3. It is unclear whether the instances of “a managed ecosystem” in the preamble and line 3 refer to the same or distinct managed ecosystems, rendering the claim indefinite.
Dependent claims not recited above require all of the limitations of independent Claim 16, and therefore are rejected for the same reasons set forth above.
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 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 3-4, 10-11, 16-17 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stefanakis 2 (Integrated Produced Water Management in a Desert Oilfield Using Wetland Technology and Innovative Reuse Practices, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 06 July 2018) in view of Publication Oilfield Produced Water Reuse and Reinjection with Membrane (‘Siagian’, MATEC Web of Conferences 156, 08005 (2018)).
The Applicant’s claims are directed towards a method.
Regarding Claims 16 and 22, Stefanakis 2 teaches a method for sequestering CO2 (pg. 35, Pr2) comprising using a managed ecosystem (SFCW (pg. 28, Surface Flow Constructed Wetland)) comprising:
providing a circular system that includes a managed ecosystem that is integrated with an oil and/or gas recovery system (circular economy principles, pg. 27, Pr3 and section 1.5 Conclusions), wherein the managed ecosystem utilizes purified produced water from an oil and/or gas recovery system (pg. 28, Pr3), wherein the managed ecosystem comprises:
a basin (Constructed Wetland cells, pg. 28, Pr3) having a ground medium (pg. 28, Pr4) and a perimeter (cells, pg. 31, Fig. 1.4 and pg. 28, Pr4) that is configured and dimensioned to hold a quantity of water (pg. 28, Pr4 and pg. 31, Fig. 1.4);
an influent flowline (buffer pond, pg. 28, Pr3) in fluid communication with a source of, and adapted for receiving and discharging into the basin, the purified produced water from an oil and/or gas recovery system (pg. 28, Pr3);
a quantity of saline-tolerant vegetation in the ground medium of the basin that is sustained by the purified produced water (pg. 33, last Pr), and
an effluent flow line (pumping system, pg. 36, section 1.4 Treated Effluent Reuse for Saline Irrigation) in fluid communication with, and adapted for discharging water from the basin into a water storage structure (pg. 36, section 1.4 Treated Effluent Reuse for Saline Irrigation);
wherein oil and/or gas recovery system comprise one or more producing wells (oilfield, section 1.2.1 Location and Description, Pr1), one or more gas and oil separation plants (hydrocyclone oil separators, pg. 28, Pr3) and one or more produced water treatment subsystems (skimmers, pg. 33, Pr1), and wherein
the source of the purified produced water comprises the one or more produced water treatment sub-system (pg. 33, Pr1);
the produced water treatment sub-system is in fluid communication with, and adapted for receiving, produced water from the one or more gas and oil separation plants (pg. 33, Pr1); and
and the one or more gas and oil separation plants are in fluid communication with, and adapted for receiving a mixed fluid stream containing oil and/or gas, and water, from the one or more producing wells (pg. 28, Pr3), and are adapted for discharging water from the mixed fluid stream for passage to the one or more produced water treatment sub-systems (pg. 33, Pr1);
treating the produced water in the produced water treatment sub-system (pg. 33, Pr1) and discharging therefrom the purified produced water (pg. 28, Pr3);
directing an effective quantity of the purified produced water to the managed ecosystem via the influent flow line (pg. 28, Pr3) to sustain the saline-tolerant vegetation in the ground medium of the basin (pg. 33, last Pr);
removing water from the managed ecosystem via the effluent flowline and directing removed water to said water storage structure (pg. 36, section 1.4 Treated Effluent Reuse for Saline Irrigation) and/or said injector well;
wherein the saline-tolerant vegetation photosynthetically absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere and transforms carbon in the CO2 into biomass (pg. 35, Pr2), and wherein decomposition of the biomass results in carbon integrating in the ground medium (pg. 35, Pr2).
Stefanakis 2 does not specify that water is discharged into an injector well or a water storage structure that is in fluid communication with an injector well.
Regarding Claim 17, 3-4, 10-11 and 23¸ Stefanakis 2 teaches a method for utilization of produced water from an oil and/or gas recovery systems (section 1.2 Constructed Wetland for Produced Water Treatment) comprising:
providing a circular system that includes a managed ecosystem that is integrated with an oil and/or gas recovery system (circular economy principles, pg. 27, Pr3 and section 1.5 Conclusions), wherein the managed ecosystem utilizes purified produced water from the oil and/or gas recovery systems (pg. 28, Pr3), wherein the managed ecosystem comprises:
a basin (Constructed Wetland cells, pg. 28, Pr3) having a ground medium (pg. 28, Pr4) and a perimeter (cells, pg. 31, Fig. 1.4 and pg. 28, Pr4) that is configured and dimensioned to hold a quantity of water (pg. 28, Pr4 and pg. 31, Fig. 1.4);
an influent flowline (buffer pond, pg. 28, Pr3) in fluid communication with a source of, and adapted for receiving and discharging into the basin, the purified produced water from an oil and/or gas recovery system (pg. 28, Pr3); and
a quantity of saline-tolerant vegetation in the ground medium of the basin that is sustained by the purified produced water (pg. 33, last Pr), and
an effluent flow line (pumping system, pg. 36) in fluid communication with, and adapted for discharging water from the basin into a water storage structure (pg. 36);
wherein oil and/or gas recovery system comprise one or more producing wells (oilfield, pg. 27, section 1.2.1 Location and Description, Pr1), one or more gas and oil separation plants (hydrocyclone oil separators, pg. 28, Pr3) and one or more produced water treatment subsystems (skimmers, pg. 33, Pr1), and wherein
the source of the purified produced water comprises the one or more produced water treatment sub-system (pg. 33, Pr1);
the produced water treatment sub-system is in fluid communication with, and adapted for receiving, produced water from the one or more gas and oil separation plants (pg. 33, Pr1);
and the one or more gas and oil separation plants are in fluid communication with, and adapted for, receiving a mixed fluid stream containing oil and/or gas, and water, from the one or more producing wells (pg. 28, Pr3), and are adapted for discharging water from the mixed fluid stream for passage to the one or more produced water treatment sub-systems (pg. 33, Pr1);
treating the produced water in the produced water treatment sub-system (pg. 33, Pr1) and discharging therefrom the purified produced water (pg. 28, Pr3);
directing an effective quantity of the purified produced water to the managed ecosystem via the influent flow line (pg. 28, Pr3) to sustain the saline-tolerant vegetation in the ground medium of the basin (pg. 33, last Pr);
removing water from the managed ecosystem via the effluent flowline and directing removed water to said water storage structure (pg. 36, section 1.4 Treated Effluent Reuse for Saline Irrigation) and/or said injector well.
Stefanakis 2 does not specify that water is discharged into an injector well or a water storage structure that is in fluid communication with an injector well.
Siagian also relates to a method for utilization of produced water from an oil and/or gas recovery systems (abstract), including discharging water into an injector well or a water storage structure that is in fluid communication with an injector well (section 2.3 Produced water reuse and reinjection).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to discharge the water of Stefanakis 2 into an injector well or a water storage structure that is in fluid communication with an injector well, as demonstrated by Siagian, because reinjection is beneficial for both economic and environmental aspects (Siagian, pg. 7, right column, last Pr). Furthermore, the managed ecosystem of Stefanakis 2 can produce an effluent with oil-in-water below the limit values of <0.5 mg OiW/L (Stefanakis 2, pg. 33, Pr1) and standard quality of produced water reinjection requires an oil content of <5 mg/L (Siagian, pg. 2, left column, last Pr).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 3: the perimeter of the basin of the managed ecosystem is configured and dimensioned to contain the water therein with boundaries formed of walls (Stefanakis 2, SFCW cells having boundaries formed of walls, Fig. 1.4) and/or berms.
Claim 4: at least a portion of the boundaries are sloped (SFCWs operate with gravity flow, Stefanakis 2, pg. 28, Pr3) and have ground medium on the sloped portion to support saline-tolerant vegetation that is rooted in the ground medium (Stefanakis 2, pg. 28, Pr4) and has portions that pass through the water in the basin (Stefanakis 2, Figs. 1.3-1.4).
Claim 10: the basin of the managed ecosystem has a floor and the ground medium covers from about 5-100 % of the area of the basin floor (mineral sealing layer lines bottom of wetland cells, Stefanakis 2, pg. 35, last Pr), and wherein the ground medium is selected from the group consisting of sand, soil (Stefanakis 2, pg. 28, Pr4) and clay.
Claim 11: the produced water treatment sub-system is selected from the group consisting of microfiltration, ultrafiltration, polymeric membranes, ceramic membranes, reverse osmosis, nanofiltration, hydrocyclones (Stefanakis 2, pg. 33, Pr1), evaporation pond, gas flotation, media filtration, adsorption, ion exchange, precipitation, chemical oxidation, freeze thaw evaporation, evaporation/condensation cycles using thermal distillation and heat exchange mechanisms, macro-porous polymer extraction, electrodialysis, electrodialysis reversal, activated sludge, biological aerated filters, microbial capacitive desalination cells, microalgae, multistage flash, multieffect distillation, vapor compression distillation, and multieffect distillation - vapor compression hybrid.
Claims 22-23: the effluent flowline is in fluid communication with, and adapted for discharging water from the basin into an injector well (see analyses of Claims 16-17).
Claims 5-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stefanakis 2 (Integrated Produced Water Management in a Desert Oilfield Using Wetland Technology and Innovative Reuse Practices, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 06 July 2018) in view of Publication Oilfield Produced Water Reuse and Reinjection with Membrane (‘Siagian’, MATEC Web of Conferences 156, 08005 (2018)) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Publication Small-Scale Constructed Wetlands for Greywater and Total Domestic Wastewater Treatment (referred to herein as ‘Ecosan’) and Publication Ecological Engineering 61 (2013) 190–199 (‘Alley’).
The Applicant’s claims are directed towards a method.
Regarding Claims 5-7 and 9, the combination of Stefanakis 2 and Siagian teaches the method of Claim 17, except that the plurality of basins each having a water surface area in the range of about 100 cm2 to about 100 m2, and each having an average depth of the water in the range of about 10 cm to about 2 m.
Ecosan also relates to a managed ecosystem, including that the plurality of basins each having a water surface area in the range of about 100 cm2 to about 100 m2 (pgs. 23-24).
Alley also relates to a method for utilization of produced water from an oil and/or gas recovery systems (abstract), wherein the plurality of basins each have an average depth of the water in the range of about 10 cm to about 2 m (Figs. 2-3 and Tables 4-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the water surface area of Ecosan and the method of the combination of Stefanakis 2 and Siagian because constructed wetlands water surface area is chosen based on the average daily organic loading, the chosen areal loading (Ecosan, pg. 15, last Pr) and desired effluent concentration (Ecosan, pg. 15, Pr2). It would have been obvious to combine the depth of water of Alley and the method of the combination of Stefanakis 2, Siagian and Ecosan because outflow oil concentration decreases with decreasing water depth (Alley, section 3.3.2. Treatment performance for the oil marker compounds in the pilot-scale wetland series).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 6: wherein the managed ecosystem further comprises a manifold (terraces, Stefanakis 2, pg. 28, Pr3) in fluid communication with the influent flow line and the plurality of basins (wetland cells, Stefanakis 2, pg. 28, Pr3), wherein purified produced water from the influent flow line (treated produced water is distributed in SFCW via long buffer pond, Stefanakis 2, pg. 28, Pr3) is piped into the plurality of basins via a manifold (water moves through the wetland terraces, Stefanakis 2, pg. 36, last Pr to pg. 37, Pr1).
Claim 7: each basin is fluidly connected to one or more other basins (water moves through the wetland terraces, Stefanakis 2, pg. 36, last Pr to pg. 37, Pr1), and wherein purified produced water from the influent flow line is piped into one or more basins that feed other basins (water moves through the wetland terraces, Stefanakis 2, pg. 36, last Pr to pg. 37, Pr1. pg. 30, Fig. 1.2).
Claim 9: the basin of the managed ecosystem has a water surface area in the range of about 50-300,000 m2 (Stefanakis 2, pg. 28, Pr3, 10 ha wetland cell, or 100,000 m2 when converted) and has an average depth of the water in the range of about 0.5-10 m (Alley, Figs. 2-3 and Tables 4-5).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stefanakis 2 (Integrated Produced Water Management in a Desert Oilfield Using Wetland Technology and Innovative Reuse Practices, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 06 July 2018), Publication Oilfield Produced Water Reuse and Reinjection with Membrane (‘Siagian’, MATEC Web of Conferences 156, 08005 (2018)), Publication Small-Scale Constructed Wetlands for Greywater and Total Domestic Wastewater Treatment (referred to herein as ‘Ecosan’) and Publication Ecological Engineering 61 (2013) 190–199 (‘Alley’) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of U.S. Publication US20110186507A1 (‘Ernest’).
The Applicant’s claim is directed towards a method.
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Stefanakis 2, Siagian, Ecosan and Alley teaches the method of Claim 5, except that the managed ecosystem further comprises piping and interconnected nozzles and/or shower heads that are arranged in fluid communication with the source of purified produced water, wherein the piping and interconnected nozzles and/or shower heads are configured and arranged to shower purified produced water onto saline-tolerant vegetation sustained in each of the plurality of basins.
including that the managed ecosystem comprises piping (distribution pipes, Ecosan, Fig. 7) arranged in fluid communication with the source of purified water, wherein the piping is configured and arranged to shower purified water onto saline-tolerant vegetation sustained in each of the plurality of basins (distribution pipes, Ecosan, Fig. 7 and Ecosan, pg. 25, Pr4), and piping and interconnected nozzles and/or shower heads are configured and arranged to shower purified produced water onto saline-tolerant vegetation (Stefanakis 2, section 1.4 Treated Effluent Reuse for Saline Irrigation, sprinkler system for overhead irrigation), except the piping and interconnected nozzles and/or shower heads are configured and arranged to shower purified produced water onto saline-tolerant vegetation sustained in each of the plurality of basins.
Ecosan teaches piping (distribution pipes, Fig. 7) that is arranged in fluid communication with the source of water, wherein the piping is configured and arranged to shower water onto saline-tolerant vegetation sustained in each of the plurality of basins (Fig. 7).
Ernest also relates to a constructed wetland (abstract and [0022]), including interconnected nozzles and/or shower heads ([0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the combination of Stefanakis 2, Siagian, Ecosan and Alley to comprise piping, as demonstrated by Ecosan, and interconnected nozzles and/or shower heads, as demonstrated by Ernest, that are arranged in fluid communication with the source of purified produced water, wherein the piping and interconnected nozzles and/or shower heads are configured and arranged to shower purified produced water onto saline-tolerant vegetation sustained in each of the plurality of basins, to distribute water uniformly (Ecosan, pg. 21) and so that the water stream does not move the ground medium (Ernest, [0046]).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stefanakis 2 (Integrated Produced Water Management in a Desert Oilfield Using Wetland Technology and Innovative Reuse Practices, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 06 July 2018) in view of Publication Oilfield Produced Water Reuse and Reinjection with Membrane (‘Siagian’, MATEC Web of Conferences 156, 08005 (2018)) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Publication Water Research 37 (2003) 705–713 (‘Murray-Gulde’).
The Applicant’s claims are directed towards a method.
Regarding Claims 12-13, the combination of Stefanakis 2 and Siagian teaches the method of Claim 17, except for an additional treatment sub-system in fluid communication with the produced water treatment sub-system and with the influent flowline, wherein effluent from the additional treatment sub-system is directed to the influent flowline, and wherein the additional treatment sub-system is a membrane filtration sub-system or an electrolytic coagulation and disinfection sub-system.
Murray-Gulde also relates to a method of utilization of produced water from an oil and/or gas recovery systems (abstract), including an additional treatment sub-system (reverse osmosis membrane, pg. 706, right column, Pr2) in fluid communication with the produced water treatment sub-system (Fig. 1) and with the influent flowline (reverse osmosis treated produced water is fed to the constructed wetlands, Fig. 2 on pg. 708), wherein effluent from the additional treatment sub-system is directed to the influent flowline (Fig. 2 and pg. 709, left column, Pr1), and wherein the additional treatment sub-system is a membrane filtration sub-system (reverse osmosis membrane, pg. 706, right column, Pr2) or an electrolytic coagulation and disinfection sub-system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the additional treatment sub-system of Murray-Gulde and the managed ecosystem of the combination of Stefanakis 2 and Siagian to decrease salinity and toxicity associated with brackish-produced water (Murray-Gulde, pg. 706, left column, last Pr).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stefanakis 2 (Integrated Produced Water Management in a Desert Oilfield Using Wetland Technology and Innovative Reuse Practices, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 06 July 2018) in view of Publication Oilfield Produced Water Reuse and Reinjection with Membrane (‘Siagian’, MATEC Web of Conferences 156, 08005 (2018)) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of U.S. Publication US20200283316A1 (‘Licht’).
The Applicant’s claim is directed towards a method.
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Stefanakis 2 and Siagian teaches the method of Claim 17, including one or more sensors positioned (Wetland facility is monitored and samples are collected at various points along the system, pg. 30, last Pr) to measure salinity and/or concentration of selected toxins in the purified produced water, in the basin, in the influent flow line and/or in the effluent flow line (Oil in Water at different treatment stages, pg. 35, Fig. 1.6), except a controller implemented using one or more computer systems that includes stored in a memory thereof programming code that implements, under direction of a processor, feedback and/or feedforward action based on inputs from the one or more sensors, wherein the feedback and/or feedforward action comprises an act selected from the group consisting of removing water from the basin, adding water from a source other than the produced water treatment sub-system, adding new purified produced water to the basin, adjusting flow of purified produced water introduced via the influent flowline, adjusting salinity levels of the purified produced water, adjusting levels of selected toxins of the purified produced water, and combinations of two or more of these acts.
Licht also relates to a method for utilization of water ([0001]), including a controller implemented using one or more computer systems ([0032]) that includes stored in a memory thereof programming code ([0032]) that implements, under direction of a processor, feedback and/or feedforward action based on inputs from the one or more sensors ([0043]),
wherein the feedback and/or feedforward action comprises an act selected from the group consisting of removing water from the basin, adding water from a source other than the produced water treatment sub-system, adding new purified produced water to the basin, adjusting flow of purified produced water introduced via the influent flowline (control effluent flow [0043]. Effluent 10, [0030], Fig. 1), adjusting salinity levels of the purified produced water, adjusting levels of selected toxins of the purified produced water, and combinations of two or more of these acts.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the controller of Licht and the method of the combination of Stefanakis 2 and Siagian to observe performance and operate by the controller (Licht, [0032] and [0043]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stefanakis 2 (Integrated Produced Water Management in a Desert Oilfield Using Wetland Technology and Innovative Reuse Practices, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 06 July 2018) in view of Publication Oilfield Produced Water Reuse and Reinjection with Membrane (‘Siagian’, MATEC Web of Conferences 156, 08005 (2018)) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of U.S. Publication US20110219668A1 (‘Cramwinckel’).
The Applicant’s claim is directed towards a method.
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Stefanakis 2 and Siagian teaches the method of Claim 17.
The combination of Stefanakis 2 and Siagian does not teach that the saline-tolerant vegetation includes one or more of mangrove trees, tidal marshes, seagrasses, casuarina equisetifolia, cordgrass, yerba mansa, saltbush, babassu, switchgrass, pickleweed, sea spinach, shoreline purslane, seep-weeds, sea purslane, or saltworts.
Cramwinckel also relates to a method for utilization of produced water from an oil and/or gas recovery systems (abstract), wherein the saline-tolerant vegetation includes one or more of mangrove trees ([0021]), tidal marshes, seagrasses, casuarina equisetifolia, cordgrass, yerba mansa, saltbush, babassu, switchgrass, pickleweed, sea spinach, shoreline purslane, seep-weeds, sea purslane, or saltworts.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the saline-tolerant vegetation of Cramwinckel and the method of the combination of Stefanakis 2 and Siagian because mangrove trees are an example of saline tolerant cellulosic crop (Cramwinckel, [0021]). Furthermore, there is a need to identify plant species that can be irrigated with treated produced water containing a relatively high salt content to reuse treated produced water for irrigation of beneficial plants could close the loop of resources use, and eliminate waste production (Stefanakis 2, pg. 27, Pr2).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stefanakis 2 (Integrated Produced Water Management in a Desert Oilfield Using Wetland Technology and Innovative Reuse Practices, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 06 July 2018) in view of Publication Oilfield Produced Water Reuse and Reinjection with Membrane (‘Siagian’, MATEC Web of Conferences 156, 08005 (2018)) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Publication The reuse of Wetland-treated oilfield produced water for saline irrigation (‘Stefanakis 3’, International Conference of the International Desalination Association (IDA) on Water Reuse and Recycling, Nice, France, September 25–27; 2016).
The Applicant’s claim is directed towards a method.
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Stefanakis 2 and Siagian teaches the method of Claim 16, except that the purified produced water directed to the managed ecosystem has a salt concentration in the range of from 0.5-40 parts per thousand.
Stefanakis 3 also relates to a managed ecosystem (Surface Flow Constructed Wetland (SCFW), pg. 4 of 18, last Pr), where the purified produced water directed to the managed ecosystem (water quality 1 (WQ1), pg. 6 of 18, Pr1 and Fig. 2 on pg. 5 of 18. Water of WQ1 is directed to SCFW cells after the WQ1 extraction point, Fig. 2 on pg. 5 of 18) has a salt concentration in the range of from 0.5-40 parts per thousand (salinity of 12.8 mS/cm, pg. 15 of 18, Pr1, or approximately 7.3 ppt when converted).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the salt concentration of Stefanakis 3 and the method of the combination of Stefanakis 2 and Siagian, as demonstrated by Stefanakis 3, because high salt content and petroleum hydrocarbons can affect soil salinity and plant productivity (Stefanakis 2, pg. 25, Pr2).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stefanakis 2 (Integrated Produced Water Management in a Desert Oilfield Using Wetland Technology and Innovative Reuse Practices, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 06 July 2018) in view of Publication Oilfield Produced Water Reuse and Reinjection with Membrane (‘Siagian’, MATEC Web of Conferences 156, 08005 (2018)) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Publication Methanotrophic bacteria in oilsands tailings ponds of northern Alberta (‘Saidi’, The ISME Journal (2013) 7, 908–921) and of Publication Microbial response to reinjection of produced water in an oil reservoir (‘Lysnes’, Appl Microbiol Biotechnol (2009) 83:1143–1157).
The Applicant’s claims are directed towards a method.
Regarding Claims 19-20, the combination of Stefanakis 2 and Siagian teaches the method of Claim 16, except that the purified produced water contains methanotrophs, wherein the methanotrophs in the purified produced water are methanotrophs that are retained from the produced water.
Saidi also relates to produced water from an oil and/or gas recovery systems (abstract), wherein the produced water contains methanotrophs.
Lysnes also relates to purified produced water containing microorganisms, wherein the microorganisms in the purified produced water are microorganisms that are retained from the produced water (section Cultivable microbial populations from produced water from Statfjord C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the purified produced water of the combination of Stefanakis 2 and Siagian may contain methanotrophs retained from the produced water because produced water contains methanotrophs (Saidi, abstract) and microorganisms in produced water are retained (Lysnes, pg. 1151, right column, last Pr) following treatment in a hydrocyclone (Lysnes, pg. 1145, left column, Pr2. Note that Stefanakis 2 also uses hydrocyclones to treat produced water from an oilfield, Stefanakis 2, pg. 28, Pr3).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stefanakis 2 (Integrated Produced Water Management in a Desert Oilfield Using Wetland Technology and Innovative Reuse Practices, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 06 July 2018) in view of Publication Oilfield Produced Water Reuse and Reinjection with Membrane (‘Siagian’, MATEC Web of Conferences 156, 08005 (2018)) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Publication The reuse of Wetland-treated oilfield produced water for saline irrigation (‘Stefanakis 3’, International Conference of the International Desalination Association (IDA) on Water Reuse and Recycling, Nice, France, September 25–27; 2016), Publication Methanotrophic bacteria in oilsands tailings ponds of northern Alberta (‘Saidi’, The ISME Journal (2013) 7, 908–921) and Publication Microbial response to reinjection of produced water in an oil reservoir (‘Lysnes’, Appl Microbiol Biotechnol (2009) 83:1143–1157).
The Applicant’s claim is directed towards a method.
Regarding Claim 21, the combination of Stefanakis 2 and Siagian teaches the method of Claim 16, except that teach that the purified produced water directed to the managed ecosystem has a salt concentration in the range of from 0.5-40 parts per thousand, and that the purified produced water contains methanotrophs, wherein the methanotrophs in the purified produced water are methanotrophs that are retained from the produced water.
Stefanakis 3 also relates to a managed ecosystem (Surface Flow Constructed Wetland (SCFW), pg. 4 of 18, last Pr), where the purified produced water directed to the managed ecosystem (water quality 1 (WQ1), pg. 6 of 18, Pr1 and Fig. 2 on pg. 5 of 18. Water of WQ1 is directed to SCFW cells after the WQ1 extraction point, Fig. 2 on pg. 5 of 18) has a salt concentration in the range of from 0.5-40 parts per thousand (salinity of 12.8 mS/cm, pg. 15 of 18, Pr1, or approximately 7.3 ppt when converted).
Saidi also relates to produced water from an oil and/or gas recovery systems (abstract), wherein the produced water contains methanotrophs.
Lysnes also relates to purified produced water containing microorganisms, wherein the microorganisms in the purified produced water are microorganisms that are retained from the produced water (section Cultivable microbial populations from produced water from Statfjord C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the salt concentration of Stefanakis 3 and the method of the combination of Stefanakis 2 and Siagian, as demonstrated by Stefanakis 3, because high salt content and petroleum hydrocarbons can affect soil salinity and plant productivity (Stefanakis 2, pg. 25, Pr2). It would have been obvious that the purified produced water of the combination of Stefanakis 2, Siagian and Stefanakis 3 may contain methanotrophs retained from the produced water because produced water contains methanotrophs (Saidi, abstract) and microorganisms in produced water are retained (Lysnes, pg. 1151, right column, last Pr) following treatment in a hydrocyclone (Lysnes, pg. 1145, left column, Pr2. Note that Stefanakis 2 also uses hydrocyclones to treat produced water from an oilfield, Stefanakis 2, pg. 28, Pr3).
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 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