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 action is responsive to applicant’s amendment filed 4/28/2026.
Claims 1, 4-9, 11-13, 15, 16, 19-24, 26-28 and 30 are pending. Claims 7-9 are withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to a non-elected group.
The previous rejection of claims 1, 11-13, 15-16, 19-24, 26-29 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mittiga et al. (US2019/0380337) in view of Young et al (US 20160326443) is maintained in view of applicant’s amendment.
The previous rejection of claims 4-6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mittiga et al. (US2019/0380337) in view of Young et al (US 20160326443) and Cox, Jr. (US 9, 701,556) is maintained in view of applicant’s amendment.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 11-13, 15-16, 19-24, 26-28, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mittiga et al. (US2019/0380337) in view of Young et al (US 20160326443).
Regarding claims 1, 11-13, 19, 20, 21, and 27, Mittiga discloses a method of reducing microbial contamination in an aqueous fluid, wherein the aqueous fluid can be produced water (para 0006), the method comprising: contacting a produced water stream with a composition comprising a (i) a chelator (stabilizers, para 0029) including gluconic acid (aldonic acid, para 0029), wherein the concentration of the stabilizer can range from about 0.1% by weight to about 5% by weight (para 0030); (ii) an oxidizing agent (source of active oxygen including hydrogen peroxide, sodium peroxocarbonate, sodium peroxodicarbonate, potassium percarbonate, potassium peroxocarbonate, or potassium peroxodicarbonate (para 0017), wherein the concentration of the source of active oxygen can range from about 8% by weight to about 25% by weight (para 0018); and (iii) a surfactant (para 0021) under conditions suitable for the formation of a purified produced water. Mittiga also discloses the composition can include an organic acid, which can be diluted into water (para 0031 and 0049). Also See para 0004, 0021-0028, 0049 and 0051. Young teaches using alcohols such as glycols, glycol ethers, methanol, ethanol as a solvent for a produced water clarification composition (para 0055) in an amount from 0 to 70 weight percent (para 0016). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Mittiga with the teaching of Young, for the purpose of including a solvent such as ethanol for the composition used in the method, and thereby providing effective solubility for the composition as well as efficient cleaning properties, rinsing characteristics, wetting ability, and biodegradability (para 0023).
Mittiga discloses the aqueous fluid can be a brine, an oilfield fluid (para 0006) but does not disclose the produced water comprising hydrocarbons present in an emulsion. Mittiga also does not disclose the method comprising separating/removing hydrocarbons contained in the produced water and the separating/removing hydrocarbons from the produced water comprises breaking an emulsion to allow the hydrocarbons to separate from the produced water.
Young discloses oil and gas filed operations includes, but not is limited to, activities and processes for exploration, production, refining and chemical processing of hydrocarbons including, but not limited to, crude oil, gas and their derivatives. Production operations include, but are not limited to, pumping large quantities of water into the ground, which commensurately generates large quantities of “formation water,” an oil in water dispersion or emulsion. Breaking of such emulsions with additives to remove and recover oil from the produced water is a common and beneficial practice (para 0036), wherein breaking oil-water emulsions means separation of the oil and water phases and compounds which are applied to break emulsions and separate the oil phase from the water, thereby, making the water clearer (para 0004) and such compounds are added to the crude emulsion stream (para 0005, 0082). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filling date of the invention to use the modified composition of Mittiga in view of Young in oil and gas filed operations, which include, pumping large quantities of water into separating/removing hydrocarbons contained in the produced water, to separate and remove hydrocarbons from the produced water to allow the hydrocarbons to separate from the produced water. Persons of ordinary skill in the art will readily recognize that using the modified composition of Mittiga in view of Young in oil and gas filed operations would break of emulsions to remove and recover oil (hydrocarbons) from the produced water because the modified composition of Mittiga in view of Young and the composition used in the claimed method are similar in composition, and therefore would perform the same or a substantially similar function.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Mittiga discloses the surfactant can be a non-ionic surfactant, an anionic surfactant or a cationic surfactant. In some embodiments, the surfactant can be a linear alcohol or derivative of a linear alcohol. The linear alcohol can be a C6-C12 linear alcohol. In some embodiments, the surfactant can be an alcohol ethoxylate, an alkoxylated linear alcohol, ethoxylated castor oil, an alkoxylated fatty acid, an alkoxylated coconut oil, an alcohol sulfate, a phosphated mono glyceride, a phosphated diglyceride, or a combination thereof, the surfactant can be a linear alcohol or a derivative of a linear alcohol, wherein the derivative of a linear alcohol can be an ester and the concentration of the surfactant can range from about 0.5% by weight to about 20% by weight (para 0004, 0021-0028).
Regarding claim 22, Mittiga does not disclose the purified produced water has a dissolved organic carbon content that is reduced by from about 1 mg/l to about 10,000 mg/l when compared to a dissolved organic carbon content of the produced water. However, composition disclosed by Mittiga is considered to be similar to that of the claimed composition and therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would expect such a composition to be capable of reducing a dissolved organic carbon content from about 1 mg/ to about 10,000 mg/ when compared to a dissolved organic carbon content of the produced water.
Regarding claim 23, Mittiga does not disclose the purified produced water has a multivalent ion content that is reduced by from about 1 mg/l to about 10,000 mg/l when compared to a multivalent ion content of the produced water. However, composition disclosed by Mittiga is considered to be similar to that of the claimed composition and therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would expect such a composition to be capable of reducing a multivalent ion content from about 1 mg/l to about 10,000 mg/l when compared to a multivalent ion content of the produced water.
Regarding claim 24, Mittiga does not disclose the purified produced water has an oil content that is reduced by from about 1 mg/l to about 10,000 mg/l when compared to an oil content of the produced water. However, composition disclosed by Mittiga is considered to be similar to that of the claimed composition and therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would expect such expect such a composition to be capable of reducing an oil content from about 1 mg/l to about 10,000 mg/l when compared to an oil content of the produced water.
Regarding claim 26, Mittiga and Young do not specific disclose the solvent is included in an amount sufficient to provide a composition having suitable rheological properties. However, since the composition disclosed by Mittiga and Young is to be used for the same purpose, i.e. treatment of contaminated water, there is a reasonable basis for one skilled in the art to reasonably expect that the composition of Mittiga and Young would have suitable rheological properties to carry out said treatment.
Regarding claim 28, Mittiga discloses the surfactant is present in the composition in an amount of from about 0.5 to 20% by weight (para 0028).
Regarding claim 30, Mittiga do not specifically disclose the source of active oxygen can range from about 30% by weight to about 50% by weight (para 0018). Mittiga discloses the concentration of the source of active oxygen can vary (para 0018), wherein the organic acid and the source of active oxygen react to form an equilibrium peroxycarboxylic acid solution in a micellar system (para 0004), which is stable for an extended period of time, even at elevated temperatures and in the presence of a high concentration of salts (para 0012). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filling date of the invention to find an optimum amount of the source of active oxygen thereby generating an equilibrium percarboxylic acid solution in a micellar system. The micellar system mitigates decomposition of the percarboxylic acid, thereby providing stable percarboxylic acid in the micellar system for an extended period of time, even at elevated temperatures and in the presence of a high concentration of salts (para 0012). A patent will not be granted based upon the optimization of result effective variables when the optimization is obtained through routine experimentation unless there is a showing of unexpected results which properly rebuts the prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mittiga et al. (US2019/0380337) in view of Young et al (US 20160326443) as applied above, further in view of Cox, Jr. (US 9, 701,556).
Regarding claims 4-6, Mittiga in view of Young discloses a method of reducing microbial contamination in an aqueous fluid described above and is incorporated herein by reference. Mittiga disclose the composition comprises gluconic acid (aldonic acid), which meet the claimed biochelant. Cox discloses that it is known in the art to utilize a chelant such as gluconic acid (aldonic acid) and/or sodium gluconate, which is the sodium salt of gluconic acid (col 5, In 14-24), and hydrogen peroxide, for reducing contaminants in wastewater (example 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filling date of the invention to modify Mittiga reference with the teaching of Cox, for the purpose of including sodium gluconate in the composition, and thereby reducing desired contaminants in the produced water (abstract, col 1, In 25-32, col 3, In 29- 45, col 4, In 3-11).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 4/28/2026 have been considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserted that the combination of Mittiga and Young cannot render obvious. Specifically, the combination of Mittiga and Young does not include that contacting the claimed composition with produced water causes the emulsion to at least partially break.
The examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s arguments. Applicant's argument does not address the reasons presented by the Examiner for combining the teachings of the prior art. That is, the examiner did not suggest that Mittiga’s method inherently includes separating hydrocarbons from produced water by breaking an emulsion contained in the produced water to allow the hydrocarbons to separate from produced water. The present claims were rejected on a combination of Mittiga and Young.
Both Mittiga and Young teachings involve oil and gas filed operations includes, but not is limited to, activities and processes for exploration, production, refining and chemical processing of hydrocarbons including, but not limited to, crude oil, gas and their derivatives. Young discloses breaking emulsions with additives to remove and recover oil from the produced water is a common and beneficial practice (para 0036). Young also discloses that compounds which are applied to the oilfield fluid to break emulsions and separate the oil phase from the water, thereby, making the water clearer (para 0004) and such compounds are added to the crude emulsion stream (para 0005, 0082). Persons of ordinary skill in the art will readily recognize the operations performed in the gas and oil industry, including breaking of such emulsions to remove and recover oil (hydrocarbons) from the produced water, is reasonably applicable in the method of Mittiga and is obvious in view of Mittiga and Young’s methods. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that using the composition of Mittiga in view of Young in oil and gas filed operations would break of emulsions to remove and recover oil (hydrocarbons) from the produced water because the modified composition of Mittiga in view of Young and the composition used in the claimed method are similar in composition, and therefore would perform the same or a substantially similar function. There is a reasonable basis for one skilled in the art to expect that operations performed in the gas and oil industry including breaking of such emulsions to remove and recover oil (hydrocarbons) from the produced water would success in view of Mittiga and Young’s methods. "For obviousness under § 103, all that is required is a reasonable expectation of success." In re O'Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 904 (Fed. Cir. 1988) . “Obviousness does not require absolute predictability of success.” Id. at 903, 7 USPQ2d at 1681.
Claims 1, 4-6, 11-13, 15, 16, 19-24, and 26-28 and 30 remain unpatentable for the reasons of record.
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 HAIDUNG D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5455. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 10a-3p.
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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached on 571-272-2817. 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.
/HAIDUNG D NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
7/7/2026
Prosecution Insights