DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 18 June 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-19 are pending. The previous rejections have been updated as necessitated bay amendments to the claims. The updated rejections follow.
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.
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tipman (US 5,876,592) in view of Beetge (US 2006/0196812) and Kift (US 2012/0152809).
Regarding claims 1 and 16-17, Tipman teaches combining bitumen containing mixture with a solvent blend (natural gas condensate) at a solvent to froth ratio of 1.2, the natural gas condensate containing 83% paraffinic components and 5% aromatics (column 11, lines 15-65). Tipman mixes the combination and separates the bitumen from the water and mineral solids by gravity settling (column 11, lines 15-65). Tipman teaches that in the process the water globules agglomerate and segregate from the hydrocarbon and thus separate the solids and water from the bitumen (column 3, lines 1-45). Tipman teaches that various aromatic and paraffinic contents are tested, as well as various solvent/froth ratios (column 4, lines 34-45).
Examiner considers the 5% aromatics in Tipman to be close enough to the claimed “about” 4.7% (or 4.5%) that the same or similar results would occur. Examiner additionally considers Tipman 83% to be close enough to claim 16 “about” 80% that the same or similar results would occur. Further in this regard, Tipman achieves less than 0.1% water in the recovered oil phase (column 11, lines 15-65). See MPEP 2144.05, I.
Alternatively, Examiner notes that Tipman teaches testing various aromatic and paraffinic contents (column 4, lines 34-45). Tipman teaches that the solvent bitumen ratio is adjusted in order to achieve the desired elimination or water and chloride from the bitumen froth (column 11, lines 1-15). In this regard, Tipman considers the amount of aromatic and paraffinic components to be result effective.
Tipman does not explicitly disclose the method claimed for measuring to determine the asphaltene contents within 3% of each other in order to determine solvent bitumen ratio.
However, Beetge teaches a similar bitumen froth separation process, using the same natural gas condensate solvent as identified in Tipman [0020]. Beetge teaches that elimination of precipitation asphaltene is desirable, as it would improve bitumen recovery [0018]. Beetge teaches adjusting of the solvent to bitumen ratio, below asphaltene precipitation range, results in exceptional product quality [00196-0020]. Tipman teaches that greater than 96% asphaltenes, and more preferably greater than 99% asphaltenes remain in the cleaned bitumen stream [0030], which Examiner considers to read on the claimed withing 3% of the measured asphaltene content of the feed.
Additionally, Kift teaches a process for solvent extraction of bitumen feeds, using optimization of aromatic/paraffin solvent ratio and solvent to bitumen ratio, in order to control the asphaltene precipitation [0056]. Kift teaches that natural gas condensate may be used as the solvent because it has the desired amount of aromatic/paraffinic components [0056-0057].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have used the Beetge/Kift solvent bitumen ratio control steps, in order to achieve the desired reduction of asphaltene precipitation, and thus improved bitumen recovery.
Regarding claim 2, Tipman teaches that solvent froth ratio is a result effective variable (column 4, lines 34-50). Similarly, Kift and Beetge teaches that solvent bitumen ratio is result effective. It is further noted that different solvent bitumen ratios may be required, depending on the solvent used or the source of the bitumen feedstock.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have appropriately selected the solvent/froth ratio, in order to achieve the desired separation of bitumen from water/solids.
Regarding claims 3-6, Tipman mixing in order to obtain complete dispersion (column 3, lines 47-55). Tipman teaches mixing at 2000 rpm for 10 mins (column 4 lines 16-21).
While Tipman mixing conditions vary slightly from those claimed, Examiner notes that it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have appropriately selected mixing conditions and times, in order to obtain the desired dispersion and subsequent separation. It is not seen where such a selection would result in any new or unexpected results.
Regarding claims 7-8, Tipman teaches temperatures lower than conventional, including 40-50°C (column 3, lines 44-47). Tipman also teaches that temperatures are result effective (column 4, lines 34-45).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected appropriate temperature and pressure conditions, such as those claimed, for the benefit of obtaining the desired separation.
Regarding claim 9, Tipman teaches gravity separation (column 3, lines 48-56).
Regarding claim 10, Tipman achieves 0.1% water in the oil phase at settling times of 15, 30, 45, and 60 mins (table 11).
Regarding claims 11-15, Tipman teaches that naphtha and natural gas condensates are suitable solvents (table 11) and that natural gas condensate consists of c4-20 hydrocarbons (column 11, lines 15- 25). Tipman additionally teaches heptane is a suitable feed (column 4, lines 15-21). Examiner notes that it would have been an obvious variation to combine the known solvents, since it is prima facie obvious to combine known equivalents (see MPEP 2144.06). Further, Kift teaches optimization of aromatic/paraffin ratio in order to control asphaltene precipitation [0056].
Regarding claim 18, Tipman teaches the product has less than 0.1% water (table 11). It is further expected that the same or similar results would be achieved, since Tipman teaches the same process steps applied to the same feeds as claimed. It is not seen where Applicant has distinguished the process steps in this regard.
Regarding claim 19, Tipman teaches the process is operational at ambient conditions, and also lower than conventional temperatures (see examples).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 18 June 2026 have been fully considered and have been addressed by updated rejections as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nikooyeh (US 2021/0047570) – teaches using solvent bitumen ratio below asphaltene onset using natural gas condensate diluent [0021], [0025], [0037]
Dunn (US 2010/0276983) – teaches selecting solvent bitumen ratio selected to ensure that the bulk onset precipitation of asphaltenes does not occur [0055-0059]
Kresnyak (US 2004/007500) – teaches selection of solvent bitumen ratio and ratio of aromatics so no onset precipitation occurs [0109]
Feimer (US 2011/0265558) – teaches adjusting amounts or aromatic and paraffinic solvent to a level just before asphaltene precipitation occurs [0077] in order to avoid undesirable fouling [0010]
Stevens (US 2010/0096297) – teaches using natural gas condensate in a solvent to bitumen ratio before asphaltene precipitation [0041-0045]
Adeyinka (US 2013/0001136) – teaches natural gas condesate solvent in a solvent bitumen ratio to avoid preicipitation [0092], [0119]
Wu (Effect of asphaltene content in bitumen) – previously relied upon, Wu teaches that IGC can be used to measure the asphaltene contents of various streams including at various solvent bitumen ratios (abstract, tables 2-7). Wu uses the percentage of asphaltenes and solvent for studying and optimizing the process (page 23).
Sury (US 2009/0200209) – previously relied upon, teaches selecting appropriate solvent mixtures for bitumen froth treatment, noting that paraffinic solvents are preferred, and aromatic content is limited to less than 1-20 wt% [0024]. Sury teaches a paraffinic solvent comprising 60 wt% pentane and 40 wt% isopentane (as the paraffinic component) with none or less than 20 wt% of the other components [0024]. In this regard, Sury teaches 80% paraffin (mixture of n pentane and isopentane) with 20% other components, which reads on the claimed range of 70-82% paraffinic components.
Soleymanzadeh (A review on methods of determining onset of asphaltene precipitation) – teaches various methods to determine asphaltene onset precipitation
Long (US 2004/0084623) – teaches ways to determine asphaltene on set precipitation [0002-0009]
Blackbourn (US 2011/0127197) – teaches C3-9 paraffinic solvents [0029] and solvent bitumen ratios of 1.5-3 [0028].
Nagy (US 3,607,721) – teaches bitumen froth treatment (abstract).
Mitchell (US 4,424,113) – teaches recovery of bitumen using solvents including naphtha and aromatics.
Sharma (US 2009/0321322) – teaches paraffinic froth treatment (abstract).
Duyvesteyn (US 2008/0210602) - teaches separating bitumen from tar sands (abstract).
Hristova (Bitumen froth treatment in the transition region between paraffinic and naphthenic process conditions, already of record in IDS) – teaches solvent bitumen ratios of 1.6 (introduction).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELLE STEIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1680. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 AM-5:00 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, Prem C Singh can be reached at 571-272-6381. 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.
/MICHELLE STEIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights