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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, claims 1-12,19-25 w/o traverse in the reply filed on 18AUG2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
distribution system and creating a flow of emulsion in claim 1, which is interpreted as a distributor that flows emulsion to at least one demulsification system from a plurality of sources of crude oil. Par. [0025].
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 line(s) 2 sets forth the limitation “providing a crude oil emulsion to distribution system” should be corrected to - - providing a crude oil emulsion to a distribution system - -.
Claim Objections
Claims 1,19,21 are objected to because of the following informalities: Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation, 37 CFR 1.75(i). See MPEP 6083.01(m). Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-12,19-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 line(s) 4 sets forth the limitation “the length of a reaction chamber”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 line(s) 7 sets forth the limitation “the at least first and second electrodes”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 line(s) 7-8 sets forth the limitation “the dielectric breakdown voltage”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 line(s) 2 sets forth the limitation “the constituents are at least water and oil”. “at least” in this context does not make sense as there is no range (e.g. at least one). It is unclear what else is included in “at least”. Thus the claim scope cannot be ascertained.
Claim 7 line(s) 4 sets forth the limitation “the particular characteristics of the emulsion”. It is unclear what does and does not constitute “the particular characteristics of the emulsion” and thus the claim scope is unclear.
Claim 19 line(s) 5 sets forth the limitation “the dielectric breakdown voltage”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 line(s) 5 sets forth the limitation “the at least one plasma reactor”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 line(s) 5 sets forth the limitation “the length of a reaction chamber”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 line(s) 8-9 sets forth the limitation “the dielectric breakdown voltage”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 line(s) 12 sets forth the limitation “the particular characteristics of the supplied crude oil emulsion”. It is unclear what does and does not constitute “the particular characteristics of the supplied crude oil emulsion” and thus the claim scope is unclear.
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.
Claim(s) 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MAHMOUDI (US 20140360880) in view of WIEMER (US 3137344).
Regarding claims 19-20, MAHMOUDI teaches systems and methods for unipolar separation of emulsions and other mixtures (title, Figs.) including a method of producing plasma (e.g. corona discharge of a gas will provide a plasma; par. [0020]) enhanced treatment fluids for oil recovery (par. [0003]), comprising:
providing a plasma reactor (e.g. Fig. 13 #1300) with a first electrode (e.g. Fig. 13 #1318) and second electrode (e.g. Fig. 13 #1314) exposed in a reaction chamber (Fig. 13 #1320) defining an inter-electrode discharge gap therebetween (see “corona cone”; Fig. 13);
introducing an oil emulsion (Fig. 13) and a carrier gas (e.g. air; Fig. 13; par. [0020]) into the reaction chamber;
energizing the electrodes at or in excess of the dielectric breakdown voltage of the carrier gas (par. [0048]) to generate plasma in the reaction chamber to generate plasma enhanced treatment fluids (e.g. separated oil; Fig. 13); and,
removing the plasma enhanced treatment fluids from the reaction chamber (collecting; par. [0016]).
MAHMOUDI does not teach supplying the treatment fluids to a secondary oil recovery process. However, WIEMER teaches minimizing loss of driving fluids in secondary recovery (title, Figs.) where a plurality of wells (e.g. Fig. 1 #6) produce fluids (e.g. mixed oil-water of which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as an emulsion), which are passed to a separation and distribution system (Fig. 1 #33). From there, the treated and separated fluids (water, gas) are passed to other injection wells, from which fluids are further treated (C3/L4-29).
WIEMER teaches such secondary recovery techniques increasing the amount of oil recovered from a producing field (C1/L9-15).
Therefore, at the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the method of MAHMOUDI with the secondary oil recovery process of WIEMER in order to increasing the amount of oil recovered. The references are combinable, because they are in the same technological environment of oil separations. See MPEP 2141 III (A) and (G).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12,21-25 have allowable subject matter over the prior art of record. The prior art neither teaches, suggests, nor makes obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art a method for demulsification of an emulsion comprising the combination of the claimed steps.
FINDIKOGLU (US 20150291456) discloses an electric field induced separation of components in an emulsion (title, Figs.) including a method for demulsification of an emulsion (abstract), comprising:
providing a crude oil emulsion (abstract) and creating a flow of emulsion to a demulsification system (e.g. Fig. 4A,B) including at least one reactor with a plurality of spaced electrode pairs (Fig. 4B #14) exposed along the length of a reaction chamber (Fig. 4 A #12), each pair defining an inter-electrode discharge gap therebetween;
introducing a predetermined volume of emulsion flow along the length of the reaction chamber (Fig. 4);
energizing the electrodes at or in excess of the dielectric breakdown voltage (par. [0006]); and
removing any separated constituents from the reaction chamber (via e.g. Fig. 4A #24,26).
WAGNER (US 6113765) discloses methods for enhanced resolution of hydrocarbon continuous emulsions or dispersions with conductivity modifiers (title, Figs.) including a method for demulsification (separation) of an emulsion (abstract), comprising:
providing a crude oil (C4/L29-32) emulsion via a distributor (fig. 4 #28) to a demulsification system including a reactor (Fig. 4 #10) with spaced electrode pairs (Fig. 4 #30,32) exposed along the length of a reaction chamber, defining an inter-electrode discharge gap therebetween;
energizing the electrodes (C8/L25-28); and
removing any separated constituents from the reaction chamber (Fig. 5).
WINTERMUTE (US 2849395) discloses a method and apparatus for electrical separation of emulsions including a plurality of spaced electrode pairs.
CARSWELL (US 3074870) discloses a method and apparatus for electrically separating the phases of a water-in-oil emulsion including a plurality of pointed electrodes.
STAACK (US 20230121041) discloses a foaming system for efficient plasma processing of heavy hydrocarbon.
SUBLETTE (US 4581120) discloses method and apparatus for separating oilfield emulsions.
Telephonic Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIAM A ROYCE whose telephone number is (571)270-0352. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~09:00~11:00, 13:00-15:00.
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.
/Liam Royce/Examiner, Art Unit 1777
LIAM A. ROYCE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1777