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 .
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.
Claim 20 is 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 20 recites “a clarifier with a layer of tubular packing” but claim 15 also recites “a clarifier with a layer of tubular packing.” As such, it is unclear if the two references are referring to the same or different elements.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dobby et al. (US 2013/0140218) in view of Lee et al. (US 2007/0114183).
Regarding claim 1, Dobby teaches a process for treating a feed fluid in a manner that results in a product fluid, the process comprising: providing the feed fluid to a first treatment step (2), the feed fluid being aqueous and comprising a hydrocarbonaceous/oil constituent present; prior to the first treatment step, injecting a gas solution (1 5) into the feed fluid, the gas solution having gas bubbles; treating the feed fluid with the injected gas solution via the first treatment step to produce a first treated stream (4); and providing the first treated stream to a second treatment step (downstream treatment means shown in Fig. 3) (Figs. 1-3, [0002]-[0004], and [0028]-[0035]).
Dobby teaches that the process is used to treat wastewater from various sources which include oil sands. Dobby fails to teach the specific oil/hydrocarbon concentration in the wastewater being treated in the range of 100-1000 ppm. Lee teaches a similar process where flotation means are used to separate oil/hydrocarbon from water and the process being applied to wastewater having oil/hydrocarbon concentrations in the range of 50-2000 ppm, which encompass the range claimed ([0119]). As such, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to apply the Dobby process to specific wastewater streams having the oil/hydrocarbon concentrations claimed as such concentrations are known in oil/hydrocarbon wastewaters, are known to be treated via flotation for separation, and one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
Dobby teaches that gas bubbles are provided to the feed fluid prior to a first treatment but fails to teach the specifics of the bubble sizing having a diameter of less than 100 microns. Lee teaches that bubbles with a diameter of 5-50 microns are beneficial as they more effectively separate water from oil ([0120]). As such, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to provide bubbles in the size range of 5-50 microns in order to more effectively separate water from oil in the flotation unit.
Regarding claims 2 and 4, it is noted that no further method steps are being claimed, only the results of providing the first and second treatments steps as noted in claim 1. Dobby in view of Lee teaches the same/similar streams being treated as claimed while also providing the same/similar method treatment steps. Absent any positively claimed additional method steps that would distinguish the process, it is assumed the same method cannot produce different results. Therefore, one skilled in the art would have found the same or similar results given the same method being used to treat the same wastewater, or it would have been obvious to optimize certain variables, such as residence time in the separation units/treatment steps, in order to achieve the desired effects that would overlap with the claimed results.
Regarding claim 5, Dobby is silent on the residence time for the various method steps. However, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to optimize known variables that would effect separation efficiency, such as residence times in separation units, as it is merely finding workable ranges when all other process conditions are known. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) (Claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions.). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 809, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1848 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989)(Claimed ratios were obvious as being reached by routine procedures and producing predictable results); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 1149, 14 USPQ2d 1056, 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(Claimed amount of wash solution was found to be unpatentable as a matter of routine optimization in the pertinent art, further supported by the prior art disclosure of the need to avoid undue amounts of wash solution); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 1997)(Claims were unpatentable because appellants failed to submit evidence of criticality to demonstrate that that the wear resistance of the protective layer in the claimed thickness range of 50-100 Angstroms was "unexpectedly good"); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007) (identifying "the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art.").
Regarding claim 8, see claims 1-2 above.
Regarding claim 9, see claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 10, see claim 5 above.
Claim(s) 3, 11-12, and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dobby et al. (US 2013/0140218) in view of Lee et al. (US 2007/0114183) as applied to claims above, and further in view of Wang (US 2003/0024866).
Regarding claim 3, Dobby fails to teach adding chemicals/additives prior to the second treatment step, wherein the additives are selected from an oxidizer, polymers, or an agglomerate. Wang teaches that it is beneficial to add chemicals, such as coagulants/flocculants/agglomerates, in order to enhance removal of insoluble, colloids (oil), and other material for the wastewater as part of any separation techniques that would include settling or flotation (DAF) ([0014] and [0034]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to provide an agglomerate as claimed in order to enhance removal of oils/colloids and other contaminants in the wastewater.
Regarding claim 11, see claim 3 above. It is noted that the specific point of adding the chemicals is not taught to be in the first treated stream as claimed. However, modifying the order of method steps would have been an obvious matter to ones skilled in the art (Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959) (Prior art reference disclosing a process of making a laminated sheet wherein a base sheet is first coated with a metallic film and thereafter impregnated with a thermosetting material was held to render prima facie obvious claims directed to a process of making a laminated sheet by reversing the order of the prior art process steps.). See also In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious.).
Regarding claim 12, Dobby teaches that a flow restrictor (7) is present in the clarifying vessel (2) of the second treatment step but fails to teach that the clarifying vessel is provided with tubular packing. Wang teaches that it is beneficial to include tubular packing in a clarifying vessel that also includes flotation means thereby allowing for improved separation ([0029]-[0031]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to provide tubular packing in order to allow for improved separation.
Regarding claim 15, see claims 1-2 and 12 above.
Regarding claim 16, see claims 4-5 above.
Regarding claim 17, see claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 18, see claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 19, it is submitted that the generic tube settlers in Wang would include a variety of tube settlers design and inclined tube settlers are also known in the art (see Bauerle et al. US 2013/0206690 claims 2 and 7). It is noted that the claims merely recite the tube settlers is configured at 30-60 degrees from a reference axis. No details about what the reference axis is provided and as such, it could be defined at any angle relative to the tube settler packing. Therefore, Dobby in view of Wang would meet the claim limitation absent a more specific limitation directed to what the reference axis is.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dobby et al. (US 2013/0140218) in view of Lee et al. (US 2007/0114183) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Poirier et al. (US 2012/0160706).
Regarding claim 6, Dobby teaches the first treatment step comprises a tank with a skimming dish as claimed (top portion of the tank shown in Figs. 1-3 for collecting the foam/froth overflow). While some sort of flow control means would have been provided, such as pumps or valves, valves being operated in batch mode are not explicitly taught. Poirier teaches that for clarifying vessels, a valve can be provided in the outlet streams in order to provide a batch mode treatment, which amounts to the closing of a valve until the desired treatment time/effect is provided, then opening the valve to decrease the level in the clarifying vessel ([0064]). As such, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to provide valves in the Dobby apparatus in order to allow for the desired treatment results in each clarifying vessel by closing the valves in the outlet and allowing more fluid to flow into the treatment vessel until the desired froth overflow is achieved.
Claim(s) 7 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dobby et al. (US 2013/0140218) in view of Lee et al. (US 2007/0114183), and further in view of Poirier et al. (US 2012/0160706) and Wang (US 2003/0024866).
Regarding claim 7, see claim 6 above for the skimming dish, clarifying vessel, and valve operation. Dobby teaches that a flow restrictor (7) is present in the clarifying vessel (2) but fails to teach that the clarifying vessel is provided with tubular packing. Wang teaches that it is beneficial to include tubular packing in a clarifying vessel that also includes flotation means thereby allowing for improved separation ([0029]-[0031]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to provide tubular packing in order to allow for improved separation.
Regarding claim 20, see claim 6 above for limitations directed to the skimming dish, valve and operation of the valve.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dobby et al. (US 2013/0140218) in view of Lee et al. (US 2007/0114183) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Felch et al. (US 2011/0163049).
Regarding claim 13, Dobby teaches that the wastewater can be treated by method steps in series (Fig. 3) but fails to teach using walnut shell media filtration in order to further remove oil to desired levels. Felch teaches that it is beneficial to use walnut shell filters in order to further remove oil from water ([0005] and [0053]). As such, it would have been obvious to provide walnut shell filters as claimed in order to further remove oil from water as such walnut shell filters are known and used in the art for the same purpose ("It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980) (citations omitted) (Claims to a process of preparing a spray-dried detergent by mixing together two conventional spray-dried detergents were held to be prima facie obvious.). See also In re Crockett, 279 F.2d 274, 126 USPQ 186 (CCPA 1960) (Claims directed to a method and material for treating cast iron using a mixture comprising calcium carbide and magnesium oxide were held unpatentable over prior art disclosures that the aforementioned components individually promote the formation of a nodular structure in cast iron.); Ex parte Quadranti, 25 USPQ2d 1071 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) (mixture of two known herbicides held prima facie obvious); and In re Couvaras, 70 F.4th 1374, 1378-79, 2023 USPQ2d 697 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (That the two claimed types of active agents, GABA-a agonists and ARBs, were known to be useful for the same purpose—alleviating hypertension—alone can serve as a motivation to combine).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dobby et al. (US 2013/0140218) in view of Lee et al. (US 2007/0114183) and Felch et al. (US 2011/0163049) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (US 2006/0231504).
Regarding claim 14, Dobby teaches flotation means to remove oil from water and Felch teaches the use of walnut shell filters that are backwashed/regenerated ([0005] and [0053]) in order to remove oil. Dobby fails to teach the inclusion of zeolite/modified zeolite to further treat the wastewater after the treatment steps. Chen teaches that it is known to combine various means to for remove oil and other contaminants from produced water, and such means include a combination of flotation, walnut filters, and zeolite in order to prepare the water being treated for use or reuse ([0009] and [0025]). As such, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to include zeolite/modified zeolite in order to further remove contaminants from the produced water thereby preparing the water being treated for use or reuse.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER KEYWORTH whose telephone number is (571)270-3479. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 MT (11-7 ET).
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, Vickie Kim can be reached at 571 272-0579. 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.
/PETER KEYWORTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777