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 .
Status of Application, Amendments, And/Or Claims
The Applicants amendments/remarks received 11/12/2025 are acknowledged. Claims 3 and 8 are amended; no claims are canceled; no claims are withdrawn’ claims 13-16 are new; claims 1-16 are pending and have been examined on the merits.
Claim Objections
The objection to claim 8, as set forth at p. 2 of the previous Office Action, is withdrawn in view of the amendment of the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as set forth at pp. 2-3 of the previous Office Action, is withdrawn in view of the amendment of the claim.
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 13 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.
The term “adjacent” in claim 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “adjacent” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. “Adjacent” clearly does not mean abutting because the edge of the treatment pond does not contact the gas fractionation plant building in Fig. 1. Neither the claim nor disclosure give the metes and bounds of how far the distance between the treatment pond and the gas fractionation plant can be and still be considered adjacent; hence, the limitation is clearly indefinite.
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 and 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laur et al., US 9315403 (US Patent Document cite 1, IDS, 4/25/2024; herein “Laur”).
Laur teaches methods for sequestering carbon dioxide and growing algae (Abst.; col. 2, l. 22 - col. 16, l. 66; Figs. 1-6) comprising producing fluids from a subsurface formation ((col. 2, ll. 22-35; col. 7, ll. 63-67; col. 8, ll. 12-25; Fig. 1), separating the fluids into hydrocarbons and produced water with a hydrocarbon-water separator (Fig. 1; col. 2, ll. 41-44; col. 8, ll. 26-35); transferring the produced water to a treatment pond (col. 9, ll. 52-63); transferring hydrocarbons to a gas fractionation plant and separating hydrocarbons resulting in a carbon dioxide side stream (col. 15, l. 43 - col. 16, l. 22); and discharging the carbon dioxide side stream into the treatment pond via a carbon dioxide transfer system includes a discharge positioned below a nominal water level of the produced water pond (col. 16, ll. 19-33; col. 16, ll. 42-43; col. 16, ll. 55-57; col. 16, ll. 62-66; col. 8, ll. 49-67; bubbling the CO2 through the produced water and sparging the algae pond with the CO2 would require that the CO2 is transferred into the algae pond by discharging through a discharge positioned below a nominal water level of the produced water pond).
Laur differs from independent claim 1 in that Laur does not specifically state that the hydrocarbon transferred to a gas fractionation plant, separated into hydrocarbons resulting in a carbon dioxide side stream and discharged into the treatment pond is the same hydrocarbon separated from the fluid from a subsurface formation by a hydrocarbon-water separator. However, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious for the hydrocarbon transferred to a gas fractionation plant, separated into hydrocarbons resulting in a carbon dioxide side stream and discharged into the treatment pond is the same hydrocarbon separated from the fluid from a subsurface formation by a hydrocarbon-water separator because Laur teaches that the hydrocarbon to be transferred to a gas fractionation plant, separated into hydrocarbons resulting in a carbon dioxide side stream and discharged into the treatment pond can be hydrocarbon from the oil field (col. 16, ll. 12-18) and should be situated in close proximity to the algae pond (col. 16, ll. 19-28); hence, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to practice the method made obvious by Laur wherein the hydrocarbon separated from the fluid from a subsurface formation by a hydrocarbon-water separator is the hydrocarbon transferred to a gas fractionation plant, separated into hydrocarbons resulting in a carbon dioxide side stream and discharged into the treatment pond because the hydrocarbon separated from the fluid from a subsurface formation is hydrocarbon from the oil field and is hydrocarbon which is in close proximity to the algae pond; therefore, claim 1 is prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 3. Laur teaches that the CO2 is purified, isolated CO2 produced from a gas fractionation plant and/or gas cleaning facility wherein the CO2 can be specifically absorbed with an amine capture process, deabsorbed and stripped of contaminating H2S giving a purified, isolated CO2 stream (Fig. 5; col. 15, l. 55 - col. 16, l. 22); hence, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious that the CO2 stream is pure CO2, i.e., 100% CO2, which is at least 99% CO2; therefore, claim 3 is prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 4, Laur teaches that the treatment pond can be a natural surface pond (col. 9, ll. 52-58); hence, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious that the treatment pond can be an unstirred treatment pond because a natural surface pond would not be expected to have stirring equipment; therefore, claim 4 is prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 5, Laur teaches that the treatment pond can be a raceway pond (col. 9, ll. 52-63); hence, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious that the treatment pond can be a raceway pond; therefore, claim 5 is prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 6, Laur teaches harvesting algae from the treatment pond (col. 16, ll. 30-33); hence, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious for the method to further comprise harvesting algae from the treatment pond; therefore, claim 6 is prima facie obvious.
Claims 1-6 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laur in view of Kertz, US 2008/0274494 (cite A, PTO-892, 7/11/2025; herein “Kertz”).
The discussion of Laur regarding claims 1 and 3-6 set forth in the rejection above is incorporated herein.
Laur does not specifically teach that the CO2 is compressed before discharge into the treatment pond, however, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious for the method to comprise compressing the CO2 before discharge into the treatment pond in view of the disclosure of Kertz.
Kertz teaches growing algae for sequestering CO2 (Abst.) wherein the system comprises gas jets at the bottom of the algae culture, wherein the gas jets are supplied the CO2 via a gas compressor ([0036], Fig. 1).
Hence, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious for the method made obvious by Laur in view of Kertz to comprise compressing the carbon dioxide side stream before discharge to the treatment pond because Kertz teaches that the CO2 can be delivered to the algae culture by compressing the CO2; therefore, claim 2 is prima facie obvious.
The method made obvious by Laur in view of Kertz would require a system comprising a gas fractionation plant including a carbon dioxide outlet discharging carbon dioxide at ≥99% purity; a hydrocarbon-water separator; a produced water pond receiving water generated during production of hydrocarbons from a subsurface reservoir; a carbon dioxide transfer system including conduits extending from the carbon dioxide outlet to a compressor and from the compressor to the produced water pond; and a CO2 discharge positioned below a nominal water level of the produced water pond; therefore, claims 8-10 are prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 11, Laur teaches that the treatment pond can be a natural surface pond (col. 9, ll. 52-58); hence, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious that the treatment pond can be an unstirred treatment pond because a natural surface pond would not be expected to have stirring equipment; therefore, claim 11 is prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 12, Laur teaches that the treatment pond can be a raceway pond (col. 9, ll. 52-63); hence, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious that the treatment pond can be a raceway pond; therefore, claim 12 is prima facie obvious.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laur in view of Kertz and Lolling et al., US 2021/0017044 (cite B, PTO-892, 7/11/2025; herein “Lolling”).
The discussion of Laur and Kertz regarding claims 1-6 and 8-12 set forth in the rejection above is incorporated herein.
Laur teaches scrubbing, i.e. removing contaminants, from the produced water before the produced water is added to the treatment pond, wherein the removed contaminants can be sulfides (Figs. 1 and 6; col. 5, ll. 48-49; col. 9, ll. 24-27), but Laur does not specifically teach sulfate removal. However, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious for the method made obvious by Laur in view of Kertz to further comprise sulfate removal in view of the disclosure of Lolling.
Lolling teaches methods and apparatus for treating waste water (Abst.) wherein the waste water can be produced water from a subsurface formation ([0001-2], [0433]). Lolling teaches that the process comprises removing oil present in the produced water and removal of dissolved salts and sulfates [0007].
Hence, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to practice the method made obvious by Laur in view of Kertz and Lolling wherein the method further comprises removing sulfate from the produced water because Lolling teaches that treating produced water comprises removing sulfate; therefore, claim 7 is prima facie obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Arguments of the Applicant’s Response on p. 4 regarding the claim objection and rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) are moot as the rejections have been withdrawn. Regarding the rejection of claims 1 and 3-6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Laur, the rejection of claims 1-6 and 8-12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Laur in view of Kertz, and the rejection of claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Laur in view of Kertz and Lolling, Applicant argues (Remarks, pp. 4-5) that Laur does not disclose a gas fractionation plant. This is incorrect. Claims are examined with the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of limitations. The BRI of a gas fractionation plant is any process which separates a gas from an input. Laur clearly discloses the separation of CO2 gas from an input comprising hydrocarbons as set forth in the rejection. Furthermore, the rejection is not an anticipation rejection. The rejections set forth above clearly detail why transferring hydrocarbons separated from subsurface fluids to a gas fractionation plant is prima facie obvious. Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive and the rejections have been maintained.
Claims 1-6 and 8-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laur in view of Noureldin et al., US 2019/0048754 (cite A, attached PTO-892; herein “Noureldin”) and Kertz.
Laur teaches methods for sequestering carbon dioxide and growing algae (Abst.; col. 2, l. 22 - col. 16, l. 66; Figs. 1-6) comprising producing fluids from a subsurface formation ((col. 2, ll. 22-35; col. 7, ll. 63-67; col. 8, ll. 12-25; Fig. 1), separating the fluids into hydrocarbons and produced water with a hydrocarbon-water separator (Fig. 1; col. 2, ll. 41-44; col. 8, ll. 26-35); transferring the produced water to a treatment pond (col. 9, ll. 52-63); transferring hydrocarbons to a gas fractionation plant and separating hydrocarbons resulting in a carbon dioxide side stream (col. 15, l. 43 - col. 16, l. 22; Fig. 1); and discharging the carbon dioxide side stream into the treatment pond via a carbon dioxide transfer system includes a discharge positioned below a nominal water level of the produced water pond (col. 16, ll. 19-33; col. 16, ll. 42-43; col. 16, ll. 55-57; col. 16, ll. 62-66; col. 8, ll. 49-67; bubbling the CO2 through the produced water and sparging the algae pond with the CO2 would require that the CO2 is transferred into the algae pond by discharging through a discharge positioned below a nominal water level of the produced water pond).
Laur discloses that the hydrocarbon stream from the hydrocarbon-water separator can undergo CO2 removal, i.e., BRI of gas fractionation, and further hydrocarbon processing (col. 15, l. 43 - col. 16, l. 22; Fig. 1) but does not disclose that the gas fractionation of the hydrocarbon stream comprises fractional distillation of hydrocarbons mainly containing one to eight carbon atoms per molecule in column distillers; however, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious for the hydrocarbon stream to undergo CO2 removal and fractional distillation of hydrocarbons mainly containing one to eight carbon atoms per molecule in column distillers in view of the disclosure of Noureldin.
Noureldin teaches a gas liquid fractionation plant (Title, Abst.) wherein CO2 is removed from the hydrocarbon stream and the hydrocarbon stream is fractionated into ethane, propane, butane and pentane (containing 2-5 carbon atoms per molecule) by fractional distillation in column distillers [0044-0047].
Laur teaches that the CO2 is purified, isolated CO2 produced from a gas fractionation plant and/or gas cleaning facility wherein the CO2 can be specifically absorbed with an amine capture process, deabsorbed and stripped of contaminating H2S giving a purified, isolated CO2 stream (Fig. 5; col. 15, l. 55 - col. 16, l. 22); hence, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious that the CO2 stream is pure CO2, i.e., 100% CO2, which is at least 99% CO2.
Laur does not specifically teach that the CO2 is compressed before discharge into the treatment pond, however, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious for the method to comprise compressing the CO2 before discharge into the treatment pond in view of the disclosure of Kertz.
Kertz teaches growing algae for sequestering CO2 (Abst.) wherein the system comprises gas jets at the bottom of the algae culture, wherein the gas jets are supplied the CO2 via a gas compressor ([0036], Fig. 1).
Hence, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious for the method made obvious by Laur in view of Kertz to comprise compressing the carbon dioxide side stream before discharge to the treatment pond because Kertz teaches that the CO2 can be delivered to the algae culture by compressing the CO2; therefore, claims 1-3 are prima facie obvious.
The method made obvious by Laur in view of Noureldin and Kertz would require a system comprising a gas fractionation plant adjacent to the water pond; wherein the gas fractionation plant includes a carbon dioxide outlet discharging carbon dioxide at ≥99% purity; a hydrocarbon-water separator; a produced water pond receiving water generated during production of hydrocarbons from a subsurface reservoir; a carbon dioxide transfer system including conduits extending from the carbon dioxide outlet of the gas fractionation plant to a compressor and from the compressor to the produced water pond and for produced water between the gas fractionation plant and the water pond; and a CO2 discharge positioned below a nominal water level of the produced water pond; wherein the gas fractionation plant separates the hydrocarbon stream into CO2 and hydrocarbons of 2-5 carbon atoms per molecule by fractional distillation in column distillers; therefore, claims 8-10 and 13-16 are prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 11, Laur teaches that the treatment pond can be a natural surface pond (col. 9, ll. 52-58); hence, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious that the treatment pond can be an unstirred treatment pond because a natural surface pond would not be expected to have stirring equipment; therefore, claim 11 is prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 12, Laur teaches that the treatment pond can be a raceway pond (col. 9, ll. 52-63); hence, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious that the treatment pond can be a raceway pond; therefore, claim 12 is prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 4, Laur teaches that the treatment pond can be a natural surface pond (col. 9, ll. 52-58); hence, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious that the treatment pond can be an unstirred treatment pond because a natural surface pond would not be expected to have stirring equipment; therefore, claim 4 is prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 5, Laur teaches that the treatment pond can be a raceway pond (col. 9, ll. 52-63); hence, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious that the treatment pond can be a raceway pond; therefore, claim 5 is prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 6, Laur teaches harvesting algae from the treatment pond (col. 16, ll. 30-33); hence, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious for the method to further comprise harvesting algae from the treatment pond; therefore, claim 6 is prima facie obvious.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
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 Trent R Clarke whose telephone number is (571)272-2904. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7 MST.
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, Melenie Gordon can be reached at 571-272-8037. 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.
/TRENT R CLARKE/ Examiner, Art Unit 1651
/DAVID W BERKE-SCHLESSEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1651