DETAILED ACTION For this Office action, Claims 1-20 are pending. 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 Objections Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim reads as “wherein the at least one conduit is configured to fluidly coupled to a water filter assembly…”, which appears to mean to read as “…configured to fluidly couple to a water filter assembly…”. Appropriate correction is required. 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: sulfur recovery unit in claim 1. The limitation uses a generic placeholder “unit” only coupled with functional language regarding sulfur extraction from a sour gas produced from a hydrocarbon fluid without any further structural modifier. 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. After consulting the specification, the examiner will interpret a sulfur recovery unit as having at least a sulfur pit or sulfur storage tank (Paragraph [0032] of the pre grant publication of the instant application, US Pat Pub. 2024/0368004). 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 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. Claims 1 -3, 5 - 10 , 13-1 7 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mueller et al. (herein referred to as “Mueller”, US Pat Pub. 2007/0199902) in view of Holman et al. (herein referred to as “Holman”, US Pat Pub. 2023/0085777) . Regarding instant Claim 1, Mueller discloses a sulfur recovery unit dewatering system ( Abstract; Figure 1; Paragraph [0028]; Paragraph [0035]; Paragraph [0036]; Paragraph [0043]; system dewaters/degasses sulfide from process fluid comprising water ) , comprising: a sulfur recovery unit configured to extract sulfur from a sour gas produced from a hydrocarbon fluid (Figure 1; Figure 3; Paragraph [0043]; Paragraph [0054]; see degassing and neutralizing module 211 including tank 212); at least one sulfur tank in a formation configured to store the extracted sulfur (Figure 3; Paragraph [0043]; sulfide treatment module 991 including tank 994); at least one pump positioned in the formation and in fluid communication with a liquid in the formation adjacent the at least one sulfur tank (Figure 4; Figure 5; Paragraph [0069]; Paragraph [0070]; Paragraph [0074]; pump 340 in fluid communication with at least liquid in tank 332, adjacent sulfur tank via pump 340 and process fluid tank 332, which is fluidly connected to sulfide treatment module 991); at least one conduit fluidly coupled to the at least one pump ( Figure 4; Figure 5; Paragraph [0069]; Paragraph [0070]; Paragraph [0074]; see pipe flowing to tank 442 from pump 340); and at least one liquid level sensor positioned to measure a level of the liquid in the formation adjacent the at least one sulfur tank and configured, when the measured level exceeds a threshold level, to signal the at least one pump to circulate at least a portion of the liquid from the formation into the at least one conduit ( Figure 4; Figure 5; Paragraph [0069]; Paragraph [0070]; Paragraph [0074]; see liquid level sensors 338 and 456 [especially 338 for level in tank 332] allow for control of pump 340 and fluid flow through associated conduit). However, Mueller is silent on the formation being a subterranean formation below a terranean surface, the at least one pump being a submersible pump and the conduit extending to the terranean surface. Holman discloses drilling fluid conditioning systems and methods in the same field of endeavor as the instant application, as it solves the mutual problem of collecting hydrogen sulfide from subterranean fluids (Abstract; Paragraph [0032]). Holman further discloses a subterranean formation underneath a terranean surface, at least one pump being a submersible pump and a conduit extending to the terranean surface in order to process and remove hydrogen sulfide from fluids produced underground (Figure 1; Paragraph [0024]; Paragraph [0025]; Paragraph [0032]; see surface or mud pump system 150 that flows fluid to and from the surface; conditioning system is downstream of 150 and thus under the surface). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the formation, pump and conduit of Mueller to be a subterranean formation underneath a terranean surface, a submersible pump and a conduit that extends from the subterranean formation to a terranean formation as taught by Holman because Holman discloses such structures process and remove hydrogen sulfide from fluids produced underground ( Holman, Figure 1; Paragraph [0024]; Paragraph [0025]; Paragraph [0032] ). Regarding instant Claim 2, Claim 1, upon which Claim 2 is dependent, has been rejected above. The combined references further disclose wherein the liquid comprises brine (Mueller, Paragraphs [0008]; [0028]; see brine). Regarding instant Claim 3, Claim 1, upon which Claim 3 is dependent, has been rejected above. The combined references further disclose comprising a liquid filtration unit fluidly coupled to the at least one conduit and configured to receive the circulated portion of the liquid from the subterranean formation (Mueller, Figure 5; Figure 6; Paragraph [0039]; Paragraph [0074]; filters in belt figure 553 and coalescing filter 460 are downstream of pump within conduit). Regarding instant Claim 5, Claim 1, upon which Claim 5 is dependent, has been rejected above. The combined references further disclose wherein the threshold level is a low tide level (Mueller, Figure 4; Figure 5; Paragraph [0069]; Paragraph [0070]; Paragraph [0074]; low tide level would be low level for sensor 338 for which fluid should be pumped into tank 332, exceeding this threshold would advise pump to flow downstream instead). Regarding instant Claim 6, Claim 1, upon which Claim 6 is dependent, has been rejected above. The combined references further disclose comprising a controller communicably coupled to the at least one submersible pump and the at least one liquid level sensor (Mueller, Figure 4; Paragraph [0067]; PLC 342), the controller configured to perform operations comprising: identifying the measured level at the at least one liquid level sensor (Mueller, Figure 4; Paragraph [0069]; Paragraph [0070]; PLC 342 controls flow into fluid storage tank 332, including reading levels measured by sensor 338); and activating the at least one submersible pump based on the measured level exceeding the threshold level (Mueller, Figure 4; Paragraph [0069]; Paragraph [0070]; operation of pump and flow to either fluid storage tank or oil removal and flocculation module 441 based on liquid level readings 338, if level too high in tank 332, fluid will not flow into said tank). Re garding instant Claim 7, Claim 1, upon which Claim 7 is dependent, has been rejected above. The combined references further disclose wherein the at least one submersible pump is positioned in a borehole formed from the terranean surface to the subterranean formation (Holman, Figure 1; Paragraph [0024]; see drillstring 21 and other parts of rig 20). Regarding instant Claim 8, Mueller discloses a method for dewatering a subterranean formation adjacent a sulfur recovery unit ( Abstract; Figure 1; Figure 3; Paragraph [0028]; Paragraph [0035]; Paragraph [0036]; Paragraph [0043]; Paragraph [0054]; Paragraph [0054]; see degassing and neutralizing module 211 including tank 212 that serve as sulfur recovery unit), comprising: providing at least one pump positioned in a formation adjacent at least one sulfur tank installed at least partially in the formation and configured to store sulfur extracted, in a sulfur recovery unit, from a sour gas produced from a hydrocarbon fluid ( Figure 1; Figure 3; Figure 4; Figure 5; Paragraph [0043]; Paragraph [0054]; Paragraph [0069]; Paragraph [0070]; Paragraph [0074]; see degassing and neutralizing module 211 including tank 212 for sulfur recovery unit/sour gas sulfur extraction; sulfide treatment module 991 including tank 994 for sulfur tank; pump 340 in fluid communication with at least liquid in tank 332, adjacent sulfur tank via pump 340 and process fluid tank 332, which is fluidly connected to sulfide treatment module 991 ); sensing, with at least one liquid level sensor, a level of a liquid in the formation adjacent the at least one sulfur tank ( Figure 4; Figure 5; Paragraph [0069]; Paragraph [0070]; Paragraph [0074]; see liquid level sensors 338 and 456 [especially 338 for level in tank 332] ); determining that the sensed level of the liquid exceeds a threshold level ( Figure 4; Figure 5; Paragraph [0069]; Paragraph [0070]; Paragraph [0074]; see liquid level sensors 338 and 456 would work with respective PLCs to determine liquid level compared to desired thresholds); and based on the determination, operating the at least one pump to circulate at least a portion of the liquid from the formation into at least one conduit fluidly coupled to the pump ( Figure 4; Figure 5; Paragraph [0069]; Paragraph [0070]; Paragraph [0074]; see pipe flowing to tank 442 from pump 340 ; see liquid level sensors 338 and 456 [especially 338 for level in tank 332] allow for control of pump 340 and fluid flow through associated conduit). However, Mueller is silent on the formation being a subterranean formation below a terranean surface, the at least one pump being a submersible pump and the conduit extending to the terranean surface. Holman discloses drilling fluid conditioning systems and methods in the same field of endeavor as the instant application, as it solves the mutual problem of collecting hydrogen sulfide from subterranean fluids (Abstract; Paragraph [0032]). Holman further discloses a subterranean formation underneath a terranean surface, at least one pump being a submersible pump and a conduit extending to the terranean surface in order to process and remove hydrogen sulfide from fluids produced underground (Figure 1; Paragraph [0024]; Paragraph [0025]; Paragraph [0032]; see surface or mud pump system 150 that flows fluid to and from the surface; conditioning system is downstream of 150 and thus under the surface). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the formation, pump and conduit of Mueller to be a subterranean formation underneath a terranean surface, a submersible pump and a conduit that extends from the subterranean formation to a terranean formation as taught by Holman because Holman discloses such structures process and remove hydrogen sulfide from fluids produced underground (Holman, Figure 1; Paragraph [0024]; Paragraph [0025]; Paragraph [0032]). Regarding instant Claim 9 , Claim 8 , upon which Claim 9 is dependent, has been rejected above. The combined references further disclose wherein the liquid comprises brine (Mueller, Paragraphs [0008]; [0028]; see brine). Regarding instant Claim 10, Claim 8, upon which Claim 10 is dependent, has been rejected above. The combined references further disclose circulating the portion of the liquid to a liquid filtration unit fluidly coupled to the at least one conduit ( Mueller, Figure 5; Figure 6; Paragraph [0039]; Paragraph [0074]; filters in belt figure 553 and coalescing filter 460 are downstream of pump within conduit ). Regarding instant Claim 12, Claim 10, upon which Claim 12 is dependent, has been rejected above. The combined references further disclose comprising cleaning the portion of the liquid in the liquid filtration unit ( Mueller, Figure 5; Figure 6; Paragraph [0039]; Paragraph [0074]; liquid is treated by solids/oil removal). Regarding instant Claim 13 , Claim 8 , upon which Claim 13 is dependent, has been rejected above. The combined references further disclose wherein the threshold level is a low tide level (Mueller, Figure 4; Figure 5; Paragraph [0069]; Paragraph [0070]; Paragraph [0074]; low tide level would be low level for sensor 338 for which fluid should be pumped into tank 332, exceeding this threshold would advise pump to flow downstream instead). Regarding instant Claim 14 , Claim 8 , upon which Claim 14 is dependent, has been rejected above. The combined references further disclose comprising : sensing, with at least one liquid level sensor, another level of the liquid in the subterranean formation adjacent the at least one sulfur tank ( Mueller, Figure 4; Paragraph [0069]; Paragraph [0070]; PLC 342 controls flow into fluid storage tank 332, including reading levels measured by sensor 338); determining that the another sensed level is less than the threshold level ( Mueller, Figure 4; Paragraph [0069]; Paragraph [0070]; PLC 342 would sense less than desired liquid level); and based on the determination, stopping operation of the at least one submersible pump (Mueller, Figure 4; Paragraph [0069]; Paragraph [0070]; operation of pump and flow to either fluid storage tank or oil removal and flocculation module 441 based on liquid level readings 338, if level too high in tank 332, fluid will not flow into said tank ; likewise, lower liquid level leads to flow of liquid into tank 332 ). Regarding instant Claim 15, Mueller discloses a dewatering system ( Abstract; Figure 1; Paragraph [0028]; Paragraph [0035]; Paragraph [0036]; Paragraph [0043]; system dewaters/degasses sulfide from process fluid comprising water ), comprising: a pump positionable adjacent a sulfur pit and in a formation that comprises water ( Figure 3; Figure 4; Figure 5; Paragraph [0028]; Paragraph [0043]; Paragraph [0069]; Paragraph [0070]; Paragraph [0074]; sulfide treatment module 991 including tank 994); pump 340 in fluid communication with at least liquid in tank 332, adjacent sulfur tank via pump 340 and process fluid tank 332, which is fluidly connected to sulfide treatment module 991 ; well may include water); at least one conduit fluidly coupled to the pump and configured to extend from the pump ( Figure 4; Figure 5; Paragraph [0069]; Paragraph [0070]; Paragraph [0074]; see pipe flowing to tank 442 from pump 340 ); a water level sensor positionable to measure a level of the water in the formation adjacent the sulfur pit ( Figure 4; Figure 5; Paragraph [0069]; Paragraph [0070]; Paragraph [0074]; see liquid level sensors 338 and 456 [especially 338 for level in tank 332] ); and a control system communicably coupled to the pump and the water level sensor (see Figure 4; PLC 342) and configured to perform operations comprising: identifying a water level sensed by the water level sensor ( Figure 4; Figure 5; Paragraph [0069]; Paragraph [0070]; Paragraph [0074]; see liquid level sensors 338 and 456 [especially 338 for level in tank 332]); determining that the sensed level of the liquid exceeds a threshold level (Figure 4; Figure 5; Paragraph [0069]; Paragraph [0070]; Paragraph [0074]; see liquid level sensors 338 and 456 would work with respective PLCs to determine liquid level compared to desired thresholds); and based on the determination, activating the pump to circulate at remove water from the formation into the at least one conduit (Figure 4; Figure 5; Paragraph [0069]; Paragraph [0070]; Paragraph [0074]; see pipe flowing to tank 442 from pump 340; see liquid level sensors 338 and 456 [especially 338 for level in tank 332] allow for control of pump 340 and fluid flow through associated conduit ). However, Mueller is silent on the formation being a subterranean formation below a terranean surface, the at least one pump being a submersible pump and the conduit extending to the terranean surface. Holman discloses drilling fluid conditioning systems and methods in the same field of endeavor as the instant application, as it solves the mutual problem of collecting hydrogen sulfide from subterranean fluids (Abstract; Paragraph [0032]). Holman further discloses a subterranean formation underneath a terranean surface, at least one pump being a submersible pump and a conduit extending to the terranean surface in order to process and remove hydrogen sulfide from fluids produced underground (Figure 1; Paragraph [0024]; Paragraph [0025]; Paragraph [0032]; see surface or mud pump system 150 that flows fluid to and from the surface; conditioning system is downstream of 150 and thus under the surface). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the formation, pump and conduit of Mueller to be a subterranean formation underneath a terranean surface, a submersible pump and a conduit that extends from the subterranean formation to a terranean formation as taught by Holman because Holman discloses such structures process and remove hydrogen sulfide from fluids produced underground (Holman, Figure 1; Paragraph [0024]; Paragraph [0025]; Paragraph [0032]). Regarding instant Claim 16, Claim 15, upon which Claim 16 is dependent, has been rejected above. The combined references further disclose wherein the liquid comprises brine (Mueller, Paragraphs [0008]; [0028]; see brine). Regarding instant Claim 17, Claim 15, upon which Claim 17 is dependent, has been rejected above. The combined references further disclose wherein the at least one conduit is configured to fluidly couple to a water filter assembly on the terranean surface (Holman, Figure 1; Mueller, Figure 5; Figure 6; Paragraph [0039]; Paragraph [0074]; filters in belt figure 553 and coalescing filter 460 are downstream of pump within conduit ; this would be above ground according to Holman). Regarding instant Claim 19, Claim 15, upon which Claim 16 is dependent, has been rejected above. The combined references further disclose wherein the threshold level is at a predetermined depth below the terranean surface ( Mueller, Figure 4; Figure 5; Paragraph [0069]; Paragraph [0070]; Paragraph [0074]; depth would be low level for sensor 338 for which fluid should be pumped into tank 332, exceeding this threshold would advise pump to flow downstream instead ). Regarding instant Claim 20 , Claim 15 , upon which Claim 20 is dependent, has been rejected above. The combined references further disclose wherein the control system is configured to perform operations comprising: periodically identifying the water level sensed by the water level sensor (Mueller, Figure 4; Paragraph [0069]; Paragraph [0070]; PLC 342 controls flow into fluid storage tank 332, including reading levels measured by sensor 338) , and when the water level does not exceed the threshold level, deactivating the subterranean pump (Mueller, Figure 4; Paragraph [0069]; Paragraph [0070]; PLC 342 would sense less than desired liquid level; operation of pump and flow to either fluid storage tank or oil removal and flocculation module 441 based on liquid level readings 338, if level too high in tank 332, fluid will not flow into said tank; likewise, lower liquid level leads to flow of liquid into tank 332). Claims 4 , 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mueller et al. (herein referred to as “Mueller”, US Pat Pub. 2007/0199902) in view of Holman et al. (herein referred to as “Holman”, US Pat Pub. 2023/0085777) as applied to claims 3 and 10 respectively above, and further in view of Baillie, US Pat Pub. 2009/0194272 . Regarding instant Claim 4, Claim 3, upon which Claim 4 is dependent, has been rejected above. The combined references however are silent on the liquid filtration unit comprising a reverse osmosis filtration unit. Baillie discloses an apparatus and method for treating injection fluid in the same field of endeavor as the instant application, as it solves the mutual problem of treating fluid to be placed in subterranean formations, including hydrogen sulfide treatment (Abstract; Paragraph [0006]). Baillie further discloses the use of reverse osmosis filtration units to reduce the ionic concentration of the produced fluid during treatment (Figure 1; Paragraph [0050]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the liquid filtration unit of Mueller to further comprise the reverse osmosis filtration unit as taught by Baillie because Baillie discloses such reverse osmosis filtration treatment will greatly reduce the ionic concentration of the liquid undergoing treatment (Baille, Paragraph [0008]; Paragraph [0050] ). Regarding instant Claim 11 , Claim 10 , upon which Claim 10 is dependent, has been rejected above. The combined references however are silent on the liquid filtration unit comprising a reverse osmosis filtration unit. Baillie discloses an apparatus and method for treating injection fluid in the same field of endeavor as the instant application, as it solves the mutual problem of treating fluid to be placed in subterranean formations, including hydrogen sulfide treatment (Abstract; Paragraph [0006]). Baillie further discloses the use of reverse osmosis filtration units to reduce the ionic concentration of the produced fluid during treatment (Figure 1; Paragraph [0050]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the liquid filtration unit of Mueller to further comprise the reverse osmosis filtration unit as taught by Baillie because Baillie discloses such reverse osmosis filtration treatment will greatly reduce the ionic concentration of the liquid undergoing treatment (Baille, Paragraph [0008]; Paragraph [0050]). Regarding instant Claim 1 8 , Claim 1 7 , upon which Claim 1 8 is dependent, has been rejected above. The combined references however are silent on the liquid filtration unit comprising a reverse osmosis filtration unit. Baillie discloses an apparatus and method for treating injection fluid in the same field of endeavor as the instant application, as it solves the mutual problem of treating fluid to be placed in subterranean formations, including hydrogen sulfide treatment (Abstract; Paragraph [0006]). Baillie further discloses the use of reverse osmosis filtration units to reduce the ionic concentration of the produced fluid during treatment (Figure 1; Paragraph [0050]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the liquid filtration unit of Mueller to further comprise the reverse osmosis filtration unit as taught by Baillie because Baillie discloses such reverse osmosis filtration treatment will greatly reduce the ionic concentration of the liquid undergoing treatment (Baille, Paragraph [0008]; Paragraph [0050]). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT RICHARD C GURTOWSKI whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-3189 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 9 :00 am- 5 :30p m MT . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Benjamin Lebron can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 27 0 - 0475 . 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. /RICHARD C GURTOWSKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773 12/12/2025