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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/18/2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-17 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
Claims 15-17 have been added.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 9-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MACKENZIE (CA-2999717-A1) in view of KARTINEN (US 4010891) and VAN LEEUWEN et al. (USPGPUB 2017/0191748 A1) and SOLIMAN (USPGPUB 2018/0066194) and ALI (USPGPUB 2016/0010907).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, MACKENZIE teaches methods for removing water and/or dissolved solid contaminants from a liquid hydrocarbon such as condensate.
MACKENZIE teach in paragraph 11 that the amount of water present in the overall oil stream is from 1-5%.
An embodiment is taught in paragraphs 26-29 and 35 and Fig. 3 of MACKENZIE.
Feed stream 12 comprising raw hydrocarbons (raw condensate feed) enter feed separator 14 (stabilizer feed drum and feed inlet) for processing.
Contaminants such as salts exits with water (water phase) through exit 16 (water outlet).
Overhead vapors exit through 18 (vapor outlet).
Secondary feed stream 24 (oil phase) exits (condensate outlet) and is feed into a fractionating tower 28 (stabilizer column and an inlet for the stabilizer column).
Overhead vapors exit fractionating tower 28 at 30 (vapour overheads outlet for the stabilizer column).
Hydrocarbon material exiting fractionating tower 28 at fractionating tower bottom 32 (stabilized condensate bottoms outlet for the stabilizer column) is circulated into a reboiler 34.
MACKENZIE teaches in paragraph 37 and Fig 4 that column trays may be used in the fractionating column 28.
KARTINEN is relied on teach an apparatus with a drum comprising parallel plates into the feed separator 14 of MACKENZIE.
KARTINEN teach an apparatus for oil/water separator.
KARTINEN teaches in lines 44-64 of column 3 that the use of a weir and plural baffle plates 27 and 29 that are parallel in a drum aid in the separation.
KARTINEN teaches in lines 64-68 of column 3 and lines 63-68 of column 4 and lines 1-33 of column 5 that there is a support plate 37. The support plate 37 comprises small apertures 57 drilled in a circular pattern about the axis of the separator 11 which present a substantial impediment to liquids but relative small impedience to vapor flow. (turbulence isolation plate separate from the liquid-liquid separation parallel plate pack internals)
ALI teaches in paragraph 25 a turbulence isolation plate. The turbulence isolation plate is taught to have a number of perforations. The turbulence isolation plate is further taught to slow the flow of to reduce the turbulence.
The support plate 37 in KARTINEN comprises small apertures 57 drilled in a circular pattern about the axis of the separator 11 which present a substantial impediment to liquids but relative small impedience to vapor flow.
This support plate would be expected to operate in the same way as a turbulence isolation plate. The flow of liquids is substantially impeded prior to entering the main separator cavity 43 and would be considered quiesced.
ALI also teaches in paragraphs 8 and 26 that weir plates for known for use in the separation of liquids from liquids based on density such as oil from a lighter fluid.
It would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art to add a separate weir plate that may be similar design but not necessarily parallel to baffle plates 27 and 29 to the apparatus that KARTINEN for the purpose of further assisting water to oil separation given that weirs are known in the art for separation of liquids from liquids.
One of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the weir plate would be in between or intermediate the water outlet and the condensate outlet with liquids on different sides of the weir plate.
VAN LEEUWEN et al. is relied on to teach the pressure that may be employed for the overhead vapors of the fractionating tower 28 of MACKENZIE the temperature that may be employed for the hydrocarbon material exiting fractionating tower bottom 32 of MACKENZIE.
VAN LEEUWEN et al. teach a hydrocarbon condensate stabilizer that comprises a stabilizer column.
VAN LEEUWEN et al. teach in paragraph 5 that vapors discharged from the top of end of the stabilizer column is at an auxiliary pressure that is higher than the pressure of the feed to the stabilizer column.
The pressure of the feed to the stabilizer column is taught in paragraph 90 to be between 2 to 25 bara.
VAN LEEUWEN et al. teach an example in paragraph 69 and Table 3 where the pressure of the vapor discharged is at 12 bara and the temperature of liquid phase exiting the bottom of the stabilizer column is at 150°C.
VAN LEEUWEN et al. teach in paragraph 43 that the process that VAN LEEUWEN et al. can be used to treat mixed phase pressurized unstabilized hydrocarbon stream.
The conditions that VAN LEEUWEN et al. teach may be applied to the fractionating tower in MACKENZIE to remove any remaining water that was not removed in feed separator 14 of MACKENZIE.
Regarding claims 1 and 9, SOLIMAN is relied on to teach modifying the properties of the liquid products of MACKENZIE to specific true vapor pressures and salt concentration.
SOLIMAN teaches in paragraph 2 the general state of the art for gas oil separation plant or GOSP is a continuous separation process for crude il. SOLIMAN teaches the specifications for transport of crude oil are a true vapor pressure of at most of about 13.5 psia and a salt concentration of at most of about 10 pounds/1000 barrels.
MACKENZIE teach in paragraph 8 the production of saleable processed hydrocarbon material.
It would be obvious that the saleable processed hydrocarbon material meets the specifications for transport so that it may be sold in other locations.
Regarding claim 2 VAN LEEUWEN et al. teach in Table 3 the feed comprises C4-C12 hydrocarbons and gaseous hydrocarbons and teach in paragraph 53 that the hydrocarbon stream comprises water and CO2.
The process employed separates out water and water-soluble contaminants and a vapor phase
Regarding claim 3, the conditions that VAN LEEUWEN et al. teach may be applied to the fractionating tower in MACKENZIE to remove any remaining water that was not removed in feed separator 14 of MACKENZIE. MACKENZIE also teach that water washing removes salts.
Regarding claims 4-5, and 11-12, the secondary feed stream 24 in MACKENZIE would be expected to have a minuscule amount of water given that MACKENZIE teach in paragraph 11 that water is used to absorb contaminants and the water is removed.
MACKENZIE also teach in paragraph 37 a fresh water injection system to inject water to wash contaminants that have built up.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the amount of water present in the secondary feed stream 24 to be from 1 to 400 ppmv or less than 70 ppmv or from 16 to 66 ppmv.
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[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).
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 14, VAN LEEUWEN et al. teach an example in paragraph 69 and Table 3 where the pressure of the vapor discharged is at 12 bara and the temperature of liquid phase exiting the bottom of the stabilizer column is at 150°C.
Regarding claim 7, VAN LEEUWEN et al. is relied on teach modifying the apparatus and process that MACKENZIE teach to exchange heat between the secondary feed stream 24 of MACKENZIE and the hydrocarbon stream exiting 32 of MACKENZIE
VAN LEEUWEN et al. teach in paragraph 80 a feed-effluent heat exchanger wherein heated liquid effluent, from stabilizer column, indirectly exchange heat with an incoming pressurized unstabilized hydrocarbon condensate stream, from stabilizer column.
Heat exchanging conserves the heat and provides a more efficient process.
Regarding claim 15, the baffle plates 27 and 29 taught in KARTINEN to be used in assist in separating water from oil. The baffle plates 27 and 29 would be considered to be coalescing the free and emulsified water by directing the flow of water by pushing it toward the outer perimeter of the rotating drum 13.
Regarding claims 16, and 17, ALI is directed toward the separation of oil from another liquid and teach in paragraph 8 that weir plates for the separation of liquids is known in the art.
It would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art to add a separate weir plate that may be similar design but not necessarily parallel to baffle plates 27 and 29 to the apparatus that KARTINEN for the purpose of further assisting water to oil separation given that weirs are known in the art for separation of liquids from liquids.
One of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the weir plate would be in between or intermediate the water outlet and the condensate outlet with liquids on different sides of the weir plate.
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MACKENZIE (CA-2999717-A1) in view of KARTINEN (US 4010891) and VAN LEEUWEN et al. (USPGPUB 2017/0191748 A1) and ALI (USPGPUB 20160010907) as applied to claims 1-7 and 9-17 above, and further in view of JACKOWSKI (US-2014/0008034-A1).
The above discussion of MACKENZIE in view of KARTINEN and VAN LEEUWEN et al. is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding claim 8, MACKENZIE teaches reboilers.
MACKENZIE teach in paragraph 29 a typical temperature range of 120-140°C in reboilers. It is noted that this does not appear to be a limiting range given that MACKENZIE also teach in paragraph 36 and Table 2 reboiler temperature of 157°C which is outside the typical range. MACKENZIE teach in paragraph 12 that the temperature in the reboiler and pressure in the tower are maintained to prevent boiling of the secondary feed stream.
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[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).
JACKOWSKI is relied on to teach that thermosiphon reboilers are known in the art.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use thermosiphon reboilers as the reboilers in MACKENZIE.
JACKOWSKI teaches in paragraph 2 that thermosiphon reboilers are commonly used as heat exchangers and receives a liquid stream from a column bottom.
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments filed 08/18/2025 have necessitated a new grounds of rejection.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the impeller support plate 37 is not persuasive given the teachings of ALI.
ALI (USPGPUB 20160010907) is directed toward liquid to liquid separation with one of the liquids being oil.
ALI teaches how a turbulence isolation plate operates to quiesce a feed with perforations that limit the flow and thus clam the flow. KARTINEN teaches a plate that comprises holes that limit the flow of liquids. KARTINEN also teaches that pressure is balanced such that cavitation does not occur.
ALI also teaches the use of a weir plate in separation liquids based on density on opposite sides of the weir plate.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a separate weir plate in between the outlets of 2 different liquids given the weir plate that ALI teaches is taught to separate the 2 different liquids based on density.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MING CHEUNG PO whose telephone number is (571)270-5552. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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 SINGH can be reached at 5712726381. 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.
/MING CHEUNG PO/ Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/ELLEN M MCAVOY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771