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 .
Summary
This is the initial Office action based on application 18434690 filed 2/6/24.
Claims 1-24 are pending and have been fully considered.
Drawings
The Drawings filed on 2/6/24 are acknowledged and accepted by the examiner.
Specification
The Specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. MPEP § 608.01
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KNAPPER (CA3086968; 10/17/2021) in their entirety. Hereby referred to as KNAPPER.
Regarding claims 1-24:
KNAPPER teaches in the abstract a method for processing bitumen froth comprised of bitumen, water and solids to produce a final diluted bitumen product having a reduced water content is provided whereby demulsifier is added to the bitumen froth after a first separation stage and prior to a second separation stage to produce the final diluted bitumen product having reduced water content.
KNAPPER teaches in para [0001] a method for processing bitumen froth to produce a diluted bitumen product having reduced water content. In particular, the invention is related to treating a raw diluent-diluted bitumen with a demulsifier to reduce the water content in the diluted bitumen product without the risk of demulsifier overdosing.
KNAPPER teaches in para [0004] Naphtha-based froth treatment processes generally use gravity and centrifugal separation technology. Naphtha is a solvent that is used to change the hydrocarbon viscosity and density properties such that it is more amenable to mechanical separation. Naphtha-based froth treatment processes can supply a high-quality diluted bitumen product to the bitumen processing plants while minimizing hydrocarbon losses in the tailings. In naphtha-based froth treatment, naphtha is added to the bitumen froth (which is typically stored in froth tanks), and then the diluted bitumen froth ("dilfroth") is subjected to gravity separation (gravity-based method) or centrifugal separation (centrifuge-based method) to separate the bitumen from the water and solids.
KNAPPER teaches in para [0006] for low salinity oil sand ore, e.g., oil sand ore having between about 50-100 ppm chlorides, having 2-2.5 wt% water in the dilbit is sufficiently low to meet the industry standard of 25 ppm chlorides in dry bitumen for upgrading. Dry bitumen is the bitumen product from Diluent Recovery Units after naphtha, water, and light gas oil portions of the dilbit have been removed using atmospheric distillation. The chlorides in oil sand ore is found in the connate water associated with the oil sand, which, assuming approximately 5% water in ore, corresponds to a concentration of chlorides in the connate water of between about 1000-2000 ppm. Additional chlorides are also introduced into bitumen froth (and, ultimately, dilbit) from the recycled process water that is used during water-based bitumen extraction. Presently the process water used for extraction has about 600 ppm chlorides.
KNAPPER teaches in para [00011] Historically, the industry has dealt with corrosion problems resulting from undetected hydrochloric acid by upgrading the metallurgy in known acid deposit locations, water washing the areas where it is anticipated that hydrochloric acid will form, and to reduce the amount of residual water reporting from froth treatment. The current naphthenic froth treatment process used at the applicant's facilities operates at a naphtha:bitumen ratio (N:B) of about 0.7 and a temperature of 80°C and produces a diluted bitumen product that is able to meet the specification of <2.5 wt% water for low salinity oil sand ore. This level of water in the froth treatment product is sufficient to meet upgrading's 25 ppm chloride specification in dry bitumen with the salinity of the current ore body and process water; the chloride content is directly related to the amount of water that reports to the diluted bitumen and the salinity of that water.
KNAPPER teaches in para [00012] Demulsifiers are used as a process aid in naphthenic froth treatment and are added at a low dosage to the froth pumps feeding both the inclined plate settlers (IPS) and the centrifuges (see Figure 1).
KNAPPER teaches in para [00013] It was surprisingly discovered that adding demulsifier after the diluent diluted bitumen froth has been subjected to a first separation stage (e.g., either in a series of gravity settlers or a series of scroll centrifuges) to produce raw diluted bitumen, demulsifier overdosing does not occur when followed by subsequent centrifugation. Therefore, higher dosages of demulsifier can be used, resulting in significant reduction in the froth treatment product water content, and, hence, a reduction of chlorides in the final product. Thus, in one aspect, a method for processing bitumen froth comprised of bitumen, water and solids to produce a final diluted bitumen product having a reduced water content is provided, comprising: adding a sufficient amount of a hydrocarbon diluent to the bitumen froth to form diluted bitumen froth; subjecting the diluted bitumen froth to a first separation stage to separate portion of the water and solids from the diluted bitumen froth to form a raw diluted bitumen; adding a sufficient amount of demulsifier to the raw diluted bitumen; optionally, subjecting the raw diluted bitumen to a mixing and/or conditioning stage; and subjecting the raw diluted bitumen to a second separation stage to produce the final diluted bitumen product having reduced water. In one embodiment, the first separation stage comprises using at least one gravity separation vessel such as an inclined plate settler. In one embodiment, the first separation stage comprises using at least one centrifuge such as a decanter centrifuge. In one embodiment, the second separation stage comprises using at least one centrifuge such as a disc stack centrifuge.
KNAPPER teaches in para [00027] a method for processing bitumen froth to produce a diluted bitumen product having reduced water. In order to be suitable for further processing (upgrading) to produce an acceptable bitumen product quality, it is desirable for the dry bitumen product to have less than about 25 ppm chlorides. Because oil sand ore can have a wide range of salt concentrations (chlorides), it is necessary to have a method that can consistently deliver such a dry bitumen product.
KNAPPER teaches in para [00028] As used herein, the term "gravity-based" froth treatment method refers to an operation in which diluted bitumen is separated from water and solids using gravity and is therefore distinguished from other separation operations such as molecular sieve processes, absorption processes, adsorption processes, magnetic processes, electrical processes, and the like. As used herein, the term "gravity settler" refers to any suitable apparatus that facilitates gravity settling including, but not limited to, a gravity settling vessel and an inclined plate separator ("IPS"). As used herein, the term "IPS" refers to an apparatus comprising a plurality of stacked inclined plates onto which a mixture to be separated may be introduced so that the mixture passes along the plates in order to achieve separation of components of the mixture.
KNAPPER teaches in para [00029] As used herein, the term "centrifuge-based" froth treatment method refers to an operation in which bitumen is separated from water and solids using centrifugal acceleration or centripetal acceleration resulting from rotational movement of a suitable apparatus including, but not limited to, a scroll centrifuge, disc centrifuge, hydrocyclone, propelled vortex separator, and the like.
KNAPPER teaches in para [00030] As used herein, the term "demulsifier" refers to an agent which breaks emulsions or causes water droplets either to coalesce and settle, or to flocculate and settle in floes. Demulsifiers are commonly formulated from the following types of chemistries: polyglycols and polyglycol esters, ethoxylated alcohols and amines, ethoxylated resin, ethoxylated phenol formaldehyde resins, ethoxylated nonylphenols, polyhydric alcohols, ethylene oxide, propylene oxide block copolymer fatty acids, fatty alcohols, fatty amine and quaternaries and sulfonic acid salts. (See also para [0031-0033].
KNAPPER teaches in para [00034] raw diluted bitumen 21 is subjected to a second separation stage in a disc stack centrifuge 20 (e.g., Alfa Laval SX-320 centrifuge) to produce diluted bitumen product 23 comprising between about 2.0-2.5 wt% water and about 0.55 wt% solids, and tailings 25. Tailings 22 and tailings 25 are treated in a naphtha recovery unit (NRU) 26 to remove the naphtha and water from the tailings. Optionally, diluted bitumen product 23 can be subjected to a third separation stage by mixing diluted bitumen product 23 with raw diluted bitumen 14 produced in IPS 10 and subjecting the mixture to separation in disc stack centrifuge 24.
KNAPPER teaches in para [00037] Figure 2 shows one embodiment of a naphthenic bitumen froth treatment method of the present invention. Bitumen froth is initially received from an extraction facility which extracts bitumen from oil sand using a water-based extraction process known in the art a stored in a froth storage tank 208. A stream of bitumen froth (stream 206) is pumped from the froth storage tank 208 and, optionally, a low dosage of demulsifier (e.g., 50 ppm) can be added thereto. Stream 206 is split into two distinct streams. Naphtha is added to first bitumen froth stream 212. The naphtha-diluted bitumen froth (dilfroth stream 230) is then the subjected to a first separation stage. In this embodiment, the dilfroth 230 is separated in at least one gravity separation vessel 210, illustrated here as an inclined plate settler (IPS), to yield a product stream comprising raw diluted bitumen (stream 232) and at least one by-product stream comprising water and solids, namely tailings (stream 233). The raw diluted bitumen stream 232 is temporarily stored in feed drum 260 and demulsifier is added to the raw diluted bitumen 232. The demulsifier/raw diluted bitumen mixture is optionally mixed (for example, in pump 262) and then subjected to a second stage separation step in a disc stack centrifuge 224 (e.g., Alfa Laval SX-420 centrifuge) to produce the diluted bitumen product (stream 234), which is stored in storage tank 218.
KNAPPER teaches in para [00038] A second stream of bitumen froth (stream 215) can be simultaneously subjected to a first separation stage comprising using at least one decanter centrifuge 216. In this embodiment, naphtha, generally, at a ratio of naphtha solvent to bitumen (by wt.%) from about 0.3 to about 1.0, is added to bitumen froth 215 and the naphtha diluted bitumen froth (dilfroth stream 236) is then subjected to separation in at least one decanter (Bird) centrifuge 216 to yield a product stream comprising raw diluted bitumen (stream 238). In one embodiment, the tailings 233 from the IPS 210 can be added to dilfroth stream 236 prior to separation in decanter centrifuge 216. The raw diluted bitumen stream 238 is temporarily stored in feed drum 261 and demulsifier is added to the raw diluted bitumen 238. The demulsifier/raw diluted bitumen mixture is optionally mixed (for example, in pump 263) and then subjected to a second stage separation step in a disc stack centrifuge 220 (e.g., Alfa Laval SX-320 centrifuge) to produce the diluted bitumen product (stream 240), which is stored in storage tank 218. In one embodiment, a portion of the diluted bitumen product stream 240 is reprocessed in disc stack centrifuge 224.
KNAPPER teaches in para [00039] The diluted bitumen products generally comprise less than 1 wt% water and less than 0.55 wt% solids. It is understood that the overall operating strategy will be to produce a dry bitumen product having <25 ppm chlorides and that the method can be adjusted accordingly, depending upon the chlorides content in the oil sand ore and process water. The final diluted bitumen product (stored in storage tank 218) is generally transferred to a diluent recovery unit (not shown) where naphtha is recovered, recycled and reused. The bitumen may be further treated in a fluid coker or ebullating bed hydrocracker ("LC-Finer") and may be further processed into a synthetic crude oil product by means not shown but disclosed in the art. (see also para [0040])
KNAPPER teaches in para [00041] Figure 3 is a schematic of an embodiment of components for injecting demulsifier into the raw diluted bitumen feed to disc centrifuges. In this embodiment, demulsifier 348 is added to the raw diluted bitumen 346 and the demulsifier-raw diluted bitumen 349 is then subjected to a mixing stage using either an in-line mixer 350 or a pump 352. The resultant mixture 353 may then be subjected to a longer residence conditioning stage 354, for example, by providing additional residence time in a pipe, using one or more low-shear static mixers, using a gently stirred tank, or a surge tank, prior to separation in a high-speed centrifuge 356, such as a disc centrifuge, to produce diluted bitumen product 357 and water and solids tailings (waste) 358. The longer residence conditioning stage is to give the demulsifier time to flocculate/coalesce droplets and create gentle flow patterns that will increase the probability of droplet droplet collisions.
KNAPPER teaches the above system and process for treating bitumen froth; however, KNAPPER does not explicitly teach a diluent-to-bitumen ratio between 4 and 8 in dependent claim 18; nevertheless one of ordinary skilled in the art would glean from the skilled oil formulation process as disclosed in KNAPPER and further optimize the range of the diluent-to-bitumen ratio if so desired. Furthermore, optimization of the ratio values are prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results; as stated in the MPEP § 2144 “[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.” Since it would have been obvious to optimize the ratio property values, therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to rescale the ratio values, to include the ratio values as a limitation by the claims listed above. It should be noted that the Bitumen Recovery From Decanter Centrifuge Cake Using Diluent And Bitumen Froth application does not show unexpected results over the prior art in regard to simply optimizing the ratio property values as required by the claimed invention; and now burden shifts to applicants to establish evidence otherwise or evidence of criticality and they have not shown that any additional methods would be expected to not be of similar practice to the evidence of record.
From the teachings of the all the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Also, a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)
In addition, “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Furthermore, “[i]nclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). In In re Young, a claim to a machine for making concrete beams included a limitation to the concrete reinforced members made by the machine as well as the structural elements of the machine itself. The court held that the inclusion of the article formed within the body of the claim did not, without more, make the claim patentable
Additionally, the claimed changes in the sequence of performing steps is considered to be prima facie obvious because the time at which a particular step is performed is simply a matter of operator preference, especially since the same result is obtained regardless of when the step occurs. See Ex parte RUBIN, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959). 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).
Nevertheless, an intended result of a process being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims when the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art. Furthermore, it has been held that obviousness is not rebutted by merely recognizing additional advantages or latent properties present in the prior art process and composition. Further, the fact that applicant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd.Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected appropriate conditions, as guided by the prior art, in order to obtain the desired products. It is not seen where such selections would result in any new or unexpected results. Please see MPEP 2144.05, II: noting obviousness within prior art conditions or through routine experimentation.
If it is the applicant's position that this would not be the case, evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant's position.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANTEL GRAHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5563. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH 9:00 am - 7:00 pm.
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 on 571-272-6381. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHANTEL L GRAHAM/
Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/ELLEN M MCAVOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771