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 .
Response to Arguments
In regards to Section A of the applicant’s remarks, the applicant argues the Coy has a separate purpose compared to the instant invention of the applicant. While the examiner agrees with this sentiment, the originally presented claims were written with enough breadth, for them to encompass more than just separators, and in the instance of the non-final rejection, mixers as well.
In regards to Sections B 1-2 of the applicant’s remarks, the applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In regards to Section B3 of the applicant’s remarks that Coy is nonanalogous art compared to the instant applications invention and thus cannot be used in combination with other art. It has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, similar to the examiner’s response to arguments in Section A, the originally presented claims were written with enough breadth, for them to encompass more than just separators, and in the instance of the non-final rejection, mixers as well. While the instant inventions specification may further limit, the examiner must base the rejection on the information within the claims of the application. In light of the amendments made by the applicant, the examiner has withdrawn the prior rejection regarding the Coy. However, upon further consideration, a new rejection based on amended information, has been made, and will be further explained in the rejection portion of this action.
In regards to Section B4 of the applicant’s remarks, MPEP 2123 states, “A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments.” This in reference to the applicant directing a part of their argument to Figure 1, opposed to Figure 2, which teaches the correct location and configuration of the recirculation inputs and outputs. Regarding the argument of the intended use of Coy being used as a mixer, opposed to the intended use of the instant application as a separator, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. The originally presented claims were written with enough breadth, for them to encompass more than just separators, and in the instance of the non-final rejection, mixers as well. In light of the amendments made by the applicant, the examiner has withdrawn the prior rejection regarding the Coy. However, upon further consideration, a new rejection based on amended information, has been made, and will be further explained in the rejection portion of this action.
Response to Amendment
The amended claims filed on 03/23/2026 have been entered and will be examined on their new merits. The examiner acknowledges the IDS filed on the 03/23/2026.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim 15-20 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: The inventions relate to patentably distinct species as the claims recite different characteristics such as, but not limited to, a multi-tank system, main water trunk lines, diffuser plates, external water legs…
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 15-20 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 03/23/2026 has/have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
To promote clarity and efficiency in the examination process (compact prosecution), the following terms as outlined below are interpreted, but not limited to, the following:
Nozzle throat – an elongated portion of a nozzle
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 3 be found allowable, claim 9 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 7 and 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 7 and 12 depend on Claims 1 and 4 respectively. Both claims 1 and 4 refer to a system having a gun barrel, separator or above ground storage tank AST. Claims 7 and 12 recite an “oil pad interface”, however nowhere in the specification is there support for an oil pad interface existing within separators or above ground storage tanks; the only support pertains to gun barrels. The “pad” is defined on page 31 of 50 of the disclosure as “The gun barrel interface (i.e., “the pad”)”, with again, no support regarding the other tanks mentioned in claims 1 and 4. While the applicant may have used and/or lists when disclosing these tanks, these lists alone cannot be used as reason to treat these tanks as equal, and thus the 112(a) rejection has been made.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Folkvang 2014 (US20140346118A1) in view of Nazzer (US20180222769A1).
In regards to claim 1, Folkvang 2014 teaches a process for operating a tank recirculation system for oil-water separation in a gun barrel, separator, or above ground storage tank (AST), comprising the steps of: {Paragraph 16, "separation of hydrocarbons from hydrocarbon-container produced water … and mixed with a gas containing component" and paragraph 10, "a separator tank"} removing fluid from the floor or lower half of the tank; {Paragraph 28, "water … will pass out the outlet 12 in the bottom of the tank"} pumping the removed fluid. {Paragraph 28, "stream 15 from the water outlet from the tank will by means of a pump 16 be circulated back into the tank"}
In regards to claim 11, Folkvang 2014 teaches wherein the removed fluid is pumped through an external recirculation line from a bottom side port of the tank to a top side port or top port of the tank. {Figure 1 recirculation line starting at 12 "water outlet" and ending at 27 "inlet or feed tube"}
Folkvang 2014 does not teach:
Claim 1: Spraying the removed fluid across the top layer of fluid in the tank at or above an oil fluid over line.
Claim 10: The process of Claim 1, further comprising the step of injecting at least one chemical into the removed fluid via at least one chemical injection port positioned along a recirculation line prior to the step of spraying.
However, Nazzer teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1 and 10 that Folkvang 2014 does not teach.
In regards to claim 1, Nazzer teaches spraying the removed fluid across the top layer of fluid in the tank at or above an oil fluid over line. {Paragraph 109, "Sweep liquid inlet 18 which includes a spray head to create a fine mist or spray that gently settles onto the surface of the Process Liquid"}
In regards to claim 10, Nazzer teaches the process of Claim 1, further comprising the step of injecting at least one chemical into the removed fluid via at least one chemical injection port positioned along a recirculation line prior to the step of spraying. {Paragraph 126, "If necessary, a suitable chemical can be added to the added water to help break adhesion or attraction forces"} (Nazzer does not explicitly teach the location of where the chemicals are to be added, however, given Nazzer discloses the chemicals are added to the water, and Nazzer is being combined with Folkvang, the water line of Folkvang 2014 is positioned along the recirculation line and before the spraying step)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Nazzer to the invention of Folkvang 2014 because these inventions both have a similar function of the separation of immiscible components within a single fluid stream. One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to combine Nazzer to Folkvang 2014 because the invention of Nazzer improves the filtration performance and enables efficient recovery of the process liquid, or in the combination with the invention of Folkvang 2014, the recovery of water. {Nazzer, paragraph 93}
Claim(s) 2-3 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Folkvang 2014 (US20140346118A1) and Nazzer (US20180222769A1), in view of Coy (US9446358B2).
The combination of Folkvang 2014 and Nazzer teach all of the limitations of claim(s) 1 and 10-11; as mentioned in a prior 103 rejection.
In regards to claim 8, Folkvang 2014 further teaches a nozzle having an adjustable diffuser head. {Paragraph 27, "an adjustable nozzle means … on top of the inlet tube"}
They do not teach:
Claim 2: The process of claim 1 wherein the step of spraying the removed fluid involves passing the removed fluid through at least one vertical nozzle.
Claim 3: The process of claim 1 wherein the step of spraying the removed fluid involves passing the removed fluid through at least one horizontal nozzle.
Claim 8: The process of Claim 1, wherein the step of spraying the removed fluid involves passing the removed fluid through at least one vertical nozzle.
Claim 9: The process of Claim 1, wherein the step of spraying the removed fluid involves passing the removed fluid through at least one horizontal nozzle.
However, Coy teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 2-3 and 8-9 that the combination of Folkvang 2014 and Nazzer does not teach.
In regards to claims 2 and 8 (Note 2 and 8 are combined because the portions taught by Coy in these claims are identical in claim language to each other), Coy teaches the process of claim 1 wherein the step of spraying the removed fluid involves passing the removed fluid through at least one vertical nozzle. {Figures (9A-9D) and Column 5 lines 21-23, "mixing devices 40 may include any suitable angle, such as an upward angle 36"}
In regards to claims 3 and 9 (Note 3 and 9 are combined because the portions taught by Coy in these claims are identical in claim language to each other), Coy teaches the process of claim 1 wherein the step of spraying the removed fluid involves passing the removed fluid through at least one horizontal nozzle. {Figures (9A-9D) and Column 5 lines 21-23, "mixing devices 40 may include any suitable angle, such as … a horizontal angle 38"}
(For clarity of the record, the examiner would like to note, although the instant application claims horizontal and vertical nozzles in separate claims, the reference of Coy teaches the configuration in an and/or context, meaning both vertical and horizontal nozzles can be used in one singular embodiment, allowing the rejection to me made using 1 embodiment.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the nozzle assemblies and functions of Coy, to the combined invention of Folkvang 2014 and Nazzer because, while the intended use of the entirety of the invention of Coy is separate from the intended use of the instant application, the nozzles of the separator of Folkvang 2014 are used for mixing water, gas, and oil as they enter the separation tank, {Folkvang 2014, paragraph 26} making it obvious to combine the nozzles of Coy, as the invention relates to the mixing of fluids and gases. One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to combine the nozzles of Coy to the combined invention of Folkvang 2014 and Nazzer because the nozzles of Coy take part in the improvement the mixing capabilities with "high and unexpected efficiency" {Coy, column 2 lines 10-13}
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Folkvang 2014 (US20140346118A1), in view of Folkvang 2010 (US20100006517A1).
In regards to claim 4, Folkvang 2014 teaches a tank recirculation system comprising: a gun barrel, separator, or above ground storage tank (AST) configured to receive an influent comprising oil, water, and gas, {Paragraphs 9-10, "an apparatus for separation of hydrocarbons from hydrocarbon-containing produced water, where the apparatus comprises the following: a separator tank"} the tank having an oil float over port located in an upper portion of the tank {Paragraph 27, Gas with adherent oil droplets will rise to the surface of the liquid in the tank and be taken out together with some water in submerged outlet 9"} and a water outlet located in a lower portion of the tank; {Figure 1 reference 12} an outlet connected to the floor or lower half of the tank; {Figure 1 reference 12} (There are no claims limiting these outlets to be separate from one another, outlet (12) functionally can be an outlet for separate materials. Outlet (12) also is an outlet for two separate flow paths, further solidifying this teaching) a recirculation line connected to the outlet and the inlet; {Figure 1 recirculation line starting at 12 "water outlet" and ending at 27 "inlet or feed tube"} a pump positioned along the recirculation line. {Figure 1 reference 16 "pump"}
In regards to claim 5, Folkvang 2014 teaches the tank recirculation system of claim 4 further comprising at least one nozzle connected to the recirculation line. {Figure 1 reference 26 "adjustable nozzle means"}
Folkvang 2014 does not teach:
Claim 4: An inlet connected to the ceiling or upper half of the tank at or above the oil float over port.
However, Folkvang 2010 teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 4 that Folkvang 2014 does not teach.
In regards to claim 4, Folkvang 2010 teaches an inlet connected to the ceiling or upper half of the tank at or above the oil float over port. {Figure 3 reference 33 "inlet duct"} (Note that given this inlet comes from the ceiling of the tank, it would be impossible for the oi float over port to exist above the close ceiling of the inlet, so although Folkvang 2010 does not teach an overflow port, the inlet of this device would be above the oil float over port of Folkvang 2014)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Folkvang 2010 to the invention of Folkvang 2014 because both of these inventions exist within the same field of endeavor, specifically separation of immiscible liquids such as oil and water. One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to combine Folkvang 2010 to Folkvang 2014 because Folkvang 2010 mentions the additions of separation agents which can aid and improve the separation {Folkvang 2010, paragraph 30}, and specifically how these agents can be injected into the inlet duct of the device.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Folkvang 2014 (US20140346118A1) and Folkvang 2010 (US20100006517A1), in view of Nazzer (US20180222769A1).
The combination of Folkvang 2014 and Folkvang 2010 teach all of the limitations of claim(s) 4-5; as mentioned in a prior 103 rejection.
They do not teach:
Claim 6: The recirculation system of claim 4 comprising at least one chemical injection port positioned along the recirculation line.
However, Nazzer teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 6 that the combination of Folkvang 2014 and Folkvang 2010 does not teach.
In regards to claim 6, Nazzer teaches the recirculation system of claim 4 comprising at least one chemical injection port positioned along the recirculation line. {Paragraph 126, "If necessary, a suitable chemical can be added to the added water to help break adhesion or attraction forces"} (Nazzer does not explicitly teach the location of where the chemicals are to be added, however, given Nazzer discloses the chemicals are added to the water, and Nazzer is being combined with Folkvang 2014, the water line of Folkvang 2014 is positioned along the recirculation line and before the spraying step)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention Nazzer to the combined invention of Folkvang 2014 and Folkvang 2010 because these inventions both have a similar function of the separation of immiscible components within a single fluid stream. One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to combine Nazzer to Folkvang 2014 and Folkvang 2010 because the invention of Nazzer improves the filtration performance and enables efficient recovery of the process liquid, or in the combination with the invention of Folkvang 2014 and Folkvang 2010, the recovery of water. {Nazzer, paragraph 93}
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Folkvang 2014 (US20140346118A1) and Folkvang 2010 (US20100006517A1), in view of Coy (US9446358B2).
The combination of Folkvang 2014 and Folkvang 2010 teach all of the limitations of claim(s) 4-5; as mentioned in a prior 103 rejection.
In regards to claim 13, Folkvang 2014 further teaches a nozzle having an adjustable diffuser head. {Paragraph 27, "an adjustable nozzle means … on top of the inlet tube"}
They do not teach:
Claim 13: The tank recirculation system of Claim 5, wherein the at least one nozzle comprises a vertical nozzle having a vertical nozzle throat, and a vertical nozzle mating flange.
Claim 14: The tank recirculation system of Claim 5, wherein the at least one nozzle comprises a horizontal nozzle having a horizontal nozzle throat with orifices at different angles of attack and a horizontal nozzle adjustable diffuser base with a 10-degree to 360-degree spray pattern
However, Coy teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 13-14 that the combination of Folkvang 2014 and Folkvang 2010 does not teach.
In regards to claim 13, Coy teaches the tank recirculation system of Claim 5, wherein the at least one nozzle comprises a vertical nozzle {Figure (9A) and Column 5 lines 21-23, "mixing devices 40 may include any suitable angle, such as an upward angle 36"} having a vertical nozzle throat, {Figure 9A, circled portion}
PNG
media_image1.png
555
538
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and a vertical nozzle mating flange. {Figure 9A, circled portion}
PNG
media_image2.png
555
538
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 14, Coy teaches the tank recirculation system of Claim 5, wherein the at least one nozzle comprises a horizontal nozzle {Figure (9A) and Column 5 lines 21-23, "mixing devices 40 may include any suitable angle, such as … a horizontal angle 38"} having a horizontal nozzle throat {Figure 9A, circled portion}
PNG
media_image1.png
555
538
media_image1.png
Greyscale
with orifices at different angles of attack {Column 5 lines 21-22, "mixing devices 40 may include any suitable angle, such as an upward angle 36 and/or horizontal angle 38"} and a horizontal nozzle adjustable diffuser base with a 10-degree to 360-degree spray pattern. {Figure 9a} (Circular nozzle assembly, encompassing the entirety of 10-360 degrees, which similarly shows the adjustability of the base of the device as it can encompass multiple different angles and variations of spray)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the nozzle assemblies and functions of Coy, to the combined invention of Folkvang 2014 and Folkvang 2010 because, while the intended use of the entirety of the invention of Coy is separate from the intended use of the instant application, the nozzles of the separator of Folkvang 2014 are used for mixing water, gas, and oil as they enter the separation tank, {Folkvang 2014, paragraph 26} making it obvious to combine the nozzles of Coy, as the invention relates to the mixing of fluids and gases. One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to combine the nozzles of Coy to the combined invention of Folkvang 2014 and Folkvang 2010 because the nozzles of Coy take part in the improvement the mixing capabilities with "high and unexpected efficiency" {Coy, column 2 lines 10-13}
Conclusion
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 CONNOR J ROTONDI whose telephone number is (571)272-2058. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-4:30pm.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at (571) 270-3240. 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.
/CONNOR J ROTONDI/Examiner, Art Unit 1779
/Bobby Ramdhanie/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights