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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because it contains references to claims (e.g. page 11-13). The applicant is reminded that in U.S. patent practice, patent claims are interpreted in light of specification, and therefore, specification constructed by referencing the claims is improper. Further, as content of any of the claims is not certain until after the claims have been allowed, said uncertainty leaves the specification indefinite. The portions of the specification containing claim numbers should be edited to include the required text from the original claims and to remove the references to any claim numbers. Appropriate correction is required. The applicant is reminded that no new matter should be added.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 10/4/2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but Foreign Patent Document 1 referred to therein has not been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the presence of micelles". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This term has not previously been defined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2 and 4-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Insights into dual functions of amino acid salts as CO2 carriers and CaCo3 regulators for integrated CO2 absorption and mineralization by Zheng et al. (Zheng) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0277474 by Constantz et al. (Constantz).
In regard to claim 1, Zheng teaches a method comprising: obtaining a water comprising at least a divalent metal ion (abstract, rejected brine, calcium ions; pg. 2, column 2, paragraph 3, simulated brine); introducing an accelerator into the produced water (abstract, potassium glycinate; pg. 2, column 2, paragraph 3); wherein the accelerator comprises a zwitterionic compound (abstract, potassium glycinate; pg. 2, column 2, paragraph 3); introducing a carbon dioxide gas into the produced water (abstract, CO2; pg. 2, column 2, paragraph 3); allowing the carbon dioxide gas to react with the divalent metal ion in the presence of the accelerator to form a carbonate salt of the divalent metal ion (abstract, CaCO3; pg. 2, column 2, paragraph 3); and removing the carbonate salt of the divalent metal ion from the produced water to form a treated water having a lower divalent metal ion concentration than the produced water (pg. 3, column 2, paragraph 2).
Zheng does not explicitly teach the water is a produced water from a subterranean formation. Zheng teaches the water is a rejected brine or a simulated brine (abstract; pg. 2, column 2, paragraph 3). Zheng teaches the reject brine is a by product from saline water desalination (pg. 1, column 1, paragraph 2).
Constantz teaches removing carbonate from a liquid stream ([0021]). Constantz teaches the liquid stream is from a subterranean formation ([0021]). Constantz teaches a brine may be a subterranean brine ([0056]; [0084]; [0116]; [0156]). Constantz teaches removal of carbon dioxide ([0071]). Constantz teaches sources of brine include tailings pond, riverbed, brackish water, sea water, or man-made brines ([0084]; [0116]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to incorporate a brine from a subterranean formation, as taught by Constantz, in the method of Zheng as subterranean formations are a well-known source of brines. Both Zheng and Constantz are directed towards removing carbon dioxide from liquid streams and are the same field of endeavor.
In regard to claim 2, Zheng teaches a reaction of carbon dioxide gas with a calcium ion in the presence of potassium glycinate (abstract; pg. 2, column 2, paragraph 3,). Zheng does not explicitly teach the reaction takes place in the presence of micelles. However, the instant specification at paragraph [0018]-[0020] utilizes the same chemical components and teaches that a micelle is formed by the accelerator; since the reaction utilizes the same chemical components of the claims it will, inherently, display recited properties of forming a micelle. See MPEP 2112.
In regard to claim 4, Zheng teaches the divalent metal ion comprises a calcium ion, a magnesium ion, or any combination thereof (abstract, CaCO3; pg. 2, column 2, paragraph 3).
In regard to claim 5, Zheng teaches absorbent concentrations along with calcium and carbon dioxide rations (pg. 2, column 2, paragraph 3; pg. 3, column 2, paragraph 2). Zheng teaches carbon dioxide desorption depends on concentrations and conditions (pg. 2, column 2, paragraph 3; pg. 3, column 2, paragraph 2). Zheng does not teach specific concentrations of sodium ions, calcium ions, magnesium ions, or potassium ions; however, as the method cost, carbon dioxide adsorption, and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said concentrations of sodium ions, calcium ions, magnesium ions, and potassium ions, the precise concentrations of sodium ions, calcium ions, magnesium ions, and potassium ions would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed concentrations of sodium ions, calcium ions, magnesium ions, and potassium ions cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the concentrations of sodium ions, calcium ions, magnesium ions, and potassium ions in the method of modified Zheng to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost, carbon dioxide adsorption, and the operation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
In regard to claim 6, Zheng teaches the produced water further comprises a chloride anion, a bicarbonate anion, a sulfate anion, or any combination thereof (pg. 3, column 2, paragraph 1, magnesium chloride).
In regard to claim 7, Zheng teaches chloride concentration, bicarbonate anions (pg. 3, column 2, paragraph 1, magnesium chloride). Constantz teaches sulfate anions ([0086]). Modified Zheng does not teach specifically teach concentrations of chloride, bicarbonate anions, and sulfate anions; however, as the method cost, carbon dioxide adsorption, and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said concentrations of chloride, bicarbonate anions, and sulfate anions, the precise concentrations of chloride, bicarbonate anions, and sulfate anions would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed concentrations of chloride, bicarbonate anions, and sulfate anions cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the concentrations of chloride, bicarbonate anions, and sulfate anions in the method of modified Zheng to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost, carbon dioxide adsorption, and the operation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
In regard to claim 8, Zheng teaches the accelerator comprises an amino acid salt (abstract, potassium glycinate; pg. 2, column 2, paragraph 3).
In regard to claim 9, Zheng teaches the amino acid salt is a sodium salt or a potassium salt (abstract, potassium glycinate; pg. 2, column 2, paragraph 3).
In regard to claim 10, Zheng teaches the amino acid salt comprises potassium glycinate (abstract, potassium glycinate; pg. 2, column 2, paragraph 3).
In regard to claim 11, Zheng teaches the carbon dioxide gas is introduced into the produced water by bubbling (pg. 3, column 2, paragraph 1, CO2 gas was bubbled).
In regard to claims 12-13, Zheng does not teach the carbon dioxide gas is introduced into the produced water at a flow rate of about 1 mL/min to about 10 mL/min. Zheng does not teach carbon dioxide gas is introduced into the produced water for a period of time ranging from about 30 min to about 1 hour (reading on claim 13). Constantz teaches the amount of carbon dioxide inside the chamber is dependent on the flow rate, desired pH, and size of cell ([0168]). Constantz optimization of the components is within the scope of the invention ([0168]). Constantz teaches a person having ordinary skill will appreciate flow rates, mass transfer, and heat transfer may vary and may be optimized for systems ([0213]).
As the pH, mass transfer, and system parameters such as efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said flow rate and time of introduction of carbon dioxide, the precise flow rate of carbon dioxide would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed flow rate of carbon dioxide cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the flow rate of carbon dioxide and time in the method of modified Zheng to obtain the desired balance between the pH, mass transfer, and efficiency of operation (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
In regard to claim 14, Zheng teaches the reaction of the carbon dioxide gas with the divalent metal ion is at a temperature of about 25°C to about 75°C (pg. 2, column 2, paragraph 3, 40°C and 60°C).
In regard to claim 15, Zheng teaches the carbonate salt of the divalent metal ion is removed from the produced water by filtration (pg. 3, column 2, paragraph 2, nylon filter).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Insights into dual functions of amino acid salts as CO2 carriers and CaCo3 regulators for integrated CO2 absorption and mineralization by Zheng et al. (Zheng) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0277474 by Constantz et al. (Constantz), as noted above, further in view of WO 2022098411 by Song et al. (Song).
In regard to claim 3, modified Zheng teaches the limitations as noted above.
Modified Zheng does not teach the produced water having a total dissolved solids concentration of about 50,000 mg/L to about 1,000,000 mg/L.
Song teaches a fluid including sea water, produced water, or brine has a salinity of about 60,000 mg/L of total dissolved solids (pg. 19-20). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to utilize a brine with a total dissolved solids concentration of about about 50,000 mg/L to about 1,000,000 mg/L as this is a known property of brines.
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Insights into dual functions of amino acid salts as CO2 carriers and CaCo3 regulators for integrated CO2 absorption and mineralization by Zheng et al. (Zheng) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0277474 by Constantz et al. (Constantz) further in view of WO 2022098411 by Song et al. (Song).
In regard to claim 16, Zheng teaches a method comprising: obtaining a water comprising at least a divalent metal ion (abstract, rejected brine, calcium ions; pg. 2, column 2, paragraph 3, simulated brine); introducing potassium glycinate into the produced water (abstract, potassium glycinate; pg. 2, column 2, paragraph 3); bubbling carbon dioxide gas into the produced water (abstract, CO2; pg. 3, column 2, paragraph 1, CO2 gas was bubbled). ); allowing the carbon dioxide gas to react with the one or more metal ions in the presence of the potassium glycinate to form a carbonate salt of the divalent metal ion (abstract, CaCO3; pg. 2, column 2, paragraph 3); and removing the precipitate from the produced water by filtration to form a treated water having a lower divalent metal ion concentration than the produced water (pg. 3, column 2, paragraph 2).
Zheng does not explicitly teach the water is a produced water from a subterranean formation. Zheng teaches the water is a rejected brine or a simulated brine (abstract; pg. 2, column 2, paragraph 3). Zheng teaches the reject brine is a by product from saline water desalination (pg. 1, column 1, paragraph 2).
Constantz teaches removing carbonate from a liquid stream ([0021]). Constantz teaches the liquid stream is from a subterranean formation ([0021]). Constantz teaches a brine may be a subterranean brine ([0056]; [0084]; [0116]; [0156]). Constantz teaches removal of carbon dioxide ([0071]). Constantz teaches sources of brine include tailings pond, riverbed, brackish water, sea water, or man-made brines ([0084]; [0116]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to incorporate a brine from a subterranean formation, as taught by Constantz, in the method of Zheng as subterranean formations are a well-known source of brines. Both Zheng and Constantz are directed towards removing carbon dioxide from liquid streams and are the same field of endeavor.
Modified Zheng does not teach the produced water having a total dissolved solids concentration of about 50,000 mg/L to about 1,000,000 mg/L.
Song teaches a fluid including sea water, produced water, or brine has a salinity of about 60,000 mg/L of total dissolved solids (pg. 19-20). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to utilize a brine with a total dissolved solids concentration of about about 50,000 mg/L to about 1,000,000 mg/L as this is a known property of brines.
In regard to claim 17, Zheng teaches a reaction of carbon dioxide gas with a calcium ion in the presence of potassium glycinate (abstract; pg. 2, column 2, paragraph 3,). Zheng does not explicitly teach the reaction takes place in the presence of micelles. However, the instant specification at paragraph [0018]-[0020] utilizes the same chemical components and teaches that a micelle is formed by the accelerator; since the reaction utilizes the same chemical components of the claims it will, inherently, display recited properties of forming a micelle. See MPEP 2112.
In regard to claims 18-19, Zheng does not teach the carbon dioxide gas is introduced into the produced water at a flow rate of about 1 mL/min to about 10 mL/min. Zheng does not teach carbon dioxide gas is introduced into the produced water for a period of time ranging from about 30 min to about 1 hour (reading on claim 19). Constantz teaches the amount of carbon dioxide inside the chamber is dependent on the flow rate, desired pH, and size of cell ([0168]). Constantz optimization of the components is within the scope of the invention ([0168]). Constantz teaches a person having ordinary skill will appreciate flow rates, mass transfer, and heat transfer may vary and may be optimized for systems ([0213]).
As the pH, mass transfer, and system parameters such as efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said flow rate of carbon dioxide and time introduced, the precise flow rate of carbon dioxide and time introduced would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed flow rate of carbon dioxide and time introduced cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the flow rate of carbon dioxide and time introduced in the method of modified Zheng to obtain the desired balance between the pH, mass transfer, and efficiency of operation (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
In regard to claim 20, Zheng teaches the carbon dioxide gas is reacted with the one or more divalent metal ions at a temperature of about 25°C to about 75°C (pg. 2, column 2, paragraph 3, 40°C and 60°C).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARA M PEO whose telephone number is (571)272-9958. The examiner can normally be reached 9 to 5:30.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/KARA M PEO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777