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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-19 are pending:
Claims 1-17 are rejected.
Claims 18-19 have been withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-17) in the reply filed on 06/01/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “Applicant respectfully submits that also examining claims 18 and 19 would not increase the search or examination burden for the Examiner”. This is not found persuasive because the inventions are different to two different statutory categories (method and system) which would require a different field of search and different classification.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 18-19 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 06/01/2026.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. CN202110642524 and CN202110642537, both filed on 06/09/2021.
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.
Claims 8-9 and 14 are 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 8 recites “treatment comprises the processes of rapid mixing, slow reaction”; the terms “rapid” and “slow” are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “rapid” and “slow” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 9 recites “a suspended matter content of less than 300 mg/L”, “a suspended matter content of less than 100 mg/L” and “a suspended matter content of less than 20 mg/L; which recites a broad recitation and also recites a narrower statement of the range/limitation. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 14 recites “and/or”; it is unclear what it intended by the slash (‘/’) notation thus rendering the scope of the claim indefinite and ambiguous. Additionally, the phrase “and/or” is unclear because it is ambiguous whether the limitation requires: (i) A alone, (ii) B alone, or both A and B together.
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, 5-7, 12-13 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang (CN 102815765).
Regarding claims 1, 12-13 and 15, Jiang teaches a method for recycling heavy oil produced water for use in a steam injection boiler without desilication, comprising
subjecting the heavy oil produced water sequentially to a pre-treatment (heavy oil sewage by pre-treatment using dissolved air flotation, see pg. 5),
a filtration treatment (cascade filtration, pg. 12), and
an advanced treatment of removing divalent and trivalent scaling ions, wherein the resin used in the advanced treatment of removing divalent and trivalent scaling ions (“removal rate of high-valent cations such as calcium, magnesium and iron in oily sewage can reach more than 97%, and the concentration of high-valent metal cations such as calcium, magnesium and iron in heavy oily sewage”, see pg. 8; calcium and magnesium are divalent ions and iron can be either divalent or trivalent ions) comprises a macroporous weak acid resin (primary microporous weak acid treatment, see pg. 1), and
wherein the raw materials for the macroporous weak acid resin (macroporous chelating resin or chelating resin) include a matrix material (“a macroporous weak acid resin commonly used in the field, for example: Rohm and Haas IRC76, Purite C104E and the like.”, see pg. 6; the known material inherently comprises a matrix), a porogenic agent (porgens, see claim 1), a reinforcing agent (“ reactant comprises acetoxy-styrene monomer and divinylbenzene crosslink agent”, see pg. 7), an initiator (“the initiator used is benzoyl peroxide or azobisisobutyronitrile or the like”, see pg. 7), and a dispersant (“the dispersant in the water phase is one or more of gelatin, polyvinyl alcohol, starch, methylcellulose and its derivatives, and poorly soluble inorganic substances”, see pg. 7) in a mass ratio; wherein in the macroporous weak acid resin, the raw materials for the macroporous weak acid resin further includes a crosslinking agent; and the crosslinking agent comprises divinylbenzene…(“the mass ratio of reactant and pore-creating agent is 1: 0.45-1: 0.55, reactant comprises acetoxy-styrene monomer and divinylbenzene crosslink agent, is 1: 0.16-1: 0.20 to the mass ratio of acetoxy-styrene monomer and divinylbenzene crosslink agent”, see pg. 7).
Jiang does not teach the matrix material, the porogenic agent, the reinforcing agent, the initiator, and the dispersant in a mass ratio of (25-35):(32- 50):(1-3):(0.8-1.2):(6-9); the macroporous weak acid resin, the mass ratio of the porogenic agent to the reinforcing agent is 40:2; and the mass ratio of the matrix material, the porogenic agent, the reinforcing agent, the initiator and the dispersant is 30:(40- 50):(1-2):1:(7-8); and the mass ratio of the matrix material to the crosslinking agent is (25-35):(15-25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the mass ratio of resin synthesis parameters Jiang by adjusting the mass ratio of the matrix material, the porogenic agent, the reinforcing agent, the initiator, and the dispersant, including a mass ratio of (25-35):(32- 50):(1-3):(0.8-1.2):(6-9) as required by claim 1, a mass ratio of 40:2 as required by claim 12 and a mass ratio of 30:(40- 50):(1-2):1:(7-8) as required by claim 13 because the synthesis parameters of the resin need to be optimized to improve the oil pollution resistance of the resin, improve the working exchange capacity and reaction rate and the selective adsorption of divalent calcium and magnesium ions performance (Jiang, see pg. 8). “[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.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Regarding claim 2, Jiang teaches the method for recycling heavy oil produced water for use in a steam injection boiler without desilication according to claim 1, wherein the method comprises no desilication treatment (“the present invention provides a method for deep softening of heavy oil sewage, which uses chelating resins to carry out adsorption treatment of sewage to achieve softening, and can still obtain suitable for thermal recovery boilers without silicon removal treatment”, see ABS).
Regarding claim 5, Jiang teaches the method for recycling heavy oil produced water for use in a steam injection boiler without desilication according to claim 4, wherein when the hardness of the heavy oil produced water after the primary advanced treatment is greater than 5 mg/L, or when the concentration of divalent and trivalent scaling ions of the heavy oil produced water after the secondary advanced treatment is greater than 50 pg/L, the method further comprises a process of regenerating the macroporous weak acid resin used in the primary advanced treatment or the secondary advanced treatment, which comprises: soaking the macroporous weak acid resin in an acid solution and an alkaline solution in sequence, until the macroporous weak acid resin is regenerated (“method according to claim 1, wherein, the method also comprises the step that chelating resin is regenerated: Use hydrochloric acid with a concentration of 1-2mol/L as a desorbing agent to desorb the chelating resin that has undergone adsorption treatment. The flow rate of the desorbing agent is 2-5BV/h, and the amount of desorbing agent is 2-5 times that of the chelating resin volume; After adsorption and regeneration, use distilled water to rinse the chelating resin completely until the pH of the effluent is neutral, and then use a NaOH solution with a concentration of 1-2mol/L to transform the chelating resin to obtain a regenerated chelating resin”, see claim 3 and “resin can be reused by repeated regeneration, and renovation process is simple, effect stability, and the cationic speed of adsorbing metal is fast”, see pg. 9).
Jiang teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above, except performing the soaking step (regeneration step) until the concentration of divalent and trivalent scaling ions of the heavy oil produced water treated with the regenerated macroporous weak acid resin reaches 50 ug/L or less.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the regeneration step of Jiang by adjusting the flushing time and flushing amount, including the amount and time to reduce the concentration of ions within the resin because it optimizes the performance of the resin for subsequent use (Jiang, implied on see pgs. 5 and 9) and ensuring full perform of the resin to operate efficiency, resist swelling, resist oxidation, resist heat and temperature changes (Jiang, see pg. 9). “[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.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Regarding claim 6, Jiang teaches the method for recycling heavy oil produced water for use in a steam injection boiler without desilication according to claim 5. Jiang further discloses applying hydrochloric acid solution and sodium hydroxide solution during regeneration (see pg. 13 of Jiang_).
Jiang does not teach that the duration of soaking the macroporous weak acid resin in the acid solution is >= 1 hour, and the duration of soaking the macroporous weak acid resin in the alkaline solution is >=1.5 hour; the acid solution has a pH >=2, and the alkaline solution has a pH >=13; the acid solution comprises hydrochloric acid with a mass concentration of 3-5%; and the alkaline solution comprises a sodium hydroxide solution with a mass concentration of 3- 5%.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the regeneration step of Jiang by adjusting the pH, including an alkaline solution in the range of >= 13 and an acid solution in the range of >=2, and adjusting the treatment duration in the range of >= 1 hour, and adjusting the mass concentration %, including a mass concentration of 3-5% of the hydrochloric acid solution and a sodium hydroxide solution because it optimizes the performance of the resin for subsequent use (Jiang, implied on see pgs. 5 and 9) and ensuring full perform of the resin to operate efficiency, resist swelling, resist oxidation, resist heat and temperature changes (Jiang, see pg. 9). “[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.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Regarding claim 7, Jiang teaches the method for recycling heavy oil produced water for use in a steam injection boiler without desilication according to claim 5, wherein the regeneration process further includes a process of washing with softened water before …the soaking in the alkaline solution (after distilled water rinses then, use concentration again to be 1mol/L NaOH solution is transformed, flow velocity is 3BV/h, and the amount of NaOH solution, see pg. 11).
Regarding claim 16, Jiang teaches the method for recycling heavy oil produced water for use in a steam injection boiler without desilication according to claim 1…the macroporous weak acid resin is capable of withstanding a high temperature of 95°C or more (“The liquid caustic soda that is 20-30wt% by polystyrene amine ball and concentration and Mono Chloro Acetic Acid are blended in 120-130 ℃ and carry out chelatropic reaction, then, through progressively diluting, make the transition, washing, obtain being applicable to the chelating absorption resin of condensed oil sewage”, see pg. which implies that the resin can withstand high temperatures)…
Jiang does not teach that the macroporous weak acid resin has a pore size of 800-900 nm; the macroporous weak acid resin has an exchange capacity of 3.9-4.1 mmol/ml; the macroporous weak acid resin has a pore area of 800-1200 m2/g; and the macroporous weak acid resin has a mechanical strength of 290-310 N/mm2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the microporous material of Jiang by adjusting the resin pore size including a pore size of 800-900 nm, the exchange capacity including 3.9-4.2 mmol/ml, pore area including 800-1200 m2/g and mechanical strength including 290-310 N/mm2 because the properties of the macroporous resin would have been optimized in order to improve operating capacity and speed of reaction as well as the adsorption selectivity to divalent calcium and magnesium ions in condensed oil sewage (Jiang, see pg. 7). “[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.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Regarding claim 17, Jiang teaches the method for recycling heavy oil produced water for use in a steam injection boiler without desilication according to claim 1, wherein the macroporous weak acid resin is prepared by a process comprising: mixing the raw materials for the macroporous weak acid resin and then carrying out a suspension polymerization to obtain resin beads (“the salts substances adopting comprises one or more in polymerize aluminum chloride, ferric sulfate and iron(ic) chloride etc.; More preferably, the salts substances adopting is polymerize aluminum chloride”, see pg. 5 and “divinylbenzene crosslink agent, the polystyrene Archon obtaining mixes with chloromethyl ether and after chloromethylation, obtains polystyrene chlorine ball”, see pg.); and subjecting the resin beads to hydrolysis to obtain the macroporous weak acid resin (“Polystyrene ester ball and the liquid caustic soda of concentration 20-30% are blended in to 150-170 ℃ and are hydrolyzed and react, then through progressively diluting, make the transition, washing, obtain polystyrene amine ball”, see pg. 7); wherein during the suspension polymerization, the reaction temperature is 70-95°C (“warming up to 80-90 ℃ of insulation 14-16 hour, then cooling (room temperature) obtains polystyrene Archon again, after extracting or cleaning, carries out drying treatment”, see pg.13; the prior art temperature ranges within the range of the claimed temperature), and the reaction pressure is ambient pressure (Jiang does not apply any external pressure therefore it is implied that ambient pressure is used); during the hydrolysis, the hydrolysis temperature is 100°C (“By being blended in 100-120 ℃ through the polystyrene Archon of drying treatment and chloromethyl ether”, see pg. 13)…
Jiang does not teach that the reaction time is 7-10 hours and the hydrolysis time is 1 hour.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the reaction time and the hydrolysis time of Jiang by adjusting the reaction time and the hydrolysis time, including a reaction time between 7-10 hours and hydrolysis time of 1 hr because the reaction time and hydrolysis time are parameters, among other conditions such as temperature, pressure, pH, etc., would have been optimized to produce a fortified resin with an optimal particle diameter and treatment performance (Jiang, see pg. 9). “[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.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Claims 3-4 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang (CN 102815765) in view of Zeng (CN 104030496).
Regarding claim 3, Jiang teaches the method for recycling heavy oil produced water for use in a steam injection boiler without desilication according to claim 1…and a concentration of divalent and trivalent scaling ions of 50 ug/L or less (0-25ppb, the magnesium ion concentration is 0-15ppb, the iron ion concentration is 0-20ppb, see pg. 11).
Jiang does not teach that the heavy oil produced water after the advanced treatment of removing divalent and trivalent scaling ions has an oil content of less than 2 mg/L, a suspended matter content of less than 2 mg/L, a silica content of less than 300 mg/L, and a total soluble solid content.
In a related field of endeavor, Zeng teaches a deep-softening treating and reusing method for thickened oil produced water (see ABS) comprising treatment of removing divalent and trivalent scaling ions has an oil content of less than 2 mg/L (oil content in the effluent water is ≤2.0mg/L, see pg. 11), a suspended matter content of less than 2 mg/L (suspended solid content ≤5.0mg/L, see pg. 11), a silica content of less than 300 mg/L (the silica content is 280mg/L, see pg. 11), and a total soluble solid content (suspended solid content ≤5.0mg/L, see pg. 11).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify the pretreatment of Jiang by treatment of removing divalent and trivalent scaling ions has an oil content of less than 2 mg/L, a suspended matter content of less than 2 mg/L, a silica content of less than 300 mg/L, and a total soluble solid content as disclosed by Zeng because it meets the water quality index for reinjection of oil block formations (Zeng, see pg. 4).
Regarding claim 4, Jiang teaches the method for recycling heavy oil produced water for use in a steam injection boiler without desilication according to claim 3, wherein the advanced treatment of removing divalent and trivalent scaling ions comprises a primary advanced treatment and…wherein the hardness of the heavy oil produced water after the primary advanced treatment is less than 5 mg/L (calcium, magnesium, and iron ion concentrations are 211 ppb, 73ppb and 54 ppb, respectively, see pg. 11)…
Jiang does not teach a secondary advanced treatment in sequence.
In a related field of endeavor, Zeng teaches a deep-softening treating and reusing method for thickened oil produced water (see ABS) comprising a secondary advanced treatment in sequence (secondary fiber ball filter, see pg. 12).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify the pretreatment of Jiang by incorporating the secondary treatment of Zeng because it removes the remaining oil and suspended matter in the water (Zeng, see pg. 12).
The combination of Jiang and Zeng teaches that “the concentration of divalent and trivalent scaling ions in the heavy oil produced water after the secondary advanced treatment is 50 ug/L or less” because the method of Jiang yields low concentrations of scaling ions in the ppb level range.
Regarding claim 8, Jiang teaches the method for recycling heavy oil produced water for use in a steam injection boiler without desilication according to claim 1, wherein the pre-treatment comprises an oil-removal buffer treatment…and a flotation treatment performed in sequence (“wherein said pretreatment comprises adjustment, coagulation sedimentation and dissolved air flotation, specifically comprising the following steps: Adjustment: pass the heavy oily sewage into the adjustment tank, add polyquaternium type reverse demulsifier”, see pg. 14; demulsifer in the adjustment step is an oil-removal treatment); wherein the oil-removal buffer treatment is performed at a treat temperature of 60-90°C (“Pretreatment of heavy oil sewage…the temperature reaches 57°C-80°C”, see pg. 13, which overlaps with the claimed range)…
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 57°C-80°C overlaps the claimed range of 60-90°C. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Jiang does not teach pretreating for a duration of 12 hours.
Jiang does not teach an inclined plate oil-removal treatment; and that the inclined plate oil-removal treatment comprises the processes of rapid mixing, slow reaction, and inclined plate precipitation.
In a related field of endeavor, Zeng teaches a deep-softening treating and reusing method for thickened oil produced water (see ABS) comprising an inclined plate oil-removal treatment (inclined plate settling tank, see pg. 11); and that the inclined plate oil-removal treatment comprises the processes of rapid mixing, slow reaction, and inclined plate precipitation (“the inclined plate settling tank to settle and remove the precipitate”, see pg. 11).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify the pretreatment of Jiang by incorporating the inclined plate oil-removal treatment of Zeng because it aids in settling and removing precipitates (Zeng, see pg. 11).
Regarding claim 9, Jiang and Zeng teach the method for recycling heavy oil produced water for use in a steam injection boiler without desilication according to claim 8, wherein the heavy oil produced water after the oil-removal buffer treatment has an oil content of less than 500 mg/L (oil content in the effluent water is ≤2.0mg/L, see pg. 11) and a suspended matter content of less than 300 mg/L (suspended solid content ≤5.0mg/L, see pg. 11); the heavy oil produced water after the inclined plate oil-removal treatment has an oil content of less than 50 mg/L (oil content in the effluent water is ≤2.0mg/L, see pg. 11) and a suspended matter content of less than 100 mg/L (suspended solid content ≤5.0mg/L, see pg. 11); and the heavy oil produced water after the flotation treatment has an oil content of less than 10 mg/L, a suspended matter content of less than 20 mg/L (suspended solid content ≤5.0mg/L, see pg. 11), a silica content of less than 300 mg/L (the silica content is 280mg/L, see pg. 11), and a total hardness of less than 200 mg/L (the total hardness of the effluent is ≤0.1mg/L, see pg. 11).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang (CN 102815765) in view of Zeng (CN 104030496) and further in view of Song (US 2015/0174510).
Regarding claim 11, Jiang and Zeng teach the method for recycling heavy oil produced water for use in a steam injection boiler without desilication according to claim 10, wherein the filtration treatment comprises a primary filtration treatment and a secondary filtration treatment in sequence (Zeng, secondary filtration treatment includes primary double filter material filtration treatment and secondary fiber ball filtration treatment, see pg. 12); the heavy oil produced water after the primary filtration treatment has a total hardness of less than 200 mg/L (Zeng, the total hardness of the effluent is ≤0.1mg/L, see pg. 11), an oil content of less than 5 mg/L (oil content in the effluent water is ≤2.0mg/L, see pg. 11), a suspended matter content of less than 5 mg/L (Zeng, suspended solid content ≤5.0mg/L, see pg. 11), a silica content of less than 300 mg/L (Zeng, the silica content is 280mg/L, see pg. 11), and a total soluble solid content of less than 7000 mg/L (Zeng, the soluble solid content is 4000 mg/L, see pg. 11); and the heavy oil produced water after the secondary filtration treatment has a total hardness of less than 200 mg/L (Zeng, the total hardness of the effluent is ≤0.1mg/L, see pg. 11), an oil content of less than 2 mg/L (Zeng, oil content in the effluent water is ≤2.0mg/L, see pg. 11), a suspended matter content of less than 2 mg/L (Zeng, suspended solid content ≤5.0mg/L, see pg. 11), a silica content of less than 300 mg/L (Zeng, the silica content is 280mg/L, see pg. 11), and a total soluble solid content of less than 7000 mg/L (Zeng, the soluble solid content is 4000 mg/L, see pg. 11)…
The combination does not teach that the filtration treatment further comprises a suction filtration treatment prior to the primary filtration treatment.
In a related field of endeavor, Song teaches a rapid suction-filtering device (see ABS) comprising a suction filtration (rapid suction filtration apparatus of the present invention comprises a filter and a vacuum pump, see ¶16).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify the system of Jiang by incorporating a suction filter as disclosed by Song prior the primary filtration treatment because it provides rapid and efficient filtration for large scale usage (Song, see ¶16).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang (CN 102815765) in view of Dong (CN 105884967).
Regarding claim 14, Jiang teaches the method for recycling heavy oil produced water for use in a steam injection boiler without desilication according to claim 1, …wherein the matrix material comprises an acrylate-based compound (methacrylic acid propyl trimethoxy silicane, see pg. 9); the dispersant comprises one or a combination of two or more of polyvinyl alcohol, gelatin, and carboxymethyl cellulose (gelatin, polyvinyl alcohol, see pg. 7).
Jiang does not teach that the reinforcing agent comprises acrylonitrile and/or isobutyronitrile and the porogenic agent comprises one or a combination of two or more of toluene, xylene, polyethylene glycol and hydroxypropyl cellulose.
In a related field of endeavor, Dong teaches a method for synthesizing a pollution-resistant large-capacity microporous weak resin (see ABS) comprising acrylonitrile (see pg. 9) and/or isobutyronitrile (see pg. 9) and toluene as a porogen (see pg.9).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify the reinforcing agent of Jiang to be acrylonitrile or isobutyronitrile as disclosed by Dong and modify the porogenic of Jiang to be toluene as disclosed by Dong because it is the simple substitution of known oil treatment additives to a known treatment method for the benefit of preventing emulsion polymerization (Dong, see pg. 5).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EKANDRA S. MILLER-CRUZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7849. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7 am - 6 pm EST.
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, Benjamin L. Lebron can be reached at (571) 272-0475. 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.
/EKANDRA S. MILLER-CRUZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights