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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-17, in the reply filed on 08/24/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 objected to because of the following informalities: The claim recites “capturing the H2S with .” In order to avoid a possible rejection under 35 USC 112 6th . Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over of Favero et al. (US 2019/0292079 A1) (“Favero” herein- provided by applicant).
Claim 1 and 11.
Favero discloses a method, comprising: [0036,
removing at least some portions of salts, H2S and oil from a produced water to provide a treated produced water; [0019, 0037, 0053, 0067]
dissolving a polymer in the treated produced water at a polymer concentration, to provide a polymer solution having a viscosity from 5 cP (mPa·s) to 100 cP (mPa·s) at a temperature from 20 °C to 22 °C; or a viscosity from 5 cP (mPa-s) to 100 cP (mPa-s) at a temperature from 50 °C to 100 °C. [0106-0108, 0130-0131, 0135] and
injecting the polymer solution into a subterranean formation through a wellbore to recover hydrocarbons trapped in the subterranean formation. [0106-0108]
Favero does not explicitly disclose the terminology as recited within the claimed invention: dissolving a polymer in the treated produced water at a polymer concentration, from 100 parts per million (ppm) to 1000 ppm to provide a polymer solution.
Favero ,discloses that reusing the treated water to dissolve a “new” polymer was studied. The results indeed demonstrate that the method according to the invention makes it possible to obtain a water suitable for polymer dissolution. Two solutions containing 1000 ppm of an acrylamide/acrylic acid copolymer (70/30 by weight), having a molecular weight of 18 Million g/mol, are prepared. Each solution is respectively prepared with the treated water [0131, 0135] for the purpose of obtaining a water suitable for polymer dissolution implementing the water originating from the treatment method previously described to enhance hydrocarbon (oil and/or gas) recovery method. This method consists of injecting a polymer solution into an underground formation and recovering the hydrocarbons. [0135 , 0106]
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of injecting polymer of Favero, with the studied amount into the wellbore, in order to obtaining a water suitable for polymer dissolution implementing the water originating from the treatment method previously described to enhance hydrocarbon (oil and/or gas) recovery method.
Since Favero discloses the same composition comprising of a polymer, it would have a polymer solution having a viscosity from 5 cP (mPa·s) to 100 cP (mPa·s) at a temperature from 20 °C to 22 ° or a viscosity from 5 cP (mPa-s) to 100 cP (mPa-s) at a temperature from 50 °C to 100 °C.
"Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties”. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant disc loses and /or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP 2112.01 (I), In re Best, 562 F2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433, Titanium Metals Corp v Banner, 778 F2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed Cir 1985) , In re Ludtke, 441 F2d 660, 169 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1971) and Northam Wareen Corp v DF Newfield Co, 7 F Supp 773, 22 USPQ 313 (EDNY1934).
Claim 10.
Favero discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the polymer comprises a hydrolyzed polyacrylamide, a copolymer of acrylamide and acrylamide tertiary butyl sulfonate (ATBS), or a copolymer of acrylamide and acrylate. [0106-0108, 0130-0131]
Claims 2-6, 8-9, and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over as Favero, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pruet et al. (US 2013/0075333 A1) (“Pruet” herein)
Claim 2.
Favero discloses the method of claim 1. Favero however, does not explicitly disclose, method of claim 1, wherein a concentration of the salts in the produced water is from 50,000 ppm to 250,000 ppm, and wherein a concentration of the salts in the treated produced water is less than 500 ppm.
Pruet teaches the above limitation (See paragraphs 0032-033, Table 1, 0095, 00977, & 0051 → Produced water feed to the treatment process typical contains both inorganic and organic constituents that limit the discharge options, e.g., dispersed oil, dissolved or soluble organics, produced solids, scales (e.g., precipitated solids, gypsum (CaSO4), barite (BaSO4)), bacteria, metals, low pH, sulfates, naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORM), and chemicals added during extraction. The produced water contains at least 1,000 mg/L TDS in one embodiment, at least 5,000 mg/L TDS in a second embodiment, and at least 10,000 mg/L TDS in a fourth embodiment. In some locations, the produced water may have TDS concentrations of at least 150,000 mg/L. In terms of hardness level (as Mg, Ca, Sr, Ba), the concentration may range from 200-2000 mg/L Mg; from 5000 to 40,000 mg/L Ca, from 1000-10,000 mg/L Sr, and from 1000-10,000 mg/L Ba. The oil related compounds in produced water include benzene, xylene, ethyl benzene, toluene, and other compounds of the type identified in the sample analysis shown in Table 1 and in other crude oil and natural gas sources. In one embodiment for treating oil free water with TDS of less than 5000 ppm, the IE unit comprises two beds of strong acid IE resin in series with the first bed removing the bulk of the hardness, and the second bed acting as a polisher to remove the last traces of calcium and magnesium. In one embodiment with the produced water having TDS of;8000 ppm, the system comprises two beds in series with a weak acid followed by a weak acid bed to reduce the hardness to a level meeting spec, e.g., to less than 1 ppm. Such high TDS water is commonly seen in many carbonate type subterranean reservoirs.) for the purpose of treating produced water to avoid undesirable scale build-up within processing equipment. [0005]
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Favero, with the above limitations, as taught by Pruet, in order to treat produced water to avoid undesirable scale build-up within processing equipment. [0005]
Claim 3.
Favero discloses the method of claim 1. Favero however, does not explicitly disclose, method of claim 1, wherein a concentration of the salts in the produced water is from 20,000 ppm to 100,000 ppm, and wherein a concentration of the salts in the treated produced water is less than 100 ppm. (Same as claim 2)
Claim 4.
Favero discloses the method of claim 1. Favero however, does not explicitly disclose,, wherein removing of at least a portion of the salts from the produced water comprises:
heating the produced water to generate steam; and condensing the steam into a liquid.
Pruet teaches the above limitation (See paragraphs 0055 & 0085→ Pruet teaches this limitation in that the produced water enters the system is at a temperature as much as 50.degree. C. in one embodiment, at least 70.degree. C. in a second embodiment, and in the range of 80-90.degree. C. in a third embodiment. As the high temperature is maintained in the EC step, then a limited amount of heat may be needed to boil the water to create steam. Additionally, the current increases the temperature of the produced water. This additional heat aids the thermal driving force downstream desalination forward osmosis/membrane distillation step. ] In one embodiment, "direct contact" membrane distillation (DCMD) is used to remove the total dissolved solids and salinity in the water. In DCMD, both the warm vaporizing feed stream and the cold condensate stream (treated produced water feed) are in direct contact with the membrane distillation apparatus. The driving force for membrane distillation is the partial pressure differential between each side of the membrane pores. Both the feed and permeate aqueous solutions may be circulated tangentially to the membrane surfaces by means of circulating pumps. Alternatively, the solution may be stirred inside the membrane cell by means of a magnetic stirrer. The trans-membrane temperature difference induces a vapor pressure differential. Volatile molecules evaporate at the hot liquid-vapor interface, cross the membrane pores in vapor phase, and condense in the cold liquid-vapor interface inside the membrane module. The liquid feed water to be treated by DCMD is maintained in direct contact with one side of the membrane without penetrating the dry pores unless a trans-membrane pressure higher than the membrane liquid entry pressure is applied.) for the purpose of having a desalination of produced water. [0090]
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Favero, with the above limitation, as taught by Pruet, in order to have a desalination of produced water. [0090]
Claim 5.
Favero discloses the method of claim 1. Favero however, does not explicitly disclose, , wherein a concentration of the H2S in the produced water is from 100 ppm to 500 ppm, and wherein a concentration of the H2S in the treated produced water is less than 1 ppm. (Same as claim 2)
Claim 6.
Favero discloses the method of claim 1. Favero however, does not explicitly disclose, , wherein a concentration of the H2S in the produced water is from 50 ppm to 200 ppm, and wherein a concentration of the H2S in the treated produced water is less than 0.5 ppm. (Same as claim 2)
Claim 8.
Favero discloses the method of claim 1. Favero however, does not explicitly disclose,, wherein a concentration of the oil in the produced water is from 50 ppm to 200 ppm, [0019] and wherein a concentration of the oil in the treated produced water is less than 10 ppm. (Same as claim 2)
Claim 9.
Favero discloses the method of claim 1. Favero however, does not explicitly disclose,, wherein a concentration of the oil in the produced water is from 20 ppm to 100 ppm, [0019] and wherein a concentration of the oil in the treated produced water is less than 1 ppm. (Same as claim 2)
Claim 12.
Favero discloses the method of claim 1. Favero however, does not explicitly disclose, wherein the subterranean formation comprises a carbonate reservoir or a sandstone reservoir. (Same as claim 2)
Claims 13-14
Favero discloses a method, comprising:
removing at least some portions of salts, H2S and oil from a produced water to provide a treated produced water, the produced water comprising ; [0019, 0037, 0053, 0067]
dissolving a polymer in the treated produced water to form a polymer solution, the polymer comprising a sulfonated polyacrylamide to provide a polymer solution having a viscosity from 5 cP (mPa·s) to 100 cP (mPa·s) at a temperature from 20 °C to 22 °C [0106-0108, 0130-0131and
injecting the polymer solution into a subterranean formation through a wellbore to recover hydrocarbons trapped in the subterranean formation. [0106-0108]
Favero does not explicitly disclose dissolving a polymer in the treated produced water to form a polymer solution having a polymer concentration between 100 ppm and 1000 ppm.
Favero ,discloses that reusing the treated water to dissolve a “new” polymer was studied. The results indeed demonstrate that the method according to the invention makes it possible to obtain a water suitable for polymer dissolution. Two solutions containing 1000 ppm of an acrylamide/acrylic acid copolymer (70/30 by weight), having a molecular weight of 18 Million g/mol, are prepared. Each solution is respectively prepared with the treated water [0131, 0135] for the purpose of obtaining a water suitable for polymer dissolution implementing the water originating from the treatment method previously described to enhance hydrocarbon (oil and/or gas) recovery method. This method consists of injecting a polymer solution into an underground formation and recovering the hydrocarbons. [0135 , 0106]
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of injecting polymer of Favero, with the studied amount into the wellbore, in order to obtaining a water suitable for polymer dissolution implementing the water originating from the treatment method previously described to enhance hydrocarbon (oil and/or gas) recovery method.
Since Favero discloses the same composition comprising of a polymer, it would have a polymer solution having a viscosity from 5 cP (mPa·s) to 100 cP (mPa·s) at a temperature from 20 °C to 22 °.
"Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties”. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant disc loses and /or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP 2112.01 (I), In re Best, 562 F2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433, Titanium Metals Corp v Banner, 778 F2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed Cir 1985) , In re Ludtke, 441 F2d 660, 169 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1971) and Northam Wareen Corp v DF Newfield Co, 7 F Supp 773, 22 USPQ 313 (EDNY1934).
Favero however, does not explicitly disclose, 50,000- 250,000 parts per million (ppm) salts, 100-500 ppm hydrogen disulfide (H₂S), and 50-200 ppm oil to provide a treated produced water having a total salt content of less than 500 ppm, an H2S content of less than 1 ppm, and an oil content of less than 10 ppm and the subterranean formation as a subterranean carbonate formation.
Pruet teaches the above limitation (See paragraphs 0032-033, Table 1, 0095, 0097, 0116 – table, & 0051 → Produced water feed to the treatment process typical contains both inorganic and organic constituents that limit the discharge options, e.g., dispersed oil, dissolved or soluble organics, produced solids, scales (e.g., precipitated solids, gypsum (CaSO4), barite (BaSO4)), bacteria, metals, low pH, sulfates, naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORM), and chemicals added during extraction. The produced water contains at least 1,000 mg/L TDS in one embodiment, at least 5,000 mg/L TDS in a second embodiment, and at least 10,000 mg/L TDS in a fourth embodiment. In some locations, the produced water may have TDS concentrations of at least 150,000 mg/L. In terms of hardness level (as Mg, Ca, Sr, Ba), the concentration may range from 200-2000 mg/L Mg; from 5000 to 40,000 mg/L Ca, from 1000-10,000 mg/L Sr, and from 1000-10,000 mg/L Ba. The oil related compounds in produced water include benzene, xylene, ethyl benzene, toluene, and other compounds of the type identified in the sample analysis shown in Table 1 and in other crude oil and natural gas sources. In one embodiment for treating oil free water with TDS of less than 5000 ppm, the IE unit comprises two beds of strong acid IE resin in series with the first bed removing the bulk of the hardness, and the second bed acting as a polisher to remove the last traces of calcium and magnesium. In one embodiment with the produced water having TDS of;8000 ppm, the system comprises two beds in series with a weak acid followed by a weak acid bed to reduce the hardness to a level meeting spec, e.g., to less than 1 ppm. Such high TDS water is commonly seen in many carbonate type subterranean reservoirs.) for the purpose of treating produced water to avoid undesirable scale build-up within processing equipment. [0005]
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Favero, with the above limitations, as taught by Pruet, in order to treat produced water to avoid undesirable scale build-up within processing equipment. [0005]
Claim 15.
Favero discloses the method of claim 13. Favero however, does not explicitly disclose, , wherein the treated produced water has a total concentration of divalent cations of less than 2 ppm. (Same as claim 13)
Claim 16.
Favero discloses the method of claim 13. Favero however, does not explicitly disclose, , wherein the produced water comprises sulfates, chlorides, bicarbonates, sodium, potassium, calcium, and magnesium. (Same as claim 13)
Claim 17.
Favero discloses the method of claim 16. Favero however, does not explicitly disclose, wherein the treated produced water has a concentration for each of the sulfates, the potassium, the calcium, and the magnesium, of less than 2 ppm, and a concentration for each of the chlorides, the bicarbonates, the sodium of less than 50 ppm. (Same as claim 13)
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Favero as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Begeal et al. (US 2022/0017833 A1) (“Begeal” herein).
Claim 7.
Favero discloses the method of claim 1. Favero however, does not explicitly disclose,, wherein removing of a portion of the H2S from the produced water comprises:
flashing the produced water to form a gas comprising the H₂S; and capturing the H2S in the gas using a gas scrubber.
Begeal teaches the above limitation (See paragraph 0074→ Begeal teaches this limitation in that In certain embodiments, the aminol/aminacetal or diaminol/aminacetal systems may be used to remove sulfides in upstream applications. In various applications, sulfides may be scavenged by the diaminol/aminacetal systems from the oil or natural gas through injection or in-situ formation into such equipment as contact/scrubber tower, direct line injection, batch treating, capillary or umbilical injection. In other applications, embodiments of H.sub.2S scavengers of the present invention may be employed where fluid separation takes place, such as in intermediate storage lines and vessels, separators and fractioning equipment, transport lines and storage tanks. In other cases, sulfide impurities are removed from the hydrocarbon fluids and/or water streams during the refining process.) for the purpose of removing sulfides (hydrogen sulfide and organic sulfides) from oil, natural gas, and water. [0009]
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Favero, with the above limitation, as taught by Begeal, in order to remove sulfides (hydrogen sulfide and organic sulfides) from oil, natural gas, and water. [0009]
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Porat et al. (US 2020/0024166 A1) POLYMER FLOODING PRODUCED WATER TREATMENT teaches he present embodiments generally relate to the treatment of produced water comprising one or more water soluble polymers, wherein such treatment comprises: adding to the produced water at least one iron complex; and degrading at least a portion of the one or more water soluble polymers. This treatment may result in a reduction of the viscosity of said produced water and/or the degradation of the water soluble polymers which are contained therein, Ayrala et al. (US 2010/002473246 A1) WATER INJECTION SYSTEMS AND METHODS teaches There is disclosed a system comprising a well drilled into an underground formation comprising hydrocarbons; a production facility at a topside of the well; a water production facility connected to the production facility; wherein the water production facility produces water by removing some multivalent ions, then removing some monovalent ions, and then adding back some multivalent ions, and then injects the water into the well, and Neggahppan (US 2012/0255904 A1) Method Of Recovering Oil Or Gas And Treating The Resulting Produced Water teaches A method or process for treating wastewater containing high organics, silica, boron, hardness, and suspended and dissolved solids. The method includes degasifying the wastewater for the removal of dissolved gases and thereafter chemically softening the wastewater. After the chemical softening step, the wastewater is directed through a media filter or membrane which removes additional solids and precipitants. Thereafter the wastewater is directed through a sodium ion exchange that further softens the wastewater. The effluent from the ion exchange is directed through a cartridge filter and the effluent from the cartridge filter is directed through one or more reverse osmosis units. At a selected phase of the process, prior to the wastewater reaching the reverse osmosis unit or units, the pH of the wastewater is raised and maintained such that the pH of the wastewater reaching a reverse osmosis unit is at a pH greater than 10.5.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SILVANA C RUNYAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5415. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30.
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, Sue Lui can be reached at 571-272-5539. 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.
/SILVANA C RUNYAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1616 09/04/2026
Prosecution Insights