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 of the following informalities: In paragraph [0014], applicant discloses “sand dunes 112a and 110b” where it appears applicant intended “sand dunes 112a and 112b”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “116” has been used to designate both the Sun and the water/oil separation unit. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 212. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 112b. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-15 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.
The term “metal-rich” or “rich in metals” in claims 1-2 and 7-14 is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “metal-rich” or “rich in metals” is not defined by the claims, 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. For examination purposes, the term will be considered to mean a metal concentration of at least 100 ppm, as disclosed as an example in paragraph [0013] of the instant specification. Appropriate action required.
The term “rich in deposits of evaporites” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “rich in deposits of evaporites” is 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. For examination purposes, any amount of evaporite deposits will be considered to read on the claims. Appropriate action required.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "splitting the metal-rich produced water into the first portion” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the claim will be considered to recite "splitting the metal-rich produced water into [[the]]a first portion".
Claim 9 recites the limitation "evaporation of the portion of the metal-rich produced water" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the claim will be considered to recite "evaporation of [[the]]a portion of the metal-rich produced water".
Claims 3-6 are rejected as depending from a rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 9-11, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandt et al. (US 5,695,643).
Per claim 9, Brandt et al. disclose a method comprising:
producing hydrocarbons from one or more hydrocarbon reservoirs in a
subterranean zone (col. 1, lines 21-22, Brine is often produced when oil or gas is recovered from subterranean formations.), wherein produced water is produced with the produced hydrocarbons (col. 1, lines 22-23, Usually the interstices of oil or gas producing formations contain brine in addition to the oil and/or gas.);
the produced water is rich in metals (col. 10, lines 56-59,The brine feedstream 10 to be processed may have a salt concentration that ranges from a low of 500 ppm to concentrations that are ten or more times that amount.);
flowing the metal-rich produced water to an evaporation area (28, col. 6, lines 33-36, The second discharge stream 24 which comprises the concentrated brine is next introduced into a combustion heat evaporator, in the form of a submerged combustion evaporator 28.), wherein evaporation of [[the]]a portion of the metal-rich produced water causes metal in the portion of the metal-rich produced water to be deposited in the evaporation area (col. 5, lines 36-39, Also, the pretreatment units 12, 14 can be designed to render harmless to the membrane 22 of the reverse osmosis unit 20 any salt or metal constituents present in the brine feedstream. Additionally pretreated units 12, 14 may remove trace elements or chemicals, such as barium, strontium, or benzene, that may affect the usability of the stream leaving the reverse osmosis unit for commercial or other usage.; col. 7, lines 19-23, In addition, precautions may need to be taken when the evaporator 28 is shut down because the suspended salt particles may deposit on system components when the agitation of the brine mixture ceases.). Brandt et al. do not explicitly disclose determining that the produced water is rich in metals and retrieving at least a portion of the metal deposited in the evaporation area.
It is submitted that it would have been readily obvious for the skilled artisan to modify the method of Brandt et al. such that it comprises determining that the produced water is rich in metals in order to, for example, reliably know when evaporation is necessary and and retrieving at least a portion of the metal deposited in the evaporation area in order to, for example, remove a potentially hazardous product or reclaim a valuable product from the produced water.
Per claim 10, Brandt et al. disclose that the produced water is fed to a reverse osmosis unit (20) prior to being fed to the evaporation area (28, Fig. 1). Brandt et al. do not explicitly disclose the further comprising separating the produced water from the produced hydrocarbons before flowing the metal-rich produced water to the evaporation area.
It is submitted that it would have been a routine matter of design choice to separate the produced water from the produced hydrocarbons before flowing the metal-rich produced water to the evaporation area in order to, for example, make the water suitable for being used as irrigation water after passing through the RO unit, a goal of Brandt et al. (col. 5, lines 63-67, Preferably, the membrane(s) 22 in the reverse osmosis unit 20 are designed to result in a salt concentration in the first discharge stream 26 that is low enough to meet the environmental and health requirements for enabling the fluid to be used, for example, for irrigation purposes.). Clearly, the skilled artisan would want a hydrocarbon, such as oil, removed from water prior to using the water for irrigation.
Per claim 11, Brandt et al. do not explicitly disclose wherein determining that the produced water is rich in metals comprises: collecting a produced water sample from the one or more hydrocarbon reservoirs; and analyzing the produced water sample to determine concentration of metals in the produced water sample.
It is submitted that it would a have been well within the purview of the skilled artisan to modify the method Brandt et al. such that it comprises wherein determining that the produced water is rich in metals comprises: collecting a produced water sample from the one or more hydrocarbon reservoirs; and analyzing the produced water sample to determine concentration of metals in the produced water sample in order to, for example, quantify beforehand the amount of metals likely to be recovered after evaporating the produced water.
Per claim 13, Brandt et al. disclose wherein flowing the metal-rich produced water to the evaporation area comprises: splitting the metal-rich produced water into a first portion (24) and a remaining portion (26); flowing the first portion (24) into the evaporation area (28, Fig. 1) and discloses that the water is clean enough to used for a suitable purpose (col. 12, lines 54-57, Thus, a potable water stream 26 having a relatively low salt concentration (e.g., less than 500 ppm) is discharged from the reverse osmosis unit 20 where it can be used commercially or disposed in the local drainage system.). Brandt et al. do not explicitly disclose injecting the remaining portion into the one or more hydrocarbon reservoirs from which the produced hydrocarbons were produced.
It is submitted that it would have been a routine matter of process design to modify the method of Brandt et al. such that it comprises injecting the remaining portion into the one or more hydrocarbon reservoirs from which the produced hydrocarbons were produced in order to, for example, reduce costs associated with pumping in water from an external source.
Per claim 15, Brand et al. do not disclose wherein injecting the remaining portion into the one or more hydrocarbon reservoirs comprises pumping the remaining portion into the one or more hydrocarbon reservoirs.
It is submitted that it would have been readily obvious for the skilled artisan to modify the methos Brandt et al. such that it comprises wherein injecting the remaining portion into the one or more hydrocarbon reservoirs comprises pumping the remaining portion into the one or more hydrocarbon reservoirs in order to, for example, avoid having to manually transport the water to the one or more hydrocarbon reservoirs.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1-8 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 12 and 14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Per claim 1, while it is known in the art to provide a method comprising:
identifying a subterranean zone that is a source of metal-rich produced water having a concentration of at least 100 ppm metal;
obtaining the metal-rich produced water from the subterranean zone (see, for example, US 2024/0383777 to Whitson et al.); in the examiner’s opinion, the prior art fails to teach or render obvious the method further comprising
identifying an evaporation area that is at a location that is geographically
optimal to the subterranean zone, wherein the evaporation area [[is rich in]]comprises deposits of evaporites that resulted from evaporation of water that accumulated in the evaporation area;
flowing a portion of the metal-rich produced water to the evaporation area,
wherein evaporation of the portion of the metal-rich produced water causes metal in the portion of the metal-rich produced water to be deposited in the evaporation area;
and
retrieving at least a portion of the metal deposited in the evaporation area.
Per claims 12 and 14, while claims 9 and 13, respectively, are not patentable for the reasons provided above, in the examiner’s opinion, the prior art fails to teach or render obvious the method further comprising the steps recited in claims 12 and 14.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRED PRINCE whose telephone number is (571)272-1165. The examiner can normally be reached M-W: 0900-1730.
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.
/FRED PRINCE/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights