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 Objections
Claims 5 and 22 recite “more than one high pH components” where it appears applicant intended “more than one high pH component[[s]]”.
Claims 6 and 23 recite “more than one low pH components” where it appears applicant intended “more than one low pH component[[s]]”.
Claim Interpretation
A “thermal oil production process” is broadly interpreted by the examiner to include all steps relating to producing a thermal oil, including steps associated with handling/treating side or waste streams.
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 1-33 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 terms “high pH” and “low pH” in claims 1, 5-6, 17 and 22-23 are relative terms which render the claims indefinite. The terms “high pH” and “low pH” are 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, a waste stream having a higher pH relative to another stream is considered a “high pH” stream and a waste stream having a lower pH relative to another waste stream is considered a “low pH” stream. Appropriate action required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the resultant product" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the claim will be considered to recite "[[the]]a resultant product."
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the resultant product" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the claim will be considered to recite "[[the]]a resultant product."
Claims 2-4, 7-16, 18-21 and 24-33 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.
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 1-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neu et al. (US 2016/0326015).
Per claim 1, Neu et al. disclose a method for treating waste streams produced in an oil production process (Fig. 2, [0002] The present invention relates to processes for treating evaporator concentrate. More particularly, the present invention relates to a produced water treatment process that entails evaporating the produced water and producing an evaporator concentrate having a high pH. The concentrate is treated to reduce the pH.; [0024] FIG. 2 shows a process for recovering oil, particularly heavy oil such as recovered by SAGD processes, from oil wells and oil-bearing formations.),
comprising reacting a first waste stream (20, 34B) produced in the oil production process ([0024] This produces an oil-water mixture 20 that is collected from the oil well 42 and pumped to the surface.) having a high pH ([0033] As noted above, the pH of the feedwater can be raised before reaching the evaporator 34. The concentrate in the sump 34C may have a relatively high pH on the order of 12-13 in many cases.) with a second waste stream (88) produced in the oil production process having an inherently low pH since the stream is used to reduce the pH ([0034] In the mixer 86, the carbon dioxide is thoroughly mixed with the concentrate from the evaporator 34. This reduces the pH of the concentrate.), wherein [[the]]a resultant product has a pH value that is between the high pH of the first waste stream and the low pH of the second waste stream ([0034] In the mixer 86, the carbon dioxide is thoroughly mixed with the concentrate from the evaporator 34. This reduces the pH of the concentrate. Generally, sufficient carbon dioxide is added in order to reduce the pH of the concentrate to less than 8.). Neu et al. do not explicitly disclose that the oil production process is a thermal oil production process.
It is submitted that it would have been a routine matter of process design to include a thermal oil production process since thermal oils are produced using the methods disclosed by Neu et al. such as steam injection in a subterranean formation which produces product water (see, for example Neu et al. ([0004] Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) processes employ thermal methods to improve the recovery of heavy oils from sub-surface reservoirs. The injection of steam into heavy oil bearing formations is a widely practiced EOR method. Typically, several tons of steam is required for each ton of oil recovered. Steam heats the oil in the reservoir, which reduces the viscosity of the oil and allows the oil to flow to a collection well. Steam condenses and mixes with the oil, to form an oil-water mixture. The mixture of oil and water is pumped to the surface.)). It has been held that matters involving routine design choice do not involve an inventive step. See MPEP 2144. Further, applicant has not provided for the record a proper showing (e.g., comparative test data) of any new and unexpected result derived from using the steps described above for thermal oil production waste streams.
Per claim 2, Neu et al. do not disclose wherein the first waste stream comprises steam generator blowdown.
It is submitted that it known in the art of oil production processing that steam generator blowdown has a high pH (see, for example, US 2019/0106346 to Kannan et al., [0069] A method for treating feedwater for a steam generator, comprising treating a produced water stream with a warm lime softener treatment unit to make a treated produced water; mixing a saline water, a makeup water and a steam generator blowdown stream in a vessel to form a combined stream; treating the combined stream with a cold limewater stream in a cold lime softener treatment unit, wherein the steam generator blowdown stream increases the operating temperature and pH of the combined stream….). Since lime is alkaline, it follows that if adding the blowdown to the lime increases the pH, as disclosed by Kannan et al., then the blowdown is “high pH.”
Accordingly, it is submitted that it would have been well within the purview of the skilled artisan to have the first waste stream comprise steam generator blowdown in order to, for example, lower the pH of the blowdown stream by contacting it with the second waste stream, absent a proper showing of any new and unexpected result.
Per claim 3, wherein the first waste stream comprises evaporator blowdown (abstract, The process includes generating or producing a vent stream that includes carbon dioxide and mixing the carbon dioxide with the evaporator blowdown to reduce the pH of the evaporator blowdown.).
Per claim 4, Neu et al. do not explicitly disclose wherein the second waste stream comprises gas containing hydrogen sulfide.
However, it is known in the art that acid gases such as hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide may be generated when extracting hydrocarbons from subterranean formations (see, for example, page 6 of the machine-generated English translation of CN 105189942 to Huntington et al., The term "natural gas" means from a crude oil well (associated gas) from the underground gas-containing formation (non-associated gas), or obtained from a coal bed gas. the natural gas component and pressure difference is obvious. common natural gas stream containing methane (CH4) as an important component. crude gas can comprises ethane (C2H6), higher molecular weight hydrocarbons, acid gases (such as carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, carbon disulfide, and mercaptans), such as water, nitrogen, iron sulfide, wax, and crude oil contamination.).
Accordingly, it would have been a routine matter of process design for the second waste stream to comprise gas containing hydrogen sulfide since the gas when present is acidic and would aid in lowering the pH of the first waste stream of Neu et al. Further, the examiner notes that steps involving matters of routine design choice are not considered to involve an inventive step. See MPEP 2144. Moreover, applicant has not provided for the record a proper showing (e.g., comparative test data) of any new and unexpected result obtained by using a gas containing hydrogen sulfide.
Per claim 5, wherein the first waste stream is comprised of more than one
high pH component[[s]] ([0028] It may be desirable to raise the pH of the produced water prior to the produced water reaching the heat transfer tubes of the evaporator 34. To accomplish this, a caustic, such as sodium hydroxide, can be added in the lower portion of the deaearator or can be injected as indicated in FIG. 2 into the sump of the evaporator 34 via the chemical addition line 90.).
Per claim 6, Neu et al. do not explicitly disclose wherein the second waste stream is comprised of more than one low pH component[[s]].
However, it is known in the art that more than one acid gas may be present when extracting hydrocarbons from subterranean formations (see, for example, page 6 of the machine-generated English translation of CN 105189942 to Huntington et al., The term "natural gas" means from a crude oil well (associated gas) from the underground gas-containing formation (non-associated gas), or obtained from a coal bed gas. the natural gas component and pressure difference is obvious. common natural gas stream containing methane (CH4) as an important component. crude gas can comprises ethane (C2H6), higher molecular weight hydrocarbons, acid gases (such as carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, carbon disulfide, and mercaptans), such as water, nitrogen, iron sulfide, wax, and crude oil contamination.).
Accordingly, it would have been a routine matter of process design to for the second waste stream to comprise gas more than one low pH component since the gases when present are acidic and would aid in lowering the pH of the first waste stream of Neu et al. Further, the examiner notes that steps involving matters of routine design choice are not considered to involve an inventive step. See MPEP 2144. Moreover, applicant has not provided for the record a proper showing (e.g., comparative test data) of any new and unexpected result obtained by using a gas containing more than one low pH component.
Per claims 7 and 10, Neu et al. do not disclose wherein the first waste stream is a gas waste stream or wherein the second waste stream is a liquid waste stream.
It is submitted that it would have been a routine matter of design choice to make the first waste stream a gas waste stream or the second waste stream a liquid waste stream as long as the streams had the required pH and were capable of being mixed/reacted, depending on anticipated contaminants present in the respective waste streams and the results desired. Further, the examiner notes that steps involving matters of routine design choice are not considered to involve an inventive step. See MPEP 2144. Moreover, applicant has not provided for the record a proper showing (e.g., comparative test data) of any new and unexpected result obtained by having the first waste stream be a gas waste stream or the second waste stream be a liquid waste stream.
Per claim 8, wherein the first waste stream is a liquid waste stream ([0015] The present invention relates to a process for mixing a vent stream containing carbon dioxide with evaporator blowdown to lower the pH of the evaporator blowdown.).
Per claim 9, wherein the second waste stream is a gas waste stream ([0035] This gaseous stream is a good source of carbon dioxide and can be directed to a mixer 86 where the carbon dioxide is mixed with the evaporator concentrate.).
Per claims 11 and 12, Neu et al. do not explicitly disclose wherein the pH of the first waste stream is greater than 7.0 and below 9.0 or wherein the pH of the first waste stream is greater than or equal to 9.0, and less than 11.0.
It submitted that to would have been a routine matter of process design to have the pH of the first waste stream greater than 7.0 and below 9.0 or the pH of the first waste stream greater than or equal to 9.0, and less than 11.0 since the waste stream would be in an alkaline range and benefit from a reduction in pH when combined with acidic wastes, depending on anticipated contaminants present and the results desired. Further, the examiner notes that steps involving matters of routine design choice are not considered to involve an inventive step. See MPEP 2144. Moreover, applicant has not provided for the record a proper showing (e.g., comparative test data) of any new and unexpected result obtained by having the pH of the first waste stream greater than 7.0 and below 9.0 or the pH of the first waste stream greater than or equal to 9.0, and less than 11.0.
Per claim 13, wherein the pH of the first stream is greater than or equal to 11.0
and less than or equal to 14.0 ([0033] As noted above, the pH of the feedwater can be raised before reaching the evaporator 34. The concentrate in the sump 34C may have a relatively high pH on the order of 12-13 in many cases.).
Per claims 14, 15 and 16, Neu et al. do not explicitly disclose wherein the pH of the second waste stream is greater than or equal to 0.0 and less than 3.0, greater than or equal to 3.0 and less than 5.0 or greater than or equal to 5.0 and less than 7.0.
It submitted that to would have been a routine matter of process design to have the pH of the second waste stream is greater than or equal to 0.0 and less than 3.0, greater than or equal to 3.0 and less than 5.0 or greater than or equal to 5.0 and less than 7.0 since the waste stream would be in an acidic range and function to reduce the pH when combined with alkaline wastes, depending on anticipated contaminants present and the results desired. Further, the examiner notes that steps involving matters of routine design choice are not considered to involve an inventive step. See MPEP 2144. Moreover, applicant has not provided for the record a proper showing (e.g., comparative test data) of any new and unexpected result obtained by having the pH of the second waste stream greater than or equal to 0.0 and less than 3.0, greater than or equal to 3.0 and less than 5.0 or greater than or equal to 5.0 and less than 7.0.
Per claim 17, Neu et al. disclose a method for treating waste streams produced in a thermal oil production process (Fig. 2, [0002] The present invention relates to processes for treating evaporator concentrate. More particularly, the present invention relates to a produced water treatment process that entails evaporating the produced water and producing an evaporator concentrate having a high pH. The concentrate is treated to reduce the pH.; [0024] FIG. 2 shows a process for recovering oil, particularly heavy oil such as recovered by SAGD processes, from oil wells and oil-bearing formations.),
comprising reacting a first waste stream (20, 34B) produced in the oil production process ([0024] This produces an oil-water mixture 20 that is collected from the oil well 42 and pumped to the surface.) having a high pH ([0033] As noted above, the pH of the feedwater can be raised before reaching the evaporator 34. The concentrate in the sump 34C may have a relatively high pH on the order of 12-13 in many cases.) with a second waste stream (88) produced in the oil production process having an inherently low pH since the stream is used to reduce the pH ([0034] In the mixer 86, the carbon dioxide is thoroughly mixed with the concentrate from the evaporator 34. This reduces the pH of the concentrate.), wherein [[the]]a resultant product has as acidic component sequestered therein ([0034] In the mixer 86, the carbon dioxide is thoroughly mixed with the concentrate from the evaporator 34. This reduces the pH of the concentrate. Generally, sufficient carbon dioxide is added in order to reduce the pH of the concentrate to less than 8.). Neu et al. do not explicitly disclose that the oil production process is a thermal oil production process.
It is submitted that it would have been a routine matter of process design to include a thermal oil production process since thermal oil oils are produced using the methods disclosed by Neu et al. such as steam injection in a subterranean formation which produces product water (see, for example Neu et al. ([0004] Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) processes employ thermal methods to improve the recovery of heavy oils from sub-surface reservoirs. The injection of steam into heavy oil bearing formations is a widely practiced EOR method. Typically, several tons of steam is required for each ton of oil recovered. Steam heats the oil in the reservoir, which reduces the viscosity of the oil and allows the oil to flow to a collection well. Steam condenses and mixes with the oil, to form an oil-water mixture. The mixture of oil and water is pumped to the surface.)). It has been held that matters involving routine design choice do not involve an inventive step. See MPEP 2144. Further, applicant has not provided for the record a proper showing (e.g., comparative test data) of any new and unexpected result derived from using the steps described above for thermal oil production waste streams.
Per claim 18, Neu et al. do not disclose wherein the first waste stream comprises steam generator blowdown.
It is submitted that it known in the art of oil production processing that steam generator blowdown has a high pH (see, for example, US 2019/0106346 to Kannan et al., [0069] A method for treating feedwater for a steam generator, comprising treating a produced water stream with a warm lime softener treatment unit to make a treated produced water; mixing a saline water, a makeup water and a steam generator blowdown stream in a vessel to form a combined stream; treating the combined stream with a cold limewater stream in a cold lime softener treatment unit, wherein the steam generator blowdown stream increases the operating temperature and pH of the combined stream….). Since lime is alkaline, it follows that if adding the blowdown to the lime increases the pH, as disclosed by Kannan et al., then the blowdown is “high pH.”
Accordingly, it is submitted that it would have been well within the purview of the skilled artisan to have the first waste stream comprise steam generator blowdown in order to, for example, lower the pH of the blowdown stream by contacting it with the second waste stream, absent a proper showing of any new and unexpected result.
Per claim 19, wherein the first waste stream comprises evaporator blowdown (abstract, The process includes generating or producing a vent stream that includes carbon dioxide and mixing the carbon dioxide with the evaporator blowdown to reduce the pH of the evaporator blowdown.).
Per claims 20 and 21, Neu et al. do not explicitly disclose wherein the second waste stream comprises gas containing hydrogen sulfide or the acidic component is hydrogen sulfide.
However, it is known in the art that acid gases such as hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide may be generated when extracting hydrocarbons from subterranean formations (see, for example, page 6 of the machine-generated English translation of CN 105189942 to Huntington et al., The term "natural gas" means from a crude oil well (associated gas) from the underground gas-containing formation (non-associated gas), or obtained from a coal bed gas. the natural gas component and pressure difference is obvious. common natural gas stream containing methane (CH4) as an important component. crude gas can comprises ethane (C2H6), higher molecular weight hydrocarbons, acid gases (such as carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, carbon disulfide, and mercaptans), such as water, nitrogen, iron sulfide, wax, and crude oil contamination.).
Accordingly, it would have been a routine matter of process design for the second waste stream to comprise gas containing hydrogen sulfide or hydrogen sulfide being the acidic component since the gas when present is acidic and would aid in lowering the pH of the first waste stream of Neu et al. Further, the examiner notes that steps involving matters of routine design choice are not considered to involve an inventive step. See MPEP 2144. Moreover, applicant has not provided for the record a proper showing (e.g., comparative test data) of any new and unexpected result obtained by using a gas containing hydrogen sulfide.
Per claim 22, wherein the first waste stream is comprised of more than one
high pH component[[s]] ([0028] It may be desirable to raise the pH of the produced water prior to the produced water reaching the heat transfer tubes of the evaporator 34. To accomplish this, a caustic, such as sodium hydroxide, can be added in the lower portion of the deaearator or can be injected as indicated in FIG. 2 into the sump of the evaporator 34 via the chemical addition line 90.).
Per claim 23, Neu et al. do not explicitly disclose wherein the second waste stream is comprised of more than one low pH component[[s]].
However, it is known in the art that more than one acid gas may be present when extracting hydrocarbons from subterranean formations (see, for example, page 6 of the machine-generated English translation of CN 105189942 to Huntington et al., The term "natural gas" means from a crude oil well (associated gas) from the underground gas-containing formation (non-associated gas), or obtained from a coal bed gas. the natural gas component and pressure difference is obvious. common natural gas stream containing methane (CH4) as an important component. crude gas can comprises ethane (C2H6), higher molecular weight hydrocarbons, acid gases (such as carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, carbon disulfide, and mercaptans), such as water, nitrogen, iron sulfide, wax, and crude oil contamination.).
Accordingly, it would have been a routine matter of process design for the second waste stream to comprise gas containing more than one low pH component since the gas, when present, may comprise more than one acidic component and would aid in lowering the pH of the first waste stream of Neu et al. Further, the examiner notes that steps involving matters of routine design choice are not considered to involve an inventive step. See MPEP 2144. Moreover, applicant has not provided for the record a proper showing (e.g., comparative test data) of any new and unexpected result obtained by using a gas containing more than one low pH component.
Per claims 24 and 27, Neu et al. do not disclose wherein the first waste stream is a gas waste stream or wherein the second waste stream is a liquid waste stream.
It is submitted that it would have been a routine matter of design choice to make the first waste stream a gas waste stream or the second waste stream a liquid waste stream as long as the streams had the required pH and were capable of being mixed/reacted, depending on anticipated contaminants present in the respective waste streams and the results desired. Further, the examiner notes that steps involving matters of routine design choice are not considered to involve an inventive step. See MPEP 2144. Moreover, applicant has not provided for the record a proper showing (e.g., comparative test data) of any new and unexpected result obtained by having the first waste stream be a gas waste stream or the second waste stream be a liquid waste stream.
Per claim 25, wherein the first waste stream is a liquid waste stream ([0015] The present invention relates to a process for mixing a vent stream containing carbon dioxide with evaporator blowdown to lower the pH of the evaporator blowdown.).
Per claim 26, wherein the second waste stream is a gas waste stream ([0035] This gaseous stream is a good source of carbon dioxide and can be directed to a mixer 86 where the carbon dioxide is mixed with the evaporator concentrate.).
Per claims 28 and 29, Neu et al. do not explicitly disclose wherein the pH of the first waste stream is greater than 7.0 and below 9.0 or wherein the pH of the first waste stream is greater than or equal to 9.0, and less than 11.0.
It submitted that to would have been a routine matter of process design to have the pH of the first waste stream greater than 7.0 and below 9.0 or the pH of the first waste stream greater than or equal to 9.0, and less than 11.0 since the waste stream would be in an alkaline range and benefit from a reduction in pH when combined with acidic wastes, depending on anticipated contaminants present and the results desired. Further, the examiner notes that steps involving matters of routine design choice are not considered to involve an inventive step. See MPEP 2144. Moreover, applicant has not provided for the record a proper showing (e.g., comparative test data) of any new and unexpected result obtained by having the pH of the first waste stream greater than 7.0 and below 9.0 or the pH of the first waste stream greater than or equal to 9.0, and less than 11.0.
Per claim 30, wherein the pH of the first stream is greater than or equal to 11.0
and less than or equal to 14.0 ([0033] As noted above, the pH of the feedwater can be raised before reaching the evaporator 34. The concentrate in the sump 34C may have a relatively high pH on the order of 12-13 in many cases.).
Per claims 31, 32 and 33, Neu et al. do not explicitly disclose wherein the pH of the second waste stream is greater than or equal to 0.0 and less than 3.0, greater than or equal to 3.0 and less than 5.0 or greater than or equal to 5.0 and less than 7.0.
It submitted that to would have been a routine matter of process design to have the pH of the second waste stream is greater than or equal to 0.0 and less than 3.0, greater than or equal to 3.0 and less than 5.0 or greater than or equal to 5.0 and less than 7.0 since the waste stream would be in an acidic range and function to reduce the pH when combined with alkaline wastes, depending on anticipated contaminants present and the results desired. Further, the examiner notes that steps involving matters of routine design choice are not considered to involve an inventive step. See MPEP 2144. Moreover, applicant has not provided for the record a proper showing (e.g., comparative test data) of any new and unexpected result obtained by having the pH of the second waste stream greater than or equal to 0.0 and less than 3.0, greater than or equal to 3.0 and less than 5.0 or greater than or equal to 5.0 and less than 7.0.
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