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 1-11 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: regarding claim 1, the limitations “the membrane filtered stream” in line 9 should be recited as “the membrane-filtered stream”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-11 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.
With respect to claim 1, the limitations in step a) “the prefilter unit comprising one or more filter meshes” render the claim indefinite, as it is unclear whether each of the two or more pre-filter units comprises one or more filter meshes, or if the limitations are satisfied by one of the pre-filter units having one or more filter meshes. Clarification is respectfully requested.
With respect to claim 3, the limitations are rendered indefinite as the claim is dependent on itself.
With respect to claim 6, “periodically backwashing the filters” renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear whether “the filters” includes one or both of the two or more pre-filter units and the membrane. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner will consider the limitations as being met by a teaching of backwashing at least one of: the two pre-filter units and membrane.
Claims 7-10 are rendered indefinite, as it is unclear to the Examiner whether “a first filter unit” and “a second filter unit” as recited refer to the two or more pre-filters, or to different filter units altogether. Clarification is respectfully requested; for the purposes of examination, the Examiner will consider either alternative.
Regarding claims 2-5 and 11, they are rejected for being dependent on 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 1-6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (U.S. Patent # 6491824) in view of Sweeney et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2015/0129508) and Babcock et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2017/0292059), hereinafter “Lin”, “Sweeney”, and “Babcock”.
Regarding claims 1, 4, and 5, Lin discloses a process for disposing of wastewater from an offshore oil and gas platform (Column 10, lines 9-10), wherein the wastewater contains oil and particulate matter (Abstract; Column 2, Iines 45-46; Column 4, In 1-21); wherein the process comprises:
a) passing the wastewater through pre-filter unit 10 to prevent free oil or solids from fouling downstream macroreticular resin 12 (Column 4, lines 60-66), wherein the pre-filter has a 10 micron pore which “filters out particulates having a dimension greater than 20 micron” (see Column 7, lines 44-50), the prefilter unit 10 comprising a cotton or synthetic cloth membrane filter (“one or more filter meshes”) (Column 7, lines 44-50), wherein this process is repeated until
the water is of sufficient purity for discharge into the sea (Column 4, Iine 60 through Column 5, line 17) (effectively meeting the limitations “two or more prefilters”);
b) passing the pre-filtered stream through a macroreticular resin thereby creating a filtered stream and an oil-rich recirculation stream (Column 5, lines 6-26);
c) disposing of the membrane filtered stream by passing it into the sea (Column 5, Iines 15-17); and
d) disposing of the oil rich recirculation stream by recirculation in line 8 in the production system with the oil from the wellhead 1.
Lin does not specifically teach passing the filtered water through a membrane to remove entrained oil droplets.
Sweeney teaches a ceramic cross-flow membrane to remove entrained oil droplets (Paragraph [0014]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the membrane of Sweeney to the process of Lin after the prefilter to provide the advantages of reducing plant size and cost, while preventing the formation of a fouling layer on ceramic membranes which are resistant to oil fouling (see Paragraphs [0165, 0170] of Sweeney).
Lin does not specifically teach pumping the oil-rich recirculation stream into an injection well.
Babcock teaches an injection well 200 into which hydrocarbons are pumped via one or more injection pumps 130 (Abstract; Paragraph [0024]).
It would have been obvious to add the step of pumping the oil-rich recirculation stream of Lin into an injection well as taught by Babcock in order to improve oil recovery by mobilizing hydrocarbons from hydrocarbon-bearing formations (see Babcock: Abstract; Paragraph [0006]).
Regarding claim 2, Lin in view of Sweeney and Babcock renders obvious the process according to claim 1. Lin further discloses wherein oil-rich recirculation stream is fed to a holding tank 7 before being injected into the well (see Fig. 1; Column 4, Iine 60 through Column 5, line 17, which describes that treatment includes allowing the water to pass through a settling vessel 7 in which the clarified water separates from the skimmings (Column 5, lines 23-25), wherein oil and other materials removed from the water may be recirculated (8) in the production system with the oil from the wellhead 1, while Sweeney further discloses the in step (d) of disposing
reject stream (Paragraph [0151]), and Babcock further discloses pumping into an injection well (Paragraph [0024]).
Regarding claim 3, Lin in view of Sweeney and Babcock disclose the process according to claim 3. Lin further discloses wherein liquid in the holding tank is further cleaned before being injected into the well (Fig. 2; Column 4, Iines 46-49: the clarified water separates from the skimmings within settling vessel 7 (Column 5, lines 23-25), wherein oil and other materials removed from the water may be recirculated (8) in the production system with the oil from the wellhead 1. Babcock further discloses pumping into an injection well (Paragraph [0024]- one or more injection pumps 130 to inject fluids into the injection well 200).
With respect to claim 6, Lin in view of Sweeney and Babcock teaches reversing the flow to regenerate the membranes (see Sweeney: Paragraph [0168], “backwashing”), which would contain oil as Sweeney’s membrane removes oil; therefore, the ordinary artisan would have found it obvious to combine this stream with the oi-rich circulation stream of Lin.
With respect to claim 11, Lin in view of Sweeney and Babcock teaches fines with adsorbed oil (Paragraphs [0010, 0011], “solids coated with oil”).
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (U.S. Patent # 6491824) in view of Sweeney et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2015/0129508) and Babcock et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2017/0292059) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Henthorne et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2013/0161256), hereinafter “Lin”, “Sweeney”, “Babcock”, and “Henthorne”.
With respect to claims 7-10, Lin in view of Sweeney and Babcock do not specifically teach the recited mesh sizes of the first filter unit and second filter unit as claimed (interpreted as being consistent with the two or more pre-filter units; see corresponding 112(b) rejections set forth above).
Henthorne teaches one or more screens which filter out marine life or other particles, prefilter(s) 206 which filter out large contaminants including sand, rocks, plants, debris, etc., wherein each of the one or more screens and prefilter(s) 206 is considered as a “first filter unit” having a particle size to filter out particles consistent with the recited size range, for example rocks are larger than 300-1000 micron, and media filter 208, which removes suspended solids, colloids, macromolecules, bacteria, particulate matter, and oils upstream of membrane system 210 (see Paragraphs [0042, 0046, 0047], wherein the media filter 208 has a mesh size compatible with removing particles of 20 microns and above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prefilter units disclosed by Lin with the additional prefilter screens and units of Lin because Henthorne is also directed to offshore oil and gas production using seawater treated by the disclosed process (see Figs. 2, 4A; Paragraphs [0035, 0037, 0046]), and because Henthorne teaches that teaches that one of ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that depending on the specifications of the equipment and the type and density of particulate matter to be removed, various types of filters, including for example, sand or media filters, cartridge filters, ultra filters, and/or micro filters may be used (see Paragraph [0046]).
Although micrometer ranges recited in claims 8 and 9 are not specifically assigned to the above screens, prefilter(s) 206, and media filter 208, the ordinary artisan would have found the staged removal of contaminants having a progressively smaller size would have the benefit of not fouling or blocking up the downstream membrane system (see Henthorne: Paragraphs [0046-0048]), wherein this would also be beneficial ahead of Sweeney’s membrane. There is no evidence indicating such mesh sizes are critical. Where 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).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLARE M PERRIN whose telephone number is (571)270-5952. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM EST M-F.
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, Bob 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.
/CLARE M. PERRIN/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1779
/CLARE M PERRIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779 04 June 2026
Prosecution Insights