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 .
Priority
Benefit of domestic priority of application 17/682,299 filed on 02/28/2022 under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 119e is acknowledged.
Specification/Claim Objections
The specification and claims use both “WSOP” and “WOSP” as acronyms for “water-oil separation plant”. Please use consistent terminology throughout the specification and claims.
Spec. Par. [0017]: “HPPT / LPPT” is an acronym that is not clearly defined. Please clarify to - - high pressure production trap (HPPT) / a low pressure production trap (LPPT) - -. Note that such clarifications would not be new matter.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 line(s) 7 “the size of the silica sand” is interpreted as providing the necessary antecedent basis as the sand particulate necessarily has a size.
Claim 4 line(s) 1 “the bottom of the gravity separation vessel” is interpreted as providing the necessary antecedent basis as the vessel necessarily has a bottom to hold material.
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.
Claims 4,6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 4 line(s) 2 sets forth the limitation “the top of the water column”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 line(s) 2 sets forth the limitation “the water column”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 line(s) sets forth the limitation “the coalescer extends from the bottom of the gravity separation vessel to the top of the water column”. The claim scope is unclear as the coalescer structure is defined by the material worked upon.
Claim 6 line(s) 1-2 sets forth the limitation “the coalescer”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Perhaps the Applicant intended claim 6 to be dependent on claim 2.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2,4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE YOUNG (US 3558482) in view of MCMILLEN (US 4592849).
Regarding claim 1, DE YOUNG teaches water purification (title, Figs.) including a water-oil separation plant (WSOP), comprising:
a gravity separation vessel (e.g. Fig. 1 #10);
an inlet (Fig. 1 #16);
an oil outlet (Fig. 1 #44);
a water outlet (Fig. 1 #52); and
a filter packed with sand (Fig. 1 #48) disposed between the inlet and the water outlet,
wherein the size of the silica sand is capable of (suitable for) separating an oil (abstract).
DE YOUNG teaches the granular filter is made of materials known in the art (C5/L6-7), but does not teach silica sand. However, MCMILLEN teaches method for removing water from produced crude oil (title) including filtering water from a crude oil through a bed containing a water saturated hydrophilic coalescing media comprising e.g. sand, crushed quartz, or porous silica (C2/L29-47). MCMILLEN teaches the water saturated hydrophilic coalescing media allows water to pass through the filter and easily separate water from oil (C1/L15-18).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine/modify the filter device of DE YOUNG with silica sand as taught by MCMILLEN in order to easily separate the remaining oil from the water. The references are combinable, because they are in the same technological environment of water/oil separations. See MPEP 2141 III (A) and (G).
Regarding claim 2, DE YOUNG teaches a coalescer (Fig. 1 #28; C1/L16-20) disposed between the inlet and the filter.
Regarding claim 4, DE YOUNG teaches the coalescer extends from the bottom to the top of the gravity separation vessel (Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE YOUNG (US 3558482) in view of MCMILLEN (US 4592849) and RICHARDSON (US 20130292341).
Regarding claim 3, DE YOUNG teaches the coalescer comprises a porous coalescer plate (C3/L13-15). DE YOUNG does not teach the coalescer comprises a surface texture. However, RICHARDSON teaches system and method for separating liquid mixtures (title, Figs.) including a coalescing-enhancing plate comprising a front face, a rear face, and a plurality of openings (abstract) having different placement and/or size and/or shape (i.e. “texture”; Fig. 3; par. [0037-0044]).
RICHARDSON teaches the coalescing-enhancing plate openings improves coalescence (par. [0035]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the porous wall of DE YOUNG to have a surface texture as taught by RICHARDSON in order to improve coalescence. The references are combinable, because they are in the same technological environment of separations. See MPEP 2141 III (A) and (G).
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE YOUNG (US 3558482) in view of MCMILLEN (US 4592849) and MAIL (US 3552573).
Regarding claim 5, DE YOUNG teaches backwashing (C5/L21-25), but does not teach a separate backwash injection water line. However, MAIL teaches a filtering apparatus (title, Figs.) including a filter bed (Fig. 1 #4), a water outlet (Fig. 1 #5) and a separate backwash injection water line (Fig. 1 #14).
MAIL teaches that such structure is an alternative to a single water outlet/backwash line (C4/L16-20). One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize this as an obvious engineering design choice achieving the same result of backwashing a filter.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the device of DE YOUNG with a separate backwash injection water line as taught by MAIL in order to provide an alternative to a single water outlet/backwash line as is known in the art. The references are combinable, because they are in the same technological environment of separations. See MPEP 2141 III (A) and (G).
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE YOUNG (US 3558482) in view of MCMILLEN (US 4592849) and GARCIA (US 3830371).
Regarding claim 6, DE YOUNG teaches backwashing (C5/L21-25), but does not teach an injection water line coupled to the coalescer. However, GARCIA teaches liquid-liquid separation (title, Figs.) including a water outlet (Fig. 1 #27), an injection water line (Fig. 1 #41) coupled to a coalescer (Fig. 1 #10) for backwashing.
GARCIA teaches the backwash line removes solids trapped in the pores of the filter-coalescer material (abstract).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the device of DE YOUNG with a backwash injection water line coupled to the coalescer as taught by GARCIA in order to remove trapped solids in the coalescer as is known in the art. The references are combinable, because they are in the same technological environment of separations. See MPEP 2141 III (A) and (G).
Claim(s) 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE YOUNG (US 3558482) in view of MCMILLEN (US 4592849), KELLER (US 3867285), and NETAFIM Mesh vs. Micron Comparison Chart.
Regarding claims 7-8, DE YOUNG does not the mesh size of the silica. However, KELLER teaches an oil-water separation process (title, abstract) comprising a coalescence finely divided filter media (abstract) with a mesh size of about 20-100 (C2/L40-45), which anticipates the claimed range (10-200 mesh) or overlapping the claimed range (35-75 mesh or 200-500 microns; see NETAFIM) and therefore establishes a case of prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the instantly claimed range from the prior art range because prior art teaches the same utility over the selected range.
KELLER teaches an optimized backwashable filter media which may improve the efficiency of the filter (C3/L8-20).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the granular filter mesh size of DE YOUNG to be within the claimed range as taught by KELLER in order to improve filter efficiency. The references are combinable, because they are in the same technological environment of water/oil separations. See MPEP 2141 III (A) and (G).
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE YOUNG (US 3558482) in view of MCMILLEN (US 4592849), and YIN (US 20170174530).
Regarding claim 9, DE YOUNG teaches that the flow rate is important for separations (C3/L65-68;C4/L62-67), but does not teach flow meters.
However, YIN teaches oil-in-water monitoring (title, Figs.) including:
a coalescer (Fig. 2 #222);
an inlet flow meter on the inlet (Fig. 2 #225); and,
an outlet flow meter on the water outlet (Fig. 2 #240).
YIN teaches the flow meters may be used to ensure the quality of the effluent meets discharge requirements (par. [0006]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the device of DE YOUNG with flow meters as taught by YIN in order to control the separations and ensure the quality of the effluent as is known in the art. The references are combinable, because they are in the same technological environment of water/oil separations. See MPEP 2141 III (A) and (G).
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE YOUNG (US 3558482) in view of MCMILLEN (US 4592849), and BARTIK (US 3937662).
Regarding claim 10, DE YOUNG does not teaches an oil detector on the water outlet. However, BARTIK teaches a marine discharge control apparatus and method for treating fluids on a marine vessel (title, Figs.) including a coalescence filter (e.g.Figs. 1-2 #30) and an oil detector on the water outlet (turbidity meter, abstract, BARTIK claim 1) to monitor the purity of the discharged water to meet pollution standards.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the device of DE YOUNG an oil detector on the water outlet as taught by BARTIK in order to control the separations and ensure the quality of the effluent as is known in the art. The references are combinable, because they are in the same technological environment of water/oil separations. See MPEP 2141 III (A) and (G).
Telephonic Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIAM A ROYCE whose telephone number is (571)270-0352. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~08:00~15:00.
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 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.
LIAM A. ROYCE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1777
/Liam Royce/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777