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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aslam (US20180050944) in view of Enis (US20070234749A1).
Claim 1: Aslam discloses a desalination method (Figs. 1-2) comprising receiving produced water brine (see paragraph 20 and Table above paragraph 17); pre-treating the produced water brine to at least remove solids from the produced water brine (C; paragraphs 5-6, 50-51); passing the pre-treated produced water brine through a freeze desalination equipment (D/F; paragraph 51). Aslam is not explicit about the pre-treated produced water is subject to freezing temperatures that are within 5 degrees Fahrenheit of the pre-treated produced water’s freezing point or separating frozen pre-treated produced water from unfrozen pre-treated produced water, wherein the frozen pre-treated produced water has a saline concentration that is reduced after being processed through the freeze desalination equipment. However, Enis teaches a desalination process (see Fig. 2/2a and 6/6a/b/c) in which the pre-treated produced water is subject to freezing temperatures that are within 5 degrees Fahrenheit of the pre-treated produced water’s freezing point (note Fig. 6a in which water at 60 degrees F is subject to freshwater at 32 degrees F as well as passing air at --10 degrees F, which temperature environment creates ice formation only because of its close proximity to the water’s freezing point) and separating frozen pre-treated produced water from unfrozen pre-treated produced water (as can be appreciated from 71 in Fig. 6a and Fig. 6c), wherein the frozen pre-treated produced water has a saline concentration that is reduced after being processed through the freeze desalination equipment (Fig. 6c). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the teachings of Enis into the apparatus of Aslam as it is a low energy and low temperature operation compared with other freeze methods (see paragraph 9 of Enis).
Claim 2: Aslam and Enis teaches the previous limitations. Enis further teaches reintroducing the frozen pre-treated produced water through the freeze desalination equipment for a multiple pass, wherein ice that forms during the multiple pass through the freeze desalination equipment has a saline concentration that is reduced after being processed through the freeze desalination equipment (see Fig. 6c, paragraph 123, note reintroduction path 80 in which pathway water can be reintroduced multiple times and be further purified).
Claim 7: Aslam and Enis teaches the previous limitations. Aslam further discloses that a total petroleum and hydrocarbons concentration of the pre-treated produced water brine is less than 15 ppm before being allowed to pass to the freeze desalination equipment (note table 1 with low ppm concentration levels of contaminants which could be reached before passing to the freeze equipment).
Claim 8: Aslam and Enis teaches the previous limitations. Aslam further discloses that a total dissolved solids ppm value for the pre-treated produced water brine is greater than 25,000 ppm before being allowed to pass to the freeze desalination equipment (paragraphs 17).
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aslam (US20180050944) in view of Enis (US20070234749A1) and in further view of Findlay (US 3,017,752).
Claim 3: Aslam and Enis teach the previous limitations. Aslam and Enis are not explicit about reintroducing the unfrozen pre-treated produced water through the freeze desalination equipment for a multiple pass, wherein ice that forms during the multiple pass through the freeze desalination equipment has a saline concentration that is reduced after being processed through the freeze desalination equipment. However, Findlay teaches a desalination arrangement in which unfrozen water is reintroduced through the freeze desalination equipment for a multiple pass (Fig. 1, note pathway from 9 to 14), wherein ice that forms during the multiple pass through the freeze desalination equipment has a saline concentration that is reduced after being processed through the freeze desalination equipment (Fig. 1, as would be expected during the multiple passes of seawater than makes its way towards 23). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to a skilled artisan to utilize a multiple pass system as taught by Findlay into the apparatus of Aslam as a way to further extract additional water from the brine/seawater.
Claim 4: Aslam and Enis teach the previous limitations. Aslam and Enis are not explicit about the unfrozen pre-treated produced water is reintroduced between 1 to 3 times through the freeze desalination equipment; however, Findlay teaches a route in which unfrozen water is reintroduced through a freezing process (see Fig. 1, note pathway from 9 to 14). Examiner notes further that a skilled artisan could watch a particular seawater volume pass between 1 to 3 times in this particular loop pathway.
Claim(s) 5-6 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aslam (US20180050944) in view of Enis (US20070234749A1) and in further view of Thiers (US20190352194).
Claim 5: Aslam and Enis teach the previous limitations. Enis further teaches melting the frozen pre-treated produced water (Fig. 6c); however, Aslam and Enis are not explicit about processing using reverse osmosis the melted pre-treated produced water to further remove dissolved solids. However, Thiers teaches a water desalination system in which purification involving freezing can additionally involve reverse osmosis for melted pre-treated produced water to further remove dissolved solids (see paragraph 17 in Theirs and/or claims 5-9). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to include a reverse osmosis component to further purify the produced water.
Claim 6: Aslam, Enis and Thiers teach the previous limitations. Thiers further teaches that reverse osmosis processing is performed until a predefined total dissolved solids parts per million (ppm) value is achieved (as can be appreciated from Table 1 and paragraphs 21, 24 and 26).
Claim 9: Aslam, Enis and Thiers teach the previous limitations. Aslam further discloses a separation process (note C) and Thiers further teaches that the pre-treatment of the produced water brine comprises a flocculation process, a coagulation process (see paragraphs 115 and 168).
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aslam (US20180050944) in view of Saunders (US 3,178,900).
Claim 1: Aslam discloses a desalination method (Figs. 1-2) comprising receiving produced water brine (see paragraph 20 and Table above paragraph 17); pre-treating the produced water brine to at least remove solids from the produced water brine (C; paragraphs 5-6, 50-51); passing the pre-treated produced water brine through a freeze desalination equipment (D/F; paragraph 51). Aslam is not explicit about the pre-treated produced water is subject to freezing temperatures that are within 5 degrees Fahrenheit of the pre-treated produced water’s freezing point or separating frozen pre-treated produced water from unfrozen pre-treated produced water, wherein the frozen pre-treated produced water has a saline concentration that is reduced after being processed through the freeze desalination equipment. However, Saunders teaches a desalination process (see Fig. 1) in which the water is subject to freezing temperatures that are within 5 degrees Fahrenheit of the pre-treated produced water’s freezing point (note Fig. 1 in which brine/sea water is frozen via refrigerant whose temperature environment creates ice formation only because of its close proximity to the water’s freezing point) and separating frozen pre-treated produced water from unfrozen pre-treated produced water (in Fig. 1, note separation/drain for brine at 45’ and column of frozen ice mentioned in col. 3, lines 11-25), wherein the frozen pre-treated produced water has a saline concentration that is reduced after being processed through the freeze desalination equipment (see col. 3, lines 69-73). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the teachings of Enis into the apparatus of Aslam as it is an inexpensive and simple means for desalination (see col. 1, lines 13-21).
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aslam (US20180050944) in view of Saunders (US 3,178,900) and in further view of Labrador (US 6,293,121).
Claim 10: Aslam and Saunders teach the previous limitations. Saunders further teaches that the freeze desalination equipment comprises rechiller equipment having tubing surrounded by a second layer of tubing that is filled with refrigerant (see Fig. 1, note tubing members 11/12/21 and refrigerant supplied via 33), the method further comprising using the rechiller equipment to produce solid ice and unfrozen brine (Fig. 1). While not mentioning stainless steel, such materials are suitable for use with brine/seawater environments in a desalination operation as taught by Labrador (see col. 25, lines 53-62). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the teachings of It would have been obvious as this material resists corrosion.
Claim 11: Aslam and Saunders teach the previous limitations. Saunders further teaches that the freeze desalination equipment comprises rechiller equipment having tubing surrounded by a second layer of tubing that is filled with refrigerant (see Fig. 1, note tubing members 11/12/21 and refrigerant supplied via 33), the method further comprising using the rechiller equipment to produce a slush solution of ice crystals within an unfrozen brine stream (Fig. 1, Examiner noting brine that exits 45’ and column of ice that will eventually become a slush as it approaches 15). While not mentioning stainless steel, such materials are suitable for use with brine/seawater environments in a desalination operation as taught by Labrador (see col. 25, lines 53-62). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the teachings of It would have been obvious as this material resists corrosion.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aslam (US20180050944) in view of Wang (US 9,085,473).
Claim 1: Aslam discloses a desalination method (Figs. 1-2) comprising receiving produced water brine (see paragraph 20 and Table above paragraph 17); pre-treating the produced water brine to at least remove solids from the produced water brine (C; paragraphs 5-6, 50-51); passing the pre-treated produced water brine through a freeze desalination equipment (D/F; paragraph 51). Aslam is not explicit about the pre-treated produced water is subject to freezing temperatures that are within 5 degrees Fahrenheit of the pre-treated produced water’s freezing point or separating frozen pre-treated produced water from unfrozen pre-treated produced water, wherein the frozen pre-treated produced water has a saline concentration that is reduced after being processed through the freeze desalination equipment. However, Wang teaches a desalination process (see Fig. 3) in which the water is subject to freezing temperatures that are within 5 degrees Fahrenheit of the pre-treated produced water’s freezing point (note Fig. 4 in which brine/sea water is frozen via refrigerant whose temperature environment creates ice formation only because of its close proximity to the water’s freezing point) and separating frozen pre-treated produced water from unfrozen pre-treated produced water (in Fig. 4, note separation for brine at 6 and frozen ice cubes 100), wherein the frozen pre-treated produced water has a saline concentration that is reduced after being processed through the freeze desalination equipment (as can be appreciated from Fig. 4). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the teachings of Wang into the apparatus of Aslam as it is an straightforward and simple means for desalination (see col. 1, lines 5-35).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aslam (US20180050944) in view of Wang (US 9,085,473) and in further view of Labrador (US 6,293,121).
Claim 12: Aslam and Wang teach the previous limitations. Wang further teaches that the freeze desalination equipment comprises a cubed ice maker having tubes (Fig. 4, note tubes within housing 3) surrounded by a larger tube (note tube 7 which is larger in the sense that it is longer and has a larger axial length and which partially surrounds the tubing components of 3) that is filled with refrigerant (Fig. 4), the method further comprising using the freeze desalination equipment to produce solid ice having a lower salinity than that of the pre-treated produced water brine the ice was frozen from (as can be appreciated from Fig. 4). While not mentioning stainless steel, such materials are suitable for use with brine/seawater environments in a desalination operation as taught by Labrador (see col. 25, lines 53-62). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the teachings of It would have been obvious as this material resists corrosion.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aslam (US20180050944) in view of Enis (US20070234749A1) and Gaid (US 8,419,947).
Claim 13: Aslam teaches a fractional freeze desalination system comprising a
settling tank (one of B or C); a pre-treatment tank (the other of B or C); and a freeze desalination equipment (D/F); wherein the settling tank is configured to separate oil and solids from raw produced water brine and pass the separated produced water brine to the pre-treatment tank (Fig. 1), the pre-treatment tank being configured to treat the passed water brine via separation of solids from the passed water brine and send the treated water brine to the freeze desalination equipment (Fig. 1).
Aslam is not explicit about the pre-treated produced water is subject to freezing temperatures that are within 5 degrees Fahrenheit of the pre-treated produced water’s freezing point or separating frozen pre-treated produced water from unfrozen pre-treated produced water, wherein the frozen pre-treated produced water has a saline concentration that is reduced after being processed through the freeze desalination equipment. However, Enis teaches a desalination process (see Fig. 2/2a and 6/6a/b/c) in which the pre-treated produced water is subject to freezing temperatures that are within 5 degrees Fahrenheit of the pre-treated produced water’s freezing point (note Fig. 6a in which water at 60 degrees F is subject to freshwater at 32 degrees F as well as passing air at --10 degrees F, which temperature environment creates ice formation only because of its close proximity to the water’s freezing point) and separating frozen pre-treated produced water from unfrozen pre-treated produced water (as can be appreciated from 71 in Fig. 6a and Fig. 6c), wherein the frozen pre-treated produced water has a saline concentration that is reduced after being processed through the freeze desalination equipment (Fig. 6c). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the teachings of Enis into the apparatus of Aslam as it is a low energy and low temperature operation compared with other freeze methods (see paragraph 9 of Enis).
Aslam is also not explicit about a pre-treatment tank being configured to treat the passed water brine via flocculation and coagulation but Gaid teaches an arrangement with such fluid processing (see Gaid, note elements 3/4/1 in Fig. 1). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the teachings of Gaid into the apparatus of Aslam to further improve the purification of the produced water.
Claim 16: Aslam, Enis and Gaid teach the previous limitations. Enis further teaches the freeze desalination equipment comprises a combination of rechiller equipment and an ice maker (Figs. 2, 4 and 6a/b/c).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aslam (US20180050944) in view of Enis (US20070234749A1) and Gaid (US 8,419,947) and in further view of Krylov (US 6,658,889).
Claim 14: Aslam, Enis and Gaid teach the previous limitations. While not explicit about a waste tank, Krylov teaches a waste tank (12) that is primarily configured to receive unfrozen treated water brine from the freeze desalination equipment. As incorporated into the modified Aslam apparatus, Examiner notes that there will be traces of oil and solids from the settling tank and solids from the pre-treatment tank that make it into the tank of Krylov. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the teachings of Krylov into the apparatus of Aslam to allow for a place for wastes that might otherwise pollute the environment.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aslam (US20180050944) in view of Enis (US20070234749A1) and Gaid (US 8,419,947) and in further view of Thiers (US20190352194).
Claim 15: Aslam, Enis and Gaid teach the previous limitations. The system of claim 13, further comprising reverse osmosis equipment that is configured to perform reverse osmosis treatment of desalinated water from the desalination equipment. Aslam and Enis are not explicit about processing using reverse osmosis the melted pre-treated produced water to further remove dissolved solids. However, Thiers teaches a water desalination system in which purification involving freezing can additionally involve reverse osmosis for melted pre-treated produced water to further remove dissolved solids (see paragraph 17 in Theirs and/or claims 5-9). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to include a reverse osmosis component to further purify the produced water.
Claim(s) 13 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aslam (US20180050944) in view of Saunders (US 3,178,900) and Gaid (US 8,419,947).
Claim 13: Aslam teaches a fractional freeze desalination system comprising a
settling tank (one of B or C); a pre-treatment tank (the other of B or C); and a freeze desalination equipment (D/F); wherein the settling tank is configured to separate oil and solids from raw produced water brine and pass the separated produced water brine to the pre-treatment tank (Fig. 1), the pre-treatment tank being configured to treat the passed water brine via separation of solids from the passed water brine and send the treated water brine to the freeze desalination equipment (Fig. 1).
Aslam is not explicit about the pre-treated produced water is subject to freezing temperatures that are within 5 degrees Fahrenheit of the pre-treated produced water’s freezing point or separating frozen pre-treated produced water from unfrozen pre-treated produced water, wherein the frozen pre-treated produced water has a saline concentration that is reduced after being processed through the freeze desalination equipment. However, Saunders teaches a desalination process (see Fig. 1) in which the water is subject to freezing temperatures that are within 5 degrees Fahrenheit of the pre-treated produced water’s freezing point (note Fig. 1 in which brine/sea water is frozen via refrigerant whose temperature environment creates ice formation only because of its close proximity to the water’s freezing point) and separating frozen pre-treated produced water from unfrozen pre-treated produced water (in Fig. 1, note separation/drain for brine at 45’ and column of frozen ice mentioned in col. 3, lines 11-25), wherein the frozen pre-treated produced water has a saline concentration that is reduced after being processed through the freeze desalination equipment (see col. 3, lines 69-73). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the teachings of Enis into the apparatus of Aslam as it is an inexpensive and simple means for desalination (see col. 1, lines 13-21).
Aslam is also not explicit about a pre-treatment tank being configured to treat the passed water brine via flocculation and coagulation but Gaid teaches an arrangement with such fluid processing (see Gaid, note elements 3/4/1 in Fig. 1). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the teachings of Gaid into the apparatus of Aslam to further improve the purification of the produced water.
Claim 16: Aslam, Saunders and Gaid teach the previous limitations. Saunders further teaches the freeze desalination equipment comprises a combination of rechiller equipment and an ice maker (Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aslam (US20180050944) in view of Saunders (US 3,178,900) and in further view of Labrador (US 6,293,121).
Claim 18: Aslam and Saunders teach the previous limitations. Saunders further teaches that the rechiller equipment comprises tubing, surrounded by a second layer of tubing that is filled with refrigerant that can be temperature controlled within 0.2°F and is configured to produce a slush solution of ice crystals within an unfrozen brine stream (see Fig. 1, note tubing members 11/12/21 and refrigerant supplied via 33 that produces an ice column that will eventually be melted and be a slush in transition to liquid and in which temperature control can be viewed as an optimization).
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aslam (US20180050944) in view of Enis (US20070234749A1) and Gaid (US 8,419,947) and in further view of Findlay (US 3,017,752).
Claims 19-20: Aslam, Enis and Gaid teach the previous limitations but The system of claim 13, wherein the unfrozen treated water brine is reintroduced between 1 to 3 times through the freeze desalination equipment.
Aslam and Enis are not explicit about reintroducing the unfrozen pre-treated produced water through the freeze desalination equipment for a multiple pass between 1 to 3 times. However, Findlay teaches a desalination arrangement in which unfrozen water is reintroduced through the freeze desalination equipment for a multiple pass (Fig. 1, note pathway from 9 to 14). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to a skilled artisan to utilize a multiple pass system as taught by Findlay into the apparatus of Aslam as a way to further extract additional water from the brine/seawater. Examiner notes further that a skilled artisan could watch a particular seawater volume pass between 1 to 3 times in this particular loop pathway.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN C ZOLLINGER whose telephone number is (571)270-7815. The examiner can normally be reached Generally M-F 9-4 EST.
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, Essama Omgba can be reached at 469-295-9278. 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.
/NATHAN C ZOLLINGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights