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: instant specification paragraph [0070] corresponds WOSEP vessel with numerals 202 and 214. Numeral 214 is assigned to gas inlet nozzle in paragraph [0071].
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soliman et al. (US 2020/0255748A1), in view of De Young (US 3558482), Eriksson et al. (US 2012/0312754A1).
Regarding claim 1, Soliman teaches a method of operating a gas oil separation plant (GOSP), the method comprising:
Providing a water-oil separator vessel (140), wherein the water-oil separator vessel in operation receives oily water (144) from a GOSP train of the GOSP, the GOSP train comprising a first production trap, a second production trap, a dehydrator vessel, and a desalter vessel (refer [0043]), and wherein the GOSP train in operation removes gas, water, and salt from crude oil received from a wellhead (Refer [0041]-[043]).
Soliman does not teach providing a sand filter at a water outlet of the water-oil separator vessel.
De Young teaches a water-oil separator (12) for separating water from a mixture of oil, sand and water the separator comprising a filter (refer bed 48) at water outlet (refer fig. 1 or fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a sand filter at water outlet of water-oil separator in the method of Soliman to filter separated water as taught by De Young. De Young teaches that the filter beds may be prepared from anthracite ore or graphite or other materials known in the art and usually comprise a number of beds of granular material of different grades (refer col. 5 – lines 5-10). Sand is a well known material in filter beds in purification of water. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a known material such as sand in the filter.
De Young further teaches that pollutants accumulated into the sand filter can easily be removed by backwashing (Refer Col. 5 – Lines 5-25). De Young also teaches that backwashing is performed by flowing a washing material in through the clean water outlet 52 and tanking water out through backwash trough 56 and outlet 58 (refer Col. 5 – Lines 21 -25). Providing necessary backwashing pump and conduits would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to facilitate backwashing.
Modified Soliman does not teach identifying that water discharged from a water-oil separator vessel in the GOSP comprises a concentration of crude oil exceeding a specified value.
Eriksson teaches providing an oil content sensor in water outlet of an oil water separator to enable control of water flow in response to a change in oil in water content as measured with the sensor (refer [0009]-[0013]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify the method of modified Soliman to provide a sensor measuring oil content in water as taught by Eriksson to enable control of water outlet in response to a change in oil concentration.
Regarding claim 3, modified Soliman teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. De Young teaches that the water outlet comprises disposing the sand as filter media in a water outlet of the water-oil separator vessel (refer fig. 1, fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6, modified Soliman teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. As indicated above under rejection of claim 1, it would have been obvious to provide a sensor measuring oil content in water as taught by Eriksson to enable control of water outlet in response to a change in oil concentration. Selecting threshold values would have been an obvious matter of choice to one of ordinary skill in the art. "[W]here 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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soliman et al. (US 2020/0255748A1), in view of De Young (US 3558482), Eriksson et al. (US 2012/0312754A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bigui et al., “Filtration of oil from oily wastewater via hydrophobic modified quartz sand filter medium,” Journal of Water Reuse and Desalination, 2018, 8(4):544-552.
Regarding claim 2, modified Soliman teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Soliman teaches that the fluid received from the well bore comprises an emulsion of crude oil and water (Refer [0008]-[0009]), and De Young discloses that the water-oil separator vessel comprises a weir to remove oil from the water (refer fig. 1, fig. 2).
Modified Soliman does not teach that the sand filter comprises quartz sand, however, use of quartz sand in separation of oil from water is disclosed by Bigui (refer abstract, “Introduction” paragraph). Bigui discloses that the quartz sand improved removal efficiency of oil (refer abstract, “Results and Discussion” paragraph). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify the sand filter of modified Soliman to use quartz sand to improve oil removal efficiency as taught by Bigui.
Regarding claim 4, modified Soliman teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Modified Soliman does not teach that the sand filter at the water outlet comprises installing the sand filter along a water discharge conduit from the water-oil separator vessel.
Bigui teaches a quartz sand filter for removal of oil from oil-water mixture (refer abstract, “Results and Discussion” paragraph). Bigui teaches providing a filtration column comprising quartz sand and passing the mixture through the sand (refer fig. 1, “Filtration experimental setup” paragraph).
Selecting whether to use a filtration bed as disclosed by De Young or a filtration column as disclosed by Bigui would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The combination of Soliman et al. (US 2020/0255748A1), De Young (US 3558482), and Eriksson et al. (US 2012/0312754A1) teaches the method of claim 1, however fails to teach or suggest that the crude oil removed from the oily water via the water-oil separator vessel is provided to the second production trap, and wherein the first production trap provides gas to the water-oil separator vessel.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRANAV PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-5142. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6AM-4PM.
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.
/PRANAV N PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights