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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 6/4/2026 has been entered into the prosecution for the application. Currently claims 1-16 are pending.
The objection to claim 7 is withdrawn due to the amendment to the claim.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
The amendment to the specification is noted, and accepted. The changes fix typos with the specification and add the appropriate priority language.
Priority
As per the Action filed on 4/29/2026, the effective filing date of the claimed invention remains 9/21/2022.
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 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0056107 of Iversen et al in view of WO 2020/106937 of Sams et al and US 2009/0242384 of Curcio et al.
As to claims 1 and 7, Iversen teaches of a system, comprising:
a bio-oil source (Iverson, [0107] – [0109], [0117] – [0130], [0162], [0105] and Fig. 6);
a mixing unit comprising two or more mixing devices (Iverson, [0162], [0105] and Fig. 6);
a bio-oil conduit to provide bio-oil from the bio-oil source to the mixing unit (Iverson, Fig. 6);
a wash materials unit comprising two or more wash material sources (Iverson, [0105], [0162] and Fig. 6);
a wash composition conduit to provide the wash materials, in an aqueous wash composition, to the mixing unit (Iverson, [0105], [0162], [0180] - [0195] and Fig. 6); and
a separation unit comprising two or more electrostatic separators configured to apply an electric field to a mixture obtained from the mixing unit and to separate the mixture into an oil phase and an aqueous phase, wherein the mixing unit comprises two selectable mixing devices, the separation unit comprises two or more selectable electrostatic separators, or both (Iverson, [0094] – [0097], [0182] – [0184], [0105] and modified Fig. 6).
PNG
media_image1.png
418
858
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As seen in modified Fig. 6, a bio-oil is provided to a 1st phase separator. From the 1st phase separator, the separated bio-oil is provided to a first mixer which has additives added thereto. From the mixer, the bio-oil is provided to the 2nd phase separator. Iverson states the 2nd phase separator can be one or more separators including electrostatic separators. It is noted that the mixer can include more than one mixer as per Fig. 6.
As to the language that the electrostatic separator is configured to apply a voltage to separate the mixture, while not explicitly disclosed in Iverson, this would be inherent to an electrostatic separator as electro-coalescence is performed by the application of a voltage.
Iverson does not teach that the electrostatic separators are configured to adjust the operating conditions. Iverson also does not teach that each electrostatic separator has a mixing device to add additional wash materials to the inlet conduit.
In specific to claim 7, Iverson does not teach the controller.
Sams teaches electrical separators for separating an oil and water mixture (Sams, [0002] – [0007]).
Sams additionally teaches that optimal separation within a given electrostatic separator is obtained by a system utilizing a controller that is capable of adjusting the operational parameters based on not only the composition of the oil being introduced into the separator, but also the changing characteristics of the oil within the separator as it effects the voltages being applied within the system (Sams, [0015] – [0023]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Iverson as per Sams so as to utilize adjustable separation systems comprising a controller in order to optimize separation of the input fluids.
As modified, Iverson in view of Sams does not teach that each electrostatic separator has a mixing device to add additional wash materials to the inlet conduit.
Curcio teaches of electrostatic separation and salt reduction in an oil stream (Curcio, Abstract).
Curcio additionally teaches that within the system to use two or more electrostatic separators and that prior to each separator to include wash material sources to mixer devices that then supply each electrostatic separator (Curcio, [0045] – [0047] and Fig. 2).
Curcio teaches that by using a mixing device prior to the separator as well as multiple electrolytic separators within the system, the efficiency of the separation is improved as well as the product produced is better resolved (Curcio, [0007] – [0009], [0039] – [0043]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Iversen in view of Sams as per Curcio to provide wash materials prior to each separator in order to increase the separation efficiency and product resolution.
As to the language of the type of wash material composition provided, thus does not distinguish the structure of the apparatus at hand, see MPEP 2114 I and II.
As to claim 6, Iverson in view of Sams and Curcio teaches to the system of claim 1.
Iverson teaches a return conduit for returning an aqueous material from the separation unit to a mixing unit (Iverson, Fig. 6).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iverson in view of Sams and Curcio as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2017/0175008 of Sprenkel et al.
As to claim 2, Iverson in view of Sams and Curcio teaches to the system of claim 1.
Iverson and Sams and Curcio do not specifically teach different selectable electrostatic separator systems that use varying electric fields.
Sprenkel teaches of electrostatic separation devices (Sprenkel, Abstract).
Sprenkel additionally teaches that serially arranged electrostatic devices can comprise different types of devices to allow for different input concentrations and output concentrations from the device to obtain the desired product (Sprenkel, [0069] – [0077] and Fig. 2).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Iversen in view of Sams as per Sprenkel so as to utilize sequentially arranged separators of different types in order to produce the desired product.
Claims 3-5 and 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iverson in view of Sams and Curcio as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2019/0062645 of Al Seraihi et al.
As to claims 3-4 and 7-13 Iverson in view of Sams and Curcio does not teach of a controller that adjusts the system (i.e. mixer, separator or both) in relation to the composition of the oil phase from the separator.
Al Seraihi teaches of methods for monitoring and controlling efficiencies of dehydrator and desalter systems for crude-oil systems (Al Seraihi, Abstract).
Al Seraihi additionally teaches that the system adjusts operational parameters of the separator units as well as and including wash addition and demulsifier addition (i.e. mixer parameters) in relation to the performance indicators of an electrolytic dehydrator and/or electrolytic desalter as per indicators of product oil composition in order to improve efficiencies of the separators (Al Seraihi, [0015] – [0018] and [0037] – [0042]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Iverson in view of Sams as per Al Seraihi so as to utilize a controller to adjust operational parameters of the mixing devices and separator units as per the output oil composition in order to improve the efficiency of the overall system.
As to claim 5, Iverson in view of Sams and Al Seraihi teach to the system of claim 4.
Iverson does not teach the controller.
Sams teaches electrical separators for separating an oil and water mixture (Sams, [0002] – [0007]).
Sams additionally teaches that optimal separation within a given electrostatic separator is obtained by a system utilizing a controller that is capable of adjusting the operational parameters based on not only the composition of the oil being introduced into the separator, but also the changing characteristics of the oil within the separator as it effects the voltages being applied within the system (Sams, [0015] – [0023]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Iverson as per Sams so as to utilize adjustable separation systems comprising a controller in order to optimize separation of the input fluids.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iverson in view of Sams and Curcio as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 4,581,134 of Richter et al
As to claims 14-15, Iverson in view of Sams and Curcio teach to the system of claim 1.
Iverson in view of Sams and Curcio do not teach control of the flow rate of the wash composition based on the downstream compositions from each separator unit.
Richter teaches of an electrolytic separator apparatus (Richter, Abstract).
Richter teaches that flow rate of wash compositions are controlled by compositions downstream of the electrolytic separator units to facilitate control and effectiveness of the separation process within the system (Richter, col 2 line 18-64, col 3 lines 10-57 and Fig. 1).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Iverson in view of Sams and Curcio as per Richter so as to utilize control mechanisms in relation to the wash composition based on compositions downstream from the separator in order to facilitate control and separation within the system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 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.
Claim 16 requires structural and controller detail that overcomes the prior art of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments are all towards the new limitations as per the amendment filed on 6/4/2026.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. WO 2021/091990 of Mandewalkar et al. It is noted that Mandewalkar teaches of compositional sensors at the output of the electrostatic treater that are used to modulate/change the operational parameters of the system.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN W COHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7961. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9 am to 5 pm 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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
BRIAN W. COHEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1759
/BRIAN W COHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights