Ex Parte Bigeonneau et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 20, 2017

12305305 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 20, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O.Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
4195-071 3137
EXAMINER
FITZSIMMONS, ALLISON GIONTA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1778
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/305,305 06/12/2009
24112 7590 06/20/2017
COATS & BENNETT, PLLC
1400 Crescent Green, Suite 300
Cary, NC 27518
Didier Bigeonneau
06/20/2017 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DIDIER BIGEONNEAU, RENAUD SUBLET,
HERVE SUTY, and WAYNE EWANS
Appeal 2016-002986
Application 12/305,3051
Technology Center 1700
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, DONNA M. PRAISS,
and MERRELL C. CASHION, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 55 and 57—70. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
1 The real party in interest is Veolia Water Solutions & Technologies
Support.
Appeal 2016-002986
Application 12/305,305
Appellants’ invention is directed to a method of producing oil
extraction injection water from seawater by treating the seawater in a
membrane system and injecting the treated seawater into an oil-bearing
formation. App. Br. 2. Claim 55 illustrates the subject matter on appeal and
is reproduced below:
55. A method of producing oil extraction injection
water from seawater by treating the seawater in a membrane
system and injecting treated seawater into an oil bearing
formation, wherein the membrane system comprises a plurality
of batteries with each battery including a plurality of membrane
contactors fluidly connected in series with each contactor being
separated into first and second sections by hydrophobic
membranes, the method comprising:
splitting the seawater having oxygen into a plurality of
seawater streams;
directing the entirety of each seawater stream through the
first sections of the membrane contactors that form one battery
such that each seawater stream is constrained to pass through
the membrane contactors of one battery;
preventing the formation of foam in the first sections of
the membrane contactors as the seawater streams flow through
the first sections of the membrane contactors;
directing a scavenging gas into and through the second
sections of the membrane contactors of each battery;
decreasing the pressure in the second section of the
membrane contactors relative to the pressure in the first section
of the membrane contactors;
2
Appeal 2016-002986
Application 12/305,305
maintaining the pressure of the scavenging gas in the
second sections of the membrane contactors between
approximately 20 mm Hg and approximately 250 mm Hg;
reducing the oxygen concentration of the seawater by
inducing the oxygen to flow from the seawater streams through
the hydrophobic membranes of the membrane contactors and
into the second sections of the membrane contactors to mix
with the scavenging gas; and
injecting the seawater having the reduced concentration
of oxygen into the oil bearing formation, wherein the injected
seawater is used to extract oil from the oil bearing formation.
The Examiner relied on the following references in rejecting the
appealed subject matter:
Henriksen
Mandrin et al.
Baillie
Rautschek et al.
Chakravarti et al.
US 4,530,820
US 5,006,133
US 2005/0023222 Al
US 2006/0160908 Al
US 2007/0148069 Al
July 23, 1985
Apr. 9, 1991
Feb. 3, 2005
July 20, 2006
June 28, 2007
Bujedo et al., Removing Dissolved Oxygen From Ultrapure Water,
Semiconductor International, Product Application Report (1997).2
Sengupta et al., Large-scale application of membrane contactors for gas
transfer from or to ultrapure water, 14 Separation and Purification
Technology 189-200 (1998).
Weisler, Fred, Membrane Contactors reduce chemical use and blowdowns,
Tech Brief, Vol. 19, October (2000).3
2 The Examiner cited this reference as Semiconductor International. Final
Act. 3.
3 The Examiner cited this reference as Membrane Contactors. Final Act. 3.
3
Appeal 2016-002986
Application 12/305,305
Liqui-Cel®, Semiconductor Plant Improves Water Quality by using Liqui-
Cel® Liqui-Cel®,Membrane Contactors for Simultaneous Oxygen and
Carbon Dioxide Removal from Water, 19 TechBrief 1221
(2000).
Accepta Newsletter #9: Membrane Technology, (2003).
Water Injection (oil production), Wikipedia article, 29 August (2007).
Appellants, App. Br. 4, request review of the following rejections
from the Examiner’s Final Office Action:
I. Claims 55, 57, 58—63, 67, 69, and 70 rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§103(a) as unpatentable over Mandrin, Water Injection, Sengupta, Baillie,
Liqui-Cel®, Membrane Contactors, Accepta, and Semiconductor
International.
II. Claim 64 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Mandrin, Water Injection, Sengupta, Baillie, Liqui-Cel®, Membrane
Contactors, Accepta, and Semiconductor International and further in view of
Henriksen.
III. Claims 66 and 68 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Mandrin, Water Injection, Sengupta, Baillie, Liqui-Cel®, Membrane
Contactors, Accepta, and Semiconductor International and further in view of
Chakravarti.
IV. Claim 65 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Mandrin, Water Injection, Sengupta, Baillie, Liqui-Cel®, Membrane
Contactors, Accepta, and Semiconductor International and further in view of
Rautschek.
4
Appeal 2016-002986
Application 12/305,305
OPINION4’5
After review of the respective positions provided by Appellants and
the Examiner, we AFFIRM for the reasons presented by the Examiner and
add the following.
Claims 59 and 64
Appellants argue, in order to meet limitations of addressed
independent claims 59 and 64, the prior art must include a petroleum stream
that includes either methane or CO2. App. Br. 5. Appellants argue that the
prior art’s suggestion of a CO2 scavenging gas stream that does not comprise
a hydrocarbon is not a petroleum gas. Id. Appellants further argue the
Examiner has not provided a rationale for utilizing natural gas as a stripping
gas in Mandrin. Id. at 5—6.
Appellants’ arguments are without persuasive merit. The claimed
invention specifies a petroleum stream that includes either methane or CO2.
The Examiner relies on Mandrin for describing utilizing an oxygen free
stripping gas such as natural gas for removal of oxygen from seawater.
Final Act. 11. Mandrin establishes, by the discussion of prior art references,
4 Appellants presented arguments to the following groups: I. claims 59 and
64; II. claims 57, 62, and 63; III. claims 63, 58, and 60; and IV. independent
claims 55, 59, and 63. See Appeal Brief, generally. Thus, we limit our
discussion to the groups presented by Appellants. The non-argued
dependent claims will stand or fall together with their respective
independent claim 55, 59, or 63.
5 A discussion of the Wikipedia article entitled Water Injection (oil
production), Rautschek and Chakravarti is unnecessary for disposition of the
present appeal. The Examiner relied upon these references for features not
related to the dispositive issue.
5
Appeal 2016-002986
Application 12/305,305
that it was known by a person skilled in the art that natural gas was suitable
for use as a stripping gas in performing deoxidation of seawater. Mandrin
cols. 1—2. Appellants have not asserted that natural gas, which comprises
methane and other hydrocarbons, is not a petroleum gas as required by the
claimed invention.
Claims 57, 62, and 63
The dispositive issue on appeal for these claims is: Did the Examiner
err in determining that the cited prior art establishes it would have been
obvious to inject an oxygen-reducing agent into seawater at points between
consecutive membranes as required by independent claim 63 and claims 57
and 62?
Appellants argue there is no need to modify Mandrin to employ an
oxygen reducing agent because Mandrin already reduces the oxygen
concentration in the injection water below 20 ppb. App. Br. 6—7.
The Examiner determined Mandrin in combination with the cited
prior art Baillie and Sengupta would have suggested the utilization of
membranes in series or in parallel for filtering particles. Final Act. 6—7. The
Examiner cited Accepta for describing introducing oxygen scavengers into
water systems to reduce oxygen. Final Act. 8. The Examiner determined
that the cited references would have suggested introducing oxygen
scavengers in between consecutive membranes. Final Act. 8.
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive of reversible error. As
stated above, Mandrin establishes that the use of stripping gas in performing
deoxidation of seawater was known by a person skilled in the art. Accepta
was cited for teaching that deoxidation can be accomplished by introducing
oxygen scavengers. The Examiner correctly took into account the teachings
6
Appeal 2016-002986
Application 12/305,305
of Mandrin and the cited prior art, the effects of the introduction of oxygen
scavengers to obtain particular oxygen concentration, and the background
knowledge of the ordinary artisan as evidenced by the cited art in making the
determination of obviousness. See KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 417,
418 (2007)
Often, it will be necessary for a court to look to interrelated
teachings of multiple patents; the effects of demands known to
the design community or present in the marketplace; and the
background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary
skill in the art, all in order to determine whether there was an
apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion
claimed by the patent at issue.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had sufficient skill to
recognize the appropriate location for introduction of oxygen scavengers
into the system suggested combined teachngs of the cited art. Appellants
have not directed us to evidence that establishes the location of the
introduction of the oxygen scavenger into the system produces unexpected
results.
Claims 58, 60, and 63
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in failing to provide a sufficient
evidentiary basis for combining Liqui-Cel®, which relates to treating water
streams produce high purity water, with the other six references. App. Br.
8—9. Appellants further argue none of the other cited references provide a
need for ultrapure water as an oil injection fluid. App. Br. 9.
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive of reversible error. The
Examiner cited Liqui-Cel® for describing membrane contactors that provide
reverse osmosis water cleaning (filtering). Final Act. 7. Liqui-Cel® further
7
Appeal 2016-002986
Application 12/305,305
discloses the reverse osmosis system is suitable for use prior to
degasification of O2 and CO2. A person of ordinary skill in the art would
have recognized different known water treatement systems for removing
particles from water include reverse osmosis and desalination and
deionization systems. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have
reasonably expected that filtered water would have been suitable for use
with Mandrin in combination with the cited prior art.
Claims 55, 59, and 63
Appellants argue the Examiner has not adequately explained how a
hydrophilic membrane can be incorporated into a deaerating column to meet
the limitations of claims 55, 59, and 63. App. Br. 12—13. Appellants further
argue Baillie describes two separate systems that does not integrate the
filtration system with a deaerating system. App. Br. 13. Appellants argue
the Examiner’s rationale does not support that it would have been obvious to
induce oxygen to flow from the seawater through a hydrophobic membrane
into the scavenging gas and, at the same time, be able to use that same
hydrophobic membrane to remove suspended and dissolved particles. App.
Br. 14.
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive of reversible error.
Appellants’ arguments do not address the rejection as set forth by the
Examiner. The Examiner cited Sengupta for describing a typical
configuration of a membrane contactor degassing system. Ans. 42.
The Examiner found that Baillie teaches a method of treating a fluid
to be injected into a subterranean formation using ultra-filtration and micro-
filtration membranes. The Examiner found that Baillie discloses the
8
Appeal 2016-002986
Application 12/305,305
membrane can be formed from polymeric materials including PVDF and
polypropylene which may be hydrophobic. Final Act. 5, 12; Baillie 115.
From this disclosure, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
recognized that membranes could have been formed from PVDF and
polypropylene. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had
sufficient skill to form the membrane from known types of PVDF and
polypropylene that would be most effective for filtration. That is, a skilled
artisan would have had sufficient skill to determine the most effective type
of membrane whether hydrophilic or hydrophobic. It is noted that the
Specification discloses suitable membranes can be formed from PVDF and
polypropylene. Spec. 15.
Appellants further argue it is unclear what is meant by Mandrin’s
“water treatment module.” Reply Br. 7—8.
Appellants are referring to the Examiner’s reason for incorporating a
hydrophobic membrane into Mandrin’s water treatment system. Final Act.
3—6. The Examiner found Mandrin describes a system for deoxygenating
water employing a scavenging gas. This description appears to be Mandrin’s
“water treatment module” because the stated rejection concludes with the
Examiner ’ s determination:
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention would have found it obvious to use a hydrophobic
membrane with Mandrin et al.’s water treatment module for the
benefit of removing impurities, in addition to oxygen.
Final Act. 5.
It is readily apparent in Mandrin that the treatment of water module is
the system for deoxygenating water employing a scavenging gas. Mandrin
cols. 1—2.
9
Appeal 2016-002986
Application 12/305,305
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s prior art rejections of claims
55 and 57—70 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) for the reasons stated above and
those presented by the Examiner.
ORDER
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 55 and 57—70 is
affirmed.
TIME PERIOD
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1).
AFFIRMED
10