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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/13/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-7, 9-10 17-20 and 23 are pending. Claim 1 is independent.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted 7/13/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The rejection of claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN 102583973B) Google Patents English Translation in view of Schott et al. (DE 102012025698B3) Google Patents English Translation is withdrawn in light of Applicants cancellation of the claim.
The rejection of claims 1-7, 9-10 17-20 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN 102583973B) [EPO English Translation of the Description and the Google Patents Translation] in view of Raade et al. (WO 2014/074930A1) Google Patents English Translation is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7, 9-10 17-20 and 23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Accordingly, the claim amendments are addressed below.
New Grounds of Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-10 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(2)) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hormadaly (US 7,435,695 B2).
With respect to independent claim 1 Hormadaly teach a glass composition comprising 40%-65% P2O5 and 25-37% ZnO (see abstract) and guide one of ordinary skill to 0-3% of glass modifiers such as Na2O, MgO or CaO or mixtures there of. See col.4,ln.41-50. With respect to the carrier of claim 1, Hormadaly teach pouring the molten composition into water (See col.4,ln.60) for form a frit. Claim 1 and formulations 1-19 are to a phosphate glass with ZnO (see col.6-8) and formulations 2-8 are stable glasses with good durability. Accordingly, the exemplary teachings of Hormaldaly appear to anticipate the material limitations of the instant claim 1.
Alternatively, even if Hormaldaly are not sufficient to anticipate the material limitations of the instant claims, , it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to arrive at a fluid for stabilizing oil wells or gas wells because Hormaldaly teach stable phosphate glass with zinc oxide viscous composition that is very viscous to pour (see col.7,ln.62) and thus one of ordinary skill would understand it to encompass a fluid for stabilizing.
Claim 2 limitation to wherein the phosphate glass comprising 15-35% ZnO is exemplified in formulations 1-19 in col.7-8.
Claim 3 limitation to further comprising MgO is taught in claim 1j teaching upto 5% MgO. (See col.8,ln.67)
Claim 4 limitation to the fluid comprises glass at a concentration in the range of 1-20 wt% in the carrier is taught in col.5,ln.26-28 teaching the total composition of the solids dispersed in the organic medium is between 0.5 to 80 weight % glass particles. See Hormaldaly col.5,ln.26-28.
Claim 5 limitation to 65-85% phosphate is exemplified in formulations 1, 4 and 5 in table 1, col.7.
Claim 6 limitation to 0.5 to 5 wt% MgO is taught in claim 1j (See col.8,ln.67 and col.4,ln.42-49).
Claim 7 limitation to 65 to 80 wt% P2O5, 20 to 30 wt% ZnO, 1.5 to 5 wt% MgO is taught by the formulations 4 and 5 in table 1 col.7 with motivation in claim 1 to modify the examples with upto 5% MgO.
Hormadaly is silent with respect to the mean particle size distribution of claims 9-10, however, col.4,ln.67-col.5,ln.1 teaches the glass is preferably milled in a ball mill with water to reduce the particle size and one of ordinary skill would reasonably expect the same phosphate glass with the same ZnO in the same water milled to the similar size powder encompassing the broadly claimed range.
With respect to method claim 17, Hormadaly teach preparation of the glass by conventional methods which are well known in the art. For example, one such method consists of mixing together the desired proportions of oxide, melting the mixture and pouring the molten composition into water to form a frit.
The glass is preferably milled in a ball mill with water to reduce the particle size. As is well known in the art, melting is conducted at a peak temperature and for a time Such that the melt becomes entirely liquid and homogeneous. The melt is then poured into cold water. The maximum temperature of the water during quenching is kept as low as possible 10 by increasing the volume of water to melt ratio. The crude frit after separation from water is freed from residual water by drying in air or by displacing the water by rinsing with methanol. The crude frit is then ball milled for 3-5 hours in alumina containers using alumina balls. After discharging the milled slurry from the frit, the powder is air-dried. The dried powder is then screened through a 325 mesh screen to remove any large particles. See col.4,ln.55-col.5,ln.20.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 18-20 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Dreyer et al. (US 10,081,758 B2) cited in Applicant’s IDS.
With respect to claim 1, Dreyer et al. teach hydraulic fracturing compositions for oil and gas wells. See abstract and claims 1-2 comprising phosphate and ZnO.
Dreyer do not exemplify a fluid for stabilizing oil well with phosphate and ZnO as required by claim 1. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to arrive at a fluid for stabilizing oil wells or gas wells because Dreyer et al. teach a hydraulic fracturing water based composition comprising polyphosphate glass with zinc oxide and thus one of ordinary skill would understand it to encompass a fluid for stabilizing.
With respect to claim 3, see Dreyer et al. claim 3 teaching the inclusion of MgO. See also col.9,ln45-51.
With respect to claim 4, Dreyer et al.col.16,ln.20 teach 0.1-20 wt % concentration of the modified glass polyphosphate is placed into the fracture with water.
With respect to claim 5, Dreyer et al. col.9,ln.24 teaches 65-75% phosphorus compound in the polyphosphate glass.
With respect to claim 6, Dreyer et al. claim 3 teach the inclusion of MgO and col.9,ln45-51 teach about 5% MgO.
With respect to claims 18 and 23, Dreyer teach industrial hydraulic fracturing activities to utilize water or aqueous mixtures used in various fluid pathways of a hydraulic fracturing system, which include conduits of wellheads and various production tubulars and of deposit or reservoir wellbores, including distant cracks and fractures in the rock of the deposit or reservoir. See col.2,ln.35-60 and col.7,ln.42-67 describing an oil field.
With respect to claims 19-20 limitation to wherein the solid is a sedimentary rock is met by Dreyer et al. teaching oil and/or gas well which one of ordinary skill understands includes sandstone and shale. Evidence of this common knowledge is best in picture form
PNG
media_image1.png
634
844
media_image1.png
Greyscale
. While Dreyer et al. does not draw out an oil field, one of ordinary skill reasonably understands that an oil or gas well looks similar to the evidence available at 0b13b3_b1a906e84dde4bcbbdbc92ccac6df9e9~mv2.jpeg (834×626) and thus the claims 19-20 do not provide a contribution over the art of record teaching the claimed phosphate glass and its incorporation in oil and gas wells.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PREETI KUMAR whose telephone number is (571)272-1320. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at 571-272-2817. 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.
/PREETI KUMAR/ Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/ANGELA C BROWN-PETTIGREW/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761
