DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
2. Applicant’s election of Group 1 in the reply filed on 10/28/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). The statement that the inventions are of related subject matter does not point out the errors and therefore a mere statement of no burden is therefore insufficient in pointing out the errors.
3. Claims 4-8 and 16-20 and 22 are withdrawn as being directed toward non elected subject matter.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/24/2022, 2/14/2024, 5/10/2024 and 8/7/2025 were filed timely. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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.
6. 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
7. Claims 1-2 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by (US 2004/0054059 A1) to Parker et al (hereinafter Parker).
Parker is directed toward polymer latex drag reducing agents. Parker discloses at paragraph [0060] the composition contains latex particles. Parker discloses at paragraph [0079] the composition includes a cationic surfactant. Parker discloses at paragraph [0033] the particles are dispersed into an aqueous medium, which would be the continuous phase. Parker discloses at paragraph [0109] the use of a cetyltrimethylammonium chloride cationic surfactant. Parker discloses at paragraph [0040] the use of a nonionic surfactant. Parker discloses each and every element of claims 1-2 and 11-14.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Claims 3-9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 2004/0054059 A1) to Parker et al (hereinafter Parker) in view of the teachings of (US 2019/0256761 A1) to Milligan (hereinafter Milligan).
Parker is directed toward polymer latex drag reducing agents. Parker discloses at paragraph [0060] the composition contains latex particles. Parker discloses at paragraph [0079] the composition includes a cationic surfactant. Parker discloses at paragraph [0033] the particles are dispersed into an aqueous medium, which would be continuous. Parker discloses at paragraph [0109] the use of a cetyltrimethylammonium chloride cationic surfactant. Parker discloses at paragraph [0040] the use of a nonionic surfactant.
Milligan is directed toward polymer latex drag reducing agents. Parker and Milligan are both directed toward polymer latex drag reducing agents and therefore are analogous art. Milligan teaches at paragraph [0006] the use of drag reducing agents. Milligan teaches at paragraph [0016] the monomer may include a monomer of 2-ethylhexyl methacrylate, which reads on Applicants elected species. Milligan teaches at paragraph [0017] the water may be used as the continuous phase. Milligan teaches at paragraph [0020] the composition may include non-ionic secondary alcohol ethoxylates, which reads on Applicants elected species. Milligan teaches at paragraph [0027] the molecular weight of the latex polymer may be at least about 1×10.sup.6 g/mol, which reads on Applicants molecular weight range. Milligan teaches at paragraph [0003] the use of ultrahigh molecular weight polymers of latex have reduced drag and therefore one would be motivated to include those latex polymers.
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing based on the disclosure of Parker in view of the teachings of Milligan to include the high molecular weight latex polymers of Milligan into the composition of Parker, to reduce drag, that forms a prime facie case of obviousness on claims 3-9 and 15.
Conclusion
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY D WASHVILLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3262. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
12. 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.
13. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at 571-272-1302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
14. 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.
/JEFFREY D WASHVILLE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights