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
This is the response to amendment filed 11/20/2025 for application 17982817.
Claims 1, 3-11 are pending and have been fully considered.
Claim 2 has been cancelled.
The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 11/04/2025 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1 and 3-9 based upon MARTIN et al. (USPGPUB 20080064785) as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103 and claims 10-11 based upon MARTIN et al. (USPGPUB 20080064785) in view of KRUKA (US3884252) as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103.
MARTIN et al. (USPGPUB 2008/0064785) and KRUKA () as set forth in the last Office action because:
The declaration fails to set forth facts that overcomes the prior art rejection of record.
The declaration asserts that the formulation has a fundamentally different state than that taught in MARTIN et al. and that it is neither routine nor conventional to turn a slurry into a wetted solid powder. Applicant argues that the claimed formulation has an approximate threefold increase in polymer and that a person skilled in the art would expect a significant effect on the physical state and functional properties of the formulation.
MARTIN et al. teach in paragraph 80 an embodiment in which particulate polymer DRAS can be transported without the need for appreciable amounts of an inert solvent. MARTIN et al. teach that the particulate polymer DRAs (drag reducing agents) can be readily inserted into and incorporated within a flowing hydrocarbon.
The declaration also appears to teach that both a solid and a slurry would encounter difficulties with being fed with a screw.
This appears to suggest that one of ordinary skill in the art would through routine experimentation find the proportions that would allow for optimal transport through a pipeline system.
A slurry comprising a larger amount of liquid behaving more like a liquid and a slurry comprising a smaller amount of liquid behaving more like a solid appear well within one of ordinary skill in the art. It is unclear what unexpected results would be present.
It is noted that MARTIN et al. explicitly teach in paragraph 89 that proportion of the particular drag reducing agents, type of Suspension aid, proportion and number of additions of Suspension aid to the Suspension polymerization, the grinding process, the exact composition of the composition, DRA production methods, particle size distribution may be different from what is actively discussed in MARTIN et al. Additionally, proportions and types of the various components are expected to be optimized for each application or pipeline.
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 and 3-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MARTIN et al. (USPGPUB 2008/0064785).
Regarding claims 1 and 4, MARTIN et al. teach in paragraph 3 that polyalphaolefins is known in the art for reducing drag of a hydrocarbon flowing through a conduit.
MARTIN et al. teach in paragraph 80 an embodiment in which particulate polymer DRAS can be transported without the need for appreciable amounts of an inert solvent. MARTIN et al. teach that the particulate polymer DRAs (drag reducing agents) can be readily inserted into and incorporated within a flowing hydrocarbon.
MARTIN et al. teach in one non-limiting example in paragraph 33 a combination with 25% polymer, 22.5% butyl cellosolve, 22.5% hexanol, and 40% mineral oil. The mineral oil is taught to be acts a flow or stabilizing aid (separating agent). MARTIN et al. teach that the combination is cooled and exists as a thick slurry.
The thick slurry that MARTIN et al. teach appears to be capable of being injected by a screw.
Modifying the thick slurry by adjusting the proportions such that the thick slurry is more of a solid such as a wetted solid appears to be well within one of ordinary skill in the art. MARTIN et al. explicitly teach in paragraph 89 that the exact nature of and proportions of monomer and catalyst, proportion of the particular drag reducing agents, type of Suspension aid, proportion and number of additions of Suspension aid to the Suspension polymerization, the grinding process, the exact composition of the composition, DRA production methods, particle size distribution, etc. may be different from those discussed and used here. Particular processing techniques may be developed to enable the components to be homogeneously blended and work together well, yet still be within the scope of the invention. Additionally, proportions and types of the various components are expected to be optimized for each application or pipeline.
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[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).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a combination of 70-80% particulate polymer with 2 to 15% mineral oil and 1 to 10 wt% of butyl cellosolve (bifunctional heteroatomic organic compound) and 1 to 10 wt% hexanol (monofunctional heteroatomic organic compound).
Regarding claim 3, having ratio of monofunctional heteroatomic organic compound to bifunctional heteroatomic organic compound between 85 to 15 would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
MARTIN et al. explicitly teach in paragraph 89 that the exact nature of and proportions of monomer and catalyst, proportion of the particular drag reducing agents, type of Suspension aid, proportion and number of additions of Suspension aid to the Suspension polymerization, the grinding process, the exact composition of the composition, DRA production methods, particle size distribution, etc. may be different from those discussed and used here. Particular processing techniques may be developed to enable the components to be homogeneously blended and work together well, yet still be within the scope of the invention. Additionally, proportions and types of the various components are expected to be optimized for each application or pipeline.
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[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).
Regarding claim 5, MARTIN et al. also teach an example in paragraph 33 that includes hexanol.
Regarding claim 6, MARTIN et al. also teach an example in paragraph 33 that includes butyl cellosolve.
Regarding claim 7, MARTIN et al. also teach in paragraphs 6 and 34 that the non-solvents include fatty alcohols, glycols and mixtures of both. They are also taught to comprise from 2 to 6 carbon atoms. MARTIN et al. teach fatty alcohols with 4 to 6 carbon atoms.
Regarding claim 8, MARTIN et al. also teach in paragraphs 6 and 34 that the non-solvents include fatty alcohols, glycols and mixtures of both. They are also taught to comprise from 2 to 6 carbon atoms. MARTIN et al. teach glycols with 2 to 6 carbon atoms.
Regarding claim 9, MARTIN et al. teach in paragraph 81 that the drag reducing compositions are injected into pipelines. MARTIN et al. further teach in paragraph 89 that modifications may be used to enable components of the drag reducing compositions to be applied to the pipelines.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MARTIN et al. (USPGPUB 20080064785) as applied to claims 1 and 3-9 above, and further in view of KRUKA (US3884252).
The above discussion of MARTIN et al. is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding claim 10, MARTIN et al. teach in paragraph 81 that the drag reducing compositions are injected into pipelines. MARTIN et al. further teach in paragraph 89 that modifications may be used to enable components of the drag reducing compositions to be applied to the pipelines.
KRUKA is relied on to teach that the drag reducing compositions are dissolved in the hydrocarbon flowing through the pipe or pipeline prior to injection into the pipeline.
KRUKA teaches a process for reducing fluid flow friction in pipeline transmission by proving a source of dissolved polymer.
KRUKA teaches in lines 40-53 of column 3 that the polymer may be introduced into a storage tank or other vessel containing the hydrocarbon prior to introduction into the pipeline.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to slurry the drag reducing compositions that MARTIN et al. teach in a slurry of the hydrocarbon that flows through the pipelines in MARTIN et al.
The motivation to do so can be found in lines 40-53 of column 3 of KRUKA. KRUKA teaches that doing so shorten the dissolution time of polymer.
Regarding claim 11, KRUKA et al. teach in lines 15-32 of column 5 a premixer in which both the polymer and hydrocarbon is fed into. KRUKA et al. teach a pump for introducing the polymer into the hydrocarbon pipeline. KRUKA et al. teach in lines 39-52 of column 5 an example in which a gear pump is used.
KRUKA et al. teach that the hydrocarbon that flows in the pipeline can be used in the premixer and diverting an amount of hydrocarbon to this premixer would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
The use of valves and flow meters to start, stop and control the flow of feeds is well known in the art.
Combining known elements such as the use of a premixer and using valve and flow meters to regulate and to monitor flow would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art.
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the ranges claimed result in a different state of matter that provides for a new mode of handling and dosing and solves technical problems of phase separation and pump clogging.
This is not persuasive as adjusting the amount of liquid to solid in a composition and its affect in flowability is well within one of ordinary skill in the art. The prior art, MARTIN et al. and KRUKA, teach polymer reducing agents that may be used as a solid or as a slurry.
Applicant has not presented any evidence that show any unexpected results from modifying the amount of liquid in the composition.
A slurry comprising a larger amount of liquid behaving more like a liquid and a slurry comprising a smaller amount of liquid behaving more like a solid appear well within one of ordinary skill in the art.
Furthermore, it is noted that MARTIN et al. explicitly teach in paragraph 89 that proportion of the particular drag reducing agents, type of Suspension aid, proportion and number of additions of Suspension aid to the Suspension polymerization, the grinding process, the exact composition of the composition, DRA production methods, particle size distribution may be different from what is actively discussed in MARTIN et al. Proportions and types of the various components are also expected to be optimized.
Applicant argues that MARTIN et al. teaching that changes may be made without departing from the scope or spirit do not include modifying the formulation to be capable of being fed by a screw.
This is not persuasive as changes to the proportions and types of the various components are within the scope of the claims of MARTIN et al.
Applicant argues that the present claims are directed toward wetted solids and that MARTIN et al. teach a slurry or suspension.
MARTIN et al. teach the same compounds in a formulation and that adjusting the amounts are well within one of ordinary skill in the art given what MARTIN et al. teach.
Applicant further claims that MARTIN et al. teach a drag reducing agent that requires a liquid carrier in a dispersive mixture and only averages about 25-30% in the dispersive mixture.
Examiner disagrees given that MARTIN et al. explicitly teach that the exact composition of the composition, DRA production methods, particle size distribution may be different from what is actively discussed in MARTIN et al. Proportions and types of the various components are also expected to be optimized. MARTIN et al. also teach in paragraph 80 that a particulate polymer DRAs can be readily inserted into and incorporated within a flowing hydrocarbon.
MARTIN et al. teach in paragraph 80 an embodiment in which particulate polymer DRAS can be transported without the need for appreciable amounts of an inert solvent. MARTIN et al. teach that the particulate polymer DRAs (drag reducing agents) can be readily inserted into and incorporated within a flowing hydrocarbon.
MARTIN also teaches explicitly in paragraph 14 one embodiment exists wherein polymer reducing agents are added into a hydrocarbon fluid. The hydrocarbon fluid is what is transported in the pipeline.
Modifying the amounts of liquid present in the the drag reducing agent composition and changing the nature of the drag reducing agent from a dispersed solution to a “wetted solid” appears to be well within the consideration of MARTIN.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MING CHEUNG PO whose telephone number is (571)270-5552. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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, PREM SINGH can be reached at 5712726381. 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.
/MING CHEUNG PO/ Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/ELLEN M MCAVOY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771