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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/16/2023 was 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 § 112
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
4. Claims 2-4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The polymers claimed are aliphatic and not aromatic, which makes the claims indefinite. The term “aromatic” should be removed and the specification corrected removing “aromatic” with regard to the alcohol, which is a clear error. Currently claim 1 has a contrary meaning to claims 2-4 and likely the opposite of the claimed intention.
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, 5-8, 10 and 12-13 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 4,516,981 A) to Nelson, Jr. et al. (hereinafter Nelson).
Nelson is directed toward removing water from hydrocarbons. Nelson discloses at (C1, L31) a non-ionic dispersant to precipitate water from oil. Nelson discloses at (C1, L46) 25-80% of a polyethoxylated compound and 5-50% of a glycol ether, which reads on the range of 0.75:1.5 to 1.5:3.0. Nelson discloses at (C1, L61) the groups to select at least two alkyl aromatic poly-ethoxy alcohols. Nelson discloses at (C2, L10) the us of a Triton X that reads on Applicants non-ionic surfactant. Nelson discloses at (C1, L50) the composition includes a dilutant of hexanol of 10-50%, which reads on a range of 10-30%. Nelson discloses at (C2, L24) the additive is 1 part per 4000 (0.00025), which reads on the range of 0.0001 to 0.005%. Nelson discloses each and every element of claims 1, 5-8, 10 and 12-13.
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 1, 5-8, 10 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 4,516,981 A) to Nelson, Jr. et al. (hereinafter Nelson).
Nelson is directed toward removing water from hydrocarbons. Nelson discloses at (C1, L31) a non-ionic dispersant to precipitate water from oil. Nelson discloses at (C1, L46) 25-80% of a polyethoxylated compound and 5-50% of a glycol ether, which reads on the range of 0.75:1.5 to 1.5:3.0. Nelson discloses at (C1, L61) the groups to select at least two alkyl aromatic poly-ethoxy alcohols. Nelson discloses at (C2, L10) the us of a Triton X that reads on Applicants non-ionic surfactant. Nelson discloses at (C1, L50) the composition includes a dilutant of hexanol of 10-50%, which reads on a range of 10-30%. Nelson discloses at (C2, L24) the additive is 1 part per 4000 (0.00025), which reads on the range of 0.0001 to 0.005%.
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing the disclosure of Nelson to select each and every element of claims to form a prime facie case of obviousness for claims 1, 5-8, 10 and 12-13.
11. Claims 1-2, 5-8, 10 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 4,516,981 A) to Nelson, Jr. et al. (hereinafter Nelson) in view of the teachings of (US 2020/0231519 A1) to Abudawoud et al. (hereinafter Abudawoud).
Nelson is directed toward removing water from hydrocarbons. Nelson discloses at (C1, L31) a non-ionic dispersant to precipitate water from oil. Nelson discloses at (C1, L46) 25-80% of a polyethoxylated compound and 5-50% of a glycol ether, which reads on the range of 0.75:1.5 to 1.5:3.0. Nelson discloses at (C1, L61) the groups to select at least two alkyl aromatic poly-ethoxy alcohols. Nelson discloses at (C2, L10) the us of a Triton X that reads on Applicants non-ionic surfactant. Nelson discloses at (C1, L50) the composition includes a dilutant of hexanol of 10-50%, which reads on a range of 10-30%. Nelson discloses at (C2, L24) the additive is 1 part per 4000 (0.00025), which reads on the range of 0.0001 to 0.005%.
Abudawoud directed toward removing water from hydrocarbons. Nelson and Abudawoud are both directed toward removing water from hydrocarbons and therefore analogous art. Abudawoud teaches at paragraph [0616] that water is removed from the hydrocarbons. Abudawoud teaches at paragraph [0224] that the surfactant may be non-ionic and include a mixture of polysorbates including polysorbate 20, which is a non-ionic surfactant.
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing the disclosure of Nelson in view of the teachings of Abuawoud to select each and every element of claims to form a prime facie case of obviousness for claims 1-2, 5-8, 10 and 12-13.
12. Claims 1-8, 10 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 4,516,981 A) to Nelson, Jr. et al. (hereinafter Nelson) in view of the teachings of (US 2014/0264179 A1) to Carter et al. (hereinafter Carter).
Nelson is directed toward removing water from hydrocarbons. Nelson discloses at (C1, L31) a non-ionic dispersant to precipitate water from oil. Nelson discloses at (C1, L46) 25-80% of a polyethoxylated compound and 5-50% of a glycol ether, which reads on the range of 0.75:1.5 to 1.5:3.0. Nelson discloses at (C1, L61) the groups to select at least two alkyl aromatic poly-ethoxy alcohols. Nelson discloses at (C2, L10) the us of a Triton X that reads on Applicants non-ionic surfactant. Nelson discloses at (C1, L50) the composition includes a dilutant of hexanol of 10-50%, which reads on a range of 10-30%. Nelson discloses at (C2, L24) the additive is 1 part per 4000 (0.00025), which reads on the range of 0.0001 to 0.005%.
Carter is directed toward corrosion inhibiting. Nelson is directed toward removing water from hydrocarbons, which would inhibit corrosion and therefore solves the same problem and therefore analogous art. Carter teaches at paragraph [0021] the mixture of a polysorbate 20 and 40, which would be obvious to have a 1:1 ratio.
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing the disclosure of Nelson in view of the teachings of Carter to select each and every element of claims to form a prime facie case of obviousness for claims 1-8, 10 and 12-13.
13. Claims 1 and 5-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 4,516,981 A) to Nelson, Jr. et al. (hereinafter Nelson) in view of the teachings of (US 2016/0264837 A1) to Nelson (hereinafter Nelson 2).
Nelson is directed toward removing water from hydrocarbons. Nelson discloses at (C1, L31) a non-ionic dispersant to precipitate water from oil. Nelson discloses at (C1, L46) 25-80% of a polyethoxylated compound and 5-50% of a glycol ether, which reads on the range of 0.75:1.5 to 1.5:3.0. Nelson discloses at (C1, L61) the groups to select at least two alkyl aromatic poly-ethoxy alcohols. Nelson discloses at (C2, L10) the us of a Triton X that reads on Applicants non-ionic surfactant. Nelson discloses at (C1, L50) the composition includes a dilutant of hexanol of 10-50%, which reads on a range of 10-30%. Nelson discloses at (C2, L24) the additive is 1 part per 4000 (0.00025), which reads on the range of 0.0001 to 0.005%.
Nelson is directed toward removing water from hydrocarbon fluids. Nelson 2 is directed toward hydrocarbon fluids. Nelson 2 teaches at paragraph [0041] that non-ionic surfactants that includes polysorbates are used. Nelson 2 teaches at paragraph [0045] that the carrier fluid is a hydrocarbon. Nelson 2 teaches at paragraph [0049] that a biocide is added to the hydrocarbon that includes a quaternary ammonium salt.
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing the disclosure of Nelson in view of Nelson2 to select each and every element of claims and add a biocide to prevent hydrocarbon degradation and to form a prime facie case of obviousness for claims 1 and 5-13.
Conclusion
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. 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