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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Receipt is acknowledged of the Information Disclosure Statement filed 22 June 2023. The Examiner has considered the reference cited therein to the extent that each is a proper citation. Please see the attached USPTO Form.
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant’s election of Group II (claims 9-16) in the reply filed on 01 May 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-8 and 17-20 are withdrawn from consideration from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being withdrawn to a non-elected invention, and non-elected species of the invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claims.
Claims 9-16 are under examination and the requirement for restriction is made final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 9-13 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (US-20190127627-A1).
With regard to claim 9, Zhou teaches a well treatment and drilling method comprising by forming a treatment fluid (i.e., represents the claimed non-aqueous base fluid, [0028]) and a crosslinked polymer (i.e., represents the claimed drying agent). Zhou teaches that this fluid can be formulated with a non-aqueous base fluid (para [0028]) at a volume of less than 200 barrels (i.e. “bbl.”), classifying it as a “pill” (para [0102]) (which reads on the volume and pill). Zhou further teaches introducing the fluid into the well via a pump (para[0067]), which circulates and recirculates the mixture through a feed pipe before depositing it into an adjacent pit (para [0070]), thereby reading on the steps of both introducing and removing the composition from a pipe. Consequently, the feed pipe within Zhou’s pump, can be interpretated to relate to a pipeline which can functionally satisfy the structural limitation of “pipeline” as it performs the same operational function. Zhou also notes that the pump may include any conduits, pipeline, and/or pipes used to fluidically move the composition from one location to another (para [0073]).
Zhou does not explicitly state that the mixture is hydrated when removed from the pipeline. However, Zhou teaches that the polymer (i.e., claimed drying agent) is a hydratable agent capable of unraveling and extending its polymer chain in the presence of water (para [0130]). Furthermore, Zhou teaches that a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a substance’s hydratability, dispersibility, or solubility in water can be depend on factors such as salinity, pH, and other components, and that either the substance or the water selection can be modified accordingly (para [0132]).
With regard to the hydration, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to hydrate the mixture in order to facilitate its removal in the pipe. Zhou would guide one having ordinary skill in the art to employ hydration (e.g. water) to the pipe so the polymer can unravel, become dispersibility, or ultimately be soluble to be removed (para [0130]). Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
With regard to claim 10, Zhou teaches a pumping system that enables the composition to circulate within during the operation (para [0066]), thereby reading on the pumping the composition while the system is flowing.
With regard to claim 11, Zhou teaches the incorporation of a compressor is optional (para. [0072]), and does not teach the use of air dryers or vacuums, which reads on the claimed limitation since the claimed equipment is either not mentioned or can optionally be omitted.
With regard to claim 12, Zhou does not teach the use of nitrogen air spreads, which reads on the claimed limitation since it is not mentioned.
With regard to claim 13, Zhou teaches the composition may be prepared on-site by continuously introducing a flowing stream of one or more element(s) into a flowing stream of another component (para [0060]). The streams are combined and mixed while in transit as part of the ongoing treatment process, thereby reading on mixing the composition as it is introduced to the system.
With regard to claim 15, Zhou teaches a composition that includes crosslinked polymers (para [0016]), clay (para [0049]), and additional additives (para [0050]), thereby reading on the claimed drying agent.
With regard to claim 16, Zhou’s Example 1 demonstrates a crosslinked polymer concentration of 5.8% within the composition (Table 1, Example 1). This value falls within the scope of the claimed limitation, which permits the drying agent to range from 1 to 60 wt.%.
[Specifically, regarding the crosslinked polymer calculation: Based on Table 1, 8lbs of Crosslinked Polymer is combined with the rest of the composition; resulting in a total mass of 138.434lb (0.914+59+20+0.18+8+1+32+8+3.76+5.58 = 138.434lb). Thus, the crosslinked polymer is calculated as (8lb/138.434lb x 100= 5.8%, (thereby falling within the claimed drying agent)].
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (US-20190127627-A1) as applied to claims 9-13 and 15-16 above, and further in view of (CN-111963108-A).
With regard to claim 14, Zhou teaches the treatment fluid (i.e., claimed base fluid) includes aqueous, non-aqueous fluids—such as alcohols (e.g. glycols)—gases, or combinations thereof (para [0028]). Zhou further teaches that depending on the fluid, thermal stabilizers such as methanol can be included (para [0057]).
Zhou does not teach the selection to the degree of specificity to be obvious.
In the same field of endeavor, Zhao teaches a method for determining the amount of acid used in the process of unblocking gas wells, wherein the pressure covers the gathering in wellbore, pipelines, and pumps (para [0004]). Zhao further teaches that methanol (i.e., an alcohol) has the property of preventing the formation of blocking from water-containing compounds in the tubing, and at the same time, it can release the reservoir water lock of the gas well to be scaled and enhance the fluid fluidity (para [0122]).
With regard to the selection, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to formulate Zhou’s composition to comprise an alcohol to achieve the claimed invention. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in achieving the claimed invention, as Zhou’s composition can be provided with an alcohol to successfully yield the recognized effective properties (e.g. fluid fluidity and blockage prevention) as established in Zhao. Therefore, given the overlapping components disclosed in a single composition, a person of ordinary skill in the art would expect the modification to be obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aja A Walker whose telephone number is (571)272-0037. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7-5.
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.
/A.A.W./Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/TANISHA DIGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761 June 24, 2026
Prosecution Insights