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 6/28/2023 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 § 102
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 8-10, 12-18, 20, 22, 24-26, 29, 31 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by ROMERO-ZERON et al. 'Formulation of an Encapsulation Surfactant System, EES, via beta-CD Host-Guest Interactions to Inhibit Surfactant Adsorption onto Solid Surfaces', Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2020, Vol. 59, pp. 15542-15555. [Published: July 28, 2020] (hereinafter Romero).
Romero is directed towards an encapsulated surfactant system having host-guest interactions on solid surfaces for enhanced oil recovery. Romero discloses at page 15542 that in the Abstract the solid surface used a sufficient concentration of a supramolecular chemical to provide a host-guest interactions to reduce absorption of surfactants into the surface. Romero discloses at page 15542 that in the Abstract the composition included the use of a surfactant and a solvent that were free of yeast. Romero discloses at page 15543 that the supramolecular host uses electrostatic charge repulsion properties. Romero discloses at page 15544 that the polar solvent used is water, which is above 10% and the supramolecular chemical is above 1%. Romero discloses at page 15544 that the surfactant is a cyclodextrin an alkyl polyglucoside that interreacts with the solvent water and can interact with guest molecules that are hydrophobic. Romero discloses each and every element of claims 1-2, 4, 6, 8-10, 12-18, 20, 22, 24-26, 29, 31 and 33.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 8-10, 12-18, 20, 22, 24-27, 29, 31 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ROMERO-ZERON et al. 'Formulation of an Encapsulation Surfactant System, EES, via beta-CD Host-Guest Interactions to Inhibit Surfactant Adsorption onto Solid Surfaces', Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2020, Vol. 59, pp. 15542-15555. [Published: July 28, 2020] (hereinafter Romero).
Romero is directed towards an encapsulated surfactant system having host-guest interactions on solid surfaces for enhanced oil recovery. Romero discloses at page 15542 that in the Abstract the solid surface used a sufficient concentration of a supramolecular chemical to provide a host-guest interactions to reduce absorption of surfactants into the surface. Romero discloses at page 15542 that in the Abstract the composition included the use of a surfactant and a solvent that were free of yeast. Romero discloses at page 15543 that the supramolecular host uses electrostatic charge repulsion properties. Romero discloses at page 15544 that the polar solvent used is water, which is above 10% and the supramolecular chemical is above 1%. Romero discloses at page 15544 that the surfactant is a cyclodextrin an alkyl polyglucoside that interreacts with the solvent water and can interact with guest molecules that are hydrophobic.
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the disclosure of Romero to select a surface active composition with each and every element of the claims that forms a prime facie case of obviousness for claims 1-2, 4, 6, 8-10, 12-18, 20, 22, 24-27, 29, 31 and 33.
9. Claims 1-4, 6, 8-14, 16-20, 22, 24-29, 31 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ROMERO-ZERON et al. 'Formulation of an Encapsulation Surfactant System, EES, via beta-CD Host-Guest Interactions to Inhibit Surfactant Adsorption onto Solid Surfaces', Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2020, Vol. 59, pp. 15542-15555. [Published: July 28, 2020] (hereinafter Romero) in view of the teachings of Negin et al, “Most Common Surfactants Employed in Chemical Enhanced Oil Recovery”, Petroleum, 2017,Vol. 3,pp. 197-211. (hereinafter Negin).
Romero is directed towards an encapsulated surfactant system having host-guest interactions on solid surfaces for enhanced oil recovery. Romero discloses at page 15542 that in the Abstract the solid surface used a sufficient concentration of a supramolecular chemical to provide a host-guest interactions to reduce absorption of surfactants into the surface. Romero discloses at page 15542 that in the Abstract the composition included the use of a surfactant and a solvent that were free of yeast. Romero discloses at page 15543 that the supramolecular host uses electrostatic charge repulsion properties. Romero discloses at page 15544 that the polar solvent used is water, which is above 10% and the supramolecular chemical is above 1%. Romero discloses at page 15544 that the surfactant is a cyclodextrin an alkyl polyglucoside that interreacts with the solvent water and can interact with guest molecules that are hydrophobic. Romero discloses a surface active composition, but is silent regarding some species of surfactants.
Negin is directed toward enhanced oil recovery with the use of surfactants. Romero and Negin are both directed toward enhanced oil recovery with the use of surfactants and therefore are analogous art. Negin teaches in the Abstract that enhanced oil recovery with anionic surfactants as being preferred for EOR operations. Negin teaches at page 199 that an alcohol cosolvent with a surfactant of a branched polyoxyethylene sulfonate surfactant is beneficial. Negin further teaches at page 199 that ethylene/propylene oxide compounds are desirable. Negin teaches at page 200 that sodium benzosulfonate compounds are desirable.
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the disclosure of Romero to select a surface active composition with each and every element of the claims that forms a prime facie case of obviousness for claims 1-2, 4, 6, 8-10, 12-20, 22, 24-29, 31 and 33.
10. Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 8-10, 12-18, 20, 22, 24-27, 29, 31 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ROMERO-ZERON et al. 'Formulation of an Encapsulation Surfactant System, EES, via beta-CD Host-Guest Interactions to Inhibit Surfactant Adsorption onto Solid Surfaces', Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2020, Vol. 59, pp. 15542-15555. [Published: July 28, 2020] (hereinafter Romero) in view of the teachings of (US 2015/0366190 A1) to Lipinsky et al. (hereinafter Lipinsky).
Romero is directed towards an encapsulated surfactant system having host-guest interactions on solid surfaces for enhanced oil recovery. Romero discloses at page 15542 that in the Abstract the solid surface used a sufficient concentration of a supramolecular chemical to provide a host-guest interactions to reduce absorption of surfactants into the surface. Romero discloses at page 15542 that in the Abstract the composition included the use of a surfactant and a solvent that were free of yeast. Romero discloses at page 15543 that the supramolecular host uses electrostatic charge repulsion properties. Romero discloses at page 15544 that the polar solvent used is water, which is above 10% and the supramolecular chemical is above 1%. Romero discloses at page 15544 that the surfactant is a cyclodextrin an alkyl polyglucoside that interreacts with the solvent water and can interact with guest molecules that are hydrophobic.
Lipinsky is directed toward treatment of plant surfaces with a surfactant.
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the disclosure of Romero in view of Lipinsky to select a surface active composition with each and every element of the claims that forms a prime facie case of obviousness for claims 1-2, 4, 6, 8-10, 12-18, 20, 22, 24-27, 29, 31 and 33.
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