DETAILED ACTION
In response to remarks filed 12/09/2025
Status of Claims
Claims 1-21 and 24-25 are currently pending;
Claims 1 and 10 are currently amended;
Claims 2-9 and 11-16 were previously presented;
Claims 17-21 are withdrawn;
Claims 22-23 have been cancelled;
Claims 24-25 are new;
Claims 1-16 and 24-25 are rejected hereinafter.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Himmelblau (US 5,115,084).
With regards to claim 1 and 24-25, Himmelblau discloses a method of enhancing oil recovery (abstract; “increase petroleum yield), the method comprising: injecting bio-oil (“biomass oil”) into an underground well at an injection site wherein the bio-oil is acidic (col. 3, line 53-55 “producing an acidic biomass oil for use in the method”; col. 7, line 34-41; acidic pH values range is a pH less than 7 therefore it read on claims 24-25); and obtaining crude oil (petroleum) from the underground well at a production site (abstract; figures 5a-5d).
As to claim 2, Himmelblau discloses wherein injecting the bio-oil comprises pumping bio-oil into a casing that extends from a surface location to the underground well (figures 5a-5d; injection well).
As to claim 3 and 11, Himmelblau discloses wherein injecting the bio-oil further comprises injecting at least one of water, a dispersant, or a solidification accelerator into the underground well (col. 3, lines 37-57).
As to claim 4-5 and 12-13, Himmelblau discloses wherein the injected bio-oil sweeps the crude oil through the underground well; and wherein the bio-oil acts as a stimulation fluid in the well (abstract; col. 2, lines 5968).
As to claim 6-8 and 14-16, Himmelblau discloses wherein the bio-oil comprises an acid content that reduces a build-up of scale in or around a casing associated with the injection site or the production site; wherein the bio-oil modifies a wettability of the underground well; wherein the bio-oil plugs high-permeability pathways in the underground well (abstract; col. 3, lines 37-47).
As to claim 10, Himmelblau discloses a system for enhancing oil recovery, the system comprising: an injection site for injecting bio-oil into an underground well (figure 5; abstract), the injection site comprising a bio-oil source, a first pump, and a first casing that extends from a surface location at the injection site to the underground well (pumps and casings are conventional on injection wells), wherein the bio-oil is acidic (col. 3, line 53-55 “producing an acidic biomass oil for use in the method”; col. 7, line 34-41); and a production site (production well; figure 5) for obtaining crude oil from the underground well, the production site comprising a second pump and a second casing that extends from a surface location at the production site to the underground well (pumps and casings are conventional on production wells; figure 5).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/09/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicats argument that “Himmelblau fails to disclose, teach, or suggest each and every element of amended independent claim 1 and amended independent claim 10. For example, Himmelblau fails to disclose, teach, or suggest "injecting bio-oil into an underground well at an injection site, wherein the bio-oil is acidic," as recited in amended independent claim 1 and amended independent claim 10. Himmelblau instead teaches "raising the pH...to above 7.0 to achieve controlled polymerization in order to alter the biomass oil viscosity before injection." Himmelblau, col. 7, lines 46-49. Himmelblau further states "[p]referably, the pH is raised to at least 8.0 to encourage polymerization, although polymerization will occur at a pH of anywhere between 7 and 14." Himmelblau, col. 7, lines 54-57. Himmelblau produces a biomass oil that is basic (caustic) and fails to teach or suggest injecting a "bio-oil [that] is acidic," as claimed.” – Examiner respectfully disagrees. Hemmelblau clearly discloses using a bio-oil that is acidic (col. 3, line 53-55 “producing an acidic biomass oil for use in the method”; col. 7, line 34-41). Furthermore, Himmelblau teaches wherein “The biomass oil may be produced, and/or altered after production, with the desired pH, viscosity and/or density for a specific subterranean formation.”. therefore, the bio-oil pH is merely a design option dependent on the ground formation.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CARIB A OQUENDO whose telephone number is (571)270-7411. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5:30pm.
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, Amber Anderson can be reached at 571-270-5281. 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.
/CARIB A OQUENDO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678