DETAILED ACTION
This is the initial Office action for application SN 18/382,981 having an effective date of 23 October 2023. Claims 1-20 are pending. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 15 August 2025.
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 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.
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) 1-11 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Mueller et al (US 5,281,329).
Mueller et al [“Mueller”] disclose crude oils, vacuum gas oils, and residual oils containing long chain polyalkyl (meth)acrylates as flow improvers, wherein the long chain polyalkyl (meth)acrylates are a mixture of:
a polyalkyl (meth)acrylate P1 having an onset of crystallization at temperatures above 15°C, and
a polyalkyl (meth)acrylate P2 having an onset of crystallization at temperatures at or below 15°C,
with the proviso that there is a temperature difference of at least 5°C, preferably 10°C, between the onset of the crystallization of polyalkyl (meth)acrylates P1 and the onset of crystallization of polyalkyl (meth)acrylates P2. Mueller discloses that a synergistic effect is present. COL.2, L15-37.
Thus, P1 having a crystallization onset temperature of above 15°C is within the claimed range of between about 5°C and about 23°C, and between about 5°C and about 18°C (anticipated).
Mueller discloses that the two polymer components P1 and P2 are preferably in a weight relationship of 1:50 to 50:1, particularly 1:10 to 10:1. COL.2, L38-40.
Mueller discloses that polyalkyl (meth)acrylates P1 are formed from monomers having an alkyl portion of greater than C18, such as C18-C26, and preferably polybehenyl acrylate. COL.2, L49-55. Stearyl is C18.
Mueller discloses that polyalkyl (meth)acrylates P2 are represented by esters of acrylic or methacrylic acid, particularly with longer chain alkanols (from C1, preferably from C8, and up to C40), thus including those having C16-24 alkyl groups. COL.2, L56-65.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mueller et al (US 5,281,329) in combination with Kundu et al (US 2018/0086862).
Mueller et al [“Mueller”] is relied on as outlined above.
Dependent claim 12 differs when the low temperature intermediate comprises an olefin maleic imide polymer. However, as evidenced by Kundu et al [“Kundu”], olefin maleic imide polymers are known in the art as paraffin inhibitors when added to hydrocarbon media such as crude oils. See [0007]-[0008].
Dependent claim 13 differs when the low temperature intermediate comprises a phenolic resin polymer comprising an alkyl chain with a length between C20 and C28. However, Kundu discloses that in some embodiments, the paraffin inhibitor may be a C4-C50 alkyl phenol-formaldehyde resin which are available commercially having various molecular weights [0098].
Thus, having the applied prior art references before the inventor(s) at the time the invention was made it would have been obvious to the skilled oil formulator to have added known paraffin inhibitors such as disclosed in Kundu, to the flow improvers for crude oil disclosed in Mueller if the known imparted properties were so desired.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELLEN M MCAVOY whose telephone number is (571)272-1451. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30am - 7:00 pm EST.
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 (571) 272-6381. 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.
/ELLEN M MCAVOY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
EMcAvoy
November 24, 2025
Prosecution Insights