DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 7-9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/16/2026. It is also noted that applicant requested rejoinder of composition claims in the event that Group I is allowed, but the application does not contain composition claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 1, line 6, the term “the mud” does not have any antecedent basis, and thus this limitation is unclear.
In claim 1, line 6, the term “lower amounts” is indefinite, since no specific amounts are claimed, and no definition of what “lower” is referring to is provided.
Dependent claims fall herewith.
In claim 3, it is not clear what is meant by “enhancing a hydration a friction reducer”.
Claim 5 is dependent upon itself, thus the scope of the claim is not clear.
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, 2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)1 as being anticipated by Hurd (US 2007/0167333).
Regarding claim 1, Hurd teaches the formation of emulsifier compositions which comprises solid particles formed by spray drying. The emulsifier is a carboxylic acid terminated fatty amine (0027- 0032). Applicants’ specification at paragraph 0027 indicates that the carboxylic acid terminated fatty acid may be neutralized, thus the emulsifier of Hurd meets the current claims.
Hurd teaches that the emulsifier may be added to either the oil phase or aqueous phase (0046), thus meeting the limitation of adding the dry lubricant to water. Applicant’s intended use in a drilling fluid does not distinguish. Furthermore, since there is no clarity as to what “the mud” encompasses, there is no distinguishing from Hurd.
Regarding claim 2, this would be an inherent property, since Hurd teaches the same emulsifier. The claim as written does not contain the method of making a 0.25% or 1% composition, but only the result of using emulsifier at those levels.
Regarding claim 4, additives such as various chlorides including calcium chloride may be added to the aqueous phase (0048). One of ordinary skill in the art that aqueous fluids with calcium chloride with a salt concentration as high as 35% would qualify to be a drilling mud. Furthermore, other additives, such as silica may be added (0045).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Panamarathupalayam (US2023/0002665) in view of Moajil (2023/0295485) and Hurd (US 2007/0167333).
Regarding claim 1 and 3-5, Panamarathupalayam teaches a water based drilling fluid which comprises an emulsifier (0034), and may comprise polyacrylamide as a fluid loss additive (see 0008, meeting the components of claims 3-5). Panamarathupalayam does not teach the drilling fluid comprises carboxylic acid terminated fatty amine. Panamarathupalayam teaches that the emulsifier may be an ethoxylated carboxylic acid or amine based component (0034). Moajil teaches that ethoxylated carboxylic acids or carboxylic acid terminated fatty amine may alternatively be used as an emulsifier in drilling fluids (0054). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the carboxylic acid terminated fatty amine in the drilling fluid of Panamarathupalayam given the teaching of Moajil that such can be used as an alternative to ethoxylated carboxylic acids. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in making a drilling fluid, particularly in view of the teaching of Panamarathupalayam that amine based emulsifiers may be used in their invention. The use in an aqueous drilling fluid would render obvious the addition of the emulsifier to water. Panamarathupalayam further differs in not specifying that the emulsifier is added in dry form.
Hurd teaches that the carboxylic acid terminated fatty amine emulsifier may be added to an aqueous phase of a drilling fluid (0046), thus meeting the limitation of adding the dry lubricant to water. One of ordinary skill would utilize the lubricant in known physical forms, including the dry form of Hurd, with a reasonable expectation of success of being compatible with a drilling fluid. Since the mud or lower amounts are not defined, the current claims do not distinguish.
Regarding claim 2, this would be an obvious property, since the combination of references renders the claims obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The claim as written does not contain the method of making a 0.25% or 1% composition, but only the result of using emulsifier at those levels.
Regarding claim 3, the polyacrylamide would obviously have enhanced hydration, given that the combination renders the current claim obvious.
Regarding claim 6, Panamarathupalayam teaches the use of organic starches in the aqueous drilling fluid (0033). Although not specifying that the starch is added to the emulsifier, adding the starch at any point of making the drilling fluid would be obvious, since the same fluid would be manufactured in the end. It has been held that the order of adding ingredients does not distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04 IV C).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP C TUCKER whose telephone number is (571)272-1095. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30.
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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at 571-272-2450. 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.
/PHILIP C TUCKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1745