DETAILED ACTION
Citation to the Specification will be in the following format: (S. # : ¶/L) where # denotes the page number and ¶/L denotes the paragraph number or line number. Citation to patent literature will be in the form (Inventor # : LL) where # is the column number and LL is the line number. Citation to the pre-grant publication literature will be in the following format (Inventor # : ¶) where # denotes the page number and ¶ denotes the paragraph number.
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 .
Status of Application
This office action is in response to the papers as filed 8/18/2023.
Claim(s) 1-14 is/are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on:
8/18/2023
5/15/2024
12/27/2024
6/10/2025
9/5/2025
are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, except as noted above. All “accepted manuscripts,” etc. are not the same as what is actually published. These documents are crossed off and not considered. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
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.
I. Claim(s) 1-8 and 10-14 – or as stated below - is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0056086 to Haq, et al. in view of:
(i) US 2014/0038266 to Leij, et al.
With respect to Claim 1, this claim requires “carbonizing a biomass waste material to provide carbon microparticles.” Date leaves are taught. (Haq 3: [0055]; passim). The date leaves are carbonized. (Haq 3: [0056]). Microparticles are taught. (Haq 3: [0058]).
Claim 1 further requires “functionalizing the carbon microparticles through an acid treatment such that the carbon microparticles comprise a hydrophilic surface.” The microparticles are functionalized. (Haq 4: [0060] et seq.). As understood in view of the disclosure, the hydrophilic functionalities (sulfonates, hydroxides) are a product of the acid treatment. (S. 2: [0026]). As discussed elsewhere, nitric and sulfuric acid treatments are taught. (Haq 4: [0061]). As such, it is expected that the hydrophilic portions are necessarily present. This is the rationale to show inherency.
Claim 1 further requires “grinding the carbon microparticles to provide carbon nanoparticles, wherein the carbon nanoparticles comprise a hydrophilic surface and a hydrophobic surface.” Nanoparticles are taught. (Haq 4: [0069]). Haq would not appear to teach the grinding step at this stage of the process, but does teach it elsewhere. (Haq 3: [0058]). However, in a similar process, Leij teaches small particles absorb oil more readily than large ones. (Leij 4: [0038]). One of skill in the art would be motivated to further grind the microparticles to affect oil absorption.
As to Claim 2, mixture with an aqueous fluid is taught. (Haq 5: [0077]).
As to Claim 3, nut shells are taught. (Haq 5: [0074]). To the extent this refers to material added to the carbonized material versus the material to be carbonized, the shells are sources of carbon, as taught by Haq. Substitution of one carbon source for another is an obvious expedient.
As to Claim 4, cellulose is taught. (Haq 5: [0074]). To the extent this refers to material added to the carbonized material versus the material to be carbonized, the shells are sources of carbon, as taught by Haq. Substitution of one carbon source for another is an obvious expedient.
As to Claim 5, pyrolysis in an inert is taught. (Haq [0059]). Haq teaches higher temperatures, but in a similar process, Leij teaches pyrolysis at lower temperatures reading on the claim. (Leij 2: [0020]). Leij suggests that temperature affects carbon loss. Id. Optimizing the temperature is an obvious expedient to control carbon loss. MPEP 2144.05.
As to Claim 6, the size is taught. (Haq 4: [0069]).
As to Claim 7, nitric acid and sulfuric acid is taught. (Haq 4: [0061]).
As to Claim 8, as discussed above, these groups are understood to be the result of the nitric and sulfuric acid treatments. Nitric acid and sulfuric acid treatments are taught. (Haq 4: [0061]). This is the rationale to show inherency.
As to Claim 10, see discussion of size accompanying the rejection of Claim 1.
As to Claim 11, seawater and brine is taught. (Haq 5: [0077]).
As to Claim 12, surfactants are taught. (Haq 6: [0091] et seq.).
With respect to Claim 13, this claim requires “introducing the enhanced oil recovery composition of claim 2 into a hydrocarbon-bearing formation.” The discussion of Claim 2 is incorporated herein by reference. The composition is introduced into a hydrocarbon-bearing formation. (Haq 9: [0132] et seq.).
Claim 13 further requires “displacing hydrocarbons from the hydrocarbon-bearing formation.” The hydrocarbons are displaced. Id.
Claim 13 further requires “recovering the hydrocarbons.” Recovery is taught. Id.
As to Claim 14, the amounts are taught. (Haq 5: [0074]).
II. Claim(s) 9 – or as stated below - is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0056086 to Haq, et al. in view of:
(i) US 2014/0038266 to Leij, et al., and further in view of:
(ii) Yazdani, et al., A system dynamics model to estimate energy, temperature, and particle size in planetary ball milling, Journal of Alloys and Compounds 2013; 555: 108-111 (hereinafter “Yazdani at __”).
The discussion accompanying “Rejection I” above is incorporated herein by reference.
As to Claim 9, ball milling for a given time will affect particle size. This is a result-effective varable. It is well known, but to the extent evidence is needed, Yazdani is provided. See (Yazdani at 110, Fig. 5; entire reference). See the various equations as they pertain to milling speed. (Yazdani at 109, col. 1; passim). Optimization of a result-effective variable does not impart patentability. MPEP 2144.05.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL C. MCCRACKEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-6537. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (9-6).
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, Anthony J. Zimmer can be reached on 571-270-3591. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL C. MCCRACKEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736