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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-15, 17, 20, 23-24 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because it merely claims an obtaining an ESR spectrum, comparing the fiend strength values and determining a relative asphaltene stability that is directed to the abstract idea of a mathematical concept. The claim does not integrate the judicial exception inot a practical application because it merely receives data, performs calculation and displays the result using generic computer components. The claim does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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) 1-15, 17, 20, 23-24 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Babakhami (US 11,199,514).
Regarding claim 1, Babakhami teaches an EPR system comprising obtaining an ESR spectrum on the asphaltene containing hydrocarbon stream to measure a field strength of the asphaltene containing hydrocarbon stream and obtain a field strength value (refer to Figure 19); comparing the field strength value of the asphaltene containing hydrocarbon stream with a field strength value of an otherwise identical asphaltene containing hydrocarbon stream tested at a different time (refer to Figure 7); and determining a relative asphaltene stability of the compared asphaltene containing hydrocarbon streams, wherein a higher field strength indicates increased asphaltene stability in the asphaltene containing hydrocarbon stream. (Refer to Figure 14) (Refer to Col. 11, Lines 1-25)
Regarding claim 2, measuring a field strength of the asphaltene containing hydrocarbon stream after a time interval to determine changes in asphaltene stability over time. (Refer to Col. 1, Lines 62-66)
Regarding claim 3, the time interval is 1 day. (Refer to Figure 14)
Regarding claim 4, the ESR spectroscopy test is performed on the asphaltene containing hydrocarbon stream without additional sample preparation. (Refer to Figure 14) (Refer to Col. 10, Lines 25-30)
Regarding claim 5, determining effectiveness of an asphaltene control chemical (ACC) agent injected into a asphaltene containing hydrocarbon stream using electron spin resonance (ESR) spectroscopy, the method comprising: obtaining an ESR spectrum on the asphaltene containing hydrocarbon stream to measure a field strength of the asphaltene containing hydrocarbon stream and obtain a field strength value before adding an ACC agent; injecting an amount of the ACC agent into the asphaltene containing hydrocarbon stream to form an ACC agent-treated asphaltene containing hydrocarbon stream; obtaining an ESR spectrum on the ACC agent-treated asphaltene containing hydrocarbon stream to measure a field strength of the ACC agent-treated asphaltene containing hydrocarbon stream and obtain a field strength value; comparing the field strength value of the asphaltene containing hydrocarbon stream with the field strength value of the ACC agent-treated asphaltene containing hydrocarbon stream; and determining the effectiveness of the ACC agent wherein an increase in the field strength value of the ACC agent-treated asphaltene containing hydrocarbon stream compared to the field strength value of the asphaltene containing hydrocarbon stream indicates effectiveness of the asphaltene control chemical. (Refer to claim 1 rejection and col. 3, Lines 36-50)
Regarding claim 6, obtaining an ESR spectrum on a ACC agent-treated asphaltene containing hydrocarbon stream to measure a field strength of the ACC agent-treated asphaltene containing hydrocarbon stream and obtain a first field strength value; obtaining another ESR spectrum on a ACC agent-treated asphaltene containing hydrocarbon stream to measure a field strength of the ACC agent-treated asphaltene containing hydrocarbon stream and obtain a second field strength value after a time interval; and determining the effectiveness of the ACC agent by comparing the second field strength value with the first field strength value, wherein an increase or no change in the second field strength value compared to the first field strength value indicates effectiveness of the asphaltene control chemical. (Refer to claim 1 rejection and col. 3, Lines 36-50)
Regarding claim 7, modifying the identity of the ACC agent, the amount of the ACC agent, or both the identity and amount of the ACC agent injected into the production stream based on the determined effectiveness of the ACC agent; and obtaining another ESR spectrum on a ACC agent-treated asphaltene containing hydrocarbon stream to measure a field strength of the ACC agent-treated asphaltene containing hydrocarbon stream and obtain a third field strength value. (Refer to Col. 3, Lines 56-67)
Regarding claim 8, the time interval is 1 day. (Refer to Figure 14)
Regarding claim 9, the identity of the ACC agent is modified. (Refer to Col. 3, Lines 56-67)
Regarding claim 10, the amount of the ACC agent is modified. (Refer to Col. 3, Lines 56-67)
Regarding claim 11, both the identity and amount of the ACC agent are modified. (Refer to Col. 3, Lines 56-67)
Regarding claim 12, either a different ACC agent or an increased amount of the ACC agent is injected into the asphaltene containing hydrocarbon stream if the second field strength value is decreased as compared to the first field strength value. (Refer to Figure 18)
Regarding claim 13, the ACC agent(s) is(are) selected from the group consisting of diethylene triamine (DETA) / tall oil fatty acid (TOFA)-imidazoline, DETA/TOFA-imidazoline acrylate, DETA/TOFA-imidazolinium, DETA/TOFA-imidazolinium acrylate, or a combination thereof. (Refer to Col. 3, Lines 36-45)
Regarding claim 14, the ACC agent(s) comprise(s) a charged surfactant and/or a polymer. (Refer to Col. 3, Lines 36-45)
Regarding claim 15, the charged surfactant is nonpolymeric. (Refer to Col. 3, Lines 36-45)
Regarding claim 17, the polymer is nonionic. (Refer to Col. 3, Lines 36-45)
Regarding claim 20, the polymer comprises an alkyl phenol-formaldehyde polymer, an alkyl phenol-amine-formaldehyde polymer, a polyalkylene, a polyisobutylene succinic ester, or a polyisobutylene succinimide. (Refer to Col. 3, Lines 36-45)
Regarding claim 23, the ACC agent is added to the asphaltene containing hydrocarbon stream at a dosage of from about 1 ppm to about 2000 ppm, based on the total volume of the asphaltene containing hydrocarbon stream. (Refer to Col. 3, Lines 55-67)
Regarding claim 24, the ACC agent is added to the asphaltene containing hydrocarbon stream at a dosage of from about 100 ppm to about 1000 ppm, based on the total volume of the asphaltene containing hydrocarbon stream. (Refer to Col. 3, Lines 55-67)
Regarding claim 27, the method is implemented in an oil field, in an oil refinery, or in an oil sands upgrading facility. (Refer to claim 13)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JYOTI NAGPAUL whose telephone number is (571)272-1273. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am to 5pm, 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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at 571-270-3638. 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.
/JYOTI Mutreja/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights