CTNF 18/490,305 CTNF 90594 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Applicant’s Response In the response dated 01/21/2026, the Applicant argued against the rejections in the RCE Non-Final Rejection dated 11/10/2025. Specification 07-29 AIA The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in Paragraph 0007, the phrase "includes a cell well" should be amended to ― includes a cell [[well ]] wall ― for the purpose of correcting a typographic mistake . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: in Line 1, the phrase "a cell well" should be amended to ― a cell [[well ]] wall ― for the purpose of correcting a typographic mistake . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-4, 6, 8-15, 17, 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farmer et al (U.S Pub 2021/0363407) (“Farmer”) in view of McDaniel (U.S Patent 9,670,395) (“McDaniel”) . Regarding Claim 1, Farmer discloses a method for reducing scale in an oilfield facility (Abstract; paragraphs [0021]; [0077]; [0178] [Wingdings font/0xE0] Farmer discloses methods of reducing scale and/or eliminating bacteria and corrosion), the method comprising contacting a production surface with a production fluid comprising a bacteria (Page 2, paragraphs [0021] and [0023]-[0025]; paragraph [0066]; Pages 7-8, paragraphs [0112] and [0119]-[0120]), wherein an amount of the bacteria in the production fluid is from 5g/l to 150 g/l (Page 7, paragraphs [0105] and [0106]; Page 9, paragraphs [0135] and [0136]). Although silent to wherein the “a concentration of the bacteria in the production fluid is at least about 20mL,” as instantly claimed, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide for a specific concentration of the bacteria as claimed insofar as because it has been held "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Farmer, however, fails to expressly disclose wherein the bacteria comprises E. coli, Xanthanomonas, Achromobacter, Alcaligenes, or any combination thereof. McDaniel teaches the methods above of wherein the bacteria is specifically from the group comprising E. coli, Xanthanomonas, Achromobacter, Alcaligenes, or any combination thereof (Abstract; Col 2, lines 39-67; Col 15, lines 22-67 [Wingdings font/0xE0] McDaniel teaches a microorganism that is a bacteria such as Achromobacter, Alcaligenes, etc) for the purpose of contacting a subterranean material downhole with the composition comprising the microorganism in order to treat a subterranean formation (Abstract; Col 2, lines 39-54). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Farmer to include a bacteria from the list above, as taught by McDaniel, because doing so would help to contact a subterranean material downhole with the composition comprising the microorganism in order to treat a subterranean formation. Regarding Claim 2, Farmer discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the amount of the bacteria is from 5g/l to 150 g/l (Page 7, paragraphs [0105] and [0106]; Page 9, paragraphs [0135] and [0136]). Although silent to wherein the “the amount of the bacteria in the production fluid is about 20/mL to about 1 ,000/mL,” as instantly claimed, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide for a specific amount of the bacteria as claimed insofar as because it has been held "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Regarding Claim 3, Farmer discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the amount of the bacteria is from 5g/l to 150 g/l (Page 7, paragraphs [0105] and [0106]; Page 9, paragraphs [0135] and [0136]). Although silent to wherein the “the amount of the bacteria in the production fluid is about 1 00/mL to about 500/mL,” as instantly claimed, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide for a specific amount of the bacteria as claimed insofar as because it has been held "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Regarding Claim 4, Farmer discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the bacteria comprises a cell well having a net negative charge in the production fluid (paragraphs [0031] and [0127]). Regarding Claim 6, Farmer discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the production fluid comprises water from a subterranean formation (Abstract; Page 2, paragraph [0026]; paragraphs [0079] and [0169]). Regarding Claim 8, Farmer discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the production surface comprises an inner surface of production tubing (Page 2, paragraphs [0023] and [0024]-[0025]; paragraph [0066]). Regarding Claim 9, Farmer discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the production tubing comprises downhole completion tubing (Page 2, paragraphs [0023] and [0024]-[0025]; paragraph [0066]). Regarding Claim 10, Farmer discloses the method of claim 8, further comprising injecting the bacteria into a subterranean formation to form the production fluid (Page 2, paragraphs [0023] and [0024]-[0025]; paragraph [0066]; Pages 7-8, paragraphs [0112] and [0119]-[0120]), wherein contacting the production surface comprises transporting the production fluid from the subterranean formation through the production tubing (Page 2, paragraphs [0023] and [0024]-[0025]; paragraph [0066]). Regarding Claim 11, Farmer discloses the method of claim 10, wherein injecting the bacteria comprises pumping the bacteria into the subterranean formation through the production tubing (Abstract; paragraphs [0164] and [0168]). Regarding Claim 12, Farmer discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the production surface comprises an inner surface of a water treatment facility (Page 2, paragraphs [0021], [0023] and [0024]-[0025]; paragraph [0066]; [0077]). Regarding Claim 13, Farmer discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the production fluid comprises one or more cations selected from Na+, K+, Ca2+, Ba2+, Sr2+, Fe2+, and Mg2+ (Abstract; [0059]; paragraph [0085], [0094], [0099]). Regarding Claim 14, Farmer discloses the method of claim 13, wherein at least a portion of the one or more cations is bound to a cell wall of the bacteria (Abstract; [0031]; paragraph [0085], [0094], [0099]; Page 8, [0127]). Regarding Claim 15, Farmer discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the production fluid comprises no more than 50 ppm of a total concentration of polymers comprising acrylic acid monomer units, polymers comprising maleic acid monomer units, and phosphonic acids (Abstract; [0059], [0065]; paragraphs [0130] and [0195]). Regarding Claim 17, Farmer discloses a method for forming and transporting a production fluid (Abstract; paragraphs [0021] and [0077]), the method comprising: injecting a bacteria into a subterranean formation comprising water (Abstract; Page 2, paragraph [0026]; paragraphs [0079] and [0169]) to form the production fluid (Page 2, paragraphs [0021] and [0023]-[0025]; paragraph [0066]; Pages 7-8, paragraphs [0112] and [0119]-[0120]); and then transporting the production fluid through production tubing (Page 2, paragraphs [0023] and [0024]-[0025]; paragraph [0066]); wherein the production fluid comprises the bacteria (Page 2, paragraphs [0023] and [0024]-[0025]; paragraph [0066]; Pages 7-8, paragraphs [0112] and [0119]-[0120]) and water (Page 2, paragraph [0026]; paragraphs [0079] and [0169]) from the formation, and an amount of the bacteria in the production fluid is from 5g/l to 150 g/l (Page 7, paragraphs [0105] and [0106]; Page 9, paragraphs [0135] and [0136]). Although silent to wherein the “a concentration of the bacteria in the production fluid is at least about 20mL,” as instantly claimed, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide for a specific concentration of the bacteria as claimed insofar as because it has been held "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Farmer, however, fails to expressly disclose wherein the bacteria comprises E. coli, Xanthanomonas, Achromobacter, Alcaligenes, or any combination thereof. McDaniel teaches the methods above of wherein the bacteria is specifically from the group comprising E. coli, Xanthanomonas, Achromobacter, Alcaligenes, or any combination thereof (Abstract; Col 2, lines 39-67; Col 15, lines 22-67 [Wingdings font/0xE0] McDaniel teaches a microorganism that is a bacteria such as Achromobacter, Alcaligenes, etc) for the purpose of contacting a subterranean material downhole with the composition comprising the microorganism in order to treat a subterranean formation (Abstract; Col 2, lines 39-54). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Farmer to include a bacteria from the list above, as taught by McDaniel, because doing so would help to contact a subterranean material downhole with the composition comprising the microorganism in order to treat a subterranean formation. Regarding Claim 19, Farmer discloses the method of claim 17, wherein injecting the bacteria comprises pumping a dose of the bacteria into the subterranean formation through the production tubing (Abstract; paragraphs [0023] and [0024]-[0025]; paragraph [0066]; paragraphs [0164] and [0168]). Regarding Claim 21, Farmer discloses the method of claim 19, wherein the dose comprises water (Abstract; paragraphs [0079] and [0169]) and the bacteria (Page 2, paragraphs [0023] and [0024]-[0025]; paragraph [0066]; Pages 7-8, paragraphs [0112] and [0119]-[0120]), and the amount of the bacteria in the dose is from 5g/l to 150 g/l (Page 7, paragraphs [0105] and [0106]; Page 9, paragraphs [0135] and [0136]). Although silent to wherein the “a concentration of the bacteria in the production fluid is at least about 1,000/mL,” as instantly claimed, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide for a specific concentration of the bacteria as claimed insofar as because it has been held "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 7, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farmer et al (U.S Pub 2021/0363407) (“Farmer”) in view of McDaniel (U.S Patent 9,670,395) (“McDaniel”), and further in view of Kohr et al (U.S Patent 9,869,166) (“Kohr”) . Regarding Claim 7, Farmer in view of McDaniel fail to explicitly disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the production surface comprises stainless steel. Kohr teaches the methods above wherein the production surface comprises stainless steel (Abstract; Col 16, lines 29-67; Col 17, lines 37-56) for the purpose of utilizing bio-polymers and biosurfactants and microorganisms that greatly increase the viscosity of the waterflood drive fluids without extensive formation of biofilms that would reduce permeability downhole (Abstract; Col 1, lines 21-30). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Farmer to include a production surface comprising stainless steel, as taught by Kohr, because doing so would help to utilize the bio-polymers and biosurfactants and microorganisms that greatly increase the viscosity of the waterflood drive fluids without extensive formation of biofilms that would reduce permeability downhole. Regarding Claim 16, Farmer in view of McDaniel fail to explicitly disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the production fluid is substantially free from polymers comprising acrylic acid monomer units, polymers comprising maleic acid monomer units, and phosphonic acids. Kohr teaches the method above wherein the production fluid is substantially free from polymers comprising acrylic acid monomer units, polymers comprising maleic acid monomer units, and phosphonic acids (Abstract; Col 7, lines 1-16 and 49-51) for the purpose of utilizing bio-polymers and biosurfactants and microorganisms that greatly increase the viscosity of the waterflood drive fluids without extensive formation of biofilms that would reduce permeability downhole (Abstract; Col 1, lines 21-30). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Farmer to provide wherein the production fluid is substantially free from polymers comprising acrylic acid monomer units, polymers comprising maleic acid monomer units, and phosphonic acids, as taught by Kohr, because doing so would help to utilize the bio-polymers and biosurfactants and microorganisms that greatly increase the viscosity of the waterflood drive fluids without extensive formation of biofilms that would reduce permeability downhole. Regarding Claim 20, Farmer in view of McDaniel fail to explicitly disclose the method of claim 19, wherein the dose is substantially free from polymers comprising acrylic acid monomer units, polymers comprising maleic acid monomer units, and phosphonic acids. Kohr teaches the method above wherein the dose is substantially free from polymers comprising acrylic acid monomer units, polymers comprising maleic acid monomer units, and phosphonic acids (Abstract; Col 7, lines 1-16 and 49-51) for the purpose of utilizing bio-polymers and biosurfactants and microorganisms that greatly increase the viscosity of the waterflood drive fluids without extensive formation of biofilms that would reduce permeability downhole (Abstract; Col 1, lines 21-30). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Farmer to provide wherein the production fluid is substantially free from polymers comprising acrylic acid monomer units, polymers comprising maleic acid monomer units, and phosphonic acids, as taught by Kohr, because doing so would help to utilize the bio-polymers and biosurfactants and microorganisms that greatly increase the viscosity of the waterflood drive fluids without extensive formation of biofilms that would reduce permeability downhole. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, filed 01/21/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-4, 6-17 and 19-21 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of McDaniel (U.S Patent 9,670,395) (“McDaniel”). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHISH K VARMA whose telephone number is (571)272-9565. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30-5:30pm, Telework Mondays and Fridays. 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, Doug Hutton can be reached at 571-272-4137. 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. /ASHISH K VARMA/Examiner, Art Unit 3674 /WILLIAM D HUTTON JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3674 Application/Control Number: 18/490,305 Page 2 Art Unit: 3674 Application/Control Number: 18/490,305 Page 3 Art Unit: 3674 Application/Control Number: 18/490,305 Page 4 Art Unit: 3674 Application/Control Number: 18/490,305 Page 5 Art Unit: 3674 Application/Control Number: 18/490,305 Page 6 Art Unit: 3674 Application/Control Number: 18/490,305 Page 7 Art Unit: 3674 Application/Control Number: 18/490,305 Page 8 Art Unit: 3674 Application/Control Number: 18/490,305 Page 9 Art Unit: 3674 Application/Control Number: 18/490,305 Page 10 Art Unit: 3674 Application/Control Number: 18/490,305 Page 11 Art Unit: 3674
Prosecution Insights