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 Applicant's election with traverse of Group II, claims 11-23 in the reply filed on 2/3/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the references do not teach an accelerant comprising the branched alkyl alcohol ethoxylate. This is not found persuasive because the prior art teaches the use of branched alkyl alcohol ethoxylates, and their functioning as an accelerant would be an inherent property, wherein the compound cannot be separated from its properties. Rejections of the claims is presented below, thus clearly indicating a lack of a special technical feature.. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 17 teaches a 3 step method comprising 1) initially applying a fracturing fluid with an accelerant, a second step 2) applying an accelerant free proppant mixture and a third step of applying an accelerant and proppant mixture. Applicant’s specification only teaches a two-step process of 1) using an accelerant free mixture, followed by 2) using an accelerant containing mixture during the fracturing process (specification 0033). Claims 1-10, 24 and 25 are withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to a non-elected invention. 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 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) 11-15 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abad (US 20190177603 in view of Johnson (US 5,218,038) . Regarding claims 11-15, Abad teaches a method of fracturing a subterranean formation which comprises using a fluid comprising a branched alkyl alcohol ethoxylate surfactants and proppant (0035-0036, 0060-0062). Regarding claims 12-14, Abad teaches using branched alkyl ethoxylates within the scope of those claimed (0060-0062) and specifies ARMORCLEAN 4350, which applicant’s specification teaches is PEG-5 propylheptyl ether. Regarding claim 15, ABAD teaches that the ethoxylate surfactants are environmentally friendly (0005 – 0008 , 0058 ). Abad differs firstly in not teaching the use of phenolic resin coated proppants as the proppant of the fracturing fluid. The use of resin coated proppants is widely known in the art of fracturing subterranean formations. Johnson teaches that it is well known to utilize phenolic resin coated proppants in fracturing fluids (column 1, lines 50-58). Johnson teaches that the use of resin coated proppants minimizes or prevents proppant flowback from fractures in a fracturing operation (column 1, lines 18-22), In view of Johnson’s teaching it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize resin coated proppant in the invention of Abad to prevent proppant flowback from fractures in the fracturing operation. Furthermore, the simple substitution of proppant disclosed by Johnson for the proppant of Abad to obtain the predictable result of minimizin g flowback would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (KSR Rationale B, MPEP 2141). Regarding the 2 step process of using the proppant mixture with accelerant, then using the proppant mixture with accelerator, Abad teaches that the treatment fluids can be added with ethoxylate after a fluid treatment without ethoxylate is done (see claim 8). It would thus be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the proppant of Abad modified by Johnson containing fluid without ethoxylate initially, then applying the proppant fluid with ethoxylate, given the teaching of Abad that the ethoxylate surfactant can be added after at least a portion of the initial fluid has been introduced in the wellbore. Regarding claim 23, Abad teaches the use of oxidative or enzyme breakers (0101). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT PHILIP C TUCKER whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1095 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Alexa Neckel can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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