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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On p.5, “xanthomonas campestris” should recite “Xanthomonas campestris” (correcting the typo in the capitalization).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Independent claim 1 should be rewritten with the process steps in gerund form (-ing) for typical U.S. practice. Also, each step a)-e) should be formatted on a new line for ease of reading, each line ending with a semi-colon and the penultimate step ending with an “and.” As well, it appears “bacterium/fungus” should recite “bacterium and/or fungus” as in p.21 (“Once the optimal bacteria and/or fungi strains (i.e., the microorganisms identified by reference No. 15), together with the selected substrates 16 have been identified, the bacterium/fungus is activated”). Finally, claim elements should use consistent language for antecedence (e.g., “bacterium and/or fungus” and “the bacterium and/or the fungus”). For example, claim 1 may be Amended to recite “A comprehensive, scalable process for on-site biopolymer production related to enhanced oil recovery projects, containing the following steps of:
a) activating bacterium and/or fungus with selected substrates by placing [[them]] the bacterium and/or the fungus in a sterile, solid culture medium and incubating at a temperature until reaching a desired polysaccharide production level;
b) performing a replication sequence in a sterile, liquid culture medium to increase [[the]] an amount of biomass to obtain a laboratory inoculum;
c) fermenting in fermentation vats or bioreactors, where substrates are transformed by microorganisms into biopolymers and biomass;
d) filtering or centrifuging, which causes the biopolymer to separate from the biomass to obtain a liquid polymer; and
e) [[a]] mixing the liquid polymer obtained during step d) injecting directly into a reservoir through an injection well.” Claims 2-6 are objected to by dependency. See also the end of [0008] below.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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(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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for:
“a) activating bacterium and/or fungus with selected substrates… b) performing a replication sequence… c) fermenting in fermentation vats or bioreactors, where substrates are transformed by microorganisms into biopolymers and biomass... and e) mixing the liquid polymer… with injection water in a static mixer, and then injecting directly into a reservoir through an injection well,” wherein the bacterium and/or the fungus comprise any/every possible bacterium and/or fungus and the liquid polymer comprises any/every possible liquid polymer,
does not reasonably provide enablement for:
“a) activating bacterium and/or fungus with selected substrates… b) performing a replication sequence… c) fermenting in fermentation vats or bioreactors, where substrates are transformed by microorganisms into biopolymers and biomass... and e) mixing the liquid polymer… with injection water in a static mixer, and then injecting directly into a reservoir through an injection well,” wherein the bacterium and/or the fungus comprise Xanthomonas and/or Sclerotium, and wherein the biopolymer is an exopolysaccharide selected from Scleroglucan or Xanthan gum.
The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
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.
Independent claim 1 recites, e.g., “a) activating bacterium and/or fungus with selected substrates… b) performing a replication sequence… c) fermenting in fermentation vats or bioreactors, where substrates are transformed by microorganisms into biopolymers and biomass... and e) mixing the liquid polymer… with injection water in a static mixer, and then injecting directly into a reservoir through an injection well.”
Upon consultation with the Specification, regarding the bacterium and/or fungus employed to transform the substrates into biopolymers, the Office observes that Applicant has only disclosed “Xanthan gum and scleroglucan are the two most frequently used, but the invention that is the subject matter of this patent application might also be applied to other polymers produced by microorganisms. Xanthan gum is produced by bacteria, while scleroglucan is produced by fungi. …. a) Xanthan gum (XG): It is a hetero-polysaccharide formed by monomer units that contain glucose, mannose, and glucuronic acid. Xanthan gum is produced by bacteria (Xanthomonas campestris). … b) Scleroglucans (SG): Non-ionic polysaccharide formed by beta-D-glucopyranosyl units. In the solution form, it shows a triple-chain helix structure linked by hydrogen bonds. It is produced by several species of the Sclerotium fungus” (p.5-6). However, Applicant does not specify which other microorganisms would be suitable or not suitable to produce which other polymers which would be operable for the claimed biopolymer production process including mixing with injection water and injecting into a reservoir, for an enhanced oil recovery project.
First, while there is a presumption that an adequate Written Description of the claimed invention is present in the Specification as filed, a question as to whether a Specification provides an adequate Written Description may arise in the context of an original claim. An original claim may lack Written Description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved or (2) a broad Genus claim is presented but the disclosure only describes a narrow Species with no evidence that the Genus is contemplated. See MPEP 2163.03 Typical Circumstances Where Adequate Written Description Issue Arises.
In this case, (2) a broad Genus claim is presented (broadly encompassing activating any/every possible bacterium and/or fungus, along with performing a replication sequence and fermenting in fermentation vats or bioreactors where substrates are transformed into biopolymers and biomass, to produce any/every possible liquid polymer for mixing with injection water and injecting into a reservoir) but the disclosure only describes a narrow Species (specifically, activating Xanthomonas bacterium and/or Sclerotium fungus, along with performing a replication sequence and fermenting in fermentation vats or bioreactors where substrates are transformed into biopolymers and biomass, to produce xanthan gum and/or scleroglucans for mixing with injection water and injecting into a reservoir) with no evidence that the Genus is contemplated. For example, Applicant has provided no guidance on what other bacteria and/or fungi would be suitable for producing what other biopolymers, and it is unclear if this could include, e.g., E. coli, S. aureus, S. pneumoniae, Bacillus, etc. producing polyhydroxyalkanoates, bacterial cellulose, curdlan, pullulan, collagen, etc. for injecting into a reservoir. One of ordinary skill would not find that Applicant reasonably demonstrated possession of the full breadth of the possible bacteria and/or fungi and possible biopolymers encompassed by the claim.
Accordingly, the claim lacks an adequate Written Description for its full scope.
Second, per In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988), the following Undue Experimentation factors do not support a determination that the disclosure satisfies the Enablement requirement for the Full claim Scope:
(A) The breadth of the claims – because the claims encompass both the described Xanthomonas and Sclerotium to produce xanthan gum and scleroglucans, as well as any/every other possible bacteria and/or fungi for any/every possible biopolymers;
(B) The nature of the invention – because the claim scope broadly encompasses on-site biopolymer production processes for any/every possible bacteria and/or fungi for any/every possible biopolymers;
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill – because oilfield artisans are medium-skilled and, although they are capable of selecting from a known list of options for a given situation, they do not ordinarily assay every possible microorganism for producing every possible biopolymer;
(E) The level of predictability in the art – because the biological/chemical arts are highly unpredictable;
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor – because Applicant has provided zero guidance about other possible bacteria and/or fungi and other possible biopolymers;
(G) The existence of working examples – because Applicant does not appear to actually disclose any working examples, but only describes an exemplary prophetic process which would be expected to be operable (p.24-27); and
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure – because it would require virtually infinite experimentation to ascertain the full scope of every possible other bacteria and/or fungi for every possible biopolymer outside of the disclosed Xanthomonas and Sclerotium to produce xanthan gum and scleroglucans.
That is, seven of the Wands factors do not support Enablement, four of which relate directly to the current claim scope (A/F/G/H).
Therefore, there exists a Scope of Enablement deficiency for the current claims.
Third, based on the foregoing, it is unclear which bacteria and/or fungi and which biopolymer combinations are encompassed by the claims or not. For example, it is unclear if this could include, e.g., E. coli producing bacterial cellulose or not. Or, it is unclear if this could include, e.g., S. aureus producing polyhydroxyalkanoates, or not. Or, it is unclear if this could include, e.g., S. pneumoniae producing bacterial cellulose or not. Or, it is unclear if this could include, e.g., Bacillus producing collagen or not.
Accordingly, the claim scope is rendered Indefinite.
Claims 2-6 are rejected by dependency, also failing to limit the claims to the Described and Enabled scope in a Definite manner. Although claim 5 recites the Scleroglucan or Xanthan gum, this claim still fails to limit the bacterium and/or fungus to the described and enabled scope.
For examination purposes, claims will be read as though independent claim 1 recites the described Xanthomonas and Sclerotium to produce xanthan gum and scleroglucans (incorporating claim 5):
“1. (Currently Amended) A comprehensive, scalable process for on-site biopolymer production related to enhanced oil recovery projects, containing the following steps of:
a) activating bacterium and/or fungus with selected substrates by placing [[them]] the bacterium and/or the fungus in a sterile, solid culture medium and incubating at a temperature until reaching a desired polysaccharide production level, wherein the bacterium and/or the fungus comprises Xanthomonas or Sclerotium;
b) performing a replication sequence in a sterile, liquid culture medium to increase [[the]] an amount of biomass to obtain a laboratory inoculum;
c) fermenting in fermentation vats or bioreactors, where substrates are transformed by microorganisms into biopolymers and biomass;
d) filtering or centrifuging, which causes the biopolymer to separate from the biomass to obtain a liquid polymer, wherein the biopolymer is an exopolysaccharide selected from Scleroglucan or Xanthan gum; and
e) [[a]] mixing the liquid polymer obtained during step d) injecting directly into a reservoir through an injection well.”
“5. (Canceled)”
Claim 3 is 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.
Claim 3 recites “wherein a site is close to one where the substrates required to activate a subculture are available.”
The term “close” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For example, it is unclear what distances are “close” vs. not “close,” such as 10 meters, 100 meters, 1 kilometer, 10 kilometers, 100 kilometers, etc.
The Office observes that Applicant discloses “The suggested approach in this stage is to assess potential sources of alternative substrates for culture medium formulation purposes, taking into account the quality, commercial value and availability of the selected substrate(s) in the local market, with a focus on the circular economy of value chains related to the sources of the carbon to be used in biopolymer production” (p.10); “The substrate is the main raw material together with the fungus/bacteria, so this is a very important factor for project economy. The substrate source is diverse and, given the characteristics of the current invention, it is very important that it be located near the oil field” (p.13); and “Polymer manufacturing plants are set up within the oil fields. Only the nutrients and other minor raw materials are carried to the site. Ideally, substrates located near the field should be identified” (p.16). However, none of these appear to provide a standard for measuring “close” vs. not “close.”
For examination purposes, claim 3 will be read as though this requires activating the subculture with substates near the well site. Nevertheless, it appears claim 3 may simply be canceled because there is no clear standard to provide this limitation.
Claim 6 is 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.
Claim 6 recites “wherein manufacturing the biopolymer is near the oil field injection wells and a supernatant obtained during stage d) is directly injected into the injection wells.”
The term “near” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For example, it is unclear what distances are “near” vs. not “near,” such as 10 meters, 100 meters, 1 kilometer, 10 kilometers, 100 kilometers, etc.
In this case, it appears that “a supernatant obtained during stage d) is directly injected into the injection wells” would implicitly involve manufacturing the biopolymer at a location near the oil field injection wells. Accordingly, for examination purposes, claim 6 will be read as though simply reciting “wherein .”
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 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.
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Zhang (2019/0169486) in view of Briechle (2012/0205099).
Regarding independent claim 1 (and claim 5), Zhang discloses A comprehensive, scalable process for on-site biopolymer production related to enhanced oil recovery projects (abstract “A method is provided for the production of an aqueous composition suitable for direct use in a water-flood oil recovery process, which comprises a clarified fermentation fluid containing at least one dissolved polysaccharide” and e.g. [0057] “It is intended that this process is simple enough that it can be used to produce a bio-polymer fluid for polymer flooding EOR at or near the well site, thereby greatly reducing the cost of the bio-polymer” and [0077] “If permitted by the plant in the vicinity of the oil field, the biopolymer solution may be manufactured on the field in sterile formation vessels of continuous or discontinuous type, as known in the art” = on-site biopolymer production), containing the following steps of:
a) activating bacterium and/or fungus with selected substrates by placing the bacterium and/or the fungus in a sterile, solid culture medium and incubating at a temperature until reaching a desired polysaccharide production level (e.g., [0088] “A single colony of Xanthomonas campestris (DSM19000, ATCC 13951, NRRL B-1459) growing overnight on a LB plate was inoculated in a growth broth (MY), and incubated at 28 C for 16 hours at 250 rpm (Rotations Per Minute) to generate a seed culture” and [0077] “the biopolymer solution may be manufactured on the field in sterile formation vessels”), wherein the bacterium and/or the fungus comprises Xanthomonas or Sclerotium ([0088] “Xanthomonas”; also note [0042] “The term “bio-polymer”, as defined herein, refers to hydrophilic polysaccharides, which are produced by a living cell. In particular, bio-polymers may be obtained by the fermentation in appropriate nutrient media by microorganisms, including microorganisms of the genera Xanthomonas, … Sclerotium”);
b) performing a replication sequence in a sterile, liquid culture medium to increase an amount of biomass to obtain a laboratory inoculum ([0013] “(a) culturing a polysaccharide-producing microorganism in an aqueous culture medium to produce an aqueous culture containing said dissolved polysaccharide therein” and [0077] “the biopolymer solution may be manufactured on the field in sterile formation vessels”; e.g., [0088] “A single colony of Xanthomonas campestris (DSM19000, ATCC 13951, NRRL B-1459) growing overnight on a LB plate was inoculated in a growth broth (MY), and incubated at 28 °C for 16 hours at 250 rpm (Rotations Per Minute) to generate a seed culture”);
c) fermenting in fermentation vats or bioreactors, where substrates are transformed by microorganisms into biopolymers and biomass ([0013] “(a) culturing a polysaccharide-producing microorganism in an aqueous culture medium to produce an aqueous culture containing said dissolved polysaccharide therein”; e.g., [0089]-[0090] “To scale up the cell culture to 1 liter in a glass flask at laboratory, the seed culture was diluted 20-40 times in 1000 mL production medium (PM) … The culture process, or fermentation, was carried out at 28 °C for 72 hours with sufficient aeration to supply oxygen for optimal cell growth and xanthan gum production, resulted in a very viscous culture broth, a mixture consisting of microbial Xanthomonas campestris cell mass and its polymer product Xanthan gum”);
d) filtering or centrifuging, which causes the biopolymer to separate from the biomass to obtain a liquid polymer ([0055] “this new method combines removal of residual anions of sulfate, phosphate and carbonate in the fermentation media… These residual anions are removed from the fermentation broth by the addition of excess amounts of metal cations to the broth… The combined mixture of cells, cell debris and insoluble metal sulfides and carbonates and phosphates are significantly denser than the fermentation polymer broth or the cell debris alone and thereby faster to centrifuge out of the suspension”), wherein the biopolymer is an exopolysaccharide selected from Scleroglucan or Xanthan gum ([0042] “In a particular embodiment, the bio-polymer is a Xanthan gum polysaccharide secreted by the bacterium Xanthomonas campestris”); and
e) mixing the liquid polymer obtained during step d) with injection water in a … mixer, and then injecting directly into a reservoir through an injection well ([0056] “This new disclosed method can produce a soluble viscous solution of bio-polymer for direct injection and or mixing with formation water for injection into an injection well”).
Regarding the static mixer, Zhang discloses “This new disclosed method can produce a soluble viscous solution of bio-polymer for direct injection and or mixing with formation water for injection into an injection well” ([0056]) and, e.g., “The present disclosure relates to a water-soluble thickening composition, based on polysaccharides, which may be used, for example, in the operations of assisted oil recovery; this composition comprises (a) at least one crude fermentation fluid of a polysaccharide producing microorganism, which fluid has been clarified by co-precipitation of cells and cell debris along with insoluble metal sulfides, phosphates and carbonates. The denser precipitated material is then removed by high throughput centrifugation. … The soluble bio-polymer solution can then be mixed with biocides, surfactive agents and recycled production water for the direct injection into an oil reservoir formation as a viscosity increasing drive fluid” ([0075]).
However, Zhang fails to specify using a static mixer in particular.
Nevertheless, the only two options known and used in the art are static mixers or dynamic mixers. For example, Briechle teaches “A two-stage process for mineral oil production from mineral oil deposits…, in which an aqueous formulation comprising at least one glucan … are injected into a mineral oil deposit through at least one injection borehole and crude oil is withdrawn from the deposit through at least one production borehole” (abstract) such as “polymers of natural origin, for example glucosylglucans, xanthans” ([0008]) including “homopolysaccharides of the structure mentioned secreted by Sclerotium rolfsil (trivial name: scleroglucans)” ([0009]), wherein “To execute process step (2), the concentrate (K), the water used for dilution and further, optionally used components or additives, are mixed with one another. This is generally done using one or more suitable mixers, for example static mixers or dynamic mixers. Preference is given to performing process step (2) using one or more static mixers” ([0076]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhang to include, specifically, a static mixer for mixing the soluble bio-polymer solution with formation water or recycled production water as in Zhang, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to use one of the two known types of mixers for mixing aqueous formulations with water used for dilution for oil recovery fluids (thereby including:
“e) mixing the liquid polymer obtained during step d) with injection water in a static mixer, and then injecting directly into a reservoir through an injection well”).
Second, the modification is obvious as no more than (E) "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (known static mixers vs. known dynamic mixers), with a reasonable expectation of success (mixing solutions to form an oil recovery fluid). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). See MPEP 2143 Examples of Basic Requirements of a Prima Facie Case of Obviousness.
Although not required to render obvious the claim as written, Applicant may also see the reference to Mackenzie in the Conclusion below, regarding using Sclerotium fungus to produce scleroglucan for an oil recovery fluid.
Regarding claim 2, Zhang discloses “The biopolymer solution may be brought to the desired concentration or viscosity by dilution with formation water or injection brine. The useful concentrations of the biopolymer are usually between 0.005 and about 1.0 percent by weight and commonly between 0.05 and about 0.25% b.w. Such concentrations impart to the injection water containing various amounts of dissolved salts a viscosity of at least 2 centipoises at the reservoir temperature, but viscosities of about 100 centipoises or more may usefully be utilized in some cases. Such viscosities are usually sufficient to ensure an effective mobility reduction of the injection water and thus ensure better displacement of oil from the formation. If necessary, the pH of the biopolymer solution may be adjusted to the balanced pH of the formation and the oxygen content thereof may be controlled. The biopolymer solution thus treated may then be pumped into the oil formation through one or more injection wells in conventional manner” ([0076]-[0077]). Accordingly, Zhang discloses wherein the method is initially applied using a baseline configuration in a given site within the oil field, by selecting one such configuration within the general conditions disclosed by Zhang for the given pumping into the oil formation.
Regarding claim 3, as in Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112, this is being interpreted such that this requires activating the subculture with substates near the well site. Zhang discloses e.g. “It is intended that this process is simple enough that it can be used to produce a bio-polymer fluid for polymer flooding EOR at or near the well site, thereby greatly reducing the cost of the bio-polymer” ([0057]) and “If permitted by the plant in the vicinity of the oil field, the biopolymer solution may be manufactured on the field in sterile formation vessels of continuous or discontinuous type, as known in the art” ([0077]), wherein “A single colony of Xanthomonas campestris (DSM19000, ATCC 13951, NRRL B-1459) growing overnight on a LB plate was inoculated in a growth broth (MY), and incubated at 28 C for 16 hours at 250 rpm (Rotations Per Minute) to generate a seed culture” ([0088]). Accordingly, Zhang provides wherein a site is close to one where the substrates required to activate a subculture are available.
Regarding claim 4, Zhang discloses “The carbohydrates may be, for example, glucose, sucrose, fructose, lactose, galactose, soluble starch, corn starch, flours from various cereals, etc. Such carbohydrates are not necessarily used as highly refined materials; thus sugar-cane or sugar-beet molasses, or various residues of high sugar content may be used” ([0072]). Accordingly, Zhang discloses wherein the substrates used to activate a subculture is molasses and/or glucose and/or sucrose obtained from sugar cane.
Regarding claim 6, as in Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112, this is being interpreted such that directly injecting also provides the manufacturing near the oil field injection wells. Nevertheless, Zhang also discloses wherein manufacturing the biopolymer is near the oil field injection wells (e.g. [0057] “It is intended that this process is simple enough that it can be used to produce a bio-polymer fluid for polymer flooding EOR at or near the well site, thereby greatly reducing the cost of the bio-polymer” and [0077] “If permitted by the plant in the vicinity of the oil field, the biopolymer solution may be manufactured on the field in sterile formation vessels of continuous or discontinuous type, as known in the art”) and a supernatant obtained during stage d) is directly injected into the injection wells ([0056] “This new disclosed method can produce a soluble viscous solution of bio-polymer for direct injection and or mixing with formation water for injection into an injection well”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
The reference to Mackenzie (2013/0288932) teaches providing biopolymer produced by fermentation of carbohydrate via a microbe such as a bacterium or a fungus (abstract) used in wellbore treatment fluids to increase viscosity ([0010]), wherein such biopolymers are known to be e.g. scleroglucan or xanthan ([0017]) and are known to be produced by microbes such as Xanthomonas or Sclerotium ([0019]). However, this reference does not appear necessary at this time.
The reference to Farmer (2022/0064516) discloses reducing the viscosity of crude oil with metabolites produced by microorganisms (abstract) by injecting a composition into an oil reservoir ([0134]), wherein the composition may include biosurfactants such as “high-molecular-weight polymers such as lipoproteins, lipopolysaccharide-protein complexes, and polysaccharide-protein-fatty acid complexes” ([0126]) produced by bacteria such as Xanthomonas ([0121]) which “produce biosurfactants in response to the presence of a hydrocarbon source (e.g. oils, sugar, glycerol, etc.) in the growing media” ([0125]) and “can grow in situ and produce active compounds onsite” ([0028]), and the microbe-based product may be processed by e.g. filtering or centrifugation ([0034]). However, this reference is directed to growing biosurfactants such as “glycolipid such as a rhamnolipid, sophorolipids (SLP), trehalose lipid or mannosylerythritol lipid (MEL)” ([0127]), or lipopeptides, such as a surfactin, iturin, fengycin, or lichenysin ([0128]), or “other metabolites that have bioemulsifying and surface/interfacial tension-reducing properties (e.g., mannoprotein, beta-glucan)” ([0131]), not viscosifying polymers like the claimed xanthan gum or scleroglucan.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW SUE-AKO whose telephone number is (571)272-9455. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-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, Doug Hutton can be reached at 571-272-24137. 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.
/ANDREW SUE-AKO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674
Prosecution Insights