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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/26/25 has been entered.
Specification
The substitute [0031] filed 11/26/25 has been entered.
The new matter objections previously made with respect thereto are withdrawn.
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 1-3, 5, 7-11, 13 and 15-18 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.
Each of independent claims 1, 9 and 17 has been amended to require wherein the aqueous drilling fluid comprises 0.5 wt% to 1 wt% of synthetic clay and wherein the fluid has a yield point greater than 3,830 dynes per square centimeter. The claim further, and previously, required a ratio of bentonite to synthetic clay of about 5:1.
Although a ratio of 5:1 is disclosed in, for example, [0023]-[0024], wherein the instantly claimed yield point is also disclosed, it appears such is not supported with Applicant’s instantly recited ratio of synthetic clay of 0.5-1 wt%. Applicant discloses wherein the drilling fluid comprises 0.1-2 wt% bentonite in [0024]. A 5:1 ratio of bentonite to synthetic clay with Applicant’s instantly required synthetic clay amount of 0.5-1 wt% would mean 2.5-5 wt% bentonite is required, i.e., an amount greater than that which is disclosed in [0024]. Since the specification discloses in [0024] wherein the instantly claimed yield point is achieved with a 5:1 ratio of bentonite to synthetic clay when 0.1-2 wt% of bentonite is present, the specification fails to support the instantly claimed subject matter.
The Examiner notes, in order to have a 5:1 ratio of bentonite to synthetic clay with Applicant’s claimed yield point, the range of synthetic clay supported by the specification at [0024] with the weight percent range of bentonite disclosed in [0024] would fall in the lower end of the disclosed range of 0.01-1 wt%, i.e., 0.02-0.4 wt% synthetic clay.
Therefore, Applicant’s amendments to each of the independent claims are not supported by the specification as filed.
Claims 2-3, 5, 7-8, 10-11, 13, 15-16 and 18 are rejected by virtue of their dependency upon a rejected base claim.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-11, 13 and 15-18 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Each of independent claims 1, 9 and 17 recite “a yield point greater than 3,830 dynes per square centimeter.” This is a range with an unbounded upper limit, and, therefore, encompasses a yield point so inconceivably high that it cannot reasonably be possible in the present invention. To make a point through hyperbole, the present application does not provide full enablement for a yield point of 38,300, 383,000 or 3,830,000 dynes per square centimeter (increasable ad nauseam), even though these amounts are encompassed in the claimed range.
The Examiner notes, Applicant appears to suggest a maximum yield point of 23,940 dynes per square centimeter in [0023] of the specification as filed.
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 1-3, 5, 7-11, 13 and 15-18 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. Each of independent claims 1, 9 and 17 recite “a yield point greater than 3,830 dynes per square centimeter.”
This is a range with an unbounded upper limit, and, as such, it is unclear as to the maximum yield point Applicant is intending to seek patent protection of; as such, the claim is rendered indefinite.
Claims 2-3, 5, 7-8, 10-11, 13, 15-16 and 18 are rejected by virtue of their dependency upon a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-11, 13 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elkatatny et al. (US 11,781,054 – cited previously) in view of M-I GEL viscosifier (cited previously), Huang et al. (Laponite: a promising nanomaterial to formulate high-performance water-based drilling fluids- cited previously) and Morrison et al. (US 2021/0396098 – cited previously).
With respect to independent claim 1, Elkatatny et al. discloses a method comprising:
driving a drill bit against a subterranean formation, thereby cutting into the formation and forming a wellbore (col. 5, l. 9-15; col. 15, l. 54-65); and
injecting an aqueous drilling fluid into the wellbore (col. 15, l. 53-59), wherein the aqueous drilling fluid comprises bentonite and a synthetic clay/laponite at a bentonite to synthetic clay/laponite ratio of about 5:1 (see explanation below).
Elkatatny et al. suggests wherein an example clay included in the drilling fluid is hectorite, while suggesting an example thereof as LAPONITE (col. 7, l. 16-20). The reference suggests wherein such is present in an amount of about 0.05 to 0.2 wt% (col. 4, l. 16-21). Elkatatny et al. further suggests bentonite used as a thickener, wherein such can be present in an amount of 0.25-1.5 wt% (col. 11, l. 30-42). Based on such amounts, Elkatatny et al. suggests a ratio of bentonite to laponite of about 5:1; for example, when 0.25 wt% bentonite is included and 0.05 wt% of LAPONITE is present and/or when 1.0 wt% bentonite is present with 0.2 wt% of LAPONITE. The reference further suggests wherein fluids containing such achieve a yield point of 35-55 lb/100ft2 (col. 5, l. 7-8), wherein values such as 45 and 48 lb/100ft2 are explicitly noted (col. 15, l. 9-16). Although silent to explicitly stating a ratio for bentonite to synthetic clay/LAPONITE, specifically, based on the suggested amounts/ranges highlighted above, wherein Elkatatny et al.’s bentonite overlaps a majority of Applicant’s disclosed range of 0.1-2 wt% and synthetic clay range of 0.01-1 wt%, it is the position of the Office that one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the optimal ratio thereof to include in the drilling fluid in order to impart the desired viscosity control, anti-sagging and low shear yield point thereto since it has been held wherein generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[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) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.). The Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s amendments to further narrow the synthetic clay range to 0.5-1 wt%; however, the criticality of such is not explicitly provided in the specification as filed. See also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 wherein it was held "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." and In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) wherein claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (identifying "the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art."). Additionally, the Examiner notes, obviousness can be shown in a predictable art when a difference between the claimed ranges is virtually negligible absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality. In re Brandt, 886 F. 3d 1171, 1177, 126 USPQ2d 1079, 1082 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The instant specification fails to explicitly establish the instantly claimed ratio and percent range of synthetic clay as critical and it is unclear if any unexpected results are achieved by providing for such in the drilling fluid. Since the drilling fluid of Elkatatny et al. is suggested as providing drill bit lubrication and yield point suitable for use as a drilling fluid, it does not appear that such would be considered an unexpected result of using the presently claimed ratio, and, as such, the determination of optimal bentonite to laponite ratio and yield point achieved therewith would be achievable through routine experimentation in the art.
Elkatatny et al. discloses wherein bentonite is included as a viscosifier (col. 11, l. 19-42). The reference, however, is silent to the density thereof. M-I GEL viscosifier teaches bentonite viscosifiers used to increase the viscosity of water-based drilling fluids wherein such has a specific gravity of 2.3-2.6 (Typical Physical Properties), and, as such a density of 2,300-2,600 kg/cubic meter. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to try a bentonite having a density as claimed as the viscosifier in the method of Elkatatny et al. as such would be chosen from a finite list of known bentonitic viscosifiers used to viscosify water based well drilling fluids and thus would be expected to yield the predictable result of viscosifying the water-based drilling fluid of Elkatatny et al. therewith.
Elkatatny et al. further suggests the inclusion of LAPONITE within the drilling fluid (col. 7, l. 16-20). The reference, however is silent to the density thereof. Huang et al. teachers LAPONITE included in water based drilling muds as in the form of a solid-state fine white powder having a bulk density around 1 g/cubic meter (section 3.2), i.e., 1,000 kg/cubic meter. Such is further taught as included in the drilling fluid so as to increase the lubricating properties thereof (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to employ LAPONITE having a density as claimed in order to provide a known form thereof suitable for use in water based well drilling fluids in order to enhance the lubricating properties of the water based drilling fluid.
Elkatatny et al. suggests wherein drilling fluids are introduced during drilling operations to fulfill many functions, including lubricating and cooling of the drill bit and drill string (col. 1, l. 31-34); the reference, however, fails to explicitly disclose rotating the drill bit against the formation and circulating the aqueous drilling fluid identified above through a drill string coupled to the drill bit, as claimed.
Morrison et al. teaches drilling assemblies used to drill a wellbore wherein such include a drilling platform 105 coupled to a drill string 110, wherein a drill bit 115 is attached to the end of the drill string and driven by rotation of the drill string from the well surface; as the drill bit rotates, it creates the wellbore 120 and a pump circulates drilling fluid to the drill string 110 and down the interior thereof, through one or more orifices of the drill bit 115 and into an annulus 140 between the drill string 110 and the walls of the wellbore 120 ([0038]).
Since Elkatatny et al. discloses wherein a drill bit is driven into the formation so as to form the wellbore and the drilling fluid injected into the formation through the wellbore, and Morrison et al. teaches conventional methods of drilling a wellbore to include the use of a drill string coupled to such a drill bit, wherein the bit is rotated against the formation so as to cut the formation and form the wellbore, upon which drilling fluid is then circulated, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to rotate the drill bit of Elkatatny et al. against the subterranean formation in order to form the wellbore therewith, and couple the drill bit to a drill string in order to circulate the drilling fluid therethrough and thereby lubricate and cool the drill bit therewith.
With respect to independent claim 9, Elkatatny et al. discloses a method comprising:
flowing an aqueous drilling fluid from a surface location and into a wellbore formed in a subterranean formation (col. 15, l. 53-59), wherein the aqueous drilling fluid comprises bentonite and synthetic clay/laponite at a bentonite to synthetic clay/laponite ratio of about 5:1 (see explanation below);
while flowing the aqueous drilling fluid, driving a drill bit against a subterranean formation, thereby cutting into the formation and elongating the wellbore (col. 5, l. 9-15; col. 15, l. 54-65); and
receiving, at the surface location, the drilling fluid from the wellbore (col. 15, l. 66- col. 16, l. 8, wherein the fluid may be used in during after flush or wellbore clean-out treatments).
Elkatatny et al. suggests wherein an example clay included in the drilling fluid is hectorite, while suggesting an example thereof as LAPONITE (col. 7, l. 16-20). The reference suggests wherein such is present in an amount of about 0.05 to 0.2 wt% (col. 4, l. 16-21). Elkatatny et al. further suggests bentonite used as a thickener, wherein such can be present in an amount of 0.25-1.5 wt% (col. 11, l. 30-42). Based on such amounts, Elkatatny et al. suggests a ratio of bentonite to laponite of about 5:1; for example, when 0.25 wt% bentonite is included and 0.05 wt% of LAPONITE is present and/or when 1.0 wt% bentonite is present with 0.2 wt% of LAPONITE. The reference further suggests wherein fluids containing such achieve a yield point of 35-55 lb/100ft2 (col. 5, l. 7-8), wherein values such as 45 and 48 lb/100ft2 are explicitly noted (col. 15, l. 9-16). Although silent to explicitly stating a ratio for bentonite to synthetic clay/LAPONITE, specifically, based on the suggested amounts/ranges highlighted above, wherein Elkatatny et al.’s bentonite overlaps a majority of Applicant’s disclosed range of 0.1-2 wt% and synthetic clay range of 0.01-1 wt%, it is the position of the Office that one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the optimal ratio thereof to include in the drilling fluid in order to impart the desired viscosity control, anti-sagging and low shear yield point thereto since it has been held wherein generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[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) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.). The Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s amendments to further narrow the synthetic clay range to 0.5-1 wt%; however, the criticality of such is not explicitly provided in the specification as filed. See also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 wherein it was held "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." and In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) wherein claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (identifying "the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art."). Additionally, the Examiner notes, obviousness can be shown in a predictable art when a difference between the claimed ranges is virtually negligible absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality. In re Brandt, 886 F. 3d 1171, 1177, 126 USPQ2d 1079, 1082 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The instant specification fails to explicitly establish the instantly claimed ratio and percent range of synthetic clay as critical and it is unclear if any unexpected results are achieved by providing for such in the drilling fluid. Since the drilling fluid of Elkatatny et al. is suggested as providing drill bit lubrication and yield point suitable for use as a drilling fluid, it does not appear that such would be considered an unexpected result of using the presently claimed ratio, and, as such, the determination of optimal bentonite to laponite ratio and yield point achieved therewith would be achievable through routine experimentation in the art.
Elkatatny et al. discloses wherein bentonite is included as a viscosifier (col. 11, l. 19-42). The reference, however, is silent to the density thereof. M-I GEL viscosifier teaches bentonite viscosifiers used to increase the viscosity of water-based drilling fluids wherein such has a specific gravity of 2.3-2.6 (Typical Physical Properties), and, as such a density of 2,300-2,600 kg/cubic meter. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to try a bentonite having a density as claimed as the viscosifier in the method of Elkatatny et al. as such would be chosen from a finite list of known bentonitic viscosifiers used to viscosify water based well drilling fluids and thus would be expected to yield the predictable result of viscosifying the water-based drilling fluid of Elkatatny et al. therewith.
Elkatatny et al. further suggests the inclusion of LAPONITE within the drilling fluid (col. 7, l. 16-20). The reference, however is silent to the density thereof. Huang et al. teachers LAPONITE included in water based drilling muds as in the form of a solid-state fine white powder having a bulk density around 1 g/cubic meter (section 3.2), i.e., 1,000 kg/cubic meter. Such is further taught as included in the drilling fluid so as to increase the lubricating properties thereof (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to employ LAPONITE having a density as claimed in order to provide a known form thereof suitable for use in water based well drilling fluids in order to enhance the lubricating properties of the water based drilling fluid.
Elkatatny et al. suggests wherein drilling fluids are introduced during drilling operations to fulfill many functions, including lubricating and cooling of the drill bit and drill string (col. 1, l. 31-34); the method is further suggested to involve driving the drill bit to form the wellbore, as noted above. Elkatatny et al., however, fails to explicitly disclose flowing the aqueous drilling fluid through a drill string disposed within the wellbore and while flowing such, rotating a drill bit coupled thereto and explicitly receiving the drilling fluid from the wellbore at the surface location, as claimed.
Morrison et al. teaches drilling assemblies used to drill a wellbore wherein such include a drilling platform 105 coupled to a drill string 110, wherein a drill bit 115 is attached to the end of the drill string and driven by rotation of the drill string from the well surface; as the drill bit rotates, it creates the wellbore 120 and a pump circulates drilling fluid to the drill string 110 and down the interior thereof, through one or more orifices of the drill bit 115 and into an annulus 140 between the drill string 110 and the walls of the wellbore 120; the drilling fluid is then circulated back to the surface via the annulus for processing and cleaning ([0038]-[0039]).
Since Elkatatny et al. discloses wherein a drill bit is driven into the formation so as to form the wellbore and the drilling fluid injected into the formation through the wellbore, and Morrison et al. teaches conventional methods of drilling a wellbore to include the use of a drill string coupled to such a drill bit, wherein the bit is rotated against the formation and the drilling fluid is pumped so as to cut the formation and form the wellbore while also circulating the dluid back to the surface for processing and cleaning, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to flow the drilling fluid of Elkatatny et al. through a drill string, wherein at least a portion thereof is disposed within the wellbore, and to rotate the drill bit while pumping/flowing the aqueous drilling fluid of Elkatatny et al., as taught by Morrison et al., in order to create the wellbore in the subterranean formation and allow for the return of the drilling fluid to the surface for processing and cleaning so that it can be re-used should such be desired.
With respect to dependent claims 2 and 10, M-I GEL teaches bentonite viscosifiers having a density as claimed (see motivation to combine as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1) and Huang et al. teaches the synthetic clay/LAPONITE as having a density as claimed (see motivation to combine as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1). With further regard to the synthetic clay as having the chemical formula as claimed, since Elkatatny et al. discloses LAPONITE, the reference provides for synthetic clay having the chemical formula as claimed.
With respect to dependent claims 3 and 11, Elkatatny et al. discloses wherein the aqueous drilling fluid includes a clay, wherein examples thereof include smectite, kaolin, illite, chlorite, sepiolite, attapulgite, or some other type; the reference further suggests wherein preferably, the clay mineral is a smectite-type clay (col. 7, l. 16-37). It is of note, none of the examples describe the use of sepiolite as the clay (see Table 1, wherein no sepiolite is present in the drilling fluid formulation). Although silent to explicitly excluding sepiolite from the composition, since Elkatatny et al. clearly discloses alternatives to sepiolite, and, further, specifies wherein the preferred clay is a smectite-type clay, as well as an example composition that does not include sepiolite and thus is free thereof, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, when providing the aqueous drilling fluid of Elkatatny et al. to include a smectite-type clay therein as the clay since such is preferred for use in the fluid and shown to afford the composition with low sag tendency through example. In choosing a smectite over sepiolite, one of ordinary skill would thus provide for a drilling fluid that is free of sepiolite. Furthermore, the drilling fluid example set forth by Table 1 is indeed free of sepiolite.
With respect to dependent claims 5 and 13, Elkatatny et al. discloses LAPONITE (col. 7, l. 16-20) and further suggests an example thereof being in powder form and having a particle size of 10 microns (col. 16, l. 44-46). The reference, however, is silent to the LAPONITE as having an average particle diameter in the range as claimed. Huang et al. teaches LAPONITE included in water based drilling muds for the purpose of increasing lubricating properties thereof, as noted above in the rejection of claims 1 and 9, wherein it is further suggested such is in the form of nanoparticles (Abstract). The LAPONITE crystals are suggested as having a diameter of about 20 nm; such a size imparts great gel strength to the drilling fluid and renders the LAPONITE an inorganic rheological modifier (p. 580, bottom left paragraph; section 3.1). Such particles are further suggested as decreasing fluid loss (section 3.5). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to try LAPONITE having an average particle diameter as claimed and as taught by Huang et al. in order to enhance the rheological properties imparted to the drilling fluid therewith.
With respect to dependent claims 7 and 15, Elkatatny et al. discloses wherein the aqueous drilling fluid comprises water (col. 10, l. 48-col. 11, l. 9) and at least one of a pH modifier (col. 11, l. 10-15), a filtration control agent (col. 11, l. 43-65), a thickening agent (col. 11, l. 19-42), a clay inhibitor (col. 12, l. 13-18), or a weighting material (col. 10, l. 22-47).
With respect to dependent claims 8 and 16, Elkatatny et al. discloses wherein the aqueous drilling fluid comprises an amount of water (col. 10, l. 48-col. 11, l. 9; Table 1, wherein an amount of water as the base fluid is suggested; col. 17, l. 32-33); an amount of soda ash (Table 1; col. 17, l. 32-33); from about 0.1 wt% to about 2 wt% starch (col. 11, l. 43-65, wherein both starch and a weight percent overlapping the range as instantly claimed is disclosed; Table 1); from about 0.01 wt% to about 1 wt% xanthan (col. 11, l. 19-42, wherein an overall amount of thickener and a ratio of the combination bentonite/xanthan is suggested and Table 1), an amount of an alkali metal hydroxide pH buffer to adjust the pH to the desired range (col. 11, l. 10-15; Table 1); an amount of clay inhibitor (col. 12, l. 13-18, wherein potassium chloride, a clay inhibitor instantly disclosed by Applicant in [0026] of the specification is disclosed as included as a clay stabilizer in an amount); and a balance of the weighting material (col. 10, l. 36-43).
With further regard to the pH buffer, the Examiner notes, Elkatatny et al. suggests an alkali metal hydroxide such as potassium hydroxide as used for such a purpose. The reference, however, fails to positively identify the alkali metal hydroxide as caustic. Morrison, cited above, further teaches drilling fluids, wherein a pH buffer is included therein, with examples thereof including potassium hydroxide, as well as sodium hydroxide ([0019]), i.e., caustic. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to try an alkali metal hydroxide such as caustic in place of the potassium hydroxide disclosed by Elkatatny et al. in order to yield the predictable result of adjusting the pH of the drilling fluid therewith.
Elkatatny et al. teaches an example, wherein water is included in an amount of 245 g; the reference further suggests an amount of both soda ash and pH adjusting components of 0.5 g each, while also providing an amount for potassium chloride used for clay stabilization therein (Table 1). Although silent to the amounts of each in percent, based on the exemplary amounts suggested in grams through the example, the water presence, soda ash and pH modifier in percent, as calculated from the example gram amounts, provide for a value overlapping the range instantly claimed. The Examiner acknowledges the clay inhibitor amount suggested by Elkatatny et al. exceeds that which is instantly claimed. However, it is the position of the Office with respect thereto, as well as any other amounts within the ranges for each component instantly claimed that are not explicitly provided for by Elkatatny et al., the provision for each of the components in an amount within the ranges as claimed would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art since it has been held wherein generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[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) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.). See also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 wherein it was held "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." and In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) wherein claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (identifying "the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art."). Additionally, the Examiner notes, obviousness can be shown in a predictable art when a difference between the claimed ranges is virtually negligible absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality. In re Brandt, 886 F. 3d 1171, 1177, 126 USPQ2d 1079, 1082 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The instant specification fails to explicitly establish the instantly claimed weight percent ranges for each component as critical and it is unclear if any unexpected results are achieved by providing for such in the drilling fluid. Since the drilling fluid of Elkatatny et al. is suggested as providing drill bit lubrication and has a yield point overlapping the range instantly disclosed and claimed by Applicant, it does not appear that such would be considered an unexpected result of providing for each of the components in an amount within the ranges as claimed, and, as such, the determination of optimal amounts for each component would be achievable through routine experimentation in the art.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morrison et al. in view of Elkatatny et al., M-I GEL viscosifier and Huang et al..
With respect to independent claim 17, Morrison et al. discloses a drilling rig (Figure 1) comprising:
a drill string 110 assembly 100 comprising a rotatable drill bit 115; and
a fluid circulation system ([0039]) connected to the drill string assembly, the fluid circulation system comprising:
a drilling fluid 145;
a drilling fluid pit holding a volume of the drilling fluid 145 ([0039]-[0040], wherein a drilling fluid retention pit is disclosed);
a pump 130 configured to flow the drilling fluid from the drilling fluid pit to the drill string assembly while the rotatable drill bit rotates ([0038]).
Morrison et al. discloses the drilling rig, as set forth above, wherein such is used to drill the wellbore. The reference, however, fails to explicitly disclose the drilling fluid used therewith to include an aqueous drilling fluid comprising bentonite and LAPONITE at a ratio as claimed.
Elkatatny et al. teaches an aqueous drilling fluid that includes an aqueous base fluid
(col. 15, l. 53-59), wherein the aqueous drilling fluid comprises bentonite and laponite at a bentonite to laponite ratio of about 5:1 (see further explanation below), wherein such a drilling fluid has a low sag factor at elevated temperatures and enhanced rheological properties such as gel strength, yield point, plastic viscosity and storage modulus (abstract). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to try a drilling fluid such as that taught by Elkatatny et al. as the drilling fluid used with the drilling rig disclosed by Morrison et al. in order to drill the wellbore therewith, particularly in those environments encountering elevated temperatures, in order to provide a drilling fluid with low sag factor as well as enhanced rheological properties at such conditions.
Elkatatny et al. suggests wherein an example clay included in the drilling fluid is hectorite, while suggesting an example thereof as LAPONITE (col. 7, l. 16-20). The reference suggests wherein such is present in an amount of about 0.05 to 0.2 wt% (col. 4, l. 16-21). Elkatatny et al. further suggests bentonite used as a thickener, wherein such can be present in an amount of 0.25-1.5 wt% (col. 11, l. 30-42). Based on such amounts, Elkatatny et al. suggests a ratio of bentonite to laponite of about 5:1; for example, when 0.25 wt% bentonite is included and 0.05 wt% of LAPONITE is present and/or when 1.0 wt% bentonite is present with 0.2 wt% of LAPONITE. The reference further suggests wherein fluids containing such achieve a yield point of 35-55 lb/100ft2 (col. 5, l. 7-8), wherein values such as 45 and 48 lb/100ft2 are explicitly noted (col. 15, l. 9-16). Although silent to explicitly stating a ratio for bentonite to synthetic clay/LAPONITE, specifically, based on the suggested amounts/ranges highlighted above, wherein Elkatatny et al.’s bentonite overlaps a majority of Applicant’s disclosed range of 0.1-2 wt% and synthetic clay range of 0.01-1 wt%, it is the position of the Office that one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the optimal ratio thereof to include in the drilling fluid in order to impart the desired viscosity control, anti-sagging and low shear yield point thereto since it has been held wherein generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[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) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.). The Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s amendments to further narrow the synthetic clay range to 0.5-1 wt%; however, the criticality of such is not explicitly provided in the specification as filed. See also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 wherein it was held "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." and In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) wherein claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (identifying "the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art."). Additionally, the Examiner notes, obviousness can be shown in a predictable art when a difference between the claimed ranges is virtually negligible absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality. In re Brandt, 886 F. 3d 1171, 1177, 126 USPQ2d 1079, 1082 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The instant specification fails to explicitly establish the instantly claimed ratio and percent range of synthetic clay as critical and it is unclear if any unexpected results are achieved by providing for such in the drilling fluid. Since the drilling fluid of Elkatatny et al. is suggested as providing drill bit lubrication and yield point suitable for use as a drilling fluid, it does not appear that such would be considered an unexpected result of using the presently claimed ratio, and, as such, the determination of optimal bentonite to laponite ratio and yield point achieved therewith would be achievable through routine experimentation in the art.
Elkatatny et al. discloses wherein bentonite is included as a viscosifier (col. 11, l. 19-42). The reference, however, is silent to the density thereof. M-I GEL viscosifier teaches bentonite viscosifiers used to increase the viscosity of water-based drilling fluids wherein such has a specific gravity of 2.3-2.6 (Typical Physical Properties), and, as such a density of 2,300-2,600 kg/cubic meter. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to try a bentonite having a density as claimed as the viscosifier in the method of Elkatatny et al. as such would be chosen from a finite list of known bentonitic viscosifiers used to viscosify water based well drilling fluids and thus would be expected to yield the predictable result of viscosifying the water-based drilling fluid of Elkatatny et al. therewith.
Elkatatny et al. further suggests the inclusion of LAPONITE within the drilling fluid (col. 7, l. 16-20). The reference, however is silent to the density thereof. Huang et al. teachers LAPONITE included in water based drilling muds as in the form of a solid-state fine white powder having a bulk density around 1 g/cubic meter (section 3.2), i.e., 1,000 kg/cubic meter. Such is further taught as included in the drilling fluid so as to increase the lubricating properties thereof (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to employ LAPONITE having a density as claimed in order to provide a known form thereof suitable for use in water based well drilling fluids in order to enhance the lubricating properties of the water based drilling fluid.
With respect to dependent claim 18, Elkatatny et al. further suggests wherein the aqueous drilling fluid includes a clay, wherein examples thereof include smectite, kaolin, illite, chlorite, sepiolite, attapulgite, or some other type; the reference further suggests wherein preferably, the clay mineral is a smectite-type clay (col. 7, l. 16-37). It is of note, none of the examples describe the use of sepiolite as the clay (see Table 1, wherein no sepiolite is present in the drilling fluid formulation). Although silent to explicitly excluding sepiolite from the composition, since Elkatatny et al. clearly discloses alternatives to sepiolite, and, further, specifies wherein the preferred clay is a smectite-type clay, as well as an example composition that does not include sepiolite and thus is substantially free thereof, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, when providing the aqueous drilling fluid of Elkatatny et al. to include a smectite-type clay therein as the clay since such is preferred for use in the fluid and shown to afford the composition with low sag tendency through example. In choosing a smectite over sepiolite, one of ordinary skill would thus provide for a drilling fluid that is free of sepiolite. Furthermore, the drilling fluid example set forth by Table 1 is indeed free of sepiolite.
With respect to the additional elements of dependent claim 18, Elkatatny et al. further teaches wherein the aqueous drilling fluid comprises an amount of water (col. 10, l. 48-col. 11, l. 9; Table 1, wherein an amount of water as the base fluid is suggested; col. 17, l. 32-33); an amount of soda ash (Table 1; col. 17, l. 32-33); from about 0.1 wt% to about 2 wt% starch (col. 11, l. 43-65, wherein both starch and a weight percent overlapping the range as instantly claimed is disclosed; Table 1); from about 0.01 wt% to about 1 wt% xanthan (col. 11, l. 19-42, wherein an overall amount of thickener and a ratio of the combination bentonite/xanthan is suggested and Table 1), an amount of an alkali metal hydroxide pH buffer to adjust the pH to the desired range (col. 11, l. 10-15; Table 1); an amount of clay inhibitor (col. 12, l. 13-18, wherein potassium chloride, a clay inhibitor instantly disclosed by Applicant in [0026] of the specification is disclosed as included as a clay stabilizer in an amount); and a balance of the weighting material (col. 10, l. 36-43).
Elkatatny et al. teaches an example, wherein water is included in an amount of 245 g; the reference further suggests an amount of both soda ash and pH adjusting components of 0.5 g each, while also providing an amount for potassium chloride used for clay stabilization therein (Table 1). Although silent to the amounts of each in percent, based on the exemplary amounts suggested in grams through the example, the water presence, soda ash and pH modifier in percent, as calculated from the example gram amounts, provide for a value overlapping the range instantly claimed. The Examiner acknowledges the clay inhibitor amount suggested by Elkatatny et al. exceeds that which is instantly claimed. However, it is the position of the Office with respect thereto, as well as any other amounts within the ranges for each component instantly claimed that are not explicitly provided for by Elkatatny et al., the provision for each of the components in an amount within the ranges as claimed would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art since it has been held wherein generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[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) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.). See also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 wherein it was held "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." and In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) wherein claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (identifying "the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art."). Additionally, the Examiner notes, obviousness can be shown in a predictable art when a difference between the claimed ranges is virtually negligible absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality. In re Brandt, 886 F. 3d 1171, 1177, 126 USPQ2d 1079, 1082 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The instant specification fails to explicitly establish the instantly claimed weight percent ranges for each component as critical and it is unclear if any unexpected results are achieved by providing for such in the drilling fluid. Since the drilling fluid of Elkatatny et al. is suggested as providing drill bit lubrication and has a yield point overlapping the range instantly disclosed and claimed by Applicant, it does not appear that such would be considered an unexpected result of providing for each of the components in an amount within the ranges as claimed, and, as such, the determination of optimal amounts for each component would be achievable through routine experimentation in the art.
With further regard to the pH buffer as caustic, specifically, the Examiner notes, Elkatatny et al. suggests an alkali metal hydroxide such as potassium hydroxide. Morrison et al. further teaches pH buffers suitable for use in well fluids, with examples thereof including potassium hydroxide, as well as sodium hydroxide ([0019]), i.e., caustic. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to try an alkali metal hydroxide such as caustic in place of the potassium hydroxide disclosed by Elkatatny et al. in order to yield the predictable result of adjusting the pH of the drilling fluid therewith.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s deletion of the last sentence added to [0031] from the substitute specification filed 07/23/25 overcomes the previous objection made with respect thereto.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC 112(a) rejections and 35 USC 112(b) rejections, as set forth in the previous office action, have been fully considered; Applicant’s deletion of the previously rejected subject matter overcomes the rejections made with respect thereto. However, the Examiner notes a new grounds of rejection has been presented above.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejections of claims as set forth in the previous rejection have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant notes “The Office appears to be relying on Elkatatny for disclosing laponite, Huang and “M-I Gel viscosifier” for disclosing a density range and Morrison for disclosing a drill string to drill a wellbore.
The Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s comments pertaining to the amendments made.
Applicant asserts that the bentonite to synthetic clay ratio of about 5:1 recited in amended claim 1 is critical for the claimed yield point greater than 3,830 dynes per square centimeter. Applicant asserts synergistic effects of including both laponite and bentonite in mud formulations at such a ratio, especially in low shear rate rheology regions, higher viscosity at low shear rates can indicate greater particular suspension capability of the mud formulation.
Applicant notes Elkatatany discloses a synthetic modified phyllosilicate present in an amount of 0.05-2wt% and a viscosifier present in an amount of 0.25-1.5 wt%, with preferable ranges thereof as 0.85-0.9 wt% based on a total weight of the drilling fluid and asserts Elkatatany’s range is outside the claimed range of 0.5-1 wt% of synthetic clay as required by Applicant’s amendments to the independent claims. Applicant asserts further wherein in most preferred range disclosed by Elkatatany, the largest possible ratio of bentonite to synthetic clay would be 3.5:1.
With regard to Applicant’s comments pertaining to the “preferred” range, the Examiner notes, Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 wherein it was held "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." Elkatatny et al. indeed discloses a larger range over the preferred range, the entirety of which is encompassed by Applicant’s disclosed range of weight percent for bentonite in [0024]. Moreso, with regard to Applicant’s amendments for the synthetic clay weight percent range, the Office notes, the specification as filed does not explicitly define 0.5 wt% thereof as critical; the specification rather discloses a range of synthetic clay weight percents suitable for achieving the instantly claimed yield point of 0.01-1 wt%.
Elkatatny’s disclosed range for bentonite overlaps a majority of Applicant’s disclosed range of 0.1-2 wt% and synthetic clay range of 0.01-1 wt%. Elkatatny et al. further provides for wherein the drilling fluid has various beneficial properties to enhance drilling, including static sag, dynamic sag, ten second gel strength, plastic viscosity and yield point so as to prevent sagging of the weighting agent in the wellbore (col. 4, l. 57- col. 5, l. 9), i.e., particular suspension capability, Applicant’s “synergistic effect.”
Therefore, the Office maintains Elkatatny et al. enables one of ordinary skill in the art to recognize optimal values for the amount of synthetic clay and a bentonite to synthetic clay ratio associated therewith as instantly claimed in order to enhance the suspension capabilities of the drilling mud.
Applicant asserts Table 1 of the specification shows rheological testing of various fluids, wherein a ratio of bentonite to laponite in test fluid (vi) of 5:1 shows synergistic effects.
The Examiner notes, however, in test fluid (vi), 5 wt% bentonite is utilized; Applicant explicitly discloses a weight percent of bentonite of up to about 2 wt% in [0024] of the specification. The specification does not disclose the inclusion of an amount of 5 wt% previous to the example of Table 1. Moreso, in [0023]-[0024] wherein such amounts of 2 wt% bentonite are disclosed, Applicant discloses a yield point of 3,830 dynes per square centimeter while Table 1 provides for various data of fluid properties without any units associated therewith.
As such, it is unclear if Applicant’s instantly claimed ratio of bentonite to synthetic clay and synthetic clay amount are indeed critical and/or associated with Applicant’s instantly recited yield point in each of the independent claims since the example does not appear to be directly linked to the remaining disclosure.
The Examiner notes, Applicant’s instantly claimed yield point is equivalent to 799 lb/100ft2, as the value in lb/100ft2 is obtainable by multiplying the value in dynes/cm2 by 0.20885. Therefore, it is unclear if the Example to which Applicant points to establish criticality and/or synergistic effects is indeed associated with the value of yield point instantly claimed.
Since there appears to be no direct correlation between the instantly claimed yield point and ratio/synthetic clay amount instantly claimed, the criticality of the instantly claimed range and yield point, along with Applicant’s synergistic effects associated therewith, is not established and the rejections are maintained for at least the reasons of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Angela M DiTrani Leff whose telephone number is (571)272-2182. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9AM-5PM.
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 on 5712724137. 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.
/Angela M DiTrani Leff/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674
ADL
12/13/25