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
Status as Continuation
This application discloses and claims only subject matter disclosed in prior US 12018130, effectively filed 10/21/20, and names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application. Accordingly, this application may constitute a continuation or division. Should applicant desire to claim the benefit of the filing date of the prior application, attention is directed to 35 U.S.C. 120 and 37 CFR 1.78.
Objections
The abstract is objected to because of the following informalities: it should not include phrases that can be implied, such as “disclosed”. Appropriate correction is required. According to the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) 608.01(b), when writing an abstract of a patent disclosure, the language should be clear and concise, and avoid phrases that can be implied. These phrases include: "The disclosure concerns, "The disclosure defined by this invention, and "The disclosure describes. The abstract should also avoid legal phraseology and forms often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said". The abstract's purpose is to provide technical information and help readers decide if they need to read the full patent text. The abstract should be as concise as possible, but should still be able to describe the disclosure sufficiently. In English, the abstract should be around 50 to 150 words, but the PCT range is not absolute. Publication problems may occur if the PCT limit is exceeded.
Claim Rejections - Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, and 12-15 is (are) rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 16-21 of US 11767393.
‘393 (claims 16-21) meets instant claims 1-2, 4-5, and 12-15, because it discloses the claimed industrial process of treating crude oil (stream) by adding a solvent based composition comprising 0.1-10k ppm of the claimed polymer of claim 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
574
288
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
303
628
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The process stream comprises wax, and the polymer composition further comprise solvent such as ethylene glycol and an additive such as corrosion inhibitor.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance:
Claim(s) 1-17 is(are) allowable over the closest prior art: Holtrup et al. (US 20020156136) listed on IDS in proviso the above ODP issue is resolved.
Claim(s) 3, 6-11, and 16-17 is(are) objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As to claim 1, Holtrup (abs., claims, examples) discloses:
PNG
media_image3.png
478
294
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
279
295
media_image4.png
Greyscale
and an example of producing amino phenol aldehyde resin:
PNG
media_image5.png
477
416
media_image5.png
Greyscale
However, Holtrup fails to disclose the polymer having hydroxylalkoxy pendant group on the amino group of claim 1.
Therefore, claim 1 is(are) provisionally allowable together with its dependent claims 2-17.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHANE FANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7378. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs. 8am-6pm. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Randy Gulakowski can be reached on 571.572.1302. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHANE FANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766