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
Response to Amendment
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The amendment is supported.
The previous ODP rejections has been maintained, but the position has been modified due to the amendment.
The examiner urges filing a terminal disclaimer to overcome the ODP rejection.
Claim Rejections - Double Patenting
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.
The disclosed process meet the claimed new limitation of resolving an emulsion, because according the instant specification [0013], resolving an emulsion merely refers to adding a polyalkoxylated polymer to a process stream including an emulsion, to form a treated process stream:
PNG
media_image3.png
153
924
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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_image4.png
478
294
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
279
295
media_image5.png
Greyscale
and an example of producing amino phenol aldehyde resin:
PNG
media_image6.png
477
416
media_image6.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”.
Response to Arguments
The argument for allowance of amended claims has been fully considered but not persuasive.
Therefore, the previous ODP rejections has been maintained, but the position has been modified due to the amendment.
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Randy Gulakowski can be reached on 571.572.1302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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
Prosecution Insights