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 disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In every occurrence, general formula (II) currently depicts a R−C(=O)−R' ketone structure but should depict a R−C(=O)−O−R' ester structure. All occurrences should be corrected. For example, it appears that general formula (II) should be a structure like:
“
PNG
media_image1.png
309
597
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein
R is H or CH3 and
R1 is a branched or unbranched, aliphatic C1 to C4 carbon-based group.”
See also the Claim Objections below.
The Specification refers to “the EVA-g-PAMA emulsifier” (p.13, line 8), but it is not actually clear which compound(s) the “PAMA” refers to. It appears the Abbreviations section on p.12 should recite:
“PAMA polyalkyl methacrylate.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In independent claim 1, as above in the Specification Objections, general formula (II) currently depicts a R−C(=O)−R' ketone structure but should depict a R−C(=O)−O−R' ester structure. The dependent claims are objected to by dependency.
Also, in independent claim 1, the end of A) (line 19) should end with a comma (correcting the typo; like the end of B) at line 24).
Claim 5 should recite “wherein the alkyl (meth)acrylates a1) are selected from the list consisting of methyl (meth)acrylate, butyl (meth)acrylate, 2-ethylhexyl (meth)acrylate, decyl (meth)acrylate, isodecyl (meth)acrylate or a mixture thereof” (correcting the typo; removing “preferably isodecyl (meth)acrylate” to avoid unclear language).
Claim 6 should recite “wherein the hydroxy esters a2) are selected from the list consisting of 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate, 1-methyl-2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate, 2-hydroxypropyl methacrylate or a mixture thereof” (correcting the typo; removing “preferably 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate” to avoid unclear language).
Claim 7 should recite “wherein the monomers a) comprises from 60 to 99% by weight of monomers a1) and from 1 to 40% by weight of monomers a2), based on the total weight of monomers a)” (correcting the typo; removing “preferably 65 to 85% by weight of monomers a1) and from 15 to 35% by weight of monomers a2),” to avoid unclear language).
Claim 8 should recite “wherein in the graft copolymer A), the weight ratio of monomers a) grafted onto the ethylene- based copolymer is in a range from 1:1 to 9:1” (correcting the typo; removing “preferably 2:1 to 6:1” to avoid unclear language).
Claim 9 should recite “wherein the carrier medium C) is a mixture of isodecanol and diethylene glycol” (correcting the typo; removing “preferably a mixture of from 55 to 75% by weight of isodecanol and from 25 to 45% by weight of diethylene glycol, based on the total weight of the carrier medium C)” to avoid unclear language).
Independent claim 11 should recite “A process for preparing the dispersion as defined in claim1, wherein the process comprises the following steps:
i) providing a graft copolymer A),
ii) providing an ethylene-based copolymer B), and
iii) mixing the graft copolymer A) with the ethylene-based copolymer B) in a carrier medium C)” (correcting the typos by i) changing to “A process”; ii) adding “and”; and iii) adding a space before “mixing”).
Independent claim 12 should recite “A method for inhibiting wax deposition” (correcting the typo). Claim 13 is objected to by dependency.
Independent claim 14 should recite “A crude oil composition comprising a dispersion as defined in claim 1 and a crude oil” (correcting the typo; removing “preferably wherein the amount of dispersion is 0.001 to 1% by weight, relative to the total weight of the crude oil composition” to avoid unclear language).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 1-9, 11, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Mueller (4,906,682) (cited by Applicant and Int’l Search Report).
Regarding independent claim 1, Mueller discloses A dispersion (abstract “Concentrated emulsions, adaptable to use as pour point improvers, of (1) copolymers of ethylene and a vinyl ester of a C1-C24-carboxylic acid … in a liquid carrier medium which does not dissolve said polymers, said emulsions additionally containing, as an emulsifier, a graft- or block-copolymer”) comprising the following components:
A) at least one graft copolymer A) (abstract “a graft- … copolymer” and Col. 2, lines 63-67 “As comonomers, for example, … especially vinyl acetate, can be mentioned”), wherein the graft copolymer A) is obtainable by grafting onto an ethylene-based copolymer having a weight-average molecular weight of 2,000 to 150,000 g/mol (Col. 3, lines 2-4 “The average molecular weight (determined by vapor pressure osmometry) is in the range from 1,000 to 50,000, preferably 10,000 to 25,000”; this clearly anticipates 2,000-150,000 g/mol) and consisting of 60 to 70% by weight of ethylene and 30 to 40% by weight of vinyl acetate (Col. 4, lines 66-68 “Here, too, ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymers having a vinyl acetate content between 20 percent and 45 percent by weight” referring to Col. 2, line 67-Col. 3, line 2 “In general, the vinylester content is in the range from 10-80 percent, preferably 20-45 percent, and particularly 30 percent ±5 percent by weight”; “too” must refer to the prior disclosure in 2:67-3:2, and thus this also clearly anticipates 30-35 wt% vinyl acetate and thus 65-70 wt% ethylene), based on the total weight of the ethylene-based copolymer,
a composition of monomers a) (Col. 5, lines 12-15 “For this, a composition is satisfactory which concurrently comprises two sub-groups of monomers, for example, monomers of formula II and/or formula II-C and/or formula III”) comprising:
a1) alkyl (meth)acrylates of [general formula (I)] (“monomers of formula II and/or formula II-C”)
wherein
R is H or CH3 and
R1 is a linear or branched, saturated or unsaturated alkyl group with 1 to 30 carbon atoms (Col. 5, lines 15-22 “As monomers of formula II, for example, those can be mentioned in which R2 is branched alkyl having 8-20 carbon atoms, preferably 8-16 carbon atoms (i.e. monomers of formula II-B). Exemplary thereof are the acrylic acid esters and particularly the methacrylic acid esters of isoalkanols having 10, 13, and 18 carbon atoms” and Col. 5, lines 23-26 “Representative of monomers of formula II-C are, particularly, methyl acrylate, ethyl acrylate and -methacrylate, propyl acrylate and -methacrylate, and butyl acrylate and -methacrylate”), and
a2) hydroxy esters of [general formula (II)]
wherein R is H or CH3 and
A is a branched or unbranched, aliphatic C1 to C4 carbon-based group (Col. 5, lines 35-38 “Among the functionalized monomers of formula III, those are preferred in which R3 is -OH, for example hydroxyethyl- and hydroxypropyl-acrylates and -methacrylates”),
B) at least one ethylene-based copolymer B) (“(1) copolymers of ethylene and a vinyl ester of a C1-C24-carboxylic acid”) obtainable by polymerizing a monomer composition consisting of
b1) 55% to 85% by weight of ethylene, and
b2) 15% to 45% by weight of a vinyl acetate, based on the total weight of the ethylene-based copolymer B) (Col. 2, line 67-Col. 3, line 2 “In general, the vinylester content is in the range from 10-80 percent, preferably 20-45 percent, and particularly 30 percent ±5 percent by weight”; “too” must refer to the prior disclosure in 2:67-3:2, and thus this also clearly anticipates 25-35 wt% vinyl acetate and thus 65-75 wt% ethylene), and
C) a carrier medium (“a liquid carrier medium” and e.g. Col. 6, line 56-Col. 7, line 17 “The solvents employed according to the invention as the liquid carrier medium should be inert and in general unobjectionable, i.e. compatible with the intended use in oils. Carrier media which fulfill the aforementioned conditions include, for example, esters, higher alcohols, and polyvalent ether-alcohols. …. Among the group of higher alcohols are, for example, isodecanol and, among the polyvalent ether-alcohols, diethyleneglycol”).
Regarding the 60-70 wt% ethylene and 30-40 wt% vinyl acetate, as above, Mueller clearly anticipates 30-35 wt% vinyl acetate and thus 65-70 wt% ethylene, by virtue of disclosing “Here, too, ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymers having a vinyl acetate content between 20 percent and 45 percent by weight” (Col. 4, lines 66-68) referring to “In general, the vinylester content is in the range from 10-80 percent, preferably 20-45 percent, and particularly 30 percent ±5 percent by weight” (Col. 2, line 67-Col. 3, line 2).
Alternatively, even if it were somehow found that Mueller is not referring to the same “particularly 30 percent ±5 percent by weight” in Polymer P1, 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 Mueller to include e.g. 60 to 70% by weight of ethylene and 30 to 40% by weight of vinyl acetate in the graft copolymer, in order to provide a specific amount of ethylene and vinyl acetate within the general conditions of “Here, too, ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymers having a vinyl acetate content between 20 percent and 45 percent by weight” disclosed by Mueller (thereby including:
“A) at least one graft copolymer A), wherein the graft copolymer A) is obtainable by grafting onto an ethylene-based copolymer having a weight-average molecular weight of 2,000 to 150,000 g/mol and consisting of 60 to 70% by weight of ethylene and 30 to 40% by weight of vinyl acetate, based on the total weight of the ethylene-based copolymer”).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Mueller discloses “The amount of polymer P1 or P2 in the emulsions of the invention is 10-70 percent, preferably 20-50 percent by weight. The amount of graft- or block- copolymer formula I is usually 1-30 percent, preferably 5-15 percent by weight” (Col. 7, lines 22-27) and provides Examples of, e.g. 108.3 g emulsifier AY2, 247 g EVA-copolymer, 193.3 g isodecanol, and 101.4 g of diethylene glycol = ~45.3 wt% isodecanol and diethylene glycol carrier medium (Col. 9, lines 4-6, Example 2). This clearly anticipates 5-15 wt% e.g. 10 wt% component A) graft copolymer, 20-50 wt% e.g. 35 wt% component B) ethylene-based copolymer, and the remainder carrier e.g. 55 wt% component C) carrier medium, which clearly anticipates:
(claim 2) wherein the dispersion comprises 5 to 20% by weight of component A), 10 to 40% by weight of component B) and 40 to 85% by weight of component C), based on the total weight of the dispersion; and further
(claim 3) wherein the dispersion comprises 5 to 15% by weight of component A), 20 to 40% by weight of component B) and 45 to 75% by weight of component C), based on the total weight of the dispersion.
Alternatively, even if it were somehow found that Mueller fails to anticipate these specific values per se, 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 Mueller to include e.g. 5-15 wt% component A), 20-40 wt% component B), and 45-75 wt% component C), in order to provide specific amounts of the graft copolymer, the polymer P1, and the carrier medium within the general conditions disclosed by Mueller.
Regarding claim 4, Mueller discloses “For this, a composition is satisfactory which concurrently comprises two sub-groups of monomers, for example, monomers of formula II and/or formula II-C” (Col. 5, lines 12-15), and if “or” refers to using just monomers of formula II, then this would provide 100 wt% of C8 to C26 alkyl (meth)acrylates and 0 wt% C1 to C5 alkyl (meth)acrylates, which clearly anticipates “wherein the alkyl (meth)acrylates al) comprises 0 to 20% by weight of C1 to C6 alkyl (meth)acrylates and 80 to 100% by weight of C7 to C30 alkyl (meth)acrylates, based on the total weight of alkyl (meth)acrylates a1).”
Alternatively, Mueller also teaches “In preparing the polymers, the monomers of formulas II and II-C in the block- or graft-segments Y in general stand in a weight ratio of 100:0 to 0:100” (Col. 5, lines 26-29).
Accordingly, even if it were somehow found that Mueller fails to anticipate these specific values per se, 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 Mueller to include e.g. 0-20 wt% monomers of formula II-C and 80-100 wt% monomers of formula II, in order to provide specific amounts of the monomers within the general conditions disclosed by Mueller.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Mueller discloses:
“Representative of monomers of formula II-C are, particularly, methyl acrylate, ethyl acrylate and -methacrylate, propyl acrylate and -methacrylate, and butyl acrylate and -methacrylate” (Col. 5, lines 23-26); and
“Among the functionalized monomers of formula III, those are preferred in which R3 is -OH, for example hydroxyethyl- and hydroxypropyl-acrylates and -methacrylates” (Col. 5, lines 35-38); these refer to the 2-hydroxyethyl and 2-hydroxypropyl moieties in particular based on the depicted structure in formula (III) in Col. 4.
Accordingly, Mueller clearly anticipates:
(claim 5) wherein the alkyl (meth)acrylates al) are selected from the list consisting of methyl (meth)acrylate, butyl (meth)acrylate, 2-ethylhexyl (meth)acrylate, decyl (meth)acrylate, isodecyl (meth)acrylate or a mixture thereof; and/or
(claim 6) wherein the hydroxy esters a2) are selected from the list consisting of 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate, 1-methyl-2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate, 2-hydroxypropyl methacrylate or a mixture thereof.
Regarding the remaining alternatives, although not required to anticipate or render obvious the claims, the Office observes that these appear to be obvious variants within the general conditions disclosed by Mueller in the general formulas in Col. 3 and 4.
Regarding claim 7, Mueller discloses “Thus, in preparation, the monomers of formula II or II-C stand in a weight ratio of 0:1 to 2:1, particularly about 3:1, to the monomers of formula III” (Col. 5, lines 31-34). A 3:1 ratio of monomers of formula II to monomers of formula III would be 75 wt% of the alkyl (meth)acrylates of formula (I) and 25 wt% of the hydroxy esters of formula (II), which clearly anticipates “wherein the monomers a) comprises from 60 to 99% by weight of monomers a1) and from 1 to 40% by weight of monomers a2), [preferably 65 to 85% by weight of monomers al) and from 15 to 35% by weight of monomers a2),] based on the total weight of monomers a).”
Alternatively, even if it were somehow found that Mueller fails to anticipate these specific values per se, 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 Mueller to include e.g. 60-99 wt% monomers a1) and 1-40 wt% monomers a2) (or more specifically 65-86 wt% monomers a1) and 15-35 wt% monomers a2)), in order to provide specific amounts of the monomers of formula II and monomers of formula III for the graft copolymer within the general conditions disclosed by Mueller.
Regarding claim 8, Mueller discloses “Conventionally, the segments A and Y in the graft- or block-copolymers of formula I are in a weight ratio 1:40 to 40:1, preferably 1:20 to 1:4” (Col. 4, lines 57-59), i.e. preferably a 4:1 to 20:1 ratio of Y to A. Thus, this provides a weight ratio of monomers a) grafted onto the ethylene-based copolymer in a range of 4:1 to 9:1, which anticipates “wherein in the graft copolymer A), the weight ratio of monomers a) grafted onto the ethylene-based copolymer is in a range from 1:1 to 9:1.”
Alternatively, even if it were somehow found that Mueller fails to anticipate these specific weight ratios per se, 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 Mueller to include e.g. a 1:1 to 9:1 weight ratio of monomers a) to ethylene-based copolymer, in order to provide specific amounts of the segments A and Y for the graft copolymer within the general conditions disclosed by Mueller.
The Office recognizes that, in the Specification, Applicant states “The EVA-based graft copolymers A) according to the invention are graft polymers. Preferably, the weight ratio of EVA graft base to the (meth)acrylate graft layer is in a range from 1:1 to 1:9, even more preferably 1:2 to 1:6. In other words, in the graft copolymer A), the weight ratio of monomers a) grafted onto the ethylene-based copolymer is in a range from 1:1 to 9:1, even more preferably 2:1 to 6:1” (p.5, line 39-p.6, line 2).
Regarding claim 9, Mueller discloses “The solvents employed according to the invention as the liquid carrier medium should be inert and in general unobjectionable, i.e. compatible with the intended use in oils. Carrier media which fulfill the aforementioned conditions include, for example, esters, higher alcohols, and polyvalent ether-alcohols. …. Among the group of higher alcohols are, for example, isodecanol and, among the polyvalent ether-alcohols, diethyleneglycol” (Col. 6, line 56-Col. 7, line 17) and provides Examples which use, e.g., 193.3 g isodecanol and 101.4 g of diethylene glycol = ~65.6 wt% isodecanol and ~34.4 wt% diethylene glycol carrier medium (Col. 9, lines 4-6, Example 2). Accordingly, Mueller anticipates “wherein the carrier medium C) is a mixture of isodecanol and diethylene glycol, [preferably a mixture of from 55 to 75% by weight of isodecanol and from 25 to 45% by weight of diethylene glycol, based on the total weight of the carrier medium C)].”
Although not required to anticipate the claim, even if it were somehow found that Mueller fails to provide these specific wt% per se, 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 Mueller to include e.g. 55-75 wt% isodecanol and 25-45 wt% diethylene glycol, in order to provide similar amounts of the isodecanol and diethylene glycol as carrier media within the general conditions disclosed by Mueller.
Regarding independent claim 11, Mueller discloses A process for preparing the dispersion as defined in claim 1 (e.g., Col. 7 and Col. 8-12 Examples), wherein the process comprises the following steps:
i) providing a graft copolymer A) (Col. 7, lines 27-30 “Advantageously, one proceeds by preparing a suitable amount of emulsifier solution containing the graft- or block-copolymer of formula I” and e.g., Col. 8-9 Example 2 “Preparation of Emulsifier AY2),
ii) providing an ethylene-based copolymer B) (Col. 7, lines 31-32 “emulsifying therein, at temperatures from 40°-15° C, polymers P1 and/or P2” and e.g., Col. 8-9 Example 2 “247 g of EVA-copolymer (28 percent VA, MF1 = 150)”), and
iii) mixing the graft copolymer A) with the ethylene-based copolymer B) in a carrier medium C) (Col. 7, lines 27-32 “preparing a suitable amount of emulsifier solution containing the graft- or block-copolymer of formula I in the carrier medium and then emulsifying therein, at temperatures from 40°-15° C., polymers P1 and/or P2” and e.g., Col. 8-9 Example 2 “108.3 g of emulsifier AY2, 247 g of EV A-copolymer (28 percent VA; MF1 = 150), 193.3 g of isodecanol, and 101.4 g of diethylene glycol are combined in a 1-liter Witt vessel equipped with an Inter-mig stirrer and are dispersed by stirring”).
Regarding independent claim 12, Mueller discloses A method for inhibiting wax deposition and reducing pour point, viscosity and yield stress of a crude oil by adding a dispersion as defined in claim 1 to the crude oil to form a crude oil composition (Col. 12, lines 13-22 “The changes in pour point or cold filter plugging point of various crude oils and middle distillate oils (e.g. a diesel fuel and a vacuum gas oil) using the emulsions of the Examples are reported in the following Table. … Method A: A sample of the crude oil or vacuum gas oil is warmed to 60° C. At this temperature, the concentrated polymer emulsion is added and stirred in”).
Regarding independent claim 14, Mueller discloses A crude oil composition comprising a dispersion as defined in claim 1 and a crude oil (Col. 12, lines 13-22 “The changes in pour point or cold filter plugging point of various crude oils and middle distillate oils (e.g. a diesel fuel and a vacuum gas oil) using the emulsions of the Examples are reported in the following Table. … Method A: A sample of the crude oil or vacuum gas oil is warmed to 60° C. At this temperature, the concentrated polymer emulsion is added and stirred in”), [preferably wherein the amount of dispersion is 0.001 to 1% by weight, relative to the total weight of the crude oil composition (Col. 13-14 Table “Amount of Polymer Additive (ppm) 500”; 500 ppm = 0.05 wt%)].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Mueller as in claim 1, and further in view of Potisek (2018/0002626).
Regarding claim 10, Mueller discloses, e.g., “The object of the present invention are liquid, highly concentrated emulsions of copolymers of ethylene with vinyl esters of C--C--carboxylic acids (EVA-copolymers) and/or poly(meth)acrylic acid esters, which emulsions remain capable of flow even at low temperatures. These represent suitable "packages" for the aforementioned polymers, since they remain capable of flow at low temperatures (e.g. temperatures down to -30° C) and can be added to the oils to be treated without further dilution” (Col. 2, lines 17-26).
However, Mueller fails to specify including additives in the pour point depression emulsion.
Nevertheless, including additives in pour point depression emulsions for their given purposes is rather well-known in the art. For example, Potisek teaches “The present invention relates to an aqueous pour point depressant dispersion composition comprising an ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer (EVA); a dispersing agent; a polyethoxylated nonionic surfactant, a low level of hydrocarbon solvent, water” (abstract) wherein “The pour point depressant dispersion compositions of the present invention may contain one or more additional additive or mixtures of additives (viii) typically found in such compositions, for example, biocides, colorants, anti-foaming agents, and the like” ([0049]) and “The pour point dispersant dispersion compositions of the present invention may be used alone or in combination with other additives including dewaxing auxiliaries, corrosion inhibitors, asphaltene inhibitors, scale inhibitors, antioxidants, lubricity additives, dehazers, conductivity improvers, cetane number improvers, sludge inhibitors, and the like” ([0069]).
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 Mueller to include typical pour point depression additives for their given purposes, such as “wherein the dispersion comprises further additives D) selected from scale inhibitors, corrosion inhibitors, oxygen scavengers, biocides, emulsion breakers, antifoam agents, drag reducing agents, hydrate inhibitors, paraffin dispersants, pour point depressants, asphaltene control agents, or a mixture thereof,” in order to provide additives “typically found in such compositions” for their given purposes i.e. inhibiting scale, inhibiting corrosion, killing biological components, removing foam, inhibiting asphaltene, etc.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Mueller as in claim 12, and further as evidenced by Feustel (2022/0315850).
Regarding claim 13, Mueller discloses in the Examples that “the pour point is determined according to DIN 51597 by placing in a bath at 0°C” (Col. 12, lines 24-25).
However, Mueller fails to specify reducing the pour point of the crude oil according to ASTM D5853.
Nevertheless, this is a typical and ordinary way of testing pour point reduction of a crude oil in the art. For example, Feustel teaches “a wax inhibitor composition” (abstract) and states in the Background that “The present invention provides wax inhibitors that allow for an improved handling at low temperatures, and for the use thereof as … pour point depressant” ([0001]) wherein “Since additives of this kind usually lower the pour point of the oil, they are also referred to as pour point depressants (PPDs). The pour point refers to the lowest temperature at which a sample of an oil still just flows in the course of cooling. The pour point of oils can be determined, for example, by means of DIN ISO 3016, ASTM D5853 or ASTM D97” ([0004]).
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 Mueller to include, alternatively, “wherein the method is used for reducing the pour point of a crude oil according to ASTM D5853,” in order to use an alternate, typical, and well-known standard for testing the pour point depression of a crude oil by Mueller’s pour point depressing emulsion.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
The reference to Castro (2014/0165457) similarly teaches “polymeric compositions as pour point depressants for crude oils, mineral oils or mineral oil products” which comprise ethylene-vinyl ester copolymer (abstract) and in which “additional wax dispersants can be added to the formulation. Wax dispersants stabilize paraffin crystals which have formed and prevent them from sedimenting” ([0083]). However, this reference does not appear necessary at this time.
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