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 .
Summary
This is the initial Office action based on application 18737723 filed 6/7/24.
Claims 1-13 are pending and have been fully considered.
Drawings
The Drawings filed on 6/7/24 are acknowledged and accepted by the examiner.
Specification
The Specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. MPEP § 608.01
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUN’213 ET AL. (CN113754213A; 12/7/2021) in view of PEAK (US 4699709), and SUN’526 ET AL. (CN114806526A; 7/29/2022) in their entirety. Hereby referred to as SUN’213, PEAK, and SUN’526.
Regarding claims 1-13:
SUN’213 discloses a pre-treatment liquid and its use, treatment of thick oil sludge (see paragraphs 6-49 of the specification), para [6] the present invention provides a pre-treatment liquid comprising an asphaltene dispersant and a non-polar solvent; the asphaltene dispersant (i.e., particle dispersant in this application) is one or several of p-dodecylbenzene sulfonic acid, p-dodecylphenol, and N, N-bis (hydroxyethyl) cocoamide. Para [7] Preferably, said non-pol(ir solvent is one or se,eral of n-hepume, n-dodecaue, kerosene, white oil, gas-to-gas oil, and diesel oil; para [10] also provides a method for treating thick oil sludge comprising the steps of: para [11] mixing the thick oil sludge and the pre-treatment liquid and performing a solid-liquid separation to obtain a pre-treated sludge; the pre-treatment liquor is the pre-treatment liquor of the preceding claim; para [12] thermochemical cleaning of the pretreated sludge with a cleaning agent; para [13] separating the thermochemically washed material.
PEAK discloses a method for removing solid fines in bitumen extraction from carbonaceous solids or carbonaceous liquids containing extractable bitumen and solid fines, said method comprising: (a) contacting the carbonaceous solids or carbonaceous liquids containing extractable bitumen with a solvent mixture having a solubility parameter between about 8.5 and about 10.5 to produce a bitumen-laden solvent mixture, wherein the solvent mixture comprises at least one solvent having a solubility parameter higher than the bitumen and at least one solvent having a solubility parameter lower than the bitumen; (b) separating sand from the bitumen laden solvent mixture; (c) treating the asphalt-laden solvent mixture to remove the lower solubility parameter solvent such that an asphaltene fraction of the asphalt precipitates from the remaining solvent to form a mixture comprising dissolved asphalt, undissolved asphaltene asphalt, solid fines, and solvent; (d) allowing the undissolved asphaltene asphalt to settle with at least a portion of the solid fines, agglomerate and settle with the undissolved asphaltene asphalt; (e) separating undissolved bitumen and solid fines; and (f) stripping remaining solvent from the dissolved :asphalt to produce a product asphalt. Wherein the higher solubility parameter solvent is selected from the group consisting of toluene, benzene, chlorobenzene, nitrobenzene, furan, dimethyl sulfide, carbon disulfide, clover, pyridine, ketones of carbon number 5 or less, alcohols of carbon number 4 or less, chlorinated compounds of carbon number 2 or less, and mixtures thereof. Wherein the lower solubility parameter solvent is selected from the group consisting of cyclopentane, cyclohexane, naphtha, kerosene, freon-11, freon-113, carbon number 3 to 12 paraffins and olefins and mixtures thereof. Wherein the carbonaceous solids comprise tar sands, diatomaceous earth, or solids containing heavy oil. It can be seen that PEAK teaches the use of organic solvents cyclopentane or cyclohexane and/or toluene to dissolve bitumen to enhance the oil removal effect of oil sands. Therefore, a person skilled in the art, in order to increase the oil removal effect, is easily conceivable on the basis of SUN’213 in combination with PEAK for increasing the oil removal effect using a complex of organic solvent cyclohexane and surfactant sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate. (see claims 1-6)
SUN’526 discloses a high temperature stable emulsion well bore cleaner and a method and application thereof, note: [41] the surfactant is a sodium fatty alcohol polyoxyethylene ether carboxylate (equivalent to particle dispersing agent in the present application), thereby lowering oil-water interfacial tension, facilitating solubilization of the oil phase by micelles, facilitating solubilization of colloidal asphaltenes in organic scales. [64] Polyether c,1rboxylate based negative nonionic surfactants promote dissolution of colloidal asphaltenes in heavy aromatic solvent (equivalent to toluene solvent in this application) S150. The use of fatty alcohol ethoxylates to prevent the solubilized colloidal asphaltenes from coalescing and precipitating again. coupled with the auto-oil action of the amphiphilic nanosheet mate1·ial. Further enhances the contact and dispersion action of chemicals with thick oils and organic deposits (see paragraphs 31-64 of the specification). SUN’526 teaches the use of organic solvents cyclopentane or cyclohexane and/or toluene to dissolve bitumen to increase the oil removal effect of oil sand. It can be seen that SUN’526 teaches using sodium fatty alcohol polyoxyethylene ether carboxylates in thick oils to reduce oil-water inte1facial tension and promote dissolution of colloidal asphaltenes in organic scales. Therefore, a person skilled in the art is readily conceivable on the basis of SUN’213 in order to increase the oil removal effect in combination with SUN’526 using sodium fatty alcohol polyoxyethylene ether carboxylates as particle dispersing agent. As to the further selection of the particle dispersing agent as the fatty alcohol ethoxylate carboxylic acid and/or the fatty alcohol polyoxypropylene ethoxylate carboxylic acid, this is within the ordinary skill in the art.
SUN’213 teaches in para [49] adding 5% by mass or asphaltene dispersant DBSA (p-dodecylbenzenesulfonic acid) to the non-polar solvent n-dodecane and stirring well to obtain a pretreatment liquid, taking 2 g each or sludge number 1-8 (see table 1 for sludge characteristics), then adding 6 g of pretreannent liquid separately and stirring at 600 r/min for 60 min at 25 ° C and left to separate for 3 min and then left to separate solid-liquid to obtain a solid phase; sodium fatty alcohol ether sulfate and sodium metasilicate pentahydrate were added in a mass ratio of I: I Mix, add three times water stiffing to get 5 wt.% washing agent, stir the solid phase and 6 g washing agent at 40 ° C at 400 r/min for 30 min, centrifuge the thermochemically washed oil containing sludge in a centrifuge at a centrifugation speed of 6000 r/min for 5 min to get oil, water and solid phase separation 10 get thick oil sludge after treatment (see paragraph 49).
Therefore, from the teachings of the references it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Furthermore, "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,416 (2007). "If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability." Id. at 417.
Further, the claimed changes in the sequence of performing steps is considered to be prima facie obvious because the time at which a particular step is performed is simply a matter of operator preference, especially since the same result is obtained regardless of when the step occurs. See Ex parte RUBIN, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959). See also In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results). With regard to any differences in the claimed conversion amounts, the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the process conditions in order to obtain the desired conversions. Additionally, it is well-established that merely selecting proportions and ranges is not patentable absent a showing of criticality. In re Becket, 33 USPQ 33 (CCPA 1937). In re Russel, 439 F.2d 1228, 169 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1971)
“Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical product, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Also see in re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 391, 137 USPQ 43, 51 (CCPA 1963) (“From the standpoint of patent law, a compound and all its properties are inseparable.”).
In conclusion, an intended result of a process being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims when the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art. Furthermore, it has been held that obviousness is not rebutted by merely recognizing additional advantages or latent properties present in the prior art process and composition. Further, the fact that applicant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd.Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected appropriate conditions, as guided by the prior art, in order to obtain the desired products. It is not seen where such selections would result in any new or unexpected results. Please see MPEP 2144.05, II: noting obviousness within prior art conditions or through routine experimentation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANTEL GRAHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5563. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH 9:00 am - 7:00 pm.
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, Prem Singh can be reached on 571-272-6381. 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.
/CHANTEL L GRAHAM/
Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/ELLEN M MCAVOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771