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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 04/02/2026, with respect to
Objection to the title
Objection to the specification
Rejection of claim 6 under 35 USC 112 (b) /2nd
have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections and rejection have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 04/02/2026 with respect to the rejection(s) of
Claims 1-3 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Kakadjian et al. (US 2009/0200033 A1) ,
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Huang (US 2014/0262297 A1) ("Huang" herein), and
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Zelenev et al. (US 2019/0100689 A1)
have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in set forth below.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
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.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Russum (US 2020/00131431 ) (“Russum” herein).
Claim 1
Russum discloses a method for recovering hydrocarbons, comprising: introducing a surfactant formulation to porous media, [0005-0009]
the surfactant formulation comprising a Surfactant A and a Surfactant
PNG
media_image1.png
126
198
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein:
each of R¹, R², and R³ of Surfactant A is methyl; R⁴ of Surfactant A is an alkyl group having 4 to 18 carbon atoms; X of Surfactant A is bromide or chloride; R⁵ of Surfactant B is an alkyl group having 6 to 15 carbon atoms; and n of Surfactant B is from 1 to 20; [0029, 00032, 0034] and recovering hydrocarbons from the porous media. [0007-0008]
Claim 2
Russum discloses the method of claim 1, wherein: R⁴ of Surfactant A is an alkyl group having 4 to 14 carbon atoms; R⁵ of Surfactant B is an alkyl group having 6 to 15 carbon atoms; and n of Surfactant B is from 1 to 20. [00032, 0034]
Claim 3
Russum discloses the method of claim 1, wherein: Surfactant A comprises trimethyloctylammonium bromide, trimethyloctylammonium chloride, dodecyltrimethylammonium bromide, dodecyltrimethylammonium chloride, cetyltrimethylammonium bromide, cetyltrimethylammonium chloride, trimethyloctadecylammonium bromide, or trimethyloctadecylammonium chloride;
R⁵ of Surfactant B is an alkyl group having 9 to 14 carbon atoms; and n of Surfactant B is from 8 to 18. [00032, 0034]
Claim 4
Russum discloses the method of claim 1, wherein a volume ratio of Surfactant B to Surfactant A in the surfactant formulation is from about 50:50 to about 99:1. [0029, 00032, 0034]
Claim 5
Russum discloses the method of claim 1, wherein a volume ratio of Surfactant B to Surfactant A in the surfactant formulation is from about 70:30 to about 99:1. [0029, 00032, 0034]
Claim 6
Russum discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the method is performed in a tight oil reservoir, in a conventional oil reservoir, in a hydraulically fractured tight oil reservoir, or on a tight porous media. [0008-0009, 0022, 0042-0043]
Claim 7
Russum discloses the method of claim 6, wherein the method is performed in the hydraulically fractured tight oil reservoir.[0008-0009, 0022, 0042-0043]
Claim 8.
Russum discloses the method of claim 7, wherein, prior to the introducing the surfactant formulation to the porous media, the method further comprises: creating fractures in rock formations in a tight oil reservoir; and propping the fractures open by administering a proppant to form the hydraulically fractured tight oil reservoir.[0008-0009, 0022, 0042-0043]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SILVANA C RUNYAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5415. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30.
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 571-272-4137. 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.
/SILVANA C RUNYAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674 05/18/2026
Prosecution Insights