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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 25-44 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 25 and 37 recite “absorbed” to a matrix. The term should be replaced with - -adsorbed- - as supported by at least pars. [0068-0069] of the specification.
Claim 26 depends from a canceled claim 1. The claim should be amended to depend from claim 25 instead.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 25-44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHEN ET AL (US 8236734) alone, or in the alternative in view of CA’686 (CA 2758686).
With respect to claim 25, SHEN ET AL discloses a treatment fluid for time-released iron control in a well in a subterranean formation comprising water and a time-released form of a complexing agent or reducing agent, wherein the complexing agent or reducing agent is absorbed to a matrix and is released from the matrix over time and the agent forms a soluble product with iron ( see col. 2, line 65 – col. 3, line 51, and col. 3, line 62- col. 4, line 22).
However, SHEN ET AL fails to explicitly state the agent released “by diffusion” as claimed. SHEN ET AL does teach “the delivery method may consist of compressed pellets formed from a composite of well treatment agents in a matrix that may be used to slowly and continuously release the PAPEMP into a targeted area in a well” (see col. 3, lines 62-67). Such method can be considered obvious by diffusion as the agent is released from a compressed state to that of a freed state in a target area in the well. Therefore, it would be considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to release the agent by diffusion in order to treat the target area of the well.
With respect to claim 26, SHEN ET AL teaches the fluid of claim 25, wherein the matrix is a polymeric bead, a ceramic bead, a zeolite, of a polymeric blend (see col. 3, lines 62-67).
With respect to claim 27, SHEN ET AL fails to explicitly teach the fluid of claim 26, wherein the matrix is a polymerized styrene as claimed. However, CA’686 teaches a fluid treatment system and composition including a high iron stabilizers including polymerized styrene for the purpose of downhole iron control (see [0110-0112]). Therefore, it would be considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to have provided polymerized styrene as an alternate matrix in order to control iron in downhole applications.
With respect to claim 28, SHEN ET AL fails to explicitly teach the fluid of claim 25, wherein the time-released form of the complexing agent or reducing agent adhered to the matrix provides a varying time-release profile for the agent as claimed. However. It would be considered obvious by the teachings of col. 3, line 62 – col. 4, line 22, that such feature would be considered routine experimentation.
With respect to claim 29, SHEN ET AL fails to explicitly teach the fluid of claim 28, wherein the time-released form of the complexing agent or reducing agent adhered to the matrix comprises a first amount of the time-released agent to release at a first time and a second amount of the time-released agent to release at a second time as claimed. However. It would be considered obvious by the teachings of col. 3, line 62 – col. 4, line 22, that such feature would be considered routine experimentation.
With respect to claim 30, SHEN ET AL fails to explicitly teach the fluid of claim 28, wherein the time-released complexing agent or reducing agent provides a continuous timed release profile from a start time to an end time as claimed. However. It would be considered obvious by the teachings of col. 3, line 62 – col. 4, line 22, that such feature would be considered routine experimentation.
With respect to claim 31, SHEN ET AL teaches the fluid of claim 25, wherein the complexing agent is selected from the group consisting of formic acid, acetic acid, propionic acid, lactic acid, gluconic acid, glucoheptonicacid, oxalic acid, malonic acid, succinic acid, phosphonic acids, adipic acid, and mixtures thereof. See col. 5, lines 1-7, and Examples 1-2. With regard to the various treatment materials of the Markush group recited in the claim, the Examiner would like to note that the treatment materials of the Markush group are being considered as obvious variants, and, therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill to employ such alternative treatment materials in the fluid of SHEN ET AL, as based on the desired treatment to be applied therewith.
With respect to claim 32, SHEN ET AL teaches the fluid of claim 25, wherein the complexing agent is selected from the group consisting of citric acid, glycine, NTA (nitrilotriacetic acid), EDTA (ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid), PDTA (1,3-propylenediaminetetraacetic acid), HEDTA (hydroxyethylethylenediaminetriacetic acid), DTPA (diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid), HEIDA (hydroxyethyliminodiacetic acid), CDTA (cyclohexanediaminetetraacetic acid), DPAS (diphenylaminesulfonic acid), EDDHA (ethylenediaminedi(o-hydroxyphenylacetic) acid), HACA (hydroxyaminopolycarboxylic acid), oxalic acid, malonic acid, succinic acid, malic acid, maleic acid, tartronic acid, tartaric acid, glutaric acid, adipic acid, pimelic acid, suberic acid, azelaic acid, sebacic acid, phthalic acid, terephthalic acid, aconitic acid, carballylic acid, trimesic acid, isocitric acid, phosphonic acids, and mixtures thereof. See col. 5, lines 1-7, and Examples 1-2. With regard to the various treatment materials of the Markush group recited in the claim, the Examiner would like to note that the treatment materials of the Markush group are being considered as obvious variants, and, therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill to employ such alternative treatment materials in the fluid of SHEN ET AL, as based on the desired treatment to be applied therewith.
With respect to claim 33, SHEN ET AL teaches the fluid of claim 25, wherein the reducing agent is selected from the group consisting of erythorbic acid, ascorbic acid, hydroxylamine, and mixtures thereof (see Examples 1-2, ascorbic). With regard to the various treatment materials of the Markush group recited in the claim, the Examiner would like to note that the treatment materials of the Markush group are being considered as obvious variants, and, therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill to employ such alternative treatment materials in the fluid of SHEN ET AL, as based on the desired treatment to be applied therewith.
With respect to claim 34, SHEN ET AL fails to explicitly teach the fluid of claim 25, wherein the complexing or reducing agent is present in the fluid in an amount of about 0.1 pound per thousand gallons of the fluid to about 50 pounds per thousand gallons of the fluid as claimed. Although silent to the amounts as instantly claimed, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to provide for a material amount as claimed insofar as because it has been held "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
With respect to claim 35, SHEN ET AL teaches the fluid of claim 25, wherein the complexing agent is two or more selected from the group consisting of citric acid, formic acid, acetic acid, propionic acid, lactic acid, gluconic acid, glucoheptonic acid, oxalic acid, malonic acid, succinic acid, adipic acid, and phosphonic acids, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the time-released form of the agents are present in the treatment fluid in an amount of about 0.01 pound per thousand gallons of the fluid to about 50 pounds per thousand gallons of the fluid as claimed. See col. 5, lines 1-7, and Examples 1-2. With regard to the various treatment materials of the Markush group recited in the claim, the Examiner would like to note that the treatment materials of the Markush group are being considered as obvious variants, and, therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill to employ such alternative treatment materials in the fluid of SHEN ET AL, as based on the desired treatment to be applied therewith. Although silent to the amounts as instantly claimed, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to provide for a material amount as claimed insofar as because it has been held "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
With respect to claim 36, SHEN ET AL teaches the fluid of claim 35, wherein the complexing agents are citric acid and a complexing agent selected from formic acid, acetic acid, propionic acid, lactic acid, gluconicacid, glucoheptonic acid, oxalic acid, malonic acid, succinic acid, adipic acid, or phosphonic acids. See col. 5, lines 1-7, and Examples 1-2. With regard to the various treatment materials of the Markush group recited in the claim, the Examiner would like to note that the treatment materials of the Markush group are being considered as obvious variants, and, therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill to employ such alternative treatment materials in the fluid of SHEN ET AL, as based on the desired treatment to be applied therewith.
With respect to claim 37, SHEN ET AL discloses a method for controlling iron in a well in a subterranean formation comprising: providing a treatment fluid comprising water and a time-released form of a complexing agent or reducing agent, wherein the complexing agent or reducing agent is absorbed to a matrix and is released from the matrix over time and the agent forms a soluble product with iron; injecting the treatment fluid into the well of the formation until at least some of the treatment fluid contacts the formation and iron; and maintaining the treatment fluid in contact with iron within the formation, thereby allowing the agent to release and interact with iron to form a soluble product (see col. 2, line 65 – col. 3, line 51, and col. 3, line 62- col. 4, line 22).
However, SHEN ET AL fails to explicitly state the agent released “by diffusion” as claimed. SHEN ET AL does teach “the delivery method may consist of compressed pellets formed from a composite of well treatment agents in a matrix that may be used to slowly and continuously release the PAPEMP into a targeted area in a well” (see col. 3, lines 62-67). Such method can be considered obvious by diffusion as the agent is released from a compressed state to that of a freed state in a target area in the well. Therefore, it would be considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to release the agent by diffusion in order to treat the target area of the well.
With respect to claim 38, SHEN ET AL teaches the method of claim 37, wherein injecting the treatment fluid into the well is at a pressure greater than a fracture pressure of the formation or is at a pressure less than a fracture pressure of the formation (col. 3, lines 43-61).
With respect to claim 39, SHEN ET AL fails to explicitly teach the method of claim 37, wherein the subterranean formation is a subterranean shale formation as claimed. Although SHEN ET AL is silent as to shale formation, CA’686 teaches treating a shale formation when fracturing [0016]. Therefore, it would be considered obvious to one of ordinary skill I the art before the effective filing date of the present application to provide the treatment method in a shale formation in order treat unconventional formations.
With respect to claim 40, SHEN ET AL fails to explicitly teach the method of claim 37, wherein the time-released form of the complexing agent or reducing agent adhered to the matrix provides a varying time-release profile for the agent as claimed. However. It would be considered obvious by the teachings of col. 3, line 62 – col. 4, line 22, that such feature would be considered routine experimentation.
With respect to claim 41, SHEN ET AL fails to explicitly teach the method of claim 37, wherein the time-released form of the complexing agent or reducing agent adhered to the matrix comprises a first amount of the time-released agent to release at a first time and a second amount of the time-released agent to release at a second time as claimed. However. It would be considered obvious by the teachings of col. 3, line 62 – col. 4, line 22, that such feature would be considered routine experimentation.
With respect to claim 42, SHEN ET AL fails to explicitly teach the method of claim 37, wherein the time-released complexing agent or reducing agent provides a continuous timed release profile from a start time to an end time as claimed. However. It would be considered obvious by the teachings of col. 3, line 62 – col. 4, line 22, that such feature would be considered routine experimentation.
With respect to claim 43, SHEN ET AL teaches the method of claim 37, wherein the iron includes iron originating from pipe erosion (col. 1, lines 14-32).
With respect to claim 44, SHEN ET AL fails to explicitly teach the method of claim 37, wherein the time-released form of a complexing agent or reducing agent is released 10 minutes after injection to 1 month after injecting as claimed. However. It would be considered obvious by the teachings of col. 3, line 62 – col. 4, line 22 and Example 2, that such feature would be considered routine experimentation. Further, it has been held "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZAKIYA W BATES whose telephone number is (571)272-7039. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am - 5pm.
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 5712724137. 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.
/ZAKIYA W BATES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674 11/7/2025