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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/16/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 12/16/2025, with respect to Claims 4, 5, 9, and 22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) / 2nd have been fully considered and are persuasive, therefore the rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 12/16/2025, with respect to Claims 1-3, and 22-25 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Mesek et al. (US 4,235,237 A) 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. It is unclear what would be the independent claim 14 dependency since claim 3 has been cancelled, making the claim indefinite. In order to examine the claim the Examiner is taking the position that clam 14 is dependent of claim 1.
All the claims dependent of claim 14 are also rejected.
.
.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 (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 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, 2, 4-18, 21, and 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mesek et al. (US 4,235,237 A) ("Mesek" herein- cited previously) and further in view of Miller (US 2015/0027710 A1) (“Miller” herein)..
Claim 1
Mesek discloses a synthetic polymer material comprising: (Col. 5 I. 39-45) a carboxymethyl cellulose; a polyacrylamide grafted to the carboxymethyl cellulose chains; and a crosslinking agent configured to create a 3D network structure of the synthetic polymer material. (Col. 41. 20-39, Col. 6 I. 4-7, Col. 81. 37+, Col. 9 I. 1-19)
the synthetic polymer material of claim 1, wherein the synthetic polymer material further includes n, n'-methylene bisacrylamide ("MBA"). (Col. 61. 4-7)
Mesek however does not explicitly disclose the n, n'-methylene bisacrylamide ("MBA") is 1% to 10 % weight of the polyacrylamide fraction of the synthetic polymer material.
Miller teaches the above limitation (See paragraphs 0012, 0094, 0099, 0110, & → Miller teaches this limitation in that FIG. 2 inset b illustrates a polyacrylamide gel, the polymer chains form covalent crosslinks. FIG. 2 inset c illustrates an alginate-polyacrylamide gel, wherein the two types of polymer network are intertwined, and joined by covalent crosslinks between amine groups on polyacrylamide chains and carboxyl groups on alginate chains, in accordance with various embodiments. In some embodiments, the hydrogel can be hydrogel particles having any suitable size, such as any suitable average size (as determined by any suitable method), such as a size of about 0.001 mm to about 1000 mm. The poly(alkenylamide)-polysaccharide hydrogel can include a reaction product of the poly(alkenylamide) and the polysaccharide and additionally a methylene bisalkenylamide crosslinker, wherein the bisalkenylamide crosslinker is present in any suitable amount, such as about 0.000,1 wt % to about 10 wt % of the poly(alkenylamide). In some embodiments, the poly(alkenylamide) can be a poly(acrylamide).) for the purpose of plugging a flow pathway in a subterranean formation. [0002]
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Mesek, with the above limitation, as taught by Miller, in order to plug a flow pathway in a subterranean formation.
Claim 2
Mesek discloses the synthetic polymer material of claim 1, wherein the synthetic polymer material is a preformed particle gel ("PPG"). (Col. 51. 39-45)
Claim 4
Mesek discloses the synthetic polymer material of claim1. Mesek however does not explicitly disclose wherein MBA is 1% of the weight of the polyacrylamide fraction of the synthetic polymer material. (Same as claim 1)
Claim 5
Mesek discloses the synthetic polymer material of claim 4, wherein
dry particles material of the synthetic polymer material have an average diameter between 375µm to 879 µm. (Same as claim 4)
Claim 6-8
Since Mesek teaches the same composition comprising a carboxymethyl cellulose, a polyacrylamide grafted to carboxymethyl chains and a crosslinking agent such as a bisacrylamide at 1 % weight the polymeric material, it would have a storage modulus of the synthetic polymer material between 1300 Pa to 3030 Pa, a swelling range between 15 g/g to 20 g/g, and a strength between approximately 250 Pa to 1000 Pa.
"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 structure, the properties applicant discloses and /or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP 2112.01 (I), In re Best, 562 F2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433, Titanium Metals Corp V Banner, 778 F2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed Cir 1985) , In re Ludtke, 441 F2d 660, 169 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1971) and Northam Wareen Corp V DF Newtield Co, 7 F Supp 773, 22 USPQ 313 (EDNY1934).
Claim 9
Mesek discloses the synthetic polymer material of claim 1, wherein MBA is 5% of the weight of the polyacrylamide fraction of the synthetic polymer material. (Same as claim 1)
Claim 10
Mesek discloses the synthetic polymer material of claim 9. Mesek however does not
explicitly disclose, wherein dry particles of the synthetic polymer material have a
diameter between 100 µm to 1180 µm. (Same as claim 9)
Claim 11 - 13
Since Mesek teaches the same composition comprising a carboxymethyl cellulose, a
polyacrylamide grafted to carboxymethyl chains and a crosslinking agent such as a
bisacrylamide, a bisacrylamide at 5% weight the polymeric material, have it would
have a storage modulus of the synthetic polymer material is between 4000 Pa to 6000
Pa., swelling range between 15 g/g to 30 g/g, and a strength between approximately
1300 Pa to 6000 Pa.
"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 structure, the properties applicant discloses
and /or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP 2112.01 (I), In re Best, 562 F2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433, Titanium Metals Corp V Banner, 778 F2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed Cir 1985) , In re Ludtke, 441 F2d 660, 169 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1971) and Northam Wareen Corp V DF Newtield Co, 7 F Supp 773, 22 USPQ 313 (EDNY1934).
Claim 14
Mesek discloses the synthetic polymer material of claim 3, wherein MBA is 10% of the weight of the polyacrylamide fraction of the synthetic polymer material. (Same as claim 1)
Claim 15
Mesek discloses the synthetic polymer material of claim 14. Mesek however does not explicitly disclose, wherein dry particles of the synthetic polymer material have a diameter between 100 µm to 1180 µm. (Same as claim 8)
Claim 16-18
Since Mesek teaches the same composition comprising a carboxymethyl cellulose, a polyacrylamide grafted to carboxymethyl chains and a crosslinking agent such as a bisacrylamide, as a bisacrylamide at 10 % weight the polymeric material, it would have a storage modulus of the synthetic polymer material is between 5000 Pa to 10000 Pa, a swelling range between 5 g/g to 15 g/g, and a strength between 5000 Pa to 9000 Pa.
"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 structure, the properties applicant discloses and /or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP 2112.01 (I), In re Best, 562 F2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433, Titanium Metals Corp V Banner, 778 F2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed Cir 1985) , In re Ludtke, 441 F2d 660, 169 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1971) and Northam Wareen Corp V DF Newtield Co, 7 F Supp 773, 22 USPQ 313 (EDNY1934).
Claim 21
Mesek discloses the synthetic polymer material of claim 1,; and the crosslinking agent to crosslink the carboxymethyl cellulose grafted polyacrylamide. (Col. 41. 20-39, Col. 6 I. 4-7, Col. 81. 37+, Col. 9 I. 1-19) Mesek however does not explicitly disclose wherein the synthetic polymer material consists essentially of: the carboxymethyl cellulose linked with polyacrylamide polymer by covalent bond. (Same as claim 1)
Claim 23-25
Since Mesek discloses the same composition comprising a carboxymethyl cellulose, a polyacrylamide grafted to carboxymethyl chains and a crosslinking agent such as a bisacrylamide, it would be a synthetic polymer material unaffected by changing salinity, exposing the synthetic polymer material to a temperature increase of 25 °C to 50 °C results in an increase of a strength of the synthetic polymer material, and to a pH increase of 2 to 7.0 results in an increase in swelling of the synthetic polymer material.
"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 structure, the properties applicant discloses and /or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP 2112.01 (I), In re Best, 562 F2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433, Titanium Metals Corp V Banner, 778 F2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed Cir 1985) , In re Ludtke, 441 F2d 660, 169 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1971) and Northam Wareen Corp V DF Newtield Co, 7 F Supp 773, 22 USPQ 313 (EDNY1934).
Claim 26
Mesek discloses the synthetic polymer material of claim 1, wherein MBA is 1% to 5% the weight of the polyacrylamide fraction of the synthetic polymer material. (Same as claim 1)
Claims 1, 2, 4-18, 21, and 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meher et al. (US 2018/0326840 A1) (“Meher” herein) and further in view of Miller (US 2015/0027710 A1) (“Miller” herein)..
Claim 1
Meher discloses a synthetic polymer material comprising:
a carboxymethyl cellulose; a polyacrylamide grafted to the carboxymethyl cellulose chains; and a crosslinking agent configured to create a 3D network structure of the synthetic polymer material, the synthetic polymer material, wherein the synthetic polymer material further includes n, n'-methylene bisacrylamide ("MBA"). [0014-0019, 0029]
Mesek however does not explicitly disclose the n, n'-methylene bisacrylamide ("MBA") is 1% to 10 % weight of the polyacrylamide fraction of the synthetic polymer material.
Miller teaches the above limitation (See paragraphs 0012, 0094, 0099, 0110, & →Miller teaches this limitation in that FIG. 2 inset b illustrates a polyacrylamide gel, the polymer chains form covalent crosslinks. FIG. 2 inset c illustrates an alginate-polyacrylamide gel, wherein the two types of polymer network are intertwined, and joined by covalent crosslinks between amine groups on polyacrylamide chains and carboxyl groups on alginate chains, in accordance with various embodiments. In some embodiments, the hydrogel can be hydrogel particles having any suitable size, such as any suitable average size (as determined by any suitable method), such as a size of about 0.001 mm to about 1000 mm. The poly(alkenylamide)-polysaccharide hydrogel can include a reaction product of the poly(alkenylamide) and the polysaccharide and additionally a methylene bisalkenylamide crosslinker, wherein the bisalkenylamide crosslinker is present in any suitable amount, such as about 0.000,1 wt % to about 10 wt % of the poly(alkenylamide). In some embodiments, the poly(alkenylamide) can be a poly(acrylamide).) for the purpose of plugging a flow pathway in a subterranean formation. [0002]
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Mesek, with the above limitation, as taught by Miller, in order to plug a flow pathway in a subterranean formation.
Since Meher teaches the same composition comprising a carboxymethyl cellulose, a polyacrylamide grafted to carboxymethyl chains and a crosslinking agent such as a bisacrylamide at 1 % weight the polymeric material, it would have the crosslinking agent configured to create a 3D network structure of the synthetic polymer material
"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 structure, the properties applicant discloses and /or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP 2112.01 (I), In re Best, 562 F2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433, Titanium Metals Corp V Banner, 778 F2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed Cir 1985) , In re Ludtke, 441 F2d 660, 169 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1971) and Northam Wareen Corp V DF Newtield Co, 7 F Supp 773, 22 USPQ 313 (EDNY1934).
Claim 2
Meher discloses the synthetic polymer material of claim 1, wherein the synthetic polymer material is a preformed particle gel ("PPG"). [0014-0019, 0029]
Claim 4
Meher discloses the synthetic polymer material of claim1. Mesek however does not explicitly disclose wherein MBA is 1% of the weight of the polyacrylamide fraction of the synthetic polymer material. (Same as claim 1)
Claim 5
Meher discloses the synthetic polymer material of claim 4, wherein
dry particles material of the synthetic polymer material have an average diameter between 375µm to 879 µm. [0011]
Claim 6-8
Since Meher teaches the same composition comprising a carboxymethyl cellulose, a polyacrylamide grafted to carboxymethyl chains and a crosslinking agent such as a bisacrylamide at 1 % weight the polymeric material, it would have a storage modulus of the synthetic polymer material between 1300 Pa to 3030 Pa, a swelling range between 15 g/g to 20 g/g, and a strength between approximately 250 Pa to 1000 Pa.
"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 structure, the properties applicant discloses and /or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP 2112.01 (I), In re Best, 562 F2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433, Titanium Metals Corp V Banner, 778 F2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed Cir 1985) , In re Ludtke, 441 F2d 660, 169 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1971) and Northam Wareen Corp V DF Newtield Co, 7 F Supp 773, 22 USPQ 313 (EDNY1934).
Claim 9
Meher discloses the synthetic polymer material of claim 1, wherein MBA is 5% of the weight of the polyacrylamide fraction of the synthetic polymer material. (Same as claim 1)
Claim 10
Meher discloses the synthetic polymer material of claim 9 wherein dry particles of the synthetic polymer material have a diameter between 100 µm to 1180 µm. [0011]
Claim 11 - 13
Since Meher discloses the same composition comprising a carboxymethyl cellulose, a
polyacrylamide grafted to carboxymethyl chains and a crosslinking agent such as a
bisacrylamide, a bisacrylamide at 5% weight the polymeric material, have it would
have a storage modulus of the synthetic polymer material is between 4000 Pa to 6000
Pa., swelling range between 15 g/g to 30 g/g, and a strength between approximately
1300 Pa to 6000 Pa.
"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 structure, the properties applicant discloses
and /or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP 2112.01 (I), In re Best, 562 F2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433, Titanium Metals Corp V Banner, 778 F2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed Cir 1985) , In re Ludtke, 441 F2d 660, 169 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1971) and Northam Wareen Corp V DF Newtield Co, 7 F Supp 773, 22 USPQ 313 (EDNY1934).
Claim 14
Meher discloses the synthetic polymer material of claim 3, wherein MBA is 10% of the weight of the polyacrylamide fraction of the synthetic polymer material. (Same as claim 1)
Claim 15
Meher discloses the synthetic polymer material of claim 14, wherein dry particles of the synthetic polymer material have a diameter between 100 µm to 1180 µm. [0011]
Claim 16-18
Since Meher teaches the same composition comprising a carboxymethyl cellulose, a polyacrylamide grafted to carboxymethyl chains and a crosslinking agent such as a bisacrylamide, as a bisacrylamide at 10 % weight the polymeric material, it would have a storage modulus of the synthetic polymer material is between 5000 Pa to 10000 Pa, a swelling range between 5 g/g to 15 g/g, and a strength between 5000 Pa to 9000 Pa.
"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 structure, the properties applicant discloses and /or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP 2112.01 (I), In re Best, 562 F2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433, Titanium Metals Corp V Banner, 778 F2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed Cir 1985) , In re Ludtke, 441 F2d 660, 169 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1971) and Northam Wareen Corp V DF Newtield Co, 7 F Supp 773, 22 USPQ 313 (EDNY1934).
Claim 21
Meher discloses the synthetic polymer material of claim 1, and the crosslinking agent to crosslink the carboxymethyl cellulose grafted polyacrylamide. [0014-0019] Meher however does not explicitly disclose wherein the synthetic polymer material consists essentially of: the carboxymethyl cellulose linked with polyacrylamide polymer by covalent bond. (Same as claim 1)
Claim 23-25
Since Meher discloses the same composition comprising a carboxymethyl cellulose, a polyacrylamide grafted to carboxymethyl chains and a crosslinking agent such as a bisacrylamide, it would be a synthetic polymer material unaffected by changing salinity, exposing the synthetic polymer material to a temperature increase of 25 °C to 50 °C results in an increase of a strength of the synthetic polymer material, and to a pH increase of 2 to 7.0 results in an increase in swelling of the synthetic polymer material.
"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 structure, the properties applicant discloses and /or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP 2112.01 (I), In re Best, 562 F2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433, Titanium Metals Corp V Banner, 778 F2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed Cir 1985) , In re Ludtke, 441 F2d 660, 169 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1971) and Northam Wareen Corp V DF Newtield Co, 7 F Supp 773, 22 USPQ 313 (EDNY1934).
Claim 26
Meher discloses the synthetic polymer material of claim 1, wherein MBA is 1% to 5% the weight of the polyacrylamide fraction of the synthetic polymer material. (Same as claim 1)
Claims19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Mesek, Miller, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of McDonald et al. (US
4,182,417 A) "(McDonald" herein- cited previously)
Claims 19-20
Mesek discloses the polymer material of claim 1. Mesek however does not explicitly
disclose wherein the synthetic polymer material has irregular angular granules with microporous structures and wherein the microporous structures include pores of differing sizes
McDonald teaches the above limitation (See col. 6, I. 53+→ McDonald teaches this limitation in that while the particle size of the microgel is not particularly critical, it is found that the microgels are most advantageously employed in porous structures that are generally free of large fractures or vugs that are more than 10 times the diameter of the swollen microgel and preferably is free of vugs that are about 5 times or more in size than the diameter of the swollen microgel. In the most preferred embodiments, it is desirable to employ microgels having diameters that are from about one-third to about the same size as the average pore size of the porous subterranean formation. In selecting a microgel, it should be understood that it is the particle size that the microgel will possess in the porous subterranean structure to be treated that is significant.
Accordingly, the gel capacity of the microgel, i.e., its ability to absorb the aqueous medium native to the subterranean formation to be modified, is a significant factor in determining which microgels will most beneficially control the permeability of a particular subterranean structure.) for the purpose of employing microgels having water-swollen diameters that are from about one-third to about the same size as the average pore size of the formation being treated. (Col. 11 I- 20-24)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mesek, with the above limitation, as taught by McDonald, in order to employ microgels having water- swollen diameters that are from about one-third to about the same size as the average pore size
of the formation being treated.
Claims19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Meher, Miller, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of McDonald et al. (US
4,182,417 A) "(McDonald" herein- cited previously)
Claims 19-20
Meher discloses the polymer material of claim 1. Meher however does not explicitly
disclose wherein the synthetic polymer material has irregular angular granules with microporous structures and wherein the microporous structures include pores of differing sizes
McDonald teaches the above limitation (See col. 6, I. 53+→ McDonald teaches this limitation in that while the particle size of the microgel is not particularly critical, it is found that the microgels are most advantageously employed in porous structures that are generally free of large fractures or vugs that are more than 10 times the diameter of the swollen microgel and preferably is free of vugs that are about 5 times or more in size than the diameter of the swollen microgel. In the most preferred embodiments, it is desirable to employ microgels having diameters that are from about one-third to about the same size as the average pore size of the porous subterranean formation. In selecting a microgel, it should be understood that it is the particle size that the microgel will possess in the porous subterranean structure to be treated that is significant.
Accordingly, the gel capacity of the microgel, i.e., its ability to absorb the aqueous medium native to the subterranean formation to be modified, is a significant factor in determining which microgels will most beneficially control the permeability of a particular subterranean structure.) for the purpose of employing microgels having water-swollen diameters that are from about one-third to about the same size as the average pore size of the formation being treated. (Col. 11 I- 20-24)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Meher, with the above limitation, as taught by McDonald, in order to employ microgels having water- swollen diameters that are from about one-third to about the same size as the average pore size
of the formation being treated.
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 02/13/2026