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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 08/11/26. These drawings are not accepted.
The drawings are objected to because each of the graphs presented in Figures 1 and 2 is very faint; the text is still difficult to read and the different lines presented in the legend for each plot are still difficult to distinguish from one another. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3, 4 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta et al. (US 2019/0367799 – cited previously) in view of Olson (US 4,540,561 – cited previously) and Lillandt et al. (JP 2017519909 A – cited previously - all citations are to translation provided previously).
With respect to independent claim 1, Gupta et al. discloses a composition capable of scavenging of reducing hydrogen sulfide in a fluid ([0007]; ([0019]-[0020], i.e., by inclusion of the hydrogen sulfide scavenger therein), the composition comprising: a hydrogen sulfide scavenger present at a concentration of 0.1-10 vol% ([0019]-[0020]); and a dispersant ([0009]-[0012]).
Gupta et al. discloses various hydrogen sulfide scavengers, including chelating agents ([0018]). The reference, however, fails to disclose wherein the hydrogen sulfide scavenger comprises or consists of a lignosulfonate metal salt, wherein, further, the metal is a polyvalent metal cation. Olson teaches a hydrogen sulfide scavenger used for the removal of hydrogen sulfide from a fluid stream, wherein such comprises a polyvalent metal chelate of lignosulfonate in the form of iron (III) lignosulfonate (abstract). The iron reacts with the hydrogen sulfide so as to reduce/remove such from the fluid; iron (III) lignosulfonate is further suggested as being low cost (col. 1, l. 30-col. 2, l. 20).
Since Gupta et al. discloses wherein the hydrogen sulfide scavenger may include chelating agents and Olson teaches a polyvalent metal chelate lignosulfonate as a low cost hydrogen sulfide scavenger, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to try such a lignosulfonate as the hydrogen sulfide scavenger in the composition of Gupta et al. in order to yield the predictable result of reducing/removing hydrogen sulfide therewith.
Gupta et al. discloses wherein the hydrogen sulfide scavenger is present in the treatment fluid in an amount of about 0.1-10 volume percent ([0020]). Although silent to the associated weight percent thereof, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide for the hydrogen sulfide scavenger in the composition of Gupta et al., in view of Olson, in an amount within the range as claimed in order to remove metal sulfide deposits therewith since it has been held wherein generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[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) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.). See also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 wherein it was held "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." and In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) wherein claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (identifying "the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art."). Additionally, the Examiner notes, obviousness can be shown in a predictable art when a difference between the claimed ranges is virtually negligible absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality. In re Brandt, 886 F. 3d 1171, 1177, 126 USPQ2d 1079, 1082 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The instant specification fails to explicitly establish the instantly claimed weight percent for the hydrogen sulfide scavenger as critical, as further exemplified by the extensiveness of the range claimed therefor, and it is unclear if any unexpected results are achieved by providing for such in such amounts. Since the composition of Gupta et al. in view of Olson is capable of hydrogen sulfide in a fluid, it does not appear that such would be considered an unexpected result of providing for the hydrogen sulfide scavenger in the amounts presently claimed, and, as such, the determination of optimal weight percent thereof would be achievable through routine experimentation in the art.
Gupta et al. further discloses wherein the dispersants may be cationic, anionic, or non-ionic, and, further, provides several examples, including polymeric dispersants and surfactants ([0009]-[0012]). The reference, however, fails to sufficiently disclose, teach and/or suggest wherein the dispersant comprises or consists of microfibrillated cellulose as instantly claimed.
Lillandt et al. teaches microfibrillated cellulose as an additive used in oil and mining applications, wherein such can be used for surfactants, as well as as a dispersant to control the dispersion or suspension (p. 5, paragraph towards bottom beginning with “Microfibrillated cellulose produced”).
Since Gupta et al. discloses wherein the dispersant may be polymeric and/or a surfactant and Lillandt et al. suggests microfibrillated cellulose as an additive for oil and mining applications, wherein such can act as a surfactant/dispersant, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to try microfibrillated cellulose as the dispersant in the composition of Gupta et al. in order to yield the predictable result of controlling the dispersion of water insoluble particulates therewith so that they do not precipitate in the treatment fluids.
With respect to dependent claims 3 and 4, Gupta et al. discloses wherein the dispersant may be present in the treatment fluid in an amount of 0.5-25 vol% ([0018]). Although silent to the associated weight percent thereof, given the suggestion for the use of microfibrillated cellulose as the dispersant of Lillandt et al., it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide for the microfibrillated cellulose dispersant in the composition of Gupta et al. in view of Lillandt et al. in an amount within the range as claimed in order to effectively disperse water insoluble particulates so that they do not precipitate in the treatment fluids therewith ([0009]) since it has been held wherein generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[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) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.). See also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 wherein it was held "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." and In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) wherein claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (identifying "the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art."). Additionally, the Examiner notes, obviousness can be shown in a predictable art when a difference between the claimed ranges is virtually negligible absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality. In re Brandt, 886 F. 3d 1171, 1177, 126 USPQ2d 1079, 1082 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The instant specification fails to explicitly establish the instantly claimed weight percent for the dispersant as critical and it is unclear if any unexpected results are achieved by providing for such in such amounts. Since the composition of Gupta et al. in view of Lillandt et al. provides for the use of microfibrillated cellulose as a dispersant in composition capable of reducing sulfur-containing compounds in a fluid, it does not appear that such would be considered an unexpected result of using the dispersant in the amount presently claimed, and, as such, the determination of optimal weight percent thereof would be achievable through routine experimentation in the art.
With respect to independent claim 22, Gupta et al. discloses a composition capable of treating a wellbore, subterranean formation or reservoir (abstract), the composition comprising: a treatment fluid ([0007]); a hydrogen sulfide scavenger ([0019]-[0020]); and a dispersant ([0009]-[0012]).
Gupta et al. discloses various hydrogen sulfide scavengers, including chelating agents ([0018]). The reference, however, fails to disclose wherein the hydrogen sulfide scavenger comprises or consists of a lignosulfonate metal salt, wherein, further, the metal is a polyvalent metal cation. Olson teaches a hydrogen sulfide scavenger used for the removal of hydrogen sulfide from a fluid stream, wherein such comprises a polyvalent metal chelate of lignosulfonate in the form of iron (III) lignosulfonate (abstract). The iron reacts with the hydrogen sulfide so as to reduce/remove such from the fluid; iron (III) lignosulfonate is further suggested as being low cost (col. 1, l. 30-col. 2, l. 20).
Since Gupta et al. discloses wherein the hydrogen sulfide scavenger may include chelating agents and Olson teaches a polyvalent metal chelate lignosulfonate as a low cost hydrogen sulfide scavenger, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to try such a lignosulfonate as the hydrogen sulfide scavenger in the composition of Gupta et al. in order to yield the predictable result of reducing/removing hydrogen sulfide therewith.
Gupta et al. discloses wherein the hydrogen sulfide scavenger is present in the treatment fluid in an amount of about 0.1-10 volume percent ([0020]). Although silent to the associated weight percent thereof, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide for the hydrogen sulfide scavenger in the composition of Gupta et al., in view of Olson, in an amount within the range as claimed in order to remove metal sulfide deposits therewith since it has been held wherein generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[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) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.). See also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 wherein it was held "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." and In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) wherein claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (identifying "the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art."). Additionally, the Examiner notes, obviousness can be shown in a predictable art when a difference between the claimed ranges is virtually negligible absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality. In re Brandt, 886 F. 3d 1171, 1177, 126 USPQ2d 1079, 1082 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The instant specification fails to explicitly establish the instantly claimed weight percent for the hydrogen sulfide scavenger as critical, as further exemplified by the extensiveness of the range claimed therefor, and it is unclear if any unexpected results are achieved by providing for such in such amounts. Since the composition of Gupta et al. in view of Olson is capable of hydrogen sulfide in a fluid, it does not appear that such would be considered an unexpected result of providing for the hydrogen sulfide scavenger in the amounts presently claimed, and, as such, the determination of optimal weight percent thereof would be achievable through routine experimentation in the art.
Gupta et al. further discloses wherein the dispersants may be cationic, anionic, or non-ionic, and, further, provides several examples, including polymeric dispersants and surfactants ([0009]-[0012]). The reference, however, fails to sufficiently disclose, teach and/or suggest wherein the dispersant comprises or consists of microfibrillated cellulose as instantly claimed.
Lillandt et al. teaches microfibrillated cellulose as an additive used in oil and mining applications, wherein such can be used for surfactants, as well as as a dispersant to control the dispersion or suspension (p. 5, paragraph towards bottom beginning with “Microfibrillated cellulose produced”).
Since Gupta et al. discloses wherein the dispersant may be polymeric and/or a surfactant and Lillandt et al. suggests microfibrillated cellulose as an additive for oil and mining applications, wherein such can act as a surfactant/dispersant, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to try microfibrillated cellulose as the dispersant in the composition of Gupta et al. in order to yield the predictable result of controlling the dispersion of water insoluble particulates therewith so that they do not precipitate in the treatment fluids.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3, 4 and 22 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 5-7, 9 and 17 of copending Application No. 18/841845 (‘845 herein) (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the instant claims and those of ‘845 provide for a composition comprising MFC as a dispersant and a lignosulfonate, wherein such are further recited in ‘845 as present in amounts overlapping those instantly claimed. Since the instant claims are fully encompassed by those of ‘845, the instant composition would thus be obvious thereover and the instant application is therefore not patentably distinct from ‘845.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to the specification objections, as set forth in the previous office action, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The specification objections as set forth therein have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims as anticipated by, as well as obvious over Ovrebo, have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of Applicant’s amendments to claim 1, requiring both a polyvalent metal cation lignosulfonate metal salt and an amount thereof of 0.1-25 wt%. The rejections made with respect to Ovrebo have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments pertaining to the 35 USC 103 rejections of claims as set forth in the previous office action have been fully considered.
The Office acknowledges Applicant’s statements on page 11 of the remarks wherein the present application generally relates to an improved hydrogen sulfide-scavenging composition and Applicant’s assertion that such a combination provides unexpected superior results.
Applicant notes example 1 on pages 41-43 that show the absence of microfibrillated cellulose causes fluid mixtures to turn cloudy in appearance and further highlights several advantages recited in the specification and asserts the present application composition forms water-insoluble high valent metal-S species which are prevented from agglomeration as being dispersed by lignosulfonate anion and stabilized by the MFC dispersant. The examples are further suggested as describing the unexpected combination of HS-scavenging and dispersibility properties provided by the combination of features.
Whether unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980) (Claims were directed to a process for removing corrosion at "elevated temperatures" using a certain ion exchange resin (with the exception of claim 8 which recited a temperature in excess of 100°C). Appellant demonstrated unexpected results via comparative tests with the prior art ion exchange resin at 110°C and 130°C. The court affirmed the rejection of claims 1-7 and 9-10 because the term "elevated temperatures" encompassed temperatures as low as 60°C where the prior art ion exchange resin was known to perform well. The rejection of claim 8, directed to a temperature in excess of 100°C, was reversed.). See also In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329-31, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-85 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (data showing improved alloy strength with the addition of 2% rhenium did not evidence unexpected results for the entire claimed range of about 1-3% rhenium); In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 741, 218 USPQ 769, 777 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (Claims were directed to certain catalysts containing an alkali metal. Evidence presented to rebut an obviousness rejection compared catalysts containing sodium with the prior art. The court held this evidence insufficient to rebut the prima facie case because experiments limited to sodium were not commensurate in scope with the claims.). [AltContent: rect]
In the instant application, independent claims 1 and 22 recites wherein the composition comprises a hydrogen sulfide scavenger that comprises or consists of a polyvalent metal cation lignosulfonate salt and a dispersant that comprises or consists of microfibrillated cellulose. As such, the composition as claimed may indeed include additional components, in general, additional hydrogen sulfide scavengers and additional dispersants. Furthermore, the polyvalent metal cation that is a part of the lignosulfonate metal salt is not limited. The Examples of example 1 appear to rather highlight Applicant’s alleged unexpected results for compositions consisting of a hydrogen sulfide scavenger that consists of a polyvalent metal cation lignosulfonate and a dispersant that consists of microfibrillated cellulose.
Instant independent claims 1 and 22 further recite a polyvalent metal cation, without any further limiting thereof. The Examples of example 1 appear to highlight Applicant’s alleged unexpected results for specific polyvalent metal cations, i.e., zinc and iron. Do all polyvalent metal cations as are currently encompassed by each of independent claims 1 and 22 offer the same results?
Instant independent claims 1 and 22 further do not require a specific amount of the MFC dispersant, but rather, the mere inclusion thereof. Example 1 examples appear to suggest specific amounts thereof that achieve the instantly disclosed results. Since claims 1 and 22 can include any amount of the MFC dispersant, it is not clear if Applicant’s alleged unexpected results indeed are achieved for the entirety of the scope of the claims as presented.
With regard to the rejections of claims as unpatentable over Gupta in view of Lillandt, the Examiner notes, the grounds of rejection have been modified in view of Applicant’s amendments to each of independent claims 1 and 22.
Applicant asserts Gupta is silent about selected MFC as a dispersant and does not disclose the use of a lignosulfonate as the HS scavenger.
The Examiner acknowledges such in the rejection above, and maintains, in view of the teachings of Lillandt and Olson, such would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Applicant asserts Lillandt is not related to wellbore subterranean applications at all and the cited references do not teach or suggest the usefulness of the MFC in the oilfield industry as a dispersant in a hydrogen sulfide scavenging composition.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees; as noted in the rejection above, Lillandt et al. teaches microfibrillated cellulose as an additive used in oil and mining applications, wherein such can be used for surfactants, as well as as a dispersant to control the dispersion or suspension (p. 5, paragraph towards bottom beginning with “Microfibrillated cellulose produced”). Since Gupta et al. discloses wherein the dispersant may be polymeric and/or a surfactant and Lillandt et al. suggests microfibrillated cellulose as an additive for oil and mining applications, wherein such can act as a surfactant/dispersant, the Office maintains that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to try microfibrillated cellulose as the dispersant in the composition of Gupta et al. in order to yield the predictable result of controlling the dispersion of water insoluble particulates therewith so that they do not precipitate in the treatment fluids.
Applicant further notes the Office considers the use of a lignosulfonate as the HS scavenger as obvious in view of Olson and asserts while Olson may disclose the provision of a lignosulfonate component, the mechanism involved in Olson is different. Applicant asserts Olson further does not teach using a polyvalent metal cation lignosulfonate at a concentration as claimed. The Examiner maintains the combination of Gupta and Olson for at least the reasons set forth above. Furthermore, Gupta provides guidance for a suitable amount of scavenger in the composition, and, as such, the Office maintains the instantly claimed amount would at least be obvious thereover for at least the reasons of record.
Should Applicant consider the instant application to indeed be capable of achieving unexpected results, Applicant is invited to consider the comments above and further amendments to each of the independent claims to require the composition as including a hydrogen sulfide scavenger consisting of the specific polyvalent metal cations consistent with the examples set forth in Example 1 of the specification in combination with a dispersant consisting of a weight percent of MFC consistent with the examples of Example 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2024/0218273 discloses a composition for scavenging a sulfur compound comprising zinc lignosulfonate.
DD 224 862 A1 discloses compositions comprising polyvalent metal salt lignosulfonates for absorption of sulfidic compounds therein.
Heinonen discloses adsorption of hydrogen sulfide by modified cellulose nano/microcrystals.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Angela M DiTrani Leff whose telephone number is (571)272-2182. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9AM-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.
/Angela M DiTrani Leff/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674
ADL
09/30/26
Prosecution Insights