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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 on01/21/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 01/21/2026, with respect to claim 18 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of the claim has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 01/21/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of Claims 1-5, 10-12, 14-18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Li (US 2009/0145607 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 11 recites the limitation “about”, a term that which exactitude is not claimed, but rather a contemplated variation. Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
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 1-5, 10-12, 14-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 2009/0145607 A') ("Li' herein- cited previously) and further in view of Eluru et al. (US 2019/0127629 A1) ("Eluru" herein).
Claims 1, 14, and 17
Li discloses a fracturing fluid, comprising:
a dual-polymer fluid operable as a base fluid for all stages of a hydraulic fracturing operation, including:
a polysaccharide polymer; and
a polyacrylamide polymer. [0007-0008, 0021-0022, 0024, 0031]
acid buffer. [0027]
0.06 wt. % - 1 wt.% of a temperature stabilizer based on total weight of the fracturing fluid;[0041, 0044] and
Li however does not explicitly disclose a temperature stabilizer selected from the group
consisting of an ethoxylated sugar alcohol derivative, ascorbic acid, or any
combination thereof.
Eluru teaches the limitation above. (See paragraphs 0067-0068 →Eluru teaches this limitation in that Any of the treatment fluids described herein may comprise a gel stabilizer to increase the viscous stability of the treatment fluids (e.g., increasing stability over certain temperature ranges). Examples of suitable gel stabilizers may include, but are not limited to, erythorbic acid, ascorbic acid, isoascorbic acid, alkali metal salts thereof, and any combination thereof. Alternatively or additionally, other gel stabilizers may include, but are not limited to, a sodium thiosulphate, an ascorbic acid, an isopropylhydroxylamine, a diethylhydroxylamine, a tert-butylhydroxylamine, a phenylhydroxylamine, a cyclohexylhydroxylamine, a benzyl-hydroxylamine, and any combination thereof.) for the purpose of increasing stability over certain temperature ranges. [0067]
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 Li, with the above limitation, as taught by Eluru, in order to increase stability over certain temperature ranges
Since Li teaches the same composition comprising a polysaccharide polymer and a polyacrylamide polymer, and acid buffer, and a temperature stabilizer, it would be a dual-polymer fluid operable for all stages of a hydraulic fracturing, an acid buffer, and having the dual-polymer fluid pH ranges from about 4 to about 6 or about 4.5 to about 5.5 or about 5.0.
"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 (EDNY 1934).
Or a different interpretation of Li in further view of Eluru
Claims 1, 14, and 17
Li discloses a fracturing fluid, comprising:
a dual-polymer fluid operable as a base fluid for all stages of a hydraulic fracturing operation, including:
a polysaccharide polymer; and
a polyacrylamide polymer. [0007-0008, 0021-0022, 0024, 0031]
acid buffer. [0027]
0.06 wt. % - 1 wt.% of a temperature stabilizer based on total weight of the fracturing fluid;[0041, 0044] and
Li however does not explicitly disclose a temperature stabilizer selected from the group
consisting of an ethoxylated sugar alcohol derivative, ascorbic acid, or any
combination thereof.
Eluru teaches the limitation above. (See paragraphs 0047-0049, 0067-0068 →Eluru teaches this limitation in that Temperature activated breakers activate by being heated by the subterranean zone in which they are placed, or by another external heat source.Examples of suitable hydrolysable esters include, but are not limited to, sorbitol, catechol, dimethyl glutarate and mixtures of dimethyl glutarate, dimethyl succinate, dimethyl adipate, and any combination thereof. (i.e. ethoxylated sugar alcohol derivative), The breaker additive may be encapsulated in an encapsulating material, such that the action of the breaker additive is delayed in the wellbore environment. When included, the breaker is present in the treatment fluids described herein in an amount to achieve a “broken” fluid at the breaking temperature as described above. Any of the treatment fluids described herein may comprise a gel stabilizer to increase the viscous stability of the treatment fluids (e.g., increasing stability over certain temperature ranges). Examples of suitable gel stabilizers may include, but are not limited to, erythorbic acid, ascorbic acid, isoascorbic acid, alkali metal salts thereof, and any combination thereof. Alternatively or additionally, other gel stabilizers may include, but are not limited to, a sodium thiosulphate, an ascorbic acid, an isopropylhydroxylamine, a diethylhydroxylamine, a tert-butylhydroxylamine, a phenylhydroxylamine, a cyclohexylhydroxylamine, a benzyl-hydroxylamine, and any combination thereof.) for the purpose of increasing stability over certain temperature ranges. [0067]
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 Li, with the above limitation, as taught by Eluru, in order to increase stability over certain temperature ranges
Since Li teaches the same composition comprising a polysaccharide polymer and a polyacrylamide polymer, and acid buffer, and a temperature stabilizer, it would be a dual-polymer fluid operable for all stages of a hydraulic fracturing, an acid buffer, and having the dual-polymer fluid pH ranges from about 4 to about 6 or about 4.5 to about 5.5 or about 5.0.
"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 (EDNY 1934).
Claim 2 .
Li discloses the fracturing fluid of claim 1, wherein the polysaccharide polymer is selected from the group consisting of a carboxymethyl hydroxypropyl guar (CMHPG), a hydroxyl propy! guar (HPG), a guar, a polysaccharide derivative wherein the derivative has six or more repeating units, a polysaccharide containing a side group capable of hydrogen bonding, and any combination thereof. [0008, 0021-0022]
Claim 3
Li discloses the fracturing fluid of claim 1, wherein the polyacrylamide polymer is a synthetic polymer. [0008, 0023-0024, 0035]
Claim 4
Li discloses the fracturing fluid of claim 3, wherein the synthetic polymer further comprises monomers including an acrylamide (AM), an acrylic acid (AA), and a 2- acrylamido-2- methylpropane sulfonic acid (AMPS). [0008, 0023-0024, 0035]
Claim 5
Li discloses the fracturing fluid of claim 1, wherein a ratio of polysaccharide polymer to polyacrylamide polymer is 1:1, 1:2 or 2:1. [0008, 0024]
Claim 10
Li discloses the fracturing fluid of claim 1, further comprising 0.05 vol. % - 1.0 vol. % surfactant. [0028]
Claim 11
Li discloses the fracturing fluid of claim 1, further wherein the temperature stabilizer is present at concentration of about 0.5-0.8 vol. % temperature stabilizer. [0041, 0044]
Claim 12
Li discloses the fracturing fluid of claim 11. Li however does not explicitly disclose wherein the temperature stabilizer is selected ethoxylated sugar alcohol derivative. (Same as claim 1)
Claim 15
Li discloses the fracturing fluid of claim 1, further comprising 0.01 vol. % - 2 vol. % metallic crosslinker. [0009, 0025]
Claim 16
Li discloses the fracturing fluid of claim 15, wherein the metallic crosslinker is selected from the group consisting of a zirconium lactate, a zirconium lactate and triethanolamine, a zirconium triethanolamine lactate, a zirconium lactate and propylene glycol, a titanium based crosslinker, a hafnium based crosslinker, an aluminum based crosslinker, and any combination thereof. [0009, 0025]
Claim 20
Li discloses the fracturing fluid of claim 1, wherein the polysaccharide polymer is present at about 0.05 wt. % to about 1 wt. %, based on total weight of the fracturing fluid. [0008]
Claims 1-5, 10-12, 14-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 2009/0145607 A') ("Li' herein- cited previously) and further in view of Crews et al. (US 2007/0299142 A1) (“Crews” herein).
Claims 1, 14, and 17
Li discloses a fracturing fluid, comprising:
a dual-polymer fluid operable as a base fluid for all stages of a hydraulic fracturing operation, including:
a polysaccharide polymer; and
a polyacrylamide polymer. [0007-0008, 0021-0022, 0024, 0031]
acid buffer. [0027]
0.06 wt. % - 1 wt.% of a temperature stabilizer based on total weight of the fracturing fluid;[0041, 0044] and
Li however does not explicitly disclose a temperature stabilizer selected from the group
consisting of an ethoxylated sugar alcohol derivative, ascorbic acid, or any
combination thereof.
Crews teaches the above limitation (See paragraph 0049 →Li teaches this limitation in that the composition may be modified to slow down or to increase the auto-oxidation of the unsaturated fatty acids. Addition of compounds that influence the rate of auto-oxidation is an important option for the methods and fluids herein, in particular for the lower temperatures to increase the auto-oxidation rate and at higher temperatures to slow down the auto-oxidation rate. Rate control compounds that may be used for slowing down rate of monoenoic and polyenoic acids may be antioxidants such as, but not limited to tocopherol (vitamin E), ascorbic acid (vitamin C), butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT) and other like preservatives, chelants (such as citric acid, phosphates, and EDTA), amino acids, proteins, sugar alcohols (e.g. mannitol, xylitol, lactitol, and sorbitol), salts (such as NaCl, MgCl.sub.2, CaCl.sub.2, NaBr and CaBr.sub.2), and the like.) for the purpose of having a portion of the fracturing fluid will not see or be exposed to the original reservoir temperature that a cooler temperature is selected that will represent what the fluid will probably see or contact. [0046]
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 Li, with the above limitation, as taught by Crews, in order to have a cooler temperature is selected that will represent what the fluid will probably see or contact.
Since Li discloses the same composition comprising a polysaccharide polymer and a polyacrylamide polymer, it would be a dual-polymer fluid operable for all stages of a hydraulic fracturing, an acid buffer, and having the dual-polymer fluid pH ranges from about 4 to about 6 or about 4.5 to about 5.5 or about 5.0.
"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 (EDNY 1934).
Claim 2 .
Li discloses the fracturing fluid of claim 1, wherein the polysaccharide polymer is selected from the group consisting of a carboxymethyl hydroxypropyl guar (CMHPG), a hydroxyl propy! guar (HPG), a guar, a polysaccharide derivative wherein the derivative has six or more repeating units, a polysaccharide containing a side group capable of hydrogen bonding, and any combination thereof. [0008, 0021-0022]
Claim 3
Li discloses the fracturing fluid of claim 1, wherein the polyacrylamide polymer is a synthetic polymer. [0008, 0023-0024, 0035]
Claim 4
Li discloses the fracturing fluid of claim 3, wherein the synthetic polymer further comprises monomers including an acrylamide (AM), an acrylic acid (AA), and a 2- acrylamido-2- methylpropane sulfonic acid (AMPS). [0008, 0023-0024, 0035]
Claim 5
Li discloses the fracturing fluid of claim 1, wherein a ratio of polysaccharide polymer to polyacrylamide polymer is 1:1, 1:2 or 2:1. [0008, 0024]
Claim 10
Li discloses the fracturing fluid of claim 1, further comprising 0.05 vol. % - 1.0 vol. % surfactant. [0028]
Claim 11
Li discloses the fracturing fluid of claim 1, further wherein the temperature stabilizer is present at concentration of about 0.5-0.8 vol. % temperature stabilizer. [0041, 0044]
Claim 12
Li discloses the fracturing fluid of claim 11. Li however does not explicitly disclose wherein the temperature stabilizer is selected ethoxylated sugar alcohol derivative. (Same as claim 1)
Claim 15
Li discloses the fracturing fluid of claim 1, further comprising 0.01 vol. % - 2 vol. % metallic crosslinker. [0009, 0025]
Claim 16
Li discloses the fracturing fluid of claim 15, wherein the metallic crosslinker is selected from the group consisting of a zirconium lactate, a zirconium lactate and triethanolamine, a zirconium triethanolamine lactate, a zirconium lactate and propylene glycol, a titanium based crosslinker, a hafnium based crosslinker, an aluminum based crosslinker, and any combination thereof. [0009, 0025]
Claim 20
Li discloses the fracturing fluid of claim 1, wherein the polysaccharide polymer is present at about 0.05 wt. % to about 1 wt. %, based on total weight of the fracturing fluid. [0008]
Claim 6 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li, Eluru, as applied to claims 1above, and further in view of Funkhouser et al. (US 2004/021 1568 A1) ("Funkhouser" herein- cited previously).
Claim 6
Li discloses the fracturing fluid of claim 4. Li however does not explicitly disclose, wherein the polyacrylamide polymer further comprises,
10 - 30 wt. % AMPS,
0.5 - 2.0 wt. % of AA, and
a remainder of the polyacrylamide comprises AM.
Funkhouser teaches the above limitation (See paragraph 0023 → Funkhouser teaches this limitation in that the "AMPS.RTM." is present in the terpolymer in an amount in the range of from about 15 weight % to about 80 weight %. The acrylamide is present therein in an amount in the range of from about 20 weight % to about 85 weight % and the acrylic acid or salts thereof are present in an amount in the range of from about 0 weight % to about 10 weight %.) for the purpose of having a terpolymer that is very rapidly cross-linked with metal ions which allow the aqueous solution of the terpolymer to be mixed with a metal ion cross-linker on-the-fly. [0024]
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 Li fracturing fluid with the above limitation, as taught by Funkhouser, in order to have a terpolymer that is very rapidly cross-linked with metal ions which allow the aqueous solution of the terpolymer to be mixed with a metal ion cross-linker on-the-fly.
Claims 7-9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li, and Eluru, as applied to claims 1 above.
Claim 7
Li discloses the claimed invention except for at least 0.1 vol. % clay stabilizer. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have the at least 0.1 vol. % clay stabilizer, since it has been held that [Were the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 8
Li discloses the fracturing fluid of claim 7, wherein the clay stabilizer is selected from the group consisting of a tetramethyl ammonium chloride (TMAC), a potassium chloride (KCI), a polymeric-based clay stabilizers, a salt-based clay stabilizer, and any combination thereof. [0035] .
Claim 9
Li discloses the fracturing fluid of claim 8, wherein the salt-based clay stabilizer is selected from the group consisting of an ammonium chloride, a sodium chloride and a choline chloride, and any combination thereof. [0035]
Claim 19
Li discloses the fracturing fluid of claim 7, wherein the clay stabilizer is tetramethyl ammonium chloride (TMAC). [0035]
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li, Eluru, as applied to claims 1 above, and in further view of Zhou et al. (US 2014/0332214 A1) ("Zhou" herein- cited previously).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li, Eluru, as applied to claims 1 above, and in further view of Reddy et al. (US 2014/0338907 A1) (“Reddy” herein)
Claim 18 .
Li disclose the fracturing fluid of claim 1. Li however does not explicitly disclose, wherein the acidic buffer is an acetic acid and odium acetate buffer.
Reddy teaches the above limitation (See paragraph 0054→ Reddy teaches this limitation in that Nonlimiting examples of chemical combinations which can be used as pH buffers include acetic acid/sodium acetate; sodium carbonate/sodium bicarbonate; and sodium dihydrogen phosphate/sodium monohydrogen phosphate) for the purpose of having the pH buffer comprising a combination of weak acids or weak bases, in combination with the corresponding salts to maintain the pH of a fluid in a desired range. [0054]
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 Li, with the above limitation, as taught by Reddy, in order to maintain the pH of a fluid in a desired range.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li, Eluru, as applied to claims 1 above, and in further view of Zhou et al. (US 2014/0332214 A1) ("Zhou" herein- cited previously).
Claim 21
Li discloses the fracturing fluid of claim 15. Li however does not explicitly disclose, wherein the metallic crosslinker comprises zirconium lactate and propylene glycol.
Zhou teaches the above limitation (See paragraph 0042→ Zho teaches this limitation in that In an embodiment, surface crosslinkers have multiple different functional groups such as polyols, polyamines, polyaminoalcohols, and alkylene carbonates. Ethylene glycol, diethylene glycol, triethylene glycol, polyethylene glycol, glycerol, polyglycerol, propylene glycol, diethanolamine, triethanolamine, polypropylene glycol, block copolymers of ethylene oxide and propylene oxide, sorbitan fatty acid esters, ethoxylated sorbitan fatty acid esters, trimethylolpropane, ethoxylated trimethylolpropane, pentaerythritol, ethoxylated pentaerythritol, polyvinyl alcohol, sorbitol, ethylene carbonate, and propylene carbonate can be used. Zirconium crosslinkers, e.g., zirconium lactates (e.g., sodium zirconium lactate), triethanolamines, 2,2'-iminodiethanol, or a combination thereof are used in certain embodiments.) for the purpose of controlling the amount of swelling (i.e., fluid absorption or volume expansion) of the SAP based on the degree of crosslinking in the SAP. [0040]
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 Li, with the above limitation as taught by Zhou, in order to control the amount of swelling (i.e., fluid absorption or volume expansion) of the SAP based on the degree of crosslinking in the SAP.
Claim 6 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li, Crews, as applied to claims 1above, and further in view of Funkhouser et al. (US 2004/021 1568 A1) ("Funkhouser" herein- cited previously).
Claim 6
Li discloses the fracturing fluid of claim 4. Li however does not explicitly disclose, wherein the polyacrylamide polymer further comprises,
10 - 30 wt. % AMPS,
0.5 - 2.0 wt. % of AA, and
a remainder of the polyacrylamide comprises AM.
Funkhouser teaches the above limitation (See paragraph 0023 → Funkhouser teaches this limitation in that the "AMPS.RTM." is present in the terpolymer in an amount in the range of from about 15 weight % to about 80 weight %. The acrylamide is present therein in an amount in the range of from about 20 weight % to about 85 weight % and the acrylic acid or salts thereof are present in an amount in the range of from about 0 weight % to about 10 weight %.) for the purpose of having a terpolymer that is very rapidly cross-linked with metal ions which allow the aqueous solution of the terpolymer to be mixed with a metal ion cross-linker on-the-fly. [0024]
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 Li fracturing fluid with the above limitation, as taught by Funkhouser, in order to have a terpolymer that is very rapidly cross-linked with metal ions which allow the aqueous solution of the terpolymer to be mixed with a metal ion cross-linker on-the-fly.
Claims 7-9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li, and Crews, as applied to claims 1 above.
Claim 7
Li discloses the claimed invention except for at least 0.1 vol. % clay stabilizer. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have the at least 0.1 vol. % clay stabilizer, since it has been held that [Were the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 8
Li discloses the fracturing fluid of claim 7, wherein the clay stabilizer is selected from the group consisting of a tetramethyl ammonium chloride (TMAC), a potassium chloride (KCI), a polymeric-based clay stabilizers, a salt-based clay stabilizer, and any combination thereof. [0035] .
Claim 9
Li discloses the fracturing fluid of claim 8, wherein the salt-based clay stabilizer is selected from the group consisting of an ammonium chloride, a sodium chloride and a choline chloride, and any combination thereof. [0035]
Claim 19
Li discloses the fracturing fluid of claim 7, wherein the clay stabilizer is tetramethyl ammonium chloride (TMAC). [0035]
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li, Crews, as applied to claims 1 above, and in further view of Reddy et al. (US 2014/0338907 A1) (“Reddy” herein)
Claim 18 .
Li disclose the fracturing fluid of claim 1. Li however does not explicitly disclose, wherein the acidic buffer is an acetic acid and odium acetate buffer.
Reddy teaches the above limitation (See paragraph 0054→ Reddy teaches this limitation in that Nonlimiting examples of chemical combinations which can be used as pH buffers include acetic acid/sodium acetate; sodium carbonate/sodium bicarbonate; and sodium dihydrogen phosphate/sodium monohydrogen phosphate) for the purpose of having the pH buffer comprising a combination of weak acids or weak bases, in combination with the corresponding salts to maintain the pH of a fluid in a desired range. [0054]
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 Li, with the above limitation, as taught by Reddy, in order to maintain the pH of a fluid in a desired range.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li, Crews, as applied to claims 1 above, and in further view of Zhou et al. (US 2014/0332214 A1) ("Zhou" herein- cited previously).
Claim 21
Li discloses the fracturing fluid of claim 15. Li however does not explicitly disclose, wherein the metallic crosslinker comprises zirconium lactate and propylene glycol.
Zhou teaches the above limitation (See paragraph 0042→ Zho teaches this limitation in that In an embodiment, surface crosslinkers have multiple different functional groups such as polyols, polyamines, polyaminoalcohols, and alkylene carbonates. Ethylene glycol, diethylene glycol, triethylene glycol, polyethylene glycol, glycerol, polyglycerol, propylene glycol, diethanolamine, triethanolamine, polypropylene glycol, block copolymers of ethylene oxide and propylene oxide, sorbitan fatty acid esters, ethoxylated sorbitan fatty acid esters, trimethylolpropane, ethoxylated trimethylolpropane, pentaerythritol, ethoxylated pentaerythritol, polyvinyl alcohol, sorbitol, ethylene carbonate, and propylene carbonate can be used. Zirconium crosslinkers, e.g., zirconium lactates (e.g., sodium zirconium lactate), triethanolamines, 2,2'-iminodiethanol, or a combination thereof are used in certain embodiments.) for the purpose of controlling the amount of swelling (i.e., fluid absorption or volume expansion) of the SAP based on the degree of crosslinking in the SAP. [0040]
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 Li, with the above limitation as taught by Zhou, in order to control the amount of swelling (i.e., fluid absorption or volume expansion) of the SAP based on the degree of crosslinking in the SAP.
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 03/18/2026