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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I (the method for processing sand) in the reply filed on 02/11/2026 is acknowledged. Claim 20 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention (Species II), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/11/2026.
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.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 2, the claim recites "wherein a period of time to perform the removing with the chemical additive present in the first mixture is less than a period of time to perform the removing for an otherwise similar mixture not having the chemical additive" (see Lines 1-3).
This limitation is indefinite because the phrase "an otherwise similar mixture" is relative which renders the claim indefinite. The term "similar" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 3 has the same issue.
Applicant may obviate this rejection by cancelling Claims 2 and 3.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leeson et al (U.S Pub 2002/0134550) (“Leeson”) in view of Yoon et al (U.S Patent 5,670,056) (“Yoon”).
Regarding Claim 1, Leeson discloses a method for processing sand (Abstract; [Wingdings font/0xE0] Leeson discloses processes for treating and/or processing frac sand), comprising:
combining a dirty sand and water (paragraphs [0007] and [0013] [Wingdings font/0xE0] Leeson discloses collecting and mixing frac sand after it has been used in a wellbore along with a carrier liquid) to form a first mixture (paragraphs [0007], [0015] and [0022] [Wingdings font/0xE0] Leeson discloses process for using an extracted slurry from a well comprising of a carrier liquid, frac sand and drilling mud). Although silent to wherein “the first mixture comprises water in a range of from 15wt% to 20wt% based on a total weight of the first mixture,” as instantly claimed, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide for a concentration of water as claimed insofar as because it has been held "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955);
removing a first portion of the water from the first mixture to form a second mixture (paragraphs [0007], [0015] and [0016]-[0017] [Wingdings font/0xE0] Leeson discloses process for using an extracted slurry from a well comprising a carrier liquid, frac sand and drilling mud and passing it through a washing facility to remove a portion of the water from the settled solids mixture). Although silent to wherein “the second mixture comprises water in a range of from 1wt% to 5wt% based on a total weight of the second mixture,” as instantly claimed, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide for a concentration of water as claimed insofar as because it has been held "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); and
heating the second mixture to remove a second portion of the water, forming a treated sand (paragraphs [0015] and [0019]; Page 6, [0059] [Wingdings font/0xE0] Leeson discloses a process of drying the wet solids comprising the sand by introducing heated hot air to dry the solids).
Leeson, however, fails to expressly disclose wherein the first mixture comprises a chemical additive, wherein the chemical additive is in a range of from 100 ppm to 3,000 ppm based on a total weight or a total volume of the first mixture.
Yoon teaches the methods above wherein the first mixture comprises a chemical additive, wherein the chemical additive is in a range of from 100 ppm to 3,000 ppm based on a total weight or a total volume of the first mixture (Abstract; Col 2, lines 21-41; Col 3, lines 11-18; Col 5, lines 7-18 and 32-67 [Wingdings font/0xE0] Yoon teaches chemical additives in the form of a hydrophobizing reagent such as polymers and surfactants) for the purpose of employing chemical treatment processes in order to dewater particles and remove water from the particle surfaces (Col 2, lines 21-27; Col 4, lines 26-35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Leeson to include a mixture comprising a chemical additive with a specific concentration, as taught by Yoon, because doing so would help to employ a chemical treatment process in order to dewater particles and remove water from the particle surfaces.
Regarding Claim 2, Leeson discloses the method of claim 1, wherein a period of time to perform the removing with the chemical additive present in the first mixture is less than a period of time to perform the removing for an otherwise similar mixture not having the chemical additive (paragraph [0007] and paragraph [0054] [Wingdings font/0xE0] Leeson discloses methods of introducing the slurry into a washing facility over a period of multiple times in order to dispose of the water).
Regarding Claim 3, Leeson in view of Yoon teach the method of claim 1, wherein an energy required to perform the heating with the chemical additive is less than an energy required to perform the heating with an otherwise similar mixture not having the chemical additive (Yoon: Col 1, lines 51-67; [Wingdings font/0xE0] Yoon teaches wherein a significant amount of energy is required in order to remove water).
Regarding Claim 4, Leeson discloses the method of claim 1, performed on a surface of Earth (Abstract; paragraphs [0014] and [0015] [Wingdings font/0xE0] Leeson discloses performing the processing of treating sand in a wellbore).
Regarding Claim 6, Leeson discloses the method of claim 4, wherein the surface of the Earth is located at a well site (Abstract; paragraphs [0014] and [0015] [Wingdings font/0xE0] Leeson discloses performing the processing of treating sand in a wellbore).
Regarding Claim 7, Leeson discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
sorting or sizing the treated sand into different particle sizes to obtain a proppant sand having a particle size in a range of 74 micron (200 mesh) to 841 micron (20/40 mesh) (paragraphs [0002], [0005] and [0055] [Wingdings font/0xE0] Leeson discloses methods wherein the sand has specific qualities with respect to size, hardness and/or strength).
Regarding Claim 8, Leeson discloses the method of claim 7, further comprising:
introducing the proppant sand to a fracture in a subterranean formation (paragraphs [0003] and [0004] and [0046] [Wingdings font/0xE0] Leeson discloses methods of introducing the mixture comprising frac sand and a carrier liquid into a well #32 and pressurized to open cracks and extend them downhole).
Regarding Claim 9, Leeson discloses the method of claim 8, wherein a conductivity of the proppant sand when in the fracture is greater than a conductivity of the dirty sand when in the fracture (paragraphs [0003] and [0004] and [0046] [Wingdings font/0xE0] Leeson discloses methods of introducing the mixture comprising frac sand and a carrier liquid into a well #32 and pressurized to open cracks and extend them downhole).
Regarding Claim 10, Leeson discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the chemical additive and the water are combined with the dirty sand simultaneously (paragraphs [0007], [0015] and [0022] [Wingdings font/0xE0] Leeson discloses process for using an extracted slurry from a well comprising of a carrier liquid, frac sand and drilling mud).
Regarding Claim 11, Leeson in view of Yoon teach the method of claim 1, wherein combining comprises:
combining the water and the dirty sand to form a first sub mixture (paragraphs [0007], [0015] and [0022] [Wingdings font/0xE0] Leeson discloses process for using an extracted slurry from a well comprising of a carrier liquid, frac sand and drilling mud); and
combining the chemical additive with the first sub mixture to form the first mixture (Yoon: Abstract; Col 2, lines 21-41; Col 3, lines 11-18; Col 5, lines 7-18 and 32-67 [Wingdings font/0xE0] Yoon teaches chemical additives in the form of a hydrophobizing reagent such as polymers and surfactants).
Regarding Claim 13, Leeson in view of Yoon teach the method of claim 1, wherein the first mixture contains the chemical additive in a range of from 100 ppm to 1,500 ppm based on a total weight or a total volume of the first mixture (Abstract; Col 2, lines 21-41; Col 3, lines 11-18; Col 5, lines 7-18 and 32-67; Col 6, lines 6-16 [Wingdings font/0xE0] Yoon teaches chemical additives in the form of a hydrophobizing reagent such as polymers and surfactants with specific concentration amounts).
Regarding Claim 14, Leeson in view of Yoon teach the method of claim 1, wherein the first mixture contains the chemical additive in a range of from 250 ppm to 1,000 ppm based on a total weight or a total volume of the first mixture (Abstract; Col 2, lines 21-41; Col 3, lines 11-18; Col 5, lines 7-18 and 32-67; Col 6, lines 6-16 [Wingdings font/0xE0] Yoon teaches chemical additives in the form of a hydrophobizing reagent such as polymers and surfactants with specific concentration amounts).
Regarding Claim 15, Leeson discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the dirty sand comprises sand and one or more of clay and fines (Abstract; paragraphs [0007], [0015] and [0022] [Wingdings font/0xE0] Leeson discloses process for using an extracted slurry from a well comprising of a carrier liquid, frac sand and drilling mud).
Regarding Claim 16, Leeson discloses a method comprising:
combining, on a well site (Abstract; paragraphs [0014] and [0015] [Wingdings font/0xE0] Leeson discloses performing the processing of treating sand in a wellbore), a dirty sand with water to form a proppant mixture (paragraphs [0007], [0015] and [0022] [Wingdings font/0xE0] Leeson discloses process for using an extracted slurry from a well comprising of a carrier liquid, frac sand and drilling mud); and
introducing, on the well site (Abstract; paragraphs [0014] and [0015] [Wingdings font/0xE0] Leeson discloses performing the processing of treating sand in a wellbore), the proppant mixture into a fracture of a subterranean formation via a wellbore (paragraphs [0003] and [0004] and [0046] [Wingdings font/0xE0] Leeson discloses methods of introducing the mixture comprising frac sand and a carrier liquid into a well #32 and pressurized to open cracks and extend them downhole).
Leeson, however, fails to expressly disclose wherein the proppant mixture comprises a chemical additive.
Yoon teaches the methods above wherein the proppant mixture comprises a chemical additive (Abstract; Col 2, lines 21-41; Col 3, lines 11-18; Col 5, lines 7-18 and 32-67 [Wingdings font/0xE0] Yoon teaches chemical additives in the form of a hydrophobizing reagent such as polymers and surfactants) for the purpose of employing chemical treatment processes in order to dewater particles and remove water from the particle surfaces (Col 2, lines 21-27; Col 4, lines 26-35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the proppant mixture of Leeson to include a chemical additive with a specific concentration, as taught by Yoon, because doing so would help to employ a chemical treatment process in order to dewater particles and remove water from the particle surfaces.
Regarding Claim 18, Leeson in view of Yoon teach the method of claim 16, wherein the chemical additive is present in a range of from 100 ppm to 3,000 ppm based on a total weight or a total volume of the proppant mixture (Abstract; Col 2, lines 21-41; Col 3, lines 11-18; Col 5, lines 7-18 and 32-67; Col 6, lines 6-16 [Wingdings font/0xE0] Yoon teaches chemical additives in the form of a hydrophobizing reagent such as polymers and surfactants with specific concentration amounts).
Regarding Claim 19, Leeson discloses the method of claim 16, wherein the dirty sand comprises sand and one or more of clay and fines (Abstract; paragraphs [0007], [0015] and [0022] [Wingdings font/0xE0] Leeson discloses process for using an extracted slurry from a well comprising of a carrier liquid, frac sand and drilling mud).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leeson et al (U.S Pub 2002/0134550) (“Leeson”) in view of Yoon et al (U.S Patent 5,670,056) (“Yoon”), and further in view of Bestaoui-Spurr et al (U.S Pub 2016/0024360) (“Bestaoui-Spurr”).
Regarding Claim 5, Leeson fails to disclose the method of claim 4, wherein the surface of the Earth is located at a sand mine location.
Bestaoui-Spurr teaches the methods above wherein the surface of the Earth is located at a sand mine location (Abstract; Fig 3; paragraphs [0010] and [0028]) for the purpose of washing the sand in order to remove the fine particles from the sand particulates (paragraph [0099]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Leeson to include methods of washing the sand at a sand mine location, as taught by Bestaoui-Spurr, because doing so would help to wash the sand and remove the fine particles from the sand particulates.
Claims 12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leeson et al (U.S Pub 2002/0134550) (“Leeson”) in view of Yoon et al (U.S Patent 5,670,056) (“Yoon”), and further in view of Li et al (U.S Patent 11,118,099) (“Li”).
Regarding Claim 12, Leeson in view of Yoon teach the method of claim 1, wherein the chemical additive comprises a polymer and/or a surfactant (Abstract; Col 2, lines 21-41; Col 3, lines 11-18; Col 5, lines 7-18 and 32-67 [Wingdings font/0xE0] Yoon teaches chemical additives in the form of a hydrophobizing reagent such as polymers and surfactants). Leeson in view of Yoon, however, fail to specifically disclose wherein the chemical additive comprises a positively charged polymeric amine-based compound, a positively charged oligomeric amine-based compound, a zwitterionic polymer, a zwitterionic oligomer, a zwitterionic surfactant, a cationic surfactant, or a combination thereof.
Li teaches the methods above wherein the chemical additive specifically comprises a positively charged polymeric amine-based compound, a positively charged oligomeric amine-based compound, a zwitterionic polymer, a zwitterionic oligomer, a zwitterionic surfactant, a cationic surfactant, or a combination thereof (Abstract; Col 2, lines 14-37; Col 23, lines 29-54 [Wingdings font/0xE0] Li teaches zwitterionic surfactants as well as cationic surfactants) for the purpose of providing a high molecular weight surfactant that aids in improving the recovery of oil from formations downhole (Abstract; Col 23, lines 29-34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Leeson in view of Yoon to include a chemical additive that specifically comprises a zwitterionic and/or a cationic surfactant, as taught by Li, because doing so would aid in improving the recovery of oil from formations downhole.
Regarding Claim 17, Leeson in view of Yoon teach the method of claim 16, wherein the chemical additive comprises a polymer and/or a surfactant (Abstract; Col 2, lines 21-41; Col 3, lines 11-18; Col 5, lines 7-18 and 32-67 [Wingdings font/0xE0] Yoon teaches chemical additives in the form of a hydrophobizing reagent such as polymers and surfactants). Lesson in view of Yoon, however, fail to specifically disclose wherein the chemical additive comprises a positively charged polymeric amine-based compound, a positively charged oligomeric amine-based compound, a zwitterionic polymer, a zwitterionic oligomer, a zwitterionic surfactant, a cationic surfactant, or a combination thereof.
Li teaches the methods above wherein the chemical additive specifically comprises a positively charged polymeric amine-based compound, a positively charged oligomeric amine-based compound, a zwitterionic polymer, a zwitterionic oligomer, a zwitterionic surfactant, a cationic surfactant, or a combination thereof (Abstract; Col 2, lines 14-37; Col 23, lines 29-54 [Wingdings font/0xE0] Li teaches zwitterionic surfactants as well as cationic surfactants) for the purpose of providing a high molecular weight surfactant that aids in improving the recovery of oil from formations downhole (Abstract; Col 23, lines 29-34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Leeson in view of Yoon to include a chemical additive that specifically comprises a zwitterionic and/or a cationic surfactant, as taught by Li, because doing so would aid in improving the recovery of oil from formations downhole.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Koester et al (U.S Patent 5,545,332) – discloses finely divided solids suspensions that are dewatered by adding to the solid suspension a mixed hydroxy ether additive (Abstract; Col 2, lines 22-44 and lines 56-67).
Preisser et al (U.S Patent 5,458,776) – discloses a centrifuge for dewatering a fluent aggregate material such as sand from a sand slurry (Abstract; Col 2, lines 5-27).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHISH K VARMA whose telephone number is (571)272-9565. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30-5:30pm, Telework Mondays and Fridays.
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.
/ASHISH K VARMA/Examiner, Art Unit 3674
/WILLIAM D HUTTON JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3674
Prosecution Insights