DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Status of Application
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-18 & 20 have been examined in this application. This communication is a Non-Final Rejection in response to the Application filed on March 18, 2025 and the Response to Restriction filed on July 29, 2026. Claim 19 stands withdrawn.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed July 29, 2026 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but not all the information referred to therein has been considered. The copy of a document filed 07/29/2026 as Non-Patent Literature is blank with an error message.
Election/Restrictions
Applicants’ election without traverse of Group I & Species IV in the reply filed on Jul 29, 2026 is acknowledged.
Upon further consideration, the restriction requirement between Species I, II, III & IV, as set forth in the Office action mailed June 1, 2026, is withdrawn. As such, Claim 20 has been examined. In view of the withdrawal of this restriction requirement, applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Once a restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Claim 19 stands withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-18 & 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “liquid accumulation from within subterranean formation” in the preamble. To improve clarity with respect to the phrase “from within” and with respect to subsequent limitations regarding the liquid, replacement of this limitation with “accumulation of liquid from a subterranean formation” or similar is recommended.
Claim 1 recites “(c) producing fluids comprising the hydrocarbons from the subterranean formation through the wellbore”. As step (b) recites hydrocarbons present in the subterranean formation in the alternative, to improve clarity, replacement of this limitation with language such as “(c) producing fluids comprising the hydrocarbons through the wellbore” is recommended.
Claim 1 recites “determined by the equation below”. To improve clarity with respect to the number of equations, replacement of this limitation with language such as “determined by equations 1, 2 & 3 below” is suggested.
Claim 1 recites equations with units of measure in parentheses. To improve clarity, deletion of the parentheses is suggested. For example: “(bbl/day)” may be amended to recite “in bbl/day”.
Claim 1 appears to have a typographical/grammatical error in reciting “Pg”.
Appropriate correction is required. Also see related rejections under 35 USC 112 below. Claims 2-18 are also objected to for being dependent on Claim 1.
Claim 2 recites “wherein solvent is selected from:”. Replacement of this limitation with “wherein” is required to improve clarity of the claim.
Claims 3 & 4 each recite “wherein solvent”. To improve clarity, replacement of this limitation with “wherein the miscible solvent” is required.
Claim 5 appears to have a typographical/grammatical error in line 1 "wherein the method for removes”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 appears to have a typographical/grammatical error in line 1 “is of from”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 recites “wherein hydrocarbons”. As parent Claim 1 previously recites this feature, to improve clarity, replacement of this limitation with “wherein the hydrocarbons” is required.
Claim 16 is dependent on Claim 1, but appears to further limit the feature of recovering the miscible solvent of Claim 15. For purposes of examination, the Office considers Claim 16 as dependent on Claim 15. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 recites “(c) producing fluids comprising the hydrocarbons from the subterranean formation through the wellbore”. As step (b) recites hydrocarbons present in the subterranean formation in the alternative, to improve clarity, replacement of this limitation with language such as “(c) producing fluids comprising the hydrocarbons through the wellbore” is recommended.
Claim 20 recites “determined by the equation below”. To improve clarity with respect to the number of equations, replacement of this limitation with language such as “determined by equations 1, 2 & 3 below” is suggested.
Claim 20 recites equations with units of measure in parentheses. To improve clarity, deletion of the parentheses is suggested. For example: “(lbm/ft3)” may be amended to recite “in lbm/ft3”.
Claim 20 appears to have a typographical/grammatical error in reciting “Pg”.
Appropriate correction is required. Also see related rejections under 35 USC 112 below.
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.
Claims 1-18 & 20 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “A method for reducing liquid accumulation from within subterranean formation” and “wherein the liquid blocks at least some flow of fluids in the subterranean formation”; which is unclear in combination. If the liquid accumulation is reduced, how does the liquid also block at least some flow of fluids as instantly claimed. Is the blocking prior to reducing the liquid accumulation?
Claim 1 recites “wherein the liquid is selected from water, oil, a condensate, and mixtures thereof; wherein the liquid blocks at least some flow of fluids in the subterranean formation”. It is unclear how these limitations are connected with steps (a), (b) and (c). Further, there appears to be no steps that reduce liquid accumulation as set forth in the preamble; which is also unclear. Also, “wherein the liquid blocks at least some flow of fluids” (emphasis added) encompasses embodiments with the liquid blocking all fluid flow; in which case, it is unclear how the steps of injecting and producing occur.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the gas is injected at a gas flow rate of at least a critical gas rate”. This is a range with an unbounded upper limit, and, as such, it is unclear as to the extent of gas flow rate Applicant is intending to seek patent protection of; as such, the claim is rendered indefinite.
Claim 1 recites multiple variables in the equations that are unclear. It is unclear whether or not the “mass fraction of a miscible solvent” refers to that of the injected miscible solvent; and if so, the reference to an “aqueous phase” and “oleic phase” is further unclear. It is unclear what “water flow rate”, “oil flow rate”, “aqueous/water density” and “oil density” refer to – does this refer to the liquid, produced fluids, subterranean fluids, other? It is unclear whether or not “gas density”, “density of miscible solvent”, “surface tension of liquid”, “critical gas rate” and “gas compressibility factor” refer to properties of the miscible solvent, liquid and gas of steps (a), (b) and (c), respectively. Further, it is unclear what “flowing temperature”, “tubing” and “water cut” refer to. It is unclear what Vc refers to. It is unclear how these variables connect with steps (a), (b) and (c).
Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required. Claims 2-18 are also rejected for being dependent on Claim 1. The claims have been examined as best understood.
Claim 2 recites the phrase "e.g.," with limitations in parentheses in one or more instances, with phrases such as “also known as”, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase "e.g.," and in parentheses are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purposes of examination, the Office considers the claim without the limitation(s) that follow the phrase “e.g.," and without the limitations in parentheses. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required. The claim has been examined as best understood.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “wherein the method for removes at least a portion of an accumulation of liquid from a subterranean formation”. It is unclear whether this liquid refers to the liquid of parent Claim 1. If so, it is unclear how removal is distinct from reducing as recited in parent Claim 1; and if distinct, it is unclear how both occur simultaneously. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required. The claim has been examined as best understood.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “wherein the method prevents accumulation of liquid from a subterranean formation”. It is unclear whether this liquid refers to the liquid of parent Claim 1. If so, it is unclear how preventing is distinct from reducing as recited in parent Claim 1; and if distinct, it is unclear how both occur simultaneously. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required. The claim has been examined as best understood.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “wherein the miscible solvent is injected into the subterranean formation in a volume effective to remove, prevent, or reduce liquid condensate accumulation in the subterranean formation”. It is unclear whether this liquid condensate refers to the liquid of parent Claim 1. If so, it is unclear how removing and preventing are distinct from reducing as recited in parent Claim 1, and if distinct, it is unclear how they occur simultaneously. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required. The claim has been examined as best understood.
Claim 9 recites multiple variables in the equation that are unclear. It is unclear what “aqueous miscible solvent treatment”, “treated hydrocarbon” and “miscible solvent in water” refer to. It is unclear how these variables connect with steps (a), (b) and (c). Ci,o is presented as “mass fraction of a miscible solvent in oleic phase at equilibrium” in parent Claim 1 and as “equilibrium concentration of miscible solvent in water” in Claim 9; which is unclear. Ci,w is presented as “mass fraction of a miscible solvent in aqueous phase at equilibrium” in parent Claim 1 and as “equilibrium concentration of miscible solvent in water” in Claim 9; which is unclear. Further, both Ci,o and Ci,w are presented as “equilibrium concentration of miscible solvent in water”, and Ci,w is also not present in the equation of Claim 9; which is unclear. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required. The claim has been examined as best understood.
Claim 12 recites “wherein the miscible solvent is injected in an amount effective to increase hydrocarbon production”; which is unclear. As broadly recited, it is unclear what the increase in hydrocarbon production is with respect to. As such, an amount effective for such an increase is further unclear. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required. The claim has been examined as best understood.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “…wherein the method further comprises recovering the miscible solvent from the fluids comprising the hydrocarbons produced from the subterranean formation”; which is unclear, as parent Claim 1 does not necessarily recite producing the miscible solvent. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required. Claim 16 is also rejected for being dependent on Claim 15. The claims have been examined as best understood.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the hydrocarbon recovery”. It is unclear whether or not this limitation refers to step (c). If so, consistency in terminology is required. If not, this limitation lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required. The claim has been examined as best understood.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “A method for improving liquid condensate unloading from a subterranean formation” and “wherein a liquid condensate blocks at least some flow of the fluid in the subterranean formation”; which is unclear in combination. If the liquid condensate unloading is improved, how does the condensate also block at least some flow of fluids as instantly claimed. Is the blocking prior to improving liquid condensate unloading?
Claim 20 recites “wherein a liquid condensate blocks at least some flow of the fluid in the subterranean formation”. It is unclear how these limitations are connected with steps (a), (b) and (c). Further, there appears to be no steps that improve liquid condensate unloading as set forth in the preamble; which is also unclear. Also, “wherein a liquid condensate blocks at least some flow of the fluid” (emphasis added) encompasses embodiments with the liquid condensate blocking all fluid flow; in which case, it is unclear how the steps of injecting and producing occur. Further, it is unclear which fluid “the fluid” refers to.
Claim 20 recites “wherein the gas is injected at a gas flow rate of at least a critical gas rate”. This is a range with an unbounded upper limit, and, as such, it is unclear as to the extent of gas flow rate Applicant is intending to seek patent protection of; as such, the claim is rendered indefinite.
Claim 20 recites multiple variables in the equations that are unclear. It is unclear whether or not the “mass fraction of a miscible solvent” refers to that of the injected miscible solvent; and if so, the reference to an “aqueous phase” and “oleic phase” is further unclear. It is unclear what qw and q0 refer to. It is unclear what “aqueous/water density” and “oil density” refer to – does this refer to the liquid condensate, produced fluids, subterranean fluids, other? It is unclear whether or not “gas density”, “density of miscible solvent”, “surface tension of liquid”, “critical gas rate” and “gas compressibility factor” refer to properties of the miscible solvent, liquid condensate and gas of steps (a), (b) and (c), respectively. Further, it is unclear what “flowing temperature”, “tubing” and “water cut” refer to. It is unclear what Vc refers to. It is unclear how these variables connect with steps (a), (b) and (c).
Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required. The claim has been examined as best understood.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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, 5-14, 17, 18 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US 2016/0257879), in view of Turner et al. (Non-Patent Literature as cited on PTO-892).
With respect to Claim 1, Huang discloses a method for reducing liquid accumulation from within subterranean formation (Huang: Sections [0002]-[0008]), the method comprising: (a) injecting a composition into a wellbore in fluid communication with the subterranean formation; (b) allowing the composition to interact with hydrocarbons present within the wellbore, the subterranean formation, or any combination thereof for a period of time; and (c) producing fluids comprising the hydrocarbons from the subterranean formation through the wellbore (Huang: Section [0008]); wherein the liquid is selected from water, oil, a condensate, and mixtures thereof; wherein the liquid blocks at least some flow of fluids in the subterranean formation (Huang: Sections [0002]-[0008], [0064] & [0065]).
Huang further teaches the method in providing cost-effective and superior benefits in reducing liquid accumulation therein, with one or more embodiments wherein the composition comprises a gas, and one or more embodiments wherein the composition comprises a miscible solvent (Huang: Sections [0007], [0037], [0058] & [0059]); wherein Huang teaches one or more materials instantly claimed/described as a miscible solvent and, as such, the material(s) is considered a miscible solvent that partitions into hydrocarbons as instantly claimed. “Products of identical chemical composition can not 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. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). To the extent there is any difference between the miscible solvent as taught by Huang and the miscible solvent as instantly claimed, the difference is considered minor and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
As such, although the reference fails to explicitly disclose the above method steps in combination with a gas and a miscible solvent, in a single embodiment, as instantly claimed, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method steps to employ a gas and a miscible solvent as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, for cost-effective and superior benefits in reducing liquid accumulation and/or to yield predictable results in improving hydrocarbon recovery.
Huang further teaches wherein the gas is injected at a desired rate based on specific well conditions, as known in the art (Huang: Section [0062]). The reference, however, fails to explicitly disclose wherein the gas is injected at a gas flow rate of at least a critical gas rate determined by the equation as instantly claimed.
Turner teaches models for determining the gas flow rate in the removal of liquids from wells therein, wherein equation 1 as instantly claimed is taught as providing minimum flow conditions required to remove liquids from wells (Turner: Pages 1475-1482); wherein one of ordinary skill in the art is considered able to apply equation 1 to the composition employed and determine the variables as set forth in equations 2 & 3. As such, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Huang with the aforementioned teachings of Turner to determine the gas rate as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide minimum flow conditions required to remove liquids from wells. (Turner: Pages 1475-1482).
Huang further teaches employing the composition in an amount tailored to the field and operational conditions (Huang: Sections [0057]-[0062]). As such, it is also noted that, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, there had been a recognized need in the art for increasing oil recovery, and a finite number of identified, predictable solutions including injecting a composition comprising components with amounts tailored to the field and operational conditions, as set forth above. As such, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, based on the combined teachings of Huang and Turner, one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued desired amounts of the injected components determined by suitable equations with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103."KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
With respect to Claim 2, the combined references of Huang and Turner teach the method as provided above with respect to Claim 1. Huang further teaches wherein the miscible solvent is selected from the list as instantly claimed (Huang: Section [0037]).
With respect to Claim 5, the combined references of Huang and Turner teach the method as provided above with respect to Claim 1. Huang further discloses “…wherein the method for removes at least a portion of an accumulation of liquid from a subterranean formation” (Huang: Sections [0002]-[0008]).
With respect to Claim 6, the combined references of Huang and Turner teach the method as provided above with respect to Claim 1. Huang further discloses “…wherein the method prevents accumulation of liquid from a subterranean formation” (Huang: Sections [0002]-[0008]).
With respect to Claim 7, the combined references of Huang and Turner teach the method as provided above with respect to Claim 1. Huang further discloses “…wherein the method improves hydrocarbon production from a subterranean formation” (Huang: Sections [0002]-[0008]).
With respect to Claim 8, the combined references of Huang and Turner teach the method as provided above with respect to Claim 1. Huang further discloses the method as effective to remove, prevent, or reduce liquid condensate accumulation in the subterranean formation (Huang: Sections [0002]-[0008]). As such, it would appear that the components of the composition, such as the miscible solvent, are injected in an effective volume as instantly claimed. To the extent there is any difference between this feature as disclosed/taught by Huang and this feature as instantly claimed, the difference is considered minor and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
With respect to Claim 9, the combined references of Huang and Turner teach the method as provided above with respect to Claim 1. Huang further teaches employing the composition in an amount tailored to the field and operational conditions (Huang: Sections [0057]-[0062]). As such, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, there had been a recognized need in the art for increasing oil recovery, and a finite number of identified, predictable solutions including injecting a composition comprising components with amounts tailored to the field and operational conditions, as set forth above. As such, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, based on the combined teachings of Huang and Turner, one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued desired amounts of the injected components determined by suitable equations with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103."KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
With respect to Claim 10, the combined references of Huang and Turner teach the method as provided above with respect to Claim 1; wherein the gas flow rate is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for reasons as set forth above with respect to Claim 1.
With respect to Claim 11, the combined references of Huang and Turner teach the method as provided above with respect to Claim 1. Huang further teaches the miscible solvent as effective in reducing viscosity (Huang: Section [0037]). As such, it would appear that the miscible solvent is employed in an effective amount to reduce viscosity over a range as broadly claimed. To the extent there is any difference between this feature as disclosed/taught by Huang and this feature as instantly claimed, the difference is considered minor and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
With respect to Claim 12, the combined references of Huang and Turner teach the method as provided above with respect to Claim 1. Huang further discloses the method as effective to increase hydrocarbon production (Huang: Sections [0002]-[0008]). As such, it would appear that the components of the composition, such as the miscible solvent, are injected in an effective amount as instantly claimed. To the extent there is any difference between this feature as disclosed/taught by Huang and this feature as instantly claimed, the difference is considered minor and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
With respect to Claim 13, the combined references of Huang and Turner teach the method as provided above with respect to Claim 1. Huang further teaches one or more embodiments wherein it is known in the art to employ fluid lifting equipment (Huang: Sections [0001]-[0007] & [0062]). As such, although the reference fails to explicitly disclose the above method steps in combination with this feature, in a single embodiment, as instantly claimed, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ fluid lifting equipment, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to yield predictable results in improving hydrocarbon recovery.
With respect to Claim 14, the combined references of Huang and Turner teach the method as provided above with respect to Claim 1. Huang further discloses “…wherein hydrocarbons are present within the subterranean formation, and wherein the hydrocarbons comprise light oil” (Huang: Sections [0064] & [0065]).
With respect to Claim 17, the combined references of Huang and Turner teach the method as provided above with respect to Claim 1.The combined teachings set forth above provide for a method comprising the injection of components as instantly claimed. As such, it would appear that an improvement in hydrocarbon recovery would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art, and the improvement would be as instantly claimed. “Products of identical chemical composition can not 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. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). To the extent there is any difference between this feature as set forth above and this feature as instantly claimed, the difference is considered minor and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
With respect to Claim 18, the combined references of Huang and Turner teach the method as provided above with respect to Claim 1. As Huang teaches one or more materials instantly claimed/described as a miscible solvent, the material(s) is considered to exhibit a partition coefficient as instantly claimed. “Products of identical chemical composition can not 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. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). To the extent there is any difference between the miscible solvent as taught by Huang and the miscible solvent as instantly claimed, the difference is considered minor and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
With respect to Claim 20, Huang discloses a method for improving liquid condensate unloading from a subterranean formation (Huang: Sections [0002]-[0008]), the method comprising: (a) injecting a composition into a wellbore in fluid communication with the subterranean formation; (b) allowing the composition to interact with hydrocarbons present within the wellbore, the subterranean formation, or any combination thereof for a period of time; and (c) producing fluids comprising the hydrocarbons from the subterranean formation through the wellbore (Huang: Section [0008]); wherein a liquid condensate blocks at least some flow of the fluid in the subterranean formation (Huang: Sections [0002]-[0008], [0064] & [0065]).
Huang further teaches the method in providing cost-effective and superior benefits in improving liquid unloading therein, with one or more embodiments wherein the composition comprises a gas, and one or more embodiments wherein the composition comprises a miscible solvent (Huang: Sections [0007], [0037], [0058] & [0059]); wherein Huang teaches one or more materials instantly claimed/described as a miscible solvent and, as such, the material(s) is considered a miscible solvent that partitions into hydrocarbons as instantly claimed. “Products of identical chemical composition can not 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. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). To the extent there is any difference between the miscible solvent as taught by Huang and the miscible solvent as instantly claimed, the difference is considered minor and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
As such, although the reference fails to explicitly disclose the above method steps in combination with a gas and a miscible solvent, in a single embodiment, as instantly claimed, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method steps to employ a gas and a miscible solvent as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, for cost-effective and superior benefits in improving liquid unloading and/or to yield predictable results in improving hydrocarbon recovery.
Huang further teaches wherein the gas is injected at a desired rate based on specific well conditions, as known in the art (Huang: Section [0062]). The reference, however, fails to explicitly disclose wherein the gas is injected at a gas flow rate of at least a critical gas rate determined by the equation as instantly claimed.
Turner teaches models for determining the gas flow rate in the removal of liquids from wells therein, wherein equation 1 as instantly claimed is taught as providing minimum flow conditions required to remove liquids from wells (Turner: Pages 1475-1482); wherein one of ordinary skill in the art is considered able to apply equation 1 to the composition employed and determine the variables as set forth in equations 2 & 3. As such, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Huang with the aforementioned teachings of Turner to determine the gas rate as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide minimum flow conditions required to remove liquids from wells. (Turner: Pages 1475-1482).
Huang further teaches employing the composition in an amount tailored to the field and operational conditions (Huang: Sections [0057]-[0062]). As such, it is also noted that, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, there had been a recognized need in the art for increasing oil recovery, and a finite number of identified, predictable solutions including injecting a composition comprising components with amounts tailored to the field and operational conditions, as set forth above. As such, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, based on the combined teachings of Huang and Turner, one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued desired amounts of the injected components determined by suitable equations with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103."KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
Claims 3, 4, 15 & 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US 2016/0257879), in view of Turner et al. (Non-Patent Literature as cited on PTO-892), further in view of Gatlin et al. (US 2015/0291874).
With respect to Claim 3, the combined references of Huang and Turner teach the method as provided above with respect to Claim 1. Huang further teaches wherein the miscible solvent is an ether (Huang: Section [0037]). The combined references, however, fail to explicitly disclose wherein the solvent is dimethyl ether (DME) as instantly claimed.
Gatlin teaches methods in subterranean formations employing gas and solvent therein, wherein the method is taught to be environmentally friendly and employs suitable solvents such as DME in combination with or as an alternative to one or more solvents as taught by Huang (Gatlin: Sections [0004], [0013] & [0044]). As such, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the combined references of Huang and Turner with the aforementioned teachings of Gatlin to employ DME, such as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, for environmental benefits and/or to yield predictable results in improving hydrocarbon recovery.
With respect to Claim 4, the combined references of Huang and Turner teach the method as provided above with respect to Claim 1. Huang further teaches wherein the miscible solvent is an ether (Huang: Section [0037]), wherein the ether used alone is considered a neat ether as instantly claimed. The combined references, however, fail to explicitly disclose wherein the solvent is dimethyl ether (DME) as instantly claimed.
Gatlin teaches methods in subterranean formations employing gas and solvent therein, wherein the method is taught to be environmentally friendly and employs suitable solvents such as DME in combination with or as an alternative to one or more solvents as taught by Huang (Gatlin: Sections [0004], [0013] & [0044]). As such, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the combined references of Huang and Turner with the aforementioned teachings of Gatlin to employ DME, such as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, for environmental benefits and/or to yield predictable results in improving hydrocarbon recovery.
With respect to Claims 15 & 16, the combined references of Huang and Turner teach the method as provided above with respect to Claim 1. The combined references, however, fail to explicitly disclose the features of Claim 15 & 16 as respectively claimed.
Gatlin teaches methods in subterranean formations employing gas and solvent therein, wherein the method is taught to be environmentally friendly and the solvent is recovered from the produced fluids and injected into a subterranean formation for continued operations (Gatlin: Sections [0004], [0013] & [0033]). As such, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the combined references of Huang and Turner with the aforementioned teachings of Gatlin to recover the miscible solvent and inject at least a portion of the recovered miscible solvent, as respectively claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, for continued operations, environmental benefits and/or to yield predictable results in improving hydrocarbon recovery.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Knight et al. (US 2019/0120029) discloses methods of improving hydrocarbon recovery by reducing liquid accumulation employing compositions comprising gas.
Shedd et al. (US 2019/0309214) discloses methods of improving hydrocarbon recovery by reducing liquid accumulation employing compositions comprising gas and alcohol.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANURADHA AHUJA whose telephone number is (571)272-3067. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday.
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.
/ANURADHA AHUJA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674
Prosecution Insights