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 with traverse of Group II (claims 13-18) in the reply filed on 7/30/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground that “the presently amended claims all share the same special technical feature.” This is not found persuasive because the Applicant’s election of Group II- a geopolymer slurry precursor composition and its corresponding depending limitations- is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from any new embodiment Applicant is proposing which comprises a mixture of previous limitations of each Group. That is to say, Applicant’s creation of a new embodiment which gathers aspects from the groups previously presented and/or the Specification into a new group is improper. The embodiment being examined follows that which was previously presented (see paragraph [0008] in the Specification).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Accordingly, claims 1, 2, 4-8, 11, 12, and 19 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
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 13 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yakovlev et al. (US 2023/0416592).
With respect to independent claim 13, Yakovlev discloses a dry geopolymer slurry precursor (Abstract, [0011], [0022], and [0043]), comprising: an aluminosilicate source (Abstract, [0011], [0019], and [0022]);
an activator (Abstract, [0011], [0019], and [0022]-[0024]);
a fluid loss control agent, comprising a polymer particle dispersion, wherein the polymer particle dispersion comprises a latex ([0029] and [0030]); and a particle additive, wherein the particle additive has no response to water, and wherein the particle additive has a particle size range of between about 38 µm and 3350 µm ([0028] and claim 20).
Regarding claim 13, Yakovlev discloses a fluid loss control agent comprising a latex ([0029] and [0030]). With regard to the remaining materials of the Markush group, the Office considers these as obvious variants to those disclosed by the reference, and, therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively include such materials as the fluid loss control agent.
Further regarding claim 13, Yakovlev discloses a particle additive with no response to water ([0028] and claim 20). Although silent to wherein the particle additive is “a fluid loss control agent enhancer,” as instantly claimed, since Yakovlev discloses the same composition as claimed, the material, if present downhole, would naturally act in the same manner as claimed, i.e., it would be capable of fluid loss control enhancing. If there is any difference between the composition of Yakovlev and that of the instant claims, the difference would have been minor and obvious insofar as because it has been held "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 Warren Corp v D F Newfield Co, 7 F Supp 773, 22 USPQ 313 (EDNY 1934).
Further regarding the particle additive, Yakovlev discloses wherein the particle additive has a particle size range of between about 38 µm and 3350 µm ([0028] and claim 20). Although silent to wherein the size of the particle additive is “a D50 between about 40 µm and about 60 µm,” 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 particle additive size 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)
With respect to depending claim 15, Yakovlev discloses wherein the dry geopolymer slurry precursor comprises a fluid loss control agent enhancer and a dispersant ([0028] and [0029]).
With respect to depending claims 16 and 17, Yakovlev discloses a dry geopolymer slurry precursor comprising, an aluminosilicate source, a fluid loss control agent, and a fluid loss control agent enhancer, wherein the fluid loss control agent is present in an amount of between 0.02 L/L and 0.3 L/L, the fluid loss control agent enhancer is present in an amount to achieve a density of at least 2 g/cm3 (e.g. 466 g) (Abstract, [0011], [0019], [0022]-[0024], [0028], [0030], and Table 1). Although silent to the amounts of fluid loss control agent and fluid loss control agent enhancer in relation to the aluminosilicate source or precursor blend, 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 the relative amounts 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)
With respect to depending claim 18, which is dependent upon claim 16, Yakovlev discloses further comprising an antifoam agent, a defoamer, an expanding agent, or an anti-settling additive (Abstract and [0029]). With regard to the remaining materials of the Markush group, the Office considers these as obvious variants to those disclosed by the reference, and, therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively include such materials in the dry geopolymer slurry precursor.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Han et al. (US 2011/0132230) teaches a dry geopolymer slurry precursor comprising, an aluminosilicate source, an activator, a polystyrene latex, and a particle additive.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AVI T. SKAIST whose telephone number is (571)272-9348. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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.
/AVI T SKAIST/Examiner, Art Unit 3674
/WILLIAM D HUTTON JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3674
Prosecution Insights