CTNF 19/192,275 CTNF 92377 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 08-25-01 AIA Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (Claims 1-26) in the reply filed on May 26, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 27-65, directed to an invention, nonelected without traverse, have been withdrawn by the Applicant. 08-25-01 AIA Applicant’s election without traverse of Species (A)(i) and Species (B)(i) (Claims 1-21 and 23-26) in the reply filed on May 26, 2026 is acknowledged. Claim 22, directed to a species, nonelected without traverse, has been withdrawn by the Applicant. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) 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 1-21 and 23-26 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 (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites the limitation “ a plurality of particles having … a fracture conductivity of 10 mD-ft or more at a closure stress of 6000 psia as measured according to API RP 19D ” in lines 7-8 Claim 2 recites the limitation “ wherein the plurality of particles has a fracture conductivity of 50 mD-ft or more at a closure stress of 6000 psia as measured according to API RP 19D ” in lines 1-3. Claim 3 recites the limitation “ wherein the plurality of particles has an average apparent density of 1.92 g/cm 3 to 2.26 g/cm 3 or more as measured according to ASTM D2638-21 ” in lines 1-3. Claim 4 recites the limitation “ wherein the plurality of particles has an average apparent density of from 1.95 g/cm 3 to 2.26 g/cm 3 as measured according to ASTM D2638-21 ” in lines 1-3. These limitations lack clarity since the Examiner notes that fracture conductivity is not a property of the plurality of particles themselves, as instantly claimed. This is further evidenced by the original disclosure, which describes the term “fracture conductivity” to refer to the permeability of a proppant pack to conduct fluid at various stress (pressure) levels (See Applicant’s Specification, file 04/28/2025: [0044]); and that fracture conductivity is a property related to use of the pyrolysis coke particles as a proppant (Id: [0083]). The Examiner suggests the following (or substantively similar) amendment to independent Claim 1 (similar amendments should be mirrored in dependent Claims 2-4): 1. (Currently Amended) A composition comprising: a plurality of particles having a core-and-shell structure comprising a shell portion and a core portion, the shell portion comprising pyrolysis coke, the plurality of particles having an average apparent density of from 1.0 g/cm 3 to 2.26 g/cm 3 as measured according to ASTM D2638-21, the plurality of particles having a D50 value from 75 µm to 300 µm as measured according to ASTM D4464-15(2020) and retaining a fracture conductivity of 10 mD-ft or more at a closure stress of 6000 psia as measured according to API RP 19D. Claim 5 is 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 (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites the limitation “ the plurality of particles having an average apparent density of from 1.0 g/cm 3 to 2.26 g/cm 3 as measured according to ASTM D2638-21 ” in lines 3-5. Claim 5 recites the limitation “ wherein the plurality of particles has an average apparent density of 1.70 g/cm 3 or less as measured according to ASTM D2638-21 ” in lines 1-2. The phrase “or less” renders the claim indefinite, because it is unclear what lower limit is required to meet the claimed invention, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Moreover, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, Claim 5 recites the broad recitation “ an average apparent density of 1.70 g/cm 3 or less ” in lines 1-2, and the claim also recites “ an average apparent density of from 1.0 g/cm 3 to 2.26 g/cm 3 ” (See Claim 1, lines 3-5), which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Claim 13 is 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 (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 13 recites the limitation “ wherein the plurality of particles has a D10 value of 50 µm or more ” in lines 1-2. The phrase “or more” renders the claim indefinite, because it is unclear what upper limit is required to meet the claimed invention, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claim 14 is 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 (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 14 recites the limitation “ wherein the plurality of particles has a D10 value of 75 µm or more and a D90 value of 150 µm or less ” in lines 1-2. The phrase “or more” renders the claim indefinite, because it is unclear what upper limit is required to meet the claimed invention, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The phrase “or less” renders the claim indefinite, because it is unclear what lower limit is required to meet the claimed invention, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claim 15 is 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 (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 15 recites the limitation “ wherein the plurality of particles has a D10 value of 100 µm or more and a D90 value of 250 µm or less ” in lines 1-2. The phrase “or more” renders the claim indefinite, because it is unclear what upper limit is required to meet the claimed invention, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The phrase “or less” renders the claim indefinite, because it is unclear what lower limit is required to meet the claimed invention, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claim 16 is 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 (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 16 recites the limitation “ wherein the plurality of particles has a D10 value of 150 µm or more and a D90 value of 300 µm or less ” in lines 1-2. The phrase “or more” renders the claim indefinite, because it is unclear what upper limit is required to meet the claimed invention, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The phrase “or less” renders the claim indefinite, because it is unclear what lower limit is required to meet the claimed invention, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claim 17 is 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 (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 17 recites the limitation “ wherein the shell portion comprises 300 wppm or less of sulfur as measured according to ASTM D1552-23, or wherein the shell portion comprises 300 wppm or less of combined iron, nickel, and vanadium, or a combination thereof as measured according to ASTM D5600-22 ” in lines 1-4. The phrase “or less” renders the claim indefinite, because it is unclear what lower limit is required to meet the claimed invention, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is further unclear whether the shell portion composition even requires any amount of sulfur, iron, nickel, and/or vanadium based on the claim language, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. 08-40 Claim 17 is also rejected on the basis that it contains an improper Markush grouping of alternatives. See In re Harnisch , 631 F.2d 716, 721-22 (CCPA 1980) and Ex parte Hozumi , 3 USPQ2d 1059, 1060 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1984). A Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives defined by the Markush group (i.e., alternatives from which a selection is to be made in the context of a combination or process, or alternative chemical compounds as a whole) share a “single structural similarity” and a common use. A Markush grouping meets these requirements in two situations. First, a Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives are all members of the same recognized physical or chemical class or the same art-recognized class, and are disclosed in the specification or known in the art to be functionally equivalent and have a common use. Second, where a Markush grouping describes alternative chemical compounds, whether by words or chemical formulas, and the alternatives do not belong to a recognized class as set forth above, the members of the Markush grouping may be considered to share a “single structural similarity” and common use where the alternatives share both a substantial structural feature and a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature. See MPEP § 2117. The Markush grouping of the chemical components of the shell portion is improper because the alternatives defined by the Markush grouping do not share both a single structural similarity and a common use. To overcome this rejection, Applicant may set forth each alternative (or grouping of patentably indistinct alternatives) within an improper Markush grouping in a series of independent or dependent claims and/or present convincing arguments that the group members recited in the alternative within a single claim in fact share a single structural similarity as well as a common use. Claim 18 is 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 (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 18 recites the limitation “ wherein the plurality of particles comprises 1.0 wt% or less of sulfur as measured according to ASTM D1552-23, or wherein the plurality of particles comprises 4000 wppm or less of combined iron, nickel, and vanadium, or a combination thereof as measured according to ASTM D5600-22 ” in lines 1-4. The phrase “or less” renders the claim indefinite, because it is unclear what lower limit is required to meet the claimed invention, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is further unclear whether the shell portion composition even requires any amount of sulfur, iron, nickel, and/or vanadium based on the claim language, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. 08-40 Claim 18 is also rejected on the basis that it contains an improper Markush grouping of alternatives. See In re Harnisch , 631 F.2d 716, 721-22 (CCPA 1980) and Ex parte Hozumi , 3 USPQ2d 1059, 1060 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1984). A Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives defined by the Markush group (i.e., alternatives from which a selection is to be made in the context of a combination or process, or alternative chemical compounds as a whole) share a “single structural similarity” and a common use. A Markush grouping meets these requirements in two situations. First, a Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives are all members of the same recognized physical or chemical class or the same art-recognized class, and are disclosed in the specification or known in the art to be functionally equivalent and have a common use. Second, where a Markush grouping describes alternative chemical compounds, whether by words or chemical formulas, and the alternatives do not belong to a recognized class as set forth above, the members of the Markush grouping may be considered to share a “single structural similarity” and common use where the alternatives share both a substantial structural feature and a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature. See MPEP § 2117. The Markush grouping of the chemical components of the shell portion is improper because the alternatives defined by the Markush grouping do not share both a single structural similarity and a common use. To overcome this rejection, Applicant may set forth each alternative (or grouping of patentably indistinct alternatives) within an improper Markush grouping in a series of independent or dependent claims and/or present convincing arguments that the group members recited in the alternative within a single claim in fact share a single structural similarity as well as a common use. Claim 19 is 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 (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 19 recites the limitation “ wherein the plurality of particles comprises greater than 100 wppm of sulfur as measured according to ASTM D1552-23 ” The claim is indefinite, because it is unclear what upper limit is required to meet the claimed invention, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-21 and 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon et al. (WO 2022/241339 A1) in view of Hudson et al. (US 4,796,701) . Claim 1 . A composition comprising : a plurality of particles having a core-and-shell structure comprising a shell portion and a core portion, the shell portion comprising pyrolysis coke, the plurality of particles having an average apparent density of from 1.0 g/cm 3 to 2.26 g/cm 3 as measured according to ASTM D2638-21, the plurality of particles having a D50 value from 75 µm to 300 µm as measured according to ASTM D4464-15(2020) and a fracture conductivity of 10 mD-ft or more at a closure stress of 6000 psia as measured according to API RP 19D . Gordon discloses a fracturing fluid comprising proppant particulates (Abstract; [0007] – [0009]) useful to enhance proppant / gravel packs ([0049]; [0056]); wherein the proppant particulates are composed of a coke material ([0023] – [0024]); wherein the proppant particulates have an apparent density in the range of about 1.0 g/cm 3 to about 2.0 g/cm 3 ([0008]; [0020]; [0042]); wherein the proppant particulates have an average particle size distribution in the range of about 70 μm to about 600 μm ([0008]; [0044]); and wherein the proppant particulates exhibit an average strain of 47% at 5,000 psi and 180 °F to achieve a high fracture conductivity (Fig. 2; [0027]; [0038] – [0039]; [0052]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the range of fracture conductivity in Gordon to the range as claimed, because it has been held that “where 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). Gordon does not expressly disclose a plurality of particles having a core-and-shell structure comprising a shell portion and a core portion, the shell portion comprising pyrolysis coke . However, Gordon does disclose that the proppant particulates composed of a delayed coke material ([0023] – [0024]) may also be coated ([0060]). The Examiner notes that pyrolysis coke is one of several well-known petroleum coke materials (e.g., pyrolysis coke, delayed coke, flexicoke, fluid coke, etc.). Thus, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the delayed coke particles in Gordon with another suitable coke material since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use (e.g., sufficient strength, durability, flexibility, hardness, etc. for the application and intended use of that material) as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin , 125 USPQ 416. Moreover, Hudson teaches a pyrolytic carbon coated particle composition for use in well operations, such as gravel packs, wherein the composition comprises a substantially uniform layer of pyrolytically deposited carbon that encapsulates a thermally stable substantially spherical substrate particle (e.g., sand, ceramic beads, ceramic coated composites, high strength glass beads, petroleum coke and the like) (Col. 2, lines 5-22, lines 40-57); wherein the spherical substrate particulate material has a density range of from about 1.50 gm/cc to about 2.05 gm/cc and a thickness of about 5 μm to about 200 μm (Col. 2, lines 23-29). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the proppant particles in Gordon with a pyrolitic coated particle, as taught by Hudson, in order to exhibit improved thermal stability and chemical resistance (Col. 1, lines 62-66; Col. 2, lines 5-14). Claim 2. Gordon in view of Hudson teach The composition of claim 1 . Regarding the limitation: wherein the plurality of particles has a fracture conductivity of 50 mD-ft or more at a closure stress of 6000 psia as measured according to API RP 19D , Gordon discloses optimizing fracture conductivity (Fig. 2; [0027]; [0038] – [0039]; [0052]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the range of fracture conductivity in Gordon to the range as claimed, because it has been held that “where 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). Claim 3. Gordon in view of Hudson teach The composition of claim 1 . Regarding the limitation: wherein the plurality of particles has an average apparent density of 1.92 g/cm 3 to 2.26 g/cm 3 or more as measured according to ASTM D2638-21 , Gordon discloses wherein the proppant particulates have an apparent density in the range of about 1.0 g/cm 3 to about 2.0 g/cm 3 ([0008]; [0020]; [0042]). Claim 4. Gordon in view of Hudson teach The composition of claim 1 . Regarding the limitation: wherein the plurality of particles has an average apparent density of from 1.95 g/cm 3 to 2.26 g/cm 3 as measured according to ASTM D2638-21 , Gordon discloses wherein the proppant particulates have an apparent density in the range of about 1.0 g/cm 3 to about 2.0 g/cm 3 ([0008]; [0020]; [0042]). Claim 5. Gordon in view of Hudson teach The composition of claim 1 . Regarding the limitation: wherein the plurality of particles has an average apparent density of 1.70 g/cm 3 or less as measured according to ASTM D2638-21 (See rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)), Gordon discloses wherein the proppant particulates have an apparent density in the range of about 1.0 g/cm 3 to about 2.0 g/cm 3 ([0008]; [0020]; [0042]). Claim 6. Gordon in view of Hudson teach The composition of claim 1 . Regarding the limitation: wherein the plurality of particles comprises a combined weight of carbon and hydrogen of 85.0 wt% or more relative to a weight of the plurality of particles as measured according to ASTM D5373-21 , Gordon discloses that the proppant particulates exhibit: a carbon content of about 82 wt% to about 90 wt%; and a weight ratio of carbon to hydrogen of about 15:1 to about 30:1 ([0043]). Claim 7. Gordon in view of Hudson teach The composition of claim 1 . Regarding the limitation: wherein the plurality of particles comprises a combined weight of carbon and hydrogen of 95.0 wt% or more relative to a weight of the plurality of particles as measured according to ASTM D5373-21 , Gordon discloses that the proppant particulates exhibit: a carbon content of about 82 wt% to about 90 wt%; and a weight ratio of carbon to hydrogen of about 15:1 to about 30:1 ([0043]). Claim 8. Gordon in view of Hudson teach The composition of claim 1 . Regarding the limitation: wherein the plurality of particles has an average crush strength of 20 MPa-a to 200 MPa-a as measured according to API RP 19C , Gordon discloses that the proppant particulates exhibit sufficient strength to maintain propped fractures upon the removal of hydraulic pressure ([0038]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the range of average crush strength of the proppant particulates in Gordon to the range as claimed, because it has been held that “where 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). Claims 9-12. Gordon in view of Hudson teach The composition of claim 1 . Regarding the limitations: wherein the plurality of particles has a difference between a D10 value and a D90 value of 140 µm or less (Claim 9); wherein the plurality of particles has a difference between a D10 value and a D90 value of 100 µm or less (Claim 10); wherein the plurality of particles has a difference between the D10 value and the D50 value of from 10 µm to 50 µm (Claim 11); wherein the plurality of particles has a difference between the D50 value and the D90 value of from 10 µm to 50 µm (Claim 12); Gordon discloses wherein the proppant particulates have an average particle size distribution in the range of about 70 μm to about 600 μm ([0008]; [0044]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the ratio(s) of the average particle size distribution of the proppant particulates in Gordon to the range(s) as claimed, because it has been held that “where 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). Claims 13-16. Gordon in view of Hudson teach The composition of claim 1 . Regarding the limitations: wherein the plurality of particles has a D10 value of 50 µm or more (Claim 13; See rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)); wherein the plurality of particles has a D10 value of 75 µm or more and a D90 value of 150 µm or less (Claim 14; See rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)); wherein the plurality of particles has a D10 value of 100 pm or more and a D90 value of 250 pm or less (Claim 15; See rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)); wherein the plurality of particles has a D10 value of 150 µm or more and a D90 value of 300 µm or less (Claim 16; See rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)); Gordon discloses that the proppant particulates have an average particle size distribution of about 70 μm to 600 μm ([0008]; [0044]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the average particle size distribution of the proppant particulates in Gordon to the range(s) as claimed, because it has been held that “where 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). Claim 17. Gordon in view of Hudson teach The composition of claim 1 . Regarding the limitation: wherein the shell portion comprises 300 wppm or less of sulfur as measured according to ASTM D1552-23, or wherein the shell portion comprises 300 wppm or less of combined iron, nickel, and vanadium, or a combination thereof as measured according to ASTM D5600-22 (See rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)), Gordon discloses that the proppant particulates exhibit: a combined vanadium and nickel content of about 100 ppm to about 3,000 ppm; and/or a sulfur content of 2 wt% to about 8 wt% ([0043]). Claim 18. Gordon in view of Hudson teach The composition of claim 1 . Regarding the limitation: wherein the plurality of particles comprises 1.0 wt% or less of sulfur as measured according to ASTM D1552-23, or wherein the plurality of particles comprises 4000 wppm or less of combined iron, nickel, and vanadium, or a combination thereof as measured according to ASTM D5600-22 (See rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)), Gordon discloses that the proppant particulates exhibit: a combined vanadium and nickel content of about 100 ppm to about 3,000 ppm ([0043]). Claim 19. Gordon in view of Hudson teach The composition of claim 1 . Regarding the limitation: wherein the plurality of particles comprises greater than 100 wppm of sulfur as measured according to ASTM D1552-23 (See rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)), Gordon discloses that the proppant particulates exhibit: a sulfur content of 2 wt% to about 8 wt% ([0043]). Claim 20. Gordon in view of Hudson teach The composition of claim 1 . Regarding the limitation: wherein the core portions of the plurality of particles comprise homogeneous seeds , Hudson teaches pyrolytic carbon coating encapsulating a substrate particle (e.g., sand, ceramic beads, ceramic coated composites, high strength glass beads, petroleum coke and the like) (Col. 2, lines 5-22, lines 40-57). Claim 21. Gordon in view of Hudson teach The composition of claim 1 . Regarding the limitation: wherein the core portions of the plurality of particles comprise carbon-containing seeds , Gordon discloses delayed coke proppant particulates comprising a carbon content of about 82 wt% to about 90 wt% ([0043]); the Examiner notes that the coke material(s) are well known to comprise carbon-containing seed materials (e.g., sponge delayed coke, transition delayed coke, needle delayed coke, shot delayed coke, etc.) ([0045]). Claim 23. Gordon in view of Hudson teach The composition of claim 1 . Regarding the limitation: further comprising non-coke proppant particles , Gordon discloses that those skilled in the art will appreciate that the functionality of the delayed coke proppant particulates may be optimized when used in combination with traditional sand proppant particulates (and/or any other suitable type(s) of proppant particulates) ([0041]). Claim 24. Gordon in view of Hudson teach The composition of claim 23 . Regarding the limitation: wherein the non-coke proppant particles comprise sand particles , Gordon discloses that the functionality of the delayed coke proppant particulates may be optimized when used in combination with traditional sand proppant particulates ([0041]). Claim 25. Gordon in view of Hudson teach The composition of claim 1 . Regarding the limitation: further comprising petroleum coke particles , Gordon discloses petroleum coke ([0029]). Claim 26. Gordon in view of Hudson teach The composition of claim 1 . Regarding the limitation: which is a fracturing fluid further comprising a carrier fluid , Gordon discloses a fracturing fluid including a carrier fluid and the proppant particulates composed of delayed coke material ([0007]; [0038]; [0050]) . Double Patenting 08-33 AIA The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. 08-35 Claim s 1-21 and 23-26 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim s 33-54 and 73-76 of copending Application No. 19/192,472 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claimed invetnions are directed toward a composition comprising: a plurality of particles having a core-and-shell structure comprising a shell portion and a core portion, the shell portion comprising pyrolysis coke . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure : Gordon et al. (US 2021/0253944); Roper et al. (US 2019/0225877); Graham et al. (US 3,664,420) . Gordon discloses a fracturing fluid comprising proppant particulates (Abstract; [0008] – [0011]); wherein the proppant particulates are composed of a coke material ([0008]; [0021] – [0024]); wherein the proppant particulates have an apparent density in the range of about 1.0 g/cm 3 to about 2.0 g/cm 3 ([0011]; [0048]); wherein the proppant particulates have an average particle size distribution in the range of about 150 μm to about 300 μm ([0011]) with a particle diameter size having a D50 of about 150 μm to about 350 μm ([0029]; [0050]); and exhibit a fracture conductivity of about 10 mD-ft to about 100 mD-ft at a closure stress of 6000 psi (Fig. 4A; [0037] – [0038]). Roper discloses electrically conductive proppant comprising: a proppant substrate or proppant particle, and one or more layers of electrically conductive material coated onto the proppant particle; wherein the electrically conductive material can be or include pyrolytic carbon. Graham discloses a method for the hydraulic fracturing of a subterranean formation by injecting a fluid containing suspended particles of petroleum coke into a fracture in said formation (Abstract; Col. 1, line 69 – Col. 2, line 48; Col. 2, line 58 – Col. 3, line 13). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Crystal J. Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-6242. The examiner can normally be reached M-F from 8:00am - 5:00pm. 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. /CRYSTAL J LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674 Application/Control Number: 19/192,275 Page 2 Art Unit: 3674 Application/Control Number: 19/192,275 Page 3 Art Unit: 3674 Application/Control Number: 19/192,275 Page 5 Art Unit: 3674 Application/Control Number: 19/192,275 Page 6 Art Unit: 3674 Application/Control Number: 19/192,275 Page 7 Art Unit: 3674 Application/Control Number: 19/192,275 Page 9 Art Unit: 3674 Application/Control Number: 19/192,275 Page 10 Art Unit: 3674 Application/Control Number: 19/192,275 Page 11 Art Unit: 3674 Application/Control Number: 19/192,275 Page 12 Art Unit: 3674 Application/Control Number: 19/192,275 Page 13 Art Unit: 3674 Application/Control Number: 19/192,275 Page 14 Art Unit: 3674 Application/Control Number: 19/192,275 Page 15 Art Unit: 3674 Application/Control Number: 19/192,275 Page 16 Art Unit: 3674 Application/Control Number: 19/192,275 Page 17 Art Unit: 3674 Application/Control Number: 19/192,275 Page 18 Art Unit: 3674
Prosecution Insights