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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of the Species of “xylenes” solvent; “dimethylsulfoxide” co-solvent; “downhole element” specific environment; and “remedial” treatment operation, drawn to claims 1-20, in the reply filed on 25 November 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “Applicants note as to solvents, all are aromatic solvents and could easily be searched together. Applicants note as to cosolvents, that these classes of solvents that could easily be searched together. Applicants note as to environment, these are oil production environments that could easily be searched together. Applicants note as to treatment operations these are treatment operations that could easily be searched together” (p.3). This is not found persuasive because, as previously in the Restriction/Election requirement, depending on the combination elected, the different chemicals would interact differently and raise different considerations. For example, a search for the combination of “xylenes” solvent; “dimethylsulfoxide” co-solvent; “downhole element” specific environment; and “remedial” treatment operation would not necessarily or easily produce results relevant to the combination of “light aromatic naphtha” solvent; “an alcohol” co-solvent; “a pipeline” specific environment; and “acidizing” treatment operation, because the different combination has such a different claim scope. Accordingly, this argument is not persuasive.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
All claims are under examination.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 10, 19, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
It appears claim 3 should recite “[[the]] a same mitigation dissolution of the deposits” (correcting the typos; because this is the first occurrence of the term and in line with [0033] “Specifically, the same or better mitigation dissolution of organic deposition could be achieved while having a percent decrease in volume”).
Claim 10 should recite “about 0 to about 12 volume percent” (correcting the typo).
Claim 19 should recite “The method of claim 4, wherein the treatment fluid comprises from 50 to 95 parts by volume of aromatic solvent, from 0 to 5 parts by volume of a cosolvent, and from 2 to 20 parts by volume [[if]] of the alkylbenzene sulfonic acid or [[an]] the alkylbenzene sulfonate” (correcting the typos by adding a comma; adding an “and”; changing the “if” to “of; and changing the “an” to “the”). Claim 20 is objected to by dependency.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 2 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites “wherein during the injecting injection pressure shows a decrease over a period of time, preferably the pressure decrease is at least 2, more preferably at least 5, and yet more preferably at least 10%.”
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 2 recites the broad recitation “wherein during the injecting injection pressure shows a decrease over a period of time,” and the claim also recites “the pressure decrease is at least 2” (and then further “at least 5” and “at least 10%”) 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.
Accordingly, the claim scope is rendered Indefinite.
For examination purposes, claim 2 will be read as though simply reciting “wherein during the injecting injection pressure shows a decrease over a period of time” (removing the narrower limitations).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 1-7, 9, 11-13, 15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Farmer (2023/0272263).
Regarding independent claim 1, Farmer discloses A method of removing deposits from a substrate (abstract “compositions comprising concentrated acids, solvents and surfactants, as well as their use in improving oil and/or gas production. … The subject invention can be used to dissolve, disperse and/or emulsify paraffin precipitates and/or deposits”; [0003] “These problematic deposits can be formed by, for example, high-molecular-weight constituents of petroleum fluids, most notably, paraffins and asphaltenes”; and [0182] “The subject methods can also be useful for a multitude of other benefits related to oil and gas recovery, including, for example: … removal and/or dissolution of mineral scales and/or asphaltenes; … and remediation of formation skin damage”), the method comprising:
contacting the deposits with a treatment fluid ([0183] “There are multiple ways that the method may be implemented using a composition according to the subject invention, for example, the compositions can be injected into oil wells and/or the piping, tubulars, casing, annulus, pumps, and tanks associated with oil-bearing formations, oil wells, oil production, oil transmission and oil transportation”) comprising a solvent ([0098] “The composition according to the subject invention can comprise one or more solvents to aide in, for example, dissolving and dispersing paraffins”) and an additive composition ([0109] “the composition comprises one or more surfactants, which, along with paraffin removal and/or dispersal, can provide additional enhanced oil recovery due to, for example, their surface and interfacial tension reduction properties” and [0110] “The surfactant(s) can be of non-biological origin”) comprising at least one of an alkylbenzene sulfonic acid or an alkylbenzene sulfonate ([0228] “Non-biological surfactants according to the subject compositions and methods include… linear alkylbenzene sulfonates (LABs)”) wherein the treatment fluid is substantially free of water ([0155] “The subject composition can further comprise carriers (e.g., water, oil and/or brine fluids)”); and
separating the deposits from the substrate with the treatment fluid to remove the deposits from the substrate (e.g., [0189] “The composition permeates the formation, improving the rate of oil recovery by a number of mechanisms such as, for example, dissolving paraffin and other contaminant blockages in the formation pore throats”), wherein the deposits comprise asphaltenes ([0182] “removal and/or dissolution of mineral scales and/or asphaltenes”).
Regarding “wherein the treatment fluid is substantially free of water,” as above, Farmer discloses “The subject composition can further comprise carriers (e.g., water, oil and/or brine fluids), as well as other optional compounds that are useful for paraffin removal and/or enhanced oil recovery” ([0155]). If the carrier is just “oil,” then this would exclude the “water” or “brine” embodiments and thus the treatment fluid would be free of water.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Farmer to include wherein the treatment fluid is free of water i.e. by only using non-aqueous components, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide “oil” as the carrier that is “useful for paraffin removal and/or enhanced oil recovery.” For example, Farmer provides no indication that water or brine would be a necessary component for paraffin and asphaltene removal.
Additionally, the Office observes that Applicant defines “By substantially free of water is meant the treatment fluid contains less than 1%, less than 0.05%, less than 0.1%, less than 0.05%, less than 0.01%, less than 0.005%, less than 10 ppm, less than 5 ppm, or less than 1 ppm based on total weight of the treatment fluid” ([0013]). Even if Farmer inherently or implicitly includes some incidental minor amounts of water, Farmer plainly does not require the presence of water, and so any incidental amounts of water would be <1% or even <0.1%.
Regarding claim 2, Farmer discloses “As the thickness of deposits increases over time, the result is a gradual decrease in production. In tubing and casing structures, the deposits begin to reduce the inner diameter of piping and restrict the free flow of oil and gas. As this occurs, the interior roughness of the structures also increases, which raises the pump pressure required to move the petroleum product” ([0011]) and thus “The composition permeates the formation, improving the rate of oil recovery by a number of mechanisms such as, for example, dissolving paraffin and other contaminant blockages in the formation pore throats” ([0189]).
Accordingly, by dissolving the paraffin, asphaltenes, and other contaminant blockages in the formation pore throats, Farmer must also lower the pump pressure required to move the fluids into and out of the formation, thereby providing “wherein during the injecting injection pressure shows a decrease over a period of time.”
Alternatively, Applicant should note that "the discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." See MPEP 2112. Also, mere recognition of latent properties in the prior art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention, and "[t]he fact that appellant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious." See MPEP 2145.
In this case, it appears that Applicant has merely discovered a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition or otherwise merely recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art. Moreover, since Farmer discloses the same composition as claimed, the fluid, if subjected to pumping, would act in the same manner as claimed, i.e., it would demonstrate “wherein during the injecting injection pressure shows a decrease over a period of time.” 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. Alternatively, if there is any difference between the composition 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." See MPEP 2112.
Regarding claim 3, Farmer discloses “Examples of solvent(s) that can be utilized according to the subject invention include…. xylene” ([0100]) and “the composition comprises one or more surfactants, which, along with paraffin removal and/or dispersal, can provide additional enhanced oil recovery” ([0109]), wherein “These problematic deposits can be formed by, for example, high-molecular-weight constituents of petroleum fluids, most notably, paraffins and asphaltenes” ([0003]) and “Advantageously, the combination of solvents with surfactants, when compared to using, for example, solvents alone, can also provide enhanced oil recovery in addition to effectively dispersing paraffin back into crude oil fluids” ([0056]).
Farmer appears to group the paraffins and asphaltenes deposits together, and thus Farmer’s surfactants appear to provide both paraffin and asphaltene removal and/or dispersal. Accordingly, by providing the “linear alkylbenzene sulfonates (LABs)” surfactant ([0228]) in “xylene” solvent ([0100]), Farmer must also increase the efficacy of the composition at paraffin and asphaltene removal and/or dispersal relative to xylene alone, and thus Farmer would provide “wherein a volume of the treatment fluid required is less than that is required for the same mitigation using a xylene-based treatment fluid which does not include the alkyl benzene sulfonic acid or the alkyl benzene sulfonate.”
Alternatively, it appears that Applicant has merely discovered a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition or otherwise merely recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art. Moreover, since Farmer discloses the same composition as claimed, the fluid, if subjected to testing, would act in the same manner as claimed, i.e., it would demonstrate “wherein a volume of the treatment fluid required is less than that is required for the same mitigation using a xylene-based treatment fluid which does not include the alkyl benzene sulfonic acid or the alkyl benzene sulfonate.” 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. Alternatively, if there is any difference between the composition 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." See MPEP 2112.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Farmer discloses:
“Examples of solvent(s) that can be utilized according to the subject invention include…toluene, … xylene, … naphtha, … and/or any combination thereof” ([0100]) and “The composition according to the subject invention can comprise one or more solvents to aide in, for example, dissolving and dispersing paraffins. … In one embodiment, the composition comprises solvents at a concentration of about 50% or less, 25% or less, or 10% or less, by volume” ([0098]); and
“In certain embodiments, the solvents can comprise one or more alcohols, such as, for example, ethanol, methanol, propanol, isopropyl alcohol and/or hexanol. In one embodiment, the composition comprises hexanol and/or isopropyl alcohol, at a concentration of about 1 ml/L to 200 ml/L, about 2 ml/L to 175 ml/L, about 3 ml/L to 150 ml/l, or about 4 ml/L to 100 ml/L” = ~0.1-20% v/v ([0105]); and/or “In certain embodiments, the solvents can comprise one or more ionic or semi-ionic liquids. Exemplary ionic or semi-ionic liquids suitable for the subject composition include… a semi-ionic mixture of glycerin/glycerol with magnesium sulfate heptahydrate” = an alcohol ([0106]) and “the ionic or semi-ionic liquid can act as a co-solvent” ([0107]) wherein “the ionic or semi-ionic liquid is present in the composition at a concentration of about 10 ml/L to 200 ml/L, about 20 ml/L to 175 ml/L, about 30 ml/L to 150 ml/l, about 40 ml/L to 125 ml/L, or about 50 ml/L to 100 ml/L” = ~1-20% v/v ([0108]).
Accordingly, Farmer appears to disclose at least e.g. 25% v/v toluene or xylene combined with either e.g. 10% v/v alcohols or e.g. 10% v/v glycerin/glycerol with magnesium sulfate heptahydrate co-solvent, thereby anticipating:
(claim 4) wherein the solvent comprises an aromatic solvent; and the aromatic solvent comprises at least one of toluene, xylenes, or a light aromatic naphtha; and a content of the aromatic solvent is about 10 volume percent to about 99 volume percent, based on a total volume of the treatment fluid; and further
(claim 5) wherein the solvent further comprises a co-solvent comprising at least one of an alcohol, an amine, an amide, an ether, an ester, a ketone, acetonitrile, dimethylsulfoxide, or a carbonate, and a content of the co-solvent is about 0.1 to about 50 volume percent, based on a total volume of the treatment fluid.
Alternatively, even if it were somehow found that Farmer fails to disclose this per se, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Farmer to include, e.g. 25% v/v toluene or xylene combined with either e.g. 10% v/v alcohols or e.g. 10% v/v glycerin/glycerol with magnesium sulfate heptahydrate co-solvent, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide “any combination thereof” of the solvents disclosed by Farmer in amounts within the general conditions disclosed by Farmer. Applicant may note that, after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process. See also MPEP 2144.05 Obviousness of Similar and Overlapping Ranges, Amounts, and Proportions.
For example, Applicant does not appear to disclose any criticality to using these particular amounts of the solvents and co-solvents.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Farmer discloses “the composition comprises one or more surfactants” ([0109]) wherein “The chemical treatment method can comprise applying a composition that comprises one or more chemical solvents and one or more non-biological surfactants to the wellbore. … The surfactants can comprise, for example, from 1% to 50% of the volume of the chemical treatment, from 2% to 20%, or from 5% to 10%” ([0056]) wherein “Non-biological surfactants according to the subject compositions and methods include… linear alkylbenzene sulfonates (LABs)” ([0228]). If the “additive composition” is drawn to Farmer’s two or more surfactants, accordingly, Farmer anticipates:
(claim 6) wherein a content of the additive composition is about 0.5 to about 75 volume percent, based on a total volume of the treatment fluid; and/or
(claim 7) wherein the additive composition comprises the alkylbenzene sulfonic acid, and a content of the alkylbenzene sulfonic acid is about 0.5 to about 90 volume percent, based on a total volume of the additive composition or the additive composition comprises the alkylbenzene sulfonate, a content of the alkylbenzene sulfonate is about 0.5 to about 99 volume percent, based on a total volume of the additive composition.
Alternatively, even if it were somehow found that Farmer fails to disclose this per se, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Farmer to include, e.g. 10% v/v linear alkylbenzene sulfonates and 10% v/v of a second surfactant, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide “one or more surfactants” disclosed by Farmer in amounts within the general conditions disclosed by Farmer. Applicant may note that, after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process. See also MPEP 2144.05 Obviousness of Similar and Overlapping Ranges, Amounts, and Proportions.
Regarding the “alkylbenzene sulfonic acid” embodiment, Applicant may see the reference to Tan in the Conclusion.
Regarding claim 9, Farmer discloses wherein the additive composition further comprises an acid component ([0085] “In preferred embodiments, the subject invention provides a composition for improving oil and/or gas production, the composition comprising one or more concentrated acids, one or more solvents and one or more surfactants”).
Regarding claims 11-13, 15, 17, and 18, Farmer discloses “The subject methods can also be useful for a multitude of other benefits related to oil and gas recovery, including, for example: … removal and/or dissolution of mineral scales and/or asphaltenes; … and remediation of formation skin damage” ([0182]) “There are multiple ways that the method may be implemented using a composition according to the subject invention, for example, the compositions can be injected into oil wells and/or the piping, tubulars, casing, annulus, pumps, and tanks associated with oil-bearing formations, oil wells, oil production, oil transmission and oil transportation” ([0183]) and “The composition permeates the formation, improving the rate of oil recovery by a number of mechanisms such as, for example, dissolving paraffin and other contaminant blockages in the formation pore throats” ([0189]). Accordingly, Farmer discloses:
(claim 11) wherein contacting the deposits with the treatment fluid is performed in a subsurface environment comprising at least one of a pipeline, a formation, a production zone, a reservoir, or a downhole element; and/or
(claim 12) wherein the deposits are removed from the substrate during a fracturing, acidizing, sand control, remedial, completion, refracturing operation, or a pumping treatment placed in a completion or remedial operation; and/or
(claim 13) establishing flow from a reservoir to a wellbore; and/or
(claim 15) wherein contacting the deposits with the treatment fluid is performed in a near-wellbore region, and the method comprises cleaning the near-wellbore region and a downhole element in the near-wellbore region with the treatment fluid; and/or
(claim 17) wherein the substrate comprises at least one of a formation, a downhole element, a metal, a composite, sand, rock, a mineral, or glass; and/or
(claim 18) enhancing oil recovery from a subsurface environment, optionally including reducing the viscosity of oil in the subsurface environment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Farmer as in claim 4.
Regarding claim 19, Farmer discloses:
“Examples of solvent(s) that can be utilized according to the subject invention include…toluene, … xylene, … naphtha, … and/or any combination thereof” ([0100]) and “The composition according to the subject invention can comprise one or more solvents to aide in, for example, dissolving and dispersing paraffins. … In one embodiment, the composition comprises solvents at a concentration of about 50% or less, 25% or less, or 10% or less, by volume” ([0098]); and
“In certain embodiments, the solvents can comprise one or more alcohols, such as, for example, ethanol, methanol, propanol, isopropyl alcohol and/or hexanol. In one embodiment, the composition comprises hexanol and/or isopropyl alcohol, at a concentration of about 1 ml/L to 200 ml/L, about 2 ml/L to 175 ml/L, about 3 ml/L to 150 ml/l, or about 4 ml/L to 100 ml/L” = ~0.4-10% v/v ([0105]); and/or “In certain embodiments, the solvents can comprise one or more ionic or semi-ionic liquids. Exemplary ionic or semi-ionic liquids suitable for the subject composition include… a semi-ionic mixture of glycerin/glycerol with magnesium sulfate heptahydrate” = an alcohol ([0106]) and “the ionic or semi-ionic liquid can act as a co-solvent” ([0107]) wherein “the ionic or semi-ionic liquid is present in the composition at a concentration of about 10 ml/L to 200 ml/L, about 20 ml/L to 175 ml/L, about 30 ml/L to 150 ml/l, about 40 ml/L to 125 ml/L, or about 50 ml/L to 100 ml/L” = ~5-10% v/v ([0108]).
“The chemical treatment method can comprise applying a composition that comprises one or more chemical solvents and one or more non-biological surfactants to the wellbore. … The surfactants can comprise, for example, from 1% to 50% of the volume of the chemical treatment, from 2% to 20%, or from 5% to 10%” ([0056]) wherein “Non-biological surfactants according to the subject compositions and methods include… linear alkylbenzene sulfonates (LABs)” ([0228]).
Accordingly, Farmer appears to disclose at least e.g. 50% v/v toluene or xylene combined with either e.g. 5% v/v alcohols or e.g. 5% v/v glycerin/glycerol with magnesium sulfate heptahydrate co-solvent, and 10% v/v alkylbenzene sulfonate surfactant, thereby anticipating “wherein the treatment fluid comprises from 50 to 95 parts by volume of aromatic solvent, from 0 to 5 parts by volume of a cosolvent, from 2 to 20 parts by volume of the alkylbenzene sulfonic acid or the alkylbenzene sulfonate.”
Alternatively, even if it were somehow found that Farmer fails to disclose this per se, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Farmer to include, e.g. 50% v/v toluene or xylene combined with either e.g. 5% v/v alcohols or e.g. 5% v/v glycerin/glycerol with magnesium sulfate heptahydrate co-solvent, and 10% v/v alkylbenzene sulfonate surfactant, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide “any combination thereof” of the solvents with the surfactants disclosed by Farmer in amounts within the general conditions disclosed by Farmer. Applicant may note that, after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process. See also MPEP 2144.05 Obviousness of Similar and Overlapping Ranges, Amounts, and Proportions.
For example, Applicant does not appear to disclose any criticality to using these particular amounts of the solvents, co-solvents, and surfactant.
Regarding the rest of the 50-95% v/v aromatic solvent greater than 50% v/v, although not required to render obvious the claim as written, it further appears that it would also have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Farmer to include somewhat-higher amounts of the solvent than “about 50% or less… by volume” e.g. 51% v/v, 52% v/v, etc., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a suitable amount of solvent within the general conditions disclosed by Farmer “to aide in, for example, dissolving and dispersing paraffins.”
Regarding claim 20, Farmer discloses “the composition comprises one or more surfactants, which, along with paraffin removal and/or dispersal, can provide additional enhanced oil recovery due to, for example, their surface and interfacial tension reduction properties” ([0109]) wherein “The surfactants can comprise, for example, from 1% to 50% of the volume of the chemical treatment, from 2% to 20%, or from 5% to 10%” ([0056]) and “The surfactant(s) can be of non-biological origin” ([0110]) such as “sodium lauryl sulfate (also called SDS, sodium dodecyl sulfate),… sodium laureth sulfate (also known as sodium lauryl ether sulfate (SEES)), … linear alkylbenzene sulfonates (LABs), … cetyl trimethylammonium bromide (CTAB) (a.k.a. hexadecyl trimethyl ammonium bromide), … benzalkonium chloride (BAC), … betaines, … polyoxyethylene glycol alkyl ethers” ([0228]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Farmer to include “one or more surfactants” including e.g. 5-10% v/v “linear alkylbenzene sulfonates” together with e.g. 5-10% v/v of at least one of “sodium lauryl sulfate,” “sodium laureth sulfate,” “cetyl trimethylammonium bromide,” “benzalkonium chloride,” “betaines,” and/or “polyoxyethylene glycol alkyl ethers,” with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide surfactants within the general conditions disclosed by Farmer for paraffin and asphaltene removal and/or dispersal (thereby including “wherein the treatment fluid comprises from 0.1 to 10 parts by volume of a nanosurfactant”). See also MPEP 2144.05 Obviousness of Similar and Overlapping Ranges, Amounts, and Proportions.
The Office observes that Applicant discloses “Examples of nanosurfactants include sodium lauryl sulfate, sodium laureth sulfate, benzalkonium chloride, cetyltrimethylammonium bromide, ethoxylated aliphatic alcohol, polyoxyethylene surfactants, betaines, and sodium trideceth sulfate” ([0021]). Accordingly, Farmer provides nanosurfactants by providing the same chemicals, as above.
Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Farmer as in claim 1, and further in view of Pabalan (2013/0196885) (cited by Applicant and in parent).
Regarding claim 8, Farmer discloses “the composition comprises one or more surfactants, which, along with paraffin removal and/or dispersal, can provide additional enhanced oil recovery due to, for example, their surface and interfacial tension reduction properties” ([0109]) wherein “Non-biological surfactants according to the subject compositions and methods include… alkyl-ether sulfates” ([0228]).
However, Farmer fails to specify if the alkyl-ether sulfates may include sodium trideceth sulfate.
Nevertheless, this is a well-known specific form of an alkyl ether sulfate surfactant. For example, Pabalan teaches an “oil field formulation” that “can be utilized in an oil field application” (abstract) such as for “deposit removal fluids (e.g., asphaltene, wax, oil)” ([0065]) wherein the oil field formulation includes surfactants ([0143]) wherein “The anionic surfactant includes but is not limited to linear alkylbenzene sulfonates… Commonly used anionic surfactants that are suitable as the anionic surfactant component of the composition of the present invention include, for example, … sodium trideceth sulfate. Branched anionic surfactants are particularly preferred, such as sodium trideceth sulfate” ([0148]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Champagne to include “wherein the additive composition further comprises an additional surfactant comprising sodium trideceth sulfate,” with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide “one or more surfactants” including “alkyl-ether sulfates” as within Farmer’s general conditions, using a well-known specific form that is particularly preferred for oil field formulations, as in Pabalan.
Furthermore, the Office observes that Applicant fails to provide any criticality to using the combination of alkylbenzene sulfonate/sulfonic acid and sodium trideceth sulfate in particular.
Regarding claim 10, Farmer discloses wherein the treatment fluid comprises
about 10 to about 99 volume percent of an aromatic solvent, which comprises at least one of toluene, xylenes, or a low aromatic naphtha ([0098] “The composition according to the subject invention can comprise one or more solvents to aide in, for example, dissolving and dispersing paraffins. … In one embodiment, the composition comprises solvents at a concentration of about 50% or less, 25% or less, or 10% or less, by volume” and [0100] “Examples of solvent(s) that can be utilized according to the subject invention include…toluene, … xylene, … naphtha, … and/or any combination thereof”), and about 0 to about 50 volume percent of a co- solvent comprising at least one of an alcohol, an amine, an amide, an ether, an ester, a ketone, acetonitrile, dimethylsulfoxide, or a carbonate, each based on a total volume of the treatment fluid; and
about 0.5 to about 70 volume percent of the additive composition, the additive composition comprising about 0.5 to about 99 volume percent of … alkylbenzene sulfonic acid or a salt thereof ([0056] “The chemical treatment method can comprise applying a composition that comprises one or more chemical solvents and one or more non-biological surfactants to the wellbore. Advantageously, the combination of solvents with surfactants, when compared to using, for example, solvents alone, can also provide enhanced oil recovery in addition to effectively dispersing paraffin back into crude oil fluids. … The surfactants can comprise, for example, from 1% to 50% of the volume of the chemical treatment, from 2% to 20%, or from 5% to 10%” wherein [0228] “Non-biological surfactants according to the subject compositions and methods include… linear alkylbenzene sulfonates (LABs)”); and about 0 to about 12 volume percent of an additional surfactant comprising sodium trideceth sulfate, and about 0 to about 50 volume percent of an acid component ([0091] “the amount of concentrated acid in the composition is about 1% to about 20% v/v, about 5% to about 15%, or about 7.5% to about 10%”), based on a total volume of the additive composition (note that if the “additive composition” is drawn to Farmer’s surfactants and concentrated acid, Farmer would provide e.g. 10% v/v surfactants and 10% v/v concentrated acid which is 20% v/v of the treatment fluid and of which 50% v/v of the additive is surfactant and 50% v/v of the additive is acid component).
However, Farmer fails to disclose if the “linear alkylbenzene sulfonates (LABs)” includes a C8-30 alkylbenzene sulfonic acid or a salt.
Nevertheless, these are well-known specific types of LABs. For example, Pabalan teaches an “oil field formulation” that “can be utilized in an oil field application” (abstract) such as for “deposit removal fluids (e.g., asphaltene, wax, oil)” ([0065]) wherein the oil field formulation includes surfactants ([0143]) wherein “The anionic surfactant includes but is not limited to linear alkylbenzene sulfonates… Commonly used anionic surfactants that are suitable as the anionic surfactant component of the composition of the present invention include, for example, … sodium dodecyl benzene sulfonate” = a C12 alkylbenzene sulfonic acid salt ([0148]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Farmer to include, specifically, sodium dodecyl benzene sulfonate as the LABs, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a specific, well-known LAB for dispersing paraffin and asphaltene deposits (thereby including:
“about 0.5 to about 70 volume percent of the additive composition, the additive composition comprising about 0.5 to about 99 volume percent of a C8-30 alkylbenzene sulfonic acid or a salt thereof; and about 0 to about 12 volume percent of an additional surfactant comprising sodium trideceth sulfate, and about 0 to about 50 volume percent of an acid component, based on a total volume of the additive composition”).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Farmer as in claim 1, and further in view of Tellez (2017/0240804).
Regarding claim 14, Farmer discloses “There are multiple ways that the method may be implemented using a composition according to the subject invention, for example, the compositions can be injected into oil wells and/or the piping, tubulars, casing, annulus, pumps, and tanks associated with oil-bearing formations, oil wells, oil production, oil transmission and oil transportation” ([0183]).
However, Farmer fails to specify if these may include, e.g., coiled tubing.
Nevertheless, coiled tubing is an extremely common tubular to use. For example, Tellez teaches “It is also to be recognized that the disclosed composition can also directly or indirectly affect the various downhole or subterranean equipment and tools that can come into contact with the composition during operation. Such equipment and tools can include wellbore casing, wellbore liner, completion string, insert strings, drill string, coiled tubing” ([0097]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Farmer to include, specifically, injecting the composition through coiled tubing, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to use common equipment that is a type of “piping” or “tubular” for injecting the composition (thereby including “introducing the treatment fluid into a subsurface environment through an umbilical line, a coil tubing, or via a bullhead method through a flowline or a tubing”).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Farmer as in claim 1, and further in view of Leonard (2013/0186629) (cited by Applicant and in parent).
Regarding claim 16, Farmer discloses “There are multiple ways that the method may be implemented using a composition according to the subject invention, for example, the compositions can be injected into oil wells and/or the piping, tubulars, casing, annulus, pumps, and tanks associated with oil-bearing formations, oil wells, oil production, oil transmission and oil transportation” ([0183]).
However, Farmer fails to disclose injecting the composition as a pre-flush for an aromatic solvent without the alkylbenzene sulfonic acid or sulfonate.
Leonard teaches treating a formation for asphaltenes in “squeezing” (abstract) wherein “During the "squeeze" application of the asphaltene inhibitor formulation, the following steps may be followed in one non-limiting embodiment. (1) A preflush of a chemical treatment such as toluene, xylene, ethylbenzenes, aromatic naphthas, produced hydrocarbons, diesel, kerosene, unconventional solvents such as limonenes, turpentines, aliphatic hydrocarbons or polyethers, or other aromatic solvents and combinations thereof with 0-20 wt % of an asphaltene dispersant may be introduced. Suitable asphaltene dispersants include, but are not necessarily limited to, dodecylbenzene sulfonic acid (DDBSA) and naphthalene sulfonic acids, other organic sulfonates, soaps, and surfactants. (2) The preflush is followed by pumping a predetermined volume of the reaction product asphaltene inhibitor composition into the formation (in one non-limiting embodiment from about 1 to 75 barrels not including the dilution and/or carrier phase); the volume of pumped inhibitor is determined by oil, well, formation, and production characteristics. (3) In cases of wells with at least 1 vol % water cut, the pumping of the reaction product asphaltene inhibitor composition is followed by an overflush of toluene, xylene, ethylbenzenes, aromatic naphthas, produced hydrocarbons, diesel, kerosene, unconventional solvents such as limonenes, turpentines, aliphatic hydrocarbons or polyethers, or other aromatic solvents and combinations thereof” ([0028]). Notably, the (3) overflush does not include the asphaltene dispersant of (1) preflush.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Farmer to include “an overflush of toluene, xylene,” etc. without an asphaltene dispersant such as dodecylbenzene sulfonic acid (DDBSA) after a preflush with an asphaltene dispersant such as DDBSA, as in Leonard, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to first disperse any asphaltene with the chemical treatment, and then later flush the chemical treatment and any other treatment fluids out of the wellbore (and thereby providing “wherein the method comprises injecting into a subsurface environment the treatment fluid as a pre-flush fluid such that the treatment fluid contacts the deposits on the substrate, and injecting into the subsurface environment an aromatic solvent without the alkylbenzene sulfonic acid or the alkylbenzene sulfonate”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
The reference to Tan (2007/0295640) (cited by Applicant and in parent) provides evidence that dodecylbenzene sulfonic acid and sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate are known alternatives for asphaltene removal, stating “Compositions of the invention comprise an asphaltene solvent and a viscosity reducing agent, the asphaltene solvent and viscosity reducing agent present in a ratio so as to substantially reduce viscosity of an asphaltene-containing material while substantially negating deposition of asphaltenes either in a reservoir, in production tubing, or both when mixed or otherwise contacting the asphaltene-containing material” (abstract) wherein “Surfactants may be selected from anionic, cation, nonionic, amphoteric surfactants, and combinations of two or more of these. Examples of suitable anionic surfactants include: dodecylbenzene sulfonic acid, sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate” ([0040]).
The reference to Alam (2016/0145487) discloses an “an asphaltene-dissolving oil-external emulsion for acidization” (abstract) comprising toluene or xylene ([0063]), dimethyl sulfoxide polar organic solvent ([0072]), and “linear (C1-C10)alkylbenzene sulfonate” emulsifier ([0074]). However, this reference particularly includes water as part of the emulsion as part of the “aqueous acid” ([0082]; see also [0087]), and it would not be obvious to modify this reference to remove the water without destroying the reference’s principle of operation.
The reference to Champagne (2018/0037792) (cited by Applicant and in parent) discloses a composition comprising a microemulsion (abstract) which comprises aromatic solvent e.g. xylene or toluene ([0065]); mutual solvent e.g. DMSO, alcohols, ethers, or esters ([0073]); linear sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate ([0082]); used for removal of leftover drilling fluids by breakdown and removal of near-wellbore skin comprising paraffins or asphaltenes ([0154]). However, this reference particularly includes water as part of the microemulsion ([0074]), and it would not be obvious to modify this reference to remove the water without destroying the reference’s principle of operation.
The reference to Quintero (2018/0079951) (cited by Applicant and in parent) discloses a single phase fluid for removing deposits from a wellbore comprising solvent, surfactant, co-solvent, and scale dissolver (abstract), the deposits including asphaltenes ([0022]), wherein “The role of the surfactant and co-solvents in the single phase fluids described herein is to get the immiscible components (i.e. solvent and scale dissolver diluted in water) into a single-phase fluid” ([0035]). Similarly, the Examples all include “brine” ([0042] and Tables I & II). Accordingly, it appears that this reference requires the presence of at least some water, and it would not be obvious to modify this reference to remove the water without destroying the reference’s principle of operation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW SUE-AKO whose telephone number is (571)272-9455. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM EST.
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 571-272-24137. 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.
/ANDREW SUE-AKO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674