DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, filed January 27, 2026, have been fully considered.
Claim 13 has been canceled by the Applicant.
The objection to Claim 1 regarding a typographical error, mailed October 1, 2025, has been overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The objection to Claims 7-12 regarding an improper / premature acronym, mailed October 1, 2025, has been overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The objection to Claim 13, mailed October 1, 2025, is now moot.
The rejection of Claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) regarding the crosslinker, mailed October 1, 2025, has been overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claims 1 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) regarding the organic amine, mailed October 1, 2025, has been overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) regarding the omitted organic amine species, mailed October 1, 2025, has been overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) regarding the omitted crosslinker species, mailed October 1, 2025, has been overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) regarding the omitted organic amine species, mailed October 1, 2025, has been overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claims 7-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) regarding the omitted crosslinker species, mailed October 1, 2025, has been overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
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 1-6 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 “wherein the fracturing fluid is at a temperature in a temperature range of 125 to 175 degrees Fahrenheit, and wherein viscosity of the fracturing fluid remains within a range of 50 cP for at least 2 hours at the temperature” in lines 11-13. The Applicant has failed to claim a viscosity range but rather recites a single value of viscosity (50 cP). If the Applicant intended to claim that the viscosity does not deviate more than 50 cP relative to a viscosity or viscosity range, the Applicant has also failed to recite a defined viscosity or viscosity range as the point of reference for the deviation. Thus, it is unclear what viscosity 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.
Claims 7-12 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 7 recites the limitation “wherein the fracturing fluid is at a temperature in a temperature range of 125 to 175 degrees Fahrenheit, and wherein viscosity of the fracturing fluid remains within a range of 50 cP for at least 2 hours at the temperature” in lines 11-13. The Applicant has failed to claim a viscosity range but rather recites a single value of viscosity (50 cP). If the Applicant intended to claim that the viscosity does not deviate more than 50 cP relative to a viscosity or viscosity range, the Applicant has also failed to recite a defined viscosity or viscosity range as the point of reference for the deviation. Thus, it is unclear what viscosity 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
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patil et al. (US 2020/0308477) in view of Parris (US 2011/0030962).
Claims 1 and 7. Patil discloses a well treatment fluid, such as a fracturing fluid (Abstract; [0014]), wherein the well treatment fluid comprises at least an aqueous base fluid; clay; and a polymer (Abstract; [0014]). Patil discloses that the well treatment fluid may further include a polymer gelling agent, such as hydroxyl propyl guar, in an amount of about 0.01 pounds to about 20 pounds per barrel of the aqueous base fluid ([0028] – [0029]); a gel stabilizer, such as sodium thiosulfate, in an amount up to about 3 wt% ([0030] – [0031]); a gel crosslinker, such as ulexite, in an amount up to about 3 wt% ([0032] – [0033]; [0035]); and buffers and other pH adjusting agents, such as sodium hydroxide (i.e. NaOH) ([0042]).
Patil discloses buffers and other pH adjusting agents, such as sodium hydroxide ([0042]), but Patil does not expressly disclose NaOH to adjust the pH of the fracturing fluid to between 8.5-12.0. However, Parris teaches an aqueous composition, such as a fracturing fluid ([0030]; [0033]), comprising a source of boron, which may comprise ulexite ([0016]); a crosslinker solution which may comprise hydroxypropyl guar (HPG) ([0025]; [0042]); a stabilizer which may comprise 0.12% by weight of sodium thiosulfate pentahydrate ([0042]); and a pH adjusting agent which may comprise NaOH ([0023]; [0042]). Parris further teaches wherein the pH of the crosslinker composition may be tailored to a pH of 9 to 12 ([0023]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to adjust the pH of the fracturing fluid in Patil to the range, as taught by Parris, such that the pH of the crosslinker composition may be tailored to maximize the transportation, stability, and/or crosslinking properties of the compositions ([0023]). Moreover, NaOH may be used to avoid reversal of crosslinking during fracturing and maintain a stable pH required for crosslink stability at bottom hole temperatures.1
Regarding the limitation: wherein the fracturing fluid is at a temperature in a temperature range of 125 to 175 degrees Fahrenheit, and wherein viscosity of the fracturing fluid remains within a range of 50 cP for at least 2 hours at the temperature (See rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)), it is unclear what viscosity 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. However, Patil does disclose that the synergy of the treatment fluid components can maintain rheological properties at temperatures above 300°F ([0022]). Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to optimize the viscosity of the fracturing fluid by modifying the concentrations of the polymer gelling agent and/or gel stabilizer and/or gel crosslinker in Patil to achieve an optimized 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 2-6 and 8-12. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the concentration range(s) of hydroxyl propyl guar, gel stabilizer, gel crosslinker, and buffers/pH adjusting agents in Patil as modified by Parris 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed January 27, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons explained, below.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., stable viscosity range relative to temperature and time) are not sufficiently recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
1 See Nelson et al. (US 2017/0355900) ([0007]; [0009]).