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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 and 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abdo (US 3,292,697).
With respect to independent claim 1, Abdo discloses an endothermic fluid composition (col. 1 lines 11-16) comprising: an aqueous solution (col. 2 lines 9-13); ammonium chloride (col. 2 lines 14-24); and sodium hydroxide (col. 2 lines 37-45), wherein:
the ammonium chloride is present in the aqueous solution in an amount of 0.136 percent by weight and the sodium hydroxide is present in the aqueous solution in an amount of 0.216 percent by weight (col. 2 line 55- col. 3 line 5).
Regarding claim 1, Abdo discloses wherein the ammonium chloride is present in the aqueous solution in an amount of 0.136 percent by weight and the sodium hydroxide is present in the aqueous solution in an amount of 0.216 percent by weight (col. 2 line 55- col. 3 line 5). Although silent to wherein the concentrations of ammonium chloride and sodium hydroxide are present in amounts of “0.1 Molar to 5 Molar” and “0.1 Molar to 32 Molar,” respectively, as instantly claimed, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide for ammonium chloride and sodium hydroxide amounts as claimed insofar as because it has been held "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
With respect to depending claims 3-6, Abdo discloses wherein the amount of ammonium chloride should be at least equivalent to the amount of sodium hydroxide such as an ammonium chloride amount of “from 3 to 12 percent greater than the number of mols of [sodium hydroxide]” (col. 2 line 55- col. 3 line 5). Although silent to wherein the molar ratio between the sodium hydroxide and the ammonium chloride is “from 1:1 to 15:1,” “from 1:1 to 5:1,” “from 5:1 to 10:1,” and “from 10:1 to 15:1,” as instantly claimed, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide for the sodium hydroxide and ammonium chloride molar ratio as claimed insofar as because it has been held "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
With respect to depending claim 7, Abdo discloses an aqueous composition for waterflooding a subterranean formation (col. 1 lines 11-16). With regard to the specific types of water recited in the Markush group, the Office considers it well known in the art that water for aqueous waterflooding compositions is commonly sourced from the types instantly claimed (e.g. seawater).
With respect to depending claims 8-10, Abdo discloses wherein the ammonium chloride is present in the aqueous solution in an amount of 0.136 percent by weight and the sodium hydroxide is present in the aqueous solution in an amount of 0.216 percent by weight (col. 2 line 55- col. 3 line 5). Although silent to wherein the concentration of ammonium chloride is in amounts of “0.4 Molar to .06 Molar,” “1 Molar to 5 Molar,” and “0.1 Molar to 0.4 Molar” and the concentration of sodium hydroxide is in amounts of “1 Molar to 6 Molar,” “16 Molar to 32 Molar,” and “0.1 Molar to 2 Molar,” as instantly claimed, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide for ammonium chloride and sodium hydroxide amounts as claimed insofar as because it has been held "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abdo (US 3,292,697- cited above) in view of Roddy et al. (US 2005/0167104).
With respect to depending claim 2, Abdo discloses a composition comprising ammonium chloride and sodium hydroxide (col. 2 lines 9-45). However, Abdo fails to expressly disclose wherein the ammonium chloride is encapsulated, as instantly claimed. Roddy teaches introducing aluminum powder and sodium hydroxide together into a wellbore and their reaction forms a gas, wherein the ammonium powder is encapsulated such that the reaction between the ammonium powder and the sodium hydroxide is at least partially delayed (Abstract, [0024], and [0027]). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider encapsulating the ammonium chloride disclosed by Abdo with the capsules for ammonium powder taught by Roddy since it amounts to nothing more than employing a known technique to a comparable device in a comparable situation, i.e., delivering ammonium and sodium chloride downhole, and it therefore would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention since it has been taught “[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill... [A] court must ask whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." KSR at 1396
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gabrielson et al. (US 2016/0052833) teaches a composition comprising an aqueous solution, ammonium chloride, and sodium hydroxide.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AVI T. SKAIST whose telephone number is (571)272-9348. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Doug Hutton can be reached at (571) 272-4137. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AVI T SKAIST/Examiner, Art Unit 3674
/WILLIAM D HUTTON JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3674