DETAILED ACTION
The present application is a CON of U.S. Application No. 18/726,850; (371 national stage entry of PCT/US2023/019258).
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
The Applicant’s amendments, filed August 14, 2026, have been fully considered.
Claims 2, 15, and 20 have been cancelled by the Applicant. Claims 22-24 are newly added.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (Claims 1-3, 5, 7-8, and 10) in the reply filed on August 14, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the amended claims recite a special technical feature.
This is not found persuasive since amended Groups I-III lack unity of invention, because the technical feature (a particulate additive comprising graphite / graphene / silica carbide for increasing thermal conductivity) is not a special technical feature in view of Reddy et al. (US 2012/0205577) and/or Nissinen et al. (US 2020/0377415), as described in the Office action, below.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 14, 16-19, and 21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: inconsistent terminology. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites the following limitation “a particulate additive” in line 4.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “wherein the particulate is in the form of flakes” in line 1.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-13, and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reddy et al. (US 2012/0205577 A1).
Claim 1. A composition, comprising:
water;
a cement; and
a particulate additive, selected from the group consisting of graphite, graphene, and silicon carbide, for increasing thermal conductivity, wherein the particulate additive has a particle size between 50 and 470 µm and is present in the composition at a concentration between 20% and 75% by weight of cement, wherein the composition has a consistency lower than 70 Bearden units (Bc) throughout a placement period such that the composition is pumpable during the placement period.
Reddy discloses a thermally improved cement composition ([0017]) comprising: a cementitious material, such as hydraulic cement ([0009]; [0029]); water ([0009]; [0032]); and a thermally conductive fiber ([0009]; [0018]), such as graphite carbon fibers ([0018]), wherein the thermally conductive fibers may be in the form of carbon nanotubes (i.e. graphene layers / sheets) having lengths in the range from about 50 microns to about 200 microns ([0021]), wherein the fiber is present in the composition in an amount of from about 1 wt. % to about 30 wt. % ([0028]). Reddy further discloses that water is present in the thermally improved cement composition in an amount sufficient to form a pumpable slurry ([0032]) such that cement composition is placed within a well during a period of time and allowed to set ([0007]; [0037]). The Examiner notes that it has been well known to one of ordinary skill in the petrochemical art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that a cement composition is considered to thicken / harden upon reaching 70 Bc which transforms the cement composition from a pumpable / flowable state to a hardened cement. See Brothers et al. (US 2007/0221379): ([0024]); See also Pisklak et al. (US 2017/0002257): ([0016]; [0036]; [0047]).
Claim 3. Reddy discloses The composition of claim 1. Regarding the limitation: wherein the particulate is in the form of flakes, Reddy discloses that the thermally conductive fibers may comprise graphite flakes (Table 1); and Reddy further discloses that the thermally conductive fiber may comprise a combination of carbon fibers of two or more lengths having desired thermal conductivity values, and/or wherein the fiber length distribution is bimodal or trimodal ([0027]). Moreover, 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 shape of the thermally conductive fibers in Reddy, because it has been held that a mere change in shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim 4. Reddy discloses The composition of claim 1. Regarding the limitation: wherein the thermal conductivity of the composition is between 3 W/mK and 100 W/mK, Reddy discloses wherein the composition has a thermal conductivity of from about 0.75 W/mK to about 15 W/mK ([0035]).
Claim 5. Reddy discloses The composition of claim 1. Regarding the limitation: wherein the thermal conductivity of the composition is between 5 W/mK and 8 W/mK, Reddy discloses wherein the composition has a thermal conductivity of from about 0.75 W/mK to about 15 W/mK ([0035]).
Claim 6. Reddy discloses The composition of claim 1. Regarding the limitation: wherein the composition does not contain silica in an amount greater than 100 wt% by weight of the hydraulic cement, Reddy discloses that the that the thermally conductive fibers may optionally comprise additional additives, such as silica flour ([0033]).
Claim 7. Reddy discloses The composition of claim 1. Regarding the limitation: wherein the composition further comprises silica at a concentration between 0.1 wt% and 100 wt% by weight of the hydraulic cement, Reddy discloses that the that the thermally conductive fibers may optionally comprise additional additives, such as silica flour, in an effective amount known to one of ordinary skill in the art ([0033]). 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 silica flour in Reddy 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 8. Reddy discloses The composition of claim 1. Regarding the limitation: wherein the composition has a slurry density between 1.24Kg/litre and 2.4Kg/litre (10 lbm/gal and 20 lbm/gal), Reddy discloses an example of a cement sample having a slurry density of 16.4 pounds per gallon (ppg) (Examiner note: 16.4 ppg ≈ 1.97 kg/L) ([0044] – [0048]).
Claim 9. Reddy discloses The composition of claim 1. Regarding the limitation: wherein the composition has a slurry density between 1.24Kg/litre and 2.0Kg/litre (10 lbm/gal and 17 lbm/gal), Reddy discloses an example of a cement sample having a slurry density of 16.4 pounds per gallon (ppg) (Examiner note: 16.4 ppg ≈ 1.97 kg/L) ([0044] – [0048]).
Claim 10. Reddy discloses The composition of claim 1. Regarding the limitation: wherein the composition has a multimodal particle size distribution comprising two or more sets of particles with different sizes, Reddy discloses that the thermally conductive fiber may comprise a combination of carbon fibers of two or more lengths having desired thermal conductivity values; and/or wherein the fiber length distribution is bimodal or trimodal; and/or a combination of one set of short fibers with lengths less than about 500 microns and a second set of long fibers with lengths equal to greater than about 1 mm are used thus providing a bimodal length distribution ([0027]).
Claim 11. Reddy discloses The composition of claim 1. Regarding the limitation: wherein the composition has a solid volume fraction between 30% and 50%, 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 solid volume fraction of solid materials in the thermally improved cement composition in Reddy 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 12. Reddy discloses The composition of claim 1. Regarding the limitation: wherein the cement comprises portland cement, high alumina cement, lime/silica blends, fly ashes, bioashes, metakaolin, kaolin, blast furnace slags, cement kiln dust, cement bypass dust or geopolymers, or combinations thereof, Reddy discloses that cementitious materials may include: Portland cements (e.g., classes A, C, G, and H Portland cements), construction cements (e.g., type I and II), pozzolanic cements, gypsum cements, shale cements, acid/base cements, phosphate cements, high alumina content cements, silica cements, high alkalinity cements, magnesia cements, fly ash cement, zeolite cement systems, cement kiln dust cement systems, slag cements, micro-fine cement, metakaolin, Sorel cement which typically comprises magnesium oxide and a chloride or phosphate salt which together form for example magnesium oxychloride, or combinations thereof ([0029]).
Claim 13. Reddy discloses The composition of claim 1. Regarding the limitation: wherein the cement comprises portland cement, Reddy discloses that the cementitious material may comprise Portland cements ([0029]).
Claim 22. Reddy discloses The composition of claim 1. Regarding the limitation: wherein the composition has a yield value (Ty) between 7lbf/100 ft2 and 75 lbf/100 ft2 during the placement period, 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 concentration(s) and/or densities of the thermally improved cement composition components in Reddy to achieve a yield value in 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 23. Reddy discloses The composition of claim 1. Regarding the limitation: wherein the composition has a viscosity lower than 1000 cP at a shear rate of 100 sec-1 during the placement period, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the viscosity of the thermally improved cement composition in Reddy to achieve a viscosity in 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 24. Reddy discloses The composition of claim 1. Regarding the limitation: wherein the composition has a yield value (Ty) between 7 lbf/100 ft2 and 75 lbf/100 ft2 and a viscosity lower than 1000 cP at a shear rate of 100 sec1 during the placement period, 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 concentration(s) and/or densities of the thermally improved cement composition components in Reddy to achieve a yield value in 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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Nissinen et al. (US 2020/0377415); Matula et al. (US 2005/0166802).
Nissinen et al. (US 2020/0377415) discloses thermally-conductive backfill material (Abstract; [0008] – [0012]), comprising: a cementitious binder, such as Portland cement ([0030]; [0031]); fine aggregates ([0030]; [0032]); a filler with a particle size of 20 micron to 100 micron ([0030]; [0032]); a density-controlling agent ([0030]; [0033]); water ([0030]; [0036]); optional additives ([0030]); and thermally-conductive particles, such as graphite, having a size range from about 0.01 microns to 500 microns, wherein the thermally-conductive particles are present in an amount from about 0.1 wt% to about 10 wt% ([0030]; [0034]).
Matula et al. (US 2005/0166802) discloses grout slurries that have high thermal conductivities, comprising: water; calcium bentonite; sodium bentonite; a silica material; and a carbon source, such as flaked graphite present in an amount of from about 10% to about 75% by weight of the grout composition ([0007] – [0017]).
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 9:00am - 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, Sally Merkling can be reached at (571) 272-6297. 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 1738
Prosecution Insights