Naveed AslamDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 25, 20212021001221 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 25, 2021) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 16/148,152 10/01/2018 Naveed Aslam P18A012 9015 20411 7590 08/25/2021 The Linde Group Law Department 10 Riverview Drive Danbury, CT 06810-5113 EXAMINER BATES, ZAKIYA W ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3674 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/25/2021 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): LG.US.IP@linde.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte NAVEED ASLAM Appeal 2021-001221 Application 16/148,152 Technology Center 3600 Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, STEFAN STAICOVICI, and CARL M. DEFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judges. BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant does not identify the real party in interest. See Appeal Br. 3 (indicating that an “assignment and recordation [of the present application] shall be forthcoming”). Thus, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(i), we assume that Naveed Aslam, the named inventor, is the real party in interest. Appeal 2021-001221 Application 16/148,152 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant’s invention is directed to “a method for increasing density of a foamed mixture comprising a mixture of Y-Grade materials and an inert gas comprising the steps of adding particles to the Y-Grade materials before combining the particles and Y-Grade materials with the inert gas.” Spec. ¶ 6. Claims 1, 8, and 16 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter. 1. A method for increasing density of a foamed mixture comprising a mixture of Y-Grade materials and an inert gas comprising the steps of adding particles to the Y-Grade materials before combining the particles and Y-Grade materials with the inert gas and increasing the density of the foamed mixture with said particles. REJECTION The Examiner rejects claims 1–23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Babcock (US 2019/0055828 A1, published February 21, 2019). See Final Act. 2–6; Ans. 3–4 (re-stating the rejection of claim 1). OPINION Appellant’s independent claim 1 recites “adding particles to the Y- Grade materials before combining the particles and Y-Grade materials with the inert gas.” Appeal Br. 12 (Claims App.). Appellant’s independent claims 8 and 16 recite adding particles to a Y-grade material, feeding the Y-grade material containing particles to a hydrocarbon reservoir, and feeding an inert gas to the reservoir, thereby also requiring the particles to be added to the Y-grade material before combining the particles and Y-grade materials with the inert gas. See Appeal Br. 12–14. Appeal 2021-001221 Application 16/148,152 3 With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Babcock discloses, in pertinent part, a method of a foamed mixture comprising a mixture of Y-Grade materials and an inert gas comprising the steps of adding particles to the Y-Grade materials 235 [0034] before combining the particles and Y-Grade materials with the inert gas 240 and increasing the density of the foamed mixture with said particles [0035]. Final Act. 2. The Examiner explains that, because “the addition of particles are discussed in [0034], and then the inert gas was discussed subsequent thereto, one of ordinary skill in the art would be [led] to believe that the particles are added prior to the addition of the inert gas.” Final Act. 7. With respect to claims 8 and 16, the Examiner finds that Babcock discloses, in pertinent part, [a] method for enhanced oil recovery in a hydrocarbon reservoir comprising the steps: Adding particles to a Y-Grade material 235 [0034]; Feeding the Y-Grade material containing particles to the hydrocarbon reservoir; Feeding an inert gas 240 [0035] to the hydrocarbon reservoir, wherein the inert gas contacting the Y-Grade material will form a foam in the hydrocarbon reservoir. However, the feeding steps are done as simulation techniques for testing out the material as if feeding to an actual reservoir for the purposes of optimization of the fracture fluid. It would have been considered an obvious expedient to perform the feeding steps to an actual hydrocarbon reservoir. Final Act. 3–4. Appellant argues that Babcock “does not disclose adding particles to a Y-grade material prior with an inert gas to increase the density of the foamed mixture.” Appeal Br. 9. According to Appellant, Babcock is “concerned with foam stability such as fluid loss and viscosity,” not “the addition of particles to increase the density of the foam,” and does not “disclose the Appeal 2021-001221 Application 16/148,152 4 addition of the particles prior to foaming the Y-grade material with the inert gas.” Appeal Br. 10. In response to Appellant’s argument, the Examiner maintains that Babcock discloses, in paragraph 34, adding particles to the Y-grade materials in step 235, shown in Figure 2, “before combining the particles and Y-grade materials with the inert gas.” Ans. 3 (explaining that, in paragraph 35, Babcock “subsequently discusses the ‘step of . . . 235 may also include adjusting the apparent viscosity of the foam . . . by altering foam quality based on the amount of gas, such as nitrogen’”). The Examiner also sets forth a new finding, not mentioned in the rejection in the Final Action, relying on the addition of surfactant (in solid particle form) in step 230 “to Y-grade material prior to introduction of inert gas.” Ans. 4 (citing Babcock ¶¶ 31–33). According to the Examiner, “[s]tep 230 is considered the first step of the foam generation module 231.” Ans. 4. Paragraphs 34 and 35 of Babcock read as follows: [0034] The step of adjusting foam stability 235 includes several ways of changing the stability of the foam. The stability of the foam may be adjusted by altering foam quality based on the amount of gas, such as nitrogen, that is used to form the hydrocarbon foam. The stability of the foam may be adjusted by adding nanoparticles to reduce fluid loss of the liquid phase of the hydrocarbon foam. The stability of the foam may be adjusted by adding a hydrocarbon soluble co-polymer to viscosify the liquid phase of the hydrocarbon foam. The stability of the foam may be adjusted by changing the type of gas used to form the hydrocarbon foam. [0035] The step of adjusting foam stability 235 may also include adjusting the apparent viscosity of the foam. The apparent viscosity of the foam may be adjusted by altering foam quality based on the amount of gas, such as nitrogen, that is used to form the hydrocarbon foam. The apparent viscosity Appeal 2021-001221 Application 16/148,152 5 of the foam may be adjusted by adding a hydrocarbon soluble co-polymer to viscosify the liquid phase of the hydrocarbon foam. The apparent viscosity of the foam may be adjusted by adding a secondary fluid comprising up to 10% of the liquid phase of the hydrocarbon foam. The secondary fluid may comprise at least one of aromatics, alkanes, and crude oil. Babcock does not indicate, in paragraphs 34 and 35, any particular order to the addition of inert gas and particles to the Y-grade material to create the foam. The Examiner characterizes Babcock as disclosing adding particles to the Y-grade material in paragraph 34 and subsequently disclosing adjusting foam quality based on the amount of gas in paragraph 35. Ans. 3. This is misleading, however, because, in paragraph 34, Babcock first discloses that the stability of the foam may be adjusted by altering foam quality based on the amount of gas used to form the foam and then discloses that the stability of the foam may be adjusted by adding nanoparticles. Babcock’s paragraph 34 concludes with another mention of the inert gas, disclosing that the foam’s stability may be adjusted by changing the type of gas used to form the foam. We discern no particular order for the addition of inert gas and nanoparticles from this disclosure. In paragraph 35, Babcock again mentions altering foam quality by adjusting or altering the amount of gas used to form the foam, and also mentions addition of a co- polymer to further adjust the viscosity of the foam. Babcock does not specify whether the gas is added before, after, or at the same time as the nanoparticles. As for the surfactant, Babcock discloses a step of customizing surfactant 230 to be mixed with the Y-grade material and the gas to form the foam. Babcock ¶ 31. Babcock gives no indication that the surfactant is Appeal 2021-001221 Application 16/148,152 6 added to the Y-grade material prior to combining the Y-grade material and surfactant with the gas. See Babcock ¶¶ 31–33 (cited by the Examiner). In light of the above, the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 8, and 16 is predicated on an unsupported finding that Babcock discloses or suggests adding particles to the Y-grade material before combining the particles and Y-grade material with the inert gas. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 8, and 16, or of their dependent claims 2–7, 9–15, and 17–23, as being unpatentable over Babcock. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–23 is REVERSED. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–23 103 Babcock 1–23 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation