Naveed Aslam

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 25, 2021

2021001221 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 25, 2021)

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