Ex Parte Barnes et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 7, 2017

13578304 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 7, 2017)

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.
13/578,304 10/09/2012 Julian Richard Barnes TH 3983 USA P 3667
23632 7590 09/11/2017
SHF! T OH miUPANY
EXAMINER
P O BOX 576 AHUJA, ANURADHA
HOUSTON, TX 77001-0576
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3674
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/11/2017 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):
USPatents@Shell.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JULIAN RICHARD BARNES, HENDRIK DIRKZWAGER,
REINALDO CONRADO NAVARRETE and THOMAS CARL SEMPLE
Appeal 2016-006339
Application 13/578,304
Technology Center 3600
Before ALLEN R. MACDONALD, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and
ADAM PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants are appealing the Examiner’s Final rejection of claims 1,2,
4—6 and 8—19 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 3. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2012).
We AFFIRM.
Introduction
The invention is directed to “methods for recovery of hydrocarbons
from hydrocarbon-bearing formations. More particularly, embodiments
described herein relate to methods of enhanced hydrocarbons recovery and
to compositions useful for that recovery that contain internal olefin
sulfonates and viscosity reducing compounds.” Specification 1.
Appeal 2016-006339
Application 13/578,304
Illustrative Claim below (disputed limitations emphasized)'.
1. A method of treating a formation containing crude oil
comprising:
(a) providing a hydrocarbon recovery composition to at
least a portion of the crude oil containing formation, wherein the
composition comprises an internal olefin sulfonate composition
comprising at least two internal olefin sulfonate mixtures selected
from the group consisting of C15-18 internal olefin sulfonates, C19-23
internal olefin sulfonates, C20-24 internal
olefin sulfonates and C24-28 internal olefin sulfonates and at least
one viscosity reducing compound; and
(b) allowing the composition to interact with hydrocarbons
in the crude oil containing formation,
wherein:
the C15-18 internal olefin sulfonates are a mixture of internal olefin
sulfonates wherein the mixture has an average carbon number of
from about 16 to about 17 and at least 50% by weight of the
internal olefin sulfonates in the mixture contain from 15 to 18
carbon atoms;
the C19-23 internal olefin sulfonates are a mixture of internal olefin
sulfonates wherein the mixture has an average carbon number of
from about 21 to about 23 and at least 50% by weight of the
internal olefin sulfonates in the mixture contain from 19 to 23
carbon atoms;
2
Appeal 2016-006339
Application 13/578,304
the C20-24 internal olefin sulfonates are a mixture of internal olefin
sulfonates wherein the mixture has an average carbon number of
from about 20.5 to about 23 and at least 50% by weight of the
internal olefin sulfonates in the mixture contain from 20 to 24
carbon atoms; and
the C24-28 internal olefin sulfonates are a blend of internal olefin
sulfonates wherein the blend has an average carbon number of
from 24.5 to 27 and at least 40%) by weight of the internal olefin
sulfonates in the blend contain from 24 to 28 carbon atoms.
Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1, 2, 4—6 and 8—19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 (a) as
being unpatentable over Hutchison (US Patent Application Publication
2010/0175196 Al; published July 15,2010). Final Rejection 2—11.
ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed December 7, 2015), the Reply Brief (June
8, 2016), the Final Rejection (mailed August 7, 2015) and the Answer
(mailed April 15, 2016) for the respective details.
Appellants argue:
The Hutchison et al. patent specifically teaches away from IOS
[internal olefin sulfonates] mixtures made by the Shell Higher
Olefin Process. See para [0008]. The Hutchison et al. patent
teaches that specific sulfonated derivatives of internal olefins
“offer unique and significant performance advantages in a
surfactant EOR [enhanced oil recovery] system.” See para
3
Appeal 2016-006339
Application 13/578,304
[0023]. Because of the teaching away from mixtures of IOS
compounds by Hutchison et al., it would not have been obvious
to use a blend of two internal olefin sulfonate mixtures of the
type that Hutchison et al. teaches away from.
Appeal Br. 4.
Hutchison discloses in paragraph 8:
One well known ethylene oligomerization process is the Shell
Higher Olefin Process (SHOP). This process combines ethylene
oligomerization to form alpha-olefins, isomerization of the
alpha-olefins to form internal olefins and the metathesis of these
internal olefins with butenes or ethylene to form alpha-olefins of
different chain lengths. A problem associated with SHOP
mentioned in U.S. Pat. No. 6,777,584 is undesirable branching
on the alpha-olefins and internal olefins that often result from the
oligomerization/isomerization/metathesis processes.
Hutchison discloses in paragraph 23:
ft has been discovered that sulfonated derivatives of internal
olefins or mixtures of internal olefins possessing low amounts of
tri-substitution on the double bond, i.e., less than about 4 mole
percent tri-substitution, offer unique and significant performance
advantages in a surfactant EOR system. Sulfonated derivatives
of internal olefins containing low amounts of tri-substitution as
disclosed herein display lower optimal salinities than sulfonated
derivatives of internal olefins having the same carbon chain
lengths but possessing significant amounts of tri-substituted
internal olefins. The sulfonated derivatives of internal olefins
described herein may offer a route to the enhanced recovery of,
among other things, waxy crude oils.
We do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive because “[a]
reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon
reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out
in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that
4
Appeal 2016-006339
Application 13/578,304
was taken by the applicant.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 990 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
(citations omitted). See also In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir.
2004) (Noting that merely disclosing more than one alternative does not
teach away from any of these alternatives if the disclosure does not criticize,
discredit, or otherwise discourage the alternatives.). First, it is noted that
Appellants merely mention the Shell Higher Olefin Process without
specifically disclosing how the well-known process is associated with the
claimed invention. Second, it is not evident that Hutchison criticizes,
discredits or otherwise discourages the claimed invention because it is not
clear how the claimed invention relates or deviates from the Shell Higher
Olefin Process.
Appellants further argue:
Claim 1 explicitly claims that C15-18 internal olefin sulfonates are
a mixture of internal olefin sulfonates and that the same applies
to C 19-23 and C20-24 internal olefin sulfonates. The examples
provided by the Examiner do not teach or suggest a composition
that comprises at least two internal olefin sulfonate mixtures.
An internal olefin sulfonate with a carbon number of 16 does not
meet the limitation of a C15-18 internal olefin sulfonate because a
Ci5-is internal olefin sulfonate is defined in this application as a
specific mixture. Hutchison does not teach or disclose any
internal olefin sulfonate compositions comprising at least two
internal olefin sulfonate mixtures (as defined in the claims).
Appeal Br. 4.
The Examiner finds:
Since Hutchison teaches a composition comprising one or more,
or a mixture, of internal olefin sulfonates that can be tailored
based on the desired treatment, wherein the internal olefin
sulfonates are selected from the group as instantly claimed, at the
time of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
5
Appeal 2016-006339
Application 13/578,304
skill in the art to select a suitable number or mixture of internal
olefin sulfonates based on the desired treatment.
Final Rejection 3.
Hutchison discloses in paragraphs 51 and 52, “a metathesis reaction
may be used to produce suitable long chain internal olefins that may be
subsequently sulfonated to produce a sulfonated derivative that may be
advantageously employed in enhanced oil recovery compositions” wherein
[t]he above-described metathesis reaction may result in the production of an
internal olefin or mixture of internal olefins.” See Final Rejection 3.
Hutchison further discloses in paragraph 138:
[Sjome embodiments, co-surfactants may be used in
combination with the sulfonated derivative of the internal olefin
or mixture of internal olefins. Anionic, nonionic, zwitterionic,
amphoteric and cationic surfactants may be employed. Examples
of anionic surfactants include: internal olefin sulfonates other
than those disclosed herein.
See Final Rejection 3.
We agree with the Examiner’s findings and do not find Appellants’
arguments persuasive because Appellants’ composition of at least two
internal olefin sulfonate mixtures would be obvious in view of Hutchison’s
mixture of internal olefins.1
DECISION
1 “As our precedents make clear, however, the analysis need not seek out
precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged
claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398,418 (2007).
6
Appeal 2016-006339
Application 13/578,304
The Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1, 2, 4—6 and 8—19 is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(v).
AFFIRMED
7