DETAILED ACTION
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
This is the response to amendment filed 09/22/2025 for application 16639578,
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-16, and 18-21 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
Claims 5, 9, and 17 have been cancelled.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 10, 15, 16, and 18 have been amended.
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 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8, 11-12, 14, 16, and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over STEVENS et al. (USPGPUB 2010/0108315) in view of MIERZEWSKI et al. (USPGPUB 2010/0296909).
STEVENS et al. teach a method that injects sulfur oxides into a subterranean formation.
STEVENS et al. teach a process in paragraphs 17-20.
Regarding claims 1, STEVENS et al. teach recovering H2S recovered from a gas stream. The H2S is passed to a Claus Sulfur recovery unit for conversion into sulfur. The sulfur is recovered and passed into sulfur combustion in a sulfur combustor. The resulting SO2 stream from the sulfur combustor (converting elemental sulfur to sulfur oxides) is passed into a waste recovery unit where heat is recovered as steam. The steam may be passed to a steam turbine which drives a generator for the production of electrical power (recovering electrical energy from step of converting the elemental sulfur to sulfur oxides). SO2 is injected to an injection well from a line via a pump (injecting the sulfur oxides into the sulfur oxides injection location). The sulfur combustor has been interpreted as near a sulfur oxide injection location given that the process is taught in Fig. 1 and paragraph 19 to be connected through multiple lines.
MIERZEWSKI et al. is relied on to teach providing a sulfur-containing stream, and converting sulfur in the sulfur-containing stream to elemental sulfur in an oil refinery and then transporting the elemental sulfur from the oil refinery to a location at or near a sulfur-oxides injection location.
MIERZEWSKI et al. teach in paragraph 10 of making structurally reinforced blocks of sulfur, sized for transport and then transporting the structurally reinforced blocks of sulfur from a first location to a second location by machine.
MIERZEWSKI et al. recognize in paragraph 2 that sulfur is produced as a byproduct from oil and gas processing.
STEVENS et al. teach in paragraph 27 that sulfur recovery may be at a remote location since the oils may be refined at a refinery.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take sulfur from oil processing in a refinery (providing a sulfur-containing stream) and then convert the sulfur into the structurally reinforced blocks of sulfur (converting sulfur within the sulfur-containing stream to solid elemental sulfur and then transport the structurally reinforced blocks of sulfur to the subterranean formation. (transporting the solid elemental sulfur from the oil refinery to a location at or near the injection location)
The method of transport is taught in paragraph 36 of MIERZEWSKI et al. to include truck, or railcar. One specific example is taught in paragraph 46 of MIERZEWSKI et al. to be by a tractor trailer by truck. Another specific example is taught in paragraph 63 of MIERZEWSKI et al. to be with a rail car container. (transporting consists of transporting the solid elemental sulfur by at least one of rail car, truck and seagoing vessel)
MIERZEWSKI et al. teach in paragraph 61 that the structurally reinforced blocks of sulfur are elemental sulfur and may be in mini block form.
One method of forming the structurally reinforced blocks of sulfur is taught in paragraph 54 of MIERZEWSKI et al. Sulfur is structurally reinforced by layering during molding. (consists of solid elemental sulfur)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the process that MIERZEWSKI et al. teach to transport sulfur to the subterranean formation in STEVENS et al.
The motivation to do so can be found in MIERZEWSKI et al. and STEVENS et al.
MIERZEWSKI et al. teach in paragraph 54 that the formed structurally reinforced blocks of sulfur have higher density, greater stability, and greater strength for transport than achieved simply by basic molding sulfur on its own alone. Layering also prevents the formation of such voids or weak spaces during molding, by ensuring that each layer has sufficiently solidified and densified before additional layers are added
STEVENS et al. teach in paragraph 26 that additional sulfur dioxide may be used to reduce H2S in the subterranean formation.
STEVENS et al. further teach in paragraph 27 that oils may be refined at a refinery location to convert H2S to SO2 and reinjected.
When additional SO2 is desired, it would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art to transport formed structurally reinforced blocks of sulfur from a separate oil refinery via rail or truck as taught in MIERZEWSKI et al. to convert to SO2 in the combustor of the system that STEVENS et al. teach.
STEVENS et al. are silent to transporting electrical energy from a remote power generation facility to the sulfur oxides injection location.
STEVENS et al. teach that that steam may be passed to a steam turbine which drives a generator for the production of electrical power.
One of ordinary skill in the art may employ electrical power that has been generated by the process in STEVENS et al. in the process that STEVENS et al. teach that require electricity.
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claims 18-20, the method of transport is taught in paragraph 36 of MIERZEWSKI et al. to include truck, or railcar. A specific example is taught in paragraph 63 of MIERZEWSKI et al. to be with a rail car container.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to transport the structurally reinforced blocks of sulfur via rail car as taught by MIERZEWSKI et al. to a location that is within 25 miles of the subterranean formation in STEVENS et al.
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the sulfur that is combusted to form the sulfur oxides would be within 25 miles of the subterranean formation given that the sulfur oxides are injected into the subterranean formation.
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claims 2, and 8, it is noted that although STEVENS et al. teach a process that is directed toward injection of sulfur oxides into a subterranean formation with hydrogen sulfide, STEVENS et al. also teach in paragraphs 6 and 26 that it has known in the art to dispose of liquid or gaseous sulfur oxides (SO2) by injection in to spent subterranean formations.
It appears to be well within one of ordinary skill in the art that, should there be remaining or excessive sulfur oxides after all the available injection locations with hydrogen sulfides are used or if the injection locations with hydrogen sulfide were unavailable, that the sulfur oxides may be disposed of in known manners, such as by injection into a spent subterranean formation.
Regarding claim 3, STEVENS et al. specifically teach sulfur dioxide.
Regarding claim 11, STEVENS et al. teach in paragraph 19 that sulfur dioxide is cooled and liquefied prior to injection into an injection well.
STEVENS et al. teach in paragraph 22 that the sulfur dioxide may be injected by any suitable pressure.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to inject gaseous sulfur dioxide given that STEVENS et al. recognizes in paragraph 6 that it has been proposed to dispose of liquid or gaseous SO2 by injection into subterranean formations.
One of ordinary skill in the art would inject gaseous sulfur dioxide as an alternative of liquid sulfur dioxide with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 12, STEVENS et al. teach in paragraph 18 that sour gas comprises H2S, carbon dioxide, and other condensable gases.
Regarding claim 14, STEVENS et al. teach a SO2 stream from the sulfur combustor is passed into a waste recovery unit where heat is recovered as steam. The steam may be passed to a steam turbine which drives a generator for the production of electrical power.
Regarding claim 16, STEVENS et al. teach recovering a sour gas stream. The sour gas stream is taught to comprise H2S, carbon dioxide, hydrocarbons and other condensates (providing a sour gas stream comprising hydrocarbons, carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulfide). H2S is recovered from the sour gas stream (separating hydrocarbons to produce a hydrocarbon stream and an acid gas stream including hydrogen sulfide). The H2S is passed to a Claus Sulfur recovery unit for conversion into sulfur. The Claus process reactions area taught in paragraph 5 and comprise reacting H2S with O2 to form SO2 (oxidizing the hydrogen sulfide within the acid gas stream to form sulfur oxides). SO2 is combined with H2S to form elemental sulfur (reacting the sulfur oxides with hydrogen sulfide to produce elemental sulfur). The sulfur is recovered and passed into sulfur combustion in a sulfur combustor (combusting the elemental sulfur to form a combustion stream including sulfur oxides). The resulting SO2 stream from the sulfur combustor is passed into a waste recovery unit where heat is recovered as steam (routing the stream though a heat recovery unit to extract heat and to transfer heat to high pressure steam). The steam may be passed to a steam turbine which drives a generator for the production of electrical power (routing the steam to produce electricity). Cooled SO is passed through a liquefaction section (liquefying sulfur oxides). The liquefied sulfur is then sent to an injection well (injecting the liquefied sulfur oxide into the injection wells). The injection wells are taught to extend into a subterranean formation.
MIERZEWSKI et al. is relied on to teach providing a sulfur-containing stream, and converting sulfur in the sulfur-containing stream to elemental sulfur in an oil refinery and then transporting the elemental sulfur from the oil refinery to a location at or near a sulfur-oxides injection location.
MIERZEWSKI et al. teach in paragraph 10 of making structurally reinforced blocks of sulfur, sized for transport and then transporting the structurally reinforced blocks of sulfur from a first location to a second location by machine.
MIERZEWSKI et al. recognize in paragraph 2 that sulfur is produced as a byproduct from oil and gas processing.
STEVENS et al. teach in paragraph 27 that sulfur recovery may be at a remote location since the oils may be refined at a refinery.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take sulfur from oil processing in a refinery (providing a sulfur-containing stream) and then convert the sulfur into the structurally reinforced blocks of sulfur (converting sulfur within the sulfur-containing stream to solid elemental sulfur and then transport the structurally reinforced blocks of sulfur to the subterranean formation. (transporting the solid elemental sulfur from the oil refinery to a location at or near the injection location)
The method of transport is taught in paragraph 36 of MIERZEWSKI et al. to include truck, or railcar. One specific example is taught in paragraph 46 of MIERZEWSKI et al. to be by a tractor trailer by truck. Another specific example is taught in paragraph 63 of MIERZEWSKI et al. to be with a rail car container. (transporting consists of transporting the solid elemental sulfur by at least one of rail car, truck and seagoing vessel)
MIERZEWSKI et al. teach in paragraph 61 that the structurally reinforced blocks of sulfur are elemental sulfur and may be in mini block form.
One method of forming the structurally reinforced blocks of sulfur is taught in paragraph 54 of MIERZEWSKI et al. Sulfur is structurally reinforced by layering during molding. (consists of solid elemental sulfur)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the process that MIERZEWSKI et al. teach to transport sulfur to the subterranean formation in STEVENS et al.
The motivation to do so can be found in MIERZEWSKI et al. and STEVENS et al.
MIERZEWSKI et al. teach in paragraph 54 that the formed structurally reinforced blocks of sulfur have higher density, greater stability, and greater strength for transport than achieved simply by basic molding sulfur on its own alone. Layering also prevents the formation of such voids or weak spaces during molding, by ensuring that each layer has sufficiently solidified and densified before additional layers are added
Given that STEVENS et al. teach that it is known that sour gas can be treated to form convert sulfur dioxides into elemental sulfur, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to transport elemental sulfur via rail as taught by MIERZEWSKI et al. from a separate sour gas treatment location to a location that is at or near the injection well of STEVENS et al.
The motivation to do so can be found in paragraph 26 of STEVENS et al. STEVENS et al. teach that additional sulfur dioxide may be used to reduce H2S in the subterranean formation.
STEVENS et al. teach that the liquefied sulfur is then sent to an injection well (injecting the liquefied sulfur oxide into the injection wells). The injection wells are taught to extend into a subterranean formation.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to control the amount of liquefied sulfur that is sequestered (injected) to nearly 100% by choosing to injecting nearly 100% of the liquefied sulfur.
It is acknowledged that the process that STEVENS et al. explicitly teach do not teach injecting sulfur oxides into spent subterranean formations.
It is noted that although STEVENS et al. teach a process that is directed toward injection of sulfur oxides into a subterranean formation with hydrogen sulfide, STEVENS et al. also teach in paragraphs 6 and 26 that it has known in the art to dispose of liquid or gaseous sulfur oxides (SO2) by injection in to spent subterranean formations.
It appears to be well within one of ordinary skill in the art that, should there be remaining or excessive sulfur oxides, that the sulfur oxides may be disposed of in known manners, such as by injection into a spent subterranean formation with a reasonable expectation of success given that it is known in the art.
Regarding claim 21, the specific step of transporting the dry sulfur from an oil refinery via rail as taught by MIERZEWSKI et al. is not taught to be done with pumps and boosters.
Claim(s) 13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over STEVENS et al. (USPGPUB 2010/0108315) in view of MIERZEWSKI et al. (USPGPUB 2010/0296909) as applied to claims 1-3, 8, 11-12, 14, 16, and 18-21 above, and further in view of CHIN (CA2746608).
The above discussion of STEVENS et al. in view of MIERZEWSKI et al. is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding claim 13, CHIN is relied on to teach adding surfactants and viscosifiers to a sulfur slurry that is injected into a subterranean formation.
STEVENS et al. teach in paragraphs 22 and 25 that use of materials to push desired fluids from a subterranean formation may be practiced with the injection of sulfur oxides. STEVENS et al. further teach that other materials such as water may be used along with sulfur oxides.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add surfactants and/or viscosifiers to the sulfur oxides that are injected.
The motivation to do so can be found in paragraph 32 of CHIN.
CHIN teaches that surfactants may be added to the sulfur slurry to overcome the hydrophobic nature of sulfur and/or to improve the physical properties of the sulfur slurry. One or more viscosifiers may be introduced to the sulfur slurry to enhance the rheology of the sulfur slurry as desired.
Regarding claim 15, STEVENS et al. teach recovering H2S recovered from a gas stream. The H2S is passed to a Claus Sulfur recovery unit for conversion into sulfur. The sulfur is recovered and passed into sulfur combustion in a sulfur combustor. The resulting SO2 stream from the sulfur combustor (converting elemental sulfur to sulfur oxides) is passed into a waste recovery unit where heat is recovered as steam. The steam may be passed to a steam turbine which drives a generator for the production of electrical power (recovering electrical energy from step of converting the elemental sulfur to sulfur oxides).
The sulfur combustor has been interpreted as near a sulfur oxide injection location given that the process is taught in Fig. 1 and paragraph 19 to be connected through multiple lines.
STEVENS et al. further teach cooled SO2 is passed though a liquefaction section (liquefying sulfur oxides). The liquefied sulfur is then sent to an injection well.
Although STEVENS et al. do not explicitly teach a storage vessel prior to the injection well, using a cooler to cool the SO2 is well within one of ordinary skill in the art. STEVENS et al. teach in paragraph 29 that many variations and modifications are possible within the scope of the present invention.
STEVENS et al. teach that injection of SO2 can be stopped when the products contain levels of SO2. It would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art to have temporary storage for storing the SO2 to prevent excess SO2 from being injected.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that unwanted subterranean formations would have to be selected from a plurality of characterized, screened subterranean formations given that STEVENS et al. teach that injection of sulfur dioxide is to reduce H2S (selecting an injection location and then injecting the cooled and liquefied sulfur oxides into the injection location).
MIERZEWSKI et al. is relied on to teach providing a sulfur-containing stream, and converting sulfur in the sulfur-containing stream to elemental sulfur in an oil refinery and then transporting the elemental sulfur from the oil refinery to a location at or near a sulfur-oxides injection location.
MIERZEWSKI et al. teach in paragraph 10 of making structurally reinforced blocks of sulfur, sized for transport and then transporting the structurally reinforced blocks of sulfur from a first location to a second location by machine.
MIERZEWSKI et al. recognize in paragraph 2 that sulfur is produced as a byproduct from oil and gas processing.
STEVENS et al. teach in paragraph 27 that sulfur recovery may be at a remote location since the oils may be refined at a refinery.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take sulfur from oil processing in a refinery (providing a sulfur-containing stream) and then convert the sulfur into the structurally reinforced blocks of sulfur (converting sulfur within the sulfur-containing stream to solid elemental sulfur and then transport the structurally reinforced blocks of sulfur to the subterranean formation. (transporting the solid elemental sulfur from the oil refinery to a location at or near the injection location)
The method of transport is taught in paragraph 36 of MIERZEWSKI et al. to include truck, or railcar. One specific example is taught in paragraph 46 of MIERZEWSKI et al. to be by a tractor trailer by truck. Another specific example is taught in paragraph 63 of MIERZEWSKI et al. to be with a rail car container. (transporting consists of transporting the solid elemental sulfur by at least one of rail car, truck and seagoing vessel)
MIERZEWSKI et al. teach in paragraph 61 that the structurally reinforced blocks of sulfur are elemental sulfur and may be in mini block form.
One method of forming the structurally reinforced blocks of sulfur is taught in paragraph 54 of MIERZEWSKI et al. Sulfur is structurally reinforced by layering during molding. (consists of solid elemental sulfur)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the process that MIERZEWSKI et al. teach to transport sulfur to the subterranean formation in STEVENS et al.
The motivation to do so can be found in MIERZEWSKI et al. and STEVENS et al.
MIERZEWSKI et al. teach in paragraph 54 that the formed structurally reinforced blocks of sulfur have higher density, greater stability, and greater strength for transport than achieved simply by basic molding sulfur on its own alone. Layering also prevents the formation of such voids or weak spaces during molding, by ensuring that each layer has sufficiently solidified and densified before additional layers are added
STEVENS et al. teach in paragraph 26 that additional sulfur dioxide may be used to reduce H2S in the subterranean formation.
STEVENS et al. further teach in paragraph 27 that oils may be refined at a refinery location to convert H2S to SO2 and reinjected.
When additional SO2 is desired, it would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art to transport formed structurally reinforced blocks of sulfur from a separate oil refinery via rail or truck as taught in MIERZEWSKI et al. to convert to SO2 in the combustor of the system that STEVENS et al. teach.
STEVENS et al. are silent to transporting electrical energy from a remote power generation facility to the sulfur oxides injection location.
STEVENS et al. teach that that steam may be passed to a steam turbine which drives a generator for the production of electrical power.
One of ordinary skill in the art may employ electrical power that has been generated by the process in STEVENS et al. in the process that STEVENS et al. teach that require electricity.
it is noted that although STEVENS et al. teach a process that is directed toward injection of sulfur oxides into a subterranean formation with hydrogen sulfide, STEVENS et al. also teach in paragraphs 6 and 26 that it has known in the art to dispose of liquid or gaseous sulfur oxides (SO2) by injection in to spent subterranean formations.
It appears to be well within one of ordinary skill in the art that, should there be remaining or excessive sulfur oxides after all the available injection locations with hydrogen sulfides are used or if the injection locations with hydrogen sulfide were unavailable, that the sulfur oxides may be disposed of in known manners, such as by injection into a spent subterranean formation.
Regarding claim 15, CHIN is relied on to teach forming a dilated geological formation.
CHIN teaches in paragraph 33 a dilation mechanism is a rock failure mechanism when the stress state in the rock reaches a shear failure condition. The dilation mechanism creates additional pore space for storing the large amount of the injected slurry volumes.
CHIN teaches in paragraph 34 that the steps of the methods herein may be performed in any order except unless explicitly stated otherwise or inherently required otherwise by the particular method.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of STEVENS et al. in view of MIERZEWSKI et al. to increase the space for storing the sulfur dioxide and apply a dilation mechanism prior to injection of the liquefied sulfur oxides such that there is more additional pore space for storing the sulfur oxides.
It is acknowledged that the process that STEVENS et al. explicitly teach do not teach injecting sulfur oxides into spent subterranean formations.
It is noted that although STEVENS et al. teach a process that is directed toward injection of sulfur oxides into a subterranean formation with hydrogen sulfide, STEVENS et al. also teach in paragraphs 6 and 26 that it has known in the art to dispose of liquid or gaseous sulfur oxides (SO2) by injection in to spent subterranean formations.
It appears to be well within one of ordinary skill in the art that, should there be remaining or excessive sulfur oxides, that the sulfur oxides may be disposed of in known manners, such as by injection into a spent subterranean formation with a reasonable expectation of success given that it is known in the art.
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Claims 4, 6, 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over STEVENS et al. (USPGPUB 2010/0108315) in view of MIERZEWSKI et al. (USPGPUB 2010/0296909) as applied to claims 1-3, 8, 11-12, 14, 16, and 18-21 above, and further in view of MCCOLLUM et al. (U.S. 4151068).
The above discussion of STEVENS et al. in view of MIERZEWSKI et al. is incorporated herein by reference.
MCCOLLUM et al. are relied on to teach the injection at a site that comprises carbonate and the formation of calcium sulfate or calcium sulfite. MCCOLLUM et al. also are relied on to teach the presence of sulfur trioxide.
STEVENS et al. teach in paragraph 25 of STEVENS et al. that use of materials to push desired fluids, such as hydrocarbons or the like, from a subterranean formation is well known and may be practiced in combination with the injection of the SO2.
MCCOLLUM et al. teach a method for the recovering and upgrading of hydrocarbons from oil shale.
MCCOLLUM et al. teach in lines 15-42 of column 31 shale comprises carbonates and calcium carbonates may form calcium sulfates. MCCOLLUM et al. further teach that in the presence of oxygen, oxidation of sulfur dioxide to sulfur trioxide may occur.
It would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the process taught in STEVENS et al. teach to inject at a site that comprises oil shale with carbonate.
The motivation to do so can be found in MCCOLLUM et al.
MCCOLLUM et al. teach in lines 48-68 of column 1, and lines 1-14 of column 2, that the oils may be extracted from oil shale (one or more of an enhanced oil recovery and an enhanced gas recovery process).
It is acknowledged that the process that STEVENS et al. explicitly teach do not teach injecting sulfur oxides into spent subterranean formations.
Given that STEVENS et al. teach in paragraph 25 of STEVENS et al. that use of materials to push desired fluids, such as hydrocarbons or the like, from a subterranean formation is well known and may be practiced in combination with the injection of the SO2, it appears the pushing of the desired fluids may be considered enhanced oil or gas recovery.
It appears to be well within one of ordinary skill in the art that, should there be remaining or excessive sulfur oxides, that the sulfur oxides may used in other known ways, such as by injection into subterranean formation comprising carbonate to enhance oil or gas recovery with a reasonable expectation of success given that it is known in the art.
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims have been amended to state the electricity used in the process is primarily generated by the process and primarily not from a separate source
Applicant argues that STEVENS et al. teach away from sequestering sulfur oxides into spent subterranean formations.
It is acknowledged that the process that STEVENS et al. explicitly teach do not teach injecting sulfur oxides into spent subterranean formations.
However, paragraph 28 of STEVENS et al. that applicant cited appears to state that STEVENS et al. do not believe that the prior art render STEVENS et al. obvious. The teachings of sequestering sulfur oxides in spent subterranean formation is recognized as known in the art in STEVENS et al.
Although STEVENS et al. teach a process that is directed toward injection of sulfur oxides into a subterranean formation with hydrogen sulfide, STEVENS et al. also teach in paragraphs 6 and 26 that it has known in the art to dispose of liquid or gaseous sulfur oxides (SO2) by injection in to spent subterranean formations.
It appears to be well within one of ordinary skill in the art that, should there be remaining or excessive sulfur oxides or unavailable subterranean formations with hydrogen sulfides, that the sulfur oxides may be disposed of in known manners, such as by injection into a spent subterranean formation with a reasonable expectation of success given that it is known in the art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MING CHEUNG PO whose telephone number is (571)270-5552. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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, PREM SINGH can be reached at 5712726381. 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.
/MING CHEUNG PO/ Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/ELLEN M MCAVOY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771