DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
As previously set forth: The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
As previously set forth: Applicant's election with traverse of methane, cobalt, oil, 2H and deuterium oxide in the reply filed on 3/10/22 is acknowledged. For further details see the Action dated 5/16/22.
Claims 9-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 3/10/22.
Priority
As previously set forth: The claims have a priority date of the filing of the instant application: 12/13/19
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/28/25 has been entered.
Response to Affidavit dated 8/3/23
See the action dated 3/28/25 for response to the above affidavit.
Response to Arguments/Amendment
Applicant argues Valentine does not disclose the new limitations of claims 1 and 18.
The Examiner agrees, however new positions are set forth below to address such. Thus arguments herein are moot.
Applicant argues Budwill is drawn to new methods of improving amino acids for stimulation of methane gas, and, one would have no motivation that the methods of Valentine would be successful with the geologic formations of Budwill absent hindsight reliance.
The Examiner disagrees. Valentine discloses a genus (coal seams). One has a reasonable expectation that any coal seam that is known to be used for treatments to increase methane may be treated using the method of Valentine. Budwill discloses known species of coal seams and those therein are taught to be suitable for treatment for increasing methane production. As such the Examiner finds a proper case of obviousness has been put forth. Applicant offers no evidence of unexpected results or reasoning as to why one type of coal seam can be treated but not others. Arguments drawn to the improper use of hindsight are thusly not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Rejection over Claims 1, 12, 18, and their dependents, under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention is withdrawn, applicant’s arguments herein are persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Rejection over Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 12-16, 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Valentine (US 20120036923) is withdrawn due to amendment.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 15, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gates (US 20110250582) in view of Valentine (US 20120036923).
Gates discloses methods for producing gas from a reservoir (title). Said methods include stimulating microbial conversion of a biogenerated gas such as methane in a reservoir (abstract). While producing the gas, production parameters are monitored including pressure and isotopic composition of the produced gas (abstract). Based on this, stimulation of the formation to stimulate conversion is adjusted (abstract). [0011] and Fig 14 discuss isotopic models that are used for detection/monitoring, and, [0170-0171] disclose how when the production rate falls below a target value (the claimed decrease in production), the well is taken off production and is then converted to an injection well wherein a soak is injected to stimulate more methane production.
Gates includes elements as set forth above but does not disclose using and aqueous composition comprising deuterium oxide as the isotopic composition.
Valentine discloses tracer methods to estimate the rate of methane gas generation in a well (title). The method includes (a) measuring a baseline isotope of methane in a reservoir (b) increasing production of methane in the reservoir (c) injecting an isotope in the reservoir (d) measuring the isotope ratio of methane and (f) calculating the new methane according to an isotope balance (abstract). This is akin to the desires of Gates, just a more explicit calculation/method of such. [0029-0037] further details these steps. After determining the baseline isotope, deuterated water (meeting the aqueous requirements) is injected in conjunction with the addition of nutrients (or other means) of increasing methane production and after that the amount of new methane is calculated. The nutrients facilitate growth of native organisms [0020] and increase the methanogenesis in the well [0009]. Methanogenesis is the biogenic (e.g. generated by biological organisms) [0007] generation of methane. Thus, these organisms that are being fed by nutrients meet the claimed accessing a consortium of microorganisms in a geologic formation. Also, the increasing production of hydrocarbon material (methane) and recovering deuterium containing hydrocarbon (methane) are met by elements above.
The method of Valentine allows one to differentiate between newly generated methane and pre-existing methane, which is important to companies for determining and comparing efficacy of methanogenic mining. Further, distinguishing between the new and pre-existing methane is important for the companies and their partners in terms of profit sharing and royalties [0011].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Gates the use of the isotopic method/composition taught by Valenting in order to determine and compare the efficacy of methanogenic mining and/or to distinguish between the new/pre-existing methane for purposes of profit sharing and royalties.
Regarding the deuterium oxide requirement, Valentine discloses the use of deuterated water [0041]. This would result in a mix of D2O (deuterium oxide), HDO (semiheavy water) and water (H2O), implicitly, because HDO and D2O will exist whenever there is water with hydrogen and deuterium in the mix. However, deuterium oxide would also implicitly be present.
Valentine determines the relative abundance via the flux equation of [0061]. However, it would be prima facie obvious to use any formula to determine a relative increase in concentration of a material. One such commonly used formula to determine the percent increase would be (Cnew-Cold)/Cold*100, e.g. you find the difference between the new and old values, and, divide by the old value. Such is used to determine the increase in price, e.g. if Eggs cost $2 a month ago, and, cost $5 now, the percent increase is ($5-$2)/$2*100, or, an increase of 150%. Any way to determine a percent increase (which is akin to relative abundance) would be prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2143E, such formulas are known identified formulas to give predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. Such renders obvious the formula requirements of the above claims. Here, it seems Applicant’s formula accomplishes the same thing e.g. (Cmix-Cold) is the difference between the new concentration and the initial concentration (thus the same thing as the difference between initial and final egg prices above). (Cnew-Cmix) is the same thing as Cold (e.g Applicant’s Cold is by definition Cnew-Cmix). We seem to be calculating the same thing, just calling the terms differently. However, even if this is not the case, using any equation to calculate the relative abundance is prima facie obvious.
Regarding the ‘derived from’ requirements the increased deuterium would implicitly be derived from such.
Elements above thusly meet all the requirements of claim 1.
The deuterium composition of methane gas that is removed from the reservoir is monitored [0034], meeting claim 2, in [0053-0055] Rpm, Rrm and Rnm each require the determination of D and H concentrations (e.g. deuterium and hydrogen) in order to calculate the respective ratios. Therein, Rpm determines the concentration of deuterium in materials recovered from the geologic formation and thus meets the Cmix requirements of claim 3. Likewise R-rm and Rnm meet the requirements of Cold and Cnew- of claim 3. The prior identification and post identification and determination of “new methane” (e.g. the amount of hydrocarbons resulting from increasing production of the hydrocarbon materials) is as above, the samples being analyzed by isotope ratio mass spectrometry [0047] to distinguish the hydrogen (H) and deuterium (D) ratios of the methane, as required by claim 4, the difference between D and H must implicitly be determined when determining the D/H ratios, as required by claim 6.
Regarding claim 15: Gates and Valentine include elements as set forth above. Gates is very generic as to what kind of reservoir may be treated, however Valentine is accomplishing the same type of methanogenesis. Valentine discloses that the subterranean formations may be coal deposits, oil formations and those others of [0028]. Valentine thusly teaches any of these to be suitably known reservoirs for stimulating methanogenesis.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Gates the use of oil formations as the reservoir to stimulate, as taught by Valentine, since these are recognized in the art as suitably known reservoirs that are stimulated to increase methanogenesis of microorganisms therein.
The stable isotope that is determined is deuterium, e.g. the stable isotope of hydrogen (2H vs. 1H), as required by claims 18-20.
Rejection over Claims 7, 8, 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Valentine in view of Debruyn (US 2014/0073023) is withdrawn for reasons set forth above.
Claim(s) 7, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gates in view of Valentine in further view of Debruyn (US 2014/0073023).
Gates and Valentine include elements as set forth above. Valentine discloses injecting nutrients to the formation to facilitate growth of native organisms. Valentine does not disclose the use of cobalt.
Debruyn discloses the generation of hydrogen from hydrocarbon bearing materials (title). The hydrogen comes from microbial generation (abstract). The hydrogen production includes hydrogen gas that is converted to methane and acetic acid [0017], [0019] wherein the free hydrogen is consumed by methanogenic microorganisms that produce methane [0013], thus the same reaction (methanogenesis) as Valentine. Debruyn discloses that complex nutrients may be added [0020] and table 3 shows various nutrients in the trace metal solution, including colbalt chloride. Debruyn thusly discloses cobalt chloride to be a known nutrient for increasing the methanogenesis down a well.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Gates and Valentine the use of cobalt chloride in the nutrient solution, as taught by Debruyn, since this is recognized as a suitably known nutrient for increasing methanogenesis in a well. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), wherein the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination.
Elements above thusly meet claims 7-8.
Rejection over Claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Valentine in view of Budwill (US 2010/0252255) is overcome for reasons set forth above.
Claim(s) 11-14, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gates in view of Valentine in further view of Budwill (US 2010/0252255).
Gates and Valentine include elements as set forth above. Gates is very generic as to what kind of reservoir may be treated, however Valentine is accomplishing the same type of methanogenesis. Valentine discloses that the subterranean formations may be coal deposits, oil formations and those others of [0028]. Valentine thusly teaches any of these to be suitably known reservoirs for stimulating methanogenesis.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Gates the use of coal deposits as the reservoir to stimulate, as taught by Valentine, since these are recognized in the art as suitably known reservoirs that are stimulated to increase methanogenesis of microorganisms therein.
Gates and Valentine include elements as set forth above. Valentine does not disclose wherein the formation is a coal bed and the aqueous material is delivered into a cleat characterized by sub-bituminous coal maturity.
Budwill discloses methods for increasing microbial production of methane gas in subsurface hydrocarbon formations (title), thus similar to Valentine. The methane gas is increased via methanogenic microorganisms (abstract), thus similar to Valentine. The formation may be a coal formation, thus embracing Valentine. The coal may be of sub-bituminous maturity [0030] and may treat coal seam fractures (also known as cleats) [0031]. Thus, Budwill teaches sub-bituminous maturity coal seams to be suitably known coal deposits for increasing methanogenic activity of microorganisms.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Gates and Valentine the use of treating coal seams of sub-bituminous maturity, as taught by Budwill, since these are recognized in the art as suitable coal deposits to be treated to increase methane gas production.
Elements above meet claims 11-14, 16.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gates in view of Valentine and Budwill in further view of Debruyn (US 2014/0073023).
Gates, Valentine and Budwill include elements as set forth above. Valentine discloses injecting nutrients to the formation to facilitate growth of native organisms. Valentine does not disclose the use of cobalt.
Debruyn discloses the generation of hydrogen from hydrocarbon bearing materials (title). The hydrogen comes from microbial generation (abstract). The hydrogen production includes hydrogen gas that is converted to methane and acetic acid [0017], [0019] wherein the free hydrogen is consumed by methanogenic microorganisms that produce methane [0013], thus the same reaction (methanogenesis) as Valentine. Debruyn discloses that complex nutrients may be added [0020] and table 3 shows various nutrients in the trace metal solution, including colbalt chloride. Debruyn thusly discloses cobalt chloride to be a known nutrient for increasing the methanogenesis down a well.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Gates, Valentine and Budwill the use of cobalt chloride in the nutrient solution, as taught by Debruyn, since this is recognized as a suitably known nutrient for increasing methanogenesis in a well. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), wherein the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALICIA BLAND whose telephone number is (571)272-2451. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00 am -3:00 pm EST.
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, Curt Mayes can be reached on 571-272-1234. 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.
/ALICIA BLAND/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759