ETAILED 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 .
This application is in response an amendment filed on 06/23/2026.
Claims 1-18 are pending. Applicant has amended claim 8, added new claims 16-18 and claims 12-15 are withdrawn as non-elected Group II. Claims 1-11 and 16-18 are under examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 17 is rejected 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.
Claim 17 recites wherein recovering energy from the gas mixture comprises:
removing the gas mixture from the depleted reservoir via a product gas wellbore;
introducing the gas mixture into a gas turbine in fluid communication with the product gas wellbore;
depressurizing the gas mixture in the gas turbine, thereby generating power and producing a depressurized gas mixture; and
powering the compressor system by:
during startup, powering the compressor system with an external power generation source coupled to the compressor system, and
during operation, powering the compressor system with the power generated in the gas turbine.
This recited claim 17 as disclosed above is not how it is supported in applicant specification especially all the steps described above are not part of recovering energy from the gas mixture. Further there is not clear support for powdering the compressor system by during operation powering the compressor system with the power generated in the gas turbine although applicant discloses in paragraph 0016 during operation, the fire flood support system 3 may be self-maintained through the product gas energy extraction system 7. Further applicant discloses in paragraph 0025 of the well system 1 includes a product gas energy extraction system 7 with introducing gas mixture into gas turbine, producing depressurized gas mixture but no clear support of recovering energy from the gas mixture having all the steps as recited in claim 17. Clarification is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-11, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Goswami et al (WO 2021250083A1) in view of Surguchev et al (WO2019/224326) and in further view of Murat Cinar (NPL: “CREATING ENHANCED GEOTHERMAL SYSTEMS IN DEPLETED OIL RESERVOIR VIA IN SITU COMBUSTION, Feb.11-13,2013, Thirty-Eighth Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University, IDS cited reference by applicant).
Regarding claims 1-5 and 8-11, 18, Goswami discloses a process for producing hydrogen comprising: introducing oxidizing gas (i.e., oxygen) and hydrocarbons (reads on claims 1,10, 11) into partial oxidation (POX) reactor where at temperature between 1000 to 1500°C (i.e., combustion) and pressure of 40 bar or higher a hot synthesis gas is produced. The hot synthesis gas is then cooled to temperature below 200°C to obtain a cooled synthesis gas which is then fed together with steam to a shift reactor where most of the carbon monoxide in the synthesis gas is converted with provided steam and to produce a gas mixture comprising hydrogen and carbon dioxide (reads on generating gas mixture comprising hydrogen and carbon dioxide of claims 1, 2, 11). This gas mixture is then treated in carbon dioxide removal unit to obtain a first hydrogen-rich product stream (reads on separation of hydrogen from gas mixture to produce hydrogen rich gas mixture of claim 1, 11). In addition, a first carbon dioxide rich stream at pressure of at least 13 bar and a second carbon dioxide rich stream at pressure of at least 0.7 bar are obtained (reads on claim 2 producing carbon dioxide rich gas mixture). The first and second carbon dioxide rich stream is sent to compression unit (reads on secondary gas mixture of claim 2) to obtain third carbon dioxide gas stream which allows for further use of carbon dioxide in other chemical process or storing in a geological reservoir (reads on claims 3, 11 where carbon dioxide is introduced into subterranean storage formation). Further Goswami discloses that water splitter can be used to produce at least part of hydrogen-rich gas stream and oxygen gas rich stream where oxygen rich gas stream is provided back to the POX reactor (reads on oxygen comprising gas mixture of claim 4) and hydrogen rich gas stream may further added to the hydrogen rich stream obtained from carbon dioxide removal unit and wherein water splitter utilizing electrical energy (see claims 1, 5, 14, see pages 5, 6, 16-17, 19-20-figs.1-2).
Goswami does not explicitly disclose or suggest utilizing depleted reservoir, inducing fire flood in the depleted reservoir, recovering energy from gas mixture and introducing hydrogen-rich gas mixture into subterranean storage formation.
However, Surguchev discloses process of hydrogen generation from hydrocarbon containing solid, liquid or gas, preferably gas or gas mixture with a subterranean geological formation where process may be carried onshore, offshore, oil field, oil with gas cap or gas condensate field, light-oil gas field or coal field in order to generate hydrogen, separate and sequestrate CO2 in the same sub-terrain field. The hydrogen produced may be used for energy production (abstract). Surguchev further discloses injecting oxygen and initiation of hydrocarbon combustion within reservoir (reads on injecting O2 and hydrocarbon in depleted reservoir of claim 1 and claims 10-11) whereas combustion may be initiated by electrical ignition down-hole or self-ignition at high temperature and light oil reservoir whereas preferably air, oxygen, carbon dioxide, water, steam or combination of any of these is injected into the reservoir (reads on depleted reservoir of claims 1,11) during the HGHS process, separating hydrogen from other gas mixture comprising of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, CH4, NOx in hydrogen containing mixture such that produce by catalyzed conversion of hydrocarbons to hydrogen (reads on separation of hydrogen from gas mixture to create depleted gas mixture and hydrogen gas mixture, reads on claims 1, 5, 11), high thermal energy is generated (reads on recovering energy from the gas mixture of claim 1) and whereas hydrogen gas produced stored into subterranean storage formation (reads on transporting hydrogen-rich gas into subterranean storage formation of claim 1, see pages 1-3, 6-8, 11-12). Surguchev discloses non-hydrogen gas components (i.e., CH4, reads on light hydrocarbon) separated by the downhole membrane 9 from gas influx 11 will segregate to the deeper parts of the reservoir through perforations 10 (see page 11, reads on separation of light hydrocarbon from the secondary depleted gas mixture of claim 18). In addition Surguchev discloses hydrogen may be separated from other gas components in situ and produced from the reservoir, secondly resultant carbon dioxide and black carbon are separated and sequestered and thirdly hydrocarbon reservoirs, e.g. gas reservoirs such as natural gas reservoirs, which are low productivity or depleted as noncommercial deposits which may have their natural gas reserves converted to hydrogen in situ and commercially produced (reads on claim 8, see page 2).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filing date of applicant invention to modify Goswami with Surguchev to injecting O2 and hydrocarbon into reservoir (i.e., depleted), include recovering energy from gas mixture and further introducing hydrogen-rich gas mixture into subterranean storage formation which provides gravity segregation and reduce costs associated with long distance for pure hydrogen transportation as taught by Surguchev (See pages 1 and 11).
Surguchev does not explicitly disclose or suggest inducing fire flood in the depleted reservoir of claims 1, 11 and energy is recovered from one or more additional components from combustion of claim 9.
However, Cinar discloses creating enhanced geothermal systems in depleted oil reservoirs via situ combustion which utilizes fire-flood technique where injecting air/oxygen into a reservoir to generate heat and pressure producing gas mixture (reads on claims 1,11– inducing a fire flood, see pages 2-3-In situ combustion, abstract). Cinar further discloses energy is generated within the reservoir with the combustion of hydrocarbons leading to the name in situ combustion (reads on claim 9-see page 2-In situ Combustion).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filing date of applicant invention to modify Goswami and Surguchev process for producing hydrogen with Cinar to include inducing fireflood in depleted reservoir and energy is recovered from hydrocarbon form combustion which would improve oil recovery as well oil viscosity is reduced as taught by Cinar (see page 2-In situ combustion).
Regarding claim 6, Surguchev discloses conversion of hydrocarbon to hydrogen via water gas shift reaction in the reservoir (see page 4).
Regarding claim 16, Surguchev discloses injecting of oxygen (e.g. as air, see page 6, 8, 9) and initiation of hydrocarbon combustion within the reservoir wherein an agent such as air (reads on oxygen based on page 6) can be injected by injection unit 3 (compressor or compressor pump) to initiate reactions (see page 11, reads on introducing compressed oxygen into reservoir as utilizing compressor.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Goswami et al (WO 2021250083A1) in view of Surguchev (WO2019/224326) in view of Murat Cinar (NPL: “CREATING ENHANCED GEOTHERMAL SYSTEMS IN DEPLETED OIL RESERVOIR VIA IN SITU COMBUSTION, Feb.11-13,2013, Thirty-Eighth Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University, IDS cited reference by applicant) and in further view of Wolf (US PGPUB No.: 20090322090).
Regarding claim 7, Goswami in view of Surguchev in view of Cinar discloses a process for generating and recovering hydrogen from depleted reservoir and discloses energy recovered from gas mixture as discussed above but does not explicitly disclose or suggest energy is recovered through use of a gas turbine connected to a generator.
However, Wolf discloses method for storing and supplying energy comprising a powder plant, a hydrogen gas storage connected powder plant and wherein power plant comprises a turbine and generator (see claims 18, 20). Wolf further discloses preheater and a first control valve and hydrogen expander or a turbine with a generator producing electrical energy (see claim 25, paragraphs 0021, 0031, 0045-0046, reads on claim 7 of turbine connected to a generator).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filing date of applicant invention to modify Goswami, Surguchev and Cinar process for producing hydrogen with Wolf to include turbine connected generator for energy recovery which provides reconversion of chemical energy, for example hydrogen, to electrical energy as taught by Wolf (see paragraph 0023).
Response to Arguments
10. Applicant’s arguments, see applicant remarks on pages 6-16, filed on 06/23/2026 with respect to the rejections of Claims 1-6, 8-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 Goswami (WO 2021/250083) in view of Surguchev (WO 2019/224326) and further in view of Cinar ("Creating Enhanced Geothermal Systems in Depleted Oil Reservoir via in situ Combustion", Feb. 11-13, 2013, thirty-eighth workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Standford University) and rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 Goswami et al (WO 2021250083A1) in view of Surguchev (WO2019/224326) in view of Murat Cinar (NPL: “CREATING ENHANCED GEOTHERMAL SYSTEMS IN DEPLETED OIL RESERVOIR VIA IN SITU COMBUSTION, Feb.11-13,2013, Thirty-Eighth Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University) and in further view of Wolf (US PGPUB No.: 20090322090) is not persuasive and therefore the rejections have been maintained.
Applicant mainly argues that Surguchev fails to disclose or suggest introducing or injecting the hydrogen rich gas mixture into a subterranean storage formation as required by claim 1 and 11.
However, examiner traverse the applicant’s argument, and the fact remains Surguchev discloses hydrogen gas produced stored into subterranean storage formation (reads on transporting hydrogen-rich gas into subterranean storage formation of claim 1, see pages 1-3, 6-8, 11-12). Surguchev discloses specification placing catalyst for hydrogen generation within the reservoir (e.g. within formation) by means of injection well and further discloses generation of hydrogen from hydrocarbon solid, liquid or gas , preferably a gas or gas mixture, in situ within subterranean geological formation and further discloses hydrogens stream produced via production well stored on the surface (see pages 2, 4) therefore clearly reads on presently claimed limitation of introducing or injecting the hydrogen rich gas mixture into a subterranean storage formation as required by claim 1 and 11.
Further applicant argues that Cinar does not rectify what Surguchev and Goswami lack with respect to hydrogen storage in formation and inducing fireflood.
However as disclosed above in the rejection, Goswami in view of Surguchev discloses a method for generating and recovering hydrogen from a depleted reservoir but does not disclose inducing fire flood in the depleted reservoir to geneate gas mixture. However, Cinar discloses creating enhanced geothermal systems in depleted oil reservoirs via situ combustion which utilizes fire-flood technique where injecting air/oxygen into a reservoir to generate heat and pressure producing gas mixture (reads on claims 1,11– inducing a fire flood, see pages 2-3-In situ combustion, abstract). Cinar further discloses energy is generated within the reservoir with the combustion of hydrocarbons leading to the name in situ combustion (reads on claim 9-see page 2-In situ Combustion) while Surguchev discloses hydrogen storage formation. Therefore all the argument related to combination is not persuasive and therefore combination of Goswami, Surguchev, and Cinar discloses presently claimed limitation.
In addition, applicant argues that Goswami requires certain equipment, including a POX reactor, a heat exchanger for cooling the synthesis gas, and a second reactor including a catalyst. Furthermore, the equipment must be operated at specific temperatures and pressures (e.g., the POX is operated at 1000 to 1500 °C and at a pressure of at least 40 barg (see Goswami, p. 4, 11. 18-22), the second reactor is operated between 200 to 480 °C (see Goswami, p. 3, 11. 8-12) to obtain products having specific qualities (e.g., the hot synthesis gas is cooled to a temperature below 300 °C (see Goswami, p. 8, 11. 32-33 and p. 9, 1. 1)), the hydrogen rich stream has a pressure of at least 13 barg (see Goswami, p. 11, 11. 19-20)). In contrast to Goswami, the instantly claimed method takes place downhole in a depleted reservoir. Thus, it would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform a reaction at controlled temperatures and pressures and to obtain products having specific temperatures and pressures as taught by Goswami in a downhole environment as claimed with a reasonable expectation of success.
However, specific type of equipment, reactor, temperature and pressure are not disclose in presently claimed limitation and further is “comprising” language incorporated so therefore can have additional features that are not required by presently claimed limitation but if those additional features do necessitate unexpected results then applicant needs to show the unexpected results and further may need to incorporate specific features that are critical in the presently claimed limitation. Therefore all the arguments related to type of reactor, temperature and pressure are not persuasive and rejections are maintained.
Further, amendment to the abstract overcomes specification objection of record.
Conclusion
11. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SMITA S PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-5837. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-W.
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).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ching-Yiu Fung can be reached on 5712705713. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SMITA S PATEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 09/10/2026
Prosecution Insights