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 .
METHODS FOF GENERATING METHANOL FROM CO2 AS HYDROGEN CARRIER TO POWER OILFIELD OPERATIONS
Examiner: Adam Arciero S.N. 18/372,492 Art Unit: 1727 October 12, 2026
DETAILED ACTION
The Response to Restriction filed on May 22, 2026 has been received. Claims 1-8 and 21-32 are currently pending. Claims 9-20 have been canceled.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on May 22, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 29 and 32 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 29 recites the limitation "the methanol decomposition reactor"; “the methanol generation reactor” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 32 recites the limitation "the methanol decomposition reactor” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 8 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schultz et al. (US 2003/0131986 A1) in view of Knauer et al. (US 2009/0004536 A1).
As to Claim 1, Schultz teaches of a method of powering wellbore equipment and a wellbore operation using a fuel cell (paragraphs [0009, 0042 and 0044]). Schultz does not specifically disclose using a methanol fuel cell.
However, Knauer teaches a method of using a direct methanol fuel cell (reads on providing and reacting methanol to generate electricity) to power heavy equipment in harsh environments to perform operations (paragraph [0008]). In addition, the courts have held that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable, see KSR, MPEP 2143, I, D. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Schultz to comprise a direct methanol fuel cell to power the wellbore equipment/operation because Knauer teaches that such a fuel cell can be simply refilled with fuel when needed, the water volume of the process assembly is reduced and a form factor of the process assembly is also reduced (paragraphs [0006 and 0009]).
As to Claim 8, modified Schutlz does not specifically disclose the claimed radius of the methanol fuel cell to the wellbore equipment. However, the courts have held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device, see MPEP 2144.04, IV, A. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Schutlz to comprise the claimed radius because Knauer teaches that such a fuel cell can be simply refilled with fuel when needed and a wellbore operation can be powered (paragraphs [0006 and 0009]).
As to Claim 21, the methanol of Knauer reads on green/renewable/bio methanol. The claims do not differentiate from the methanol used in Knauer.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schultz et al. (US 2003/0131986 A1) in view of Knauer et al. (US 2009/0004536 A1) as applied to claims 1 above and in further view of Banning (US 2004/0108142 A1).
As to Claims 2-3, modified Schultz does not specifically disclose the claimed equipment and operation.
However, Banning teaches of a method of using a drill to drill a hole and mixing/providing a cement slurry to the hole (paragraphs [0029-0030]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of modified Schultz to comprise the claimed equipment and operation because Banning teaches that such equipment and operation is used top perform a wellbore operation (paragraph [0030]).
Claim(s) 4 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schultz et al. (US 2003/0131986 A1) in view of Knauer et al. (US 2009/0004536 A1) as applied to claims 1 above and in further view of Hinderliter (US 2019/0383123 A1).
As to Claims 4 and 31, modified Schultz does not specifically disclose any of the claimed equipment for wellbore operations.
However, Hinderliter teaches of wellbore operations comprising a hydraulic fracturing pump (paragraph [0003]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of modified Schultz to comprise using a fuel cell to power wellbore equipment such as a hydraulic fracturing pump because Hinderliter teaches that such equipment is used in wellbore operations for drawing low pressure fluid slurry (paragraph [0003]). In addition, the courts have held that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (wellbore equipment) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable, see KSR, MPEP 2143, I, D.
Claim(s) 5-7, 21 and 27-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schultz et al. (US 2003/0131986 A1) in view of Knauer et al. (US 2009/0004536 A1) as applied to claims 1 above and in further view of Olah (WO 2016/134009 A1; as found in IDS dated 09/25/2023).
As to Claims 5 and 21, modified Schultz does not specifically disclose the claimed method steps.
However, Olah teaches of a method of decomposing carbon containing fuels (encompasses methane) to produce hydrogen and reacting hydrogen and carbon-dioxide (hydrogenation conversion) to produce methanol (reads on green/renewable/bio methanol) for use as a fuel (Abstract and pg. 3, lines 19-25). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of modified Schultz to comprise the claimed method steps because Olah teaches that methanol can be renewably generated for use as a fuel (pg. 3, lines 19-25).
As to Claims 6-7 and 27-28, the fuel cell of modified Schultz intrinsically produces a carbon dioxide stream given that the methanol fuel cell of the prior art and the claimed invention are the same, see MPEP 2112. Modified Schultz does not specifically disclose capturing carbon dioxide from oilfield equipment exhaust gas.
However, Olah teaches of a method of producing methanol for use as a fuel by using captured carbon dioxide (Abstract and pg. 3, lines 19-25). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of modified Schultz to comprise the claimed method steps because Olah teaches that methanol can be renewably generated for use as a fuel (pg. 3, lines 19-25). In addition, the courts have held that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique (capturing CO2 to a known device (carbon dioxide from oilfield exhaust) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable, see KSR, MPEP 2143, I, D.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schultz et al. (US 2003/0131986 A1) in view of Knauer et al. (US 2009/0004536 A1) and Olah (WO 2016/134009 A1; as found in IDS dated 09/25/2023) as applied to claims 1, 5-8, 21 and 27-28 above and in further view of Faghri et al. (US 7,625,649 B1) and Dubose et al. (US 2002/0071979 A1).
As to Claim 22, modified Schultz does not specifically disclose the claimed method steps.
However, Faghri teaches of recovering waste heat from a fuel cell to be reutilized (col. 4, line 60 to col. 5, line 9). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of modified Schultz to comprise recovering waste heat from the fuel cell because Faghri teaches that waste heat produced by a fuel cell can be recovered and reused (col. 4, line 60 to col. 5, line 9).
In addition, Dubose teaches of recirculating waste heat to generate methanol (paragraph [0109]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of modified Schultz to comprise the claimed steps because Dubose teaches that a more efficient direct methanol fuel cell is provided (paragraph [0109]).
Claim(s) 23 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schultz et al. (US 2003/0131986 A1) in view of Knauer et al. (US 2009/0004536 A1) and Olah (WO 2016/134009 A1; as found in IDS dated 09/25/2023) as applied to claims 1, 5-8, 21 and 27-28 above and in further view of Hu et al. (US 2024/0158235 A1).
As to Claims 23 and 32, modified Schultz does not specifically disclose the claimed method steps.
However, Hu teaches of a method of decomposing methane to produce hydrogen comprising microwave plasma pyrolysis (reads on a reactor of the same) (paragraph [0004]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of modified Schultz to comprise a microwave plasma pyrolysis reactor and method step because Hu teaches that such a method can be used to produce hydrogen from methane (paragraph [0004]).
Claim(s) 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schultz et al. (US 2003/0131986 A1) in view of Knauer et al. (US 2009/0004536 A1) as applied to claims 1, 8 and 21 above and in further view of An et al. (US 2006/0199053 A1).
As to Claims 24-25, modified Schultz does not specifically disclose the claimed DC/AC converter or a fuel cell stack.
However, An teaches of as fuel cell stack for supplying power to a load (equipment) through a DC-AC converter (Abstract and paragraph [0082]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of modified Schultz to comprise a fuel cell stack and a DC-AC converter as claimed because An teaches that a fuel cell stack can power an external load as needed through a DC-AC converter (paragraph [0082]).
Claim(s) 26 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schultz et al. (US 2003/0131986 A1) in view of Knauer et al. (US 2009/0004536 A1).
As to Claim 26, Schultz teaches of a method of powering wellbore equipment and a wellbore operation using a fuel cell (paragraphs [0009, 0042 and 0044]). Schultz does not specifically disclose using a methanol fuel cell.
However, Knauer teaches a method of using a direct methanol fuel cell (reads on providing and reacting methanol to generate electricity) to power heavy equipment in harsh environments to perform operations (paragraph [0008]). In addition, the courts have held that one of ordinary skill int eh art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable, see KSR, MPEP 2143, I, D. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Schultz to comprise a direct methanol fuel cell to power the wellbore equipment/operation because Knauer teaches that such a fuel cell can be simply refilled with fuel when needed, the water volume of the process assembly is reduced and a form factor of the process assembly is also reduced (paragraphs [0006 and 0009]). Modified Schultz does not specifically disclose the claimed method steps of decomposing methane and producing methanol.
However, Olah teaches of a method of decomposing carbon containing fuels (encompasses methane) to produce hydrogen and reacting hydrogen and carbon-dioxide (hydrogenation conversion) to produce methanol for use as a fuel (Abstract and pg. 3, lines 19-25). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of modified Schultz to comprise the claimed method steps because Olah teaches that methanol can be renewably generated for use as a fuel (pg. 3, lines 19-25).
As to Claim 30, modified Schutlz does not specifically disclose the claimed radius of the methanol fuel cell to the wellbore equipment. However, the courts have held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device, see MPEP 2144.04, IV, A. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Schutlz to comprise the claimed radius because Knauer teaches that such a fuel cell can be simply refilled with fuel when needed and a wellbore operation can be powered (paragraphs [0006 and 0009]).
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schultz et al. (US 2003/0131986 A1) in view of Knauer et al. (US 2009/0004536 A1) and Olah (WO 2016/134009 A1; as found in IDS dated 09/25/2023) as applied to claims 1, 5-8, 21 and 27-28 above and in further view of Dubose et al. (US 2002/0071979 A1).
As to Claim 29, modified Schultz does not specifically disclose using waste heat as claimed.
However, Dubose teaches of recirculating waste heat to generate methanol (paragraph [0109]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of modified Schultz to comprise the claimed steps because Dubose teaches that a more efficient direct methanol fuel cell is provided (paragraph [0109]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM ARCIERO whose telephone number is (571)270-5116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5 ET.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (571)272-1330. 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.
/ADAM A ARCIERO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights