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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3,6,8,9,20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a2 as being anticipated by “Enhanced hydrogen sequestration” article by Lu et al.
Lu et al. discloses a method comprising injecting a foam comprising hydrogen and a surfactant into an underground formation (see hydrogen and sodium dodecyl sulfate (surfactant))
Re claim 2, further comprising, prior to injecting the foam, mixing the hydrogen and the surfactant to form the foam (see page 3).
Re claim 3, Lu et al. discloses before mixing the hydrogen and the surfactant, disposing the surfactant in a liquid (see page 6, 9), wherein a concentration of the surfactant used to form the foam is from 0.1 wt. % to 2 wt. % in the liquid (page 3).
Re claim 6, wherein the underground formation comprises a member selected
from the group consisting of an aquifer, a cavern, and a depleted oil or gas reservoir (page 1).
Re claim 8, wherein the surfactant comprises a member selected from the group consisting of an anionic surfactant (pages 1-3, sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) also known as sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS), a cationic surfactant, a nonionic surfactant and a zwitterionic surfactant.
Re claim 9, wherein the surfactant comprises a surfactant selected from the group consisting of: sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS), pages 1-3, sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) also known as sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS).
Re claim 20, Lu et al. discloses an underground formation comprising a member selected from the group consisting of an aquifer, a cavern, and a depleted oil or gas reservoir (page 1); and a foam disposed in the underground formation, wherein the foam comprises hydrogen and a surfactant (pages 1-3).
Claim(s) 10-13,16,18,19,20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1as being anticipated by Northrop (US 5267614).
Northrop discloses a method comprising: forming, within an underground formation, a foam comprising hydrogen (waste gas) and a surfactant (abstract)
Re claim 11, comprising, prior to forming the foam, injecting the hydrogen and the surfactant into the underground formation (see abstract).
Re claim 12, the hydrogen and the surfactant are coinjected; or the hydrogen is injected at a first time and the surfactant is injected at a second time different from the first time (see abstract)
Re claim 13, further comprising, before injecting the surfactant, disposing the surfactant in a liquid, wherein a concentration of the surfactant used to form the foam is from 0.1 wt. % to 2 wt. % in the liquid (see col. 3 line 25+).
Re claim 16, wherein the underground formation comprises a member selected from the group consisting of an aquifer, a cavern, and a depleted oil or gas reservoir (see col. 1 depleted gas reservoir).
Re claim 18 wherein the surfactant comprises an anionic surfactant (col. 3, alpha olefin sulfonates)
Re claim 19, alpha olefin sulfonates (AOS) (col. 3).
Re claim 20, Northrop discloses an underground formation comprising a member selected from the group consisting of an aquifer, a cavern, and a depleted oil or gas reservoir (col. 1 depleted gas reservoir); and a foam disposed in the underground formation, wherein the foam comprises hydrogen and a surfactant (abstract).
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.
Claim(s) 4,5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enhanced hydrogen sequestration article by Lu et al.
Re claim 4, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lu et al. to wherein a volume ratio of hydrogen to surfactant in the foam is from 1:1 to 20:1 since it has been held discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Re claim 5, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lu et al. to wherein a volume fraction of hydrogen is from 50 vol. % to 95 vol since it has been held discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 14,15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Northrop ‘614
Re claim 4, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Northrop to wherein a volume ratio of hydrogen to surfactant in the foam is from 1:1 to 20:1 since it has been held discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Re claim 5, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Northrop to wherein a volume fraction of hydrogen is from 50 vol. % to 95 vol since it has been held discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Enhanced hydrogen sequestration” article by Lu et al. in view of “Hydrogen underground storage” article by Mahdi et al..
Lu et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Lu et al. is silent about after injecting the foam into the underground formation, producing hydrogen from the underground formation. Mahdi et al. teaches producing hydrogen from the underground formation after storing underground (see page 2). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lu et al. to recover hydrogen after storing underground as taught by Mahdi et al. since such a modification enables one to use the stored hydrogen to power vehicles and the like.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Northrop ‘614 in view of “Hydrogen underground storage” article by Mahdi et al..
Northrop discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Northrop is silent about after injecting the foam into the underground formation, producing hydrogen from the underground formation. Mahdi et al. teaches producing hydrogen from the underground formation after storing underground (see page 2). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Northrop to recover hydrogen after storing underground as taught by Mahdi et al. since such a modification enables one to use the stored hydrogen sulfide to generate sulfur and sulfuric acid.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUNIL SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-7051. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-3, F 9-8 and 2nd Sat 11-7.
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, Amber Anderson can be reached at 571 270 5281. 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.
/SUNIL SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
SS
6/13/2026
Prosecution Insights