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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 12/15/2025, with respect to Claims 1-26 and 50-72 have been fully considered however they are moot in view of newly-discovered prior art references.
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.
Claims 1-26 and 50-72 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Surguchev et al (WO 2019/224326) in view of Gates et al (WO 2017/136924), and further in view of Wheeler et al (US 2012/0234536)
As concerns claims 1 and 26 (which is considered to be substantially similar though in Apparatus form), Surguchev et al (WO 2019/224326) discloses a method for generating hydrogen within a petroleum reservoir and producing the hydrogen, the method comprising:
providing one or more wellbores into the petroleum reservoir from a surface, wherein the petroleum reservoir contains fractures by hydraulic fracturing;
heating catalyst particles within the fractures of the petroleum reservoir, wherein the heated catalyst particles generate a syngas from hydrocarbons within the petroleum reservoir;
separating the hydrogen from the syngas at the surface or within the one or more wellbores; and
producing the hydrogen at the surface or to the surface. (Surguchev – Page 3, Line 5 to Page 5, Line 3, Page 11, ALL)
Surguchev fails to specify wherein the catalyst particles are heated using electromagnetic waves, or wherein the heated particles are used to thereby heat the hydrocarbons within the reservoir.
Gates et al (WO 2017/136924) however teaches a system wherein an in-situ process for hydrogen production from a hydrocarbon reservoir comprises heating the reservoir using an electromagnetic or radio frequency antenna (32) to form a heated zone (36).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Surguchev as taught by Gates to include the electromagnetic / rf antenna for creation of a heated zone to obtain the invention as specified in the claim for the expected benefit of creating a heated zone using a method that is less carbon intensive or undesirably expensive to implement than others such as steam methane reforming or electrolysis.
Wheeler et al (US 2012/0234536) further teaches the use of an activator in a hydrocarbon well and formation, that is able to absorb directed RF waves in order to impart heat onto the formation for the purpose of improving hydrocarbon recovery. (Abstract / Paragraph [0003]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Surgurchev as further taught by Wheeler to include the positive or active use of activation particles to provide heat to improve overall hydrocarbon recovery, to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
As concerns claim 2, the combination discloses the method as recited in claim 1, wherein the one or more wellbores further comprise one or more horizontal wellbores. (Gates – Figures 1A-1c)
As concerns claim 3, the combination discloses the method as recited in claim 2, wherein the one or more horizontal wellbores comprise one or more upper side wells and one or more lower side wells. (Gates – Figures 1A – 1C)
As concerns claim 4, the combination discloses the method as recited in claim 3, wherein the heating is performed using the one or more lower side wells (Gates - 12), and the syngas is produced using the one or more upper side wells (Gates - 16). (Gates – Page 8, Lines 4-20 “In Stage I…”)
As concerns claim 5, the combination discloses the method as recited in claim 1, further comprising:
positioning one or more antennas (Gates – 32) within the petroleum reservoir, wherein the one or more antennas are connected to a power source (inherent) at the surface; and
generating the electromagnetic waves using one or more antennas (Gates – Page 8, Lines 22-29).
As concerns claim 6, the combination discloses the method as recited in claim 5, wherein:
the catalyst particles proximate to the one or more antennas are heated to a temperature of up to 1000°C; and
a rock or hydrocarbons within the petroleum reservoir are heated to a temperature of about 100°C to up to 800°C. (Gates – Page 3, Line 27 – Page 4, Line 1)
As concerns claim 7, the combination discloses the method as recited in claim 1, wherein the electromagnetic waves are continuous, pulsed, intermittent, time dependent or time independent. (Gates – Page 3, Lines 23-25)
As concerns claim 8, the combination discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the catalyst particles are heated for a time period of hours, days, seasons or years. (Analogous to the disclosed steps of Surguchev – Page 3, Line 5 to Page 5, Line 3; “The segregation of light and heavier gas components by gravity forces in the reservoir is a process requiring a certain time period, the length of which will depend on specific reservoir properties (e.g. permeability, wettability) and conditions (e.g. pressure and temperature).”)
As concerns claim 9, the combination discloses the method as recited in claim 1, wherein the electromagnetic waves have a frequency from about 100 Hz to about 100 GHz. (Gates – Page 3, Lines 23-25)
As concerns claim 10, the combination discloses the method as recited in claim 9, further comprising adjusting the frequency according to saturations of water, oil and gas in the hydrocarbon reservoir. (Gates – Page 3, Lines 23-25; )
As concerns claim 11, the combination discloses the method as recited in claim 1, wherein the syngas comprises the hydrogen, carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide. (Surguchev – Page 4, Lines 7-10)
As concerns claim 12, the combination discloses the method as recited in claim 1, wherein the hydrogen comprises a mixture of the hydrogen and methane. (Surguchev – Page 4, Line 2-6)
As concerns claim 13, the combination discloses the method as recited in claim 12, wherein:
the mixture of the hydrogen and the methane is separated from the syngas using membrane separators; and
co-transporting the mixture of the hydrogen and the methane using natural gas pipelines. (Surguchev – Page 11, Lines 17-30)
As concerns claim 14, the combination discloses the method as recited in claim 1, further comprising injecting or sequestering CO2 in the petroleum reservoir. (Surguchev – Page 11, Lines 31-34)
As concerns claim 15, the combination discloses the method as recited in claim 1, wherein:
the catalyst particles comprise iron catalysts, nickel catalysts, or titanium oxide (TO);
a size of the catalyst particles ranges from nanometers to millimeters; or
a shape of catalysts comprises tri-lobe, spherical, or agglomerated. (Surguchev – Page 4, Lines 25-32)
As concerns claim 16, the combination discloses the method as recited on claim 1, further comprising injecting the catalyst particles into the fractures within the petroleum reservoir in a continuous, pulsed, or slug manner. (Surguchev – Claim 1)
As concerns claim 17, the combination discloses the method as recited in claim 1, wherein the catalyst particles are contained within a polymer fluid. (Surguchev – Page 4, Line 33 to Page 5, Line 13; “solution or suspension” considered analogous to a polymer fluid.)
As concerns claim 18 the combination discloses the method as recited in claim 17, wherein the catalyst particles are injected at a pressure greater than a fracturing pressure of the petroleum reservoir. (Surguchev – Page 4, Line 33 to Page 5, Line 13; “by overpressure”)
As concerns claim 19, the combination discloses the method as recited in claim 17, further comprising injecting a buffer fluid into the petroleum reservoir. (Surguchev – Page 4, Line 33 to Page 5, Line 13)
As concerns claim 20, the combination discloses the method as recited in claim 17, wherein support materials or propping agents are also injected into the fractures. (Surguchev – Page 4, Line 33 to Page 5, Line 13)
As concerns claim 21, the combination discloses the method as recited in claim 20, wherein the support materials comprise activated carbon (AC) or silicon carbide (SiC). (Surguchev – Page 4, Line 33 to Page 5, Line 13)
As concerns claim 22, the combination discloses the method as recited in claim 21, wherein a ratio of the propping proppant agents to the catalyst particles comprises a range of about 0 to 100%. (Surguchev discloses such a mixture – Page 4, Line 33 to Page 5, Line 13)
As concerns claim 23, the combination discloses the method as recited in claim 1, further comprising injecting steam or water into the hydrocarbon reservoir to re-generate the catalyst particles in-situ by removing coke deposited on a surface of the catalyst particles or in the fractures. (Surguchev – Page 14, Lines 5-7)
As concerns claim 24, the combination discloses the method as recited in claim 1, further comprising creating the fractures within the petroleum reservoir using hydraulic fracturing. (Surguchev – Page 4, Line 33 to Page 5, Line 3)
As concerns claim 25, the combination discloses the method as recited on claim 1, further comprising re-fracturing the petroleum reservoir and re-placing the catalyst particles in the petroleum reservoir. Surguchev – Page 4, Line 33 to Page 5, Line 3)
*Upon ample and adequate review, claims 50-72 were found to be substantially equivalent to claims 2-25. As such, the above rejections of claims 2-25 are also found to apply to claims 50-72, respectively.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON L LEMBO whose telephone number is (571)270-3065. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7am-4pm.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached at (571) 272-5405. 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.
/AARON L LEMBO/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3672