DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Status of Application
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1, 2, 5-9 & 46-51 have been examined in this application. This communication is a Final Rejection in response to the Amendment filed on January 15, 2026. Claims 3, 4, 10-30, 32-35, 38-40 & 42 stand canceled. Claims 31, 36, 37, 41 & 43-45 stand withdrawn.
Specification/Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed January 20, 2026 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. The provided copy of the cited Davidovits non-patent literature publication is not legible. The information disclosure statement has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 5-9 & 46-51 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “pumping the geopolymer slurry into a subterranean well at the well site”. As the claim previously recites a subterranean well, to improve clarity, replacement of this limitation with language such as “pumping the geopolymer slurry into the subterranean well, the subterranean well located at the well site” is suggested. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 2, 5-9 & 46-51 are also objected to for being dependent on Claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 46 & 47 are 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 46 recites “wherein the aluminosilicate source of the dry geopolymer precursor comprises a ground blast furnace slag source, and wherein the dry geopolymer precursor further comprises silica, diutan gum, and a polyethylene glycol (PEG) anti-foam agent”, and Claim 47 recites the compressive strength range of the solid geopolymer after seven days. Applicants cite Table 1 as support for these features. However, the cited portions of the specification (and the overall specification) do not describe a single dry geopolymer precursor composition comprising all the recited components with a resulting solid geopolymer of compressive strength as instantly claimed. As such, the limitations of these claims are not sufficiently described in the specification as required above. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required. Claim 47 is also rejected for being dependent on Claim 46.
Claim 49 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 49 recites “wherein the yield value of the geopolymer slurry is about 62/15”. While the specification describes “PV/Ty (after mixing)” with a value of 62/15 for the specific composition of example A1, the yield value for all embodiments of the geopolymer slurry encompassed by parent Claim 1 as broadly claimed is not sufficiently described in the specification as required above. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Claim 50 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 50 recites “wherein the activator is present in the dry geopolymer precursor at a concentration of 7% by weight or more based on the total weight of the aluminosilicate source in the dry geopolymer precursor”. The instant specification appears to describe suitable quantities for the activator in [0025], but appears to describe the claimed concentration range in [0046] for sodium metasilicate as the sole added activator for specific aluminosilicate sources. As such, the instantly claimed concentration range for any activator and any aluminosilicate source encompassed by parent Claim 1 as broadly claimed is not sufficiently described in the specification as required above. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Claim 51 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 51 recites “generating the dry geopolymer precursor by subjecting the aluminosilicate source and the activator to curing at about 81°C for about 24 hours”. The instant specification [0044] appears to describe curing specific geopolymers at 81°C for 24 hours, where these geopolymers comprise specific sources of aluminosilicate and sodium metasilicate as the only added activator. As such, the instantly claimed limitation for generating a dry geopolymer precursor with any aluminosilicate source and any additive encompassed by parent Claim 1 as broadly claimed is not sufficiently described in the specification as required above. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Claims 49-51 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 49 recites “the yield value of the geopolymer slurry is about 62/15”. It is unclear what “the yield value” refers to. Table 1 of the instant specification appears to describe the value 62/15 as “PV/Ty (after mixing)” for the specific composition of example A1. However, it is unclear whether or not the yield value refers to “PV/Ty (after mixing)”. If so, after mixing what – the dry components, the slurry, other? Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required. The claim has been examined as best understood.
Claim 50 recites “…wherein the activator is present in the dry geopolymer precursor at a concentration of 7% by weight or more based on the total weight of the aluminosilicate source in the dry geopolymer precursor”. As recited, the concentration range has no upper limit and, as such, encompasses embodiments with the activator as the only component of the dry geopolymer precursor; which is unclear in combination with the limitations of parent Claim 1 that require other components, such as an aluminosilicate source, in the dry geopolymer precursor. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required. The claim has been examined as best understood.
Claim 51 recites “generating the dry geopolymer precursor by subjecting the aluminosilicate source and the activator to curing at about 81°C for about 24 hours”. It is unclear how a dry geopolymer precursor is generated by subjecting the aluminosilicate source and the activator to curing – how is the dry component generated by curing? Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required. The claim has been examined as best understood.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 9 & 48-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pisklak et al. (WO 2021/162712).
With respect to Claim 1, Pisklak discloses a method of cementing a subterranean well (Pisklak: Page 3), comprising: supplying a dry geopolymer precursor comprising an aluminosilicate source and an activator, wherein the activator comprises a solid alkali metal silicate; supplying a non-activating water material; mixing the dry geopolymer precursor with the non-activating water material to form a geopolymer slurry; pumping the geopolymer slurry into a subterranean well at a well site; and hardening the geopolymer slurry into a solid geopolymer within the subterranean well (Pisklak: Pages 5-8, 14, 16 & 17); wherein as a non-limiting example, Pisklak teaches tap water, which is considered a non-activating water material as instantly described in [0020].
Pisklak further teaches the method as beneficial in reducing cost with one or more embodiments where the slurry is prepared at the job/well site, and where dry components are mixed with the water/base during introduction into the subterranean formation; which is considered to encompass supplying the dry geopolymer precursor components and water to the well site and mixing at the well site (Pisklak: Pages 5, 8 & 14). Pisklak further teaches one or more embodiments with activators that are not hydroxides, which is considered “hydroxide-free” as instantly claimed (Pisklak: Pages 5 & 6). As such, although the reference fails to explicitly disclose the above method steps in combination with a hydroxide-free activator and supplying/mixing at the well site, in a single embodiment, as instantly claimed, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the above method steps to employ a hydroxide-free activator and supply and mix at the well site as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to reduce cost and/or yield predictable results in well cementing operations.
With respect to Claim 2, Pisklak teaches the method as provided above with respect to Claim 1, and further discloses “…wherein the activator is the solid alkali metal silicate, and the solid alkali metal silicate is Na2SiO3” (Pisklak: Pages 6 & 7).
With respect to Claim 5, Pisklak teaches the method as provided above with respect to Claim 1, and further discloses “…wherein the aluminosilicate source is fly ash, ground blast furnace slag, calcined or partially calcined clay, aluminum-containing silica fume, or any combination thereof” (Pisklak: Page 7).
With respect to Claim 8, Pisklak teaches the method as provided above with respect to Claim 1, and further teaches one or more embodiments employing additives to provide desired properties for the particular application, including additives such as viscosifiers and suspending agents; one or more embodiments with suspending aids such as diutan gum; and one or more embodiments where the dry blend comprises the additives (Pisklak: Pages 11 & 14). As such, although the reference fails to explicitly disclose the above method steps in combination with diutan gum in a single embodiment as instantly claimed, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the above method steps to employ diutan gum as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide desired properties for the particular application and/or yield predictable results in well cementing operations. (Pisklak: Pages 11 & 14). Further, it would appear that the properties of diutan gum as a viscosifier would flow naturally from following the teachings. “Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With respect to Claim 9, Pisklak teaches the method as provided above with respect to Claim 1, and further teaches one or more embodiments employing one or more additives as instantly claimed to provide desired properties for the particular application; and one or more embodiments where the dry blend comprises the additives (Pisklak: Pages 9 & 14). As such, although the reference fails to explicitly disclose the above method steps in combination with these features in a single embodiment as instantly claimed, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the above method steps to employ one or more additives as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide desired properties for the particular application and/or yield predictable results in well cementing operations. (Pisklak: Pages 9 & 14).
With respect to Claim 48, Pisklak teaches the method as provided above with respect to Claim 1, and further discloses “…wherein the non-activating water material is free of an alkaline activator and has a pH less than 11” (Pisklak: Page 8); wherein Pisklak teaches tap water, which is considered a non-activating water material as instantly claimed.
With respect to Claim 49, Pisklak teaches the method as provided above with respect to Claim 1, and further teaches the geopolymer slurry comprising components as instantly claimed, as set forth above. As such, it would appear that the yield value of the geopolymer slurry would be as instantly claimed. “Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
To the extent there is any difference between this feature as disclosed by Pisklak and this feature as instantly claimed, it is further noted that Pisklak teaches one or more embodiments employing one or more additives to provide desired properties for the particular application (Pisklak: Pages 9 & 14). As such, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the above method steps to employ one or more additives as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide desired properties for the particular application and/or yield predictable results in well cementing operations. (Pisklak: Pages 9 & 14).
With respect to Claim 50, Pisklak teaches the method as provided above with respect to Claim 1, and further teaches wherein the activator is present in the dry geopolymer precursor at a concentration that overlaps with the range as instantly claimed, to provide desired properties for the particular application (Pisklak: Pages 6 & 7). As such, although the reference fails to explicitly limit the concentration to the range as instantly claimed, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ a suitable concentration of activator and provide desired properties for the particular application, with a reasonable expectation of success, insofar as because it has been held. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233,235 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, based on the actual conditions encountered in the formation, one of ordinary skill would recognize the optimal concentration to employ therein in order to obtain the desired result.
It is also noted that, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, there had been a recognized need in the art for well cementing with geopolymer compositions, and a finite number of identified, predictable solutions including employing a geopolymer composition comprising components with amounts tailored for the desired application as set forth above. As such, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, based on the teachings of Pisklak, one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued desired concentrations of the components with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103."KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
With respect to Claim 51, Pisklak teaches the method as provided above with respect to Claim 1, and further teaches the geopolymer slurry comprising components as instantly claimed, as set forth above. As such, it would appear that the properties of the dry geopolymer precursor would be as instantly claimed. “Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
To the extent there is any difference between this feature as disclosed by Pisklak and this feature as instantly claimed, it is further noted that Pisklak teaches one or more embodiments employing one or more additives to provide desired properties for the particular application, and the suitability of the method and composition at a variety of temperatures (Pisklak: Pages 9, 14 & 15). As such, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the above method steps to employ one or more additives and desired temperatures, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide desired properties for the particular application and/or yield predictable results in well cementing operations. (Pisklak: Pages 9, 14 & 15).
Claims 6 & 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pisklak et al. (WO 2021/162712), in view of Barlet-Gouedard et al. (WO 2008/017414), ‘414 hereinafter.
With respect to Claim 6, Pisklak teaches the method as provided above with respect to Claim 1, and further teaches one or more embodiments employing additives such as lightweight additives, and one or more embodiments where the dry blend comprises the additives (Pisklak: Pages 9, 14 & 15). The reference, however, fails to explicitly disclose “…wherein the dry geopolymer precursor further comprises soda-lime glass dust, borosilicate glass dust, or any combination thereof” as instantly claimed.
‘414 teaches methods of cementing a subterranean well with geopolymer compositions comprising an aluminosilicate and an activator therein, wherein the methods comprise one or more embodiments wherein the geopolymer precursor comprises lightweight additives, such as borosilicate glass, in particulate form, one or more embodiments comprising glass powder, and one or more embodiments where particulate sizes are optimized to provide a mixable and pumpable slurry and/or provide beneficial properties to the geopolymer (‘414: Sections [0009], [0012], [0021], [0043] & [0060]-[0062]). As such, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Pisklak with the aforementioned teachings of ‘414 to employ one or more materials as instantly claimed, and in a desired particle size including a dust, in the dry geopolymer precursor, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a mixable and pumpable slurry and/or provide beneficial properties to the geopolymer. (‘414: Sections [0009], [0012], [0021], [0043] & [0060]-[0062]).
With respect to Claim 7, Pisklak teaches the method as provided above with respect to Claim 1, and further teaches employing additives such as retarders (including lignosulfonates, borates etc.), and one or more embodiments where the dry blend comprises the additives (Pisklak: Pages 8 & 14). The reference, however, fails to explicitly disclose “a retarder comprising boric acid, glucoheptonic acid and soluble salts thereof, phosphoric acid and soluble salts thereof, or any combination thereof” as instantly claimed.
‘414 teaches methods of cementing a subterranean well with geopolymer compositions comprising an aluminosilicate and an activator therein, wherein the methods employ a retarder as instantly claimed as an alternative to those of Pisklak in order to control the setting time (‘414: Sections [0009] & [0010]). As such, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Pisklak with the aforementioned teachings of ‘414 to employ a known alternative retarder in the dry geopolymer precursor, such as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to control the setting time and/or yield predictable results in well cementing operations. (‘414: Sections [0009] & [0010]).
Claims 46 & 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pisklak et al. (WO 2021/162712), in view of Mahmoudkhani et al. (US 2014/0352963).
With respect to Claim 46, Pisklak teaches the method as provided above with respect to Claim 1, and further teaches one or more embodiments employing aluminosilicates such as slag and in powder form, employing additives to provide desired properties for the particular application, including additives such as viscosifiers, suspending aids, silica and/or defoamers; one or more embodiments with suspending aids such as diutan gum; and one or more embodiments where the dry blend comprises the additives (Pisklak: Pages 7-9, 11 & 14; Examples). As such, although the reference fails to explicitly disclose the above method steps in combination with wherein the aluminosilicate source of the dry geopolymer precursor comprises a “ground” blast furnace slag source ,and wherein the dry geopolymer precursor further comprises silica, diutan gum, and an anti-foam agent, in a single embodiment, as instantly claimed, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the above method steps to employ a dry geopolymer precursor comprising the materials as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide desired properties for the particular application and/or yield predictable results in well cementing operations. (Pisklak: Pages 7-9, 11 & 14; Examples).
The reference, however, fail to explicitly disclose the defoamer/antifoam agent as “a polyethylene glycol (PEG)” as instantly claimed.
Mahmoudkhani teaches methods of wellbore cementing therein, wherein known defoamers in the art, such as PEG, in dry form, are employed to prevent formation of foam during the preparation and/or pumping of the treatment compositions (Mahmoudkhani: Sections [0003], [0021], [0028] &[0036]). As such, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Pisklak with the aforementioned teachings of Mahmoudkhani to employ a PEG antifoam in the dry geopolymer precursor, such as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to prevent formation of foam during the preparation and/or pumping of the treatment compositions. (Mahmoudkhani: Sections [0003], [0021], [0028] &[0036]).
With respect to Claim 47, the combined references of Pisklak and Mahmoudkhani teach the method as provided above with respect to Claim 46. Pisklak further teaches suitable compositions for oilfield applications to include examples wherein the compressive strength of the solid geopolymer encompasses a value as instantly claimed (Pisklak: Pages 11 & 12; Examples). As such, although the reference fails to explicitly limit the compressive strength to the value as instantly claimed, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to provide a compressive strength as instantly claimed insofar as because it has been held. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233,235 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, based on the actual conditions encountered in the formation, one of ordinary skill would recognize the optimal compressive strength to employ therein in order to obtain the desired result.
To the extent Pisklak fails to disclose or teach the compressive strength as instantly claimed, it is noted that the combined teachings set forth above provide for a geopolymer precursor as instantly claimed. As such, it would appear that properties, such as compressive strength, of the resulting solid geopolymer would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art, and the compressive strength of the solid geopolymer would be as instantly claimed. “Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). To the extent there is any difference between this feature based on the teachings set forth above and this feature as instantly claimed, the difference is considered minor and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicants' amendments regarding the claim objections and the 35 USC § 112 rejections are persuasive in-part. As such, these objections and rejections are withdrawn in-part and maintained in-part as set forth above. Further, some amendments raise new issues under 35 USC § 112 as set forth above.
Applicants’ arguments with respect to new Claims 48-51 and Claims 1, 2, 5-9, 46 & 47 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicants’ amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ANURADHA AHUJA whose telephone number is (571)272-3067. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday.
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, Doug Hutton can be reached at 571-272-4137. 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.
/ANURADHA AHUJA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674