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 .
The response of 10 November 2025 is acknowledged and has been entered. Independent claims 1 and 3 have been amended. In view thereof, the rejection of claims 1 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2014/0190691 is withdrawn. New grounds of rejection are provided. The remarks have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 11-12, 22-25 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0190691 A1 (Vinegar et al.) in view of US 2023/0050823 A1 (Darrah et al.).
As concerns claim 1, Vinegar et al. discloses a method for generating and extracting geologic hydrogen, the method comprising: applying a current to a subterranean formation (figure 463 and paragraph 2665); [[and]] fracturing the subterranean formation in response to the applied current (1774, discussing how water in the formation may vaporize and cause fracturing of the formation); injecting water into the subterranean formation to generate hydrogen; and extracting the hydrogen from the subterranean formation (0165).
Vinegar et al. lacks to disclose the method including the step of reacting the injected water with iron from the subterranean formation to generate hydrogen; nevertheless Darrah et al. discloses a method for generating and extracting geologic hydrogen including the step of reacting the injected water with iron from the subterranean formation to generate hydrogen (see figure 4 and figure 5, and 0042 et seq., injection of water-based fluids into mafic and/or ultramafic , (i.e., rocks rich in magnesium and iron) igneous rocks to produce hydrogen).
One of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing, would have associated the method of Vinegar et al. with an iron-rich (mafic or ultra-mafic) formation as taught by Darrah et al. with a reasonable expectation of success, as this produces the desirable result of producing hydrogen via in-situ serpentinization or carbonization of mafic or ultramafic rock and would be expected to improve hydrogen production at the wellsite.
As concerns claim 3, Vinegar et al. discloses a method for generating and extracting geologic hydrogen, the method comprising: injecting a fluid comprising carbon dioxide into a subterranean formation (0165); applying a current to the fluid within the subterranean formation (see, figure 463, paragraph 2665); depositing at least portion of the carbon dioxide of the fluid into the subterranean formation (0146); and generating and extracting the hydrogen from the subterranean formation (0003).
Vinegar et al. lacks to expressly disclose reacting the injected fluid with iron from the subterranean formation to generate hydrogen.
Darrah et al. discloses a method for generating and extracting geologic hydrogen including the step of reacting the injected water with iron from the subterranean formation to generate hydrogen (see figure 4 and figure 5, and 0042 et seq., injection of water-based fluids into mafic and/or ultramafic , (i.e., rocks rich in magnesium and iron) igneous rocks to produce hydrogen).
One of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing, would have associated the method of Vinegar et al. with an iron-rich (mafic or ultra-mafic) formation as taught by Darrah et al. with a reasonable expectation of success, as this produces the desirable result of producing hydrogen via in-situ serpentinization or carbonization of mafic or ultramafic rock and would be expected to improve hydrogen production at the wellsite.
As concerns claim 11, Vinegar et al. discloses the method of claim 1, wherein fracturing comprises forming new fractures within the subterranean formation that were not present prior to applying the current (1774).
As concerns claim 12, Vinegar et al. discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising Joule heating at least a portion of the subterranean formation (1960).
As concerns claim 21, Darrah et al. discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the subterranean formation has a hardness of greater than or equal to 2 Mohs (0037, based on the fact that the formation is an olivine rich formation).
As concerns claim 22, Darrah et al. discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the subterranean formation has a weight percentage of iron (Fe) greater than or equal to 1 wt.% (0037).
As concerns claim 23, Darrah et al. discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the subterranean formation has a weight percentage of silicon (Si) greater than or equal to 1 wt.% (Id.).
As concerns claims 24-25, in as much as Darrah et al. is associated with an ultra-mafic formation, the permeability would generally be within the claimed ranges.
As concerns claim 30, Darrah et al. discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the subterranean formation is a peridotite, iron-rich, olivine-rich, mafic, ultra-mafic, and/or massive sulfide rock formation (see at least 0003).
Claim(s) 2, 4-5, 26-29 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vinegar et al., as modified above, and further in view of US 2012/0085535 A1 (Mo et al.).
As concerns claim 2, the combination discloses the method of claim 1, but lacks to expressly disclose the method further comprising injecting a fluid into the subterranean formation prior to applying the current.
Mo et al. discloses a method including injecting a fluid into the subterranean formation prior to applying the current (A solution of electrically conductive particles 168 are injected through injection well 170 positioned in a wellbore 116 of a hydrocarbon layer 118, see, 0143, Once the desired amount of particles 168 are positioned within the fractures of the hydrocarbon layer 118, electrically conductive conduits 180, 182 are positioned near the conductive particles and provided with a power source, which delivers a current to the electrically conductive particles 168, 0145-0146).
One of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing, would have modified the method to include injecting the fluid prior to applying a current to the formation with a reasonable expectation of success, as this can produce the desirable result of increasing the heat transfer rate provided by the electrical current.
As concerns claim 4, Vinegar et al. discloses the method of claim 2, further comprising injecting water into the subterranean formation to generate the hydrogen (0165).
As concerns claim 5, Vinegar et al. discloses the method of claim 2, further comprising fracturing the subterranean formation (1774).
As concerns claims 26-29, the combination lacks to disclose the specific ranges for the temperature increases or for the average temperatures, nevertheless it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the claimed temperatures, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Further, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Refer to MPEP § 2144.05.
As concerns claim 32, Mo et al. discloses a system comprising: a power source (see, 0106); at least two electrodes connected to the power source (the conductors 112, 114 that are connected to the power source and provide current into the formation are equivalent, see at least 0107); at least one pump (implicit, since particles are introduced into the well); and at least one processor configured to operate the power source and the at least one pump to perform the method (also implicit, as computer simulations are used, moreover Official Notice is taken that processors for operation of well equipment are well understood and obvious in the art) of claim 1.
Conclusion
Applicant's 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 JAMES G. SAYRE whose telephone number is (571)270-7045. The examiner can normally be reached from 9:30-6:00 Monday-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, Nicole A. 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.
JAMES G. SAYRE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3679
/JAMES G SAYRE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679