DETAILED ACTION
In response to remarks filed on 12 June 2026
Status of Claims
Claims 1-24 are pending;
Claim 1 is currently amended;
Claims 2-21 were previously presented;
Claims 22-24 are new;
Claims 1-24 are rejected herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 12 June 2026 have been fully considered and they are not persuasive. Regarding the argument about Oates and the size of the chamber, examiner contends that the argued claim limitation is so broad that a lateral width 0.00001-inch longer than the vertical height would read on the limitation which could very well occur naturally. Furthermore, Figure 5B of Oates shows a chamber with a lateral width exceeding the vertical height so it is within the scope of Oates to operate in chambers with such size. Regarding Maduell and the size of the chamber, examiner contends that the argued claim limitation is so broad that a lateral width 0.00001-inch longer than the vertical height would read on the limitation which could very well occur naturally. Furthermore, the cited paragraph of Maduell clearly mentions reaching an intended prescribed size (width and height are sizes) so reaching a chamber with a lateral width exceeding the vertical height is within the scope of Maduell.
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 1-5, 7-9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oates (U.S. Patent No. 9,284,120) alone.
As to Claim 1, Oates discloses a system for storing materials in an earthen subterranean formation, the system comprising:
A wellbore (Wellbore occupied by casing string 12) extending from a terranean surface into the subterranean formation, the wellbore (Wellbore occupied by casing string 12) extending from an uphole end (202) at the terranean surface to a longitudinally opposing downhole end (End of wellbore meeting with chamber 4);
A casing string (12) extending through the wellbore, wherein the casing string (12) is cemented in place in the wellbore (Column 12, Lines 23-25: “The casing 12 is typically cemented into position and forms a seal with the top portion of 204 of the cavern 3”);
A subterranean storage chamber (4) formed in a salt deposit (Column 4, Lines 31-37: “As known in the art, salt cavern 3 is formed by solution mining in which water is injected through a pipe known as a brine string 10. The water dissolves the salt, and the resulting brine during the mining operation is returned through the annular space (not shown) formed in the final well casing 12 or other conduit between the inner wall of the final well casing 12 and the outer wall of the brine string 10”) of the subterranean formation and fluidically connected to the wellbore (Wellbore occupied by casing string 12), the storage chamber at least partially filled with brine (Column 4, Lines 37-45: “After the solution mining operation is complete, the residual brine in the salt cavern 3 can be removed through the brine string 10 by pressure displacement resulting from injection of hydrogen through the final casing 12 or other conduit. Once the brine level reaches the bottom of the brine string 10, a top section of the brine string 10 is sealed off by valve 216 and a residual brine layer 20, also known as a brine sump, may remain in the salt cavern 3 at the bottom portion 207”); and
A wellbore-transportable foreign material (4) that is stored in the storage chamber.
Although Oates is silent about the storage chamber having a lateral width that exceeds a vertical height of the storage chamber, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the storage chamber having a lateral width that exceeds a vertical height of the storage chamber since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art.
As to Claim 2, Oates as modified teaches the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). However, Oates as modified is silent about wherein a ratio of the lateral width of the storage chamber to the vertical height of the storage chamber is equal to or greater than 2:1. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to make the ratio of the lateral width of the storage chamber to the vertical height of the storage chamber equal to or greater than 2:1 since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art.
As to Claim 3, Oates as modified teaches the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). However, Oates as modified is silent about wherein a ratio of the lateral width of the storage chamber to the vertical height of the storage chamber is equal to or greater than 4:1. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to make the ratio of the lateral width of the storage chamber to the vertical height of the storage chamber equal to or greater than 4:1 since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art.
As to Claim 4, Oates as modified teaches the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). However, Oates as modified is silent about wherein a ratio of the lateral width of the storage chamber to the vertical height of the storage chamber is equal to or greater than 10:1. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to make the ratio of the lateral width of the storage chamber to the vertical height of the storage chamber equal to or greater than 10:1 since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art.
As to Claim 5, Oates as modified teaches the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). However, Oates as modified is silent about wherein a ratio of a surface area to a volume of the storage chamber is equal to or greater than 5:1. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to make a ratio of a surface area to a volume of the storage chamber equal to or greater than 5:1 since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art.
As to Claim 7, Oates as modified teaches the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Oates as modified also teaches wherein the stored material comprises the brine at least partially filling the storage chamber (Column 4, Lines 37-45: “After the solution mining operation is complete, the residual brine in the salt cavern 3 can be removed through the brine string 10 by pressure displacement resulting from injection of hydrogen through the final casing 12 or other conduit. Once the brine level reaches the bottom of the brine string 10, a top section of the brine string 10 is sealed off by valve 216 and a residual brine layer 20, also known as a brine sump, may remain in the salt cavern 3 at the bottom portion 207”).
As to Claim 8, Oates as modified teaches the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Oates as modified also teaches wherein the stored material comprises hydrogen (4).
As to Claim 9, Oates as modified teaches the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Oates as modified also teaches wherein the storage chamber (3) comprises a single opening (204), the single opening fluidically connected to the wellbore.
As to Claim 11, Oates as modified teaches the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Oates as modified also teaches wherein the storage chamber (3) is defined by a vertically lower floor (207) formed from at least one of limestone, shale, and red rock (205) of the subterranean formation.
Claims 6 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oates (U.S. Patent No. 9,284,120) in view of Crichlow (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0165445).
As to Claim 6, Oates as modified teaches the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). However, Oates as modified is silent about further comprising one or more storage containers positioned in the storage chamber, the one or more storage containers each comprising an inner cavity holding at least some of the stored material. Crichlow discloses comprising one or more storage containers (403, 405, 407) positioned in a storage chamber (401), the one or more storage containers each comprising an inner cavity holding at least some of the stored material (The spheres each contain uranium). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to position one or more storage containers in the storage chamber, the one or more storage containers each comprising an inner cavity holding at least some of the stored material. The motivation would have been to increase the utility of the system by allowing it to store different kinds of substances when needed.
As to Claim 10, Oates as modified teaches the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). However, Oates as modified is silent about wherein the stored material comprises radioactive waste material. Crichlow discloses one or more storage containers (403, 405, 407) positioned in a storage chamber (401), the one or more storage containers each containing uranium which is a radioactive waste material. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the stored material comprise radioactive waste material. The motivation would have been to increase the utility of the system by allowing it to store different kinds of substances when needed.
Claim 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oates (U.S. Patent No. 9,284,120) in view of Bishop (U.S. Patent No. 5,129,759).
As to Claim 12, Oates as modified teaches the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). However, Oates as modified is silent about a pumped hydroelectricity energy storage system, the system comprising a first reservoir located along the terranean surface; a second reservoir located at least partially within the storage chamber, the second reservoir in fluid communication with the first reservoir; and a pump fluidically connected to both the first reservoir and the second reservoir and configured to pump at least some of the brine into the second reservoir from the direction of the first reservoir. Bishop discloses a pumped hydroelectricity energy storage system comprising a first reservoir (50) located along the terranean surface (18); a second reservoir (10) located at least partially within a storage chamber (74), the second reservoir (10) in fluid communication with the first reservoir (50); and a pump (64) fluidically connected to both the first reservoir (50) and the second reservoir (10) and configured to pump at least some of the brine into the second reservoir from the direction of the first reservoir. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a first reservoir located along the terranean surface; a second reservoir located at least partially within the storage chamber, the second reservoir in fluid communication with the first reservoir; and a pump fluidically connected to both the first reservoir and the second reservoir and configured to pump at least some of the brine into the second reservoir from the direction of the first reservoir. The motivation would have been to provide means to store materials.
Claims 13-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maduell et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0105971) alone.
As to Claim 13, Maduell discloses a method for storing materials in an earthen subterranean formation, the method comprising:
Forming a wellbore (101) extending vertically from a terranean surface into the subterranean formation, the wellbore extending from an uphole end (Top end of 101) at the terranean surface to a longitudinally opposing downhole end (Bottom end of 101);
Installing a casing string (104) in the wellbore (101) whereby the casing string is cemented in place in the wellbore (101);
Installing tubing (103) within a central passage of the casing string (104) whereby an annulus is formed between the casing string and the tubing (There are two annuluses formed between 103 and 106 and between 106 and 104. Both of them are located between the outer wall of 103 and the inner wall of 104);
Injecting a solvent (102) from the terranean surface into the wellbore (101) through a central passage of the tubing (103); and
Circulating salt (105) from the wellbore (101) to the terranean surface through the annulus (Annulus between 103 and 106) in response to (d) to form a subterranean storage chamber (107) in a salt deposit (“salt formation”) of the subterranean formation that is fluidically connected to the wellbore (101), the storage chamber (107) at least partially filled with brine.
Maduell does not explicitly discloses that the storage chamber has a lateral width that exceeds a vertical height of the storage chamber. However, Maduell states in Paragraph 0013 that “The proportion and rates of wastes or other materials and solution mining water injected into the well are monitored and regulated so that cavern development continues in a manner and at a rate that allows the cavern to reach an intended prescribed size”. In view of this, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to develop the storage chamber with a lateral width that exceeds a vertical height of the storage chamber since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art.
As to Claim 14, Maduell as modified teaches the invention of Claim 13 (Refer to Claim 13 discussion). Maduell as modified also teaches further comprising: (f) injecting a protective fluid (111) from the terranean surface into the wellbore (101) to form a protective blanket of the protective fluid over a surface of the solvent contained in the storage chamber (107) thereby preventing contact between the solvent and the casing string.
As to Claim 15, Maduell as modified teaches the invention of Claim 14 (Refer to Claim 14 discussion). Maduell as modified also teaches wherein the protective fluid (111) has a lower specific gravity than the solvent.
As to Claim 16, Maduell as modified teaches the invention of Claim 13 (Refer to Claim 13 discussion). However, Maduell as modified is silent about wherein a ratio of the lateral width of the storage chamber to the vertical height of the storage chamber is equal to or greater than 2:1. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to make the ratio of the lateral width of the storage chamber to the vertical height of the storage chamber equal to or greater than 2:1 since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art.
As to Claim 17, Maduell as modified teaches the invention of Claim 13 (Refer to Claim 13 discussion). However, Maduell as modified is silent about wherein a ratio of a surface area to a volume of the storage chamber is equal to or greater than 5:1. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to make a ratio of a surface area to a volume of the storage chamber equal to or greater than 5:1 since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art.
As to Claim 18, Maduell discloses a method for storing materials in an earthen subterranean formation, the method comprising:
Forming a wellbore (101) extending vertically from a terranean surface into the subterranean formation, the wellbore extending from an uphole end (Top end of 101) at the terranean surface to a longitudinally opposing downhole end (Bottom end of 101);
Installing a casing string (104) in the wellbore whereby the casing string is cemented in place in the wellbore (101);
Installing an outer tubing (106) within a central passage of the casing string (104) whereby an outer annulus (Space between the inner wall of 104 and the outer wall of 106) is formed between the casing string (104) and the outer tubing (106);
Installing an inner tubing (103) within a central passage of the outer tubing (106) whereby an inner annulus (Space between outer wall of 103 and inner wall 106) is formed between the outer tubing (106) and the inner tubing (103);
Injecting a solvent (102) from the terranean surface into the wellbore through a central passage of the inner tubing (103);
Circulating salt (105) from the wellbore (101) to the terranean surface through the inner annulus (Space between outer wall of 103 and inner wall 106) in response to (d) to form a subterranean storage chamber (107) in a salt deposit of the subterranean formation that is fluidically connected to the wellbore (101), the storage chamber being at least partially filled with brine;
Injecting a protective fluid (111) from the terranean surface into the wellbore (101) through the outer annulus (Space between the inner wall of 104 and the outer wall of 106) to form a protective blanket of the protective fluid (111) over a surface of the solvent contained in the storage chamber (107) thereby preventing contact between the brine and the casing string (Figure 1, “third stage” shows the casing string 104 ending above the line of 211. The brine is below the line).
Maduell does not explicitly discloses (h) controlling a ratio of a volume of the solvent and a volume of the protective fluid injected into the wellbore to form the storage chamber with a predefined form factor. However, Maduell states in Paragraph 0013 that “The proportion and rates of wastes or other materials and solution mining water injected into the well are monitored and regulated so that cavern development continues in a manner and at a rate that allows the cavern to reach an intended prescribed size”. In view of this, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that such step is capable of being performed in view of the structure as the substances are added and regulated to achieve a desired size. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to control a ratio of a volume of the solvent and a volume of the protective fluid injected into the wellbore to form the storage chamber with a predefined form factor. The motivation would have been to achieve a desired size for the storage chamber.
As to Claim 19, Maduell as modified teaches the invention of Claim 18 (Refer to Claim 18 discussion). Although Maduell as modified is silent about form factor of the storage chamber defined by a lateral width that exceeds a vertical height of the storage chamber, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the storage chamber having a lateral width that exceeds a vertical height of the storage chamber since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art.
As to Claim 20, Maduell as modified teaches the invention of Claim 19 (Refer to Claim 19 discussion). However, Maduell as modified is silent about wherein a ratio of the lateral width of the storage chamber to the vertical height of the storage chamber is equal to or greater than 2:1. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to make the ratio of the lateral width of the storage chamber to the vertical height of the storage chamber equal to or greater than 2:1 since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art.
As to Claim 21, Maduell as modified teaches the invention of Claim 19 (Refer to Claim 19 discussion). Although Maduell does not explicitly disclose (h1) decreasing the ratio of the volume of the solvent and the volume of the protective fluid to increase a lateral width of the storage chamber relative to a vertical height of the storage chamber, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that such step is capable of being performed in view of the structure as both substances are added via different conduits and the operator may decide the amounts needed to achieve a desired result as per Paragraph 0013 of Maduell. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to decrease the ratio of the volume of the solvent and the volume of the protective fluid to increase a lateral width of the storage chamber relative to a vertical height of the storage chamber. The motivation would have been to achieve a desired size for the storage chamber.
As to Claim 22, Maduell as modified teaches the invention of Claim 18 (Refer to Claim 18 discussion). Although Maduell does not explicitly disclose (h1) increasing a ratio of the volume of the protective fluid to the volume of the solvent injected into the wellbore to limit vertical dissolution of the storage chamber and promote lateral dissolution of the storage chamber, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that such step is capable of being performed in view of the structure as both substances are added via different conduits and the operator may decide the amounts needed to achieve a desired result as per Paragraph 0013 of Maduell. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to increase a ratio of the volume of the protective fluid to the volume of the solvent injected into the wellbore to limit vertical dissolution of the storage chamber and promote lateral dissolution of the storage chamber. The motivation would have been to achieve a desired size for the storage chamber.
As to Claim 23, Maduell discloses the invention of Claim 13 (Refer to Claim 13 discussion). Maduell also discloses wherein the protective fluid (111) comprises at least one of an oil-based fluid and an inert gas (Paragraph 0013: “The cavern-roof-protecting blanket material 111, fed through casing 104, is maintained in the top portion of the cavern in order to eliminate or minimize leakages. Nitrogen and certain other gases, mineral oil, diesel and similar materials capable of eliminating or minimizing leakages may be used for this purpose”).
As to Claim 24, Maduell discloses the invention of Claim 18 (Refer to Claim 18 discussion). Maduell also discloses wherein (h) is performed by a control system communicatively coupled to surface equipment at the terranean surface, the control system automatically controlling the ratio of the volume of the solvent and the volume of the protective fluid injected into the wellbore (Paragraph 0020: “Regardless of the particular mode of waste injection chosen, the proportions and the rates of waste and mine water injected into the well are monitored, regulated and controlled so that the enlargement and development of the salt cavern proceed simultaneously with the waste disposal at a rate that allows the cavern to reach its intended size while the waste being disposed of is injected into and collected in the cavern”).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 EDWIN J TOLEDO-DURAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7501. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday: 10:00AM to 6:00PM EST.
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.
/EDWIN J TOLEDO-DURAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
Prosecution Insights