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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office action is based on the 18/911908 application originally filed October 10, 2024.
Amended claims 1-24, filed July 25, 2026, are pending and have been fully considered. Claims 12-24 are withdrawn from consideration due to being drawn to a nonelected invention.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson et al. (US 2018/0321215) hereinafter “Peterson” in view of Pottorf et al. (US 2014/0284465) hereinafter “Pottorf”.
Regarding Claims 1-3, 5-7 and 10-11
Peterson discloses in paragraph 0002, methods that utilize isotopic signatures, such as clumped isotope signatures and/or position specific isotope signatures, to determine characteristics of hydrocarbon sources.
Peterson discloses in paragraph 0046, the methods and techniques take advantage of isotopologue geochemistry of hydrocarbon fluids and allow for the direct linking of a sample of a produced or seeped volatile or nonvolatile hydrocarbon fluid to a source material. The methods and techniques described herein generally comprise measuring a clumped isotope signature or a position specific isotope signature of a hydrocarbon species in a sample of hydrocarbon fluid to determine a measured or analytical signature. The measured/analytical signature can then be compared with or integrated into a modeled signature to determine characteristics of the source material (such as source maturity, hydrocarbon generation progress and rate, alteration, and/or mixing). The modeled signatures may be prepared from models that reflect different source compositions and isotopic structures, different kinetic processes, and/or different elements of a basin's history as described further herein. Thus, the modeled signature can be used to predict specific isotopic signatures of hydrocarbon fluids (such as hydrocarbon gases) from different starting source materials, and the closer the alignment between the modeled/predicted signature and the measured/analytical signature the more direct correlation can be made the sample and hydrocarbon source.
Peterson discloses in paragraph 0049, multiply substituted isotopologue geochemistry is based on the variation in the distribution of isotopes within a molecule that gives rise to molecules that are identical in their elemental compositions, but that may differ in the isotopic composition of individual atoms within that molecule. These species are called isotopologues. For example, there are three isotopologues of nitrogen (14N2, 15N14N, and 15N2). An isotopologue in which two or more rare isotopes are present is called a multiply-substituted isotopologue and when the rare isotopes are in close proximity (i.e., isotopic “clumps”) the isotopologue is called a clumped isotope (e.g., 15N2). Hydrocarbon isotopologues involve hydrocarbon compounds (e.g., those that contain carbon and hydrogen atoms) that have natural isotopes of 12C, 13C, 1H, or H (i.e., deuterium or “D”). 12C represents about 98.93 mol % of the total carbon on Earth, while 13C forms the remaining about 1.07 mol %. Similarly, the isotopic abundance of 1H on earth is about 99.985 mol % while deuterium has an abundance of about 0.015 mol %. Common volatile hydrocarbons have large numbers of isotopologues, even when considering only the stable isotopes. For example, methane has 10 isotopologues, ethane has 36 isotopologues, and propane has 216 isotopologues. Common isotopologues of methane include, for example, 13CH3D or 12CH4. In addition to the number of rare isotopes in an isotopologue, the distribution (i.e., position) of the rare isotopes in the molecule can also provide information about the molecule. For example, in a linear hydrocarbon with three or more carbon atoms (e.g., n-propane or n-butane), the rare isotope can take either a central or terminal (i.e., end of molecule) position. Similarly, rare isotopes of hydrogen can occupy different positions within the molecule. As the size of the hydrocarbon compound increases, the number of positions in which the rare isotopes can be situated increases. This effect is called the position specific isotope effect or isotopomer geochemistry.
Peterson discloses in paragraph 0153, the natural gas is under wetness and dryness.
Peterson discloses the claimed isotopologue being measured through mass spectrometry but fails to specifically teach the claimed amount of isotopologue being present to be measured.
However, it is known in the art to use mass spectrometry in a known amount in order to detect certain hydrocarbons present in the gas or oil, as taught by Pottorf.
Pottorf discloses in paragraph 0044, the molecular and isotopic signatures of non-hydrocarbon gases and hydrocarbons in the sample are measured. In particular, the molecular and isotopic signatures of non-hydrocarbon gases (e.g. H2S, CO2, N2) and hydrocarbons are measured, which includes the analysis of noble gas signatures (He, Ne, Ar, Kr and Xe) and the isotopologue or clumped isotope signature of both non-hydrocarbon and hydrocarbon molecules (in gases, water, and/or oils). Isotopologues are molecules that differ only in their isotopic composition. Clumped isotopes are isotopologues that contain two or more rare isotopes. The sample of interest may comprise water, oil, natural gas, sediments or other types of rocks, or fluids present in sediments, rocks, water or air. Measurement of the abundance of each noble gas isotope can be conducted following standard extraction techniques using mass spectrometry.
Pottorf further discloses in paragraph 0068, the mass spectrometer is capable of analyzing for methane, ethane, propane, and higher hydrocarbons (up to 200 atomic mass units) that provides a distinction between biogenic and thermogenic gas, gas wetness, and whether a seep is related primarily to oil, gas, or both a combination of oil and gas. The fluorometer supplements the mass spectrometer by indicating the presence of aromatic compounds consistent with liquid-rich hydrocarbons.
Pottorf discloses in paragraph 0026, the mass spectrometry (MS) sensor has a limit of detection of about 1 part per billion (ppb) of hydrocarbons in the measured fluid ranging to saturated values of hydrocarbons with respect to seawater. This type of sensor may also be utilized to differentiate thermogenic from biogenic gases, and gas from oil, and oil quality in the water column.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the amount of isotopologue of Pottorf as the amount of isotopologue Peterson in order to be measured by mass spectrometry, as taught by Pottorf and Peterson. The motivation to do so is to use an amount that aids in the detection of hydrocarbons when measuring through mass spectrometry.
Regarding Claims 4, 8 and 9
Peterson modified by Pottorf discloses the natural gas of independent claim 1 of the present invention.
It is to be noted, Peterson discloses in paragraph 0049, the hydrocarbon can be a multiple substituted isotopologue, wherein the isotopologue can have multiple configurations. For example, methane has 10 isotopologues, ethane has 36 isotopologues, and propane has 216 isotopologues. Common isotopologues of methane include, for example, 13CH3D or 12CH4.
Although Peterson does not specifically state the isotopologue is C2D6, C2H2D4, C3D8, or C3D9, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to infer from the disclosure of Peterson, particularly paragraph 0049, that the rare isotopologue disclosed can be C2D6, C2H2D4, C3D8, or C3D9 through discovery of routine experimentation. The applicant is reminded that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 23, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argued: “The Office Action asserted that Peterson disclosed natural gas having naturally occurring isotopologues, but acknowledged that Peterson did not disclose the claimed amount, at least 1 ppbv, of the claim isotopologue. To address this lack of disclosure in Peterson, the Office Action asserted that it would have been obvious "to use the amount of isotopologue of Pottorf as the amount of isotopologue [in] Peterson in order to be measured by mass spectrometry". Peterson does not teach or suggest modifying the amount of isotopologues in the hydrocarbon. The isotopologue markers used in the present application are used in amounts significantly larger than amounts which are naturally present. Moreover, there would be no apparent reason to modify the amount of isotopologue in Peterson based on either the teachings of Peterson or the teachings of Pottorf. In fact, modifying the amount of isotopologue in natural gas would make the method of Peterson ineffective, because the amount of isotopologue would no longer be distinct for its source. Pottorf similarly discusses methods performed on naturally-occurring hydrocarbons and therefore also does not teach or suggest modifying the amount of isotopologue in a hydrocarbon.”
Applicants arguments are not deemed persuasive. As stated in the above rejection, it is known in the art to measure the amount of hydrocarbons in the fluid through mass spectrometry due to the hydrocarbon can be present up to 1 parts per billion. It is to be noted, natural gas is primarily composed of methane or ethane and can be measured through mass spectrometry. Therefore, Peterson modified by Pottorf has met the limitations of the presently claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dusterhoft et al. (US 2020/0340341) discloses in the abstract, a method and system for pressurizing and stimulating a formation with a parent well therethrough, the method including storing and de-liquefying liquefied natural gas (LNG) at an on-site location near the parent well, injecting a first stream of de-liquefied LNG into the parent well to pressurize the formation, and injecting a second stream of de-liquefied LNG into the parent well at a fracturing pressure sufficient to fracture the pressurized formation. Dusterhoft further discloses in paragraph 0036, the tracers can include various tracer compounds including tritiated methane (CH3T), CH2TCH3; 2-t propane (CH3CHTCH3) Krypton 85 (85Kr), radio-carbon dioxide (14CO2), xenon-133 (133Xe), xenon-127 (127Xe), perfluorodimethylmethylcyclohexane (PDMCH), perfluoromethylcyclopentane (PMCP), Perfluoromethylcyclohexane (PMCH), 1,2-perfluorodimethylcyclohexane (1,2-PDMCH), 1,3-perfluorodimethylcyclohexane (1,3-PDMCH), perfluoroethyl-cyclohexane (PECH), freon-11, freon-12, freon-113, perdeuterated methane (CD4), d6-ethane (C2D6), d6-ethane (C3D8 3), nitrogen (N2), carbon dioxide, helium, and volatile surfactants, among other tracers, that maintain a gaseous state under downhole conditions and that include low detection limits and resistant to downhole conditions. The tracers can include various types of tracers including, but not limited to, radioactive tracers, non-radioactive tracers, noble gas tracers, chemical tracers, and the like.
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 LATOSHA D HINES whose telephone number is (571)270-5551. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM.
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, Prem Singh can be reached at 571-272-6381. 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.
/Latosha Hines/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights