DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 27 March 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 27 March 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-7 and 10-20 remain pending in the application. The previous Office Action was mailed 12 February 2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-7, 10, and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Independent claim 1 should recite “allowing the resin pill to undergo ring-opening metathesis polymerization in the fracture to form a cured resin that lines walls and a tip of the hydraulic fracture” (correcting the typo). Claims 2-7, 10, and 11 are objected to by dependency.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7 and 10-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claims 1 and 12 have been Amended to each recite “[a cured resin that/wherein the cured resin] forms a leak-off barrier that maintains structural integrity while permitting repeated elastic deformation and volume change of the fracture during multiple cycles of high-pressure fluid injection and production in geo-mechanical energy storage operations.”
Applicant has not pointed to specific support in the Specification for these aspects (forming a leak-off barrier; maintaining structural integrity; permitting repeated elastic deformation and volume change during multiple cycles), except perhaps [0003], which recites “Another emerging technology for grid scale energy storage is pumped geomechanical storage of renewable energy. In this technique, water is pumped using a renewable energy source into a suitable geological formation thereby pressurizing the water and trapping the water within the geological formation. The geological formation includes a relatively horizontal fracture which has a permeable zone into which the water can flow and is usually surrounded by less permeable or impermeable zones which reduce leak off of the water. When required, the pressurized water is flowed back out of the geological formation and through a turbine to generate energy. In practice, the fracture which stores the water is not impermeable and a portion of the water pumped into the fracture migrates to other regions of the geological formation which reduces the cyclic efficiency pumped geo-mechanical storage system. Leak off may occur at any portion of the fracture but may be particularly pronounced at the fracture tip. The leak off may increase over time with cyclic pumping of water into the fracture tip.”
However, Applicant should note that the disclosure of this technical problem is not the same as disclosing that the cured resin forms a leak-off barrier that maintains structural integrity while permitting repeated elastic deformation and volume change of the fracture during multiple cycles of high-pressure fluid injection and production in geo-mechanical energy storage operations. For example, the Specification merely states “Fracture 104 contains a cured ROMP resin which may reduce the leak off rate of fluid 102 from fracture 104” ([0013]), and a cured resin that merely reduces the leak off rate of fluid does not necessarily also maintain structural integrity while permitting repeated elastic deformation and volume change of the fracture during multiple cycles of high-pressure fluid injection and production in geo-mechanical energy storage operations. There is no other description in the disclosure that reasonably indicates that Applicant actually possessed the full limitation.
Accordingly, the claims lack an adequate Written Description. The dependent claims are rejected by dependency.
For examination purposes, claims are being treated as written. However, based on the lacking disclosure, it appears these limitations may not remain in the claims. Applicant may consider other ways of distinguishing the claims from the Prior Art, such as in [0009] below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 27 March 2026 with respect to claims rejected under 35 USC § 103 over Schmidt in view of Jones (and Johnson) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, based on Applicant’s Amendment to the claims, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 35 USC § 112 for New Matter, and the arguments do not apply to the current rejection.
Applicant should note that the new claims would compare to the previous Prior Art as follows:
Schmidt discloses A method (abstract “Energy is stored by injecting fluid into a hydraulic fracture in the earth and producing the fluid hack while recovering power. … The hydraulic fracture may be formed and treated with resin so as to limit fluid loss and to increase propagation pressure”) comprising:
preparing a resin pill by mixing a resin ([0019] “The resin may be mixed with a diluent or solvent, which may be reactive. A slug of neat resin at the beginning of a fracture resin may be followed by a dispersion of resin in fracturing fluid”) …;
introducing the resin pill into a fracture within the subterranean strata ([0019] “Fluid loss additives (particles) may be added to the fracture fluid to decrease the rate of fluids entering the rock from the fracture. Fluid loss can be further decreased by pumping a polymer resin in the fracturing fluid. … The resin system can be pumped as a neat resin, a resin/sand mixture, or dispersed in water- or oil-based fracturing fluid. … A slug of neat resin at the beginning of a fracture resin may be followed by a dispersion of resin in fracturing fluid and this followed with fracturing fluid. … Volumes of the different fluids are preferably selected to allow epoxy or other resin to fill the fracture to the tip and infiltrate the rock around the fracture tip”),
wherein the fracture within the subterranean strata is capable of holding a fluid for geo-mechanical energy storage ([0023] “Importantly, we note that the energy used to deform the rock elastically is actually stored as potential energy. This energy can be recovered from the fluid stream ejected from the fracture and borehole as the rock relaxes to its original position. Thus, after a large fracture is formed, the fluid filled space can be used to hydraulically lift (and flex) overburden and store mechanical energy. That energy can be efficiently recovered by allowing the pressurized fluid to escape through a turbine”)…
However, Schmidt fails to disclose a resin pill comprising a cycloalkene resin and a transition metal compound catalyst etc.; and mixing using an impingement mixer.
Regarding the resin pill comprising a cycloalkene resin and a transition metal compound catalyst, Schmidt discloses “Preferably, an aliphatic epoxy resin may be used, such as described in the paper "Water-Dispersible Resin System for Wellbore Stabilization," L. Eoff et al, SPE 64980, 2001. Furan, phenolic and other epoxy resins may also be used” ([0019]).
However, Schmidt fails to disclose resin pill comprising a cycloalkene resin and a transition metal compound catalyst.
Jones teaches “introducing into a wellbore a resin-based sealant composition comprising: a resin comprising a cycloalkene; and a transition metal compound catalyst; and allowing the resin-based sealant composition to harden in the wellbore” (abstract) wherein “various solids-free, resin-based sealants such as epoxy resins may have limited performance due to viscosity and reactivity limitations at temperatures below 38° C (100° F)” ([0002]) and “Resin-based sealant compositions may comprise a resin and a transition metal compound catalyst. Upon mixing the resin and the transition metal compound catalyst to form the resin-based sealant composition, the resin-based sealant compositions may irreversibly set to form a rigid solid. The set time and ultimate strength may be chemically adjusted dependent on the wellbore application. Some resin sealants, such as epoxide-based resins, may have high viscosity and exhibit rapid thickening in relatively colder temperatures and at such temperatures may set to form a solid with undesirable physical properties including low tensile and low compressive strength. As such, epoxide-based resins may not be suitable for some downhole locations where the temperature range exceeds the operational temperature of the epoxide-based resin. However, the resin-based sealant composition of the present application may be formulated to low temperatures” ([0015]). Jones further teaches “The resin in the resin-based sealant composition may be pumpable below 38° C. (100° F.) without additional solvents present. Further, the resin may have a density greater than water and a viscosity that may be ideal for deep penetration into channels and efficient squeezes for defects such as gas migration or casing leaks” ([0016]) and “The resin included in the resin-based sealant composition may include a cycloalkene, which may be a cycloalkadiene, that may undergo a ring-opening metathesis polymerization reaction transforming the resin-based sealant composition into a hardened mass” ([0017]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schmidt to include Jones’s resin-based sealant composition comprising a cycloalkene resin and a transition metal compound catalyst, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide an alternate resin to Schmidt’s epoxy resin which is known to be “suitable for some downhole locations where the temperature range exceeds the operational temperature of the epoxide-based resin” (thereby including:
“preparing a resin pill by mixing a resin comprising a cycloalkene that is pumpable below 38 °C without additional solvents and has a viscosity suitable for penetration into channels, vugs, and defects in a subterranean strata and a transition metal compound catalyst…;
…
allowing the resin pill to undergo ring-opening metathesis polymerization in the fracture to form a cured resin that lines walls and a tip of the hydraulic fracture and penetrates into a surrounding rock matrix…”).
Regarding the impingement mixer, Schmidt discloses “The resin may be mixed with a diluent or solvent, which may be reactive” ([0019]) and, e.g., “Fracturing fluid can be mixed and stored in tank 45” ([0018]).
However, Schmidt fails to specify using an impingement mixer.
Nevertheless, this is a well-known type of mixer in the art. For example, Johnson teaches mixing for “fluids used in the oil and gas recovery process ([0002]) wherein “There are three types of commonly used mixing principles: 1. Static mixing, wherein liquids flow around fixed objects, either via force produced flow by pressure through mechanical means or gravity induced flow; 2. Dynamic mixing, wherein liquid induced mixing results from mechanical agitation via impellers, wiping blade and high shear turbines as well as single or double screw extruder designs or screw agitation designs; and 3. Kinetic mixing, wherein liquid is mixed by velocity impacts on a surface or wherein two or more liquids form a velocity impact by impinging on one another” ([0018]-[0021]) and, correspondingly, “three mixing systems: turbine blade or impeller system; shear system; or impingement system” ([0125]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schmidt to include an impingement mixer, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to use one of “three types of commonly used mixing principles” in the art (thereby including:
“preparing a resin pill by mixing a resin comprising a cycloalkene that is pumpable below 38 °C without additional solvents and has a viscosity suitable for penetration into channels, vugs, and defects in a subterranean strata and a transition metal compound catalyst using an impingement mixer;”).
However, the Prior Art fails to disclose or teach:
“allowing the resin pill to undergo ring-opening metathesis polymerization in the fracture to form a cured resin that lines walls and a tip of the hydraulic fracture and penetrates into a surrounding rock matrix, wherein the cured resin forms a leak-off barrier that maintains structural integrity while permitting repeated elastic deformation and volume change of the fracture during multiple cycles of high-pressure fluid injection and production in geo-mechanical energy storage operations,” insofar as there is no Prior Art that suitably discloses or teaches providing a resin comprising
resin comprising a cycloalkene and a transition metal compound catalyst that is designed to form a suitably strong and durable barrier so as to be able to maintain structural integrity while permitting repeated elastic deformation and volume change of a fracture during multiple cycles of high-pressure fluid injection and production in geo-mechanical energy storage operations.
However, this new limitation faces 112(a) Rejections for New Matter as above.
Nevertheless, the Office observes that, although Schmidt discloses a displacement pill like in current claim 11, Schmidt discloses “In FIG. 5A, a resin, dispersion of resin or liquid mixture with resin 50 is present in a wellbore and in fracture 51 that has been formed in rock. Resin 50 may contain a fluid loss additive. Resin-leaked-off-into-rock 52 surrounds the fracture. In FIG. 5B, displacement fluid 54, which may be water containing a viscosifier, oil-based or containing a solvent for the resin, is shown moving resin 50 toward the end of the fracture. Displacement fluid 54 preferably is more viscous than resin 50. The amount of resin-leaked-off-into-rock 52 has increased” ([0020]), while Applicant has disclosed “In embodiments, the displacement pill includes an aqueous base fluid and a gelling agent polymer which may be optionally crosslinked. The displacement pill may further include bridging particles, including graded sand, graded salt particulate, or sized calcium carbonate particulate” ([0034]). Accordingly, Applicant may include features to a displacement pill (like claim 11) comprising bridging particles.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW SUE-AKO whose telephone number is (571)272-9455. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM 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, Doug Hutton can be reached at 571-272-24137. 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.
/ANDREW SUE-AKO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674
Prosecution Insights