Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
3. The status of the claims as filed in the reply dated 6/29/2026 are as follows:
Claims 1-4, 6-9, 12, 14, 17, and 19 are amended,
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
5. Claim(s) 1, 2, and 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Amerman et al (U.S. Patent No. 6,672,371, “Amerman”, previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Amerman discloses a pumpable suspension for placement of a consolidated particle sheath (fig 18C), comprising:
a mixture (356) comprising a suspended thermal reach enhancement (TRE) solid and a high apparent viscosity carrier fluid (col 3, line 63-col 4, line 5);
wherein the TRE solid is in the form of a plurality of TRE particles and the high apparent viscosity carrier fluid suspends the particles throughout the fluid (col 3, line 63-col 4, line 5);
wherein the high apparent viscosity carrier fluid has a composition that allows a change in pH or temperature change to change physical properties of the mixture in situ to thereby reduce viscosity and thereby allow the particles to settle via gravity at a target location to form a settled particle sheath within an annular space of a wellbore (col 12, lines 23-25, as a temperature change would affect pH); and
wherein the carrier fluid and the TRE particles have a composition that allows, upon the change of the physical property of the mixture, consolidation of the settled particle sheath to form a high-thermal conductivity compacted sheath within the annular space of a wellbore (fig 18C).
The limitations of “that maintains the TRE solid suspended during pumping unit an in-situ trigger reduces viscosity” and “before the in-situ reduction in viscosity permits gravity settling of the same particles” are considered product-by-process limitations. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
Regarding claim 2, Amerman further discloses wherein consolidation comprises hydraulic consolidation the TRE particles (fig 18C). The limitation of “after the TRE particles have settled” are considered product-by-process limitations. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
Regarding claim 6, Amerman further discloses wherein plurality of the TRE particles make up between 10 vol% and 75 vol% of the total suspension (50% to 80%, col 12, line 15).
Regarding claim 7, Amerman further discloses wherein he high apparent viscosity carrier fluid comprises a quantity of water (col 3, line 63-col 4, line 5).
Regarding claim 8, Amerman further discloses wherein the high apparent viscosity carrier fluid further comprises a viscosity agent of a polysaccharide (as guar gum is polysaccharide, col 4, lines 6-8).
Regarding claim 9, Amerman further discloses wherein the high apparent viscosity carrier fluid has a composition that allows reducing the viscosity with a shear force (via by mixing, see col 12, lines 23-25).
Regarding claim 10, Amerman further discloses wherein the change in pH changes the physical properties (temperature) of the mixture (as a change in pH would coincide with a change in temperature).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amerman alone.
Regarding claim 3, Amerman discloses all previous claim limitations. However, Amerman does not explicitly disclose wherein wherein the plurality of TRE particles comprise a material selected from the group consisting of, graphite, graphene, aluminum, silicon carbide, aluminum nitride, silicon nitride, boron nitride, gold, copper, aluminum oxides, rhodium,, cobalt, copper alloys, nickel, iron, platinum, palladium, tin, zirconium, titanium, carbon fiber, carbon black, and Hastelloy. However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that the materials are old and well known in the art of heat storage system and would have been obvious for Amerman to provide in order to optimize the system.
Regarding claim 4, Amerman discloses all previous claim limitations. However, Amerman does not explicitly disclose wherein the compacted sheath has a thermal conductivity of at least 3 W/mk. However, since Amerman teaches providing a sheath with a thermal conductivity. The exact range of the thermal conductivity is considered a result effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case the recognized result is that the thermal conductivity is a balance between the conductivity and storage capacity of the system. It would not be inventive to determine the optimal conductive via routine experimentation and it would be obvious to have a thermal conductivity of at least 3 W/mk.
8. Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amerman as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kumar et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0158354, “Kumar”, previously cited).
Regarding claim 11, Amerman discloses all previous claim limitations. However, Amerman does not explicitly disclose wherein the high apparent viscosity carrier fluid has a dynamic viscosity, before the addition of temperature, of at least 5,000 centipoise (cP), and a dynamic viscosity, after the addition of temperature, of no more than 1,000 cP. Kumar, however, discloses a suspension wherein a high apparent viscosity carrier fluid has a dynamic viscosity, before the addition of temperature, of at least 5,000 centipoise (cP), and a dynamic viscosity, after the addition of temperature, of no more than 1,000 cP (¶0122). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Amerman It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Amerman to provide the viscosities of Kumar in order to ensure optimal viscosity before and after settling thus ensuring the optimal structure for heat transfer.
Regarding claim 12, Amerman discloses all previous claim limitations. However, Amerman does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of TRE particles have a size that allows settling of the TRE particles a distance of at least 1m within 24 hours after reducing the viscosity. Kumar, however, discloses a suspension wherein the plurality of TRE particles have a size that allows settling of the TRE particles a distance of at least 1m within 24 hours after reducing the viscosity (¶0150). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Amerman to provide the particle size of Kumar in order to ensure the optimal thermal conductivity after settling.
Regarding claim 13, Amerman discloses all previous claim limitations. However, Amerman does not explicitly disclose wherein the settled particle sheath has a final porosity of equal or less than 80% and/or is consolidated to have a permeability of equal or less than 0.01 Darcy. Kumar, however, discloses a suspension wherein the settled particle sheath is consolidated to have a permeability of equal or less than 0.01 Darcy (¶0215). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Amerman to provide the porosity of Kumar in order to provide the optimal thermal conductivity after settling.
9. Claim(s) 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amerman et al (U.S. Patent No. 6,672,371, “Amerman”, previously cited) in view of Wildig et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,310,103, “Wildig”, previously cited).
Regarding claim 14, Amerman discloses a system configured to transfer heat from a geological formation to a heat harvester casing (fig 18C), comprising:
a heat harvester casing (358) disposed in a wellbore that descends substantially vertically from a topside location to a target location in a geological formation (fig 18C);
a thermal reach enhancement (TRE) structure (350) at the target location extending from the wellborn distally into the geological formation (fig 18C) and comprising a first high thermal k material (“solid”, col 3, line 53-col 4, line 5);
wherein the TRE structure is a man-made and/or naturally occurring fissure containing the first high thermal k material (as the TRE structure would have to be either man-made or natural);
wherein the TRE structure has a proximal mouth portion at the wellbore (see annotated fig 18C below);
a high-thermal conductivity compacted sheath (356) comprising multiple sheath segments (see annotated fig 18C below) along a vertical length of the high-thermal conductivity compacted sheath, that is thermally coupled to (a) an outer surface of the casing and substantially vertically extends along some of the length of the target location in an annular space of the wellbore, and (b) the mouth portion of the TRE structure to thereby form a continuous heat transfer path from the geological formation at the target location through the TRE structure and compacted sheath to the casing (fig 18C); and
wherein the compacted sheath has a thermal conductivity of between about 1.5 w/mK and 50 W/mK (col 12, lines 41-51).
PNG
media_image1.png
471
266
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Amerman does not explicitly disclose wherein the target location is at a depth of between 150 m to 20,000 m. Wildig, however, discloses a geothermal system (fig 2) wherein a heat harvester casing (23) has a target location at a depth of 250 m (col 3, lines 26-30). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Amerman to have the target location be 250 m such as taught by Wildig in order to optimize the depth of the geothermal heat transfer of the system.
Amerman further discloses wherein the geological formation at the target location is capable of having has a geostatic temperature of between 120 °C and 600 °C. A recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Amerman and Wildig discloses all previous claim limitations. Amerman further discloses wherein the geological formation at the target location is capable of having has a geostatic temperature of between 120 °C and 600 °C. A recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Amerman and Wildig discloses all previous claim limitations. Amerman further discloses wherein the first high thermal k (“solid”, col 3, line 53-col 4, line 5) material of the proximal mouth portion of the TRE structure (see annotated fig 18C above) is flush to the annular space of the wellbore.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Amerman and Wildig discloses all previous claim limitations. Amerman further discloses wherein the compacted sheath extends substantially vertically along between 10% and 70% of the target location (as it extends the length of the target location), wherein the sheath segment of the compacted sheath has a height of between 3m and 500m (see rejection of claim 14 above).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Amerman and Wildig discloses all previous claim limitations. Amerman further discloses wherein the compacted sheath has a thermal conductivity that is equal of the thermal conductivity of the TRE structure (as they comprise the same structure).
10. Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amerman et al (U.S. Patent No. 6,672,371, “Amerman”, previously cited) in view of Kumar et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0158354, “Kumar”, previously cited) and in further view of Wildig et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,310,103, “Wildig”, previously cited).
.
Regarding claim 19, Amerman discloses a system configured to transfer heat from a geological formation to a heat harvester casing (fig 18C), comprising:
a heat harvester casing (358) disposed in a wellbore that descends substantially vertically from a topside location to a target location in a geological formation (fig 18C);
a high-thermal conductivity (356) compacted sheath comprising multiple sheath segments along a vertical length of the high-thermal conductivity compacted sheath (see annotated fig 18C), that is thermally coupled to (a) an outer surface of the casing and substantially vertically extends along some of the length of the target location in an annular space of the wellbore, and (b) the target location in the geological formation to thereby form a continuous heat transfer path from the target location via the high-thermal conductivity compacted sheath to the casing; and
wherein the compacted sheath has a thermal conductivity of between about 1.5 w/mK and 50 W/mK ((col 12, lines 41-51).
However, Amerman does not explicitly disclose wherein the high-thermal conductivity compacted sheath has a permeability of equal or less than 0.01 Darcy. Kumar, however, discloses a suspension wherein a high-thermal conductivity compacted sheath has a permeability of equal or less than 0.01 Darcy (¶0215). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Amerman to provide the porosity of Kumar in order to provide the optimal thermal conductivity after settling.
However, Amerman does not explicitly disclose wherein the target location is at a depth of between 150 m to 20,000 m. Wildig, however, discloses a geothermal system (fig 2) wherein a heat harvester casing (23) has a target location at a depth of 250 m (col 3, lines 26-30). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Amerman to have the target location be 250 m such as taught by Wildig in order to optimize the depth of the geothermal heat transfer of the system.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Amerman, Kumar, and Wildig discloses all previous claim limitations. Amerman further discloses wherein the geological formation at the target location is capable of having has a geostatic temperature of between 120 °C and 600 °C. A recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here.
Allowable Subject Matter
11. Claim 5 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (pages 7-12) that Amerman does not teach the TRE solid suspended during pumping until an in-situ trigger reduces viscosity or before the in-situ reduction in viscosity permits gravity settling of the same particle. The Examiner respectfully disagrees; these limitations of considered product-by-process limitations which in apparatus claims do not provide patentable weight to the claims.
Applicant argues (pages 13-15) that Amerman does not teach a geostatic temperature of between 120 °C and 600 °C; However since Amerman teaches a system that could be used within these temperatures, Amerman is considered to meet this limitation.
Conclusion
13. 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.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HARRY E ARANT whose telephone number is (571)272-1105. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10-6 ET.
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at (571)270-7740. 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.
/HARRY E ARANT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights