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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 11/17/2025, with respect to objection to the title has have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to the specification has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 11/17/2025, with respect to objection to the drawing has been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to the drawing has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 11/17/2025 with respect to rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 10, and 11 under 35 USC 112 2nd / b have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of the claims have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed on 11/17/2025 with regards to claims 5 and 12 rejected under 35 USC 112 2nd/ b have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to claims 5 and 12, the applicant argues that “"useful work" Applicant respectfully disagrees and requests reconsideration. Paragraph [008] of the Specification notes numerous patents that are incorporated by reference and that use and describe the term. Indeed, the term has been used in no less than fifty-four (54) of Applicant's past patent related publications.”
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., Paragraph [008] of the Specification notes numerous patents that are incorporated by reference and that use and describe the term. Indeed, the term has been used in no less than fifty-four (54)) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). (See Remarks, page 5, last para.)
Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Therefore, the rejection since the claim has not been amended to recite “any” useful work as the applicant’s mentioned above, therefore, the rejection has been maintained.
Applicant's arguments filed in 11/17/2025 with regards to claim 6 under 35 USC 112 2nd / b has not been address by the applicant and it has been fully considered but it is not persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 11/17/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of Claims 1, 5-7, and 10-12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being and anticipated by Riley (US 2018/0078872 A1) and Claims 1-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Lieberman (US 2013/0105179 A1)have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5 and 12 are ejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ),
second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly
claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. It is unclear what the limitation "useful work" means, therefore, the claim is indefinite.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second
paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the
subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. It is unclear how the
applicant intends to make the time as “indefinite”, therefore, the claim is indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 5, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Bour et al. (US 2012/0181034 A1) (“Bour” herein)
Claim 1
Bour discloses a system for subterranean storage of fluid, the system comprising: (See Fig. 1)[0044]
a subterranean area for fluid storage; one or more zones within said subterranean area, the zones being adapted to receive and retain said fluid through hydraulic fracturing and sealing; [0044, 0046]
a facility to pump and retain said fluid in said one or more zones;[0044, 0046] and
storage of said fluid for a selected duration period of time. [0049-0051]
Claim 5
Bour discloses the system as defined in claim 1 wherein a measurable quantity of said fluid is under pressure and is released to generate useful work. [0044, 0046]
Claim 10
Bour discloses a method for subterranean storage of fluid, the method comprising: (See Fig. 1)[0044]
selecting a subterranean area for fluid storage; [0012, 0044, 0050]
adapting one or more zones within said subterranean area via hydraulic fracturing and sealing to receive and retain said fluid; [0044, 0046]
pumping and retaining said fluid in said one or more zones; [0044, 0046] and
storing said fluid for a selected duration period of time. [0049-0051]
Claim 12
Bour discloses the method as defined in claim 10 further comprising generating useful work from measurable quantity of said fluid wherein said fluid is under pressure. [0044, 0046]
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Trash (US 2016/0298425 A1) (“Trash” herein).
Claim 1
Trash discloses a system for subterranean storage of fluid, the system comprising [0071-0084]
a subterranean area for fluid storage; one or more zones within said subterranean area, the zones being adapted to receive and retain said fluid through hydraulic fracturing and sealing; [0096-0101]
a facility to pump and retain said fluid in said one or more zones; [0096-0098]
and
storage of said fluid for a selected duration period of time. [0096-0098, 0102]
Claim 2
Trash discloses the system as defined in claim 1 wherein said fluid is a fuel. [0096-0098]
Claim 3
Trash discloses the system as defined in claim 2 wherein said system is to be utilized a power plant. [0096-0098, 0109-0110]
Claim 4
Trash discloses the system as defined in claim 3 wherein measurable quantity of said fuel is burned at said plant. [0096-0098, 0109-0110]
Claim 5
Trash discloses the system as defined in claim 1 wherein a measurable quantity of said fluid is under pressure and is released to generate useful work. [0096-0098, 0101]
Claim 6
Trash discloses the system as defined in claim 1 wherein said selected duration is indefinite.[0092, 0100]
Claim 7
Trash discloses the system as defined in claim 1 wherein said fluid is waste. [0089-0092]
Claim 8
Trash discloses the system as defined in claim 7 wherein said waste is capable of producing a collectable compound from a chemical reaction within said one or more zones. [0096-0098, 0109-0110]
Claim 9
Trash discloses the system as defined in claim 1 wherein said fluid is a carbon rich slurry. [0096-0099]
Claim 10
Trash discloses a method for subterranean storage of fluid, the method comprising: [0071-0084]
selecting a subterranean area for fluid storage; [0089,0091]
adapting one or more zones within said subterranean area via hydraulic fracturing and sealing to receive and retain said fluid; [0096-0101]
pumping and retaining said fluid in said one or more zones; [0096-0098]
and
storing said fluid for a selected duration period of time. . [0096-0098, 0102]
Claim 11
Trash discloses the method as defined in claim 10 further comprising burning at least a portion measurable quantity of said fluid at a power plant proximal to said area. [0096-0098, 0109-0110]
Claim 12
Trash discloses the discloses the method as defined in claim 10 further comprising generating useful work from measurable quantity of said fluid wherein said fluid is under pressure. [0096-0098, 0101]
Claim 13
Trash discloses the method of 10 further comprising producing a collectable compound from a chemical reaction of said fluid within said one or more zones. [0096-0098, 0109-0110]
Claim 14
Trash discloses the method of claim 10 further comprising sequestrating of carbon. [0096-0099]
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 SILVANA C RUNYAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5415. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30.
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 571-272-4137. 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.
/SILVANA C RUNYAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674 02/19/2026