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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I and species of claims 1-3 and 7-12 in the reply filed on 12/18/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: # 28 & 38 not in the specification. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
The term “high” in claims 1 and 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
All the claims dependent of claims 1 and 10 are also rejected.
The term “neat” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “neat” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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 1-3 and 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Nguyen et al. (US 2018/0252084 A1) (“Nguyen” herein).
(Claims contain only selected species)
Claim 1
Nguyen discloses a system for sealing a subterranean zone storing high pressure fluid, the system comprising:
a subterranean zone having one or more propagating fracture tips; (Fig. 4)
a first fluid having a first density and a first viscosity; (i.e. LVTF) [0061,0093-0097, 0146]
a second fluid having a second density and a second viscosity; (i.e. LVDF) [0146, 0149]
said first density and said second density being generally equal, and said first viscosity less than said second viscosity;[0154] and
a facility to pump said first fluid and said second fluid from a wellbore into said zone whereby said second fluid displaces said first fluid to seal said tips. (i.e. ceasing or slowing of dominate fracture tip extension) [0112, 0151, 0154-0155]
Since Nguyen discloses the same composition comprising a firs fluid and a second fluid, it would be a system for sealing a subterranean zone soring high pressure fluid a first and second density generally equal and second fluid viscosity higher displacing the first fluid.
"Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties”. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant disc loses and /or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP 2112.01 (I), In re Best, 562 F2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433, Titanium Metals Corp v Banner, 778 F2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed Cir 1985) , In re Ludtke, 441 F2d 660, 169 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1971) and Northam Wareen Corp v DF Newfield Co, 7 F Supp 773, 22 USPQ 313 (EDNY1934).
Claim 2
Nguyen discloses the system as defined by claim 1 wherein said second fluid is a polysaccharide. [0167-0169]
Claim 3
Nguyen discloses the system as defined by claim 1 wherein said first fluid is a water-based specialty polymer gel. [0167-0169]
Claim 4
Nguyen discloses the system as defined by claim 1 wherein said first fluid is a silicone rubber containing polymers. [0167-0169]
Claim 5
Nguyen discloses the system as defined by claims 3 or 4 wherein said first fluid contains a neat material. [0167-0169]
Claim 6
Nguyen discloses the system as defined by claims 3 or 4 wherein said first fluid contains microfines. [0103-0104, 0167-0169]
Claim 7
Nguyen discloses the system as defined in claims 3 or 4 wherein said first fluid contains
macro solids. [0103-0104, 0167-0169]
Claim 8
Nguyen discloses the system as defined by claim 1 whereby said facility further pumps said first fluid and said second fluid inside a rock formation within said zone. [0147, 0151, 0154]
Claim 9
Nguyen discloses the system as defined by claim 1 wherein said sealing fluid holds
pressure in one direction. [0112-0113, 0147]
Claim 10
Nguyen discloses a method for sealing a subterranean zone storing high pressure fluid, the method comprising:
selecting a subterranean zone for high pressure fluid storage; [0112-0113, 0147]
fracturing said zone and creating fracture tips within said zone; (Figs. 1,2, and 4)
providing a first fluid having a first density and a first viscosity; (i.e. LVTF) [0061,0093-0097, 0146]
providing a second fluid having a second density generally equal to
said first density, and a second viscosity greater than said first
viscosity; (i.e. LVDF) [0146, 0149, 0154]
pumping said first and second fluid into said zone; [0147, 0151, 0154]
displacing said first fluid; [0155] and
sealing said tips. (i.e. ceasing or slowing of dominate fracture tip extension) [0112, 0151, 0154-0155]
Since Nguyen discloses the same composition comprising a firs fluid and a second fluid, it would be a system for sealing a subterranean zone soring high pressure fluid a first and second density generally equal and second fluid viscosity higher displacing the first fluid.
"Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties”. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant disc loses and /or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP 2112.01 (I), In re Best, 562 F2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433, Titanium Metals Corp v Banner, 778 F2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed Cir 1985) , In re Ludtke, 441 F2d 660, 169 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1971) and Northam Wareen Corp v DF Newfield Co, 7 F Supp 773, 22 USPQ 313 (EDNY1934).
Claim 11
Nguyen discloses the method as defined by claim 10 further comprising pumping said
sealing fluid inside a rock formation within said zone. [0112-0113, 0147]
Claim 12
Nguyen discloses thee method as defined by claim 10 further comprising holding pressure from one side of said seal. [0112-0113, 0147]
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.
Claims 1-3, and 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt et al. (US 2023/0313657 A1) (“Schmidt” herein).
(Claims contain only selected species)
Claim 1
Schmidt discloses a system for sealing a subterranean zone storing high pressure fluid, the system comprising: [0007, 0010]
a subterranean zone having one or more propagating fracture tips;
a first fluid having a first density and a first viscosity; (i.e. pad fluid ; a pad comprising bentonite mud; a slurry comprising rubber tire crumb (RTC) in linear guar) [0008]
a second fluid having a second density and a second viscosity;(i.e. a sweep comprising cross-linked guar with enzymatic breaker) [0008, 0011]
said first density and said second density being generally equal, and said first viscosity less than said second viscosity;[0010-0013] and
said first fluid and said second fluid from a wellbore into said zone whereby said second fluid displaces said first fluid to seal said tips. [0012-0013]
Schmidt however does not exilically discloses a facility to pump.
The Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well-known in the art of treating a subterranean formation, pumps would be used in order to inject fluids into the subterranean formation for treatment.
Since Schmidt discloses the same composition comprising a firs fluid and a second fluid, it would be a system for sealing a subterranean zone soring high pressure fluid a first and second density generally equal and second fluid viscosity higher displacing the first fluid.
"Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties”. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant disc loses and /or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP 2112.01 (I), In re Best, 562 F2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433, Titanium Metals Corp v Banner, 778 F2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed Cir 1985) , In re Ludtke, 441 F2d 660, 169 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1971) and Northam Wareen Corp v DF Newfield Co, 7 F Supp 773, 22 USPQ 313 (EDNY1934).
Claim 2
Schmidt discloses the system as defined by claim 1 wherein said second fluid is a polysaccharide. (i.e. , guar) [0008]
Claim 3
Schmidt discloses the system as defined by claim 1 wherein said first fluid is a water-based specialty polymer gel. [0008, 0016]
Claim 4
Schmidt discloses the system as defined by claim 1 wherein said first fluid is a silicone rubber containing polymers. [(i.e. rubber tire) [0008, 0016]
Claim 5
Schmidt discloses the system as defined by claims 3 or 4 wherein said first fluid contains a neat material. [0016]
Claim 6
Schmidt discloses the system as defined by claims 3 or 4 wherein said first fluid contains microfines. [0016]
Claim 7
Schmidt discloses the system as defined in claims 3 or 4 wherein said first fluid contains
macro solids.[0016]
Claim 8
Schmidt discloses the system as defined by claim 1 whereby said
first fluid and said second fluid inside a rock formation within said zone. [0013]
Schmidt however does not explicitly disclose said facility further pumps. (Same as claim 1)
Claim 9
Schmidt discloses the system as defined by claim 1 wherein said sealing fluid holds
pressure in one direction. (i.e. impermeable seal). [0012]
Claim 10
Schmidt discloses a method for sealing a subterranean zone storing high pressure fluid, the method comprising:
selecting a subterranean zone for high pressure fluid storage; [ Abstract, 0007, 0010] fracturing said zone and creating fracture tips within said zone; [0010-0012]
providing a first fluid having a first density and a first viscosity; ; (i.e. pad fluid ; a pad comprising bentonite mud; a slurry comprising rubber tire crumb (RTC) in linear guar) [0008]
providing a second fluid having a second density generally equal to said first density, and a second viscosity greater than said first viscosity; (i.e. a sweep comprising cross-linked guar with enzymatic breaker) [0008, 0011]
said first and second fluid into said zone; [0010-0013]
displacing said first fluid; and sealing said tips. [0012-0013]
Schmidt however does not exilically discloses pumping.
The Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well-known in the art of treating a subterranean formation, pumps would be used in order to inject fluids into the subterranean formation for treatment.
Since Schmidt discloses the same composition comprising a firs fluid and a second fluid, it would be a system for sealing a subterranean zone soring high pressure fluid a first and second density generally equal and second fluid viscosity higher displacing the first fluid.
"Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties”. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant disc loses and /or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP 2112.01 (I), In re Best, 562 F2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433, Titanium Metals Corp v Banner, 778 F2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed Cir 1985) , In re Ludtke, 441 F2d 660, 169 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1971) and Northam Wareen Corp v DF Newfield Co, 7 F Supp 773, 22 USPQ 313 (EDNY1934).
Claim 11
Schmidt discloses the method as defined by claim 10 further comprising said sealing fluid inside a rock formation within said zone.
Schmidt however does not exilically discloses pumping. (Same as claim 10)
Claim 12
The method as defined by claim 10 further comprising holding pressure from one side of said seal. (i.e. impermeable seal). [0012]
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Alekseev et al. (US 2020/0308476 A1) FIBER SURFACE FINISHING teaches Embodiments disclosed herein relate to a fluid for use in well treatment having a carrier fluid and a plurality of altered fiber particles having a plurality of defects on a surface of the fiber particles. The fluid may be used for a method of fracturing a subterranean formation. The method includes injecting a fracturing fluid into a wellbore through the subterranean formation, thereby creating a fracture network in the subterranean formation, the fracturing fluid comprising a proppant and a plurality of fibers having a plurality of defects on a surface of the fibers, Willberg et al. (US 2008/0108524 A1) Delayed Water-Swelling Materials And Methods Of Use teaches A water absorbing composition includes a particle having a core of a water-swelling material. A coating substantially surrounds the core that temporarily prevents contact of water with the water-swelling material. The coating may be formed from a layer of water degradable material or a non-water-degradable, non-water absorbent encapsulating layer. A quantity of particles including delayed water-swelling particles formed at least in part from a water-swelling material and, optionally, non-water-swelling particles of the same or different size distributions can be used in treating a formation penetrated by a wellbore. A slurry of the particles is formed with a carrier fluid. The slurry of particles is introduced into the wellbore of the formation to facilitate treatment, and Loiseau et al. (US 9528354 B2) Downhole Tool Positioning System And Method teaches Downhole tool positioning systems and methods are disclosed which employ buoyancy-mediated tool displacement wherein the density of the tool or string connected to it, and the treatment fluid are matched to facilitate hydraulic translation of the tool in a deviated borehole or lateral with or without a mechanical translation device.
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 01/06/2026