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 without traverse of Group I, claims 1-17, in the reply filed on 02/12/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/12/26.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification, such as that included in [0008] and [0009], 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.
The information disclosure statement filed 03/24/26 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the foreign patent document information referred to therein has not been considered.
Specification
The use of the term ROCKSOLID in [0008], which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
The use of the term WELLLOCK in [0009], which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
The use of the term INCONEL and MONEL in [00059], which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
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, 2, 6-11 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Skjold (WO 2020/216649).
With respect to independent claim 1, Skjold discloses a system for sealing a wellbore extending through a rock formation, wherein the system comprises:
a delivery apparatus 10 configured to be conveyed (via LT) within the wellbore, wherein the delivery apparatus comprises a chamber 30 therein (p. 6, l. 17-23; p. 12, l. 8-16); and
a sealing material disposed within the chamber, wherein the sealing material is configured to undergo an exothermic reaction when ignited (p. 12, l. 8-16), wherein the exothermic reaction produces a molten bonding material, wherein the delivery apparatus is configured to direct the molten bonding material into the wellbore such that the molten bonding material contacts the rock formation, and wherein the molten bonding material bonds with the rock formation when the molten bonding material solidifies thereby sealing the wellbore (p. 4, l. 23-36; p. 10, l. 30- p. 11, l. 15).
With respect to dependent claim 2, Skjold discloses wherein the delivery apparatus is a first delivery apparatus, and wherein the system further comprises: a second delivery apparatus LT configured to be conveyed within the wellbore; and a wellbore plug 4/5 (p. 10, l. 17-23), wherein the second delivery apparatus is configured to convey the wellbore plug within the wellbore (p. 10, l. 34-36), wherein the first delivery apparatus is configured to direct the molten bonding material into the wellbore such that the molten bonding material flows into an annular space between the wellbore plug and the rock formation and contacts the wellbore plug and the rock formation, and wherein the molten bonding material bonds with the wellbore plug and the rock formation when the molten bonding material solidifies thereby sealing the wellbore (see Fig. 2F and 2G).
With respect to dependent claims 6 and 7, Skjold discloses wherein the sealing material comprises at least one of: a metal and a pseudo-metal oxidizer; and a metal and a metal oxidizer (p. 13, l. 1-29), and, further, wherein the pseudo-metal oxidizer comprises silicon dioxide, and wherein the molten bonding material comprises molten silicon (p. 13, l. 29).
With respect to dependent claims 8 and 9, Skjold discloses wherein the sealing material further comprises particles having a composition that is the same or similar to the composition of the rock formation, and wherein the molten bonding material bonds with the particles when the molten bonding material solidifies thereby sealing the wellbore, and, further, wherein the particles comprise at least one of clay particles (p. 2, l. 18-21, wherein the cap rock includes shale; p. 4, l. 23-31, wherein surrounding materials such as sand are melted; p. 5, l. 20-25; p. 6, l. 3-6).
With respect to independent claim 10, Skjold discloses a method for sealing a wellbore extending through a rock formation, wherein the method comprises:
conveying a sealing material within the wellbore until the sealing material is positioned at a predetermined location (p. 6, l. 17-23); and
igniting the sealing material thereby causing the sealing material to undergo an exothermic reaction, wherein the exothermic reaction produces a molten bonding material that flows into contact with the rock formation, and wherein the molten bonding material bonds with the rock formation when the molten bonding material solidifies thereby sealing the wellbore (p. 4, l. 23-36; p. 10, l. 37-p. 11, l. 15; p. 13, l. 1-29).
With respect to dependent claim 11, Skjold discloses before conveying the sealing material within the wellbore, conveying a wellbore plug 4/5 within the wellbore until the wellbore plug is positioned at the predetermined location (p. 6, l. 10-16; p. 10, l. 19-23; p. 10, l. 34-36), wherein: the conveying of the sealing material within the wellbore is performed until the sealing material is positioned at the predetermined location above the wellbore plug (p. 6, l. 18-23); the molten bonding material flows into an annular space between the wellbore plug and the rock formation and contacts the wellbore plug and the rock formation; and the molten bonding material bonds with the wellbore plug and the rock formation when the molten bonding material solidifies thereby sealing the wellbore (p. 10, l. 37-p. 11, l. 15).
With respect to dependent claims 14 and 15, Skjold discloses wherein the sealing material comprises at least one of: a metal and a pseudo-metal oxidizer; and a metal and a metal oxidizer (p. 13, l. 1-29), and, further, wherein the pseudo-metal oxidizer comprises silicon dioxide, and wherein the molten bonding material comprises molten silicon (p. 13, l. 29).
With respect to dependent claims 16 and 17, Skjold discloses wherein the sealing material further comprises particles having a composition that is the same or similar to the composition of the rock formation, and wherein the molten bonding material bonds with the particles when the molten bonding material solidifies thereby sealing the wellbore, and, further, wherein the particles comprise at least one of clay particles (p. 2, l. 18-21, wherein the cap rock includes shale; p. 4, l. 23-31, wherein surrounding materials such as sand are melted; p. 5, l. 20-25; p. 6, l. 3-6).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skjold as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Head (WO 2023/131805).
With respect to further dependent claim 3, Skjold discloses the system as set forth above, wherein a fluid barrier is formed between the sidewall of the wellbore and the wellbore plug to prevent the molten bonding material from flowing out of the annular space into the wellbore below the wellbore plug (p. 12, l. 38-41). The reference, however, fails to disclose a support
apparatus configured to engage a sidewall of the wellbore and support the wellbore plug within the wellbore, wherein the support apparatus forms a fluid barrier between the sidewall of the wellbore and the wellbore plug to prevent the molten bonding material from flowing out of the annular space into the wellbore below the wellbore plug as claimed. Head teaches methods of suspending a well (abstract), further comprising a support apparatus configured to engage a sidewall of the wellbore and support the wellbore plug within the wellbore, wherein the
support apparatus forms a fluid barrier between the sidewall of the wellbore and the wellbore plug to prevent the molten bonding material from flowing out of the annular space into the wellbore below the wellbore plug (Figs. 1-3; p. 7. l. 1-11 wherein a tool assembly 2 includes a bridge plug mandrel 9 with an elastomer seal 10 which engages a well casing 1 and provides a surface for molten bismuth 7 to rest on before it solidifies, thereby preventing the bismuth from flowing out of an annular space and into the lower well). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try and include a support apparatus configured to engage a sidewall of the wellbore and support the wellbore plug within the wellbore, wherein the support apparatus forms a fluid barrier between the sidewall of the wellbore and the wellbore plug in order to yield the predictable result of preventing the molten bonding material from flowing out of the annular space into the wellbore below the wellbore plug.
Claims 4, 5, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skjold as applied to claims 2 and 11, respectively, above, and further in view of Muller (US 2022/0288658).
With respect to claims 4 and 12, Skjold discloses the system and method as set forth above with respect to each of claims 2 and 11, wherein wellbore plug 4 is disclosed. The reference, however, fails to explicitly disclose wherein such a plug has a composition that is the same or similar to the composition of the rock formation as claimed. Muller teaches a directional drillhole (abstract), wherein the wellbore plug has a composition that is the same or similar to the composition of the rock formation ([0069], [0071], [0073]) for the purpose of providing a seal made from a material that exhibits creep so that it can fill voids within the formation ([0004]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to try a composition for the wellbore plug that is the same or similar to that of the rock formation in order to allow sufficient sealing of the formation therewith by filling voids within the formation.
With respect to each of further dependent claims 5 and 13, Muller teaches the wellbore plugs as set forth above, and, further, wherein the wellbore plug is manufactured using a molding process; or cut out of another rock formation ([0073], wherein the rock material can be drilled directly from the drillhole or brought in from another location). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art when using a wellbore plug as taught by Muller in the system and method of Skjold to use a rock material drilled directly from the drillhole or brough in from another location as the wellbore plug composition in order to provide for the wellbore seal that exhibits creep, as set forth above in the rejections of claims 4 and 12.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2022/0090463 discloses a system for sealing a wellbore by conveying a delivery apparatus having a sealing material within a chamber thereof into a wellbore and creating a molten material by an exothermic reaction therein.
US 2021/0148190 discloses methods of sealing a wellbore by releasing a molten bonding material formed from an exothermic reaction within a delivery apparatus into the wellbore.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Angela M DiTrani Leff whose telephone number is (571)272-2182. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9AM-5PM.
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 5712724137. 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.
/Angela M DiTrani Leff/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674
ADL
05/13/26
Prosecution Insights