DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Status of Application
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 have been examined in this application. This communication is a Non-Final Rejection in response to the Application filed on September 17, 2025.
Specification/Information Disclosure Statement
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it recites one or more phrases that can be implied. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The submitted Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) does not include all references cited in the specification. 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.
The incorporation of essential material in the specification by reference to an unpublished U.S. application, foreign application or patent, or to a publication is improper. Applicant is required to amend the disclosure to include the material incorporated by reference, if the material is relied upon to overcome any objection, rejection, or other requirement imposed by the Office. The amendment must be accompanied by a statement executed by the applicant, or a practitioner representing the applicant, stating that the material being inserted is the material previously incorporated by reference and that the amendment contains no new matter. 37 CFR 1.57(f). The incorporation by reference will not be effective until correction is made to comply with 37 CFR 1.57(b), (c), or (d). If the incorporated material is relied upon to meet any outstanding objection, rejection, or other requirement imposed by the Office, the correction must be made within any time period set by the Office for responding to the objection, rejection, or other requirement for the incorporation to be effective. Compliance will not be held in abeyance with respect to responding to the objection, rejection, or other requirement for the incorporation to be effective. In no case may the correction be made later than the close of prosecution as defined in 37 CFR 1.114(b), or abandonment of the application, whichever occurs earlier. Any correction inserting material by amendment that was previously incorporated by reference must be accompanied by a statement that the material being inserted is the material incorporated by reference and the amendment contains no new matter. 37 CFR 1.57(f).
Claim Objections
Claims 6, 8, 13, 14 & 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 appears to have a typographical/grammatical error in line 1 “wherein the acid is an acid from a group”. To improve clarity, replacement of this limitation with “wherein the acid is selected from a group consisting of” is recommended. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 recites “encapsulated by the shells of the microcapsules”. To improve clarity, replacement of this limitation with “encapsulated by the shell” is recommended. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 recites “wherein the metal silicate is dissolved in water to form a solution, and wherein the water is about 60 wt% to 95 wt%”. To improve clarity with respect to the basis for the claimed weight range, replacement of this limitation with language such as “wherein the metal silicate is dissolved in water, and wherein the water is about 60 wt% to 95 wt% of the solution”, as described in at least [0031] of the instant specification. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 recites “The method of claim 1, the mixture”. To improve clarity, replacement of this limitation with “The method of claim 1, wherein the mixture” is recommended. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is dependent on Claim 1, but appears to further limit the solution of Claim 18. Correction of the dependency is required. As such, for purposes of examination, the Office considers Claim 19 as dependent on Claim 18. Appropriate correction is required.
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 16 & 18 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “wherein the metal silicate comprises sodium silicate, and wherein the precipitate or the gel comprises sodium oxide”. It is unclear how the reaction of an acid with sodium silicate generates a precipitate or gel comprising “sodium oxide”. Is the intent to claim silicon oxide? Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required. The claim has been examined as best understood.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “injecting a solution having pH of about 10 to 14 into the geothermal reservoir proximate the precipitate or the gel”, where the term “proximate” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “proximate” 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. The term “proximate” renders the scope of the claim indefinite as it is unclear as to the location/distance required to be considered “proximate”. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required. The claim has been examined as best understood.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-4, 6-17 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauer et al. (Non-Patent Literature as cited in PTO-892).
With respect to Claim 1, Bauer discloses a method comprising: providing capsules comprising a shell encapsulating an activator; mixing the capsules with a metal silicate to form a mixture; and injecting the mixture into a geothermal environment, the shell degrading at an elevated temperature within the geothermal environment such that the activator reacts with the metal silicate to generate a precipitate or a gel (Bauer: Pages 1 & 3-6).
Bauer further teaches the method as a cost-effective and environmentally friendly way to form plugs, with one or more embodiments where the activator is an acid; and also suggests the placement of the mixture in a geothermal environment such as a geothermal reservoir wherein the shell degrades (Bauer: Pages 1-6). As such, although the reference fails to explicitly disclose the above method steps in combination with the activator as an acid and in a geothermal reservoir as instantly claimed, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ an acid and inject the mixture in a geothermal reservoir as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to form plugs in a cost-effective and environmentally friendly manner and/or yield predictable results in forming plugs.
Bauer further teaches sizing the capsules based on drilling equipment (Bauer: Pages 5 & 6). As such, although the reference fails to explicitly disclose the capsules as “microcapsules” as instantly claimed, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ suitable sized capsules, such as microcapsules as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, insofar as because it has been held. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233,235 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, based on the actual conditions encountered in the formation, one of ordinary skill would recognize the optimal capsule size to employ therein in order to obtain the desired result.
It is also noted that, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, there had been a recognized need in the art for forming plugs in geothermal environments, and a finite number of identified, predictable solutions including injecting the above mixture in a geothermal reservoir with suitably sized capsules, as set forth above. As such, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, based on the teachings of Bauer, one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the above method steps with microcapsules, an acid and injecting into a geothermal reservoir, such as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103."KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
With respect to Claims 2 & 3, Bauer teaches the method as provided above with respect to Claim 1, respectively, and further discloses the precipitate or gel as respectively claimed (Bauer: Page 2).
With respect to Claim 4, Bauer teaches the method as provided above with respect to Claim 1, and further teaches one or more embodiments with an organic encapsulant (Bauer: Page 4). As such, although the reference fails to explicitly disclose the above method steps in combination with “wherein the shell is an organic material”, in a single embodiment, as instantly claimed, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ an organic material as the shell, such as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to form plugs in a cost-effective and environmentally friendly manner and/or yield predictable results in forming plugs.
With respect to Claim 6, Bauer teaches the method as provided above with respect to Claim 1, and further teaches wherein the acid is an acid as instantly claimed (Bauer: Pages 2-4).
With respect to Claim 7, Bauer teaches the method as provided above with respect to Claim 1, and further teaches wherein the acid is an acid as instantly claimed and/or described (Bauer: Pages 2-4). As such, the acid is considered to have a pH as instantly claimed. “Products of identical chemical composition can not 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 discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With respect to Claim 8, Bauer teaches the method as provided above with respect to Claim 1, and further teaches one or more embodiments wherein the acid is employed within the range as instantly claimed in solution form; and one or more embodiments of encapsulating one of the components of the mixture (Bauer: Pages 3-4). As such, although the reference fails to explicitly disclose the above method steps in combination with “wherein the acid is about 5 wt% to 50 wt% of a solution encapsulated by the shells of the microcapsules”, in a single embodiment, as instantly claimed, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ an acid as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to form plugs in a cost-effective and environmentally friendly manner and/or yield predictable results in forming plugs.
With respect to Claim 9, Bauer teaches the method as provided above with respect to Claim 1, and further wherein the size of the capsules is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for reasons set forth above with respect to Claim 1.
With respect to Claim 10, Bauer teaches the method as provided above with respect to Claim 1, and further teaches sizing the capsules based on drilling equipment and analyses of the capsules to optimize the release of components to form stable plugs in geothermal applications (Bauer: Pages 1- 6), wherein sizing and analysis/optimizing the capsules is also considered to include a shape. As such, although the reference fails to explicitly disclose the capsules as “substantially spherical” as instantly claimed and described in at least [0020] of the instant specification, it is noted that, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, there had been a recognized need in the art for forming plugs in geothermal environments, and a finite number of identified, predictable solutions including injecting the above mixture in a geothermal reservoir with suitably sized capsules, and the capsules analyzed/optimized for release of the components, as set forth above. As such, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, based on the teachings of Bauer, one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the above method steps with suitably shaped capsules, such as “substantially spherical” microcapsules as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103."KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
With respect to Claim 11, Bauer teaches the method as provided above with respect to Claim 1, and further teaches analyses of the capsules to optimize the release of components to form stable plugs in geothermal applications, and suitably sizing the capsules (Bauer: Pages 1-6). As such, although the reference fails to explicitly limit the thickness of the shell to the range as instantly claimed, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, there had been a recognized need in the art for forming plugs in geothermal environments, and a finite number of identified, predictable solutions including injecting the above mixture in a geothermal reservoir with suitably sized capsules, with the capsules analyzed and optimized for desired release of the components, as set forth above. As such, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, based on the teachings of Bauer, one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the above method steps with suitable capsules, such as with a shell thickness as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103."KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
With respect to Claim 12, Bauer teaches the method as provided above with respect to Claim 1, and further discloses “wherein the metal silicate is dissolved in a carrier fluid” (Bauer: Pages 3-4).
With respect to Claim 13, Bauer teaches the method as provided above with respect to Claim 1, and further discloses “wherein the metal silicate is dissolved in water, and wherein the water is about 60 wt% to 95 wt%” (Bauer: Page 3).
With respect to Claim 14, Bauer teaches the method as provided above with respect to Claim 1, and further teaches test data with various weight ranges for acids and silicates, and also teaches analyses of the capsules to optimize the release of components to form stable plugs as desired in geothermal applications (Bauer: Pages 1-6). As such, although the reference fails to explicitly limit the amounts of acid and metal silicate in the mixture to the ranges as respectively claimed, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ suitable amounts of the acid and metal silicate, such as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, insofar as because it has been held. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233,235 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, based on the actual conditions encountered in the formation, one of ordinary skill would recognize the optimal amounts to employ therein in order to obtain the desired result.
It is also noted that, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, there had been a recognized need in the art for forming plugs in geothermal environments, and a finite number of identified, predictable solutions including injecting a mixture comprising an acid and metal silicate in a geothermal reservoir, as set forth above. As such, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, based on the teachings of Bauer, one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued desired amounts of the components in the mixture, such as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103."KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
With respect to Claim 15, Bauer teaches the method as provided above with respect to Claim 1, further discloses the geothermal environment with temperatures in a range that encompasses the range as instantly claimed, and also teaches analyses of the capsules to optimize the release of the components to form stable plugs as desired in geothermal applications (Bauer: Pages 1-6). As such, although the reference fails to explicitly limit the degrading to a time and temperature range as respectively claimed, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to degrade the capsule as desired, such as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, insofar as because it has been held. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233,235 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, based on the actual conditions encountered in the formation, one of ordinary skill would recognize the optimal degradation to employ therein in order to obtain the desired result.
It is also noted that, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, there had been a recognized need in the art for forming plugs in geothermal environments, and a finite number of identified, predictable solutions including injecting the above mixture in a geothermal reservoir with temperatures as instantly claimed with optimized release, as set forth above. As such, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, based on the teachings of Bauer, one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued a desired degradation, such as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103."KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
With respect to Claim 16, Bauer teaches the method as provided above with respect to Claim 1, and further discloses wherein the metal silicate comprises sodium silicate (Bauer: Page 2). As Bauer discloses the sodium silicate and acid as instantly claimed/described, the precipitate or the gel is considered to be as instantly claimed. “Products of identical chemical composition can not 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 discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With respect to Claim 17, Bauer teaches the method as provided above with respect to Claim 1, and further discloses wherein the precipitate or the gel serves to block a portion of pathways within the geothermal environment (Bauer: Pages 1-6).
With respect to Claim 20, Bauer discloses a method comprising: providing capsules comprising a shell encapsulating an activator; mixing the capsules with a sodium silicate to form a mixture; and injecting the mixture into a geothermal environment, the shell degrading at an elevated temperature within the geothermal environment such that the activator reacts with the sodium silicate to form silicon oxide (Bauer: Pages 1-6).
Bauer further teaches the method as a cost-effective and environmentally friendly way to form plugs, with one or more embodiments where the activator is an acid; and also suggests the placement of the mixture in a geothermal environment such as a geothermal reservoir wherein the shell degrades (Bauer: Pages 1-6). As such, although the reference fails to explicitly disclose the above method steps in combination with the activator as an acid and in a geothermal reservoir as instantly claimed, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ an acid and inject the mixture in a geothermal reservoir as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to form plugs in a cost-effective and environmentally friendly manner and/or yield predictable results in forming plugs.
Bauer further teaches sizing the capsules based on drilling equipment (Bauer: Pages 5 & 6). As such, although the reference fails to explicitly disclose the capsules as “microcapsules” as instantly claimed, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ suitable sized capsules, such as microcapsules as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, insofar as because it has been held. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233,235 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, based on the actual conditions encountered in the formation, one of ordinary skill would recognize the optimal capsule size to employ therein in order to obtain the desired result.
It is also noted that, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, there had been a recognized need in the art for forming plugs in geothermal environments, and a finite number of identified, predictable solutions including injecting the above mixture in a geothermal reservoir with suitably sized capsules, as set forth above. As such, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, based on the teachings of Bauer, one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the above method steps with microcapsules, an acid and injecting into a geothermal reservoir, such as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103."KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauer et al. (Non-Patent Literature as cited in PTO-892), in view of Ogle et al. (US 2017/0183561).
With respect to Claim 5, Bauer teaches the method as provided above with respect to Claim 1, and further teaches one or more embodiments with encapsulants of different melting points to optimize plugging, including encapsulants such as wax and thermoplastics (Bauer: Page 4). The reference, however, fails to explicitly disclose “…wherein the shell is an inorganic material” as instantly claimed.
Ogle teaches methods employing gellable treatment fluids in subterranean applications, including high temperature applications, therein, wherein encapsulated treatment components are employed and released by temperature etc., and wherein the encapsulating materials includes an inorganic materials as an alternative to an organic material, such as those taught by Bauer, for controlled downhole release (Ogle: Sections [0001], [0005] & [0058]). As such, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Bauer with the aforementioned teachings of Ogle to employ an inorganic material shell as an alternative to an organic material shell, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to control the downhole release of the encapsulated material as desired. (Ogle: Sections [0001], [0005] & [0058]).
Claims 18 & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauer et al. (Non-Patent Literature as cited in PTO-892), in view of Bataweel et al. (US 2018/0327648), further in view of Ashford et al. (US 4,662,448).
With respect to Claims 18 & 19, Bauer teaches the method as provided above with respect to Claim 1, and further teaches the method as suitable for applications such as water-shutoff (Bauer: Page 1). The reference, however, fails to explicitly disclose the method “further comprising: injecting a solution having pH of about 10 to 14 into the geothermal reservoir proximate the precipitate or the gel, the solution serving to dissolve the precipitate or the gel” and “wherein the solution comprises sodium hydroxide or potassium hydroxide”, as respectively claimed.
Bataweel teaches methods for wellbore applications, such as water and gas shut-off, therein, wherein a plug/gel is formed to improve the production of desired fluids and reduce the production of undesired fluids; and wherein the plug/gel is removed when desired by increasing the pH (Bataweel: Sections [0001]-[0006]). As such, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Bauer with the aforementioned teachings of Bataweel to remove the plug/precipitate/gel when desired by increasing the pH, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to control the production as desired and/or yield predictable results in flow control. (Bataweel: Sections [0001]-[0006]).
The combined references, however, fail to explicitly disclose increasing the pH by “injecting a solution having pH of about 10 to 14 into the geothermal reservoir proximate the precipitate or the gel, the solution serving to dissolve the precipitate or the gel” and “wherein the solution comprises sodium hydroxide or potassium hydroxide”, as respectively claimed.
Ashford teaches methods for wellbore applications, such as gas shut-off, employing gels therein, wherein excess silicate is removed with materials such as caustic to reverse/retard setting (Ashford: Col. 1, Ln. 5 through Col. 2, Ln. 20; Col. 5, Ln. 5-60). As such, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the combined references of Bauer and Bataweel with the aforementioned teachings of Ashford to remove the plug/precipitate/gel by injecting a solution as respectively claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to control the production as desired and/or yield predictable results in flow control.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chou et al. (US 5,351,757) discloses methods of generating a silicate gel in a subterranean formation with a sodium silicate solution and acid.
Zakaria (US 2022/0389305) discloses methods of generating a silicate gel in a geothermal formation with a sodium silicate solution and acid.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANURADHA AHUJA whose telephone number is (571)272-3067. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday.
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.
/ANURADHA AHUJA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674
Prosecution Insights