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
The provisionally claims elected 2, 9, 19, and 30.
The species of claims 3, 5, 7, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 26 and 27.
Status of claims
Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 12, 14, 15, 17, 19-21 and 27 are rejected under 112 Rejection.
Claim 30 is Allowed claim.
Claims 18, 25, 26 and 29 are cancelled claim.
Remarks
Applicant’s arguments, filed (10/28/2025), with respect to amended pending claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 12, 14, 15, 17, 19-21 and 27 have been fully considered and they are persuasive with respect of 103 Rejection, but the amendments of claim 1 raising the new issue. The 103 rejection of claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 12, 14, 15, 17, 19-21 and 27 is withdrawn. See below rejection for full detail.
All claims stand and fall together under the following argument(s).
See below rejection for full detail and specifically following argument(s):
Arguments
1. The Applicant Argues (Pages 9 and 10):
“Regarding previously presented claim 18, the Examiner relies on Cai (p.9, lines 7-9) as allegedly teaching the step of verifying the cumulative amount of CO2 produced via a proxy of when the injected CO2 volume reaches about 1.3 PV, CO2 reaches the outlet and the CO2 content in the produced gas increases with continued injection. See Cai, p. 9, lines 5-10 and Fig. 3. Cai merely observes the movement of injected CO2 and such observations are merely composition observations at specific times, not a verification step using cumulative oil and gas produced. Cai does not teach or suggest using the cumulative oil and gas produced as a proxy to verify the cumulative amount of CO2 produced. In the absence of the verification step, there is no teaching or motivation to use the verified cumulative CO2 produced via the cumulative oil and gas produced as the basis for calculating the net amount of CO2 remaining in the reservoir and estimating CO2 migration percentage. Therefore, one of ordinary skill does not arrive at the process verifying the cumulative amount of CO2 produced via a proxy of the cumulative oil and gas produced”.
Examiner respectfully agree with assertion above, because Cai verifying with the production gas oil ratio data, it can be obtained when the injection amount is 1.3PV injected carbon dioxide to move to the outlet end, see Page 9, lines 7-9,).
e.g., Cai verifying the production gas and oil , but not the CO2.
2. The Applicant Argues (page 10 and 11):
“The Examiner asserts that Nakamura teaches estimating the cumulative amount of CO2 migrated comprises measuring a total gas stream, analyzing the composition of the gas stream, and calculating the CO2 rate. id., p. 20. Applicant believes that the Examiner erroneously cites Nakamura since Nakamura is directed to a method for producing brightener for plating and does not disclose what the Examiner states.
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that Nakamura be withdrawn as prior art
and that the rejection be withdrawn.”
Examiner respectfully admitted erroneously cited Nakamura in claim 21, should be cited to the reference Nagashima et al., (JP2009198490-A), hereinafter Nagashima.
The erroneously cited reference Nakamura replaced by the Nagashima.
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 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 12, 14, 15, 17, 19-21 and 27 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 1 the phrase “verifying the cumulative amount of CO2 produced via a proxy of cumulative oil and gas produced” is not clear how the verification is performed…via a proxy analysis.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 12, 14, 15, 17, 19-21 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The phrase of “verifying the cumulative amount of CO2 produced via a proxy of cumulative oil and gas produced” is not describe in specification and Examiner can’t really determine how to verification of the CO2 is performed…via a proxy analysis. Examiner can’t really determine from specification what and/or how the claimed proxy for verifying the cumulative amount of CO2.
Examiner note regarding the prior art of the record:
Regarding Claim 1, Figueiredo “Greenhouse Gas Reporting for Geologic Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide”, discloses a process for quantifying CO2 sequestration within a reservoir, the process comprising:
measuring a cumulative amount of CO2 (Page 3, lines 11-12, where cumulative mass of CO2) injected into a reservoir via one or more injection wells (Page 3, lines 2-5, where mass of CO2 received for injection for the first time into a well at the facility , as well as the source of the CO2; the mass of CO2 injected into the subsurface); (Page 3, lines 7-8, where the mass CO2 emissions from equipped leaks and vented emission of CO2, from sources between the injection flow meter and the injection wellhead);
measuring a cumulative amount of CO2 produced from the reservoir via one or more production wells (Page 3, lines 5, where the mass of CO2, produced from oil or gas production wells or from other fluid wells);
estimating a cumulative amount of CO2 migrated from a reservoir based on measured CO2 at one or more wells (page 3, lines 13-15, where annual amount of CO2 sequestered(part of migrated and trap) at a facility using mass balance equation, in which the sum of CO2 emissions (migrated CO2) which be subtracted from the amount of CO2 injected to equal the amount of CO2 sequestered, i.e., the sequestered CO2 and emission CO2 equally to cumulating amount of CO2 migrated from a reservoir);
(also see Page 3, lines 5-10, where mass of CO2 emitted from surface leakage; the mass of CO2 emissions from equipment leaks and vented emission CO2 from sources between the injection flow meter and the injection wellhead and between the production flow meter and the production wellhead and mass of CO2 sequestered in subsurface geologic formation, i.e., the amount of CO2 migrated equally to the mass CO2 emission from equipment, surface vented) emission and mass of CO2 sequestered in subsurface); and
calculating a net amount of CO2 remaining in the reservoir based on the cumulative amount of CO2 injected, the cumulative amount of CO2 produced, and the cumulative amount of CO2 migrated (page 3, lines 13-15, where annual amount of CO2 sequestered at a facility using mass balance equation, in which the sum of CO2 emissions (migrated)which be subtracted from the amount of CO2 injected/[cumulative amount of CO2 injected] to equal the amount of CO2 sequestered, i.e., the sum CO2 emission (amount of total CO2 emissions) equal to the CO2 produces and migrated CO2 on observation wells; the sequestered CO2 (trapped or remaining in the reservoir)).
Badri et al., (US Pub.20160161630A1), discloses one or more observation well (Fig. 3, # 310, 330 and 320, para [0033], where one or more injection wells 310, production wells 320, and monitoring wells 330).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the applicants' invention was made to provide observation well, as taught by Badri into Figueiredo in order to track the movement and mount of the migrated CO2 from injection well.
Figueiredo disclose calculating a net amount of CO2 remaining in the reservoir (page 3, lines 13-15, where annual amount of CO2 sequestered(part of migrated and trap) at a facility using mass balance equation, in which the sum of CO2 emissions (migrated CO2) which be subtracted from the amount of CO2 injected to equal the amount of CO2 sequestered, i.e., the sequestered CO2 and emission CO2 equally to cumulating amount of CO2 migrated from a reservoir), but does not discloses estimate CO2 migration percentage.
Cuemath, “Percentages” discloses calculation of percentage; how to get a Percentage?
Figueiredo disclose (Page 3, lines 5, where the mass of CO2, produced from oil or gas production wells or from other fluid wells), e.g., disclose amount of CO2 produced via a proxy of cumulative oil and gas produced.
Figueiredo do not disclose verifying the cumulative amount of CO2.
Cai (CN116256282A) disclose (Page 9, lines 7-9, where verifying with the production gas oil ratio data, Itcan be obtained when the injection amount is 1.3PV injected carbon dioxide to move to the outlet end, and as the injection amount is increased, the carbon dioxide content in the produced gas is rapidly increased).
Klein (EP3981459A1) disclose (Claim 1, where a carbon dioxide containing added gas G.sub.n to an inspiratory gas Go, to formulate a respiratory gas (G.sub.R) for delivery to a subject, and to maintain a targeted concentration of carbon dioxide in a cumulative volume of the G.sub.R (CVG.sub.R), the method comprising:
(a) obtaining input comprising or sufficient to compute:
(1) confirmed cumulative volumes of G0 and/or GR made available for inspiration by a subject with respect to respective time points of interest;
(2) confirmed cumulative volumes of Gn made available for inspiration by a subject with respect to the respective time points of interest).
As best as understood by Examiner th closest prior arts either singularly or in combination, does not teach or fairly suggest the steps of “ verifying the cumulative amount of CO2 produced via a proxy of cumulative oil and gas produced.
Claims 2-17, 19-21 and 27 are allowed as being dependent from an allowed base claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 30 is allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 30,
Figueiredo discloses measuring a cumulative amount of CO2 injected into a reservoir via one or more injection wells by measuring (Page 3, lines 12-14 ):
Bradley discloses an amount of CO2, from a CO2 storage plant, from a mixing process for preparing an enhanced oil recovery fluids or foam and recovered from a mud gas separator (Page 5, Col. 1, lines 20-30); and
an amount of CO2 from a gas oil separation plant, a flow rate of a produced CO2 mixture uphole or downhole within the production well, a composition of CO2 in the mixture, calculating the flow rate of produced CO2 (Page 5, Col. 1, lines 20-30);
an amount of CO2 from a gas oil separation plant(Page 5, Col. 1, lines 20-30),
estimating a cumulative amount of CO2 migrated from a reservoir based on measured CO2 at one or more observations wells by measuring;
Taylor discloses a flow rate of an injected CO2 mixture uphole or downhole within the injection well, measuring a composition of CO2 in the mixture, calculating a flow rate of CO2 injected and a total gas stream, analyzing the composition of the gas stream, and calculating the CO2 rate (para [0084], where the mass flow rates of carbon dioxide and water vapor components in the expanded combusted gas stream were calculated according to formula (5));
Hasan discloses measuring a cumulative amount of CO2 recovered from the reservoir via one or more production wells by measuring (para [0049], [0054]):
a total gas stream, analyzing the composition of the gas stream, and calculating the CO2 rate;(para [0084]) and
Ahmad discloses a flow rate of a produced CO2 mixture uphole or downhole within the production well, a composition of CO2 in the mixture, calculating the flow rate of produced CO2;
a multiphase stream, analyzing the composition of the multiphase stream, and calculating the CO2 rate (para [002]);
Cai discloses verifying via spot analysis or a proxy of the cumulative oil and gas produced (para [002]);
The prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest particular combination steps of:
“an amount of CO2 recovered from the observation well, a flow rate of the CO2 mixture uphole or downhole within the observation well, a composition of CO2 in the mixture, calculating a flow rate of CO2 produced, a total gas stream, analyzing the composition of the gas stream, and calculating the CO2 rate; and
tracers introduced via the injection well and produced via the observation well;
calculating a net amount of CO2 remaining in the reservoir based on the cumulative amount of CO2 injected, the cumulative amount of CO2 produced, and the cumulative amount of CO2 migrated; and
using the calculated net amount of CO2 remaining to estimate CO2 migration percentage or CO2 sequestration percentage during an enhanced oil recovery process or over a lifetime of a well”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1. Kato et al., (JP2011031154A) discloses (Abstract, where an observation well for monitoring amount of the carbon dioxide contained in the underground water, seawater or brine);
2. Sinha (US Pub.20140169131A1), discloses (para [0054], where flow rate of the steam injection to enhance heavy oil production at the production well, also see para [0036], where an EOR operation where steam and carbon dioxide are injected from an injection well into a reservoir to increase mobility of heavy oil for improved hydrocarbon productivity).
3. Dovan (CN 1062949A), hereinafter Dovan;
4. Tchakarov et al., (US Pub.20020043620A1);
5. Cao (CN113153241A);
6. Cui et al., (CN210460634U).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KALERIA KNOX whose telephone number is (571)270-5971. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-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, Andrew Schechter can be reached on (571)2722302. 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.
/KALERIA KNOX/
Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/MICHAEL J DALBO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857