DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/21/2025, has been entered.
In view of the applicant's amendments, the previously presented 35 USC 112(b) rejections, have been withdrawn, unless restated herein.
Claims 16-21 and 23-29 are pending.
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 11/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Beginning on page 10, the applicant argues, re claim 16, that the examiner’s combination does not disclose “the sump further comprising a cap providing an upper boundary to form an isolated unit with no exchange of fluid between the sump and other parts of the bore”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The specification, at published application paragraph [0017], indicates that the cap functionally isolates the sump such that there is “no exchange of fluid between the sump and other parts of the bore, so that the only fluid flow into and out of the sump is via the first pipe and the second pipe. This corresponds with the claimed cap “providing an upper boundary to form an isolated unit with no exchange of fluid between the sump and other parts of the bore”. Additionally, published application paragraph [0099] indicates that the well head acts as the cap in some embodiments. The examiner’s combination includes the Bowdon well head as the cap and Bowdon’s Fig. 2 configuration shows that there is no exchange of fluid between the sump and other parts of the bore, i.e., the only fluid flow into and out of the sump is via the first pipe and the second pipe. Accordingly, the combination’s cap specifically performs as indicated by the applicant’s specification and claim, and also corresponds structurally.
With respect to the applicant’s statement in the last paragraph beginning on page 10, it is noted that Fig. 13 is not a claimed embodiment since its first and second pipes are not coaxial (as discussed at pages 14-15 and page 23 of the specification), and claims 16 and 29 both require coaxial first and second pipes. The examiner agrees, however, that there is support elsewhere in the specification and drawings for the cap of claims 16 and 29, as the cap is understood and addressed by the examiner herein.
At the last sentence in the second full paragraph on page 11, the applicant argues that the cap feature “defines the presently claimed system as thermodynamically isolated, which is the core differentiator over the cited prior art that provides superior operational safety, environmental protection, and long-term efficiency”. The examiner notes, however, that thermodynamic isolation is not claimed. The “no exchange of fluids” that is claimed with respect to the cap does not encompass thermodynamic isolation. As discussed in the foregoing, the examiner’s combination discloses “no exchange of fluids”. The examiner also notes that the term “thermodynamic” is not present in the specification nor the claims.
Beginning at the second full paragraph on page 11, the applicant argues that the examiner’s combination does not disclose the “coiled tube” limitation appearing in the last sub-paragraph of clam 16. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The tubing configuration, i.e., the coaxial first and second pipes, is disclosed by Bowdon, as indicated in the rejection herein. Hytken is only included with respect to forming such pipes from coiled tubing. Accordingly, the applicant’s argument that Hytken has a segmented or open exchange system is irrelevant. In this regard, Hytken discloses using coiled tubing for any of the tubings, by way of example only, tubings 276,270,252 of Fig. 3 (paragraph [ 0056]), and all of these tubings are installed as straight sections, thus not “coiled in use”, as implied by the applicant.
The applicant’s argument re coiled tubing continues at the last paragraph on page 11, wherein the applicant argues that the coiled tubing of claim 16 is for use with the coaxial pipe in a pipe borehole heat exchanger, thus it is a different coiled tubing than that “used in oil and gas activities - which would be deployed as an intervention process designed to move liquid from one place to another in a single activity”. However, no distinguishing structural characteristics of the claimed coiled tubing are claimed, and Hytken explicitly discloses using coiled tubing in heat transfer wells at paragraph [0056]. As mentioned above, the Hytken pipe is only incorporated into the combination for use as the Bowdon first and second pipes, and Bowdon is a heat transfer application, wherein the pipes remain in place.
At the last sentence of the last paragraph beginning on page 11, the applicant argues that “continuous coiled tube provides enhanced heat exchange efficiency and rapid deployment, which are fundamental to the system's industrial scalability and its ability to repurpose existing wells without complex downhole assembly”. First, the claimed first and second pipes are not “continuous” since they must be coaxial. Second, this merely a statement of purported merit. Third, this argument is based on statements unsupported by other than mere conclusions in the argument itself, such statements being of the character which should be supported by expert opinion. The arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.”) See MPEP 2145.
It is noted that the claims do not explicitly characterize the system as an “open heat exchange loop” or “closed loop geothermal heat exchange apparatus”, thus these characterizations in the applicant’s arguments, without additional structural differentiation, cannot be used to differentiate the claims from the examiner’s combination, as has been argued at the top of page 11 (for the “open heat exchange loop”) and the last paragraph beginning on page 11 (for the “closed loop geothermal heat exchange apparatus”). All structural differentiation actually argued by the applicant has been addressed in this Response to Arguments.
At the first full paragraph on page 12, the applicant argues that there is no teaching, suggestion or motivation to include a cap where the cap provides an upper boundary to form an isolated unit with no exchange of fluid between the sump and other parts of the bore as currently recited in claim 16. The cap of the combination is present in the primary reference, thus the cap has not been incorporated from a secondary reference, such that any reason for combining is not applicable.
Beginning at page 12, with respect to the Bowdon, Hong Sung Sul, and Hytken combination, the applicant indicates that all remaining claims are based on the foregoing arguments as to the cap and the coiled tubing. Accordingly, the applicant’s arguments, with respect to the Bowdon, Hong Sung Sul, and Hytken combination, as to all remaining claims, rise or fall based on the outcome of the foregoing arguments regarding claim 16.
Beginning at the third full paragraph at page 12, the applicant argues that the Hong Sung Sul and Hytken combination does not disclose “the sump further comprising a cap providing an upper boundary to form an isolated unit with no exchange of fluid between the sump and other parts of the bore”, “for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 16”. Accordingly, the applicant’s arguments, with respect to the Hong Sung Sul and Hytken combination, as to all remaining claims, rise or fall based on the outcome of the foregoing arguments regarding claim 16.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Because claim 25 claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, as to “means adapted for extracting resources from the ground”, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof, i.e., the lateral wellbores depicted in Figs. 8-11, 15, and 16.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the lines are not sufficiently dense and dark and are not uniformly thick and well-defined, many having the appearance of dot matrix printing (Figs. 1-16), hatching is too dense and is shaded (Figs. 3-16), and the cap is incorrectly numbered 14 (Fig. 4). Additionally, the applicant remarked that there is a white space on Fig. 8, between structures 10 and 22, however, such space, if shown at all, is shown with hatching which is inconsistent with an annulus and “white space”. In this regard, all related reference numerals should be checked, e.g., “22”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because it is incorrectly stated, with respect to Fig. 8, that “The first pipe 10 is surrounded by a further region which acts as a convective annulus” (published application paragraph [0129]). No annulus is present around first pipe 10 in Fig. 8. NOTE: this objection will remain until Fig. 8 is amended consistent with the drawing objections above. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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 18 This claim recites “a cap” and depends from claim 16 which recites “a cap”, making it unclear whether another cap is intended. The examiner has assumed it is the same cap. If a different cap, the applicant should add language to distinguish it from the cap of claim 16.
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 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.
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.
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.
Claims 16-18, 23, 25-27, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowdon et al. (US20200347707) [Bowdon], in view of Hong Sung Sul (KR100824419) and Hytken (US20170089187).
Claim 16 Bowdon discloses a heat exchange system for geothermal heat extraction [Figs. 1-11E; abstract; para. 0008,0035,0065-0069] adapted to be used within a bore 210 formed within the ground, and being independent of formation fluids [e.g., production fluid flow 236 which is excluded from the fluid within the first and second pipes], the system comprising a first pipe 216 and a second pipe 214 together forming a fluid path the first and the second pipes being arranged coaxially within the bore [Fig. 2], wherein substantially a lower end in use of each of the first pipe and the second pipe are in fluid communication with each other and with a sump [Fig. 2; at the transition area from within the second pipe to the first pipe proximate 222 and 224; para. 0065], allowing fluid to flow between the first pipe and the second pipe via the sump within the said bore, the sump further comprising a cap providing an upper boundary to form an isolated unit with no exchange of fluid between the sump and other parts of the bore [either the wellhead or plugs 242; Fig. 2; para. 0035,0066], the system further comprising a pump [Fig. 2; para. 0035,0008] adapted to drive heat exchange fluid through the said pipes and a heat exchange unit adapted to transfer thermal energy to or from the said heat exchange fluid [e.g., the LTG surface facilities shown in Fig. 3 that transfer thermal energy from the heated transfer fluid arriving from the first pipe 214 (when such facilities are used with the Fig. 2 embodiment) and/or the downhole configuration of the first pipe 214 such that production fluids in the annulus between the production pipe/casing 228 transfer heat to the transfer fluid being pumped to the surface in the annulus between the first and second pipes; para. 0070-0074,0067], and wherein the system further comprises an annular region of the said fluid path in which fluid may circulate [e.g., the annulus between the first and second pipes; Fig. 2].
Bowdon otherwise discloses all the limitations of this claim, but does not explicitly disclose that within the annular region is provided a convection centralizer.
Hong Sung Sul discloses a geothermal heat exchange system [title] in which transfer fluid flows in an annulus between two pipes [Fig. 3], the inner pipe having a convection centralizer 10 [Figs. 3-8b; in the English translation, the fourth paragraph of the “TECH-SOLUTION” section].
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the apparatus and methods of Bowdon to include one or more convection centralizers, e.g., those disclosed for analogous geothermal purposes, positioned on the second tubing 214, i.e., in the annulus between the first and second pipes. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected that this combination of prior art elements and techniques would have been within the skill of the art and would successfully yield and achieve the expected and predictable result that the convection centralizers would create turbulence and enhance the transfer between the first pipe 216 and the production fluids in the annulus between the first pipe 216 and the production pipe/casing 228.
Bowdon discloses that the second pipe 214 may be insulated [para. 0068],and otherwise discloses all the limitations of this claim, but does not explicitly disclose that one or other of the first and/or second pipe are formed from a coiled tube.
Hytken discloses concentric pipes 220 in a heat exchange configuration for heating the formation 132, in which any one or more of such pipes are insulated coiled tubing [Figs. 1-12A; para. 0036,0056].
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the apparatus and methods of Bowdon, as modified, to utilize insulated coiled tubing, such as that disclosed by Hytken, for the second pipe 214. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected that this combination of prior art elements and techniques would have been within the skill of the art and would successfully yield and achieve the expected and predictable result that the heat in the transfer fluid in the annulus between the first and second pipes would not be lost heating the transfer fluid in the second pipe 214, and that the operator would have the convenience of using coiled tubing during installation and/or service of the second pipe 214.
Claim 17 Bowdon, as modified with respect to claim 16, discloses that the system further comprises a production casing 228 having a lower wall portion [e.g., at least proximate the plug 224; Fig. 2] and a circumferential wall portion [e.g., the casing wall proximate the production zone 232; Fig. 2].
Claim 18 Bowdon, as modified with respect to claim 16, discloses a cap [either the wellhead or plugs 242; Fig. 2; para. 0035,0066].
Claim 23 Bowdon, as modified with respect to claim 16, discloses that the pump forms part of a process plant [e.g., the LTG surface facilities 316,318,320 shown in Fig. 3 that transfer thermal energy from the heated transfer fluid arriving from the first pipe 214, pumping the transfer fluid into the second pipe 216 (when such facilities are used with the Fig. 2 embodiment); para. 0008,0035,0070-0074].
Claim 25 Bowdon, as modified with respect to claim 16, discloses means adapted for extracting resources from the ground [e.g., the perforated production casing 228 and/or the production tubing receiving the production fluid flow 238; Fig. 2; para. 0066].
Claim 26 Bowdon, as modified with respect to claim 25, discloses that the means adapted to extract resources from the ground comprises one or more extraction pipes [e.g., the production tubing receiving the production fluid flow 238; Fig. 2; para. 0066].
Claim 27 Bowdon, as modified with respect to claim 26, discloses that the said one or more extraction pipes are not in fluid communication with the said first and second pipes [the production tubing receiving the production fluid flow 238 is not in fluid communication with the first and second pipes].
Claim 29 As discussed with respect to claim 16, Bowdon discloses a method of adapting an existing bore to provide geothermal energy heat extraction [Figs. 1-11E; abstract; para. 0008,0035,0065-0069], the method comprising the steps of:
providing an existing bore 210 with a first pipe 216 and a second pipe 214 together forming a fluid path, the first and second pipes being arranged coaxially within the bore [Fig. 2], wherein substantially a lower end in use of each of the first pipe and the second pipe are in fluid communication with each other and with a sump [Fig. 2; at the transition area from within the second pipe to the first pipe proximate 222 and 224; para. 0065], allowing fluid to flow between the first pipe and the second pipe via the sump within the said bore the sump further comprising a cap providing an upper boundary to form an isolated unit with no exchange of fluid between the sump and other parts of the bore [either the wellhead or plugs 242; Fig. 2; para. 0035,0066], wherein an annular region is formed in which fluid may circulate [e.g., the annulus between the first and second pipes; Fig. 2];
providing a pump [Fig. 2; para. 0035,0008] adapted to drive heat exchange fluid through the said pipes; and
providing a heat exchange unit adapted to transfer thermal energy to or from the said heat exchange fluid [e.g., the LTG surface facilities shown in Fig. 3 that transfer thermal energy from the heated transfer fluid arriving from the first pipe 214, pumping the transfer fluid into the second pipe 216 (when such facilities are used with the Fig. 2 embodiment) and/or the downhole configuration of the first pipe 214 such that production fluids in the annulus between the production pipe/casing 228 transfer heat to the transfer fluid being pumped to the surface in the annulus between the first and second pipes; para. 0070-0074,0067].
Bowdon otherwise discloses all the limitations of this claim, but does not explicitly disclose that within the annular region is provided a convection centralizer.
Hong Sung Sul discloses a geothermal heat exchange system [title] in which transfer fluid flows in an annulus between two pipes [Fig. 3], the inner pipe having a convection centralizer 10 [Figs. 3-8b; in the English translation, the fourth paragraph of the “TECH-SOLUTION” section].
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the apparatus and methods of Bowdon to include one or more convection centralizers, e.g., those disclosed for analogous geothermal purposes, positioned on the second tubing 214, i.e., in the annulus between the first and second pipes. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected that this combination of prior art elements and techniques would have been within the skill of the art and would successfully yield and achieve the expected and predictable result that the convection centralizers would create turbulence and enhance the transfer between the first pipe 216 and the production fluids in the annulus between the first pipe 216 and the production pipe/casing 228.
Bowdon further discloses that the second pipe 214 may be insulated [para. 0068],and otherwise discloses all the limitations of this claim, but does not explicitly disclose that one or other of the first and/or second pipe are formed from a coiled tube.
Hytken discloses concentric pipes 220 in a heat exchange configuration for heating the formation 132, in which any one or more of such pipes are insulated coiled tubing [Figs. 1-12A; para. 0036,0056].
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the apparatus and methods of Bowdon, as modified, to utilize insulated coiled tubing, such as that disclosed by Hytken, for the second pipe 214. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected that this combination of prior art elements and techniques would have been within the skill of the art and would successfully yield and achieve the expected and predictable result that the heat in the transfer fluid in the annulus between the first and second pipes would not be lost heating the transfer fluid in the second pipe 214, and that the operator would have the convenience of using coiled tubing during installation and/or service of the second pipe 214.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowdon, in view of Hong Sung Sul and Hytken, and further in view of Baker (US2153034).
Claim 19 Bowdon, as modified with respect to claim 16, discloses production casing 228 having been cemented into the well in the original completion [Fig. 2; para. 0066], and otherwise discloses all the limitations of this claim, but does not explicitly disclose one or more circulation shoes.
Baker discloses that wellbores are completed by running casing 10 with a casing shoe 11 with a guiding portion 14 that guides the casing into the wellbore in preparation for cementing the casing by circulating cement through passageways 16 into the annulus between the casing and the wellbore [Figs. 1-3; page 1, col. 1, line 33 – page 1, col. 2, line 13].
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the apparatus and methods of Bowdon, as modified, to have used such a shoe as that of Baker as part of the Bowdon’s disclosed cementing of the production casing 228 into the wellbore. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected that this combination of prior art elements and techniques would have been within the skill of the art and would successfully yield and achieve the expected and predictable result that the shoe would form a guide when installing the production casing 228 into the wellbore and allow the circulation of cement through the shoe into the appropriate position in the annulus.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowdon, in view of Hong Sung Sul and Hytken, and further in view of Rumbaugh (US4793417).
Claim 20 Bowdon, as modified with respect to claim 16, otherwise discloses all the limitations of this claim, but does not explicitly disclose one or more landing nipples.
Rumbaugh discloses using a landing nipple 78 to secure a wireline 41,47 run tool 50 in position to operate the tool for service of the production casing 22 [Figs. 1,9; abstract; col. 2, lines 66-69, col. 3, lines 1-22, col. 3, line 57 – col. 4, line 4, col. 5, lines 45-57].
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the apparatus and methods of Bowdon, as modified, to include a landing nipple as part of the production casing string, as disclosed by Rumbaugh. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected that this combination of prior art elements and techniques would have been within the skill of the art and would successfully yield and achieve the expected and predictable result that, when the first and second pipes are not in the wellbore, e.g., during initial completion of the production casing or at a later servicing, a service tool could be run by wireline and positioned on the landing nipple for use.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowdon, in view of Hong Sung Sul and Hytken, and further in view of Steele (US202301001922).
Claim 21 Bowdon, as modified with respect to claim 16, otherwise discloses all the limitations of this claim, but does not explicitly disclose at least one cable.
Steele discloses a geothermal energy transfer system [Fig. 1; abstract] in a wellbore 101, having tubular 103a,103b entry and return of a thermal transfer fluid [Fig. 1; para. 0026-0029] and a fiber optic cable positioned in the wellbore and communicatively coupled to a computing device for monitoring at least wellbore temperature and pressure [para. 0024].
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the apparatus and methods of Bowdon, as modified, to include a fiber optic cable coupled to either of the first or second pipes, such a cable being disclosed by Steele. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected that this combination of prior art elements and techniques would have been within the skill of the art and would successfully yield and achieve the expected and predictable result that at least temperature and pressure could be monitored by the operator.
Claims 24 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowdon, in view of Hong Sung Sul and Hytken, and further in view of Noui-Mehidi et al. (US20199226306) [Noui-Mehidi].
Claim 24 Bowdon, as modified with respect to claim 16, otherwise discloses all the limitations of this claim, but does not explicitly disclose that the bore has one or more further branches.
Noui-Mehidi discloses a wellbore 11,15 having production laterals/branches 25,29,33 wherein produced fluids provide geothermal energy [Figs. 1-3; abstract; para. 0035-0042].
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the apparatus and methods of Bowdon, as modified, to configure the production wellbore with one or more lateral/branch wellbores extending therefrom, as disclosed by Noui-Mehidi. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected that this combination of prior art elements and techniques would have been within the skill of the art and would successfully yield and achieve the expected and predictable result that increased producing formation exposure would be provided.
Claim 28 Bowdon, as modified with respect to claim 25, otherwise discloses all the limitations of this claim, but does not explicitly disclose that the heat exchange system is adapted to be used with a secondary bore joined with the said bore, wherein the means adapted to extract resources from the ground are arranged within the secondary bore.
Noui-Mehidi discloses a wellbore 11,15 having production laterals/branches/secondary bores 25,29,33 wherein produced fluids provide geothermal energy [Figs. 1-3; abstract; para. 0035-0042].
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the apparatus and methods of Bowdon, as modified, to configure the production wellbore with one or more lateral/branch/secondary wellbores extending therefrom, as disclosed by Noui-Mehidi, thus such apparatus and methods would be adapted to be used with such a secondary bore, the secondary bore providing exposed formation in such secondary bore as part of the means adapted to extract resources, e.g., production fluids. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected that this combination of prior art elements and techniques would have been within the skill of the art and would successfully yield and achieve the expected and predictable result that increased producing formation exposure would be provided thus enhancing the means adapted to extract resources.
Claim 16, 18, 23, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong Sung Sul, in view of Hytken.
Claim 16 Hong Sung Sul discloses a heat exchange system [title] for geothermal heat extraction adapted to be used within a bore 1 formed within the ground, and being independent of formation fluids [Fig. 3; no formation fluids present], the system comprising a first pipe 2 and a second pipe 6 together forming a fluid path, the first and second pipes being arranged coaxially within the bore [Fig. 3], wherein substantially a lower end in use of each of the first pipe and the second pipe are in fluid communication with each other and with a sump [Fig. 3 at the transition area from within the second pipe to the first pipe proximate 6a], allowing fluid to flow between the first pipe and the second pipe via the sump within the said bore, the sump further comprising a cap providing an upper boundary to form an isolated unit with no exchange of fluid between the sump and other parts of the bore [e.g., structure at the top of the wellbore at the ground surface; Fig. 3; no other fluids being present in other parts, e.g., the uppermost casing], the system further comprising a pump 5 adapted to drive heat exchange fluid through the said pipes and a heat exchange unit [e.g., the surface facilities 3,4 shown in Fig. 3 that transfer thermal energy from the heated transfer fluid arriving from the second pipe and/or the downhole configuration of the first pipe such that formation heat transfer heat to the transfer fluid being pumped to the surface in the second pipe] adapted to transfer thermal energy to or from the said heat exchange fluid, and wherein the system further comprises an annular region of the said fluid path in which fluid may circulate [e.g., the annulus between the first and second pipes; Fig. 3], within which annular region is provided a convection centralizer 10 [Figs. 3-8b; in the English translation, the fourth paragraph of the “TECH-SOLUTION” section].
Hong Sung Sul otherwise discloses all the limitations of this claim, but does not explicitly disclose that one or other of the first and/or second pipe are formed from a coiled tube.
Hytken discloses concentric pipes 220 in a heat exchange configuration for heating the formation 132, in which any one or more of such pipes are insulated coiled tubing [Figs. 1-12A; para. 0036,0056].
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the apparatus and methods of Hong Sung Sul to utilize insulated coiled tubing, such as that disclosed by Hytken, for the second pipe 6. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected that this combination of prior art elements and techniques would have been within the skill of the art and would successfully yield and achieve the expected and predictable result that the heat in the transfer fluid in the annulus between the first and second pipes would not be lost heating the transfer fluid in the second pipe 6, and that the operator would have the convenience of using coiled tubing during installation and/or service of the second pipe 6.
Claim 18 Hong Sung Sul, as modified with respect to claim 16, discloses a cap [e.g., structure at the top of the wellbore at the ground surface; Fig. 3].
Claim 23 Hong Sung Sul, as modified with respect to claim 16, discloses that the pump forms part of a process plant 3,4,5 [Fig. 3].
Claim 29 As discussed with respect to claim 16, Hong Sung Sul discloses a method of adapting an existing bore 1 to provide geothermal energy heat extraction [Fig. 3], the method comprising the steps of:
providing an existing bore 1 with a first pipe 2 and a second pipe 6 together forming a fluid path, the first and second pipes being arranged coaxially within the bore [Fig. 3], wherein substantially a lower end in use of each of the first pipe and the second pipe are in fluid communication with each other and with a sump [Fig. 3 at the transition area from within the second pipe to the first pipe proximate 6a], so that fluid can flow between the first pipe and the second pipe via the sump within the said bore, the sump further comprising a cap providing an upper boundary to form an isolated unit with no exchange of fluid between the sump and other parts of the bore [e.g., structure at the top of the wellbore at the ground surface; Fig. 3; no other fluids being present in other parts, e.g., the uppermost casing], wherein an annular region [e.g., the annulus between the first and second pipes; Fig. 3] is formed in which fluid may circulate, within which annular region of the said fluid path a convection centralizer 10 is provided;
providing a pump 5 adapted to drive heat exchange fluid through the said pipes; and
providing a heat exchange unit [e.g., the surface facilities 3,4 shown in Fig. 3 that transfer thermal energy from the heated transfer fluid arriving from the second pipe and/or the downhole configuration of the first pipe such that formation heat transfer heat to the transfer fluid being pumped to the surface in the second pipe] adapted to transfer thermal energy to or from the said heat exchange fluid [Figs. 3-8b; in the English translation, the fourth paragraph of the “TECH-SOLUTION” section].
Hong Sung Sul otherwise discloses all the limitations of this claim, but does not explicitly disclose that one or other of the first and/or second pipe are formed from a coiled tube.
Hytken discloses concentric pipes 220 in a heat exchange configuration for heating the formation 132, in which any one or more of such pipes are insulated coiled tubing [Figs. 1-12A; para. 0036,0056].
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the apparatus and methods of Hong Sung Sul to utilize insulated coiled tubing, such as that disclosed by Hytken, for the second pipe 6. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected that this combination of prior art elements and techniques would have been within the skill of the art and would successfully yield and achieve the expected and predictable result that the heat in the transfer fluid in the annulus between the first and second pipes would not be lost heating the transfer fluid in the second pipe 6, and that the operator would have the convenience of using coiled tubing during installation and/or service of the second pipe 6.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong Sung Sul, in view of Hytken, and further in view of Baker (US2153034).
Claim 19 Hong Sung Sul, as modified with respect to claim 16, discloses casing 2 installed in the well in the original completion [Fig. 3], and otherwise discloses all the limitations of this claim, but does not explicitly disclose one or more circulation shoes.
Baker discloses that wellbores are completed by running casing 10 with a casing shoe 11 with a guiding portion 14 that guides the casing into the wellbore in preparation for cementing the casing by circulating cement through passageways 16 into the annulus between the casing and the wellbore [Figs. 1-3; page 1, col. 1, line 33 – page 1, col. 2, line 13].
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the apparatus and methods of Hong Sung Sul to have used such a shoe as that of Baker as part of the installation of the casing 2 into the wellbore. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected that this combination of prior art elements and techniques would have been within the skill of the art and would successfully yield and achieve the expected and predictable result that the shoe would form a guide when installing the casing 2 into the wellbore and allow the circulation of cement through the shoe into the appropriate position in the annulus.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong Sung Sul, in view of Hyken, and further in view of Steele (US202301001922).
Claim 21 Hong Sung Sul, as modified with respect to claim 16, otherwise discloses all the limitations of this claim, but does not explicitly disclose at least one cable.
Steele discloses a geothermal energy transfer system [Fig. 1; abstract] in a wellbore 101, having tubular 103a,103b entry and return of a thermal transfer fluid [Fig. 1; para. 0026-0029] and a fiber optic cable positioned in the wellbore and communicatively coupled to a computing device for monitoring at least wellbore temperature and pressure [para. 0024].
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the apparatus and methods of Hong Sung Sul to include a fiber optic cable coupled to either of the first or second pipes, such a cable being disclosed by Steele. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected that this combination of prior art elements and techniques would have been within the skill of the art and would successfully yield and achieve the expected and predictable result that at least temperature and pressure could be monitored by the operator.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hara (US20110232858) appears to disclose all the limitations of claims 16 and 29 (except the coiled tubing) [Fig. 1]. Cook et al. (US20210396430) appears to disclose all the limitations of claim 29 (except the coiled tubing) [Fig. 14]. Normann et al. appears to disclose all the limitations of claim 29 (except the coiled tubing) [Fig. 1]. Hogg (US20240167461) appears to disclose all the limitations of claim 29 (except the coiled tubing) [Fig. 1]. Yokomine et al. (US20170292792) appears to disclose all the limitations of claims 16 and 29 (except the coiled tubing).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE STERLING GRAY whose telephone number is (313)446-4820. The examiner can normally be reached 7-4 Eastern - M-F.
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, Tara Schimpf can be reached on 571-270-7741. 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.
/GEORGE S GRAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676