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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status
This instant application No. 18/124184 has Claims 1-9 pending.
Priority /Filing Date
Applicant claimed Foreign Priority from Chinese Application No. CN202310102230.8. The priority filing date of this application is February 13, 2023.
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.
3. Claims 1-9 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.
i) Claim 1, in the preamble recites -wherein the carbon dioxide sequestration method comprises the following four steps for a carbon dioxide sequestration process. However, only three steps are included in the later limitations, such that the technical solution of Claim 1 contradicts before and after, resulting in an unclear scope of the claim.
ii) Claim 1, in step 1.2 recites -improving a relative permeability model and a capillary pressure model used for numerical calculation in a largescale simulator of carbon dioxide geological sequestration. However, nowhere in the claim mentions how the models are being improved-thereby making the meaning of this limitation unclear, resulting in an unclear scope of the claim.
iii) Claim 1, in the third step recites -so that the wettability of rock can be effectively regulated by the wetting-transition agent. The term “can” have a selected meaning, resulting in an unclear scope of the claim
iv) Claim 1, in last limitation recites -to prevent carbon dioxide leakage, injecting carbon dioxide at the bottom of the reservoir only-It is not clear what is the purpose of this limitation and how it connected to the reservoir wettability optimization design and layered regulation-making the meaning of this limitation unclear and redundant, resulting in an unclear scope of the claim.
v) Claim 8 recites -which uses a well layout mode of "using one well for multiple purposes - using two wells in conjunction - adopting a network layout". It is not clear from this recitation what layout mode is being used and what is meant by the statements inside the parenthesis -making the overall meaning of this claim unclear and indefinite. Additionally, the claim language should not contain any statement inside a parenthesis.
vi)
Claim 4 recites - two regulation schemes can be designed for the first regulation layer.
Claim 7 recites -wherein a carbon dioxide tracer can also be injected simultaneously during carbon dioxide and wetting-transition agent injection.
Claim 8 recites -a carbon dioxide sequestration well layout scheme can also be designed.
Claim 9 recite multiple instances of “can” such as:
one well can be used as either an injection well or a producing well.
carbon dioxide monitoring point which can monitor the concentration of carbon dioxide in real time.
an appropriate amount of water can be injected to push the carbon dioxide to move forward.
well 1 can be stopped.
after sequestration is completed by well 2 and well 3, well 4, well 5 and well 6 can be further arranged for sequestration; and the distance and azimuth angles between the wells can be arranged as required to form a network layout.
In all these claims/ limitations the use of word “can” have selected meanings resulting in an unclear scope of the claims.
The depended claims are rejected because of their dependency on the independent claim.
No prior art rejection due to 112(b) rejection
Claims 1-9 have not been rejected over the prior art because, in light of the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections supra, there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of the claims; hence, it would not be proper to reject the claims on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.
Conclusion
4. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Almajid et al. (Pub. No. US 20230062001 A1) teaches a method for increasing CO2 sequestration efficiency in depleted reservoirs by increasing injectivity. This method includes the steps of introducing a surfactant solution into an upper portion of the reservoir through an injection well and introducing CO2 to a lower portion through another injection well such that the CO2 and surfactant solution migrate away from the wells and intimately intermingle to form CO2-based foam in situ.
Rabbani et al. (Pub. No. US 20200110849 A1) teaches generating multiphase flow properties of porous media such as capillary pressure-saturation relationship based on one or more input parameters which include an interfacial tension along an interface between a wetting fluid and a non-wetting fluid, a contact angle between the interface and a pore wall of the porous media, and a pore throat size.
Beuterbaugh et al. (Pub. No. US 20160230062 A1) conceptually presents methods for decreasing the quantity of free carbon dioxide that is present within a subterranean formation by providing a C0.sub.2-sequestering polymer.
Kashkooli et al. (Coupled optimization of carbon dioxide sequestration and CO2 enhanced oil recovery, Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 2022, pp 1-12) addresses CCS-EOR problem by utilizing the dynamic well flow settings (bottom-hole pressure and/or flow rate) as the optimization variables with a weighted objective function.
Liang et al. (Modeling CO2−Water−Mineral Wettability and Mineralization for Carbon Geosequestration, Acc. Chem. Res. 2017, 50, 1530−1540) addresses CO2/water/mineral wettability at a wide range of pressures using molecular dynamics (MD) simulations.
Correspondence Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IFTEKHAR A KHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5699. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9:00AM-6:00PM (CST). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Emerson Puente can be reached on (571)272-3652. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/IFTEKHAR A KHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2187
Prosecution Insights