Detailed Action
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawing
The drawing filed on June 29, 2023 is accepted by the Examiner.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim rejection – 35 U.S.C. §112
Claims 6, 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) or 35 U.S.C. §112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite because: with regard to claim 6: instant claim included the acrynioum GHG needs to be defined before its use. The specification states, it is “greenhouse gas”, see paragraph [0027]. With regard to claims 11 and 17: the instant claim includes the phrase “other greenhouse gases” see page 29, four lines into claim 11; and page 31, the second line in claim 17; the phrase "other greenhouse gases" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Claim rejection – 35 U.S.C. §103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,366,057, hereon Scott) in view of Lane et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,629,571, hereon Lane).
In reference to claim 1: Scott discloses a leak detection system (see Scott, Fig. 1 and Abstract and air quality monitoring system) for a wellhead (see Scott, Fig. 19, 10% probability), comprising:
a plurality of sensors in close proximity to the wellhead configured to collect leakage information of a fluid from the wellhead (see Scott, Fig. 7B, sensing unit 733, for detecting fine-scale equipment leakage detection, such as wellhead, also column 51, lines 47-56);
a quantification device coupled to the plurality of sensors configured to measure and convert the leakage information into quantifiable data (see Scott, column 51, lines 57-64, and Figs. 14A, units 1425, 1413, 1426 and 1433);
a GPS device coupled to the quantification device configured to record a location of the wellhead (see Scott, Fig. 8B, step 831 includes diagnostic parameters GPS location and sensor ID and Fig. 8E, the system noted other sources, i.e., E1 versus E2, and column 59, lines 9-13);
an oil and gas database coupled to the wellhead and configured to store the quantifiable data (note: the data collected from greenhouse gases emitted during operation), carbon credit qualification criteria and carbon credit sources (see Scott, column 62, line 58 to column 63, line 14); and
a computer coupled to the oil and gas database (see Scott, Fig. 8B, Sample t concentration, from such as oil and gas), and configured to compare the quantifiable data to the carbon credit qualification criteria to determine carbon credit qualifications and to identify carbon credit sources appropriate for the operation (see Scott, column 62, line 48 to column 63, line 14).
However, Scott is silent about remediation capping system for a wellhead. Lane discloses a transportable well caping system kit. The modular subsystem can include a sealing mechanism subassembly including a plurality of different sized seals for securing to a range of diameters of well casing (see Lane, Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the leak detection method as taught by Scott and incorporate a remediation and caping system as discussed in Lane in order to cap abandoned wells for the purposes of reducing the greenhouse effect because it would provide a cost effective immediate solution for eliminating well emissions from any size and any type of abandoned fossil fuel well (see Lane, column 1, lines 43-46).
With regard to claim 2: as noted above, Scott is silent about a remediation caping system comprising a cement pumping device to pump cement into the wellhead conductor to plug the flow of the leaking detected fluid. However, Lane discloses an improved system that includes a cost-effective immediate solution for eliminating well emission from any size and any type of abandon fossil fuel well. In fact, to use cement capping to plug the flow of leaking fluid to well cap is not cost effective. Lane states, “to cap abandon well, known solution [before an improvement by modular plugs] are expensive and time-consuming …[further] to properly plug an abandoned well an oilfield services company must erect a rig at wellsite, tear out the old casing, install a new casing, and then cement plugs above and below each rock formation inside of the well” (see Lane, column 1, lines 22-27).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the leak detection system as taught in Scott and incorporate an improved version of well caping system as discussed by Lane with an improvement over cement plugging system by installing modular and cost-effective plugging solution for the purposes of minimizing the greenhouse effect.
With regard to claim 3: Scott discloses a leak detection and emission reduction and to generate income by emission reduction credits such as carbon credits or added value. Further, Scott in view of Lane also address the intermediate solution fixing the greenhouse effect as a result of abandon wells by closing or plugging those wells by an improved modular system over cement plugs. Hence, the carbon credit exercise in Scott would consider all aspect of economic incentives having “carbon credit sources database data to determine carbon credits …for remediation project to plug the wellhead” would have been known to an ordinary skill in the art, in fact Scott in view of Lane would have a better cost saving incentive having an improved modular wellhead plugging system.
With regard to claim 4: Scott in view of Lane further teaches that the plurality of sensors includes a plurality of gas sensors configured to detect and identify specific leaking gas emissions to qualify for sustainable development goals points (see Scott, column 79, line 53 to column 80, line 10).
With regard to claim 5: Scott in view of Lane further teaches that the plurality of sensors includes a plurality of hydrocarbon sensors configured to detect and identify specific leaking fluids including oil (see Scott, column 86, lines 1-25).
With regard to claim 6: Scott in view of Lane further teaches that the system comprising at least one processor coupled to the orphaned oil and gas wellhead database configured to rank greenhouse gases and chemical emissions based on negative effects on an environment (see Scott, column 37, lines 50-67, and column 38, lines 44-61).
With regard to claim 7: Scott in view of Lane further discloses that the system comprising a plurality of equipment and devices configured to remove physical wellhead equipment after plugging and confirming leaking has been stopped (see Lane, Figs. 4, 5 and 6; and column 5, lines 15-47).
With regard to claim 8: Scott in view of Lane further discloses that the system comprising a plurality of equipment and devices configured to secure a wellhead, but does not explicitly talks about reclaiming a plugged wellhead site in accordance with applicable regulations and standards; however, it is noted in Scott that through the carbon and credit system, it uses “monitoring information and data streams to enhance product recovery and emission reduction and to generate income by emission reduction credits, such as carbon credit, or added value at the sale of product via product labeling or certification” (see Scott, column 62, lines 48-65).
In reference to claim 9: Scott discloses a leak detection system (see Scott, Fig. 1 and Abstract and air quality monitoring system) for a wellhead (see Scott, Fig. 19, 10% probability), comprising:
a plurality of sensors in close proximity to the wellhead configured to collect leakage information of a fluid from the wellhead (see Scott, Fig. 7B, sensing unit 733, for detecting fine-scale equipment leakage detection, such as wellhead, also column 51, lines 47-56);
a quantification device coupled to the plurality of sensors configured to measure and convert the leakage information into quantifiable data (see Scott, column 51, lines 57-64, and Figs. 14A, units 1425, 1413, 1426 and 1433);
wherein the quantification device determines a flow rate of the fluid leakage (see Scott, column 67, lines 44-67);
a GPS device coupled to the quantification device configured to record a location of the wellhead (see Scott, Fig. 8B, step 831 includes diagnostic parameters GPS location and sensor ID and Fig. 8E, the system noted other sources, i.e., E1 versus E2, and column 59, lines 9-13);
an oil and gas database coupled to the wellhead and configured to store the quantifiable data (note: the data collected from greenhouse gases emitted during operation), carbon credit qualification criteria and carbon credit sources (see Scott, column 62, line 58 to column 63, line 14); and
a computer coupled to the oil and gas database (see Scott, Fig. 8B, Sample t concentration, from such as oil and gas) and configured to compare the quantifiable data to the carbon credit qualification criteria to determine carbon credit qualifications system and to identify carbon credit sources appropriate (see Scott, column 62, line 48 to column 63, line 14).
However, Scott is silent about remediation capping system for a wellhead. Lane discloses a transportable well caping system kit. The modular subsystem can include a sealing mechanism subassembly including a plurality of different sized seals for securing to a range of diameters of well casing (see Lane, Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the leak detection method as taught by Scott and incorporate a remediation and caping system as discussed in Lane in order to cap abandoned wells for the purposes of reducing the greenhouse effect because it would provide a cost effective immediate solution for eliminating well emissions from any size and any type of abandoned fossil fuel well (see Lane, column 1, lines 43-46).
With regard to claim 10: Scott in view of Lane further teaches that the computer is further configured to determine a one ton of CO2 equivalent for each gas detected and identified (see Scott, column 38, lines 54-58).
With regard to claim 11: Scott in view of Lane further teaches that the detected leakage of a fluid from the wellhead includes gas emissions including carbon dioxide (C02), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N20), fluorinated gases (f- gases), and other greenhouse gases qualifying for sustainable development goals points (see Scott, column 14, lines 41-63).
With regard to claim 12: Scott in view of Lane further teaches that the system comprising at least one processor coupled to the orphaned oil and gas wellhead database configured to rank greenhouse gases and chemical emissions based on negative effects on an environment (see Scott, column 37, lines 50-67, and column 38, lines 44-61).
With regard to claim 13: as noted above, Scott is silent about a remediation caping system comprising a cement pumping device to pump cement into the wellhead conductor to plug the flow of the leaking detected fluid. However, Lane discloses an improved system that includes a cost-effective immediate solution for eliminating well emission from any size and any type of abandon fossil fuel well. In fact, to use cement capping to plug the flow of leaking fluid to well cap is not cost effective. Lane states, “to cap abandon well, known solution [before an improvement by modular plugs] are expensive and time-consuming …[further] to properly plug an abandoned well an oilfield services company must erect a rig at wellsite, tear out the old casing, install a new casing, and then cement plugs above and below each rock formation inside of the well” (see Lane, column 1, lines 22-27).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the leak detection system as taught in Scott and incorporate an improved version of well caping system as discussed by Lane with an improvement over cement plugging system by installing modular and cost-effective plugging solution for the purposes of minimizing the greenhouse effect.
With regard to claim 14: Scott in view of Lane further discloses that the system comprising a plurality of equipment and devices configured to remove physical wellhead equipment after plugging and confirming leaking has been stopped (see Lane, Figs. 4, 5 and 6; and column 5, lines 15-47).
In reference to claim 15: A leak detection system (see Scott, Fig. 1 and Abstract and air quality monitoring system) for a wellhead (see Scott, Fig. 19, 10% probability) for a wellhead, comprising:
a plurality of sensors in close proximity to the wellhead configured to collect leakage information of a fluid from the wellhead (see Scott, Fig. 7B, sensing unit 733, for detecting fine-scale equipment leakage detection, such as wellhead, also column 51, lines 47-56);
wherein the plurality of sensors includes gas sensors configured to detect and identify greenhouse gases (see Scott, column 38, lines 56-61, tracks greenhouse compounds, and column 56, lines 1-25);
wherein the plurality of sensors includes a hydrocarbon sensor configured to detect and identify leaking fluids including oil (see Scott, column 14, lines 41-63);
a quantification device coupled to the plurality of sensors configured to measure and convert the leakage information into quantifiable data (see Scott, column 51, lines 57-64, and Figs. 14A, units 1425, 1413, 1426 and 1433);
a GPS device coupled to the quantification device configured to record a location of the wellhead (see Scott, Fig. 8B, step 831 includes diagnostic parameters GPS location and sensor ID and Fig. 8E, the system noted other sources, i.e., E1 versus E2, and column 59, lines 9-13);
an oil and gas database coupled to the wellhead and configured to store the quantifiable data (note: the data collected from greenhouse gases emitted during operation), carbon credit qualification criteria and carbon credit sources (see Scott, column 62, line 58 to column 63, line 14); and
a computer coupled to the oil and gas database (see Scott, Fig. 8B, Sample t concentration, from such as oil and gas) and configured to compare the quantifiable data to the carbon credit qualification criteria to determine carbon credit qualifications to identify carbon credit sources appropriate for system (see Scott, column 62, line 48 to column 63, line 14).
However, Scott is silent about remediation capping system for a wellhead. Lane discloses a transportable well caping system kit. The modular subsystem can include a sealing mechanism subassembly including a plurality of different sized seals for securing to a range of diameters of well casing (see Lane, Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the leak detection method as taught by Scott and incorporate a remediation and caping system as discussed in Lane in order to cap abandoned wells for the purposes of reducing the greenhouse effect because it would provide a cost effective immediate solution for eliminating well emissions from any size and any type of abandoned fossil fuel well (see Lane, column 1, lines 43-46).
With regard to claim 16: Scott in view of Lane further teaches that the quantification device determines a flow rate of the fluid leakage (see Scott, column 67, lines 44-67).
With regard to claim 17: Scott in view of Lane further teaches that the detected leakage of a fluid from the wellhead includes gas emissions including carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N20), fluorinated gases (f-gases), and other greenhouse gases (see Scott, column 14, lines 41-63).
With regard to claim 18: Scott in view of Lane further teaches that the computer is further configured to determine a one ton of CO2 equivalent for each gas detected and identified (see Scott, column 38, lines 54-58).
With regard to claim 19: Scott in view of Lane further discloses that the system comprising a plurality of equipment and devices configured to remove physical wellhead equipment after plugging and confirming leaking has been stopped (see Lane, Figs. 4, 5 and 6; and column 5, lines 15-47).
With regard to claim 20: Scott in view of Lane further discloses that the system comprising a plurality of equipment and devices configured to secure a wellhead, but does not explicitly talks about reclaiming a plugged wellhead site in accordance with applicable regulations and standards; however, it is noted in Scott that through the carbon and credit system, it uses “monitoring information and data streams to enhance product recovery and emission reduction and to generate income by emission reduction credits, such as carbon credit, or added value at the sale of product via product labeling or certification” (see Scott, column 62, lines 48-65).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Abdelsamie (U.S. Patent No. 10,325,270) discloses methods and system for environmental credit scoring based on environmental activities of users, partners, and distributors.
Armitage (U.S. Patent No. 10,697,947) discloses apparatus and method for reducing fugitive gas emissions at oil facilities.
Choi et al. (MDPI Publication, “A Review of Underground Pipeline Leakage and Sinkhole Monitoring Methods Based on Wireless Sensor Networking,” discloses a hardware, software, mathematical formulas, and algorithm-based methods for monitoring, detecting, and preventing leakages in underground water pipelines and the occurrence of sinkholes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIAS DESTA whose telephone number is (571)272-2214. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30 to 5:00 pm.
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 M Schechter can be reached at 571-272-2302. 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.
/ELIAS DESTA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857