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 .
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 17-18 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 17 depends from claim 11, which defines “[a] non-transitory computer-readable storage media having embodied thereon instructions executable by one or more processors to implement a method comprising”.
Claim 17 then recites [t]he non-transitory computer-readable storage media of claim 11, wherein: a rock sample is placed into a pressure-temperature chamber”. How can a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium provide instructions to one or more processors to perform “a rock sample is placed into a pressure-temperature chamber”? Clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites identifying a change associated with a formation surrounding the wellbore; and estimating a quantity of the first mass of the CO2 that has been transformed into a mineral compound by a chemical reaction based on the identified change associated with the formation which falls into the abstract idea grouping of mental concepts, as insofar as what is structurally recited and supported by applicant’s specification. The recited identifying and estimating steps involve concepts that can be performed in the human mind, as applicant’s specification details comparing data to be the basis of identifying and estimating. Further, under the broadest and more reasonable interpretation, identifying and estimating data are not tasks limited to be performed on computers; they are recited generically, and involve cognitive actions where the human mind assigns meaning, predicts outcomes, and structures reality based on observed data.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because defining the data related to a wellbore and the wellbore formation itself merely link the abstract idea to a field of use; as neither the result or performance of the abstract idea improves the data, wellbore or formation themselves. MPEP 2106.05(h)
The recited “collecting a first set of wellbore data before a first mass of carbon dioxide (CO2) is injected into a wellbore; injecting the first mass of the CO2 into the wellbore; collecting a second set of wellbore data” reads as an insignificant pre-solution activity of mere data gathering; as neither the result or performance of the abstract idea improves the data collection, injection of CO2, or the data, respectively. MPEP 2106.05(g)
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because none of the identified additional elements, alone or in combination, are improved or bettered by the performance or result of the abstract idea. The recited wellbore and formation merely link the mental concepts to a field of use while the collection steps provide the needed data to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 11 is rejected similarly to claim 11; as a non-transitory computer-readable storage media and processors are merely acting as tools for performing the abstract idea; as neither the performance or result of the abstract idea improves their respective operations or the technology. MPEP 2106.05(a)
Claim 2 further defines the data collection steps by defining “transmitting a first electromagnetic field into the formation while the first set of wellbore data is collected; and transmitting a second electromagnetic field into the formation while the second set of wellbore data is collected”. The result of the abstract idea does nothing to improve the data collection process and therefore does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(g)
Note: claim 12 is rejected similar, as initiating transmission of an electromagnetic field does not improve the operation of the processors and is solely directed towards gathering the needed data to perform the abstract idea.
Claim 3 further defines the data collection steps by defining “transmitting a first acoustic signal into the materials of the formation while the first set of wellbore data is collected; and transmitting a second acoustic signal into the materials of the formation while the second set of wellbore data is collected”. The result of the abstract idea does nothing to improve the data collection process, including the transmission of acoustic signals into the materials of the formation and therefore does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(g)
Note: claim 13 is rejected similar, as initiating transmission of an acoustic signal does not improve the operation of the processors and is solely directed towards gathering the needed data to perform the abstract idea.
Claims 4 and 14 further define the data collection steps by defining “deploying one or more sensors along an inside surface of a casing of the wellbore, wherein the one or more sensors sense the first and the second set of wellbore data based on being deployed on the inside surface of the casing”. The result of the abstract idea does nothing to improve the data collection process, including the sensors and casing, and therefore does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(g)
Claims 5, 6 and 15 further define the casing to include an electrical insulating material and that materials properties. The casing and its material are considered to be integral to the data gathering steps, and therefore do not provide significantly more or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application; as neither the result or performance of the abstract idea improves the casing or material. MPEP 2106.05(g)
Claims 7 and 16 further define the abstract idea falling into the abstract idea grouping of mental concepts, as further defining the identified change to be a temperature difference between the Earth and the injected CO2. Under the broadest and reasonable interpretation, identifying a change between two temperatures is simple enough to occur in the human mind. Therefore, the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Claims 8 and 17 further recites “placing a rock sample into a pressure-temperature chamber; heating the pressure-temperature chamber to a reference temperature that corresponds to a wellbore condition associated with the reference temperature and a reference pressure; and providing a second mass of the CO2 to the chamber when a simulation is performed to estimate effects of the first mass of the CO2 being injected into the wellbore based on the wellbore condition associated with the reference temperature and the reference pressure”. These steps describe mere data gathering used to update a computer model, as disclosed in applicant’s filed specification. The rock, pressure-temperature chamber, and injected CO2 define additional elements that generically link the abstract idea falling into the abstract idea grouping of mental concepts; as the data collected and used to build or update a computer model does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor provide significantly more. It solely defines a process of gathering data to build and update a computer model.
Claims 9 and 18 recite the falling limitations that further define the abstract idea falling into the abstract idea grouping of mental concepts identify[ing] a first value of mineralization associated with the sample based on an evaluation of the third set of data; identify[ing] a second value of mineralization associated with the sample based on an evaluation of the fourth set of data; and identify[ing] a percentage of the second mass of CO2 that has been transformed into the mineral compound by the chemical reaction based on a difference between the second value of mineralization and the first value of mineralization. Under the broadest and most reasonable interpretation, the recited identifying values from the data and identifying a percentage from the data that describes an amount of CO2 transformed into the mineral are limitations that are simple enough to be performed in the human mind, with the aid of pen and paper.
The recited “collect[ing] a fourth set of data after the second mass of the CO2 is provided to the chamber and collect[ing] a third set of data before the second mass of the CO2 is provided to the chamber” reads as an insignificant pre-solution activity of mere data gathering required to perform the abstract idea; as neither the result or performance of the abstract idea improves the data collection, injection of CO2, chamber or the data, respectively. MPEP 2106.05(g)
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because none of the identified additional elements, alone or in combination, are improved or bettered by the performance or result of the abstract idea. The recited wellbore and formation merely link the mental concepts to a field of use while the collection steps provide the needed data to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 10 recites “updating a computer model based on the percentage of the second mass of CO2 that has been transformed into the mineral compound by the chemical reaction, wherein the estimated quantity of the first mass of the CO2 that has been transformed into the mineral compound by the chemical reaction is based on application of the updated computer model” which reads as a mere instruction to apply the exception. The claim fails to show that the involvement of a computer and updating its model assists in improving the technology, as the claims does not recite the details regarding how the updated computer model aids the method or the significance of the updated computer model with regarding to performing of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. MPEP 2106.05(f)
Claim 19 recites identify a change associated with a formation surrounding the wellbore; and estimate a quantity of the first mass of the CO2 that has been transformed into a mineral compound by a chemical reaction based on the identified change associated with the formation which falls into the abstract idea grouping of mental concepts, as insofar as what is structurally recited and supported by applicant’s specification, it appears the identifying and estimating steps involve concepts that can be performed in the human mind. As identifying and estimating data are not tasks performed on computers; they are cognitive actions where the mind assigns meaning, predicts outcomes, and structures reality based on observed data.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because a memory and processor are merely acting as tools for performing the abstract idea; as neither the performance or result of the abstract idea improves their respective operations.
The additional element of a wellbore and wellbore data merely links the abstract idea to a field of use; as neither the result or performance of the abstract idea improves the data, wellbore or formation themselves. MPEP 2106.05(h)
The recited sensors that collect a first set of wellbore data before a first mass of carbon dioxide (CO2) is injected into a wellbore, a CO2 source that provides the first mass of the CO2 into the wellbore, the one or more sensors collects a second set of wellbore data defining the data related to a wellbore, and the wellbore formation reads as an insignificant pre-solution activity of mere data gathering required to perform the abstract idea; as neither the result or performance of the abstract idea improves sensors, the data collection, injection of CO2, the source of the CO2 or the data, respectively. MPEP 2106.05(g)
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because none of the identified additional elements, alone or in combination, are improved or bettered by the performance or result of the abstract idea. The recited wellbore and formation merely link the mental concepts to a field of use while the collection sensors and steps provide the needed data to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 20 recites “one or more electromagnetic transmitters that: transmit a first electromagnetic field into the formation while the first set of wellbore data is collected; and transmit a second electromagnetic field into the formation while the second set of wellbore data is collected” which define additional elements related to the data gathering steps needed to provide the data to perform the abstract idea. These elements fail to provide significantly more or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, as the claimed transmitters are not improved or bettered by the performance or result of the abstract idea; they solely operate in a conventional manner, providing data to the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(g)
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 11, 13-16, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jandhyala et al. (2023/0112008) in view of Ma et al. (2017/0045636).
With respect to claim 1, Jandhyala et al. teaches a method comprising: injecting (via pump 26; Fig. 1) the first mass of the CO2 into the wellbore (as Jandhyala et al. teaches in [0032] structure for injecting a first mass of CO2 into a wellbore at a predetermined flowrate, i.e. a first mass; [0036]); collecting a second set of wellbore data (using the various sensors disclosed in [0033]); identifying a change associated with a formation surrounding the wellbore (as Jandhyala teaches the injection of CO2 react with minerals found in the wellbore; [0036]); and estimating a quantity of the first mass of the CO2 that has been transformed into a mineral compound by a chemical reaction based on the identified change associated with the formation (as Jandhyala teaches in [0017]; “[t]he well barrier modeling applications can utilize computational fluid dynamics (CFD) modeling, geochemical modeling, rock mechanical model, and cement mechanical model to model a future state based on the injection rate of CO.sub.2 and the downhole environment changes from the dissolution of minerals within the formation and reaction of CO.sub.2 with set cement; hence Jandhyala teaches estimating a mass of CO2 that gets transferred in the surrounding minerals of the wellbore using computational fluid dynamics).
Jandhyala et al. remains silent regarding collecting a first set of wellbore data before a first mass of carbon dioxide (CO2) is injected into a wellbore.
Ma et al. teaches a similar method that includes collecting a first set of wellbore data before a first mass of carbon dioxide (CO2) is injected into a wellbore (see para. [0062]” [t]he microseismic data 151 can include information collected by sensors 136. The microseismic event data can include data collected from one or more stimulation treatments, which may include data collected before, during, or after a fluid injection).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to modify the method of Jandhyala et al. to include the data collection step before to CO2 injection, as taught by Ma et al., because such a modification improves the accuracy of modeling by providing detailed data on the geologic formation prior to any chemical reactions due to injected fluids.
With respect to claim 11, Jandhyala et al. as modified teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage media [0039] having embodied thereon instructions executable by one or more processors (considered to be a part of 112) to implement the rejection method of claim 1.
With respect to claim 3, Jandhyala et al. as modified teaches further comprising: transmitting a first acoustic signal into the materials of the formation while the first set of wellbore data is collected (as the combination, a whole teaches transmitting acoustic data [0034] of Jandhyala et al. before CO2 is injected into the formation, as taught by Ma et al.); and transmitting a second acoustic signal (via the sensors taught in Jandhyala et al.) into the materials of the formation while the second set of wellbore data is collected (i.e. during CO2 injection).
Note: claim 13 is rejected similar to claim 3.
With respect to claim 4, Jandhyala et al. as modified teaches further comprising: deploying one or more sensors along an inside surface of a casing of the wellbore (as Jandhyala et al. sensors being deployed to the surface of the casing of the wellbore; [0034]), wherein the one or more sensors [0033] sense the first and the second set of wellbore data based on being deployed on the inside surface of the casing [0033].
Note: claim 14 is rejected similar to claim 4.
With respect to claim 5, Jandhyala et al. as modified teaches wherein the casing includes an electrical insulating material (Jandhyala teaches the casing being made of cement 12, which is considered to be highly insulating).
Note: claim 15 is rejected similar to claim 5.
With respect to claim 6, Jandhyala et al. as modified teaches wherein the electrical insulating material of the casing (i.e. cement) resists corrosion (as cement is known to be corrosion resistant, insofar as to what level of resistance is structurally defined) and allows electromagnetic fields to propagate through the casing (as cement will allow EM fields to propagate through it, especially at lower frequencies).
With respect to claim 7, Jandhyala et al. as modified teaches wherein the change associated with the materials of the Earth (i.e. minerals found within the wellbore formed into the Earth) corresponds to a temperature difference associated with the injection of the first mass of the CO2 into the wellbore (as the modeling taught in Janhyala et al. used to identify change includes temperature data associated with wellbore during injection of CO2; [0017] [0019]).
Note: claim 16 is rejected similar to claim 7.
With respect to claim 19, Jandhyala et al. teaches an apparatus comprising: one or more sensors [0032-0033]; a CO2 source (36) that provides the first mass of the CO2 into the wellbore (6, as Jandhyala et al. teaches in [0032] structure for injecting a first mass of CO2 into a wellbore 6 at a predetermined flowrate, i.e. a first mass; [0036]), wherein the one or more sensors collects a second set of wellbore data (using the various sensors disclosed in [0033], data is collected after CO2 has been injected into the wellbore); a memory [0032]; and a processor [0032] that executes instructions out of the memory [0032] to; identify a change associated with a formation surrounding the wellbore (as Jandhyala teaches the injection of CO2 react with minerals found in the wellbore; [0036]); and estimate a quantity of the first mass of the CO2 that has been transformed into a mineral compound by a chemical reaction based on the identified change associated with the formation (as Jandhyala teaches in [0017]; “[t]he well barrier modeling applications can utilize computational fluid dynamics (CFD) modeling, geochemical modeling, rock mechanical model, and cement mechanical model to model a future state based on the injection rate of CO.sub.2 and the downhole environment changes from the dissolution of minerals within the formation and reaction of CO.sub.2 with set cement; hence Jandhyala teaches estimating a mass of CO2 that gets transferred in the surrounding minerals of the wellbore using computational fluid dynamics).
Jandhyala et al. remains silent regarding that collect a first set of wellbore data before a first mass of carbon dioxide (CO2) is injected into a wellbore.
Ma et al. teaches a similar method that includes collecting a first set of wellbore data before a first mass of carbon dioxide (CO2) is injected into a wellbore (see para. [0062]” [t]he microseismic data 151 can include information collected by sensors 136. The microseismic event data can include data collected from one or more stimulation treatments, which may include data collected before, during, or after a fluid injection).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to modify the method of Jandhyala et al. to include the data collection step prior to CO2 injection, as taught by Ma et al., because such a modification improves the accuracy of modeling by providing detailed data on the geologic formation prior to any chemical reactions due to injected fluids.
Claim(s) 2, 12 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jandhyala et al. (2023/0112008) in view of Ma et al. (2017/0045636), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Haghshenas et al. (2020/0011169).
With respect to claims 2, 12 and 20, Jandhyala et al. as modified teaches all that is claimed in the above rejection of claims 1, 11 and 19, but remains silent regarding the method further comprising: transmitting a first electromagnetic field into the formation while the first set of wellbore data is collected; and transmitting a second electromagnetic field into the formation while the second set of wellbore data is collected.
Haghshenas et al. teaches a similar method that includes electromagnetic field sensors [0018-0019] to sense data from a wellbore.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to modify the method of Jandhyala et al. to include the sensors taught in Haghshenas et al. because such a modification increases the precision of data collection while providing non-contact.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tsuji et al. (2024/0060397) teaches injecting CO2 into a wellbore for the purpose of evaluating the wellbore.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW G MARINI whose telephone number is (571)272-2676. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 571-272-2149. 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.
/MATTHEW G MARINI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853