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 16-30 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.
Regarding claim 16, it is unclear which element is being referenced by the term “comprising” in line 1 because the term is placed after a comma. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “comprising” to mean “the apparatus comprising”. Claims 18-30 are rejected for depending from a rejected claim.
Regarding claim 17, it is unclear which element is being referenced by the term “comprising” in line 1 because the term is placed after a comma. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “comprising” to mean “the apparatus comprising”. Further, the wording of “a degree of concentration of carbon dioxide in the capturing unit is controlled so as to match the proportion of carbon dioxide in the mixture gas obtained by the control unit” in lines 12-13 is confusing. The proportion of carbon dioxide in the mixture gas was previously recited as being obtained by the CPU and not the control unit. How is the control unit related to the other elements? For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “a degree of concentration of carbon dioxide in the capturing unit is controlled so as to match the proportion of carbon dioxide in the mixture gas obtained by the control unit” to mean “the control unit controls a degree of concentration of carbon dioxide in the capturing unit so as to match the proportion of carbon dioxide in the mixture gas obtained by the CPU”.
Regarding claim 18, the wording of “from 25% by volume or more to less than 95% by volume” in line 3 is confusing. Are 25% and 95% the limits of the range? Or are the limits more or less? For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “from 25% by volume or more to less than 95% by volume” to mean “25% by volume to 95% by volume”.
Claim 25 recites the limitation “the mixture fluid” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 29, it is unclear which element is being referenced by the term “comprising” in line 2 because the term is placed after a comma. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “comprising” to mean “the method comprising”.
Regarding claim 30, it is unclear which element is being referenced by the term “comprising” in line 2 because the term is placed after a comma. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “comprising” to mean “the method comprising”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 16 and 18-28 (as best understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kolodji (US 2021/0121826) in view of Whorton et al (US 2,623,596).
Regarding claim 16, Kolodji discloses an apparatus for injecting carbon dioxide into underground (e.g. Fig. 3, claim 3, paragraph 0028 states that “sequestration facility 5000 may also include a system which injects carbon dioxide into petroleum reservoirs” which are underground), the apparatus comprising: a capturing unit configured to concentrate carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere and capture concentrated carbon dioxide as a mixture gas (e.g. 100, Fig. 1, claim 1); and an injection system for injecting the mixture gas into an underground reservoir (e.g. 5000, paragraph 0028 states that “sequestration facility 5000 may also include a system which injects carbon dioxide into petroleum reservoirs” which are underground), wherein the capturing unit adjusts a proportion of carbon dioxide in the mixture gas (e.g. claim 1, paragraph 0023). Kolodji does not explicitly disclose that the injection system is connected to the capturing unit. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to connect the capturing unit of Kolodji to the injection system for the expected benefit of a secure means for transporting the mixture gas to the desired location. Kolodji also does not explicitly disclose that the injection system includes an injection well, or that the proportion of carbon dioxide in the mixture gas is 25% by volume or more. Whorton teaches an apparatus for injecting carbon dioxide into underground (e.g. Fig. 1, claim 1), the apparatus comprising: an injection well (e.g. 3 including 5-9, Fig. 1, col. 3, lines 19-37) for pressurizing a mixture gas and injecting the mixture gas into an underground reservoir (e.g. 2, Fig. 1, col. 3, lines 29-37), wherein a proportion of carbon dioxide in the mixture gas is 25% by volume or more (e.g. col. 5, Example II and/or III). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use an injection well as taught by Whorton for the injection system of Kolodji because such is a known system in the art that would provide the expected benefit of adequately transporting the mixture gas to the desired location, and to adjust a proportion of carbon dioxide in the mixture gas of Kolodji to 25% or more as taught by Whorton because increasing the percentage of carbon dioxide increases the recovery of oil (e.g. Whorton, col. 6, lines 40-46).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Kolodji and Whorton further discloses that the capturing unit adjusts the proportion of carbon dioxide in the mixture gas to from 25% by volume or more to less than 95% by volume (e.g. Whorton, col. 5, Example II and/or III).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Kolodji and Whorton further discloses that the capturing unit concentrates carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere using a gas separation membrane (e.g. Kolodji, 102, Fig. 1, paragraph 0023).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Kolodji and Whorton further discloses that a mixture fluid originating from the mixture gas enters a pore space inside a rock in the reservoir (e.g. Whorton, col. 4, lines 29-39 and col. 7, lines 47-51) but does not explicitly disclose that the mixture fluid is stored in the pore space. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to store the mixture fluid in the pore space because once the oil leaves the pore space the mixture fluid will naturally enter the space and will remain there once the oil recovery process is complete.
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Kolodji and Whorton further discloses that the capturing unit is located in a non-residential area or a non-industrial area on the ground (e.g. Kolodji, Fig. 1, and Whorton, Fig. 1, wherein oil recovery is completed away from residential and industrial areas), and the reservoir is located at a depth from the surface of the earth (e.g. Whorton, Fig. 1) but the combination of Kolodji and Whorton does not explicitly disclose that the depth is 1.5 km or more. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the depth limitation disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Finally, Applicant has not disclosed that this depth provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem.
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Kolodji and Whorton further discloses that the reservoir is located in a geological formation at a depth from the surface (e.g. Whorton, Fig. 1) but does not disclose that the capturing unit is located on the sea or that the depth is 1.5 km or more. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to locate the capturing unit on the sea for the expected benefit of utilizing open space away from humans. It further would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the depth limitation disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Finally, Applicant has not disclosed that this depth provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem.
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Kolodji and Whorton further discloses that the pressurized carbon dioxide in the reservoir has a density (e.g. every element has a density) but the combination of Kolodji and Whorton does not explicitly disclose that the density is from 50 to 500 kg/m3. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the density limitation disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Finally, Applicant has not disclosed that this density provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem.
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Kolodji and Whorton does not explicitly disclose that a horizontal distance between the capturing unit and the injection well is 500 m or less. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to locate the capturing unit and the injection well within 500m for the expected benefit of minimizing the travel distance of the mixture gas and the amount of piping required for such travel.
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Kolodji and Whorton does not explicitly disclose that the reservoir further comprises a monitoring unit that monitors a state of the mixture fluid originating from the mixture gas. The examiner takes official notice that monitoring units are notoriously well known in the art. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add a monitoring unit to the combination of Kolodji and Whorton for the expected benefit of monitoring the system, thereby allowing early detection of problems and providing information on the functionality and efficiency of the system.
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Kolodji and Whorton further discloses a recovery unit configured to recover carbon dioxide from the reservoir (e.g. Whorton, 4, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Kolodji and Whorton further discloses that the mixture gas further contains nitrogen and oxygen (e.g. Kolodji, claim 1, and Whorton, col. 3, lines 29-37) but does not explicitly disclose that a total proportion of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and oxygen in the mixture gas is 99% by volume or more. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the proportion limitation disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Finally, Applicant has not disclosed that this proportion provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem.
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Kolodji and Whorton further discloses that the mixture gas further contains nitrogen and oxygen (e.g. Kolodji, claim 1, and Whorton, col. 3, lines 29-37), and the apparatus further comprises a release unit that releases oxygen and nitrogen from the reservoir to the atmosphere (e.g. Whorton, col. 4, lines 1-7). The combination of Kolodji and Whorton does not explicitly disclose that a total proportion of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and oxygen in the mixture gas is 99% by volume or more. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the proportion limitation disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Finally, Applicant has not disclosed that this proportion provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 29 and 30 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
None of the prior art, individually or in combination, discloses or teaches an apparatus comprising: a capturing unit configured to capture concentrated carbon dioxide as a mixture gas; an injection well for injecting the mixture gas into an underground reservoir; a CPU; a memory unit; and a control unit, wherein the CPU obtains the proportion of carbon dioxide in the mixture gas using a program stored in the memory unit such that a density of pressurized carbon dioxide in the reservoir based on a depth of the reservoir is within a predetermined range, and the control unit controls a degree of concentration of carbon dioxide in the capturing unit so as to match the proportion of carbon dioxide in the mixture gas obtained by the CPU.
The combination of Kolodji and Whorton teaches an apparatus comprising: a capturing unit configured to capture concentrated carbon dioxide as a mixture gas (e.g. as explained above); and an injection well for injecting the mixture gas into an underground reservoir (e.g. as explained above) but the combination of Kolodji and Whorton does not teach a CPU that obtains the proportion of carbon dioxide in the mixture gas using a program stored in a memory unit such that a density of pressurized carbon dioxide in the reservoir based on a depth of the reservoir is within a predetermined range, and a control unit that controls a degree of concentration of carbon dioxide in the capturing unit so as to match the proportion of carbon dioxide in the mixture gas obtained by the CPU. There is no teaching for such a system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STACY N LAWSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7515. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-3pm.
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, Amber Anderson can be reached at 571-270-5281. 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.
/S.N.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3678