DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the Request for Continued Examination filed 9/18/2025 wherein claims 1-24 are presented for examination.
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 .
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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 9/18/2025 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(l). The drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. Lines and strokes of different thicknesses may be used in the same drawing where different thicknesses have a different meaning.
Additionally, in accordance with 37CFR 1.83(a) and 1.84(o), the drawings (Figures 1-2) are objected to because:
the numerals associated with the graphical drawing symbols (boxes, rectangles, circles, etc) are not indicative as to what said symbol represents and so the functionality of the element cannot be determined.
The unlabeled rectangular box(es) shown in the drawing should be provided with descriptive text labels. See MPEP 608.02(b) II.
In summary, elements in the drawing must be labeled in words to facilitate the expeditious understanding of the drawing by members of the public (refer to example 1 below). When the boxes are too small to accommodate the labeling, external labeling as indicated by the arrows in the example 2 below is acceptable.
Example 1: elements in the drawings are labeled; fluid lines are solid; control signal lines are dashed lines; arrows show the direction of the fluid and control lines.
PNG
media_image1.png
565
945
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Example 2: when boxes are too small to accommodate the labeling, external labeling as indicated by the arrows in the example 2 below is acceptable.
PNG
media_image2.png
378
655
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 amendment to the specification filed 6/2/2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: “The thermo-regulating device 53 (such as a heater equipped a regulator) may be placed in the liquefaction device 37 or carried out in the form of a single device” (Page 33, lines 18-20 of the Specification filed 6/2/2025).
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “device for adding a part of the exhaust gas to said air, or to said compressed gas-air mixture, or to both” (Claim 7, lines 5-6), “device for adding a part of the nitrogen-containing constituent to said air, or to said compressed gas-air mixture, or to both” (Claim 9, lines 5-6), “a device for injecting the water into the hydrocarbon-bearing formation through at least one injection well” (Claim 11, lines 7-8 and Claim 14, lines 1-2), “a soot-removing device configured to remove soot from the exhaust gas” (Claim 13, lines 2-3), “a solid-particle-removing device configured to remove solid particles from the exhaust gas” (Claim 13, line 3), “a moisture-removing device configured to remove water from the exhaust gas” (Claim 13, lines 3-4), “a nitrogen-oxide removing device configured to remove nitrogen oxides from the exhaust gas” (Claim 13, lines 4-5), “an unburned-hydrocarbon-removing device configured to remove unburned hydrocarbons from the exhaust gas” (Claim 13, line 5), “an oxygen-removing device configured to remove oxygen from the exhaust gas” (Claim 13, lines 5-6), “a carbon-monoxide-removing device configured to remove carbon monoxide from the exhaust gas” (Claim 3, line 6), and “a gas-cooling device configured to cool the exhaust gas” (Claim 13, lines 6-7), “a sulfur-removing device configured to remove at least one sulfur-containing substance from said separated gas” (Claim 15, lines 6-7), “a solid-impurity-removing device configured to remove solid particles from said separated gas” (Claim 15, line 7), “a water-removing device configured to remove water from said separated gas” (Claim 15, line 8), “a heavy-hydrocarbon-removing device configured to removing at least part of heavy hydrocarbons from said separated gas” (Claim 15, lines 8-9), “a carbon-dioxide-removing device configured to remove a part of carbon dioxide from said separated gas” (Claim 15, lines 9-10), “a gas-heating device configured to heat said separated gas” (Claim 15, line 10), “a fluid-adding device configured to add additional fluid to the carbon-dioxide-containing constituent, or to the liquefied carbon dioxide, or to both” (Claim 16, lines 1-3), “a carbon-dioxide-adding device configured to add a certain fluid to said separated gas, or to said air, or to said compressed gas-air mixture, or to any combination thereof” (Claim 18, lines 1-4), a “thermo-regulating device is configured to establish a desired temperature of the liquefied carbon dioxide after said liquefaction or during said liquefaction” (Claim 19, lines 1-3), and “a device for injecting water into the hydrocarbon-bearing formation through at least one injection well” (Claim 20, lines 4-5).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Applicant’s specification describes the device for adding the part of the exhaust gas, the part of the nitrogen-containing constituent, the part of the liquefied carbon dioxide, the part of the carbon-dioxide-containing constituent, or any combination thereof may be devices such as a mixer or the like (see Page 34 of Applicant’s specification).
Applicant’s specification describes the device for injecting water may be a pump or the like (see Page 35 of Applicant’s specification).
Applicant’s specification describes the soot-removing device configured to remove soot from the exhaust gas may be a filter using a catalyst (see Page 30 of Applicant’s specification).
Applicant’s specification describes the solid-particle-removing device configured to remove solid particles from the exhaust gas may be a scrubber or a filter (see Page 30 of Applicant’s specification).
Applicant’s specification describes the moisture-removing device configured to remove water from the exhaust gas may be a gas separator or scrubber (see Page 30 of Applicant’s specification).
Applicant’s specification describes the d nitrogen-oxide removing device configured to remove nitrogen oxides from the exhaust gas may be a catalytic converter (see Page 30 of Applicant’s specification).
Applicant’s specification describes the unburned-hydrocarbon-removing device configured to remove unburned hydrocarbons from the exhaust gas may be a catalytic converter (see Page 30 of Applicant’s specification).
Applicant’s specification describes oxygen-removing device configured to remove oxygen from the exhaust gas may be a catalytic converter (see Page 30 of Applicant’s specification).
Applicant’s specification describes the carbon-monoxide-removing device configured to remove carbon monoxide from the exhaust gas may be a catalytic converter (see Page 30 of Applicant’s specification).
Applicant’s specification describes the gas-cooling device configured to cool the exhaust gas may be similar to a scrubber (see Page 30 of Applicant’s specification).
Applicant’s specification describes the sulfur-removing device configured to remove at least one sulfur-containing substance from said separated gas may be similar to a membrane unit or a scrubber or the like (see Page 28 of Applicant’s specification).
Applicant’s specification describes the solid-impurity-removing device configured to remove solid particles from said separated gas may be similar to a gas separator (see Page 28 of Applicant’s specification).
Applicant’s specification describes the water-removing device configured to remove water from said separated gas may be similar to a gas separator (see Page 28 of Applicant’s specification).
Applicant’s specification describes the heavy-hydrocarbon-removing device configured to removing at least part of heavy hydrocarbons from said separated gas may be similar to a low-temperature separation unit (see Page 28 of Applicant’s specification).
Applicant’s specification describes the carbon-dioxide-removing device configured to remove a part of carbon dioxide from said separated gas may be similar to a low-temperature separation unit (see Page 28 of Applicant’s specification).
Applicant’s specification describes the gas-heating device configured to heat said separated gas may be a heat exchanger (see Page 29 of Applicant’s specification).
Applicant’s specification describes the fluid-adding device configured to add additional fluid to the carbon-dioxide-containing constituent, or to the liquefied carbon dioxide, or to both may be a mixer connected to a pipe (see Page 33 of Applicant’s specification).
Applicant’s specification describes the carbon-dioxide-adding device configured to add a certain fluid to said separated gas, or to said air, or to said compressed gas-air mixture, or to any combination thereof may be a mixer, supercharger, valves, or the like (see Page 35 of Applicant’s specification).
Applicant’s specification describes the thermo-regulating device is configured to establish a desired temperature of the liquefied carbon dioxide after said liquefaction or during said liquefaction may be a heater equipped a regulator (see Page 33 of Applicant’s amended specification).
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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-10 and 12-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zapadinski (US 2004/0154793) in view of Lieberman (US 2013/0105179).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Zapadinski teaches (Figures 1-2) a system for recovery of hydrocarbon-containing fluid from a hydrocarbon bearing formation (see Figures 1-2), the system comprising:
a power plant (4) comprising an internal combustion engine (Paragraph 0066 and 0075) configured to receive a gas (from 2) separated from the hydrocarbon-containing fluid (from 1), wherein the internal combustion engine (4) is configured to operate by combusting said separated gas (from 2) with air (see abstract) and configured to produce a compressed gas-air mixture comprising said separated gas and said air (see abstract and Paragraph 0066), and wherein the internal combustion engine (4) is configured to produce said compressed gas-air mixture prior to said combustion and configured to discharge an exhaust gas (see abstract and Paragraph 0066);
a carbon dioxide separation plant (9) configured to recover a carbon-dioxide-containing constituent of the exhaust gas from the exhaust gas (by reducing the concentration of nitrogen in the exhaust gas; see Paragraph 0077);
an injection device (10) configured to inject the carbon dioxide (from 9) into the hydrocarbon-bearing formation (see Figures 1-2) through at least one well (15).
Zapadinski does not teach a liquefaction device configured to liquefy at least a part of the carbon-dioxide-containing constituent so as to produce liquefied carbon dioxide.
Lieberman teaches (Figures 1-44) a liquefaction device (60) configured to liquefy (via 62, 64, 66) at least part of a carbon-dioxide containing constituent (61) so as to produce liquefied carbon dioxide (81) prior to directing the carbon dioxide to an injection device (pump 68 to pipe 120; see Figure 6 and Paragraph 0176).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zapadinski to have a liquefaction device configured to liquefy at least a part of the carbon-dioxide-containing constituent so as to produce liquefied carbon dioxide, as taught by Lieberman, in order to create fractures within the formation and then to reduce the pressure to allow cleats to form within the formation and then repeat the cycle using cold liquid carbon dioxide again, to cause carbon dioxide to be adsorbed and methane to be desorbed, wherein methane can be released and recovered from the formation (Paragraph 0002 of Lieberman).
Regarding Claim 2, Zapadinski in view of Lieberman teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Zapadinski further teaches (Figures 1-2) wherein at least one said well (15) is an injection well (see Figure 1 and Paragraph 0070), and wherein the injection device (10) comprises an injection pump (the compressor in the injection unit 10; see Paragraph 0070) for pumping the carbon dioxide (see Figure 1).
As discussed above, Lieberman teaches (Figures 1-44) a liquefaction device (60) configured to liquefy (via 62, 64, 66) at least part of a carbon-dioxide containing constituent (61) so as to produce liquefied carbon dioxide (81) prior to directing the carbon dioxide to an injection device (pump 68 to pipe 120; see Figure 6 and Paragraph 0176).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zapadinski in view of Lieberman to have a liquefaction device configured to liquefy at least a part of the carbon-dioxide-containing constituent so as to produce liquefied carbon dioxide, as taught by Lieberman, in order to create fractures within the formation and then to reduce the pressure to allow cleats to form within the formation and then repeat the cycle using cold liquid carbon dioxide again, to cause carbon dioxide to be adsorbed and methane to be desorbed, wherein methane can be released and recovered from the formation (Paragraph 0002 of Lieberman).
Regarding Claim 3, Zapadinski in view of Lieberman teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Zapadinski in view of Lieberman does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein the liquefaction device comprises: a compressor; or a condenser; or both; wherein said compressor is configured to compress the carbon-dioxide-containing constituent, and wherein said condenser is configured to cool the carbon-dioxide-containing constituent.
Lieberman teaches (Figures 1-44) a liquefaction device (60) configured to liquefy (via 62, 64, 66) at least part of a carbon-dioxide containing constituent (61) so as to produce liquefied carbon dioxide (81) prior to directing the carbon dioxide to an injection device (pump 68 to pipe 120; see Figure 6 and Paragraph 0176), wherein the liquefaction device (60) comprises a compressor (62), wherein said compressor (62) is configured to compress the carbon-dioxide-containing constituent (Paragraphs 0158-0159 and Figure 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zapadinski to have a liquefaction device configured to liquefy at least a part of the carbon-dioxide-containing constituent so as to produce liquefied carbon dioxide, wherein the liquefaction device comprises a compressor that is configured to compress the carbon-dioxide-containing constituent, as taught by Lieberman, for the same reasons discussed above in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 4, Zapadinski in view of Lieberman teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Zapadinski further teaches (Figures 1-2) further comprising a drying device (exhaust gas purification unit 8 performs dehydration; see Paragraph 0077) wherein said drying device (8) is configured to remove water from the carbon-dioxide-containing constituent (by dehydrating the exhaust gases and removing moisture; see Paragraph 0077) prior to said producing of the carbon dioxide (at 9). Zapadinski in view of Lieberman does not teach, as discussed so far, a feeding pump.
As discussed above, Lieberman teaches (Figures 1-44) a liquefaction device (60) configured to liquefy (via 62, 64, 66) at least part of a carbon-dioxide containing constituent (61) so as to produce liquefied carbon dioxide (81) prior to directing the carbon dioxide to an injection device (pump 68 to pipe 120; see Figure 6 and Paragraph 0176). Lieberman further teaches (Figures 1-44) a drying device (38) and a feeding pump (68), wherein the feeding pump (68) is configured to pump (see Paragraph 0164) the liquefied carbon dioxide (81).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zapadinski in view of Lieberman to have a liquefaction device configured to liquefy at least a part of the carbon-dioxide-containing constituent so as to produce liquefied carbon dioxide and to have a feeding pump that is configured to pump the liquefied carbon dioxide, as taught by Lieberman, in order to create fractures within the formation and then to reduce the pressure to allow cleats to form within the formation and then repeat the cycle using cold liquid carbon dioxide again, to cause carbon dioxide to be adsorbed and methane to be desorbed, wherein methane can be released and recovered from the formation (Paragraph 0002 of Lieberman) and to increase the pressure of the cold liquified carbon dioxide so that it is kept in liquid form and prevented from vaporizing into a gas prematurely (Paragraphs 0164-0165 of Lieberman).
Regarding Claim 5, Zapadinski in view of Lieberman teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Zapadinski in view of Lieberman does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein the carbon dioxide separation plant comprises an absorber and a desorber, wherein the carbon dioxide separation plant is configured to absorb the carbon-dioxide-containing constituent from the exhaust gas by an absorbent solution in the absorber so as to form a carbon-dioxide-enriched solution, and wherein the carbon dioxide separation plant is configured to desorb the carbon-dioxide-containing constituent from the carbon-dioxide-enriched solution in the desorber.
Lieberman further teaches (Figures 1-44) a carbon dioxide separation plant (Figures 1-3) comprising an absorber (5 or 30) and a desorber (19 or 32), wherein the carbons dioxide separation plant (Figures 1-3) is configured to absorb the carbon-dioxide-containing constituent (Paragraphs 0135-0136) from the exhaust gases (3) by an absorbent solution (7) in the absorber (5 or 30) so as to form a carbon-dioxide-enriched solution (9), and wherein the carbon dioxide separation plant (Figures 1-3) is configured to desorb the carbon-dioxide-containing constituent (Paragraphs 0135-0136) from the carbon-dioxide-enriched solution (9) in the desorber (19 or 32).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zapadinski in view of Lieberman to have the carbon dioxide separation plant comprises an absorber and a desorber, wherein the carbon dioxide separation plant is configured to absorb the carbon-dioxide-containing constituent from the exhaust gas by an absorbent solution in the absorber so as to form a carbon-dioxide-enriched solution, and wherein the carbon dioxide separation plant is configured to desorb the carbon-dioxide-containing constituent from the carbon-dioxide-enriched solution in the desorber, as taught by Lieberman, in order to efficiently separate carbon dioxide from flue gases (Paragraph 0132 of Leiberman).
Regarding Claim 6, Zapadinski in view of Lieberman teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Zapadinski in view of Lieberman does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein the carbon dioxide separation plant is configured to produce a nitrogen-containing constituent of the exhaust gas during said recovery of the carbon-dioxide-containing constituent.
Lieberman further teaches (Figures 1-44) a carbon dioxide separation plant (Figures 1-3) that is configured to produce a nitrogen-containing-constituent (11; see Paragraph 0135) of the exhaust gas (3) during recovery of the carbon-dioxide-containing constituent (see Figures 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zapadinski in view of Lieberman to have the carbon dioxide separation plant be configured to produce a nitrogen-containing constituent of the exhaust gas during said recovery of the carbon-dioxide-containing constituent, as taught by Lieberman, in order to efficiently separate carbon dioxide from flue gases (Paragraph 0132 of Leiberman).
Regarding Claim 7, Zapadinski in view of Lieberman teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Zapadinski further teaches (Figures 1-2) wherein the internal combustion engine (4) is configured to maintain a ratio of said air to combustible substances in said compressed gas-air mixture so that said compressed gas-air mixture comprises said air in an amount no less than it is theoretically necessary for oxidizing the combustible substances (see Paragraphs 0066-0067), and the system further comprises a device (lines extending to 3, 4) for adding a part of the exhaust gas (from 9) to said air, or to said compressed gas-air mixture, or to both (see Paragraph 0066).
Regarding Claim 8, Zapadinski in view of Lieberman teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Zapadinski further teaches (Figures 1-2) wherein the internal combustion engine (4) is configured to receive said separated gas (via 3) from a separator (2) configured to receive the hydrocarbon-containing fluid from the hydrocarbon-bearing formation (see Paragraph 0066) through at least one production well (1), wherein the separator (2) is configured to discharge said separated gas (see Figure 1 and Paragraph 0066).
Regarding Claim 9, Zapadinski in view of Lieberman teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Zapadinski further teaches (Figures 1-2) wherein the internal combustion engine (4) is configured to maintain a ratio of said air to combustible substances in said compressed gas-air mixture so that said compressed gas-air mixture comprises said air in an amount not less than it is theoretically necessary for oxidizing the combustible substances (see Paragraphs 0066-0067), and the system further comprises a device (lines extending to 3, 4) for adding a part of the nitrogen-containing constituent (from 9) to said air, or to said compressed gas-air mixture, or to both (Paragraph 0066).
Regarding Claim 10, Zapadinski in view of Lieberman teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Zapadinski further teaches (Figures 1-2) wherein at least one said well is an injection well (15). Zapadinski in view of Lieberman does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein: at least one said well is an injection well; the injection device is configured to inject the liquefied carbon dioxide into the hydrocarbon-bearing formation through at least one said injection well so as to form a carbon dioxide slug in the hydrocarbon-bearing formation; and the system further comprises a compressor device, wherein said compressor device is configured to inject the nitrogen-containing constituent into the hydrocarbon-bearing formation through at least one said injection well for advancing the carbon dioxide slug to at least one production well.
Lieberman teaches (Figures 1-44) at least one said well is an injection well (at 120); the injection device (68) is configured to inject the liquefied carbon dioxide (81) into the hydrocarbon-bearing formation (see abstract) through at least one said injection well (120) so as to form a carbon dioxide slug (Paragraph 0083) in the hydrocarbon-bearing formation (see abstract); and the system further comprises a compressor device, wherein said compressor device is configured to inject the nitrogen-containing constituent (Paragraph 0064) into the hydrocarbon-bearing formation (see abstract and Figures 11 and 25-26) through at least one said injection well (120) for advancing the carbon dioxide slug (Paragraph 0083) to at least one production well (122).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zapadinski in view of Lieberman to have at least one said well is an injection well; the injection device is configured for injecting the liquefied carbon dioxide into the hydrocarbon-bearing formation through at least one said injection well so as to form a carbon dioxide slug in the hydrocarbon-bearing formation; and the system further comprises a pump device, wherein said pump device is configured to inject the nitrogen-containing constituent into the hydrocarbon-bearing formation through at least one said injection well for advancing the carbon dioxide slug to at least one production well, as taught by Lieberman, in order to pre-chill the pipe which helps regulate the temperature of the liquid carbon dioxide as it is being injected into the pipe, to avoid premature vaporization and phase change of the liquid to a gas (Paragraph 0074 of Lieberman). Zapadinski in view of Lieberman does not teach, as discussed so far, that the system includes a compressor device used to inject the gases into a hydrocarbon-bearing formation.
Zapadinski teaches (Figures 1-2) that the application of an injection device, for example, a compressor, to inject power plant exhaust gases into a hydrocarbon-bearing formation is well known (see Paragraph 0130).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zapadinski in view of Lieberman to include the compressor as the injection device, as taught by Zapadinski, in order to inject exhaust gases into a hydrocarbon-bearing formation (Paragraph 0130 of Zapadinski). It is further noted that a simple substitution of one known element (in this case, the pump as taught by Lieberman) for another (in this case, the compressor as taught by Zapadinski) to obtain predictable results (in this case, to inject nitrogen into a hydrocarbon-bearing formation) was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421, 82 USPQ2d at 1396, MPEP 2141 III B.
Regarding Claim 12, Zapadinski in view of Lieberman teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Zapadinski in view of Lieberman does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein the carbon dioxide separation plant and the liquefaction device are configured to carry out said liquefaction during said recovery of the carbon-dioxide-containing constituent.
Lieberman further teaches (Figures 1-44) wherein the carbon dioxide separation plant (Figures 1-3) and the liquefaction device (60) are configured to carry out said liquefaction (via 62, 64, 66) during said recovery of the carbon-dioxide-containing constituent (61).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zapadinski in view of Lieberman to have the carbon dioxide separation plant and the liquefaction device be configured to carry out said liquefaction during said recovery of the carbon-dioxide-containing constituent, as taught by Lieberman, for the same reasons discussed above in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 13, Zapadinski in view of Lieberman teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Zapadinski further teaches (Figures 1-2) a purification unit (8), wherein said purification unit (8) comprises a moisture-removing device for removing water from the exhaust gas (see Paragraph 0066).
Regarding Claim 14, Zapadinski in view of Lieberman teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Zapadinski further teaches (Figures 1-2) a device (14, 16) for injecting water into the hydrocarbon-bearing formation (see Figure 1 and Paragraph 0078) through at least one injection well (15).
Regarding Claim 15, Zapadinski in view of Lieberman teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Zapadinski further teaches (Figures 1-2) further comprising a gas-preparing unit (3) configured to receive said separated gas (see Paragraphs 0066-0067) from a separator (2) configured to discharge said separated gas (to 4) and configured to receive the hydrocarbon-containing fluid (from 2) from the hydrocarbon-bearing formation through at least one production well (1), wherein said gas-preparing unit (3) is configured to supply said separated gas (from 2) into the internal combustion engine (4), and wherein said gas-preparing unit (3) comprising a sulfur-removing device configured to remove at least one sulfur-containing substance from said separated gas; or a solid-impurity-removing device configured to remove solid particles from said separated gas; or a water-removing device configured to remove water from said separated gas; or a heavy-hydrocarbon-removing device configured to remove at least part of heavy hydrocarbons from said separated gas; or a carbon-dioxide-removing device configured to remove a part of carbon dioxide from said separated gas (see Paragraphs 0066-0067).
Regarding Claim 16, Zapadinski in view of Lieberman teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Zapadinski further teaches (Figures 1-2) further comprising a fluid-adding device (the junction between the lines extending from 3 and 10) configured to add an additional fluid (heavy hydrocarbons; see Paragraph 0075) to the carbon-dioxide-containing constituent (exhaust gases including nitrogen and carbon dioxide; see Paragraph 0074), wherein said additional fluid is the heavy hydrocarbons (see Paragraph 0075).
Regarding Claim 17, Zapadinski in view of Lieberman teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Zapadinski further teaches (Figures 1-2) wherein the internal combustion engine (4) is configured to drive a selected device (an electric generator, a pump, or a compressor; see Paragraph 0066), and the system further comprises said selected device, wherein said selected device is an electric generator, or a pump, or a compressor (the power plant may comprise a gas engine or a gas-diesel engine which may be used to drive an electrical generator and/or an injection device to inject the working substance or water into the formation, for example, a compressor, or a pump; see Paragraph 0066).
Regarding Claim 18, Zapadinski in view of Lieberman teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Zapadinski further teaches (Figures 1-2) a carbon-dioxide adding device (lines extending join 3, 4) confifugred to add a certain fluid (exhaust gases including carbon dioxide and nitrogen) to said separated gas, or to said air, or to said compressed gas-air mixture, or to any combination thereof (Paragraph 0066), wherein said certain fluid (exhaust gases including carbon dioxide and nitrogen) is a part of the carbon-dioxide-containing constituent (Paragraph 0066).
Regarding Claim 19, Zapadinski in view of Lieberman teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Zapadinski in view of Lieberman does not teach, as discussed so far, further comprising a thermo-regulating device, wherein said thermo-regulating device is configured to establish a desired temperature of the liquefied carbon dioxide during said liquefaction or after said liquefaction.
Lieberman teaches (Figures 1-44) a thermo-regulating device (66 or injection pipes that have been pre-chilled with liquid nitrogen; see Paragraphs 0163 and 0211), wherein said thermo-regulating device (66 or injection pipes that have been pre-chilled with liquid nitrogen; see Paragraphs 0163 and 0211) is configured for establishing a desired temperature (about minus 60 degrees Fahrenheit) of the liquefied carbon dioxide during said liquefaction (at 66) or after said liquefaction (injection pipes that have been pre-chilled with liquid nitrogen; see Paragraphs 0211).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zapadinski in view of Lieberman to have a thermo-regulating device, wherein said thermo-regulating device is configured for establishing a desired temperature of the liquefied carbon dioxide during said liquefaction or after said liquefaction, as taught by Lieberman, for the same reasons discussed above in claim 1 and to regulate the temperature of the liquid carbon dioxide as it is being injected into the pipe, to avoid premature vaporization and phase change of the liquid to a gas (Paragraph 0074 of Lieberman).
Regarding Claim 20, Zapadinski in view of Lieberman teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Zapadinski further teaches (Figures 1-2) wherein the power plant (4) comprises: a waste-heat boiler (7); or a cooling apparatus (6) having a heat exchanger (see Paragraphs 0066-0068); or both (see Figure 1); wherein said waste-heat boiler (7) is configured to transfer at least a part of heat from the exhaust gas (from 4) to water (from 5) and configured to supply the water (from 5, via 16) to a device (14) for injecting water (from 5) into the hydrocarbon-bearing formation through at least one injection well (15; see Figure 1), and wherein said heat exchanger (see Paragraphs 0066-0068) is configured to transfer at least a part of heat from the cooling apparatus (6) to water (from 5) and configured to supply the water (from 5, via 16) to a device (14) for injecting water (from 5) into the hydrocarbon-bearing formation through at least one injection well (15; see Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 21, Zapadinski in view of Lieberman teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Zapadinski further teaches (Figures 1-2) wherein the internal combustion engine (4) is a gas engine or a gas turbine engine (see Paragraphs 0066-0068).
Regarding Claim 22, Zapadinski in view of Lieberman teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Zapadinski in view of Lieberman does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein the carbon dioxide separation plant is a carbon dioxide separation plant configured to recover a carbon-dioxide containing constituent of the exhaust gas from the exhaust gas by adsorption.
Lieberman teaches (Figures 1-44) a carbon dioxide separation plant that is configured to recover a carbon dioxide containing constituent of the exhaust gas from the exhaust gas by adsorption (solid physical adsorption-pressure swing and temperature swing adsorption; see Paragraphs 0047 and 0132).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zapadinski in view of Lieberman to have the carbon dioxide separation plant configured to recover a carbon-dioxide containing constituent of the exhaust gas from the exhaust gas by adsorption, as taught by Lieberman, in order to accomplish separation of carbon dioxide from the flue gases of a power plant (Paragraphs 0047 and 0132 of Lieberman). It is further noted that a simple substitution of one known element (in this case, a MEA chemical absorber) for another (in this case, a physical adsorption-pressure swing and temperature swing adsorber) to obtain predictable results (in this case, separating carbon dioxide gas from flue gases) was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421, 82 USPQ2d at 1396, MPEP 2141 III B.
Regarding Claim 23, Zapadinski in view of Lieberman teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Zapadinski in view of Lieberman does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein the carbon dioxide separation plant is a carbon dioxide separation plant configured to recover a carbon-dioxide containing constituent of the exhaust gas from the exhaust gas by at least one membrane.
Lieberman teaches (Figures 1-44) a carbon dioxide separation plant that is configured to recover a carbon dioxide containing constituent of the exhaust gas from the exhaust gas by at least one membrane (membrane separation; see Paragraphs 0047 and 0132).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zapadinski in view of Lieberman to have the carbon dioxide separation plant configured to recover a carbon-dioxide containing constituent of the exhaust gas from the exhaust gas by at least one membrane, as taught by Lieberman, in order to accomplish separation of carbon dioxide from the flue gases of a power plant (Paragraphs 0047 and 0132 of Lieberman). It is further noted that a simple substitution of one known element (in this case, a MEA chemical absorber) for another (in this case, a membrane separator) to obtain predictable results (in this case, separating carbon dioxide gas from flue gases) was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421, 82 USPQ2d at 1396, MPEP 2141 III B.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zapadinski (US 2004/0154793) in view of Lieberman (US 2013/0105179) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Find (US 2012/0006197).
Regarding Claim 11, Zapadinski in view of Lieberman teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Zapadinski in view of Lieberman does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein the carbon dioxide separation plant comprises: a water-heating device; or a reboiler; or both; wherein the desorber and the reboiler are configured to transfer at least a part of heat from the exhaust gas to the carbon-dioxide-enriched solution for heating the carbon-dioxide-enriched solution, and wherein the water-heating device is configured to transfer at least a part of heat from the carbon-dioxide-containing constituent to water after said desorption of the carbon-dioxide-containing constituent, and the water-heating device is configured to supply the water to a device for injecting water into the hydrocarbon-bearing formation through at least one injection well.
Find teaches (Figure 1) a carbon dioxide separation plant (see Figure 1) that comprises a reboiler (A1), wherein a desorber (A3) and the reboiler (A1) are configured to transfer at least a part of heat from the exhaust gas (see Paragraph 0006) to the carbon-dioxide-enriched solution for heating the carbon-dioxide-enriched solution (see Paragraph 0006).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zapadinski in view of Lieberman to have the carbon dioxide separation plant comprise a reboiler, wherein the desorber and the reboiler are configured to transfer at least a part of heat from the exhaust gas to the carbon-dioxide-enriched solution for heating the carbon-dioxide-enriched solution, as taught by Find, in order to heat the liquid comprising carbon dioxide absorbed by means of a flue gas (Paragraph 0006 of Find).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zapadinski (US 2004/0154793) in view of Lieberman (US 2013/0105179) as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Baker et al. (US 2017/0183996).
Regarding Claim 24, Zapadinski in view of Lieberman teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Zapadinski in view of Lieberman does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein the carbon dioxide separation plant is configured to produce a nitrogen-containing constituent of the exhaust gas during said recovery of the carbon-dioxide containing constituent.
Baker teaches (Figures 1-8) a carbon dioxide separation plant (718) used to separate carbon dioxide from combustion exhaust (see title and Figures 7-8), wherein the carbon dioxide separation plant (718) is configured to produce (via 729) a nitrogen-containing constituent (720) of the exhaust gas (717, from 705) during said recovery of the carbon dioxide containing constituent (719).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zapadinski in view of Lieberman to have the carbon dioxide separation plant be configured to produce a nitrogen-containing constituent of the exhaust gas during said recovery of the carbon-dioxide containing constituent, as taught by Baker, in order to produce a carbon dioxide concentrated stream that can be further compressed, condensed, and purified to produce a liquid, high pressure carbon dioxide (Paragraph 0156 of Baker). It is further noted that a simple substitution of one known element (in this case, that carbon dioxide separation plant as taught by Zapadinski) for another (in this case, the carbon dioxide separation plant as taught by Baker) to obtain predictable results (in this case, to separate carbon dioxide from exhaust gases) was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421, 82 USPQ2d at 1396, MPEP 2141 III B.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach a liquefaction device configured to liquefy at least a part of the carbon-dioxide-containing constituent so as to produce liquefied carbon dioxide. In response, it is noted that Lieberman teaches (Figures 1-44) a liquefaction device (60) configured to liquefy (via 62, 64, 66) at least part of a carbon-dioxide containing constituent (61) so as to produce liquefied carbon dioxide (81; see Figure 6 and Paragraphs 0158-0162) prior to directing the carbon dioxide to an injection device (pump 68 to pipe 120; see Figure 6 and Paragraph 0176). Therefore, Applicant’s argument is refuted by the reference.
Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach an increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the liquefied carbon dioxide (the purity of the liquefied carbon dioxide) relative to the concentration of carbon dioxide in the carbon-dioxide-containing constituent, if the concentration of the carbon dioxide in the carbon-dioxide-containing constituent is low such as in the carbon-dioxide-containing constituent recovered from the exhaust gas of the power plant of claim 1. In response, it is noted that the claims do not recite any increase in a concentration of carbon dioxide or the purity of a liquefied carbon dioxide. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claims recite a “carbon-dioxide-containing constituent” and, as discussed in the previous office action, Applicant’s specification states “The concentration of carbon dioxide in the carbon-dioxide-containing constituent of the exhaust gas may also be, for example, about 50% or about 70%, or about 90%, or about 95%, or about 99.5%, or more. In addition to carbon dioxide, the carbon-dioxide-containing constituent of the exhaust gas may comprise, for example, at least one substance such as NITROGEN, WATER, OXYGEN, AND OTHERS” (see Pages 11-12 of Applicant’s specification – emphasis added). Applicant’s specification further states “The term ‘carbon dioxide separation plant’ refers to a device (or an equipment combination), in which a carbon-dioxide-containing constituent of a gaseous mixture is recovered from said mixture. For example, a carbon-dioxide-containing constituent of an exhaust gas may be recovered from the exhaust gas in a carbon dioxide separation plant. The concentration of carbon dioxide in the carbon-dioxide-containing constituent of the exhaust gas depends on technique for recovery of the carbon-dioxide-containing constituent from the exhaust gas, process parameters (and characteristics) of the recovery technology, the exhaust gas composition, and the like.” (see Page 12 of Applicant’s specification – emphasis added).
Applicant argues that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the exhaust gas of the power plant of claim 1 is low. In response, it is noted that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the exhaust gas is not being recited in claim 1. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). It is further noted that the term low is a relative term.
Applicant further argues that the gas separation unit described by Zapadinski is not configured to recover carbon dioxide from exhaust gas. In response, it is noted that Zapadinski includes a gas separation unit 9 and the concentration of carbon dioxide and nitrogen in dry exhaust gases of the power plant may be as much as 90% and even more (see Paragraph 0077 of Zapadinski). Although Zapadinski discusses that this is the concentration of dry exhaust gases, Zapadinski teaches that prior to entering the gas separation unit 9, the exhaust gases enter an exhaust gas purification unit that is configured to remove oxygen, nitrogen oxides, and moisture (see Paragraph 0077 of Zapadinski). After the exhaust gases exit the purification unit 8, the concentration of nitrogen in the exhaust gases is reduced (see Paragraph 0077 of Zapadinski). Therefore, Applicant’s argument that Zapadinski’s gas separation unit is not configured to recover carbon dioxide from exhaust gas is refuted by the reference.
Applicant argues that the relative concentrations of carbon dioxide in the exhaust gas of claim 1 is low. In response, it is noted that neither the relative nor the specific concentration of carbon dioxide in the exhaust gas is being recited in the claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Although Applicant appears to argue that only exhaust gases exiting coal burning power plants have high concentrations of carbon dioxide. It has been held “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.”); MPEP 2145(I). It is noted that Parrish (US 4,344,486 – see PTO-892) teaches that the combustion of a mixture of carbon dioxide, methane, light hydrocarbons received from an underground formation can produce exhaust gases that are directed to a gas separator which produces a purified carbon dioxide stream (49; see Figure 1 and Column 4, line 52 – Column 5, line 46). Therefore, although the purity of the carbon dioxide is not recited in the claims, it was known in the art that non coal-fired power plants were able to provide purified carbon dioxide streams.
Applicant argues that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the exhaust gas of Zapadinski’s gas separation unit will be low “more precisely, very low” because the exhaust gas of a power plant where hydrocarbons are combusted with air, comprise water. Applicant did not provide any evidence for the assertion that carbon dioxide cannot be separated in high concentrations when hydrocarbons are combusted with air. It has been held “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.”); MPEP 2145(I). It is additionally noted that although the exhaust gas exiting the gas turbine of Zapadinski can comprise water, the exhaust gas is directed to a purification system 8 where the exhaust gas is dehydrated and the moisture is removed from the exhaust gas prior to entering the gas separation system (see Paragraph 0077). Therefore, Applicant’s argument that the exhaust gas entering the gas separation unit will include a large concentration of water is refuted by the reference.
Applicant also argues that the properties of a coal or gas shale formation differ significantly from the properties of a hydrocarbon-bearing formation. In response, it is noted that a gas shale formation is a hydrocarbon-bearing formation. Applicant’s specification states that natural-gas bearing formations and gas condensate-bearing formations are examples of hydrocarbon-bearing formations (Page 1 of Applicant’s specification). Zapadinski teaches that his invention relates to natural gas production and can be used for recovering hydrocarbons from hydrocarbon-bearing formations, for example, from gas-condensate reservoirs or natural gas reservoirs (Paragraph 0001 of Zapadinski). Lieberman teaches that his invention relates to sequestering carbon dioxide and releasing natural gas (such as methane which is a hydrocarbon) from natural gas reservoirs (abstract of Lieberman). Lieberman also teaches that hydraulic fracturing can be utilized to remove natural gas and oil from rock formations (see Paragraphs 0003-0005 of Lieberman). Therefore, both Zapadinski and Lieberman teach hydrocarbon bearing formations.
Applicant also argues that the prior art cannot be combined because Lieberman injects carbon dioxide into the formation and Zapadinski injects nitrogen and carbon dioxide into the formation. In response, it is noted that Zapadinski does not teach that nitrogen must be present in the substance injected into the formation through injection wells. On the contrary, Zapadinski teaches removing the nitrogen in the exhaust gas to reduce the concentration of nitrogen in the working substance injected into the wells. Lieberman also teaches reducing the concentration of nitrogen and other substances in the fluid injected into the formation through injection wells by standard processes such as chemical and physical absorption, solid physical adsorption-pressure swing and temperature swing adsorption, low temperature distillation, and membrane separation (see Paragraph 0047 of Lieberman). Therefore, both Zapadinski and Lieberman are related as injecting carbon dioxide rich streams into a formation.
Applicant argues that using carbon dioxide to create fractures in a hydrocarbon-bearing formation is impractical. In response, it is noted that Lieberman teaches that the relatively high pressure field created near the injection well bores by the emission of pressurized liquid carbon dioxide will tend to cause the released methane to travel toward the relatively low pressure field that exists near the recovery well bores. And as the pressure drops further away from the injection well bores, more carbon dioxide will tend to be adsorbed, and more methane will tend to be desorbed, consistent with Langmuir’s isotherm (see Paragraph 0082 of Lieberman). Lieberman further states that his pressure cycling method has the advantage of using relatively high pressure to fracture the formation to create new cleats, and of using relatively low pressure to allow the cleats to expand, which also enhances the ability of the gases to be adsorbed and desorbed through the use of lower pressure (Paragraph 0084 of Lieberman). Therefore, Applicant’s argument that it is impractical to use carbon dioxide to create new cleats or fractures is refuted by the reference.
Applicant additionally argues that the liquefaction device of Lieberman does not allow obtaining of highly concentrated or high purity liquefied carbon dioxide. In response, it is noted that the concentration or purity of the liquefied carbon dioxide is not claimed. Moreover, the term “high purity” is a relative term. It is again noted that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS P BURKE whose telephone number is (571)270-5407. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00 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, Phutthiwat Wongwian can be reached on (571) 270-5426. 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.
/THOMAS P BURKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741