DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the Amendment filed 6/11/2026 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 6/11/2026 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
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: “gas mixer device configured to add a part of the exhaust gas to said air, or to said compressed gas-air mixture, or to both” (Claim 7, lines 5-6), “gas-mixer device configured to add 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 pump device configured to inject 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-filter device configured to remove soot from the exhaust gas” (Claim 13, lines 2-3), “a solid-particle-scrubber device configured to remove solid particles from the exhaust gas” (Claim 13, line 3), “a moisture-separator device configured to remove water from the exhaust gas” (Claim 13, lines 3-4), “a nitrogen-oxide converter device configured to remove nitrogen oxides from the exhaust gas” (Claim 13, lines 4-5), “an unburned-hydrocarbon-converter device configured to remove unburned hydrocarbons from the exhaust gas” (Claim 13, line 5), “an oxygen-converter device configured to remove oxygen from the exhaust gas” (Claim 13, lines 5-6), “a carbon-monoxide-converter device configured to remove carbon monoxide from the exhaust gas” (Claim 13, line 6), “a solid-impurity-separator device configured to remove solid particles from said separated gas” (Claim 15, line 7), “a water- separator device configured to remove water from said separated gas” (Claim 15, line 8), “a heavy-hydrocarbon- separator device configured to removing at least part of heavy hydrocarbons from said separated gas” (Claim 15, lines 8-9), “a carbon-dioxide- separator device configured to remove a part of carbon dioxide from said separated gas” (Claim 15, lines 9-10), “a fluid-mixer 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 mixer 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 “thermoregulator 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 pump device configured to inject 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-filter 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-scrubber 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-separator 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 nitrogen-oxide converter 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-converter 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-converter 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-converter 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 solid-impurity-separator 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- separator 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- separator 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- separator 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 fluid-mixer 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 mixer 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).
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 § 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.
Claim 19 is 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 limitation “thermoregulator device is configured to establish a desired temperature of the liquefied carbon dioxide after said liquefaction or during said liquefaction” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Applicant’s specification merely repeats the claim language and does not show or describe any structure the would be required to achieve the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 gas-mixer device (lines extending to 3, 4) configured to add 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 gas-mixer device (lines extending to 3, 4) configured to add 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-separator device configured to remove 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 pump device (14, 16) configured to inject 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 solid-impurity separator device configured to remove solid particles from said separated gas; or a water separator device configured to remove water from said separated gas; or a heavy-hydrocarbon-separator device configured to remove at least part of heavy hydrocarbons from said separated gas; or a carbon-dioxide-separator 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-mixer 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 mixer device (lines extending to join 3, 4) configured 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 thermoregulator device, wherein said thermoregulator 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 pump device (14, 16) configured to inject 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 pump device (14, 16) configured to inject 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 pump device configured to inject 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 6/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Lieberman’s liquefaction device is not configured to liquefy at least part of a 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) prior to directing the carbon dioxide to an injection device (pump 68 to pipe 120; see Figure 6 and Paragraph 0176). Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are directly refuted by the prior art.
Applicant further argues that using absorption technology becomes uneconomical for recovery of carbon dioxide from exhaust gases which the concentration of carbon dioxide is lower than 15%. In response, it is noted that the use of absorption technology is not present 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). Applicant also argues that the carbon dioxide containing constituent produced by Zapadinski’s gas separation unit 9 comprises water, carbon dioxide, and corrosive substances (oxygen, nitrogen oxides, and some others). This is incorrect. Zapadinski teaches that the exhaust gas is treated for removal of corrosive substances (oxygen, nitrogen oxides, and some others), mechanical contaminants and moisture in an exhaust gas purification unit 8 prior to being directed to the gas separation unit 9 (see Paragraph 0077 and Figure 1). Applicant has also provided no evidence that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the exhaust gas stream exiting the exhaust gas purification unit would be lower than 15% after removing these constituents from the exhaust gas stream. Furthermore, Baker (US 2017/0183996) teaches, in Figure 7, using absorption technology to capture carbon dioxide (Paragraphs 0041 and 0078) from an exhaust gas that has been produced from the combustion of a natural gas (703) with air (715) and recycled exhaust (702). Therefore, Applicant’s argument that absorption technology cannot be used in a powerplant that uses air as the oxidant is refuted by the prior art.
Applicant also argues that the prior art does not teach a valve for discharging non-condensable gas. In response, this requirement is not found 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).
Applicant argues that if the carbon-containing constituent produced by the gas separation unit described by Zapadinski consists of water, carbon dioxide, and corrosive substances, then the “cold liquid carbon dioxide (81)” produced by the liquefaction device (60) described by Lieberman will consist of water, carbon dioxide, and corrosive substances. In response and as discussed above, the water and corrosive substances are removed in an exhaust gas purification unit prior to being directed to the gas separation unit (see Paragraph 0077 of Zapadinski). Thus the liquid carbon dioxide produced by the liquefaction device of Lieberman will not include the components that were previously removed by the purification unit.
Applicant also argues that the proposed combination would be expensive. In response, it has been held the fact that a "combination would not be made by businessmen for economic reasons" does not mean that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not make the combination because of some technological incompatibility. In re Farrenkopf, 713 F.2d 714, 718, 219 USPQ 1, 4 (Fed. Cir. 1983)
Applicant further argues that Zapadinski and Lieberman do not disclose or suggest at least a liquefaction device that is configured to liquefy at least a part of the carbon-dioxide-containing constituent so as to produce liquefied carbon dioxide. In response and as discussed in the body of the rejection 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). Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are refuted by the prior art.
Applicant also argues that the prior art does not disclose or suggest: an increase in the quality of the separated gas caused by carbon dioxide present in the separated gas as a result of carbon dioxide injection for the recovery of a hydrocarbon-containing fluid from a hydrocarbon-bearing formation, wherein the increase in the quality is related to an increase in the Methane number of the separated gas which is intended for combustion with air in the internal combustion engine configured to produce the compressed gas-air mixture; the system of claim 1 for recovery of a hydrocarbon-containing fluid from a hydrocarbon-bearing formation, wherein the feature "an injection device configured to inject the liquefied carbon dioxide allows not only for an increase in recovery of hydrocarbons, but also for an increase in the quality of the separated gas, which, according to claim 1, is intended for combustion in the internal combustion engine configured to produce the compressed gas-air mixture prior to the combustion. This is not recited or required by 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).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights