Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim 1 recites “a method of analyzing a caprock of an aquifer, the method comprising: determining, using a laboratory measurement device, a threshold hydraulic gradient of the caprock at which brine flows vertically in the caprock; determining a breakthrough pressure of the caprock, wherein the breakthrough pressure comprises a difference between a CO2 pressure in the aquifer and a brine pressure in the caprock; and calculating, via a computing system that comprises one or more hardware processors, an effective breakthrough pressure of the caprock based on the threshold hydraulic gradient and the breakthrough pressure, wherein the effective breakthrough pressure accounts for non-Darcy flow of the brine within the caprock” which is a process.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claim 1 recites an abstract idea as follows:
Claim 1 recites the steps of “determining…determining a breakthrough pressure of the caprock, wherein the breakthrough pressure comprises a difference between…calculating, via a computing system...within the caprock” which falls within both mental processes and mathematical calculations. The recited steps may be carried out as a mental process if the algorithm is simple enough, and as a mathematical process if the algorithm is more complicated. The claimed invention thus recites an abstract idea. The method claim 1 recites mathematical concepts and/or mental process that may be carried out in the human mind or with aid of pencil and paper in simple situations, or by a computer for more complicated situations; in the instant application by “a computing system that comprises one or more hardware processors.” The claim does not recite a particular equation or algorithm for “determining a breakthrough pressure of the caprock...” and for “calculating, via a computing system that comprises one or more hardware processors, an effective breakthrough pressure of the caprock”, but this just means that the abstract idea is being recited broadly enough to monopolize all possible equations or algorithms that might be used (Please also see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), (B),(C), and (D).
The recited method claim recites steps which are recited at such a high level of generality that they cannot be considered to indicate a particular machine. The claim is therefore directed to the abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong 2, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
Claim 1 does not recite applying the abstract idea with, or by use of, any particular machine (other than a laboratory measurement device, a computing system that comprises one or more hardware processor) nor does the claim affect a real-world transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. The claim amounts to “calculating, via a computing system that comprises one or more hardware processors, an effective breakthrough pressure of the caprock” “based on the threshold hydraulic gradient and the breakthrough pressure”. Therefore, the claimed invention does not appear to be limited to the use of the mathematical technique itself, in any practical application where it might conceivably be used.
Further, the preamble here does not positively add limitations to the claimed method, or further modify limitations recited in the body of the claim, and thus does not limit the claim. Instead, it indicates an intended use for the claimed method, i.e., the method is intended for analyzing a caprock of an aquifer.
The claim as recited when viewed as a whole or “as an ordered combination” is not directed to an improvement to other technology or technical field.
The step of “calculating, via a computing system…an effective breakthrough pressure of the caprock” is a data gathering step and the “calculated effective breakthrough pressure of the caprock” is considered insignificant.
The limitations “calculating” when viewed alone or in combination with other limitations are not applied with, nor use of a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)) (in the instant case by a a computing system). The “computing system” is recited at such a high level of generality that they cannot be considered to indicate a particular machine, or even to identify a particular field-of-use or technological environment. Instead, they are recited as tools to perform the abstract which is not sufficient to integrate the claim into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f), for instance). The recited “laboratory measurement device” is not a particular machine for the same reason.
The recited “computing system” and “laboratory measurement device” are field of use or a tool.
At Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, for reasons that are analogous to the discussion of additional elements at Prong 2.
Claim 11 recites “a method of analyzing a caprock of an aquifer, the method comprising: determining, using a laboratory measurement device, a threshold hydraulic gradient of the caprock at which brine flows vertically in the caprock; determining a breakthrough pressure of the caprock, wherein the breakthrough pressure comprises a difference between a CO2 pressure in the aquifer and a brine pressure in the caprock; and calculating, via a computing system that comprises one or more hardware processors, an effective breakthrough pressure of the caprock based on the threshold hydraulic gradient and the breakthrough pressure, wherein the effective breakthrough pressure accounts for non-Darcy flow of the brine within the caprock” . Therefore it is a process under step 1.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claim 11 recites an abstract idea as follows:
Claim 11 recites the steps of “receiving…determining…calculating” which falls within both mental processes and mathematical calculations. The recited steps may be carried out as a mental process if the algorithm is simple enough, and as a mathematical process if the algorithm is more complicated. The claimed invention thus recites an abstract idea. The method claim 11 recites mathematical concepts and/or mental process that may be carried out in the human mind or with aid of pencil and paper in simple situations, or by a computer for more complicated situations; in the instant application by “a computing system that comprises one or more hardware processors.” The claim does not recite a particular equation or algorithm for “determining a breakthrough pressure of the caprock...” nor for “calculating, via a computing system that comprises one or more hardware processors, an effective breakthrough pressure of the caprock”, but this just means that the abstract idea is being recited broadly enough to monopolize all possible equations or algorithms that might be used (Please also see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), (B),(C), and (D).
The recited method claim recites steps which are recited at such a high level of generality that they cannot be considered to indicate a particular machine. The claim is therefore directed to the abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong 2, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
Claim 11 does not recite applying the abstract idea with, or by use of, any particular machine (other than a computing system that comprises one or more hardware processor) nor does the claim affect a real-world transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. The claim amounts to “calculating, via a computing system that comprises one or more hardware processors, an effective breakthrough pressure of the caprock” “based on the threshold hydraulic gradient and the breakthrough pressure”. Therefore, the claimed invention does not appear to be limited to the use of the mathematical technique itself, in any practical application where it might conceivably be used.
Further, the preamble here does not positively add limitations to the claimed method, or further modify limitations recited in the body of the claim, and thus does not limit the claim. Instead, it indicates an intended use for the claimed method, i.e., the method is intended for analyzing a caprock of an aquifer. The claim recites in the preamble that the method is “computer-implemented method” and the body of the claim recites “a computing system that comprises one or more hardware processors” but the recitation of a general-purpose computer used merely as a tool to perform the abstract idea which is not sufficient to integrate the claim into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim as recited when viewed as a whole or “as an ordered combination” is not directed to an improvement to other technology or technical field.
The step of “calculating, via a computing system…an effective breakthrough pressure of the caprock” is a data gathering step and the “calculated effective breakthrough pressure of the caprock” is considered insignificant.
The limitations “calculating” when viewed alone or in combination with other limitations are not applied with, nor use of a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)) (in the instant case by a a computing system).
The “computing system” is recited at such a high level of generality that they cannot be considered to indicate a particular machine. Instead, they are recited as field of use tools to perform the abstract idea which is not sufficient to integrate the claim into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f), for instance).
The recited “computing system” is field of use or a tool.
At Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, for reasons that are analogous to the discussion of additional elements at Prong 2.
Independent claim 17 recites a system which does not offer a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the system to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via a computing system. In other words, the system claim is not different from the method claim 1 in substance; the method claim recites the abstract idea while the system claim recites generic computer components configured to implement the same abstract idea. The claim does not amount significantly more than the underlying abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2 and 3 add limitations which is data/data gathering merely extending the abstract idea without adding any additional elements.
Dependent claim 4 adds limitations in which the “laboratory measurement device” and “second laboratory measurement device” are recited at such a high level of generality that they cannot be considered to indicate a particular machine. Instead, they are recited as field of use tools to perform the abstract idea which is not sufficient to integrate the claim into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f), for instance). The limitation “wherein the breakthrough pressure is measured using a second laboratory measurement device” is data and merely extending the abstract idea without adding any additional elements.
Dependent claims 5-8 add limitations which is data/data gathering merely extending the abstract idea without adding any additional elements.
Dependent claim 9 adds a limitation which can be considered an additional element. However, “determined a seal integrity of the caprock” when viewed as a whole is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, in light of Applicant’s Specification at Background, seal integrity determination is a well known of safely storing carbon dioxide in saline aquifers.
Dependent claim 10 adds a limitation which is data and the use is unlimited and therefore is merely extending the abstract idea without adding any additional elements.
Dependent claims 12 -15 add limitations which is data/data gathering merely extending the abstract idea without adding any additional elements.
Dependent claim 16 adds a limitation which can be considered an additional element. However, “determined a seal integrity of the caprock” when viewed as a whole is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, in light of Applicant’s Specification at Background, seal integrity determination is a well-known of safely storing carbon dioxide in saline aquifers.
Dependent claim 18 adds limitation which is simply a field of use tool, “a field characterization device” “for determining a thickness of the caprock...thickness” and the “determined thickness” is data and its use is unlimited. This can be considered an additional limitation; however, the device is a field of use and not a particular device and the “determined thickness” is considered insignificant or extra solution.
Dependent claims 19 and 20 add limitations merely field of use tools and are not particular devices.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 4, 6-9, 11, 13-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao et al., “Cap rock CO2 breakthrough pressure measurement apparatus and application in Shenhua CCS project,” Energy Procedia, 2014, 63: 4766-4772, 7 Pages” (hereinafter “Gao”) and Teng et al., “Temperature effect on non-Darcian flow in low-permeability porous media,” Arxiv, August 2022, 16 Pages (hereinafter “Teng”) (Submitted by Applicants).
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 17, Gao discloses a method of analyzing a caprock of an aquifer, the method comprising:
determining a breakthrough pressure of the caprock, wherein the breakthrough pressure comprises a difference between a CO2 pressure in the aquifer and a brine pressure in the caprock (Gao: Page 3, at Experimental procedure: breakthrough experiments were performed with pulse decay method (residual capillary pressure approach). The differential pressure between upstream side and down stream);
and calculating, via a computing system that comprises one or more hardware processors, an effective breakthrough pressure of the caprock based on the breakthrough pressure, wherein the effective breakthrough pressure accounts for non-Darcy flow of the brine within the caprock (Gao: Page 4767, 2.1 Experiment setup-Page 4768, line 4: Pulse decay method (residual capillary pressure approached (as cited in previous limitation) has been proved to more time-saving and more accurate method of measuring breakthrough pressure. In order to further improve accuracy and efficiency breakthrough pressure measurement); but not based on “the threshold hydraulic gradient”.
Gao does not explicitly disclose “determining, using a laboratory measurement device, a threshold hydraulic gradient of the caprock at which brine flows vertically in the caprock”.
Teng teaches determining, using a laboratory measurement device, a threshold hydraulic gradient of the caprock at which brine flows vertically in the caprock (2.1 at Page 3, last three lines-Page 4, line 5; and 2.2 Laboratory experiments).
Gao discloses at Page 4767 that “Step-by-step approach is based on the definition of breakthrough pressure with high accuracy, but it is really time-consuming [3]. Experiment period always ranges from several weeks to several months. Continuous injection approach also has a good accuracy, but it could over-estimate the CO, breakthrough pressure due to the high pressure gradient in the water phase which cannot be neglected. Pulse decay method (residual capillary pressure approach), which stems from step-by-step approach, can acquire CO, breakthrough pressure in several days with certain resolution [4, 5]”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of filling the Application to modify Gao’s invention using Teng's invention to arrive at the claimed invention specified in claim 1 to evaluate the sealing ability of cap rock at core-scale (Gao’s Page 4767, Introduction, last Paragraph) and allow for a systematic prediction of fluid flow for a general set of low-permeability porous media under various temperature and pressure gradients (Teng: Page 2, first Paragraph).
Regarding claims 4 and 19, Gao and Teng disclose everything as applied above (see claims 1 and 11). In addition, Gao discloses wherein the laboratory measurement device is a first laboratory measurement device, and wherein the breakthrough pressure is measured using a second laboratory measurement device (see Pressure meter and differential pressure transducer at Fig. 1; Page 4767. See 2.1 at Page 4767 and 2.2 at Page 4768)
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Gao and Teng disclose everything as applied above (see claims 1 and 11). In addition, Gao discloses wherein the effective breakthrough pressure is greater than the breakthrough pressure (Gao: Page 4767, Section 2.2 Experimental Procedure, First Paragraph).
Regarding claim 7, Gao and Teng disclose everything as applied above (see claim 1). In addition, Gao discloses collecting a sample of the caprock from a bottom end region of the caprock (Gao: section 3.1. Mudstone samples).
Regarding claim 8, Gao and Teng disclose everything as applied above (see claim 1). In addition, Teng teaches estimating the threshold hydraulic gradient using a steady-state flow protocol (see Teng: section 2.2, Page 6-Page 7).
Regarding claims 9 and 16, Gao and Teng disclose everything as applied above (see claim 1). Gao discloses determining, via the computing system, a seal integrity of the caprock (Gao: Abstract; Page 4771, first full Paragraph).
Regarding claim 13, Gao and Teng disclose everything as applied above (see Claim 11). Gao discloses wherein determining the breakthrough pressure via the computing system comprises receiving the breakthrough pressure (Gao: Page 3, at Experimental procedure: breakthrough experiments were performed with pulse decay method (residual capillary pressure approach). The differential pressure between upstream side and downstream).
Regarding claim 14, Gao and Teng disclose everything as applied above. Gao discloses wherein determining the breakthrough pressure via the computing system comprises calculating the breakthrough pressure via the computing system (Gao: Page 4767, 2.1 Experiment setup-Page 4768, line 4: Pulse decay method (residual capillary pressure approached (as cited in previous limitation) has been proved to more time-saving and more accurate method of measuring breakthrough pressure. In order to further improve accuracy and efficiency breakthrough pressure measurement).
Regarding claim 20, Gao and Teng disclose everything as applied above. In addition, Gao discloses wherein the device comprises one or more hardware processors of the computing system (Gao: Fig. 1: experiment set up).
Claims 2, 3, 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao and Teng as applied to claims 1, 11, and 17 above, and further in view of Zhao et al. (USPAP. 2019/0212460) (hereinafter “Zhao”).
Regarding claims 2, 12, and 18, Gao and Teng disclose everything as applied above. However, Gao and Teng do not explicitly “determining a thickness of the caprock using a field characterization device, wherein the effective breakthrough pressure is further based on the thickness.”
Zhao teaches “determining a thickness of the caprock using a field characterization device, wherein the effective breakthrough pressure is further based on the thickness” (Zhao: Pars. 65 and 104).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of filling the Application to modify Gao and Teng's invention using Zhao's invention to arrive at the claimed invention specified in claim to determine the caprock’s effectiveness (see Zhao: Par. 65).
Regarding claim 3, Gao, Teng, and Zhao disclose everything as applied above. In addition, Zhao teaches wherein the thickness comprises spatially average thickness (Zhao: Pars. 65 and 104).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 USC 103 in view of Gao and Teng as applied to claim1 above, and further in view and further in view of Khan et al. (USPAP. 20200284945).
Regarding claim 10, Gao and Teng disclose everything as applied above. However, Gao and Teng do not explicitly disclose “calculating, via the computing system, a maximum pore pressure of CO2 injected into the aquifer”.
Khan teaches “calculating, via the computing system, a maximum pore pressure of CO2 injected into the aquifer” (Khan: see Figs. 27A-27C for maximum pore pressure for various arrangements of injection wells. Also see Pars. 209, 222-224, 268, 270: After observing the pore pressure increase for various cases of three-well injection, the conclusion was drawn that, for a reservoir with minimum width and thickness as compared to its length, in-line well arrangements are more successful than the central wells arrangements. However, if the width of the reservoir has almost equal value to the length of the reservoir, then the optimum central well arrangements can keep the pore pressure value much less than the critical pore pressure for the reservoir. The maximum pore pressure for each pattern of three-well injection and its corresponding effect on reservoir stability).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of filling the Application to modify Gao and Teng's invention using Khan's invention to arrive at the claimed invention specified in claim 10 to see the effect of reservoir size on pore pressure buildup in the case of carbon dioxide injection with multiple injection wells, carbon dioxide was injected through two injection wells into reservoirs of different sizes (see Khan: Par. 270).
Conclusion
Claim 5 is patentably distinguishable over the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 5, the closest prior art of record either alone or in combination fails to anticipate or render obvious the combination wherein “wherein the breakthrough pressure is calculated, via the computing system, based on a CO2-brine interfacial tension, a CO2 contact angle in the caprock, and a radius of a pore threshold in the caprock” in combination with other limitations in the claims as defined by Applicants.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nguyen (USPAP. 20150267527) discloses a method for estimating pore pressure in subterranean shale formations such as gas- or organic-rich shale where pore pressure predictions based on either a resistivity log or a porosity-indicative log such as sonic tend to be inaccurate. The method involves combining the resistivity log with the porosity-indicative log using a Eaton formula to give an estimate of pore pressure which is accurate both for conventional water wet shale and for organic-rich shale (Abstract; Pars. 31-49).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUONG HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)272-2718. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM-5:30PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew M Schechter can be reached at 571-272-2302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PHUONG HUYNH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 December 18, 2025