DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim is directed to “A method for monitoring carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS)” and recites “calculating a pressure field”, however, these limitation are unclear. First, the method steps do not comprise any steps related to monitoring CCUS. That is, the final output of the method is a calculated pressure field, however, the claim fails to set forth any steps that illustrate that calculated pressure field is part of the monitoring process or set forth any method or technique for how the pressure field is used for the monitoring of CCUS. Second, the step of “calculating a pressure field” is unclear as to what type of pressure field is being claimed. That is, is it borehole pressure, acoustic pressure, overall reservoir pressure, pore fluid pressure or some other pressure altogether? Further, how is the measured secondary EM field used to calculate the pressure field?
One of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to readily ascertain the meets and bounds of the claims, therefore, the claim limitations render the claims indefinite.
Claims 2-4 depend from claim 1 and fail to remedy the deficiencies of claim 1.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "at each time step" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "all time-lapse data" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Grayver et al. in Non-Patent Literature “3D inversion and resolution analysis of land-based CSEM data from the Ketzin CO2 storage formation” (see IDS filed 17 FEB 2024). As it is best understood.
Regarding claim 1, Grayver et al. teaches:
A method for monitoring carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) (see “3D inversion of…CSEM…Ketzia CO2 storage formation…”, Abstract), comprising:
positioning a controlled source electromagnetic (CSEM) transmitter on a surface of the earth relative to a CCUS borehole casing (see “…Eight CSEM transmitters….deployed along an….injection site…”, p. E103 Field Experiment and Fig. 1);
positioning a plurality of CSEM receivers relative to the CCUS borehole casing, synchronized with the CSEM transmitter (see “…39 five-component receivers were deployed…injection site”, p. E103 Field Experiment and Fig. 1);
transmitting signals from the CSEM transmitter into a subsurface formation about the CCUS borehole casing (see “…per transmitter…The transmitter used in the survey (Figure 2) simultaneously injects currents…”, p. E103 Field Experiment and Fig. 1);
receiving by the plurality of CSEM receivers a secondary electromagnetic (EM) field corresponding to the signals transmitted from the CSEM transmitter coupled with a streaming potential at a location where fluid is being injected into the subsurface formation (see “…transmitters…receivers…centered at the CO2 injection site…”, p. E103 Field Experiment and Fig. 1 (streaming potential is the electric potential difference that occurs whenever a liquid moves within the pore spaces of the subsurface, thus, a streaming potential is always present when there is flow in the subsurface));
measuring the secondary EM field (see “land CSEM survey” p. 103 Field Experiment and Fig. 1; “…mCSEM inversion…Magnetic fields…transmitter-receiver magnetic field components…”, p. 104 column 2, Fig. 3 the receivers measure the EM filed in its entirety); and
calculating a pressure field by performing an inversion on an objective function based on the secondary EM field and a forward modeling function transforming a pressure or gradient of the pressure field to the secondary EM field (see “…resulting data subset used in the inversion contains 3957 complex data values…inversion domain…that includes all transmitters and receivers…forward modelling, the inversion domain is augmented…”, p. E105 col 1, Fig. 4; see also Inversion parametrization, p. E105-E106).
Regarding claim 2, Grayver et al. teaches wherein positioning the plurality of CSEM receivers comprises positioning the plurality of CSEM receivers in a sequence of concentric circles around the CCUS borehole casing (see “…Eight CSEM transmitters….deployed along an….injection site…”, p. E103 Field Experiment and Fig. 1).
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.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grayver et al. in Non-Patent Literature “3D inversion and resolution analysis of land-based CSEM data from the Ketzin CO2 storage formation” (see IDS filed 17 FEB 2024) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Pugh et al. in U.S. Patent Publication 2015/192688 (see IDS filed 17 FEB 2024) As it is best understood.
Regarding claim 3, Grayver et al. teaches the limitations as indicated above. Grayver et al. differs from the claimed invention in that it is silent regarding performing the inversion at each time step separately. Pugh et al. “relates to devices and processes for geophysical prospecting, subsurface fluid monitoring and, more particularly, the types of information that can be developed from the data collected by a Controlled Source Electromagnetic (CSEM) using designed transmission waves and precise timing” ([0001]) comprising “the receiver array 100 is placed immediately adjacent to the transmitter system 105. The transmitter system 105 and the receiver array 100 are placed in an area where forward modeling has indicated there will be a signal present in the secondary surface field 110. The concept of a forward model will be understood by someone skilled in the art of modeling geophysical electromagnetic systems” ([0023]; see also [0035]), “an image created from a series of traces, one for each receiver in the receiver array 100, from the start of a fracing operation. FIG. 10b is an image of the collected data 227 time steps later.” ([0041]) and “the response is dominated by the very high resistivity properties of the proppant. Therefore controlling the resistivity value of the proppant by doping or coating it with a lower resistivity material to closely match the conductivity of the fluid may allow the system to select to resolve fluid location only or proppant location only or some combination of both” ([0066]). Thus, Pugh et al. teaches or suggests performing the inversion at each time step separately.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Pugh et al. with Grayver et al. to improve Grayver et al. with a reasonable expectation that it would result in improving the 3D inversion of CSEM data for evaluation of the formation.
Regarding claim 4, Grayver et al. teaches the limitations as indicated above. Grayver et al. differs from the claimed invention in that it is silent regarding performing the inversion on a combination of all time-lapse data. Pugh et al. “relates to devices and processes for geophysical prospecting, subsurface fluid monitoring and, more particularly, the types of information that can be developed from the data collected by a Controlled Source Electromagnetic (CSEM) using designed transmission waves and precise timing” ([0001]) comprising “the receiver array 100 is placed immediately adjacent to the transmitter system 105. The transmitter system 105 and the receiver array 100 are placed in an area where forward modeling has indicated there will be a signal present in the secondary surface field 110. The concept of a forward model will be understood by someone skilled in the art of modeling geophysical electromagnetic systems” ([0023]), “A time lapse sequences of these images is created to indicate the changes that occur as a result of the subsurface operation. There are two areas of difference 612 and 608 in the image that change over time. The frac height 604 can be obtained by additional processing of the received data” ([0035]) and “the response is dominated by the very high resistivity properties of the proppant. Therefore controlling the resistivity value of the proppant by doping or coating it with a lower resistivity material to closely match the conductivity of the fluid may allow the system to select to resolve fluid location only or proppant location only or some combination of both” ([0066]). Thus, Pugh et al. teaches or suggests performing the inversion on a combination of all time-lapse data.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Pugh et al. with Grayver et al. to improve Grayver et al. with a reasonable expectation that it would result in improving the 3D inversion of CSEM data for evaluation of the formation.
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grayver et al. in Non-Patent Literature “3D inversion and resolution analysis of land-based CSEM data from the Ketzin CO2 storage formation” (see IDS filed 17 FEB 2024) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Mattsson in Foreign Patent Document BR 102016019228 A2 (see machine translation).
Regarding claim 5, Grayver et al. teaches:
positioning a controlled source electromagnetic (CSEM) transmitter on a surface of the earth relative to a borehole (see “…per transmitter…The transmitter used in the survey (Figure 2) simultaneously injects currents…”, p. E103 Field Experiment and Fig. 1);
positioning a plurality of CSEM receivers relative to the borehole, synchronized with the CSEM transmitter (see “…transmitters…receivers…centered at the CO2 injection site…”, p. E103 Field Experiment and Fig. 1);
transmitting signals from the CSEM transmitter into a subsurface formation about the borehole (see “…per transmitter…The transmitter used in the survey (Figure 2) simultaneously injects currents…”, p. E103 Field Experiment and Fig. 1);
receiving by the plurality of CSEM receivers a secondary electromagnetic (EM) field corresponding to the signals transmitted from the CSEM transmitter coupled with a streaming potential at a location where fluid is being injected into the subsurface formation (see “…transmitters…receivers…centered at the CO2 injection site…”, p. E103 Field Experiment and Fig. 1 (streaming potential is the electric potential difference that occurs whenever a liquid moves within the pore spaces of the subsurface, thus, a streaming potential is always present when there is flow in the subsurface));
measuring the secondary EM field (see “land CSEM survey” p. 103 Field Experiment and Fig. 1; “…mCSEM inversion…Magnetic fields…transmitter-receiver magnetic field components…”, p. 104 column 2, Fig. 3 the receivers measure the EM filed in its entirety);
Grayver et al. differs from the claimed invention in that it is silent regarding calculating a saturation or permeability of the formation by performing an inversion on an objective function based on the secondary EM field and a function transforming saturation or permeability into the secondary EM field.
Mattson teaches “A resistivity profile can be generated directly from electromagnetic field data measured from a marine survey” (Abstract; [0007]) and discloses calculating a saturation or permeability of the formation (see “p0 is the magnetic permeability”, p. 4 par. 1) by performing an inversion on an objective function (see “an objective function can be interactively minimized…An inversion can result in an objective function that is minimized to have multiple minimal…”, p.3 par. 3) based on the secondary EM field and a function transforming saturation or permeability into the secondary EM field (see “ resistivity can be obtained by using an inversion algorithm. Measured EM field data can be compared with EM field data modeled according to a resistivity model”, p. 3 par. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Mattson with Grayver et al. to improve Grayver et al. with a reasonable expectation that it would result in improving the 3D inversion of CSEM data for evaluation of the formation.
Regarding claim 6, Grayver et al. and Mattson teach the limitations as claimed above. Further, Grayver et al. teaches receivers deployed along a receiver line centered at the CO2 injection site (p. E103 Field Experiment, Figs. 1, 16). Fracking is the injection of a fluid into an underground rock formation to allow gas or crude oil to flow; Grayver et al. discloses the injection of CO2 into the formation to allow gas/oil to flow and therefore teaches or suggests positioning the plurality of CSEM receivers above a stage that is being fracked).
Regarding claim 7, Grayver et al. and Mattson teach the limitations as claimed above. Further, Grayver et al. teaches creating a 3D model (see “3D inversion”, Abstract). Further still, Mattson teaches creating a 3D model of the saturation or permeability of the formation (see “The computation time may be even longer for a three-dimensional inversion of large subsurface domains.” p. 3 par 3; see “p0 is the magnetic permeability”, p. 4 par. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Mattson with Grayver et al. to improve Grayver et al. with a reasonable expectation that it would result in improving the 3D inversion of CSEM data for evaluation of the formation.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grayver et al. in Non-Patent Literature “3D inversion and resolution analysis of land-based CSEM data from the Ketzin CO2 storage formation” (see IDS filed 17 FEB 2024) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Pires De Vasconcelos in U.S. Patent Publication 2016/0327668.
Regarding claim 8, Grayver et al. teaches:
positioning a controlled source electromagnetic (CSEM) transmitter on a surface of the earth relative to a borehole (see “…per transmitter…The transmitter used in the survey (Figure 2) simultaneously injects currents…”, p. E103 Field Experiment and Fig. 1);
positioning a plurality of CSEM receivers relative to the borehole, synchronized with the CSEM transmitter (see “…transmitters…receivers…centered at the CO2 injection site…”, p. E103 Field Experiment and Fig. 1);
transmitting signals from the CSEM transmitter into a subsurface formation about the borehole (see “…per transmitter…The transmitter used in the survey (Figure 2) simultaneously injects currents…”, p. E103 Field Experiment and Fig. 1);
receiving by the plurality of CSEM receivers a secondary electromagnetic (EM) field corresponding to the signals transmitted from the CSEM transmitter coupled with a streaming potential at a location where fluid is being injected into the subsurface formation (see “…transmitters…receivers…centered at the CO2 injection site…”, p. E103 Field Experiment and Fig. 1 (streaming potential is the electric potential difference that occurs whenever a liquid moves within the pore spaces of the subsurface, thus, a streaming potential is always present when there is flow in the subsurface));
measuring the secondary EM field (see “land CSEM survey” p. 103 Field Experiment and Fig. 1; “…mCSEM inversion…Magnetic fields…transmitter-receiver magnetic field components…”, p. 104 column 2, Fig. 3 the receivers measure the EM filed in its entirety);
Grayver et al. differs from the claimed invention in that it is silent regarding performing a reservoir simulation based on the injection or flowback rate by performing an inversion on an objective function based on the secondary EM field and a function transforming a pressure or gradient of a pressure field to the secondary EM field.
Pires De Vasconcelos teaches “processing measurements to create an interferometry-based metric to measure inaccuracy of a model. The metric is used as a cost function for nonlinear inversions or simplified linear inversions or imaging” (Abstract) wherein “The new metric and its associated inversion methods may be used in any type of propagating waves, some examples of which include acoustic, elastic and electromagnetic wavefields, all of which are present in seismic acquisition and imaging systems” ([0009]). Further, Pires De Vasconcelos teaches performing a reservoir simulation (see “arbitrarily complex models, may be used for applications such as targeted reservoir characterization”, [0059])) based on the injection or flowback rate (see “wavefield extrapolation is done by “wavefield injection,” following the vector-acoustic extrapolation scheme”, [0053]) by performing an inversion on an objective function based on the secondary EM field (see “Subsurface-Domain Objective Function”, [0047]-[0051]; e.g. “a full-waveform imaging/inversion scheme…any inversion procedure based on optimizing a cost function”, [0050]) and a function transforming a pressure or gradient of a pressure field to the secondary EM field (see “wavefields can be scalar fields such as pressure fields,”, [0036]); “all necessary field components, e.g., pressure fields”, [0068]). Pires De Vasconcelos discloses “remediate data acquisition limitations and improve qualities of data and resulting images or models may be used” ([0004]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Pires De Vasconcelos with Grayver et al. to improve Grayver et al. with a reasonable expectation that it would result in improving the 3D inversion of CSEM data for evaluation of the formation.
Regarding claim 9, Grayver et al. and Pires De Vasconcelos teaches the limitations as indicated above. Further, Grayver et al. teaches wherein positioning the plurality of CSEM receivers comprises positioning the plurality of CSEM receivers above an area where fluid is being injected into the subsurface formation (see “…39 five-component receivers were deployed…injection site”, p. E103 Field Experiment and Fig. 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-13 are allowed.
The following is an examiner' s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 10, the prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious calculating a streaming potential current from a cross-coupling coefficient between a fluid and electric flow and a pressure field; calculating electrical and magnetic fields based on an exciting current and a streaming potential current, in combination with all other limitations as claimed by Applicant.
Claims 11-13 are allowed by virtue of their dependence.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Tietze et al. in Non-Patent Literature “Electromagnetic Monitoring of the Propagation of an Injected Polymer for Enhanced Oil Recovery in Northern Germany” teaches “CSEM forward modelling of the 3D reservoir structure to investigate the potential of borehole-to-surface and borehole-to-borehole configurations” (page 3).
Castillo-Reyes et al. in Non-Patent Literature “Land CSEM simulations and experimental test using metallic casing in a geothermal exploration context: Vallès Basin (NE Spain) case study” teaches “perform CSEM experiments in the Vall` es fault (Northeast (NE), Spain) where MT results have been satisfactory and allow us to verify the CSEM results. The Vall` es basin is relevant for potential heat generation because of the presence of several geothermal anomalies, and its nearby location to urban areas. In this paper, we present the experimental setup for that region, a 2-D joint MT+CSEM inverse model, several 3-D CSEM simulations in the presence of metallic casing, and its comparison with real data measurements. We employ a parallel and high-order vector finite element algorithm to discretize the governing equations. By using an adapted meshing strategy, different scenarios are simulated to study the influence of the source position/direction and the conductivity model in a metallic casing presence.” (Abstract).
Wharmund et al. in U.S. Patent 8,014,988 teaches “method for generating a three-dimensional resistivity data volume for a subsurface region from an initial resistivity model and measured electromagnetic field data from an electromagnetic survey of the region, where the initial resistivity model is preferably obtained by performing multiple ID inversions of the measured data [100]. The resulting resistivity depth profiles are then registered at proper 3D positions [102]. The 3D electromagnetic response is simulated [106] assuming the resistivity structure is given by the initial resistivity model. The measured electromagnetic field data volume is scaled by the simulated results [108] and the ratios are registered at proper 3D positions [110] producing a ratio data volume [112]. ” (Abstract).
Chen et al. in U.S. Patent Publication 2026/0078666 teaches “An assembly and method are disclosed for generating and detecting a modulated pressure signature in a fluid transported to a subsurface injection zone. The assembly includes a pump, a pulsation dampener, and a pressure modulation device that oscillates pressure to produce a frequency-modulated signature in the fluid, resulting in an alternating current streaming potential (AC-SP) at the injection zone. The method includes recording modulated electromagnetic signals at an array of electromagnetic field receivers on a surface above the subsurface injection zone, processing the data to identify source frequency signals, and correlating these signals to image subsurface fluid or pressure distribution, enabling three-dimensional mapping of subsurface structures” (Abstract).
Shang et al. in Foreign Patent Document CN114169122A teaches “The invention claims a method for determining completion degree of injection well network, a device, an electronic device and a medium. The method may include: constructing a geological model; determining a flow change calculation formula; by calculating the change of the flow potential, determining the complete degree of the injection well network. The invention is based on the three-dimensional geology modeling, based on the flow simulation method, using numerical simulation calculation and image processing means, obtaining the flow field and saturation field change of the gap reservoir under different geological background, calculating the control and use degree of the seam oil reservoir injection mining well network, laying the foundation for well network perfect quantitative evaluation.” (Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MISCHITA HENSON whose telephone number is (571)270-3944. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9am-6pm EST.
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, Arleen Vazquez can be reached at 571-272-2619. 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.
/MI'SCHITA' HENSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857