DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This Action is in response to the applicant's reply of 11/19/2025. In view of the applicant's amendments, the previously presented objections to the claims and specification, and the 35 USC 112(b) rejections, have been withdrawn.
Claims 22-28 are pending.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Beginning at page 6, the applicant argues that the drawing objections are incorrect. The examiner respectfully disagrees. As to the arrows on numerals 104 and 106, the applicable portion of 37 CFR 1.84(r) limits arrows “to indicate the entire section towards which it points” and 104 and 106 are to individual components only. As to the labeling of feature “D”, the rightmost portion is a call out from the leftmost portion, and feature “D” structures are different between the two, thus causing confusion.
Beginning at page 9, the applicant argues that Vinegar does not suggest a device configured in the manner recited in the new claims on the basis that Vinegar uses heat to promote pyrolysis. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Although all limitations of the new independent claim 22 are thoroughly discussed in the current rejection, the examiner notes that Vinegar’s configuration uses heat to enhance production of oil and gas from a hydrocarbon reservoir, thus it is used for the same purpose as the applicant’s claimed device. Nothing in the applicant’s claim 22 precludes the pyrolysis that occurs when Vinegar heats the reservoir, particularly in light of the fact that pyrolysis merely makes hydrocarbons more flowable. In response to applicant's implied argument that Vinegar is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of applicant’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, as discussed in the foregoing, both Vinegar and the applicant are using heat to enhance the production of hydrocarbons, thus Vinegar is clearly pertinent to the problem with which the applicant is concerned.
Beginning at the last paragraph beginning on page 9, the applicant references particular limitations that are newly claimed since the original claims. In that regard, the examiner notes that such new limitations are specifically addressed in the current rejection. In particular, the examiner notes that fractures in formation are disclosed by Vinegar.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because (1) reference numerals 104 and 106 should not have arrows and their line tips should stop at the line defining the related structures, that is the tubing and the casing (Figs. 1 and 2), and (2) the leftmost portion of Fig. 2 depicts the casing penetrating the gaseous hydrocarbons deposit “D” and the rightmost portion depicts the casing stopping without penetrating D, and this inconsistency should be corrected. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 24 is objected to because “claim 22, the plurality” should be “claim 22, wherein the plurality”. Correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vinegar et al. (US20030173081) [Vinegar].
Claim 22 Vinegar discloses a gaseous hydrocarbons formation heating device [abstract], comprising:
A. a plurality of heating elements [e.g., the three insulated conductors 1124 which are strapped to the support member/conduit 1156, such that the heating elements are permanently attached to such conduit 1156 and cannot be separately removed; Figs. 60-63; para. 0941,0963-0965], the heating elements permanently installed [e.g., the three insulated conductors 1124 which are strapped to the support member/conduit 1156 such that the heating elements are permanently attached to such conduit 1156 and cannot be separately removed; Figs. 60-63; para. 0941,0963-0965] on tubing 1156 in a wellbore 544 of a gaseous hydrocarbons formation 522 [Fig. 61; para. 0966] comprising, a reservoir of gaseous hydrocarbons 522 operably linked to the tubing [Fig. 61; para. 0963,0965,0966];
B. a controller configured to control the temperature of the installed plurality of heating elements [para. 0988]; and
wherein the plurality of heating elements comprises a pair [e.g., any two of the three] of individual, independently controllable heating elements [e.g., the three insulator conductors 1124 which are selectively utilized/powered; para. 0963,0965], circumferentially disposed around the production tubing [Fig. 61];
wherein the heating elements are installed and the heating device is configured for:
a. heating the plurality of heating elements under the control of the controller to a heating temperature of from 200 to 325 °F [the insulated conductors may have operating temperature ranges as needed to meet specific operation requirements (para. 0945), thus the insulator conductors 1124 are capable of all temperatures up to at least 1400 degrees Fahrenheit, which would include achieving the claimed capability; para. 0956,0945] for a heating period to propagate heat into the reservoir of gaseous hydrocarbons [para. 0971,0974]; and
b. adjusting with the controller the temperature of the plurality of heating elements during the heating period to create a zone of heated hydrocarbons [para. 0971,0974] having a non-cylindrically symmetrical temperature profile [e.g., when not all of the insulator conductors 1124 are powered, the heating of the zone will not be cylindrically symmetrical; para. 0963];
such that heat is propagated into the reservoir of gaseous hydrocarbons is transient and keeps reaching new fronts throughout the heating period [e.g., radiating from the heater well outwardly; Fig. 61; para. 0971,0974]; and
such that the zone of heated hydrocarbons encompasses a hydraulic fracture [Figs. 144,145,213-216; para. 1498-1500,1661-1675].
Without limitation, Vinegar further discloses advantages arising when a heat source 508 [which would include the insulated conductors 1124] is positioned in a production well 512, the heat source being inside, outside, or integrated as part of a production conduit 536, and further discloses using a pump 538 or other typical production means for producing hydrocarbons through the production conduit 536 [Figs. 13,3; para. 0640-0650], but does not specifically indicate that the heat source/insulator conductors 1124 and conduit 1156 configuration of Fig. 61 is used in a production well, such that the conduit 1156, positioned similarly to the production conduit 536 of Fig. 13, is a production tubing.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the apparatus and methods of Vinegar to include the heat source/insulator conductors/conduit of the Fig. 61 configuration in a production well in a configuration analogous to Fig. 13, such that the insulator conductors are on the outside of the conduit and the conduit 1156 is a production tubing. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected that this configuration of the related Vinegar embodiments would have been within the skill of the art and would successfully yield and achieve the expected and predictable result that the advantages of a heat source being positioned in a production well would be realized.
Vinegar, as modified, further discloses that the insulator conductors 1124 have a length of 15 meters to 950 meters, which overlaps but does not explicitly disclose the claimed range of 1 meter to 25 meters [para. 0942].
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Accordingly, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the apparatus and methods of Vinegar, as modified, to have the insulator conductors 1124 have a length of 1 meter to 25 meters.
Vinegar, as modified, does not explicitly disclose that the insulator conductors 1124 have a width of 5 cm to 15 cm. However, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have sized the insulator conductors to have a width of 5 cm to 15 cm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05I.
Without limitation, Vinegar, as modified, discloses controlling an in situ conversion process (ICP) [the embodiment of claim 12 is an ICP] using a computerized controller 626, as shown in Fig. 19, using at least subsurface formation pressure and formation temperature sensor data 688,690, heating elements/array temperatures (thus the array temperature profile [para. 0691], and flow rate [para. 0689], for the purpose of monitoring and adjusting various aspects of the ICP, e.g., subsurface pressures and temperatures in heat source wells 520 and/or production wells 512, array temperature, and flow rate [para. 0688-0691,0988; the claim 12 embodiment combining the heat source into the production well], such that Vinegar, as modified, discloses a plurality of sensors connected to the controller, the sensors being configured to 1. measure at least one of a temperature feature of the plurality of heating elements [e.g., through the heater power monitoring], a temperature distribution feature of liberated gaseous hydrocarbons in the production tubing [e.g., the formation temperature sensor], and a gaseous hydrocarbons flow profile feature of liberated gaseous hydrocarbons in the production tubing [e.g., the flow rate sensor], and 2. transmit input signals to the controller reflecting the measured features [para. 0691], but does not specifically disclose the foregoing for the Figs. 61,13 based embodiments of claim 12.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the apparatus and methods of Vinegar, as modified, to provide the foregoing configuration and functionality of the controller and sensors for the claim 12 embodiment. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected that this configuration and functionality would have been within the skill of the art and would successfully yield and achieve the expected and predictable result that appropriate adjustments of at least temperature of, e.g., the array temperature profile, would be made based on sensed data acquired by the controller through monitoring such conditions, i.e., based on the signals transmitted to the controller from the plurality of sensors.
Vinegar, as modified, does not explicitly disclose that the heating elements are separated along the circumference of the production tubing by 50 to 100% of the width of the individual, independently-controllable heating elements. However, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have positioned the insulator conductors such that the heating elements are separated along the circumference of the production tubing by 50 to 100% of the width of the individual, independently-controllable heating elements, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05I.
Without limitation, Vinegar, as modified, discloses distributing heat into formations having fractures such that the zone of heated hydrocarbons encompasses a hydraulic fracture [Figs. 144,145,213-216; para. 1498-1500,1661-1675], and otherwise discloses all the limitations of this claim, but does not explicitly disclose that the heated zone and extends to a length of the hydraulic fracture comprising from 55 to 90 feet during the heating period.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have heated the zone extending to a length of the hydraulic fracture comprising from 55 to 90 feet during the heating period, since it has been held that discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In this case, the amount of heating time will dictate the length of the extension and would be chosen in accordance with the hydrocarbon production results associated with the desired size/reach of the heated zone. Additionally, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have heated the zone extending to a length of the hydraulic fracture comprising from 55 to 90 feet during the heating period, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05I.
Claim 23 Vinegar, as modified with respect to claim 22, discloses that the pair of individual, independently-controllable heating elements is configured to provide the production tubing a temperature profile that is non-cylindrically symmetrical [e.g., when not all of the insulator conductors 1124 are powered, the heating of the production tubing will not be cylindrically symmetrical; para. 0963].
Claim 24 Vinegar, as modified with respect to claim 22, discloses that the plurality of sensors are configured to measure a temperature feature of the plurality of heating elements, a temperature distribution feature of liberated gaseous hydrocarbons in the production tubing, and a gaseous hydrocarbons flow profile feature of liberated gaseous hydrocarbons in the production tubing [as discussed with respect to claim 22 herein].
Claim 25 Vinegar, as modified with respect to claim 22, discloses that the controller is configured to adjust the temperature of the plurality of heating elements to a defined temperature based on a production metric of the gaseous hydrocarbons deposit [e.g., the controller outputting desired instructions to achieve desired array temperatures and the related flow rate, since additional heat causes improved permeability and porosity which would increase the flow rate; para. 0691, 0654].
Claims 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vinegar, in view of O’Donnell et al. (US20170141724) [O’Donnell].
Claim 26 Vinegar, as modified with respect to claim 22, discloses using solar power to provide electricity to power an in situ conversion process (ICP) [para. 0909, 1206, 1207, 0529; the embodiment of claim 12 is an ICP], and otherwise discloses all the limitations of this claim, but does not explicitly disclose a photovoltaic array disposed at an aboveground location, the aboveground location located proximal to a wellhead of the production tubing, nor an energy storage device connected to both the photovoltaic array and the permanently-installed array of heating elements.
O’Donnell discloses using a photovoltaic array 4007 (PV cells) proximate to a wellhead and used to provide electrical power to operate a heating element 4020 in a well 4010 and to charge a battery 4044, the battery being connected to the heating elements and the PV cells and supplying electric power to the heating elements in addition to the solar electric power, e.g., in the absence of daylight, and further discloses a controller 4030 and processing unit 4040 for monitoring/adjusting at least heating element temperature and formation 4090 temperature [Fig. 4; para. 0010,0022,0028,0030,0042,0047,0048].
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the apparatus and methods of Vinegar, as modified, to supplement the available electric power, using a photovoltaic system, as disclosed by O’Donnell for powering heating elements in a well, such that a photovoltaic array is disposed at an aboveground location, the aboveground location located proximal to a wellhead of the production tubing with the battery connected to both the photovoltaic array and the permanently-installed array of heating elements. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected that this configuration would have been within the skill of the art and would successfully yield and achieve the expected and predictable result that a renewable energy source would be utilized for providing electrical power to the heating elements.
Claim 27 Vinegar, as modified with respect to claim 26, otherwise discloses all the limitations of this claim, but does not explicitly an energy distributor connected to the photovoltaic array, the energy storage device, and the permanently-installed array of heating elements, the energy distributor configured to, during times with sunlight, distribute energy collected by the photovoltaic array during times of sunlight to the energy storage device and the permanently-installed array of heating elements and to, during times without sunlight, distribute energy from the energy storage device to the permanently-installed array of heating elements.
O’Donnell further discloses a controller 4030 and processing unit 4040 for monitoring/adjusting at least heating element temperature and formation 4090 temperature [Fig. 4; para. 0010,0022,0028,0030,0042,0047,0048].
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the apparatus and methods of Vinegar, as modified, to configure the disclosed controller, processing unit, battery, and PV cells, such that an energy distributor, e.g., the controller and processing unit, is connected to the photovoltaic array, the energy storage device, e.g., the battery, and the permanently-installed array of heating elements, the energy distributor configured to, during times with sunlight, distribute energy collected by the photovoltaic array during times of sunlight to the energy storage device and the permanently-installed array of heating elements and to, during times without sunlight, distribute energy from the energy storage device to the permanently-installed array of heating elements. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected that this configuration would have been within the skill of the art and would successfully yield and achieve the expected and predictable result that the renewable energy source would be utilized for providing electrical power to the heating elements, with provisions made for fluctuating availability of the renewable energy source.
Claim 28 Vinegar, as modified with respect to claim 27, discloses that other sources of heat input may be combined with electric heaters in order “to maintain a substantially constant heating rate in the formation”, and otherwise discloses all the limitations of this claim, but does not explicitly disclose that the energy distributor is configured to provide an energy distribution to the permanently-installed array of heating elements so as to maintain a total heating during times with sunlight equal to a total heating during times without sunlight.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the apparatus and methods of Vinegar, as modified, to maintain a substantially constant heating rate in the formation by configuring the energy distributor to provide an energy distribution to the permanently-installed array of heating elements so as to maintain a total heating during times with sunlight equal to a total heating during times without sunlight. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected that this configuration would have been within the skill of the art and would successfully yield and achieve the expected and predictable result that Vinegar’s constant heating rate would be achieved by avoiding unequal power levels at various times during the day.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jones et al. (US5113935) discloses a sand screen with exteriorly positioned shunt tubes 26a-c [Figs. 1,2]. Kaminsky et al. (US20120138293) discloses maintaining constant electrical power during a well-heating process by providing a source of power in addition to fluctuating solar power [para. 0096-0098,0088]. Al-Driweesh (US20210131228) discloses circumferential spacing of electrically powered heat conductors 205 about production tubing 128 [para. 0035,0036].
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE STERLING GRAY whose telephone number is (313)446-4820. The examiner can normally be reached 7-4 Eastern - M-F.
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, Tara Schimpf can be reached at 571-270-7741. 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.
/GEORGE S GRAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676