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 .
35 USC § 101
The claims limitations for claims 14-19 do not contain an abstract idea, and therefore, claims 14-19 are not subject to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
As to claim 1, the claim recites “A process for monitoring and quantifying anthropogenic carbon retained within a reservoir, the process comprising:
measuring δ13C and δ18O of in situ CO2 from a reservoir;
calculating endpoint values of the in situ CO2 using the δ13C and the δ18O;
measuring δ13C, and δ18O of anthropogenic CO2;
calculating endpoint values of the anthropogenic CO2 using the δ13C, and the δ18O;
injecting the anthropogenic CO2 into the reservoir via an injection well;
obtaining a volume or mass the anthropogenic CO2 injected into the reservoir;
collecting a produced sample from the reservoir via a production well after a period of time;
measuring δ13C, and δ18O of a mixed in situ and anthropogenic CO2; and
calculating fraction of the anthropogenic CO2 sequestered in the reservoir by using the endpoint values.”
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claim is directed to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (process for claim 1).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the bold type portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim that covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations).
In claim 1, the steps identified in bold type are mathematical concepts, therefore, they are considered to be abstract idea.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The claim comprises the following additional elements:
measuring δ13C and δ18O of in situ CO2 from a reservoir; measuring δ13C, and δ18O of anthropogenic CO2; injecting the anthropogenic CO2 into the reservoir via an injection well; obtaining a volume or mass the anthropogenic CO2 injected into the reservoir; collecting a produced sample from the reservoir via a production well after a period of time; measuring δ13C, and δ18O of a mixed in situ and anthropogenic CO2.
The additional elements “measuring δ13C and δ18O of in situ CO2 from a reservoir”; “measuring δ13C, and δ18O of anthropogenic CO2”; and “measuring δ13C, and δ18O of a mixed in situ and anthropogenic CO2” represent necessary data gathering and does not integrate the limitation into a practical application.
The additional elements “injecting the anthropogenic CO2 into the reservoir via an injection well”; “obtaining a volume or mass the anthropogenic CO2 injected into the reservoir”; and “collecting a produced sample from the reservoir via a production well after a period of time” are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it only adds an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claims elements do not reflect an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not reflect improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, do not recite a particular machine, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
The above claim, does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generically recited and are well-understood/conventional in a relevant art as evidenced by the prior art of record (Step 2B analysis).
For example, measuring δ13C and δ18O of in situ CO2 from a reservoir; measuring δ13C, and δ18O of anthropogenic CO2; and measuring δ13C, and δ18O of a mixed in situ and anthropogenic CO2 are considered necessary data gathering. As recited in MPEP section 2106.05(g), necessary data gathering (i.e., receiving measurement data) is considered extra solution activity in light of Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
For example, obtaining a volume or mass the anthropogenic CO2 injected into the reservoir is disclosed by ““Dai CN116499940A”, [0002]; and “Darrah US 20230323756”, Abstract, Abstract, [0013], [0015], [0019], [0096].
The claim, therefore, is not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-13 provide additional features/steps which are considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims, and do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
The dependent claims 2-13 are, therefore, also not patent eligible.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 14, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Han et al. (US 20130064604, hereinafter Han).
As to claim 14, Han teaches one or more injection wells ([0004] discloses a well coupled to a saline formation that is beneath an oil reservoir, and a pump operatively connected to the well and configured to inject carbon dioxide through the well and into the saline formation (i.e., injection well(s) - emphasis added by Examiner));
one or more production wells ([0029] discloses “existing production wells can be utilized to monitor for CO2 movement into the active (productive) area(s) of the reservoir.”);
one or more measurement devices associated with the one or more injection wells for measuring an amount of CO2 injected into a reservoir via the one or more injection wells ([0004] and [0005] disclose inject carbon dioxide into a well coupled to the saline formation; and each sensor of one or more sensors coupled to the monitoring station is in contact with the oil reservoir and/or the saline formation, and takes measurements that correlate to the amount of CO2 in the environment surrounding the sensor); and
a measurement collection and analysis system configured for receiving gas samples and for measuring an amount of CO2 sequestered within the reservoir ([0005] and [0052] disclose each sensor is in contact with the oil reservoir and/or the saline formation, and takes measurements that correlate to the amount of CO2 in the environment surrounding the sensor; and CO2 injection into targeted formations and reservoirs are analyzed; [0074] discloses the monitoring system produces an alert when the amount of CO2 in fluids surrounding a particular sensor in the portion of the saline formation or the portion of the oil reservoir exceeds a predetermined amount
(i.e., receive measured amount of CO2 sequestered within the reservoir - emphasis added by Examiner)).
As to claim 16, Han teaches the claimed limitations as discussed in claim 14.
Han teaches wherein CO2 monitoring and quantifying system further comprises a CO2 storage plant ([0004] discloses “the pump may be operatively connected to one or more tanks of CO2 such as a tank of compressed CO2 .”)
As to claim 19, Han teaches the claimed limitations as discussed in claim 14.
Han teaches wherein the reservoir is undergoing enhanced oil recovery or drilling operations ([0050] discloses the influence of gravity forces will cause a CO2 plume to reach quickly below a low permeability caprock and consequently decrease the sweep efficiency of oil during CO2 enhanced oil recovery).
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 15 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (US 20130064604, hereinafter Han) in view of Al-Qasim (US 20230323755, hereinafter Al-Qasim).
As to claim 15, Han teaches the claimed limitations as discussed in claim 14.
Han does not explicitly teach wherein CO2 monitoring and quantifying system further comprises a mud gas separator.
Al-Qasim teaches wherein CO2 monitoring and quantifying system further comprises a mud gas separator ([0005] discloses “the process for quantifying CO2 sequestration within a reservoir may also include additional measurements from several sources including, a CO2 storage plant, a mixing process for preparing enhanced oil recovery fluids or foam and recovered gas recovered from a
mud gas separator.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Al-Qasim into Han for the purpose of measuring and quantifying carbon dioxide sequestration in a reservoir by measuring a cumulative amount of CO2 injected into a reservoir via injection wells, CO2 produced from the reservoir via production wells, and by estimating the cumulative amount of CO2 migrated from a reservoir based on CO2 measured at observations wells. This combination would improve in accurately measuring a net amount of CO2 remaining in the reservoir based on the cumulative amount of CO2 injected, produced,
and migrated.
As to claim 17, Han teaches the claimed limitations as discussed in claim 14.
Han does not explicitly teach wherein CO2 monitoring and quantifying system further comprises a processing plant.
Al-Qasim teaches wherein CO2 monitoring and quantifying system further comprises a processing plant ([0021] discloses “the amount of CO2 may be measured from a combined stream of produced formation fluids at a processing plant such as a gas oil separation plant.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Al-Qasim into Han for the purpose of measuring and quantifying carbon dioxide sequestration in a reservoir by measuring a cumulative amount of CO2 injected into a reservoir via injection wells, CO2 produced from the reservoir via production wells, and by estimating the cumulative amount of CO2 migrated from a reservoir based on CO2 measured at observations wells. This combination would improve in accurately measuring a net amount of CO2 remaining in the reservoir based on the cumulative amount of CO2 injected, produced,
and migrated.
As to claim 18, Han teaches the claimed limitations as discussed in claim 14.
Han does not explicitly teach wherein the reservoir is a depleted reservoir.
Al-Qasim teaches wherein the reservoir is a depleted reservoir ([0017] discloses “CO2 may also be introduced into depleted (abandoned or nonproducing wells) for the express purpose of carbon capture and storage.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Al-Qasim into Han for the purpose of measuring and quantifying carbon dioxide sequestration in a reservoir by measuring a cumulative amount of CO2 injected into a reservoir via injection wells, CO2 produced from the reservoir via production wells, and by estimating the cumulative amount of CO2 migrated from a reservoir based on CO2 measured at observations wells. This combination would improve in accurately measuring a net amount of CO2 remaining in the reservoir based on the cumulative amount of CO2 injected, produced,
and migrated.
Examiner' s Note
Regarding Claims 1-13, the most pertinent prior arts are “Han US 20130064604, “Al-Qasim US 20230323755”, “Dai CN116499940A”, “Darrah US 20230323756”, “Sayed US 20240167991”, “Romanak US 20150000374”, “Bailey US 20100318337”, “Constantz US 20100258035”, “Constantz US 20200370001”, “Constantz US 20100024686”, “Rodrigues et al. (Molecular and Isotopic Composition of Hydrate-Bound, Dissolved and Free Gases in the Amazon Deep-Sea Fan and Slope sediments, Brazil), Geosciences, published: 31 January 2019, provided by applicant”, “Schoell (The Hydrogen and carbon isotopic composition of methane from natural gases of various origins), Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, published 19 December 1979, provided by applicant”, “Tilley et al. (Gas maturity and alteration systematics across the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin from four mud gas isotope depth profiles), ScienceDirect, published 21 November 2006, provided by applicant”, “Cummin (Quantifying Carbon Dioxide Sequestration and Constraining the Potential Sources of Dissolved Methane at The Tablelands, Gros Morne National Park, NL, Canada; A Site of Continental Serpentinization), M.S. Thesis, August 2018, provided by applicant”, “Phillips et al. (Incorporating Concentration Dependence in Stable Isotope Mixing Models), Oecologia, published 24 August 2001, provided by applicant”, “Gardiner (Isotopic Investigation of Subsurface Rock and Fluid Interactions: Case Studies of CO2 Sequestration and Gas-Be Shale Formations, Ph.D. Dissertation, defended on November 15, 2013, provided by applicant”, “Phillips et al. (Incorporating Concentration Dependence in Stable Isotope Mixing Models: A reply to Robbins, Hilderbrand and Farley), Oecologia, Published: 30 July 2002, provided by applicant”.
As to claim 1, Dai teaches “injecting the anthropogenic CO2 into the reservoir via an injection well (Dai, [0002]);
obtaining a volume or mass the anthropogenic CO2 injected into the reservoir (Dai, [0002]).
Han teaches collecting a produced sample from the reservoir via a production well after a period of time (Han, [0006], [0060], [0061], [0074]).
However, the prior arts of record, alone or in combination, do not fairly teach or suggest “measuring δ13C and δ18O of in situ CO2 from a reservoir;
calculating endpoint values of the in situ CO2 using the δ13C and the δ18O;
measuring δ13C, and δ18O of anthropogenic CO2;
calculating endpoint values of the anthropogenic CO2 using the δ13C, and the δ18O”;
“measuring δ13C, and δ18O of a mixed in situ and anthropogenic CO2”;
“calculating fraction of the anthropogenic CO2 sequestered in the reservoir by using the endpoint values” including all limitations as claimed.
Dependent claims 2-13 are also distinguish over the prior art for at least the same reason as claim 1.
Examiner notes, however, that claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, and therefore, not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
“White US 7704746 B1” teaches “The invention provides methods for the measurement of carbon dioxide leakage from sequestration reservoirs. Tracer moieties are injected along with carbon dioxide into geological formations. Leakage is monitored by gas chromatographic analyses of absorbents. The invention also provides a process for the early leak detection of possible carbon dioxide leakage from sequestration reservoirs by measuring methane (CH4), ethane (C2H6), propane (C3H8), and/or radon (Rn) leakage rates from the reservoirs. The invention further provides a method for branding sequestered carbon dioxide using perfluorcarbon tracers (PFTs) to show ownership.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAL CE MANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday- 8:30-12:00, 1:00-5:30 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, Catherine T Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/LAL CE MANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights