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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Applicant’s claims, filed on 05/27/2026.
Claim 10 has been amended.
Claims 2, 11, 16, 20-21 and 24-25 have been cancelled.
Claim s 30-33 have been added.
Claims 1, 3-10, 12-15, 17-19, 22-23, and 26-33 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 05/27/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-10, 12-15, 17-19, 22-23, and 26-33 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections of claims 1, 3-9, 12-15, 17-19, 22-23, and 26-29 have been fully considered and found not persuasive; therefore, the rejections have been maintained as previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action filed 02/04/2026 and are repeated below. Applicant’s amended claim 10 and added claims 30-33 raise new issues and a new ground(s) of rejection is made. Although amended claim 10 has been further limited, the amended claims still read on the prior art of record, as each newly added limitation is taught by the applied references as explained in the updated claim rejections below.
Regarding applicant’s argument with respect of Al-Qasim in view of Ayirala not teaching injecting carbonated water into a CO2 injection well for the purposes of detecting parameters corresponding to a hydraulic connection between wells has been considered and not persuasive. Al-Qasim teaches monitoring movement of injected CO2 within a reservoir using an observation well where “the cumulative amount of CO2 migrated may be estimated by measuring an amount of CO2 recovered from the observation well, by measuring the flow rate of the CO2 mixture…analyzing the composition of CO2…and calculating the CO2 rate.” Additionally, Al-Qasim teaches “tracers may be introduced via the injection well and produced via the observation well and measured.” Therefore, Al-Qasim teaches introducing a detectable tracer into an injection well, detecting the tracer at the observation well, and measuring quantitative parameters associated with the migrated CO2. Such measurements, including recovered amount, flow rate, and composition, characterize the fluid communication between the wells, and therefore teach detecting parameters corresponding to the claimed hydraulic connection. Ayirala teaches injecting carbonated water through an injection well for reservoir operations and therefore, teaches the injection of carbonated water recited in the claims. Although Ayirala teaches carbonated water injection in the context of enhanced oil recovery, a reference is not limited to its preferred purpose. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that carbonated water injected according to Ayirala is capable of being detected using the monitoring techniques taught by Al-Qasim. Applying the known monitoring techniques to known carbonated water injection merely substitutes one known injection fluid for another and would have predictably yielded information regarding fluid communication between wells. Furthermore, in response to the Applicant’s piecemeal analysis of the references, it has been held that one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). See MPEP § 2145(VI).
Applicant further argues that Al-Qasim does not teach determining a parameter corresponding of a hydraulic connection. The quantitative measurements taught by Al-Qasim are parameters indicative of the transport of injected fluid between wells. The detection of injected CO2 or a tracer at an observation well necessarily establishes a subsurface fluid pathway between the injection well and the observation well. Likewise, the measured migration quantity, rate and flow characteristics provide information regarding the effectiveness and characteristics of the hydraulic communication. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these measurements constitute parameters corresponding to a hydraulic connection as recited in the claim. Therefore, the combination of Al-Qasim in view of Ayirala teaches injecting carbonated water into a CO2 injection well for the purposes of detecting parameters corresponding to a hydraulic connection between wells and the rejection maintained.
Applicant further argues Hager does not teach or suggest a baseline of CO2 in the reservoir and the combination with Al-Qaism is based upon impermissible hindsight reconstruction. Hager is relied upon for teaching a baseline and response monitoring methodology. Specifically, the reference teaches collecting baseline data to identify the initial state of the reservoir, injecting a fluid that may comprise CO2 and collecting response data after injection. The reference further teaches that a baseline and response is used to identify reservoir properties including detecting flow properties, predicting reservoir performance, and evaluating CO2 sequestration. Additionally, Hager teaches that the data processing system receives both baseline data and response data from the measurement system for use in reservoir characterization. According, the mapping of the claim element is not relying on Hager for teaching the express measurement of CO2 as “a baseline of CO2 in the reservoir” is mapped as baseline data as shown below. The reference is relied upon for its express teaching of obtaining baseline reservoir measurements prior to CO2 injection and using the baseline measurements together with post injection measurements to characterize the effects of injecting CO2 into the reservoir. The rejection relies on Al-Qasim for measuring the quantity of migrated CO2 and upon Hager for the expressly taught baseline monitoring methodology used to characterize the reservoir before and after CO2 injection. The combined teachings reasonably suggest using the measured quantity of migrated CO2 in view of the known pre-injection reservoir condition to characterize reservoir communication and flow behavior.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). The motivation to combine the references is found within the applied references themselves. Hager expressly teaches establishing baseline measurements before injection and collecting response measurements after injection to characterize the reservoir behavior resulting from injected CO2 including determining flow properties of the reservoir. Al-Qasim expressly teaches measuring migrated CO2 at an observation well to determine quantitative parameters associated with CO2 migration through the reservoir. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known baseline and response monitoring methodology of Hager to the CO2 monitoring technique of Al-Qasim would predictably characterize the migration of injected CO2 in through the reservoir by accounting for pre-injection reservoir conditions.
Therefore, applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive, and the rejections are maintained.
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, 3-5, 7-9, 12, 14-15, 17-19, 21-22, 25-29, and 31-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Qasim et al. (US2023/0323755) in view of Ayirala et al. (US2019/0376374) and Hager et al. (US2011/0066380).
Claim 1. Al-Qasim discloses: A method for detecting parameters corresponding to a hydraulic connection between wells in a reservoir (abstract), comprising:
injecting water (water, [0029]) into a CO2 injection well (510 CO2 injection well, Fig. 1);
measuring a quantity of CO2 in a water phase, and/or an oil phase, and/or a gas phase (amount of CO2 may also be estimated from the flow rate and composition of the produced formation fluids, [0021]) obtained from a CO2 recipient well (530 observation well or 536 production well, Fig. 1; used to measure the migration of movement of CO2, [0038]); and
determining at least one parameter corresponding to the hydraulic connection between the CO2 injection well and the CO2 recipient well based on the quantity of CO2 measured in step (II) (migration of CO2, [0038]; migration is indicative of fracture size). Al-Qasim does not disclose: carbonated water. Al-Qasim does not disclose: carbonated water or a baseline of CO2 in the reservoir.
Ayirala teaches the use of carbonated water as an injection fluid for water flooding of an underground reservoir for enhanced oil recovery wherein the carbonated water is specially prepared to release an increased amount of CO2 inside the reservoir and improve the mobilization/movement of fluids. Therefore, Ayirala teaches: carbonated water (introducing a volume of carbonated injection water that is saturated with carbon dioxide into an underground hydrocarbon reservoir via an injection well, [0004]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the fracturing fluid of Al-Qasim with the carbonated water of Ayirala with a reasonable expectation of success since it is more effective to use carbonated water to release an increased amount of CO2 into the reservoir and mobilize fluids movement as suggested by Ayirala ([0003, 0031]).
Al-Qasim in view of Ayirala does not teach: a baseline of CO2 in the reservoir. Hager teaches a method of using an injection fluid to characterize and/or monitor a reservoir based upon fluid injection. Hager teaches: a baseline of CO2 in the reservoir (baseline data, [0054]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize the baseline of CO2 in the reservoir as taught by Hager to determine the cumulative CO2 that has migrated or moved from the injection well of Al-Qasim with a reasonable expectation of success to determine of the cumulative CO2 as taught by Al-Qasim [0021, 0038-0039]) since the determination requires a baseline or reference CO2 in the reservoir to be known in order to distinguish the injected CO2 from any CO2 already present in the reservoir.
Claim 3. Al-Qasim in view of Ayirala and Hager teach: The method of claim 1, wherein step (II) comprises measuring the quantity of CO2 in the gas phase (Al-Qasim, [0052]) obtained from the CO2 recipient well.
Claim 4. Al-Qasim in view of Ayirala and Hager teach: The method of claim 1, wherein step (II) comprises measuring the quantity of CO2 in the oil phase (Al-Qasim, [0053]) obtained from the CO2 recipient well.
Claim 5. Al-Qasim in view of Ayirala and Hager teach: The method of claim 1, comprising mixing an identifying agent (Al-Qasim: tracers, [0008]) into the carboned water prior to injecting into the CO2 injection well.
Claim 7. Al-Qasim in view of Ayirala and Hager teach: The method of claim 1 and carbonated water. Al-Qasim does not disclose: a homogeneous mixture.
Although not explicitly taught by Ayirala, carbonated injection water that is saturated with carbon dioxide creates a homogenous mixture. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to recognize that saturating water with carbon dioxide results in a homogenous mixture which is a predictable result based upon the laws of chemistry.
Claim 8. Al-Qasim in view of Ayirala and Hager teach: The method of claim 1. Al-Qasim discloses: mapping the hydraulic connection between the CO2 injection well and the CO2 recipient well (tracers, [0008]; tracers used to map movement of fluids).
Claim 9. Al-Qasim in view of Ayirala and Hager teach: The method of claim 1, wherein the reservoir has multiple CO2 recipient wells (Al-Qasim; 530 observation well, 536 production well; Fig. 1) and step (II) is performed with respect to at least two of the multiple CO2 recipient wells ([0036, 0042)].
Claim 12. Al-Qasim in view of Ayirala and Hager teach: The method of claim 1, wherein step (II) is carried out at least partly using a sensor present in the CO2 recipient well (Al-Qasim: Coriolis meter or ultrasonic meters used to measure gas, [0039]).
Claim 14. Al-Qasim in view of Ayirala and Hager teach: The method of claim 1, comprising periodically performing step (II) with respect to the CO2 recipient well (Al-Qasim: monitor real time flow, Fig. 1-2; [0022]).
Claim 15. Al-Qasim discloses: A well system (Fig. 1), comprising:
a pump (pump, [0032]) for injecting water into a CO2 injection well in order to permit detecting of parameters corresponding to a hydraulic connection between the CO2 injection well and a CO2 recipient well;
a detection device (590 measurement collection and analysis system, Fig. 1; [0044]) that identifies a quantity of CO2 in a water phase, and/or oil phase, and/or a gas phase obtained from the CO2 recipient well; and
a computing device (590 measurement collection and analysis system may include a computer system configured to log and provide analysis of the measurements and data, Fig. 1; [0044]) that determines at least one parameter corresponding to the hydraulic connection between the CO2 injection well and the CO2 recipient well based on the quantity of the CO2 measured from the CO2 recipient well (see previously rejected claims 1-9). Al-Qasim does not disclose: carbonated water and a baseline CO2 in a reservoir.
Ayirala teaches: carbonated water (see previously rejected claim 1).
Hager teaches: a baseline CO2 in a reservoir (see previously rejected claim 1).
Claim 17. Al-Qasim in view of Ayirala and Hager teach: The well system of claim 15, wherein the quantity of CO2 introduced by the carbonated water is identified by measuring gas around the CO2 recipient well (see previously rejected claim 3).
Claim 18. Al-Qasim in view of Ayirala and Hager teach: The well system of claim 15, wherein the quantity of CO2 introduced by the carbonated water is identified by measuring the oil around the CO2 recipient well (see previously rejected claim 4).
Claim 19. Al-Qasim in view of Ayirala and Hager teach: The well system of claim 15 wherein an identifying agent is mixed into the water prior to injecting the carbonated water into the CO2 injection (see previously rejected claim 5)
Claim 21. Al-Qasim in view of Ayirala and Hager teach: The method of claim 15, wherein the carbonated water comprises a homogeneous mixture (see previously rejected claim 7).
Claim 22. Al-Qasim in view of Ayirala and Hager teach: The well system of claim 15, wherein the computing device maps the hydraulic connection between the CO2 injection well and the CO2 recipient well (see previously rejected claim 8 and 15).
Claim 25. Al-Qasim in view of Ayirala and Hager teach: The method of claim 1, wherein identifying the quantity of CO2 comprises measuring liquid around the CO2 recipient well (Al-Qasim: 536 production well may be used to collect gas and measure the amount of CO2 contained within production fluids, [0042]).
Claim 26. Al-Qasim in view of Ayirala and Hager teach: The well system of claim 15, wherein identifying the quantity of CO2 comprises measuring liquid around the CO2 recipient well (Al-Qasim: 536 production well may be used to collect gas and measure the amount of CO2 contained within production fluids, [0042]).
Claim 27. Al-Qasim in view of Ayirala and Hager teach: The method of claim 1, wherein step (II) comprises measuring the quantity of CO2 in the water phase (Al-Qasim: amount of CO2 may also be estimated from the flow rate and composition of the produced formation fluids, [0021]; water is an inherent composition of produced fluids).
Claim 28. Al-Qasim in view of Ayirala and Hager teach: The method of claim 1, wherein step (II) comprises measuring the quantities of CO2 in at least two of the water phase, the oil phase, and the gas phase (Al-Qasim, [0052, 0053]).
Claim 29. Al-Qasim in view of Ayirala and Hager teach: The well system of claim 15, wherein the quantity of CO2 introduced by the carbonated water is identified by measuring water around the CO2 recipient well (Al-Qasim: amount of CO2 may also be estimated from the flow rate and composition of the produced formation fluids, [0021]; water is an inherent composition of produced fluids).
Claim 31. Al-Qasim in view of Ayirala and Hager teach: The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one parameter corresponding to the hydraulic connection comprises at least one of: a fracture growth pattern, a number of hydraulic fractures, a number of hydraulic connections between the CO2 injection well and the CO2 recipient well an azimuth of one or more hydraulic fractures, an intensity of the hydraulic connection, or a conductivity of one or more hydraulic fractures (Al-Qasim: observation well is located away from injection well…observation well may be used to collect tracers…tracers used to detect leakage…appearance of tracer indicates migration (i.e. hydraulic connection or conductivity between the injection and observation well); Fig. 2; [0048-0056]; Hager: properties of the reservoir such as migration pathways, faults or fractures can be determined; [0021-0022]).
Claim 32. Al-Qasim in view of Ayirala and Hager teach: The well system of claim 15, wherein the detection device comprises at least one of: a multi-phase flow meter (Al-Qasim: multi-phase flow meter; [0043]), a pH meter configured to measure pH of produced water, or a gas chromatograph.
Claim 33. Al-Qasim in view of Ayirala and Hager teach: The well system of claim 15, wherein the pump is configured to inject the carbonated water during a hydraulic fracturing process (Hager: well can be used for fracturing; [0032]), and wherein the computing device is further configured to derive interpretations regarding changes in a fracture system over time based on the quantity of CO2 measured from the CO2 recipient well (Al-Qasim; migration measurements over a given time period; [0010, 0021-0022]).
Claims 6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Qasim et al. (US2023/0323755) in view of Ayirala et al. (US2019/0376374), Hager et al. (US2011/0066380) and further in view of Sukhija et al. (US2010/0089142).
Claim 6. Al-Qasim in view of Ayirala and Hager teach: The method of claim 5 and identifying agent. Al-Qasim does not disclose: comprises a C13 isotope.
Sukhija teaches: a C13 isotope (for identification of injection water and its movement in oil wells utilizing natural carbon-13 stable isotope as a tracer, [0011]).
Sukhija teaches a process utilizing natural carbon-13 isotope for identification of early breakthrough of injection water in oil wells. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the tracer of Al-Qasim with the C13 isotope tracer of Sukhija with a reasonable expectation of success for the identification of injection water without using hazardous and radioactive chemicals and tracers as suggested by Sukhija ([0012]).
Claim 20. Al-Qasim in view of Ayirala, Hager and further in view of Sukhija teach: The well system of claim 19 and identifying agent. Al-Qasim does not disclose: comprises a C13 isotope.
Sukhija teaches: a C13 isotope (see previously rejected claim 6)
Claims 10-11, 13, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Qasim et al. (US2023/0323755) in view of Ayirala et al. (US2019/0376374), Hager et al. (US2011/0066380) and Crews et al. (US2017/0247995).
Claim 10. Al-Qasim in view of Ayirala and Hager teach: The method of claim 1. Al-Qasim in view of Ayirala and Hager does not disclose: generating a well spacing plan based on the hydraulic connection between the CO2 injection well and the CO2 recipient well.
Crews teaches: generating a well spacing plan based on the hydraulic connection between the CO2 injection well and the CO2 recipient well and drilling at least one well in accordance with the well spacing plan (methods described here… (a) determining hydrocarbon production economics, (b) determining areas of the acreages and shale reservoir which may indicate having higher total hydrocarbon content, (c) lessons learned through different completion parameters (such as interval spacing, perforation spacing and density, and the like); [0031]).
Crews teaches a method of obtaining information about subterranean formations using multiple wellbores comprising a first wellbore and at least one diagnostic wellbore with hydraulic connections between the wellbores wherein the information is utilized to optimize fracture treatment designs for subsequent wellbores. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to evaluate the migration information between the wells of Al-Qasim using the methodology of Crews with a reasonable expectation of success to generate a well spacing plan for subsequent wellbores as taught by Crews ([0024]).
Claim 13. Al-Qasim in view of Ayirala and Hager teach: The method of claim 1. Al-Qasim does not disclose: comprising performing at least one of a hydraulic fracturing operation or a hydrocarbon production operation based on hydraulic connection between the CO2 injection well and the CO2 recipient well.
Crews further teaches: comprising performing at least one of a hydraulic fracturing operation or a hydrocarbon production operation based on hydraulic connection between the CO2 injection well and the CO2 recipient well (devising a fracturing treatment design for the subterranean formation to optimize fracture complexity for subsequent lateral wellbores using the recorded fracture hit times, pressures and volumes, [0007]; see previously rejected claim 10).
Claim 23. Al-Qasim in view of Ayirala and Hager teach: The well system of claim 15 and computing device. Al-Qasim does not disclose: generates a well spacing plan based on the hydraulic connection between the CO2 injection well and the CO2 recipient well.
Crews further teaches: generates a well spacing plan based on the hydraulic connection between the CO2 injection well and the CO2 recipient well (methods described here… (a) determining hydrocarbon production economics, (b) determining areas of the acreages and shale reservoir which may indicate having higher total hydrocarbon content, (c) lessons learned through different completion parameters (such as interval spacing, perforation spacing and density, and the like), [0031]; computing device is not explicitly disclosed; however to generate production economics or implement lessons learned, a human i.e. a computing device, could generate the plans; see previously rejected claim 10).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Qasim et al. (US2023/0323755) in view of Ayirala et al. (US2019/0376374), Hager et al. (US2011/0066380) and further in view Kubala et al. (US7,726,404).
Claim 30. Al-Qasim in view of Ayirala and Hager teach: The method of claim 1.
Al-Qasim in view of Ayirala and Hager does not teach: continuously mixed from frac water and CO2 at a surface prior to injection.
Kubala discloses a method of fracturing a shale-containing subterranean formation penetrated by a wellbore using a carbon dioxide treatment fluid.
Kubala teaches: continuously mixed from frac water and CO2 at a surface prior to injection (slick water mixed with carbon dioxide is pumped continuously into the wellbore; Col. 4, line 58 – Col. 5, line 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the fluid injection system of Al-Qasim in view of Ayirala and Hage by including the process of continuously forming the carbonated fluid from frac water and CO2 as taught by Kubala with a reasonable expectation of success in order inject a continuously supply of fluid with a uniform composition as taught by Kubala (Col. 4, line 58 – Col. 5, line 11).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Goldberg discloses method of gravimetric monitoring of carbon dioxide stored in a geological formation using pre-injection baseline and post injection data to evaluate CO2 conditions in the formation. Goldberg does not disclose injection carbonated water.
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 Daniel Craig whose telephone number is (571)270-0747. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thurs 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM CST.
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.
/DANIEL T CRAIG/Examiner, Art Unit 3676 /TARA SCHIMPF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights