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 11/20/2025.
Claims 1, 3-4, and 15 have been amended.
Claims 2, 16, and 24 have been cancelled.
Claims 1, 3-15, 17-23, and 25-29 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 11/20/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-15, 17-23, and 25-29 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Final Office Action filed 09/04/2025.
However, upon further consideration, the amendments introduce new issues that a new ground(s) of rejection is made.
Regarding applicant’s argument with respect to Al-Qasim not teaching a hydraulic connection between wells has been considered and not persuasive. Al-Qasim teaches “an observation well may be used to measure the migration or movement of CO2 through a reservoir” and to measure the migration or movement of CO2 from the injection well to the observation well infers a fluid flow through connected permeable pores spaces and/or fractures (i.e. hydraulic connection) to quantify the hydraulic transmissivity or diffusivity between the injection and observation well (i.e. parameter). Additionally, Al-Qasim teaches estimating a cumulative amount of CO2 migrated from the reservoir based upon measurements at the observation well which inherently implies the existence of hydraulically transmissive pathways capable of supporting fluid flow. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejections 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, and 25-29 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 teaches: 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 teaches: 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 teaches: 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 teaches: 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 teaches: 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 teaches: 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 teaches: 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 teaches: 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 teaches: 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 teaches: 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 teaches: 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 teaches: 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 teaches: 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 teaches: 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 teaches: 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 teaches: 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 teaches: 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 teaches: 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).
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 teaches: 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 teaches: 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 teaches: 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. (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 11. Al-Qasim in view of Ayirala, Hager and Crews teaches: The method of claim 10, drilling at least one well in accordance with the well spacing plan (Crews: methods described here… (a) determining hydrocarbon production economics…(c) lessons learned through different completion parameters (such as interval spacing, perforation spacing and density, and the like)… factors can play a role in a later in-fill drilling program, [0031])
Claim 13. Al-Qasim in view of Ayirala and Hager teaches: 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 teaches: 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).
Conclusion
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 7:30 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