DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This Action is in response to the applicant's reply of 2/18/2026. In view of the applicant's amendments, the previously presented 35 USC 112(b) rejections, have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. All contentions with respect to the combination of Hutchinson, Chorn, Keller, Dale, and Tubel, are addressed in the current rejections of amended independent claims 1, 11, and 16, however, the examiner notes that, beginning at the first full paragraph on page 9, the applicant argues that the examiner’s combination does not disclose "setting a minimum temperature threshold to a thermal shock temperature of a formation through which the wellbore extends,” and discusses Hutchinson and Keller in this regard. The examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that Chorn teaches that it is undesirable to fracture the formation into which the supercritical carbon dioxide is being injected, as discussed at, e.g., the claim 1 rejection in the non-final office action mailed 1/14/2026, and again below. Thus, Keller discloses that dropping below a certain pressure threshold will cause thermal shock that fractures the formation while Chorn discloses the undesirability of this fracture event, such that the combination discloses that the art suggests staying above that temperature threshold.
The examiner further notes that the applicant’s references to the new position of the temperature measurement/sensor, now present in all three independent claims, is addressed with the new reference, Dale.
All remaining claims are dependent and no contentions, specific to such claims, are made by the applicant with respect to those.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 19 The term “equipment” renders the claim indefinite in that it includes an open-ended group of items, all of which must not be “damaged” by contact with the carbon dioxide, over an undefined amount of time.
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 1, 2, 4, 7-14, 16, 17, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hutchinson et al. (US20230356813) [Hutchinson], in view of Chorn (US2023016334), Keller et al. (US20120318533) [Keller], Dale et al. (US20240309736) [Dale], and Tubel (US20220251925),
Claim 1 Hutchinson discloses a method for carbon dioxide injection [Figs. 1,2,7; abstract; para. 0022,0023,0030,0035,0046-0050], the method comprising:
pumping carbon dioxide into a wellbore 42 with a carbon dioxide pump 155 [Figs, 1,7; para. 0046,0047];
measuring a carbon dioxide temperature of the carbon dioxide; and based on the carbon dioxide temperature, controlling a temperature of the carbon dioxide with a heater 156,161 configured to heat the carbon dioxide between the carbon dioxide pump 155 and the wellbore 42, to a temperature between the minimum temperature threshold and a high temperature threshold, the high temperature threshold being selected to prevent the carbon dioxide from exiting a liquid phase or a supercritical phase [using the heater 156,161 to raise and maintain the carbon dioxide above the temperature at which the carbon dioxide is in a supercritical phase, thus, necessarily measuring the temperature to be apprised of and confirm the supercritical status before and as the supercritical fluid enters the wellbore, the temperature being chosen and maintained such that the carbon dioxide is a supercritical fluid at all times of injection, necessarily setting a minimum temperature threshold for at least achieving the supercritical phase, and necessarily limiting the upper temperature, thereby establishing a high temperature threshold to prevent the carbon dioxide from exiting a liquid phase or a supercritical phase; para. 0023,0035,0047].
Hutchinson otherwise discloses all the limitations of this claim, but does not explicitly disclose (1) setting the minimum temperature threshold to a thermal shock temperature of a formation through which the wellbore extends, (2) measuring a carbon dioxide temperature of the carbon dioxide between the carbon dioxide pump and the wellbore prior to pumping the carbon dioxide into the wellbore 42, (3) measuring a carbon dioxide pressure at the wellbore and, based on the carbon dioxide pressure, adjusting a flow rate of the carbon dioxide based on a flow rate threshold, or (4) that the flow rate threshold is at or below a maximum infiltration rate of the carbon dioxide into the formation through which the wellbore extends.
Chorn discloses the injection of supercritical carbon dioxide [para. 0031] in a manner such that inadvertent and undesirable fracturing of the formation is avoided, including staying below an injection flow rate that would cause fracturing [para. 0074, 0031,0003,0005,0042,0089,0099].
Keller discloses that a reduction in temperature of injected supercritical carbon dioxide can result in a thermal shock that fractures the formation [para. 0061].
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 Hutchinson to maintain the temperature of the injected supercritical carbon dioxide above the thermal shock temperature threshold to avoid fracturing the formation, such avoidance being desirable in some circumstances as disclosed by Chorn, and fracturing at a reduced temperature threshold being known to thermally shock and fracture the formation as taught by Keller. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected that this combination of prior art elements and techniques would have been within the skill of the art and would successfully yield and achieve the expected and predictable result that Hutchinson’s injection of carbon dioxide would be accomplished at a temperature that avoids fracturing the formation.
Hutchinson, as modified, does not explicitly disclose (2) measuring a carbon dioxide temperature of the carbon dioxide between the carbon dioxide pump and the wellbore prior to pumping the carbon dioxide into the wellbore 42, (3) measuring a carbon dioxide pressure at the wellbore and that, based on the carbon dioxide pressure, adjusting a flow rate of the carbon dioxide based on a flow rate threshold, or (4) that the flow rate threshold is at or below a maximum infiltration rate of the carbon dioxide into the formation through which the wellbore extends.
Dale discloses injecting fluids to a wellhead 14 and into a reservoir 20, using a pump 46, and placing sensors, e.g., a temperature sensor 62B, for regulating at least the pump, downstream of the pump and with no further equipment between such sensors and the wellhead other than pipe 30 [Figs. 1,2; para. 0035-0037,0028].
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 Hutchinson, as modified, to include downhole temperature, pressure, and flow rate sensors, between the pump and the wellhead/wellbore, and with no other equipment other than pipe between the sensors and the wellhead/wellbore, as disclosed by Dale for the analogous purpose of injecting pressured fluids into a reservoir, and to utilize such sensors at least for achieving the Hutchinson maintenance of the desired minimum temperature threshold at all times before and as injection occurs, as discussed above. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected that this combination of prior art elements and techniques would have been within the skill of the art and would successfully yield and achieve the expected and predictable result that temperature, pressure, and flow rate sensed and measured data downstream of the Hutchinson heater, but before the wellbore, would be provided.
Hutchinson, as modified, does not explicitly disclose (3) measuring a carbon dioxide pressure at the wellbore and that, based on the carbon dioxide pressure, adjusting a flow rate of the carbon dioxide based on a flow rate threshold.
Tubel discloses injecting carbon dioxide into a formation 201,202 in a well 200, wherein at least temperature, pressure, and flow rate sensors 30 are positioned downhole, thus at the wellbore, with means for communicating the sensed data [Figs. 1-5; para. 0010,0012-0014,0024,0026,0030].
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 Hutchinson, as modified, to include at least downhole pressure and flow rate sensors, at the wellbore, as disclosed by Tubel. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected that this combination of prior art elements and techniques would have been within the skill of the art and would successfully yield and achieve the expected and predictable result that the pressure and flow rate sensed and measured data proximate the point of injection into the formation would be provided. As so modified, Hutchinson discloses (3) measuring a carbon dioxide pressure at the wellbore and that, based adjusting a flow rate of the carbon dioxide based on a flow rate threshold [the flow rate from the upstream carbon dioxide storage tank 144 is measured and controlled in a manner compatible with vessel ballast control and the above-described injection (para. 0073,0428,0429), such that the temperature and pressure levels and measurements, discussed in the foregoing, having required levels to achieve the dual purposes of delivering the supercritical fluid to the wellbore and injecting the supercritical fluid into the reservoir 46,16 (para. 0023), must necessarily dictate a flow rate compatible with such dual purposes, such that the flow rate would be required to be adjusted to be compatible with the pressure and temperature levels that must be maintained to achieve such dual purposes], however, Hutchinson, as modified, does not explicitly disclose (4) that the flow rate threshold is at or below a maximum infiltration rate of the carbon dioxide into the formation through which the wellbore extends.
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 set the flow rate threshold at or below a maximum infiltration rate of the carbon dioxide into the formation through which the wellbore extends, in that such a limit is necessary for and consistent with the purpose of avoiding formation fracturing, as discussed in the foregoing and in view of Chorn. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected that this combination of prior art elements and techniques would have been within the skill of the art and would successfully yield and achieve the expected and predictable result that undesirable formation fracturing would be avoided.
Claim 2 Hutchinson, as modified with respect to claim 1, discloses that pumping carbon dioxide into the wellbore includes pumping the carbon dioxide through a wellhead 40 attached to the wellbore 42 [Fig. 1; para. 0022], a carbon dioxide pressure sensor is disposed between the heater and the wellhead, and measuring a carbon dioxide pressure at the wellbore includes measuring the carbon dioxide pressure between the heater and the wellhead [as discussed with respect to Dale in the claim 1 combination no other equipment is downstream from the temperature and pressure sensors, other than the pipe to the wellhead, thus Dale discloses placing the temperature and pressure sensors between the heater and the wellhead].
Claim 4 Hutchinson, as discussed with respect to claim 1, discloses that the minimum temperature threshold is based at least in part on an equipment operation temperature of equipment at the wellbore [after raising the temperature and pressure the carbon dioxide supercritical system 154 must both deliver the supercritical fluid to the wellbore and inject the supercritical fluid into the reservoir 46,16, thus the temperature, which necessarily interacts with the pressure to achieve such dual purposes (para. 0023), must necessarily exceed the minimum amount to achieve both purposes in light of the effect on the achievement of such purposes caused by the equipment between the pump 155 and heater 156, such equipment being shown in Fig. 1].
Claim 7 Hutchinson, as modified with respect to claim 1, discloses measuring the carbon dioxide pressure includes measuring the carbon dioxide pressure downhole in the wellbore [e.g., the downhole pressure sensor of the combination discussed at claim 1 herein].
Claim 8 Hutchinson, as modified with respect to claim 1, discloses that the flow rate threshold includes at least one of a minimum flow rate threshold above which a minimum pressure of carbon dioxide to infiltrate the formation is maintained within the wellbore; or a maximum flow rate threshold below the maximum infiltration rate of the formation through which the wellbore extends before damage to the formation occurs [e.g., the maximum flow rate threshold being below the maximum infiltration rate as discussed at claim 1 herein].
Claim 9 Hutchinson, as modified with respect to claim 1, discloses that adjusting the flow rate includes adjusting the flow rate to maintain the carbon dioxide pressure within a threshold pressure range [the stated goal is to inject carbon dioxide as an “ideal’ supercritical fluid into a geologic structure (para. 0023), and the flow rate from, and the temperature and pressure of the supercritical fluid leaving, the supercritical fluid injection system 154, are all interrelated, thus the success of the desired injection into the geologic structure is necessarily based on each of the flow rate, temperature, and pressure, with each of the flow rate, temperature, and pressure being within mutually accommodating ranges that are consistent with such stated goal].
Claim 10 Hutchinson, as modified with respect to claim 1, discloses the carbon dioxide is pumped in the supercritical phase [para. 0023].
Claim 11 As discussed with respect to claim 1, Hutchinson discloses a carbon dioxide injection system [Figs. 1,2,7; abstract; para. 0022,0023,0030,0035,0046-0050], comprising:
a carbon dioxide pump 155 configured to pump carbon dioxide into a wellbore 42;
equipment configured to measure a temperature of the carbon dioxide being injected; and a heater 156,161 between the carbon dioxide pump 155 and the wellbore 42, wherein the heater is configured to maintain the carbon dioxide above a minimum temperature threshold and below a high temperature threshold, wherein the high temperature threshold is selected to prevent the carbon dioxide from exiting a liquid phase or a supercritical phase [using the heater 156,161 to raise and maintain the carbon dioxide above the temperature at which the carbon dioxide is in a supercritical phase, thus, necessarily measuring the temperature to be apprised of and confirm the supercritical status before and as the supercritical fluid enters the wellbore, the temperature being chosen and maintained such that the carbon dioxide is a supercritical fluid at all times of injection, necessarily setting a minimum temperature threshold for at least achieving the supercritical phase, and necessarily limiting the upper temperature, thereby establishing a high temperature threshold to prevent the carbon dioxide from exiting a liquid phase or a supercritical phase; para. 0023,0035,0047].
Hutchinson otherwise discloses all the limitations of this claim, but does not explicitly disclose (1) setting the minimum temperature threshold to a thermal shock temperature of a formation through which the wellbore extends (2) a temperature sensor between the carbon dioxide pump and the wellbore, the temperature sensor being configured to measure a temperature of the carbon dioxide between the carbon dioxide pump and the wellbore 42, (3) a pressure sensor configured for measuring a carbon dioxide pressure at the wellbore and adjusting a flow rate of the carbon dioxide based on a flow rate threshold and the carbon dioxide pressure, or (4) that the flow rate threshold is at or below a maximum infiltration rate of the carbon dioxide into the formation through which the wellbore extends.
Chorn discloses the injection of supercritical carbon dioxide [para. 0031] in a manner such that inadvertent and undesirable fracturing of the formation is avoided, including staying below an injection flow rate that would cause fracturing [para. 0074, 0031,0003,0005,0042,0089,0099].
Keller discloses that a reduction in temperature of injected supercritical carbon dioxide can result in a thermal shock that fractures the formation [para. 0061].
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 Hutchinson to maintain the temperature of the injected supercritical carbon dioxide above the thermal shock temperature threshold to avoid fracturing the formation, such avoidance being desirable in some circumstances as disclosed by Chorn, and fracturing at a reduced temperature threshold being known to thermally shock and fracture the formation as taught by Keller. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected that this combination of prior art elements and techniques would have been within the skill of the art and would successfully yield and achieve the expected and predictable result that Hutchinson’s injection of carbon dioxide would be accomplished at a temperature that avoids fracturing the formation.
Hutchinson, as modified, does not explicitly disclose (2) a temperature sensor between the carbon dioxide pump and the wellbore, the temperature sensor being configured to measure a temperature of the carbon dioxide between the carbon dioxide pump and the wellbore 42, (3) that based on the carbon dioxide pressure, adjusting a flow rate of the carbon dioxide based on a flow rate threshold, or (4) that the flow rate threshold is at or below a maximum infiltration rate of the carbon dioxide into the formation through which the wellbore extends.
Dale discloses injecting fluids to a wellhead 14 and into a reservoir 20, using a pump 46, and placing sensors, e.g., a temperature sensor 62B, for regulating at least the pump, downstream of the pump and with no further equipment between such sensors and the wellhead other than pipe 30 [Figs. 1,2; para. 0035-0037,0028].
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 Hutchinson, as modified, to include downhole temperature, pressure, and flow rate sensors, between the pump and the wellhead/wellbore, and with no other equipment other than pipe between the sensors and the wellhead/wellbore, as disclosed by Dale for the analogous purpose of injecting pressured fluids into a reservoir, and to utilize such sensors at least for achieving the Hutchinson maintenance of the desired minimum temperature threshold at all times before and as injection occurs, as discussed above. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected that this combination of prior art elements and techniques would have been within the skill of the art and would successfully yield and achieve the expected and predictable result that temperature, pressure, and flow rate sensed and measured data downstream of the Hutchinson heater, but before the wellbore, would be provided.
Hutchinson, as modified, does not explicitly disclose (3) a pressure sensor configured for measuring a carbon dioxide pressure at the wellbore and adjusting a flow rate of the carbon dioxide based on a flow rate threshold and the carbon dioxide pressure, or (4) that the flow rate threshold is at or below a maximum infiltration rate of the carbon dioxide into the formation through which the wellbore extends.
Tubel discloses injecting carbon dioxide into a formation 201,202 in a well 200, wherein at least temperature, pressure, and flow rate sensors 30 are positioned downhole, thus at the wellbore, with means for communicating the sensed data [Figs. 1-5; para. 0010,0012-0014,0024,0026,0030].
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 Hutchinson, as modified, to include at least downhole pressure and flow rate sensors, at the wellbore, as disclosed by Tubel. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected that this combination of prior art elements and techniques would have been within the skill of the art and would successfully yield and achieve the expected and predictable result that the pressure and flow rate sensed and measured data proximate the point of injection into the formation would be provided. As so modified, Hutchinson discloses (3) adjusting a flow rate of the carbon dioxide based on a flow rate threshold and the bottom hole pressure [the flow rate from the upstream carbon dioxide storage tank 144 is measured and controlled in a manner compatible with vessel ballast control and the above-described injection (para. 0073,0428,0429), such that the temperature and pressure levels and measurements, discussed in the foregoing, having required levels to achieve the dual purposes of delivering the supercritical fluid to the wellbore and injecting the supercritical fluid into the reservoir 46,16 (para. 0023), must necessarily dictate a flow rate compatible with such dual purposes, such that the flow rate would be required to be adjusted to be compatible with the pressure and temperature levels that must be maintained to achieve such dual purposes], however, Hutchinson, as modified, does not explicitly disclose (4) that the flow rate threshold is at or below a maximum infiltration rate of the carbon dioxide into the formation through which the wellbore extends.
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 set the flow rate threshold at or below a maximum infiltration rate of the carbon dioxide into the formation through which the wellbore extends, in that such a limit is necessary for and consistent with the purpose of avoiding formation fracturing, as discussed in the foregoing and in view of Chorn. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected that this combination of prior art elements and techniques would have been within the skill of the art and would successfully yield and achieve the expected and predictable result that undesirable formation fracturing would be avoided.
Claim 12 Hutchinson, as modified with respect to claim 11, otherwise discloses all the limitations of this claim, but does not explicitly disclose that the carbon dioxide pump has a pumping rate of between 0.5 m.sup.3/hr and 5 m.sup.3/hr. 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 first and second couplings of Schell, as modified, and the associated valve bodies and plug catchers to have an internal diameter from about 2 to about 4 inches, 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 13 Hutchinson, as modified with respect to claim 11, discloses piping connecting the carbon dioxide pump to a wellhead at a wellbore 42 [Fig. 1].
Claim 14 Hutchinson, as modified with respect to claim 11, discloses a plurality of carbon dioxide pumps arranged in parallel, the plurality of carbon dioxide pumps including the carbon dioxide pump [e.g., the parallel stages 200, each of which includes a pump; para. 0047,0184].
Claim 16 As discussed with respect to claims 1 and 11, Hutchinson discloses a carbon dioxide injection system [Figs. 1,2,7; abstract; para. 0022,0023,0030,0035,0046-0050], comprising:
a carbon dioxide pump 155 for pumping carbon dioxide into a wellbore 42 [Fig. 1,7; para. 0047];
a heater 156,161 for maintaining the carbon dioxide above a minimum temperature threshold and less than a high temperature threshold selected to prevent the carbon dioxide from exiting a liquid phase or a supercritical phase [using the heater 156,161 to raise and maintain the carbon dioxide above the temperature at which the carbon dioxide is in a supercritical phase, thus, necessarily measuring the temperature to be apprised of and confirm the supercritical status before and as the supercritical fluid enters the wellbore, thus the minimum threshold temperature is at least the critical point and, further, the temperature being chosen and maintained such that the carbon dioxide is a supercritical fluid at all times of injection, necessarily setting a minimum temperature threshold for at least achieving the supercritical phase, and necessarily limiting the upper temperature, thereby establishing a high temperature threshold to prevent the carbon dioxide from exiting a liquid phase or a supercritical phase; para. 0023,0035,0047].
Hutchinson otherwise discloses all the limitations of this claim, but does not explicitly disclose (1) that the minimum threshold temperature is set a minimum temperature threshold to a thermal shock temperature of a formation through which the wellbore extends, (2) that the carbon dioxide temperature is measured, using a sensor, between the carbon dioxide pump and the wellbore 42, (3) measuring, with a pressure sensor, a carbon dioxide pressure of the carbon dioxide at the wellbore, and, based on the carbon dioxide pressure, adjusting a flow rate of the carbon dioxide based on a flow rate threshold, (4) that the flow rate threshold is at or below a maximum infiltration rate of the carbon dioxide into the formation through which the wellbore extends, or (5) a processor and memory, the memory including instructions that, when executed, cause the processor to:
pump carbon dioxide into a wellbore with the carbon dioxide pump;
measure, with the temperature sensor, a carbon dioxide temperature of the carbon dioxide between the carbon dioxide pump and the wellbore;
measure, with the pressure sensor, a carbon dioxide pressure of the carbon dioxide at the wellbore;
set a minimum temperature threshold to a thermal shock temperature of a formation through which the wellbore extends;
based on the carbon dioxide temperature, control, with the heater, a temperature of the carbon dioxide between the carbon dioxide pump and the wellbore to a temperature between [[a]] the minimum temperature threshold and a high temperature threshold to prevent the carbon dioxide from exiting a liquid phase or a supercritical phase; and
based on the carbon dioxide pressure, adjust a flow rate of the carbon dioxide based on a flow rate threshold, wherein the flow rate threshold is at or below a maximum infiltration rate of the carbon dioxide into the formation through which the wellbore extends.
Chorn discloses the injection of supercritical carbon dioxide [para. 0031] in a manner such that inadvertent and undesirable fracturing of the formation is avoided, including staying below an injection flow rate that would cause fracturing [para. 0074, 0031,0003,0005,0042,0089,0099].
Keller discloses that a reduction in temperature of injected supercritical carbon dioxide can result in a thermal shock that fractures the formation [para. 0061].
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 Hutchinson to maintain the temperature of the injected supercritical carbon dioxide above the thermal shock temperature threshold to avoid fracturing the formation, such avoidance being desirable in some circumstances as disclosed by Chorn, and fracturing at a reduced temperature threshold being known to thermally shock and fracture the formation as taught by Keller. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected that this combination of prior art elements and techniques would have been within the skill of the art and would successfully yield and achieve the expected and predictable result that Hutchinson’s injection of carbon dioxide would be accomplished at a temperature that avoids fracturing the formation.
Hutchinson, as modified, does not explicitly disclose (2) that the carbon dioxide temperature is measured, using a sensor, between the carbon dioxide pump and the wellbore 42.
Dale discloses injecting fluids to a wellhead 14 and into a reservoir 20, using a pump 46, and placing sensors, e.g., a pressure sensor 62A, a temperature sensor 62B, for regulating at least the pump, downstream of the pump and with no further equipment between such sensors and the wellhead other than pipe 30 [Figs. 1,2; para. 0035-0037,0028].
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 Hutchinson, as modified, to include downhole temperature, pressure, and flow rate sensors, between the pump and the wellhead/wellbore, and with no other equipment other than pipe between the sensors and the wellhead/wellbore, as disclosed by Dale for the analogous purpose of injecting pressured fluids into a reservoir, and to utilize such sensors at least for achieving the Hutchinson maintenance of the desired minimum temperature threshold at all times before and as injection occurs, as discussed above. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected that this combination of prior art elements and techniques would have been within the skill of the art and would successfully yield and achieve the expected and predictable result that temperature, pressure, and flow rate sensed and measured data downstream of the Hutchinson heater, but before the wellbore, would be provided.
Hutchinson, as modified, does not explicitly disclose (3) measuring, with a pressure sensor, a carbon dioxide pressure of the carbon dioxide at the wellbore, and, based on the carbon dioxide pressure, adjusting a flow rate of the carbon dioxide based on a flow rate threshold, (4) that the flow rate threshold is at or below a maximum infiltration rate of the carbon dioxide into the formation through which the wellbore extends,
Tubel discloses injecting carbon dioxide into a formation 201,202 in a well 200, wherein at least temperature, pressure, and flow rate sensors 30 are positioned downhole, thus at the wellbore, with means for communicating the sensed data [Figs. 1-5; para. 0010,0012-0014,0024,0026,0030].
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 Hutchinson, as modified, to include at least downhole pressure and flow rate sensors, at the wellbore, as disclosed by Tubel. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected that this combination of prior art elements and techniques would have been within the skill of the art and would successfully yield and achieve the expected and predictable result that the pressure and flow rate sensed and measured data proximate the point of injection into the formation would be provided. As so modified, Hutchinson discloses (3) based on the carbon dioxide pressure, adjusting a flow rate of the carbon dioxide based on a flow rate threshold [the flow rate from the upstream carbon dioxide storage tank 144 is measured and controlled in a manner compatible with vessel ballast control and the above-described injection (para. 0073,0428,0429), such that the temperature and pressure levels and measurements, discussed in the foregoing, having required levels to achieve the dual purposes of delivering the supercritical fluid to the wellbore and injecting the supercritical fluid into the reservoir 46,16 (para. 0023), must necessarily dictate a flow rate compatible with such dual purposes, such that the flow rate would be required to be adjusted to be compatible with the pressure and temperature levels that must be maintained to achieve such dual purposes], however, Hutchinson, as modified, does not explicitly disclose (4) that the flow rate threshold is at or below a maximum infiltration rate of the carbon dioxide into the formation through which the wellbore extends.
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 set the flow rate threshold at or below a maximum infiltration rate of the carbon dioxide into the formation through which the wellbore extends, in that such a limit is necessary for and consistent with the purpose of avoiding fracture formation, as discussed in the foregoing and in view of Chorn. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected that this combination of prior art elements and techniques would have been within the skill of the art and would successfully yield and achieve the expected and predictable result that undesirable formation fracturing would be avoided.
Hutchinson, as modified, discloses a controller 177 [Fig. 10b; para. 0073], but does not explicitly disclose (5) a processor and memory, the memory including instructions that, when executed, cause the processor to: pump carbon dioxide into a wellbore with the carbon dioxide pump; measure, with the temperature sensor, a carbon dioxide temperature of the carbon dioxide between the carbon dioxide pump and the wellbore; measure, with the pressure sensor, a carbon dioxide pressure of the carbon dioxide at the wellbore; set a minimum temperature threshold to a thermal shock temperature of a formation through which the wellbore extends; based on the carbon dioxide temperature, control, with the heater, a temperature of the carbon dioxide between the carbon dioxide pump and the wellbore to a temperature between the minimum temperature threshold and a high temperature threshold to prevent the carbon dioxide from exiting a liquid phase or a supercritical phase; and based on the carbon dioxide pressure, adjust a flow rate of the carbon dioxide based on a flow rate threshold, wherein the flow rate threshold is at or below a maximum infiltration rate of the carbon dioxide into the formation through which the wellbore extends.
Tubel further discloses injecting carbon dioxide into a formation 201,202 in a well 200, utilizing at least temperature, pressure, and flow rate sensors 30 [Figs. 1-5; para. 0010,0012-0014,0024,0026,0030], and further discloses a surface control system 100 having a data processor 110 (including hardware and software) and a computerized processing system 130 for data communication and downhole commands [Figs. 4,5; para. 0022,0023].
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 Hutchinson, as modified, to include a computerized processor and memory, as analogously disclosed by the Hutchinson controller and the Tubel surface control system, both as discussed above, with the memory including instructions that, when executed, cause the processor to: pump carbon dioxide into a wellbore with the carbon dioxide pump; measure, with the temperature sensor, a carbon dioxide temperature of the carbon dioxide between the carbon dioxide pump and the wellbore; measure, with the pressure sensor, a carbon dioxide pressure of the carbon dioxide at the wellbore; set a minimum temperature threshold to a thermal shock temperature of a formation through which the wellbore extends; based on the carbon dioxide temperature, control, with the heater, a temperature of the carbon dioxide between the carbon dioxide pump and the wellbore to a temperature between the minimum temperature threshold and a high temperature threshold to prevent the carbon dioxide from exiting a liquid phase or a supercritical phase; and based on the carbon dioxide pressure, adjust a flow rate of the carbon dioxide based on a flow rate threshold, wherein the flow rate threshold is at or below a maximum infiltration rate of the carbon dioxide into the formation through which the wellbore extends, such actions and equipment being otherwise disclosed by Hutchinson, as modified, without such a processor and memory. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected that this combination of prior art elements and techniques would have been within the skill of the art and would successfully yield and achieve the expected and predictable result that a well-known processor and memory for controlling such otherwise disclosed actions would be provided.
Claim 17 Hutchinson, as modified with respect to claim 16, discloses that the temperature sensor is disposed between the heater and the wellbore [as discussed with respect to Dale in the claim 16 combination no other equipment is downstream from the temperature and pressure sensors, other than the pipe to the wellhead, thus Dale discloses placing the temperature and pressure sensors between the heater and the wellhead].
Claim 21 Hutchinson, as modified with respect to claim 16, discloses that the flow rate threshold includes at least one of a minimum flow rate threshold above which a minimum pressure of carbon dioxide to infiltrate the formation is maintained within the wellbore; or a maximum flow rate threshold below the maximum infiltration rate of the formation through which the wellbore extends before damage to the formation occurs [e.g., the maximum flow rate threshold being below the maximum infiltration rate as discussed at claim 16 herein].
Claim 22 Hutchinson, as modified with respect to claim 11, discloses causing the heater to maintain the carbon dioxide above the minimum temperature threshold and below the high temperature threshold, and the carbon dioxide pump to adjust the flow rate of the carbon dioxide based on the flow rate threshold and the carbon dioxide pressure, as discussed at claim 11 herein, and otherwise discloses all the limitations of this claim, but does not explicitly disclose a computer system operably coupled to the heater, the temperature sensor, the carbon dioxide pump, and pressure sensor, wherein the computer system includes a processor and a memory storing machine readable instructions which when executed by the processor, cause the heater to maintain the carbon dioxide above the minimum temperature threshold and below the high temperature threshold; and the carbon dioxide pump to adjust the flow rate of the carbon dioxide based on the flow rate threshold and the carbon dioxide pressure.
Tubel further discloses a surface control system 100 having a computerized data processor 110 (including hardware and software) and a computerized processing system 130 for data communication and downhole commands [Figs. 4,5; para. 0022,0023].
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 Hutchinson, as modified, to include a computer having a processor and memory, as analogously disclosed by the Hutchinson controller and the Tubel surface control system, both as discussed above, with the memory including instructions that, when executed, cause the processor to cause the heater to maintain the carbon dioxide above the minimum temperature threshold and below the high temperature threshold, and the carbon dioxide pump to adjust the flow rate of the carbon dioxide based on the flow rate threshold and the carbon dioxide pressure, i.e., the otherwise disclosed functions of Hutchinson, as modified.
Claim 23 Hutchinson, as modified with respect to claim 11, discloses that the flow rate threshold includes at least one of a minimum flow rate threshold above which a minimum pressure of carbon dioxide to infiltrate the formation is maintained within the wellbore; or a maximum flow rate threshold below the maximum infiltration rate of the formation through which the wellbore extends before damage to the formation occurs [e.g., the maximum flow rate threshold being below the maximum infiltration rate as discussed at claim 11 herein].
Claim 24 Hutchinson, as modified with respect to claim 1, discloses that a temperature sensor Dale 62B [as included in the claim 1 combination] is disposed between the heater and the wellbore and measuring a carbon dioxide temperature includes measuring the carbon dioxide temperature between the heater and the wellbore [as discussed with respect to Dale in the claim 1 combination no other equipment is downstream from the temperature and pressure sensors, other than the pipe to the wellhead, thus Dale discloses placing the temperature and pressure sensors between the heater and the wellhead].
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hutchinson, in view of Chorn, Keller, Dale, and Tubel, and further in view of Hull et al. (US20230183558)[Hull].
Claim 15 Hutchinson, as modified with respect to claim 11, discloses that the carbon dioxide supercritical system 154, which includes a pump and a heater, is “modular to allow it to be installed along upper deck 138 as a unit” [para. 0030], and otherwise discloses all the limitations of this claim, but does not explicitly disclose that the carbon dioxide pump and the heater are mounted on a skid.
Hull discloses pumping carbon dioxide into a well, wherein the pumping unit 40 is on a skid [Fig. 1; para. 0043].
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 Hutchinson, as modified, to position the modular unit, including the pump and heater, on as skid, as disclosed by Hull for pumps. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected that this combination of prior art elements and techniques would have been within the skill of the art and would successfully yield and achieve the expected and predictable result that the desired installation capabilities for the modular unit having the pump and heater would be provided.
Claims 19 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hutchinson, in view of Chorn, Keller, Dale, and Tubel, and further in view of Davidsen (US20250198260).
Claim 19 Hutchinson, as discussed with respect to claim 17, discloses awareness of carbon dioxide handling circumstances which dictate different types of equipment to properly handle such circumstances [para. 0032], as well as, the compatibility of equipment used in Hutchinson’s system for injecting supercritical carbon dioxide [after raising the temperature and pressure, the carbon dioxide supercritical system 154 must both deliver the supercritical fluid to the wellbore and inject the supercritical fluid into the reservoir 46,16, thus the temperature, which necessarily interacts with the pressure to achieve such dual purposes (para. 0023), must necessarily exceed the minimum amount to achieve both purposes in light of the effect on the achievement of such purposes caused by the equipment between the pump 155 and heater 156, and be compatible with such equipment, such equipment being shown in Fig. 1], and otherwise discloses all the limitations of this claim, but does not explicitly disclose that the minimum temperature threshold is based on an operation temperature of equipment at the wellbore above which the equipment is not damaged by contact with the carbon dioxide.
Davidsen discloses that it was known that carbon dioxide injection projects can experience temperatures of a low magnitude that can damage wellbore equipment due to thermal shock to the equipment [para. 0002].
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 Hutchinson, as modified, to utilize temperatures above the level that would damage wellbore equipment as a result of thermal shock to the equipment, such a practice being preferred in light of the known possibility of such occurrences, as disclosed by Davidsen, and Hutchinson’s disclosed appreciation of potential conflicts between carbon dioxide handling circumstances and the associated equipment. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected that this combination of prior art elements and techniques would have been within the skill of the art and would successfully yield and achieve the expected and predictable result that the claimed carbon dioxide handling circumstances, including the minimum temperature threshold, would be compatible with the associated equipment.
Claim 25 Hutchinson, as modified with respect to claim 11, discloses that the temperature sensor is disposed between the heater and a wellhead located at the wellbore [as discussed with respect to Dale in the claim 11 combination no other equipment is downstream from the temperature and pressure sensors, other than the pipe to the wellhead, thus Dale discloses placing the temperature and pressure sensors between the heater and the wellhead], and further discloses awareness of carbon dioxide handling circumstances which dictate different types of equipment to properly handle such circumstances [para. 0032], as well as, the compatibility of equipment used in Hutchinson’s system for injecting supercritical carbon dioxide [after raising the temperature and pressure, the carbon dioxide supercritical system 154 must both deliver the supercritical fluid to the wellbore and inject the supercritical fluid into the reservoir 46,16, thus the temperature, which necessarily interacts with the pressure to achieve such dual purposes (para. 0023), must necessarily exceed the minimum amount to achieve both purposes in light of the effect on the achievement of such purposes caused by the equipment between the pump 155 and heater 156, and be compatible with such equipment, such equipment being shown in Fig. 1], and otherwise discloses all the limitations of this claim, but does not explicitly disclose that the minimum temperature threshold is also above an operation temperature of equipment at the wellhead above which the equipment is not damaged by contact with the carbon dioxide.
Davidsen discloses that it was known that carbon dioxide injection projects can experience temperatures of a low magnitude that can damage wellbore equipment due to thermal shock to the equipment [para. 0002].
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 Hutchinson, as modified, to utilize temperatures above the level that would damage wellbore equipment as a result of thermal shock to the equipment, such a practice being preferred in light of the known possibility of such occurrences, as disclosed by Davidsen, and Hutchinson’s disclosed appreciation of potential conflicts between the carbon dioxide handling circumstances and the associated equipment. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected that this combination of prior art elements and techniques would have been within the skill of the art and would successfully yield and achieve the expected and predictable result that the claimed carbon dioxide handling circumstances, including the minimum temperature threshold, would be compatible with the associated equipment.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Koyama et al. (US20090255679) discloses routing carbon dioxide from a tank through a pump then a heater to an injection well [Fig. 1; para. 0047]. Kim et al. (US20120132425) discloses monitoring carbon dioxide injection with pressure and temperature sensors, wherein the carbon dioxide is heated [Fig. 1; para. 0039]. Fripp et al. (US20220333460) discloses routing carbon dioxide from a tank through a pump and a heater to an injection well [Fig. 1A; para. 0027]. Kim et al. (US20120073799) discloses monitoring pressure and temperature during carbon dioxide injection, wherein the carbon dioxide is heated [Fig. 1; para. 0003,0067-0073].
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
Prosecution Insights