DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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.
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 of this title, 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 16 and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Springer (USP 5862866A) in view of Ebara et al. (Translation of JPS60134161A) hereinafter referred to as Springer and Ebara, respectively.
Regarding Claim 16, Springer discloses a geothermal well (shown in figure 8) comprising:
a wellbore within which is received an insulated tubing string (46) defining a conduit configured to convey a working fluid between a surface location and a subsurface location (shown in figure 8, “The circulating liquid then flows back to the surface through the tubes of the inner tubing string 21 and is removed via valve 52”, col. 8 ll. 50-52), and
cooling liquid is configured to adjust, in use, the temperature of the working fluid as it is conveyed toward the surface location (“When withdrawing geothermal energy from the formations surrounding the well, a cold fluid medium such as a liquid, preferably water, is pumped via a valve 51 down the space between the production casing string 47 and the double walled insulating tubing string 46. The temperature of rock formations increases with depth so that the circulating medium becomes warmer as it approaches the lower end of the tubing string 46. The circulating liquid then flows back to the surface through the tubes of the inner tubing string 21 and is removed via valve 52”, col. 43-53). Springer fails to disclose a cooling string configured to adjust, in use, the temperature of the working fluid as it is conveyed toward the surface location.
Ebara, also drawn to a geothermal well, teaches a cooling string (35) configured to adjust, in use, the temperature of the working fluid as it is conveyed toward the surface location (“Therefore, if the cold water pipe 35 is opened in the liquid phase in the production well 1, the vaporization of rapidly rising high-temperature hot water is prevented. And it lowers the whole production well / inner temperature... the temperature in the production well / inside can be controlled to reduce the fluctuation of the liquid level of the liquid phase”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Springer with a cooling string configured to adjust, in use, the temperature of the working fluid as it is conveyed toward the surface location, as taught by Ebara, the motivation being to prevent damage to well components and to maintain the water/pressure levels within the well.
Regarding Claim 24, Springer further discloses the well is a closed- loop geothermal well (“Closed loop geothermal wells where thermal heat exchanger liquid, which is commonly water, is pumped down to the bottom of a well in an annular space formed between a cemented casing string and a tubing string while drawing thermal energy from the surrounding formations and subsequently transporting the thermal energy to the surface through the tubing string”, col. 1 ll. 23-29).
Regarding Claim 25, Springer discloses an apparatus for use in the geothermal well according to claim 16 (see rejection of Claim 16), the apparatus comprising:
an insulated tubing string (46) defining a conduit configured to convey a working fluid between a surface location and a subsurface location (shown in figure 8, “The circulating liquid then flows back to the surface through the tubes of the inner tubing string 21 and is removed via valve 52”, col. 8 ll. 50-52), and
cooling liquid is configured to adjust, in use, the temperature of the working fluid as it is conveyed toward the surface location (“When withdrawing geothermal energy from the formations surrounding the well, a cold fluid medium such as a liquid, preferably water, is pumped via a valve 51 down the space between the production casing string 47 and the double walled insulating tubing string 46. The temperature of rock formations increases with depth so that the circulating medium becomes warmer as it approaches the lower end of the tubing string 46. The circulating liquid then flows back to the surface through the tubes of the inner tubing string 21 and is removed via valve 52”, col. 43-53). Springer fails to disclose a cooling string configured to adjust, in use, the temperature of the working fluid as it is conveyed toward the surface location.
Ebara, also drawn to a geothermal well, teaches a cooling string (35) configured to adjust, in use, the temperature of the working fluid as it is conveyed toward the surface location (“Therefore, if the cold water pipe 35 is opened in the liquid phase // in the production well 1, the vaporization of rapidly rising high-temperature hot water is prevented. And it lowers the whole production well / inner temperature... the temperature in the production well / inside can be controlled to reduce the fluctuation of the liquid level of the liquid phase”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Springer with a cooling string configured to adjust, in use, the temperature of the working fluid as it is conveyed toward the surface location, as taught by Ebara, the motivation being to prevent damage to well components and to maintain the water/pressure levels within the well.
Claims 17-23 and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Springer (USP 5862866A) in view of Ebara et al. (Translation of JPS60134161A) as applied in Claims 16 and 24-25 above and in further view of Perkins (USP 4705113A), hereinafter referred to as Perkins.
Regarding Claim 17, a modified Springer further teaches the cooling string (35, as previously taught by Ebara in the rejection of Claim 16) is received and the geothermal well is configured to convey, in use, the working fluid from the surface location to the subsurface location through an annular space (shown in figure 8, wherein working fluid is introduced through valve (51)) between the wellbore and the insulated tubing string (shown in figure 8), and from the subsurface location to the surface location through the insulated tubing string (46, shown in figure 8). Springer fails to disclose the cooling string is received within the conduit.
Perkins, also drawn to delivering cooling fluid to a wellbore, teaches a cooling string (24) is received within a conduit (18).
A modified Springer teaches a geothermal well receiving cooling fluid in order to regulate temperatures within said well, wherein the cooling fluid is provided by a pipe.
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that there is a need in the art to provide a specific location for the cooling string relative to the conduit, wherein the cooling string regulates the temperature of the inside of the well. Therefore, when there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, i.e. the cooling string being received within the conduit or the cooling string being situated outside of the conduit, a person of ordinary skill has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, i.e. that cooling fluid is delivered to the interior of the well for the purpose of regulating the temperature of said well, it is likely the product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance, the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show it was obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103 (KSR Int' l Co. v. Teleflex Incl, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Springer, by having the cooling string being received within the conduit, since choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is within the abilities of one having ordinary skill. See MPEP 2143(I)(E).
Regarding Claim 18, a modified Springer further teaches the cooling string (35, as previously taught by Ebara in the rejection of Claim 16) is configured to inject, in use, a cooling fluid (“chilled water” of Ebara) into the conduit (see rejection of Claim 17, wherein Perkins teaches it is old an well-known to place a cooling water pipe within a conduit) so as to adjust the temperature of the working fluid (see annotation above, regarding the adjustment of temperatures within the geothermal well).
Regarding Claim 19, a modified Springer further teaches the cooling string (35, as previously taught by Ebara in the rejection of Claim 16) has a smaller flow area than the insulated tubing string (46 of Springer). It is noted that Perkins, in Claim 17, teaches that a tubing (24) for injecting cooling fluid within a well is placed inside another central tube (18). Therefore, a modified Springer having a cooling fluid injection tube being placed within the insulating tubing string (46) teaches said cooling fluid injection tube having a smaller flow area than the insulating tubing string (46).
Alternately, it would have been obvious matter of design choice to have the cooling string comprise a smaller flow area than the insulated tubing string, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 IV (A).
In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding Claim 20, a modified Springer further teaches the cooling string (35, as previously taught by Ebara in the rejection of Claim 16) has a smaller diameter (shown in figure 1 of Ebara, wherein the cooling string (35) has a smaller diameter than the pipe delivering fluid to the heat exchanger (17)) than the insulated tubing string (46 of Springer). It is noted that Ebara teaches the cooling string (35) having a smaller diameter than the pipe that removes fluid from the well. Therefore, a modified Springer having the cooling string of Ebara would also have the diameter of said cooling string be smaller than the insulated tubing string of Springer (46)).
Alternately, it would have been obvious matter of design choice to have the cooling string comprise a smaller diameter than the insulated tubing string, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 IV (A).
In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding Claim 20, a modified Springer further teaches the cooling string (35, as previously taught by Ebara in the rejection of Claim 16) has a smaller diameter than the insulated tubing string (46 of Springer). It is noted that Perkins, in Claim 17, teaches that a tubing (24) for injecting cooling fluid within a well is placed inside another tube (18). Therefore, a modified Springer having a cooling fluid injection tube being placed within the insulating tubing string (46) teaches the cooling fluid injection tube having a smaller diameter than the insulating tubing string (46).
Alternately, it would have been obvious matter of design choice to have the cooling string comprise a smaller diameter than the insulated tubing string, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 IV (A).
In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding Claim 21, a modified Springer further teaches the cooling string (35, as previously taught by Ebara in the rejection of Claim 16) is located adjacent a wall of the insulated tubing string (46 of Springer). It is noted that Perkins, in Claim 17, teaches that a tubing (24) for injecting cooling fluid within a well is placed inside another central tube (18). Therefore, a modified Springer having a cooling fluid injection tube being placed within the insulating tubing string (46) teaches said cooling fluid injection tube being located adjacent a wall of the insulated tubing string (46).
Regarding Claim 22, a modified Springer further teaches a bottom end of the cooling string (35, as previously taught by Ebara in the rejection of Claim 16) is located short (Ebara states, “It is preferable that the pipe 35 communicates with the liquid phase for the reason described later, but the pipe 35 may communicate with the gas phase 36”) relative to the bottom end of the insulated tubing string (46 of Springer). It is noted that Ebara teaches the cooling string (35) is capable of being placed at any height within the well. Therefore, a modified Springer having the cooling string of Ebara also teaches the cooling string being placed short of the bottom end of the insulated tubing string.
A modified Springer does however teach that a cooling string is utilized to inject cooling fluid into a geothermal well in order to regulate the temperature of said well, the vaporization of working fluid and the fluid level, wherein said cooling string is provided at a depth within the well.
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that there is a need in the art to provide a cooling string for injecting cooling fluid into a well, wherein said cooling string enters the well at a depth. Further, Ebara explicitly teaches that the depth of the cooling string may be shallow or long. Therefore, when there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, i.e. the cooling string is located short relative to the bottom end of the insulated tubing string, the cooling string is located even relative to the bottom end of the insulated tubing string and the cooling string is located long relative to the bottom end of the insulated tubing string, a person of ordinary skill has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, i.e. that cooling fluid is injected into the well for the purpose of regulating the temperature of said well, it is likely the product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance, the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show it was obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103 (KSR Int' l Co. v. Teleflex Incl, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Springer, by having the cooling string being located short relative to the bottom end of the insulated tubing string, since choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is within the abilities of one having ordinary skill. See MPEP 2143(I)(E).
Regarding Claim 23, a modified Springer further teaches the cooling string (35 of Ebara) is removable (shown in figure 1 of Ebara, wherein the pipe (35) passes through the lid and is capable of being removed) from the insulated tubing string (the cooling string being placed within the insulated tubing string is previously taught in the rejection of Claim 17 above).
Regarding Claim 26, Springer further discloses a casing string (47), wherein the insulated tubing string (46) is located within the casing string (shown in figure 8) such that an annular space is defined therebetween (shown in figure 8).
Springer fails to disclose the cooling string being received within the conduit or within the annular space.
Perkins, also drawn to delivering cooling fluid to a wellbore, teaches a cooling string (24) is received within a conduit (18).
A modified Springer teaches a geothermal well receiving cooling fluid in order to regulate temperatures within said well, wherein the cooling fluid is provided by a pipe.
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that there is a need in the art to provide a specific location for the cooling string relative to the conduit, wherein the cooling string regulates the temperature of the inside of the well. Therefore, when there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, i.e. the cooling string being received within the conduit, the cooling string being received within the annular space or the cooling string being situated outside of the annular space, a person of ordinary skill has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, i.e. that cooling fluid is delivered to the interior of the well for the purpose of regulating the temperature of said well, it is likely the product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance, the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show it was obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103 (KSR Int' l Co. v. Teleflex Incl, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Springer, by having the cooling string being received within the conduit, since choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is within the abilities of one having ordinary skill. See MPEP 2143(I)(E).
Regarding Claim 27, a modified Springer further teaches the cooling string is received within the conduit (see rejection of Claim 26, wherein Perkins teaches it is old an well-known to place a cooling water pipe within a conduit) and the tubing apparatus is configured to convey, in use, the working fluid from the surface location to the subsurface location through the annular space (shown in figure 8) and from the subsurface location to the surface location (shown in figure 8, “The circulating liquid then flows back to the surface through the tubes of the inner tubing string 21 and is removed via valve 52”, col. 8 ll. 50-52) through the insulated tubing string (46, shown in figure 8).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Springer (USP 5862866A) in view of Ebara et al. (Translation of JPS60134161A) as applied in Claims 16 and 24-25 above and in further view of Cho et al. (Translation of KR20140135601A), hereinafter referred to as Cho.
Regarding Claim 28, although a modified Springer further teaches controlling the flow rate of working fluid (shown in figure 8 of Springer, wherein the valves control the working fluid) and/or cooling fluid (shown in figure 1 of Ebara, wherein the valve (34) and pump (33) controls the cooling fluid), Springer fails to disclose a controller configured to control the flow rate of working fluid and/or cooling fluid.
Cho, also drawn to a geothermal heat exchanger, teaches a controller (90) configured to control the flow rate of a fluid (“a level controller 90 for controlling the flow rate control valve 71 based on the water level detected by the first and second level control sensors”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Springer with a controller configured to control the flow rate of working fluid and/or cooling fluid, as taught by Cho, the motivation being to automatically control the parameters of the geothermal heat exchanger in real time by operating valves and/or pumps, to prevent flooding emanating from the geothermal underground heat exchanger or perform a thermal load distribution.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Springer (USP 5862866A) in view of Ebara et al. (Translation of JPS60134161A) and in further view of Cho et al. (Translation of KR20140135601A).
Regarding Claim 29, Springer discloses a well head (58 of Springer) control assembly for use with the tubing apparatus according to claim 25 (see rejection of Claim 25).
Further, a modified Springer teaches controlling one or more flow valves (51-52, 29), and controlling the flow rate and/or pressure of a working fluid (shown in figure 8 of Springer wherein the valves (51-51, 29) control the flow rate of the working fluid) and controlling the flow rate and/or pressure of a cooling fluid (shown in figure 1 of Ebara wherein the pump (33) and valve (34) control the flow rate of the cooling fluid) through the tubing apparatus (35). Springer fails to disclose the assembly comprising: a controller, wherein the controller is configured to control the flow rate and/or pressure.
Cho, also drawn to a geothermal heat exchanger, teaches a controller (90) and one or more flow valves (71), wherein the controller is configured to control the flow rate (“a level controller 90 for controlling the flow rate control valve 71 based on the water level detected by the first and second level control sensors”) and/or pressure (“a pressure sensor may be installed on the upper part of the amphibious pump 40, and a pressure signal varying along the operation water may be received and converted to a water level to obtain the same effect. The signal value detected by the water level sensor (first and second level control sensors 80, 81 or pressure sensor) is transmitted through the wired / wireless communication module…the flow control valve 71 (automatic flow control valve) is installed in the distribution and return pipe 70 to adjust the opening degree of the distribution and return pipe 70 And operates through the control of the level controller 90 based on the detection values of the water level sensors (first and second level control sensors 80, 81 or pressure sensors)”)). It is noted that Cho teaches it is old and well known to utilize a controller for a fluid, wherein the working fluid piping of Springer (valves) are controlled by the controller as well as the valves/pump associated with the cooling pipe of Ebara.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Springer with a controller configured to control the flow rate of working fluid and/or cooling fluid, as taught by Cho, the motivation being to automatically control the parameters of the geothermal heat exchanger in real time by operating valves and/or pumps, to prevent flooding emanating from the geothermal underground heat exchanger or perform a thermal load distribution.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Springer (USP 5862866A) in view of Ebara et al. (Translation of JPS60134161A) and in further view of Kidwell et al. (US PG Pub. 2011/0220317A1).
Regarding Claim 30, Springer discloses a method of utilizing a geothermal well,
the method comprising:
circulating a working fluid between a surface location and a subsurface location (shown in figure 8, “The circulating liquid then flows back to the surface through the tubes of the inner tubing string 21 and is removed via valve 52”, col. 8 ll. 50-52), via an insulated tubing string (46, shown in figure 8).
Springer fails to disclose adjusting the temperature of the working fluid as working fluid is circulated toward the surface using a cooling string.
Ebara, also drawn to a geothermal well, teaches adjusting the temperature of the working fluid as working fluid is circulated toward the surface using a cooling string (35, “Therefore, if the cold water pipe 35 is opened in the liquid phase in the production well 1, the vaporization of rapidly rising high-temperature hot water is prevented. And it lowers the whole production well / inner temperature... the temperature in the production well / inside can be controlled to reduce the fluctuation of the liquid level of the liquid phase”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Springer with adjusting the temperature of the working fluid as working fluid is circulated toward the surface using a cooling string, as taught by Ebara, the motivation being to prevent damage to well components and to maintain the water/pressure levels within the well.
Springer fails to disclose a method of starting up a geothermal well.
Kidwell, also drawn to a geothermal well for heat exchange, teaches a method (shown in figure 10A-10I) of starting up a geothermal well (“Assuming the geothermal heat pump has been properly sized for the heating and cooling load, and the air distribution ductwork has been installed according to design specifications, several basic measurements should be monitored during start up to insure that the geothermal heat pump is operating under load conditions specified by the heat pump manufacturer”, ¶495).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Springer with a method of starting up a geothermal well, as taught by Kidwell, the motivation being that controlling the temperature of the well at start up prevents damage to well components in startup, maintains the water/pressure levels within the well in startup, measures “the Heat Transfer Efficiency (HTE) of any ground heat exchanger (GHE) installation” (¶53) in startup or “measuring the capacity of ground heat exchanger (GHE) installations to transfer heat energy with the surrounding deep Earth environment” (¶26), in startup.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL ALVARE whose telephone number is (571)272-8611. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0930-1800.
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, Len Tran can be reached at (571) 272-1184. 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.
/PAUL ALVARE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763