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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is not presented in narrative form and appears to be a restatement of claim 1. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 10, 12-13, 17, 19-20, 26 and 33-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Japanese Patent Publication JP 2023000414 A (Noriyuki).
As concerns claim 1, Noriyuki discloses a system for CO2 storage, comprising a subsea CO2 storage unit (subsea wellhead 106 receives the liquid carbon dioxide, thus stores the CO2 temporarily) having at least one inlet for receiving liquid Co2 and at least one outlet connected to at least one injection well 108 in a subterranean reservoir 114, the subsea storage unit comprising at least one pipeline 107, the subsea storage unit being configured to contain and store CO2 and to transfer heat from the surrounding seawater to the contained CO2 (wellhead 106 receives the carbon dioxide, thus is reasonably construed as “storing” the carbon dioxide temporarily; the temperature of the seawater would of course transfer to the contained CO2 via the wellhead 106 and pipeline 107).
As concerns claim 10,Noriyuki discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the subsea CO2 storage unit comprises a single pipeline 107.
As concerns claim 12, Noriyuki discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the subsea storage unit lies at the bottom of the sea (figure 1).
As concerns claim 13, Noriyuki discloses the system according to claim 10, wherein the subsea CO2 storage unit is not horizontally disposed (Id.).
As concerns claim 17, Noriyuki discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the subsea CO2 storage unit contains CO2 both in a liquid phase and in a vapor phase (see figure 3 and related discussion).
As concerns claim 19, Noriyuki discloses the system according to claim 1, comprising at least one CO2 transfer line 104 with one end connected to an inlet of the subsea CO2 storage unit 106 and the other end connected to a CO2 source 100.
As concerns claim 20, Noriyuki discloses the system according to claim 1, comprising a liquid CO2 injection line 107 with one end connected to a liquid CO2 outlet of the subsea CO2 storage unit 106 and the other end connected to the at least one injection well 108.
As concerns claim 26, Noriyuki discloses a method for CO2 storage, the method comprising steps of: feeding liquid CO2 to at least one inlet of a subsea CO2 storage unit 106 in a system for storage, the subsea CO2 storage unit comprising at least one pipeline 107; containing and storing CO2 in the subsea CO2 storage unit (at least temporarily); transferring heat from the surrounding seawater to the contained CO2 (the temperature of the surrounding seawater would inherently transfer to the contained CO2 in as much as the wellhead 106 and pipeline 107 are on the bottom of the sea); injecting CO2 from at least one outlet of the subsea storage unit 106 into at least one injection well 108 of a subterranean reservoir 114.
As concerns claim 33, Noriyuki discloses the method according to claim 26, wherein CO2 is injected as a stream of liquid CO2, a stream of vapor CO2 or a combination of a stream of liquid CO2 and a stream of vapor CO2, from the subsea storage unit 106 to the at least one injection well 108 (as the makeup of the streams are presented as alternatives).
As concerns claim 34, Noriyuki discloses the method according to claim 26 wherein liquid CO2 is collected from the subsea CO2 storage unit and converted to vapor CO2 before being injected into the at least one injection well 108 (see figure 3 and related discussion with recycling the vapor CO2 ).
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.
Claim(s) 2, 5, 8, 14, 21, 23-24 and 30-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noriyuki in view of US 2009/0010714 A1 (Bishop).
As concerns claim 2, Noriyuki discloses the system according to claim 1, but lacks to expressly disclose wherein the subsea CO2 storage unit comprises a pipe rack comprising a manifold connected to a plurality of pipeline branches.
Bishop discloses a system for gas storage wherein a subsea storage unit comprises a pipe rack comprising a manifold connected to a plurality of pipeline branches (see, figure 11, showing the piping 430, 432 and 434, manifold 428, and additionally discloses that the configuration allows distribution of the gas to various components in the facility 400 when needed).
One of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing, would have obviously considered adopting the claimed configuration with the manifold and piping with a reasonable expectation of success, as this produces the desired result of allowing easy distribution of the gas throughout the structure of the facility.
As concerns claim 5, Bishop discloses the system according to claim 2, wherein the subsea CO2 storage unit comprises spacers along the pipe rack (see figure 2 and figure 3).
As concerns claim 8, Bishop discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the subsea CO2 storage unit comprises a bundled pipeline comprising at least one internal pipeline within, and fluidically connected to, an external pipeline (see figure 2, external pipeline flow path at 130, the internal pipeline flow path at 63).
As concerns claim 14, Bishop discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the subsea CO2 storage unit comprises multiple inlets and/or multiple outlets (figure 11).
As concerns claim 21, Bishop discloses the system according to claim 1, comprising a vapor injection line 484 with one end connected to a vapor outlet of the subsea CO2 storage unit and the other end connected to the at least one injection well (0127).
As concerns claim 23, Bishop discloses the system according to claim 1, comprising an expansion unit along the liquid CO2 injection line configured to convert liquid CO2 to vapor CO2 (see figure 10, figure 11, vaporizer 260 is equivalent here).
As concerns claim 24, Bishop discloses the system according to claim 1, comprising a pipeline end module connected at an inlet to the CO2 subsea storage unit and/or at an outlet to the CO2 subsea storage unit (the additional manifold 440, which connects first and second pipelines, as well as the piping will be considered equivalent to the “end module”, see 0123).
As concerns claim 30, Bishop discloses the method of claim 26, wherein a portion of the liquid CO2 fed to the subsea storage unit transitions to a vapor phase within the subsea storage unit (figure 11, 0127).
As concerns claims 31 and 32, the combination discloses the method of claim 26, wherein the CO2 source is an onshore storage unit (Bishop, figure 10) or a shuttle ship (Noriyuki, figure 1), but lacks to disclose the range for the temperatures and pressures for the CO2 being fed to the storage unit; nevertheless it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the claimed ranges, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Further, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Refer to MPEP § 2144.05.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES G. SAYRE whose telephone number is (571)270-7045. The examiner can normally be reached from 9:30-6:00 Monday-Friday.
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, Nicole A. Coy can be reached at (571) 272-5405. 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.
JAMES G. SAYRE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3679
/JAMES G SAYRE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679