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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 7, 10 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “pushing the flap valve open through the pressure of the liquid CO2 stream into the hydrocarbon bearing reservoir.” This sentence does not simply convey Applicant’s invention as intended. (Paragraph [0028] of Applicant’s specification recites the same verbiage. Examiner notes that the flap is indeed pushed open by the pressure of the CO2 stream. However, the claim as presently written also reads as though the flap valve is pushed ‘through’ the stream, which does not match Applicant’s invention. A simple correction of the word “through” to “by the injection” would be sufficient.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “has one end connects” which is missing the word ‘that’ for grammatical correctness.
Claim 10 recites a similar limitation to claim 1, as referenced above.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “a coil springs” which appears to mistakenly include the article ‘a’.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: spring means in claims 16-20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ayoub et al (US 7,165,621) in view of Ehtesham et al (US 8,733,449).
As concerns claim 1, Ayoub discloses a method of preventing internal corrosion in carbon capture utilization and storage injection well tubing and storing CO2 in a hydrocarbon reservoir having at least one injection well, comprising:
importing a CO2 stream to an injection facility wherein the imported CO2 is either in a liquid state or a supercritical state (Ayoub – at least Column 2, Line 62 – Column 3, Line 5);
injecting the CO2 stream into the hydrocarbon bearing reservoir from said injection well (Ayoub – at least Column 2, Line 62 – Column 3, Line 5);
using a flap valve (Ayoub – atleast 18 and 30) at a bottom end of an injection well tubing (Ayoub – 22).
Ayoub is silent about the operation of the valve, with respect to pressure or other environmental concerns.
that operates by responding to elevated injection pressures and automatically closes upon injection cessation, effectively preventing a flow-back of fluids into the injection well tubing;
continuing injecting the CO2 stream into the hydrocarbon bearing reservoir; and
pushing the flap valve open through the pressure of the liquid CO2 stream into the hydrocarbon bearing reservoir.
Ehtesham et al (US 8,733,449), however, teaches a method of preventing internal corrosion in carbon capture utilization and storage injection well tubing and storing CO2 in a hydrocarbon reservoir having at least one injection well (Ehtesham – at least Column 4, Line 39-51), comprising:
using a flap valve (Ehtesham – 240) at a bottom end of an injection well tubing that operates by responding to elevated injection pressures and automatically closes upon injection cessation, effectively preventing a flow-back of fluids into the injection well tubing (Ehtesham – Figures 5A and 5B illustrate such responsiveness);
continuing injecting the CO2 stream into the hydrocarbon bearing reservoir; and
pushing the flap valve open through the pressure of the liquid CO2 stream into the hydrocarbon bearing reservoir (Ehtesham – Figures 5A and 5B illustrate this action), which Ehtesham provides for the purpose of selectively restricting flow through a downhole tubular.
PNG
media_image1.png
224
608
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Ayoub as taught by Ehtesham to include the flapper valve responsive to pressure, for the expected benefit of selectively restricting fluid flow to and from the downhole reservoir, to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
Claims 2-7 and 9-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ayoub in view of Ehtesham and further in view of Fripp et al (US 2006/0048936).
As concerns claims 2 and 3, the combination discloses the claimed flap valve, however fails to particularly point out sealing performance or material types.
Fripp et al (US 2006/0048936) teaches a flapper valve for use downhole, wherein the flapper valve comprises Titanium, Nickel and Steel alloys (At least Paragraph [0010]), and incorporates an elastomeric sealing configuration (At least Paragraph [0005]) for the purposes of providing a downhole flapper valve with built-in erosion control (At least Paragraph [0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the combination as taught by Fripp to obtain the invention as specified in the claim including the use of various metal alloys and elastomeric sealing configurations for the expected benefit of providing a more erosion/corrosion resistant downhole valve.
Examiner’s Note: In reviewing Applicant’s Specification, at least Paragraphs [0030] and [0031], the use of said alloys in combination with an elastomeric sealing configuration are noted as achieving the desired durability within the downhole environment, regarding both temperature fluctuations.
As such, it is understood that the combination anticipates a valve that is “configured to achieve gas tight seal, and keep the sealing performance with large temperature cycle from -80°C to 150°C in short period of time (1-20 mins) during the carbon capture utilization and storage (CCUS) operation”; and “wherein the flap valve is made from at least one of specific alloys comprising Ni alloy (625, C-276), Ti alloy, Super Austenitic Stainless, to address environmental cracking at extremely low temperatures.”
As concerns claim 4, the combination discloses the method of claim 2 further comprising a valve seat (Ehtesham – 248a) to hold pressure exerted on an outer surface (246) of the flap valve in the closed position.
As concerns claim 5, the combination discloses the method of claim 3, wherein said flapper hinge comprises a hinge pin (Ehtesham – 244) formed on said flap valve.
As concerns claim 6, the combination discloses the method of claim 5, further comprising a torsion spring means being loaded in torsion as the flap valve rotates from the closed to the open position to exert a restoring force for rotating the valve flapper to the closed position. (Ehtesham – Column 10, Lines 60-64, “The gate 246 may be biased, for example, via a spring or other suitable biasing member, such that the gate 246 will close against the valve seat 248A when not otherwise acted upon (e.g., not held open by the first or second sliding sleeve 220 or 230).”)
As concerns claims 7 and 11, the combination discloses the method of claims 6 and 9, further comprising wherein a flapper valve (Fripp – 98) comprises a torsion spring means (Fripp - 114) that has one end connecting and biasing on the outer surface of the flap valve, while the other end connects and biases on the outer surface of the injection well tubing (Fripp - 106).
As concerns claim 9, Ayoub discloses a method for controlling flow in an injection well tubing and preventing internal corrosion of the injection well tubing, comprising:
injecting CO2 stream into a hydrocarbon bearing reservoir from an injection well (Ayoub – at least Column 2, Line 62 – Column 3, Line 5); and
using a flap valve (Ayoub – at least 18 and 30) at a bottom end of an injection well tubing.
Ayoub is silent about the operation of the valve, with respect to pressure or other environmental concerns.
Ehtesham et al (US 8,733,449), however, teaches a method for controlling a valve (Ehtesham – 240) that operates by responding to elevated injection pressures; and
automatically closing upon injection cessation, effectively preventing a flow-back of fluids into the injection well tubing (Ehtesham – Figures 5A and 5B illustrate such responsiveness).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Ayoub as taught by Ehtesham to include the flapper valve responsive to pressure, for the expected benefit of selectively restricting fluid flow to and from the downhole reservoir, to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
Fripp et al (US 2006/0048936) further teaches a flapper valve for use downhole, wherein the flapper valve comprises Titanium, Nickel and Steel alloys (At least Paragraph [0010]), and incorporates an elastomeric sealing configuration (At least Paragraph [0005]) for the purposes of providing a downhole flapper valve with built-in erosion control (At least Paragraph [0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the combination as taught by Fripp to obtain the invention as specified in the claim including the use of various metal alloys and elastomeric sealing configurations for the expected benefit of providing a more erosion/corrosion resistant downhole valve.
Examiner’s Note: In reviewing Applicant’s Specification, at least Paragraphs [0030] and [0031], the use of said alloys in combination with an elastomeric sealing configuration are noted as achieving the desired durability within the downhole environment, regarding both temperature fluctuations.
As such, it is understood that the combination anticipates a valve that is “configured to achieve gas tight seal, and keep the sealing performance with large temperature cycle from -80°C to 150°C in short period of time (1-20 mins) during the carbon capture utilization and storage (CCUS) operation”; and “wherein the flap valve is made from at least one of specific alloys comprising Ni alloy (625, C-276), Ti alloy, Super Austenitic Stainless, to address environmental cracking at extremely low temperatures.”
As concerns claim 10, the combination discloses the method of claim 9, further comprises steps of continuing injecting the CO2 stream into the hydrocarbon bearing reservoir; and
pushing the flap valve open through the pressure of the liquid CO2 stream into the hydrocarbon bearing reservoir. (Ehtesham – at least Column 4, Line 39-51 discusses the injection of CO2; Figures 5A and 5B illustrate such responsiveness)
As concerns claim 12, the combination discloses the method of claim 9, wherein the flap valve further comprising a valve seat (Ehtesham – 248a) to hold pressure exerted on an outer surface (246) of the flap valve in the closed position, wherein area that the valve seat covers is substantially the same as the area of the inner diameter of injection well tubing. (Ehtesham – Figures 5A and B)
As concerns claim 13, the combination discloses the method of claim 11, wherein said flapper hinge comprises a hinge pin (Ehtesham – 244 / Fripp - 112) formed on said flap valve.
PNG
media_image2.png
799
682
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As concerns claim 14, the combination discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the torsion spring means is secured to the hinge pin. (Fripp – 114 wrapped around hinge pin 112)
As concerns claim 15, the combination discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the torsion spring means (Ehtesham – ‘spring’ / Fripp – 114) is loaded in torsion as the flap valve rotates from the closed position to the open position to exert a restoring force for rotating the valve flapper to the closed position.
As concerns claim 16, the combination discloses the method of claim 11, wherein said spring means (Fripp – 114) comprises a coil spring, rotation of said flap valve about an axis of rotation to open said flap valve loading said springs in torsion.
As concerns claim 17, Ayoub discloses a method of preventing internal corrosion in carbon capture utilization and storage injection well tubing and storing CO2 in a hydrocarbon reservoir having at least one injection well (Ayoub – at least Column 2, Line 62 – Column 3, Line 5), comprising:
injecting the CO2 stream into the hydrocarbon bearing reservoir from said injection well (Ayoub – at least Column 2, Line 62 – Column 3, Line 5);
using a flap valve (Ayoub – at least 18 and 30).
Ayoub is silent about the operation of the valve, with respect to pressure or other environmental concerns.
Ehtesham et al (US 8,733,449), however, teaches a method for controlling a valve (Ehtesham – 240) that operates by responding to elevated injection pressures; and
automatically closing upon injection cessation, effectively preventing a flow-back of fluids into the injection well tubing (Ehtesham – Figures 5A and 5B illustrate such responsiveness).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Ayoub as taught by Ehtesham to include the flapper valve responsive to pressure, for the expected benefit of selectively restricting fluid flow to and from the downhole reservoir, to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
Fripp et al (US 2006/0048936) further teaches a flapper valve for use downhole, wherein the flapper valve comprises Titanium, Nickel and Steel alloys (At least Paragraph [0010]), and incorporates an elastomeric sealing configuration (At least Paragraph [0005]) for the purposes of providing a downhole flapper valve with built-in erosion control (At least Paragraph [0030]), and
wherein the flap valve comprises:
torsion spring means comprising a coil spring (Fripp – 114), rotation of said flap valve about an axis of rotation to open said flap loading said spring means in torsion, a valve flapper (Fripp – 98) rotatable between open and closed positions for controlling the flow in the fluid transmission conduit, wherein the flap valve's operation neither constrains the injection flow rate nor induces the Joule-Thomson effect (as the flapper of Fripp does not change the pressure of the fluid flow).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the combination as taught by Fripp to obtain the invention as specified in the claim including the use of various metal alloys and elastomeric sealing configurations and torsion spring means for the expected benefit of providing a more erosion/corrosion resistant downhole valve that operated on a selective pressurized basis.
Examiner’s Note: In reviewing Applicant’s Specification, at least Paragraphs [0030] and [0031], the use of said alloys in combination with an elastomeric sealing configuration are noted as achieving the desired durability within the downhole environment, regarding both temperature fluctuations.
As such, it is understood that the combination anticipates a valve that is “configured to achieve gas tight seal, and keep the sealing performance with large temperature cycle from -80°C to 150°C in short period of time (1-20 mins) during the carbon capture utilization and storage (CCUS) operation”; and “wherein the flap valve is made from at least one of specific alloys comprising Ni alloy (625, C-276), Ti alloy, Super Austenitic Stainless, to address environmental cracking at extremely low temperatures.”
As concerns claim 18, the combination discloses the method of claim 17, wherein said torsion spring means comprise coil springs (Fripp – 114), rotation of said valve flapper about said axis of rotation to open said flap loading said springs in torsion.
As concerns claim 19, the combination discloses the method of claim 17, wherein the torsion spring means (Fripp – 114) has one end that connects and biases on an outer surface of the flap valve (Fripp – 98), while the other end connects and biases on the outer surface of the injection well tubing (Fripp – 106).
Claims 8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ayoub, Ehtesham, and Fripp further in view of Zhong et al (CA 3210252).
As concerns claims 8 and 20, the combination discloses the method of claims 6 and 17, however fails to specify details about the torsion spring means.
Zhong et al (CA 3210252) however teaches wherein the torsion spring means (204, 206) has both ends connecting and biasing on the outer surface of the injection well tubing.
PNG
media_image3.png
410
465
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the combination as taught by Zhong to include a spring means with both ends connected and biasing on the outer surface of the injection well tubing, for the expected benefit of effectively securing the spring while biasing the flapper, to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
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 AARON L LEMBO whose telephone number is (571)270-3065. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7am-4pm.
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 Coy can be reached on (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.
/AARON L LEMBO/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3679