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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 14 and 18. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 14 and 18. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-3, 5-7,9-11,13-14,16,18-21,24,26, and 28 are objected to because of the following informalities: The claims should be amended as follow: “The method”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1 and 28 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites ..”at least 50 m”… and Claim 26 recites “..at least 200 m”. These are ranges with unbounded upper limits, and as such, it is unclear as to the hydrostatic head depth the Applicant is intending to seek patent protection of; as such, the claims are rendered indefinite.
All the claims dependent of claim 1 are also rejected.
The term “portion” in claims 9-11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “portion” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
All the claims dependent of claim 9 are also rejected.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the geological formation" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
All the claims dependent of claim 9 are also rejected.
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 (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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1,-7, 9-11, 13-14, 16, 18-21, 24, 26, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collins et al. (US 2020/0148935 A1 - EP 360910 B1) (“Collins” herein – provided by applicant)
Claim 1
Collins discloses, as best understood based on the indefinites above, a method of controlling a well the method comprising:
adding a scaling solution into a reservoir via the well which forms scale in pores or channels of the reservoir in order to inhibit fluid flow; then, [0008-0019, 0039, 0107-0111]
deploying a fluid into the well to create a hydrostatic head [0078-0081, 0086-0091, 0124]
Collins however does not explicitly disclose the hydrostatic head extending for at least 50m.
It is elementary that the mere recitation of a newly discovered function or property possessed by things in the prior art, does not cause a claim drawn to distinguish over the prior art. Additionally, where the patent office has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be a characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. In re Swinehard. 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971).
Claim 2
Collins discloses a method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the well is connected to topside apparatus, [0023, 0123] and the method further comprises after the scaling solution has been added, and after deploying the fluid to create the hydrostatic head. [0123-0124]
Collins however does not explicitly discloses removing the topside apparatus from connection to the well.
Collins discloses on ¶ [0106] A silicone 18 may be added into the well 10 to block the perforations in the well 10 and the well may be plugged with cement 20. (i.e. no production tubing and / or equipment present – See Fig.1) and ¶ [0003] It would be best if the reservoir could be returned as close as possible to its original state.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and clearly demonstrated by Collins that any equipment that could be removed from the well in order to return the reservoir as close as possible to its original state, as disclosed by Collins.
Claim 3
Collins discloses a method as claimed in claim 2, wherein the topside apparatus comprises at least one of a wellhead, blow-out preventor (BOP), Christmas tree and well cap. [0023, 0123]
Claim 4-6
Collins discloses a method of well intervention, comprising the method as claimed in claim 2, and running equipment into the well, wherein the equipment is run into the well through the hydrostatic head, wherein the equipment comprises a barrier, a plug and/or a valve. [0081, 0123-0124]
Claim 7
Collins discloses a method as claimed in claim 2, wherein the well has production tubing therein, and a plug is set against casing in the well. [023, 0081, 0085-0086, 0091, 0123]
Collins however does not explicitly discloses the production tubing is removed from the well.
Collins discloses on ¶ [0106] A silicone 18 may be added into the well 10 to block the perforations in the well 10 and the well may be plugged with cement 20. (i.e. no production tubing and / or equipment present – See Fig.1) and ¶ [0003] It would be best if the reservoir could be returned as close as possible to its original state.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and clearly demonstrated by Collins that any equipment that could be removed from the well in order to return the reservoir as close as possible to its original state, as disclosed by Collins.
Claim 9
Collins discloses a method as claimed in 2 including perforating the well into a portion of the geological formation spaced from the reservoir. [0076, 0080]
Claim 10
Collins discloses a method as claimed in claim 9, wherein the portion of
geological formation includes a second reservoir from which fluids are produced. (i.e. zones) [0013, 0024, 0074, 0091]
Claim 11
Collins discloses a method as claimed in claim 9, wherein the portion of
geological formation includes a porous formation into which fluids are injected. [0109]
Claim 13
Collins discloses a method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the scaling solution comprises a first scale precursor, a second scale precursor and a scale inhibitor. [0041-0058]
Claim 14
Collins discloses a method as claimed in claim 13 wherein the first scale precursor comprises a sulphate salt of sodium, or ammonium[0041-0058]
Claim 16
Collins discloses a method as claimed in claim 13, wherein the second scale precursor is a salt of calcium, magnesium, strontium or barium. [0041-0058]
Claim 18
Collins discloses a method as claimed in claim 13, wherein the scale inhibitor comprises a phosphonate, acrylate, and carboxylate; or acids thereof. [0041-0058]
Claim 19
Collins discloses a method as claimed in claim 18 wherein the scale inhibitor comprises a phosphonate. [0041-0058]
Claim 20
Collins discloses a method as claimed in claim 1, comprising the further steps of:
(1) stopping the introduction into the reservoir of the scaling solution and shutting in the well for 2 - 24 hours; [0010, 0036] and,
(ii) introducing into the reservoir, via a well, a further scaling solution comprising a scale inhibitor, a first scale precursor and a second scale precursor, wherein the first and second scale precursors of the further scaling solution react together to form scale. [0011, 0038]
Claim 21
Collins discloses a method as claimed in claim 20, wherein the scale inhibitor, the first
scale precursor and the second scale precursor of the scaling solution are the same as the scale inhibitor, the first scale precursor and the second scale precursor of the further scaling solution, respectively. [0019, 0037-0039]
Claim 24
A method as claimed in claim 21, wherein the well comprises tubing, and the method further comprises a step of displacing the scaling solution from the tubing, subsequent to adding scaling solution and prior to step (i). [0037]
Claim 26
Collins discloses a method as claimed in claim 1. Collins however does not explicitly disclose, wherein the hydrostatic head extends for at least 200m. (Same as claim 1)
Claim 28.
Collins discloses a method as claimed in claim1, wherein the well is then abandoned. [0024, 0045]
Claims 1-7, 9-11, 13-14, 16, 18-21, 24, 26, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collins et al. (US 2020/0148935 A1 - EP 360910 B1) (“Collins” herein – provided by applicant) and further in view of Eden (US 2012/0298359 A1) (“Eden” herein).
Claim 1
Collins discloses, as best understood based on the indefiniteness above, a method of controlling a well the method comprising:
adding a scaling solution into a reservoir via the well which forms scale in pores or channels of the reservoir in order to inhibit fluid flow; then, [0008-0019, 0039, 0107-0111]
deploying a fluid into the well to create a hydrostatic head [0078-0081, 0086-0091, 0124]
Collins however does not explicitly disclose the hydrostatic head extending for at least 50m.
Eden teaches the above limitation (See paragraphs 0002 & 0012 → Eden teaches this limitation in that in the oil and gas extraction industries, abandoned wells have to be plugged to keep the contents of deep high pressure environments which communicate with those wells from invading levels at or adjacent the surface. Plugs can be inserted at any point in a well, for example adjacent the surface or at a substantial depth. Typically, plugs are formed by injecting cement or resin into the well so as to fill for example a fifty metre length of the well. Once the apparatus has been deployed within the passageway it will typically be submerged in water already resident within passageway, often to a very significant depth of, for example, around 300 to 400 m. Such depths of water provide a hydrostatic pressure of 3 to 4 MPa which is sufficient to prevent the water adjacent the hot molten material from being able to boil.) for the purpose of providing a hydrostatic pressure of 3 to 4 MPa which is sufficient to prevent the water adjacent the hot molten material from being able to boil. [0012]
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Collins with the above limitation, as taught by Eden, in order to prevent the water adjacent the hot molten material from being able to boil.
Claim 2
Collins discloses a method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the well is connected to topside apparatus, [0023, 0123] and the method further comprises after the scaling solution has been added, and after deploying the fluid to create the hydrostatic head. [0123-0124]
Collins however does not explicitly discloses removing the topside apparatus from connection to the well.
Collins discloses on ¶ [0106] A silicone 18 may be added into the well 10 to block the perforations in the well 10 and the well may be plugged with cement 20. (i.e. no production tubing and / or equipment present – See Fig.1) and ¶ [0003] It would be best if the reservoir could be returned as close as possible to its original state.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and clearly demonstrated by Collins that any equipment that could be removed from the well in order to return the reservoir as close as possible to its original state, as disclosed by Collins.
Claim 3
Collins discloses a method as claimed in claim 2, wherein the topside apparatus comprises at least one of a wellhead, blow-out preventor (BOP), Christmas tree and well cap. [0023, 0123]
Claim 4-6
Collins discloses a method of well intervention, comprising the method as claimed in claim 2, and running equipment into the well, wherein the equipment is run into the well through the hydrostatic head, wherein the equipment comprises a barrier, a plug and/or a valve. [0081, 0123-0124]
Claim 7
Collins discloses a method as claimed in claim 2, wherein the well has production tubing therein, and a plug is set against casing in the well. [023, 0081, 0085-0086, 0091, 0123]
Collins however does not explicitly discloses the production tubing is removed from the well.
Collins discloses on ¶ [0106] A silicone 18 may be added into the well 10 to block the perforations in the well 10 and the well may be plugged with cement 20. (i.e. no production tubing and / or equipment present – See Fig.1) and ¶ [0003] It would be best if the reservoir could be returned as close as possible to its original state.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and clearly demonstrated by Collins that any equipment that could be removed from the well in order to return the reservoir as close as possible to its original state, as disclosed by Collins.
Claim 9
Collins discloses a method as claimed in 2 including perforating the well into a portion of the geological formation spaced from the reservoir. [0076, 0080]
Claim 10
Collins discloses a method as claimed in claim 9, wherein the portion of
geological formation includes a second reservoir from which fluids are produced. (i.e. zones) [0013, 0024, 0074, 0091]
Claim 11
Collins discloses a method as claimed in claim 9, wherein the portion of
geological formation includes a porous formation into which fluids are injected. [0109]
Claim 13
Collins discloses a method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the scaling solution comprises a first scale precursor, a second scale precursor and a scale inhibitor. [0041-0058]
Claim 14
Collins discloses a method as claimed in claim 13 wherein the first scale precursor comprises a sulphate salt of sodium, or ammonium[0041-0058]
Claim 16
Collins discloses a method as claimed in claim 13, wherein the second scale precursor is a salt of calcium, magnesium, strontium or barium. [0041-0058]
Claim 18
Collins discloses a method as claimed in claim 13, wherein the scale inhibitor comprises a phosphonate, acrylate, and carboxylate; or acids thereof. [0041-0058]
Claim 19
Collins discloses a method as claimed in claim 18 wherein the scale inhibitor comprises a phosphonate. [0041-0058]
Claim 20
Collins discloses a method as claimed in claim 1, comprising the further steps of:
(1) stopping the introduction into the reservoir of the scaling solution and shutting in the well for 2 - 24 hours; [0010, 0036] and,
(ii) introducing into the reservoir, via a well, a further scaling solution comprising a scale inhibitor, a first scale precursor and a second scale precursor, wherein the first and second scale precursors of the further scaling solution react together to form scale. [0011, 0038]
Claim 21
Collins discloses a method as claimed in claim 20, wherein the scale inhibitor, the first
scale precursor and the second scale precursor of the scaling solution are the same as the scale inhibitor, the first scale precursor and the second scale precursor of the further scaling solution, respectively. [0019, 0037-0039]
Claim 24
A method as claimed in claim 21, wherein the well comprises tubing, and the method further comprises a step of displacing the scaling solution from the tubing, subsequent to adding scaling solution and prior to step (i). [0037]
Claim 26
Collins discloses a method as claimed in claim 1. Collins however does not explicitly disclose, wherein the hydrostatic head extends for at least 200m. (Same as claim 1)
Claim 28.
Collins discloses a method as claimed in claim1, wherein the well is then abandoned. [0024, 0045]
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ye et al. (US 2020/0032126) CONSOLIDATION AND WELLBORE STRENGTH ENHANCEMENT WITH CaCO3 PRECIPITATION teaches A method of treating a wellbore in a subterranean formation including introducing a first fluid into a formation, wherein the first fluid comprises: a first water soluble salt and a carrier; placing a second fluid into the formation, wherein the second fluid comprises: a second water soluble salt and a carrier, wherein the first fluid and second fluid produce a solid precipitate upon contact; and allowing the solid precipitate to form in-situ in the formation. An acid may be added to the wellbore after formation of the precipitate. The method may be also used for stabilizing a wellbore during drilling, and shutting off and reopening a region in a formation, Alvarez et al. (US 2013/0105159 A1) Methods For Stimulating Multi-Zone Wells teaches A method for stimulating a multi-zone wellbore completed with a string of production casing, including pumping a first volume of acidic fluid into the wellbore under pressure, and then injecting the first volume of acidic fluid into a first zone of interest along the production casing dropping at least one plug into the wellbore, the plug being fabricated from a material that substantially dissolves in the presence of the acidic fluid at or over a selected period of time, and Bosma et al. (US 2003/0121662 A1) Method For Plugging A Well With A Resin teaches This invention relates to a method for carrying out well construction, repair and abandonment operations, which method involves introducing a resin into a well and curing the same to form a seal, plug or connection, wherein the cured resin is expanded to at least the volume occupied by the resin prior to curing (compensating shrinkage), by cooling the well and curing the resin at a reduced temperature and subsequently allowing the well to reach its static bottom hole temperature. This invention also relates to a method for analyzing the setting time, elastic properties, shrinkage/expansion, compressibility or coefficient of thermal expansion of thermosetting resins or oil well cements under simulated reservoir pressure and temperature conditions, which comprises a introducing a sample (7) of a thermosetting resin or oil well cement into a pressure vessel (3) that is equipped with a means(9) to provide the pressure and register the volume change; and to the analyzer used by this method.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SILVANA C RUNYAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5415. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30.
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, Doug Hutton can be reached at 571-272-4137. 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.
/SILVANA C RUNYAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674 01/14/2026