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 Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6, line 2 recites “at least one local choke at the Christmas tree to a provide control of an injection pressure” but should read -- at least one local choke at the Christmas tree to provide control of an injection pressure --. “a” between “to” and provide” should be deleted.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7-9, 12-13, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duncan (U.S. 12,228,022B1), in view of Simpson (U.S. 2018/0163522A1).
Regarding claim 1, Duncan discloses a system to be used within carbon capture and sequestration (refer to col. 1, lines 13-16 and col. 10, lines 10-13), the system comprising:
at least one mounting structure (examiner notes that “mounting structure” is broadly claimed”, see annotated fig. 2 below) associated with at least one Christmas tree (256; see fig. 2, refer to col. 3, lines 50-51 and col. 6, line 67) adapted for injection of media (“CO2” flowing from “CO2 receiver 229 to tree 256; refer to col. 7, line 10 to col. 8, line 34) which is associated with the CCS into at least one subsea reservoir (454; see fig. 4. Refer to col. 11, lines 1-35: “fig. 4 illustrates a system of implementing the method described in the flowchart of fig. 3 at well site 400; col. 9, lines 51-53: “fig. 3 is a flowchart showing a method 300 for operating equipment at a well site (such as the well site described in figs. 1 and 2)”);
a branch media pipeline (258. Also, col. 7, lines 13-14 recites “CO2 may be transported to the injection tree 256 along the pipeline 202 for injection”) to provide the media from the at least one mounting structure (as shown below) to the at least one Christmas tree (256); and
at least one choke (221, 224, 226, 228, and/or 236) in the at least one mounting structure (as shown below) to control a pressure of the media (col. 7, lines 21-30: “that can maintain a pressure from the pipeline 202 to the slipstream line 258”; col. 7, lines 36-39: “pressure in the slipstream line 258 may be reduced…” to a range; also refer to col. 8, lines 1-3 and col. 8, lines 44-53).
However, Duncan is silent to controlling pressure to provide a predetermined and chemical-free response to hydrates formation in a steady state flow of the media prior to the injection of the media into the Christmas tree.
Simpson teaches a system for injecting CO2 gas into a subsea reservoir (see fig. 1, refer to abstract and para 0002 and 0022) while reducing or preventing the formation of hydrates without the need to inject chemicals (refer to para 0048 and 0051). Simpson further teaches controlling pressure across a valve 162 to reduce the probability of the formation of hydrate plugs (refer to para 0048 and 0051).
Since Duncan teaches the use of valves to control pressure of the CO2 gas being injection into the well and Simpson teaches that the formation of hydrates plugs can be mitigated by controlling pressure across a valve, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the pressure regulation system comprising the at least one valve of Duncan that control the pressure of the CO2 being sent into the pipeline to provide a predetermined and chemical-free response to hydrates formation, as taught by Simpson (refer to para 0048 and 0051).
PNG
media_image1.png
501
567
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Duncan, as modified by Simpson, teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; Simpson further teaches a mounting structure (16, figs. 1 and 9) wherein the mounting structure is a subsea block or a mobile structure (para 0022 “the extraction point 16 may be an on-shore processing facility, an offshore rig, or any other extraction point).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have had the mounting structure of Duncan be in the form of a subsea block or a mobile structure, as taught by Simpson, when carrying out offshore operations in deep sea, (refer to para 0022).
Regarding claim 5, Duncan, as modified by Simpson, teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; Duncan further discloses that the at least one choke (221, 224, 226, 228, and/or 236) is to control the pressure (col. 7, lines 21-30: “that can maintain a pressure from the pipeline 202 to the slipstream line 258”; col. 7, lines 36-39: “pressure in the slipstream line 258 may be reduced…” to a range; also refer to col. 8, lines 1-3 and col. 8, lines 44-53) also based in part on a requirement associated with an injection pressure at the Christmas tree (the pressure sent to the control module 215 is within a range of 40 to 100 psi. From the control module, the CO2 is sent to tree 256. Refer to col. 8, lines 54-63: “if the pressure is outside of this range, the valve 242 can be closed until the pressure is within the corresponding range”).
Regarding claim 7, Duncan, as modified by Simpson, teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; however, Duncan, as modified by Simpson, is silent to the branch media pipeline having the length in the range of 50 meters and 100 meters, between 100 meters and 150 meters, or between 50 meters and 500 meters in length.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the length of the branch media pipeline of Duncan, as modified by Simpson, to be in the range of 50 meters and 100 meters, between 100 meters and 150 meters, or between 50 meters and 500 meters in length, based on the distance between the mounting structure and the Christmas tree to ensure that there is sufficient length to reach the wellhead.
Also 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. In other words, narrowing a general condition taught by the prior art to a specific numerical value has been held to be an obvious variation thereof. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 and In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215.
Regarding claim 8, Duncan, as modified by Simpson, teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; Duncan, as modified by Simpson, further discloses wherein the branch media pipeline (458 as shown in fig. 4. Note that fig. 4 is the implementation of fig. 2; “fig. 4 illustrates a system of implementing the method described in the flowchart of fig. 3 at well site 400; col. 9, lines 51-53: “fig. 3 is a flowchart showing a method 300 for operating equipment at a well site (such as the well site described in figs. 1 and 2)”) is submerged in sea water associated with the at least one subsea reservoir to further support the predetermined and chemical-free response to the hydrates formation (see fig. 4), wherein the system is subject to a valve opening and closing sequence, the valve opening and closing sequence (opening and closing of valves 221, 224, 226, 228, 236, 241, and/or 242) to ensure threshold pressure differences in the system prior to ceasing of a flow associated with the media through the branch media pipeline (refer to col. 8, lines 54-63: “if the pressure is outside of this range, the valve 242 can be closed until the pressure is within the corresponding range”) or together with starting up the at least one reservoir.
Regarding claim 9, Duncan, as modified by Simpson, teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; Duncan, as modified by Simpson, further discloses wherein the at least one choke (221, 224, 226, 228, 236) is a series connection or a parallel connection of at least two chokes (as shown in fig. 2), wherein at least one of the at least two chokes is in the at least one mounting structure (see annotated fig. 2 above).
Regarding claim 12, Duncan discloses a method to be used within carbon capture and sequestration (refer to col. 1, lines 13-16 and col. 10, lines 10-13), the method comprising:
associating at least one mounting structure (examiner notes that “mounting structure” is broadly claimed”, see annotated fig. 2 above) with at least one Christmas tree (256; see fig. 2, refer to col. 3, lines 50-51 and col. 6, line 67) adapted for injection of media (“CO2” flowing from “CO2 receiver 229 to tree 256; refer to col. 7, line 10 to col. 8, line 34) which is associated with the CCS into at least one subsea reservoir (454; see fig. 4. Refer to col. 11, lines 1-35: “fig. 4 illustrates a system of implementing the method described in the flowchart of fig. 3 at well site 400; col. 9, lines 51-53: “fig. 3 is a flowchart showing a method 300 for operating equipment at a well site (such as the well site described in figs. 1 and 2)”);
providing, using a branch media pipeline (258. Also, col. 7, lines 13-14 recites “CO2 may be transported to the injection tree 256 along the pipeline 202 for injection”), the media from the at least one mounting structure (as shown above) to at least one Christmas tree (256); and
enabling, using at least one choke (221, 224, 226, 228, and/or 236) in the at least one mounting structure (as shown above), control of a pressure of the media (col. 7, lines 21-30: “that can maintain a pressure from the pipeline 202 to the slipstream line 258”; col. 7, lines 36-39: “pressure in the slipstream line 258 may be reduced…” to a range; also refer to col. 8, lines 1-3 and col. 8, lines 44-53).
However, Duncan is silent to providing a predetermined and chemical-free response to hydrates formation in a steady state flow of the media prior to the injection of the media into the Christmas tree.
Simpson teaches a system for injecting CO2 gas into a subsea reservoir (see fig. 1, refer to abstract and para 0002 and 0022) while reducing or preventing the formation of hydrates without the need to inject chemicals (refer to para 0048 and 0051). Simpson further teaches controlling pressure across a valve 162 to reduce the probability of the formation of hydrate plugs (refer to para 0048 and 0051).
Since Duncan teaches the use of valves to control pressure of the CO2 gas being injection into the well and Simpson teaches that the formation of hydrates plugs can be mitigated by controlling pressure across a valve, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the pressure regulation system comprising the at least one valve of Duncan that control the pressure of the CO2 being sent into the pipeline to provide a predetermined and chemical-free response to hydrates formation, as taught by Simpson (refer to para 0048 and 0051).
Regarding claim 13, Duncan, as modified by Simpson, teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 12 above; Simpson further teaches a mounting structure (16, figs. 1 and 9) wherein the mounting structure is a subsea block or a mobile structure (para 0022 “the extraction point 16 may be an on-shore processing facility, an offshore rig, or any other extraction point).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have had the mounting structure of Duncan be in the form of a subsea block or a mobile structure, as taught by Simpson, when carrying out offshore operations in deep sea, (refer to para 0022)
Regarding claim 18, Duncan, as modified by Simpson, teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 12 above; Duncan, as modified by Simpson, further discloses wherein the branch media pipeline (458 as shown in fig. 4. Note that fig. 4 is the implementation of fig. 2; “fig. 4 illustrates a system of implementing the method described in the flowchart of fig. 3 at well site 400; col. 9, lines 51-53: “fig. 3 is a flowchart showing a method 300 for operating equipment at a well site (such as the well site described in figs. 1 and 2)”) is submerged in sea water associated with the at least one subsea reservoir to further support the predetermined and chemical-free response to the hydrates formation (see fig. 4), the predetermined and chemical-free response further comprising: subjecting the branch media pipeline to a valve opening and closing sequence (opening and closing of valves 221, 224, 226, 228, 236, 241, and/or 242); and ensuring, using the valve opening and closing sequence, threshold pressure differences between the at least one choke prior to ceasing of a flow associated with the media through the branch media pipeline (refer to col. 8, lines 54-63: “if the pressure is outside of this range, the valve 242 can be closed until the pressure is within the corresponding range”) or together with starting up the at least one subsea reservoir, based at least in part on a system modelled and subject to a subsea injection system .
Regarding claim 19, Duncan, as modified by Simpson, teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; Duncan, as modified by Simpson, further discloses wherein the at least one choke (221, 224, 226, 228, 236) is a series connection or a parallel connection of at least two chokes (as shown in fig. 2), wherein at least one of the at least two chokes is in the at least one mounting structure (see annotated fig. 2 above).
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duncan (U.S. 12,228,022B1), in view of Simpson (U.S. 2018/0163522A1) as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Schmidt et al. (U.S 4,815,791).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Duncan, as modified by Simpson, teach all the features of this claim as applied to claims 1 and 12 above; however, Duncan, as modified by Simpson, is silent to at least a local choke at the Christmas tree to a provide control of an injection pressure that is different than the control of the pressure of the media for the predetermined and chemical-free response, using the at least one choke of the at least one mounting structure.
Schmidt et al. generally teach the use of a choke valve (11, fig. 5) mounted on a wellhead (12) for independently controlling injection pressure into an underground formation (refer to col. 4, lines 19-21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Christmas tree of , Duncan, as modified by Simpson, to include at least a local choke, to a provide control of an injection pressure (that is different than the control of the pressure of the media for the predetermined and chemical-free response, using the at least one choke of the at least one mounting structure), as taught by Schmidt et al. (refer to col. 4, lines 19-21).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duncan (U.S. 12,228,022B1), in view of Simpson (U.S. 2018/0163522A1) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Duncan (U.S. 2024/0328283A1) and Schmidt et al. (U.S 4,815,791).
Regarding claim 15 , Duncan 022’, as modified by Simpson, teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 12 above; however, Duncan 022’, as modified by Simpson, is silent to determining, in addition to the predetermined and chemical-free response, a requirement associated with an injection pressure at the Christmas tree; and controlling, using the at least one choke, the pressure of the media based in part on the requirement associated with the injection pressure.
Duncan 283’ teaches a system and method for control of carbon sequestration injection wherein the injection pressure is determined based on the determination of an absorption rate of the reservoir to thereby prevent over pressurization of the reservoir (refer to abstract and para 0086).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of , Duncan, as modified by Simpson, to include at least a local choke, to include determining, in addition to the predetermined and chemical-free response, a requirement associated with an injection pressure at the Christmas tree, for the purpose of preventing over pressurization of the reservoir, as taught by Duncan 283’ (refer to abstract and para 0086).
However, Duncan 022’, as modified by Simpson and Duncan 283’, is silent to controlling, using the at least one choke, the pressure of the media based in part on the requirement associated with the injection pressure.
Schmidt et al. generally teach the use of a choke valve (11, fig. 5) mounted on a wellhead (12) for independently controlling injection pressure into an underground formation (refer to col. 4, lines 19-21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Duncan 022’, as modified by Simpson and Duncan 283’, to include at least a local choke for controlling the pressure of the media based in part on the requirement associated with the injection pressure, as taught by Schmidt et al. (refer to col. 4, lines 19-21).
Claims 2, 10-11, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duncan (U.S. 12,228,022B1), in view of Simpson (U.S. 2018/0163522A1) as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Kristiansen (U.S. 2017/0198865A1).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Duncan, as modified by Simpson, teach all the features of this claim as applied to claims 1 and 12 above; however, Duncan, as modified by Simpson, is silent to the branch media pipeline is a heat exchanger to allow transfer of heat from a subsea environment to the media.
Kristiansen teaches a system for heating a pipeline transporting fluid (para 0035) in oil and gas operations for the purpose of keeping the pipeline above a desired temperature in order to avoid plug formation (refer to para 0046 and 0056).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pipeline of Duncan to include a heat exchanger feature to allow transfer of heat from the subsea environment to the media, for the purpose of avoiding plug formation, as taught by Kristiansen (refer to para 0046 and 0056).
Regarding claim 11, Duncan, as modified by Simpson, teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; however, Duncan, as modified by Simpson, is silent to a pipe trace-heating to further enable the predetermined and chemical-free response to the hydrates formation in the media, the pipe trace-heating to be at a temperature that is higher relative to a subsea environment.
Kristiansen teaches a system for heating a pipeline transporting fluid (para 0035) in oil and gas operations for the purpose of keeping the pipeline above a desired temperature in order to avoid plug formation (refer to para 0046 and 0056).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pipeline of Duncan to include a pipe trace-heating to further enable the predetermined and chemical-free response to the hydrates formation in the media, the pipe trace-heating to be at a temperature that is higher relative to a subsea environment, as taught by Kristiansen (refer to para 0046 and 0056).
Regarding claims 2 and 17, Duncan, as modified by Simpson, teach all the features of this claim as applied to claims 1 and 12 above; however, Duncan, as modified by Simpson, is silent to wherein the predetermined and chemical-free response is one of: maintaining a temperature for the media at higher than -20 degree centigrade (C) in the steady state flow.
Kristiansen teaches a system for heating a pipeline transporting fluid (para 0035) in oil and gas operations for the purpose of keeping the pipeline above a desired temperature in order to avoid plug formation (refer to para 0046 and 0056).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pipeline of Duncan to include maintaining a temperature for the media at higher than or above a desired temperature in the steady state flow, in order to avoid plug formation, as taught by Kristiansen (refer to para 0046 and 0056).
However, the combination of Duncan, Simpson, and Kristiansen, is silent to higher than -20 degree centigrade (C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method of Duncan, as modified by Simpson and Kristiansen, to heating to a temperature higher than -20 degree centigrade (C) to avoid plug formation, Kristiansen (refer to para 0046 and 0056).
Also 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. In other words, narrowing a general condition taught by the prior art to a specific numerical value has been held to be an obvious variation thereof. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 and In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wiggs (U.S. 2013/0192816A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YANICK A AKARAGWE whose telephone number is (469)295-9298. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 7:30-5:30.
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, Nicole 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.
/YANICK A AKARAGWE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672