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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figs. # 3-6 have light print, making difficult to read when reduced to print. 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Fig. 2 # 150. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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.
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: # 152. 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 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.
The term “portion” in claim 8 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 8 are also rejected.
Claims 9, 13, and 18 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 9 recites “… the heated brine to less than 30°C …”. This is a range with unbounded lower limit, and , as such, it is unclear as to extent of temperature Applicant is intending to seek patent protection of; as such, the claim is rendered indefinite.
Claim 13 recites “… flow rate greater than 300 m³/h, … a flow rate greater than 11 t/h…” These are ranges with unbounded upper limit, and as such, it is unclear as to extent of flow rate Applicant is intending to seek patent protection of; as such, the claim is rendered indefinite.
Claim 18 recites “… temperatures less than 20°C.” This is a range with unbounded lower limit, and as such, it is unclear as to extent temperature Applicant is intending to seek patent protection, as such, the claim is rendered indefinite.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 10, 11, 12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Sigfusson et al. (US 2022/0219112 A1) (“Sigfusson” herein)
Claim 1
Sigfusson discloses a system for injecting a gas into a geothermal reservoir, comprising: (Fig. 4)
an outer tubular within a wellbore, wherein the outer tubular is configured to inject an aqueous solution; (205) [0098-00100] and
an inner tubular within the outer tubular, wherein the inner tubular (206) comprises a sparger near a downhole end of the inner tubular within the wellbore at a sparger depth from a surface (207), wherein the sparger comprises a plurality of holes, [0098-00100] and
the sparger is configured to inject a gas into the aqueous solution via the plurality of holes; herein sparger depth is between 150 and 1200 meters from the surface, (h1) and a reservoir depth of the geothermal reservoir from the surface is greater than the sparger depth. (h1 + h2) [0102-0104]
or a different interpretation of Sigfusson
Sigfusson discloses a system for injecting a gas into a geothermal reservoir, comprising: (Fig. 4)
an outer tubular within a wellbore, wherein the outer tubular is configured to inject an aqueous solution; (205) [0098-00100] and
an inner tubular within the outer tubular, wherein the inner tubular (206) comprises a sparger near a downhole end of the inner tubular within the wellbore at a sparger depth from a surface (207), wherein the sparger comprises a plurality of holes, [0098-00100] and
the sparger is configured to inject a gas into the aqueous solution via the plurality of holes; herein sparger depth is between 150 and 1200 meters from the surface, (h1) and a reservoir depth of the geothermal reservoir from the surface is greater than the sparger depth. (h1 + h2) [022, 0102-0104]
Sigfusson does not explicitly disclose the terminology as recited within the claimed invention the sparger comprises a plurality of holes. However, Sigfusson discloses that the sparger 207 is placed at the open end of the injection pipe 206 for maximizing the interfacial area between the CO.sub.2 gas and the water. By doing so, the CO.sub.2 gas bubbles will be equally distributed within the water, and further, the average diameter of the bubbles will be reduced causing said maximization of the interfacial area between the CO.sub.2 gas and the water. [0102] which serves as a plurality of holes ([0102]).
Therefore, the Examiner interprets this disclosure to read on the claimed invention.
Claim 4-5
Sigfusson discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the sparger depth is between 150 and 250 meters or, wherein the sparger depth is between 50 to 150 meters less than the reservoir depth. (h1) [0104]
Claim 10
Sigfusson discloses the system of claim 1, comprising a source of the gas, wherein the source comprises a carbon dioxide pipeline or a carbon capture plant. [0002-0003, 0013]
Claim 11
Sigfusson discloses a method of injecting a gas into a geothermal reservoir, comprising: (Fig. 4)
injecting an aqueous solution through an outer tubular within a wellbore; (205) [0098-00100]
injecting a gas through an inner tubular within the outer tubular (206) to a sparger near a downhole end of the inner tubular at a sparger depth from a surface, wherein the sparger comprises a plurality of holes; (207) ), [0098-00100]
directing the gas through a plurality of holes of the sparger into the aqueous solution; [0102-0104]
dissolving the gas in the aqueous solution within the wellbore within a dissolution length of 150 m from the sparger to form an enriched brine; (h1) and
injecting the enriched brine into the geothermal reservoir at a geothermal depth greater than the sparger depth. . (h1 + h2) [0102-0104]
or a different interpretation of Sigfusson
Sigfusson discloses a method of injecting a gas into a geothermal reservoir, comprising: (Fig. 4)
injecting an aqueous solution through an outer tubular within a wellbore; (205) [0098-00100]
injecting a gas through an inner tubular within the outer tubular (206) to a sparger near a downhole end of the inner tubular at a sparger depth from a surface, wherein the sparger comprises a plurality of holes; (207) ), [0098-00100]
directing the gas through a plurality of holes of the sparger into the aqueous solution; [0102-0104]
dissolving the gas in the aqueous solution within the wellbore within a dissolution length of 150 m from the sparger to form an enriched brine; (h1) and
injecting the enriched brine into the geothermal reservoir at a geothermal depth greater than the sparger depth. . (h1 + h2) [0022, 0102-0104]
Sigfusson does not explicitly disclose the terminology as recited within the claimed invention the sparger comprises a plurality of holes. However, Sigfusson discloses that the sparger 207 is placed at the open end of the injection pipe 206 for maximizing the interfacial area between the CO.sub.2 gas and the water. By doing so, the CO.sub.2 gas bubbles will be equally distributed within the water, and further, the average diameter of the bubbles will be reduced causing said maximization of the interfacial area between the CO.sub.2 gas and the water. [0102] which serves as a plurality of holes ([0102]).
Therefore, the Examiner interprets this disclosure to read on the claimed invention.
Claim 12
Sigfusson discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the sparger depth is between 200 and 400 meters from the surface. (h1) [0104]
Claim 20
Sigfusson discloses the method of claim 11, comprising routing the gas to the inner tubular from a pipeline, wherein the gas consists essentially of carbon dioxide. [0002-0003, 0013]
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 2, 3, 7, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sigfusson, as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Musho et al. (US 2023/0175365 A1) (“Musho” herein).
Claims 2-3
Sigfusson discloses the system of claim 1. Sigfusson however does not discloses wherein each hole of the plurality of holes comprises a critical length between 0.5 mm and 1.0 mm or, wherein each hole of the plurality of holes comprises a circular hole.
Musho teaches the above limitation (See paragraph 0035 → Musho teaches this limitation in that Referring to FIGS. 10A-10B and 11A-11B, shown are examples of gas sparger heads. FIG. 10A shows cross-sectional views of a gas sparger head comprising a venturi-shaped passage extending through the sparger head. The venturi-shape includes a narrow portion where the bubble orifice is located. The tapering and curvature of the venturi-shape can be optimized as discussed to achieve a desired bubble formation and airlift pumping action. In the example of FIG. 10A, the curved venturi-shape is preceded by a linear section. The bubble orifice comprises a plurality of gas orifices radially spaced about the narrow portion of the venturi-shaped passage. Each of the plurality of gas orifices are supplied with gas (e.g., air) via a resonant chamber for formation of bubbles in the geothermal fluid. FIG. 10B illustrates the bubble orifice with a plurality of radially spaced gas orifices (e.g., 16) distributed about the gas sparger head. As shown, the gas outlet of each gas orifice is supplied via a resonant chamber, which receives air or other gas from a manifold through the gas inlet. As shown in FIG. 10B, the resonant chamber can have a spherical (or other appropriate) shape to aid in the formation of bubbles at the bubble orifice.) for the purpose of reducing the bottom hole pressure and the pump requirements. [0038]
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 Sigfusson, with the above limitation, as taught by Musho, in order to reduce the bottom hole pressure and the pump requirements.
Claim 7
Sigfusson discloses the system of claim 1. Sigfusson however does not discloses, wherein the inner tubular comprises a pressure regulator above the sparger, wherein the pressure regulator is configured to prevent a backflow to the surface. (Same as claims 2-3)
Claim 14
Sigfusson discloses the metho of claim 13. Sigfusson however does not discloses, wherein the plurality of holes comprises circular holes having a
diameter between 0.5 mm and 1.0 mm. (Same as claims 2-3)
Claims 6, 8, 9, 15, 16, 17,18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sigfusson, as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of t Chorn et al. (US 2022/0373230 A1) (“Chorn” herein).
Claim 6
Sigfusson discloses the system of claim 1. Sigfusson however does not explicitly disclose. wherein the gas comprises greater than 95% carbon dioxide.
Chorn teaches the above limitation (See paragraphs 0031, 0041, & 0056 → Chorn teaches this limitation in that the working fluid refers to a portion of the process stream that is predominantly carbon dioxide (CO.sub.2), for example 50 wt. % or more CO.sub.2, and in particular substantially more than 50 wt. % CO.sub.2, such as about 75 wt. % or more CO.sub.2, about 80 wt. % or more CO.sub.2, about 85 wt. % or more CO.sub.2, about 90 wt. % or more CO.sub.2, about 95 wt. % or more CO.sub.2, about 96 wt. % or more CO.sub.2, about 97 wt. % or more CO.sub.2 or more, about 98 wt. % or more CO.sub.2, about 99 wt. % or more CO.sub.2, about 99.5 wt. % CO.sub.2 or more, or about 99.9 wt. % or more CO.sub.2.A a CO.sub.2-based working fluid 102 is provided by a CO.sub.2 source 104, such as a power plant, an industrial plant, another production facility, or an underground source. The CO.sub.2 source 104 can be provided from an air-capture source or any other source. The production fluid 132 that is produced via the production well 118 can include a content of the non-water based component (e.g., the CO.sub.2-based working fluid) of from about 0.01 wt. % to about 99 wt. %, inclusive, for example from about 33 wt. % to about 50 wt. %, inclusive, of the non-water based component. In an example, the production fluid 132 can include a content of the aqueous component, such as brine or an injected water-containing working fluid, of from about 1 wt. % to about 99 wt. %, inclusive, for example from about 10 wt. % to about 95 wt. %, such as from about 25 wt. % to about 50 wt. %, inclusive, of the aqueous component.) for the purpose of storing carbon dioxide on a substantially “permanent” basis, e.g., so that the reservoir 110 can be considered as a “sequestration reservoir.” [0048]
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 Sigfusson, with the above limitation, as taught by Chron, in order to store carbon dioxide on a substantially “permanent” basis, e.g., so that the reservoir 110 can be considered as a “sequestration reservoir.”
Claim 8
Sigfusson discloses the system of claim 1 comprising a pump, a producer well wherein the pump fluidly connects the geothermal reservoir via comprises at least a portion of the aqueous solution. [0021- 0022, 0113-0121, 0152] .
Sigfusson however does not discloses, a heat exchange system, the heat exchange system is fluidly connected to the outer tubular, and the heated brine the producer well to the heat exchange system.
Chorn teaches the above limitation (See paragraphs 0064 → Chorn teaches this limitation in that In some examples, the cooled and/or depressurized working fluid 162 can still have substantial additional heat energy beyond that which is desired for injection back into the reservoir 110, e.g., the cooled and/or depressurized working fluid 162 can still be at a temperature and/or pressure that are higher than necessary for reinjection back into the reservoir 110. Therefore, in an example, the energy recovery system 140 can also include an optional working fluid energy recovery subsystem 164 that can convert at least a portion of the additional energy in the cooled and/or depressurized non-water based working fluid 162 to heat energy 166. For example, the working fluid energy recovery subsystem 164 can include a heat recovery device or system, such as a heat exchanger (not shown in FIG. 1) that can be configured to recover the heat energy 166 from the cooled and/or depressurized non-water based working fluid 162 in order to provide a further cooled working fluid 168. In an example, the further cooled working fluid 168 can be re-pressurized by the compressor 106 and injected back into the reservoir 110 via the injection well 112.) for the purpose of providing a cooled working fluid. [0064]
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 Sigfusson, with the above limitation, as taught by Chorn, in order to provide a cooled working fluid.
Claim 9
Sigfusson discloses the system of claim 8. Sigfusson however does not discloses, comprising a processing system configured to cool the heated brine to less than 30°C to form a cooled brine, and to direct the cooled brine to the outer tubular. (Same as claim 8)
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, were 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 possess 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 Swinheart, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971).
Claim 15
Sigfusson discloses the method of claim 11. Sigfusson however does not explicitly disclose, comprising capturing the gas from a flue gas or an ambient environment, wherein the gas comprises greater than 95% carbon dioxide. (Same as claim 6)
Claim 16
Sigfusson discloses the method of claim 11. Sigfusson however does not discloses, comprising pumping a heated brine from a producer well to a heat exchange system, wherein the producer well fluidly connects the geothermal reservoir to the heat exchange system. (Same as claim 8)
Claim 17-18
Sigfusson discloses the system of claim 16. Sigfusson however does not discloses, comprising processing the heated brine from the heat exchange system to produce a cooled brine, and directing the cooled brine to the outer tubular as the aqueous stream,
wherein processing the heated brine comprises forming the cooled brine at temperatures less than 20°C. (Same as claim 9)
Claim 19
Sigfusson discloses the method of claim 11. Sigfusson however does not explicitly disclose, wherein dissolving the gas within the dissolution length comprises dissolving at least 99% of the gas within the aqueous solution. (Same as claim 6)
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sigfusson, as applied to claim 12 above
Claim 13
Sigfusson discloses the claimed invention except for injecting the aqueous solution at flow rate greater than 300 m³/h, and injecting the gas at a flow rate greater than 11 t/h. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to have the injecting the aqueous solution at flow rate greater than 300 m³/h, and injecting the gas at a flow rate greater than 11 t/h, since it has been held that [W]here 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Smith et al. (US 2023/0041084 A1) METHOD FOR ENGINEERED GEOTHERMAL SYSTEM IN-SITU CONFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT TREATMENT USING BRINES INFUSED WITH CO2 teaches A method of repairing a well is provided. The method includes injecting a brine solution into the well, injecting carbon dioxide into the well, and reacting the brine solution in the reservoir rock with the carbon dioxide to form calcite such that calcite precipitates into the desired flow path between a cold well and a hot well to effectively repair short circuits within the EGS reservoir, Gadot et al. (US 2022/0065834 A1) GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION MONITORING SYSTEMS AND METHODS teaches Systems and methods presented herein generally relate to greenhouse gas emission monitoring and, more particularly, to a greenhouse gas emission monitoring workflow using various different types of sensors. For example, a system includes a plurality of sensors located within an oil and gas worksite. At least one sensor of the plurality of sensors is configured to detect a status of equipment at the oil and gas worksite. The system also includes a greenhouse gas emission analysis system configured to receive sensor data from the plurality of sensors. The greenhouse gas emission analysis system is also configured to correlate the sensor data from the plurality of sensors (e.g., using one or more reduced order models (ROMs) that reduce the computational complexity of computational fluid dynamics model simulations of previously collected data relating to operation of the oil and gas worksite). The greenhouse gas emission analysis system is further configured to determine an existence of a greenhouse gas emission within the oil and gas worksite, a location of the greenhouse gas emission within the oil and gas worksite, and a quantity of the greenhouse gas emission within the oil and gas worksite based at least in part on the correlation, and Hunt et al. (US 2011/0272166 A1) Separation Under Pressure Of Methane From Hot Brine Useful For Geothermal Power teaches A gas-stripping method of separating methane from pressurized brine while under pressure with the simultaneous gas-lift pumping production of hot water capable of generating geothermal power whereby liquid carbon dioxide pumped to high pressure is injected at depth into a flow of pressurized brine located within a wellbore that is in fluid connection with a reservoir of brine solution containing methane in order to saturate the methane saturated brine with miscible liquid carbon dioxide and to gas-strip the methane from the brine as the liquid carbon dioxide boils to the gas phase in response to the thermal energy contained within the hot brine thereby effectively separating the methane from the brine water under pressure and in order to simultaneously gas-lift pressurized methane containing water from the reservoir by lowing the density of the column of water within the well. A separator pressure vessel collects and separates the liquids from the gases discharged from the well; and a second vessel separates the pressurized methane gas and high vapor pressure carbon dioxide gas by cooling and condensing the carbon dioxide gas to the liquid phase in a semi-closed cycle, being a means conserving and reusing the supply of carbon dioxide.
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 01/26/2026