DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
The provisional priority document 63/497657 has no support for transferring fluid from a first formation to a second formation, or vice versa, wherein the first and second formations are different from one another. This feature is found in all pending claims.
The earliest support is found in the PCT application. As such, Claims 1 – 20 are given an effective filing date of April 19, 2024.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Klemencic (US 2013/0056171).
With regards to Claim 1:
Klemencic discloses a method of operating a power system (Figure 1), comprising:
producing a first fluid (heated fluid 104, via production wells 10) from a first subterranean formation (HDR zone 6);
generating electricity using the first fluid (at geothermal power plant 11, see Paragraphs 29, 45);
injecting the first fluid into a second subterranean formation (HDR zone 3, via injection wells 2 and pump 22) different from the first subterranean formation (see Figure 4 and Paragraph 53, each circle representing a fractured to permeable rock formation, with outside each circle being impermeable, effectively making each zone 13, 3, 6, a separate formation); and
transferring the first fluid from the second subterranean formation to the first subterranean formation (via production wells 4, heat exchanger 7, and injection wells 5). Note that the embodiments of Figures 4 and 6 also anticipate the claimed invention.
With regards to Claim 2:
Klemencic discloses the producing the first fluid from the first subterranean formation is performed at a first well (production wells 10, Figure 1); and the injecting the first fluid into the second subterranean formation is performed at one of the first well or a second well different from the first well (injection wells 2, Figure 1).
With regards to Claim 5:
Klemencic discloses the generating electricity using the first fluid comprises: flowing the first fluid to a heat exchanger; using heat of the first fluid to increase a temperature of a second fluid at the heat exchanger; flowing the second fluid through an expander coupled to a generator; and generating the electricity using the generator (see Paragraphs 54, 72 discussing using of a “binary fluid organic Rankine cycle” as the geothermal power plant 11, with a binary fluid organic Rankine cycle having all the components and arrangements therebetween recited above).
Claims 1 – 4, 6 – 13, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rasmussen (WO 2023/148553).
Note: qualifies as 102(a)(1) reference because the claims are not supported in the provisional application. However, even if the claims were supported, Rasmussen would still qualify as a 102(a)(2) reference.
With regards to Claim 1:
Rasmussen discloses a method of operating a power system (Figures 1, 2a), comprising:
producing a first fluid (“fresh water or brine”, Paragraph 30) from a first subterranean formation (formation 14);
generating electricity using the first fluid (via turbine 20, see Paragraph 30);
injecting the first fluid (see Paragraph 39) into a second subterranean formation (formation 16) different from the first subterranean formation (see impermeable rock 18 between formations 14 and 16); and
transferring the first fluid from the second subterranean formation to the first subterranean formation (Paragraph 30: “At suitable times, such as, for example, when power is available from intermittent renewable energy sources such as wind power and solar power, fluid is then pumped from the lower-pressured formation 16 back into the higher-pressured formation 14, thus resetting the energy storage system 10 and restoring the pressure differential between the formations 14, 16”, see also Paragraph 38).
With regards to Claim 2:
Rasmussen discloses the producing the first fluid from the first subterranean formation is performed at a first well (well bore 26); and the injecting the first fluid into the second subterranean formation is performed at one of the first well or a second well different from the first well (same wellbore 26, see Figures 1, 2a and Paragraphs 29 – 34, 38, 39).
With regards to Claim 3:
Rasmussen discloses the transferring the first fluid from the second subterranean formation to the first subterranean formation comprises pumping the first fluid into the first subterranean formation via the first well (same wellbore used for charging and discharging, see Figures 1, 2a, and Paragraphs 38 and 39).
With regards to Claim 4:
Rasmussen discloses the generating electricity using the first fluid comprises flowing the first fluid through a turbine coupled to a generator (see Paragraph 39 for electricity generation and Paragraph 30: “the turbine 20 may be a pump as turbine (PAT), an apparatus capable of functioning as a pump-turbine and a motor generator unit”).
With regards to Claim 6:
Rasmussen discloses the generating electricity using the first fluid comprises flowing the first fluid through an impeller section of an electrical submersible generator (Paragraphs 36: “In some embodiments, the PAT 20 is a multi-stage centrifugal pump similar to electrical submersible pumps known in the art. The PAT 20 includes one or more impellers to drive or be driven by the fluid, a motor adapted to act as an electrical generator when the PAT is operating as a turbine, and a shaft connecting the impellers to the motor”).
With regards to Claim 7:
Rasmussen discloses the electrical submersible generator is installed in a well (fluid channel 12 of wellbore 26); the producing the first fluid from the first subterranean formation is performed in the well (as seen in Figures 1, 2a, via openings 32 in wellbore 26, as discussed in Paragraph 39); and the injecting the first fluid into the second subterranean formation is performed in the well (as seen in Figures 1, 2a, via openings 34 in wellbore 26, as discussed in Paragraph 38).
With regards to Claim 8:
Rasmussen discloses transferring the first fluid from the second subterranean formation to the first subterranean formation comprises operating the electrical submersible generator as a pump (see Paragraph 38: “The PAT 20 is activated as a pump, drawing fluid from the lower-pressured formation 16, through the second opening 34, into the second cavity 42, through the open second controllable access 48 into the fluid channel 12, and downward along the fluid channel 12. Once the pump discharge pressure exceeds the static pressure in the higher-pressured formation 14, the one-directional valve 50 will open and permit fluid flow into the first cavity 40, through the first opening 32, and into the higher-pressured formation 14”).
With regards to Claim 9:
Rasmussen discloses a method of operating a power system (Figures 1, 2a), comprising:
producing a fluid (“fresh water or brine”, Paragraph 30) from a first subterranean formation (formation 14) at a first zone of a well (deeper zone of wellbore 26, as seen in Figures 1, 2a);
flowing the fluid through an impeller section of an electrical submersible generator (PAT 20, see Paragraph 36: “the PAT 20 is a multi-stage centrifugal pump similar to electrical submersible pumps known in the art. The PAT 20 includes one or more impellers to drive or be driven by the fluid, a motor adapted to act as an electrical generator when the PAT is operating as a turbine, and a shaft connecting the impellers to the motor”) installed in the well (installed in fluid channel 12 of wellbore 26);
generating electricity using the electrical submersible generator (Paragraph 36); and
injecting the fluid (see Paragraph 39) into a second subterranean formation (formation 16) at a second zone of the well (shallower zone of wellbore 26, as seen in Figures 1, 2a).
With regards to Claim 10:
Rasmussen discloses transferring the fluid from the second subterranean formation to the first subterranean formation (Paragraph 30: “At suitable times, such as, for example, when power is available from intermittent renewable energy sources such as wind power and solar power, fluid is then pumped from the lower-pressured formation 16 back into the higher-pressured formation 14, thus resetting the energy storage system 10 and restoring the pressure differential between the formations 14, 16”, see also Paragraph 38).
With regards to Claim 11:
Rasmussen discloses the transferring the fluid from the second subterranean formation to the first subterranean formation comprises: producing the fluid from the second subterranean formation at the second zone of the well (see Figures 1, 2a, and Paragraph 38, with PAT acting as a pump, the fluid is drawn in via openings 32 in the wellbore 26 around formation 16); and injecting the fluid into the first subterranean formation at the first zone of the well (see Figures 1, 2a, and Paragraph 38, injected into formation 14 via openings 32 of wellbore 26).
With regards to Claim 12:
Rasmussen discloses the transferring the fluid from the second subterranean formation to the first subterranean formation further comprises operating the electrical submersible generator as a pump (Paragraph 38: “The PAT 20 is activated as a pump, drawing fluid from the lower-pressured formation 16, through the second opening 34, into the second cavity 42, through the open second controllable access 48 into the fluid channel 12, and downward along the fluid channel 12. Once the pump discharge pressure exceeds the static pressure in the higher-pressured formation 14, the one-directional valve 50 will open and permit fluid flow into the first cavity 40, through the first opening 32, and into the higher-pressured formation 14”).
With regards to Claim 13:
Rasmussen discloses the electrical submersible generator comprises a motor coupled to one or more impellers of the impeller section; and generating electricity using the electrical submersible generator comprises driving the motor using the one or more impellers (see Paragraph 36: “the PAT 20 is a multi-stage centrifugal pump similar to electrical submersible pumps known in the art. The PAT 20 includes one or more impellers to drive or be driven by the fluid, a motor adapted to act as an electrical generator when the PAT is operating as a turbine, and a shaft connecting the impellers to the motor”).
With regards to Claim 17:
Rasmussen discloses a system (Figures 1, 2a) comprising:
a well (wellbore 26) intersecting a first subterranean formation (formation 14) and a second subterranean formation (formation 16);
an electrical submersible generator (PAT 20, see Paragraph 36: “the PAT 20 is a multi-stage centrifugal pump similar to electrical submersible pumps known in the art. The PAT 20 includes one or more impellers to drive or be driven by the fluid, a motor adapted to act as an electrical generator when the PAT is operating as a turbine, and a shaft connecting the impellers to the motor”) installed in the well (installed in fluid channel 12 of wellbore 26);
a packer (packer 38, Figure 2a) coupled to the electrical submersible generator, the packer located between the first and second subterranean formations (see Paragraph 34), and sealing against a casing string (casing 28) of the well;
wherein the electrical submersible generator is configured to:
generate electricity when a fluid flows in the well from the first subterranean formation to the second subterranean formation (see Paragraph 39, PAT 20 acts as turbine); and
pump the fluid from the second subterranean formation to the first subterranean formation (see Paragraph 38, PAT acts as pump).
With regards to Claim 18:
Rasmussen discloses the electrical submersible generator comprises a motor coupled to one or more impellers via a shaft (see Paragraph 36).
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 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 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.
Claims 14, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rasmussen (WO 2023/148553) in view of Pinkerton et al. (hereafter “Pinkerton” – US 6463738).
With regards to Claims 14 and 19:
Rasmussen does not explicitly disclose the electrical submersible generator comprises a motor coupled to one or more impellers of the impeller section; and a generator coupled to the one or more impellers, instead disclosing a combined motor-generator unit (see Paragraph 30). Pinkerton (Figure 1) teaches an energy storage system including an electrical machine (106) that can operate as a motor or as a generator (Col. 4, Lines 7 – 12) in order to either store excess energy in a flywheel (acting as a motor) or to discharge energy to the load from the flywheel (acting as a generator), similar in concept to the hydraulic/thermal storage of Rasmussen. Pinkerton goes on to teach that “[e]lectrical machine 106 may be a combined motor/generator, or it may be formed from separate motor and generator components mounted to a single or separate, but coupled, shafts” (Col. 4, Lines 4 – 7). MPEP 2143B teaches it is obvious to substitute known elements for one another in order to yield predictable results. In this case, using a combined motor-generator and using a separate, dedicated motor and separate, dedicated generator are known substitutes for one another. Given the teachings of Pinkerton, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Rasmussen by replacing the combined motor-generator with separate motor and generator on the same shaft in order to yield the predictable result of continuing to operate the PAT as a pump with the motor during the charging mode and operating the PAT as a turbine with the generator during discharging mode.
With regards to Claim 15:
The Rasmussen modification of Claim 14 teaches generating electricity using the electrical submersible generator comprises driving the generator using the one or more impellers (see Paragraph 36 of Rasmussen, see also modification with Pinkerton yielding a separate dedicated generator).
Claims 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rasmussen (WO 2023/148553) in view of Pinkerton et al. (hereafter “Pinkerton” – US 6463738), further in view of Burger (DE 102006030467).
With regards to Claims 16 and 20:
The Rasmussen modification of Claims 14 and 19 does not explicitly teach the motor is decoupled from the one or more impellers while driving the generator using the one or more impellers. Burger (Figure 1) teaches an energy storage system including a motor (M) which serves to pump water into a drum (T) to increase its moment of inertia so as to serve as a makeshift flywheel (Paragraphs 104 – 105), and a separate generator (GR) which extracts energy from the water during discharging (Paragraph 114). Burger goes on to teach that both the motor and the generator may be selectively decoupled from the drum, with the motor (M) decoupled “by means of a magnetic coupling, so that no power loss can occur in the electric motor M during energy recovery” (Paragraph 115) and the generator (GR) decoupled “by means of a magnetic coupling…to avoid unnecessary idling power loss in the generator GR until energy recovery is desired and the generator GR starts up” (Paragraph 114). MPEP 2143A teaches it is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods in order to yield predictable results. In this case, given the separate motor and generator of Rasmussen as per the modification in Claims 14 and 19, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above by adding appropriate decoupling means to both the motor and generator in order to avoid parasitic losses from having both motor and generator rotating concurrently.
Additional References
Please see attached PTO-892 form for additional references which are made of record but not relied upon for the current grounds of rejection.
Mitchell (US 2002/0180215) – see Figure 1, aquifer 1() has fluid pumped out to generate electricity in generator 40, which may be a submersible generator (Paragraph 16) and injected into another, different aquifer (2).
Dickinson et al. (US 8277145) – see Figures 9, 10, transferring fluid between formations 43, 64, with impermeable rock layers 41, 42, therebetween.
Franck (US 1171543) – see Figure 1, transferring fluid between formation 11 and 12 with water impermeable layer 13 therebetween, and generating electrical energy via turbine 8.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAERT DOUNIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2146. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon. - Thurs: 10a - 4:30p.
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, MARK LAURENZI can be reached on (571) 270-7878. 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.
/Laert Dounis/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Tuesday, July 14, 2026
Prosecution Insights