Our solution for Paper A 2024 - Deploying liquid into a well

Here's our attempt at this year's paper A.  

The topic was a device for deploying a liquid into a well, and to a method of treating a well using the device. While the device is quite structural/mechanical, aspects of its use (e.g., use of glue as the deployment liquid) were more chemistry-themed. A main problem seemed to be to draft the device in such a way that it is novel over D2 (which actually is from a more remote field, namely turbines).

You can find our attempt and discussion at the 'read more' below.

Comments are welcome in any official EPO language, not just English. So, comments in German and French are also very welcome!

Please do not post your comments anonymously - it is allowed, but it makes responding more difficult and rather clumsy ("Dear Mr/Mrs/Ms Anonymous of 02-03-2021 22:23"), whereas using your real name or a nickname is more personal, more interesting and makes a more attractive conversation. You do not need to log in or make an account - it is OK to just put your (nick) name at the end of your post.

Nico and Sander


Device deploying a liquid into a well.

The invention relates to a device for deploying a liquid into a well, and to a method of treating a well using the device.

D1 describes a cylinder-shaped device to deploy acid into a well. The device has a container, separated and sealed by a moveable piston into an acid chamber and a very high-pressure gas chamber.

A disadvantage of the device of D1 is that the container of D1 must be pressurized to a very high pressure (more than 10 atmospheres (1 000 kPa)) to drive the acid out of the container, against the high pressure in the well. Handling such pressurized containers at the surface before deployment in a well is very dangerous, because if they collide with other objects at the surface and/or have leaks, they could explode.

D2 describes a turbine apparatus to generate electricity in a well. The turbine device is in the form of a cylindrical container having a first drive chamber, a second liquid chamber and a third low-pressure chamber for gas.

While the device of D2 avoids the use of a high-pressure gas chamber, the device of D2 is not configured for deploying liquid into a well.

An object of the invention is to provide a device for deploying a liquid into a well, which can be handled more safely.

This object is addressed by the device according to claim 1, namely by (...skipped for now...)


Claims

1.   A device for deploying a liquid into a well, the device comprising a container (11) which comprises:

-            a first entry chamber (21)

-            a second chamber (22) for the liquid to be deployed

-            a third chamber (23) for gas

-            a static disc (17) which separates the second chamber (22) for liquid from the third chamber (23) for gas;

-            a movable piston which comprises a piston head (14) and a column (15), where the piston head (14) separates and seals the first entry chamber (21) from the second chamber (22) for liquid, wherein the column (15) is attached to the piston head (14) and extends through the static disc (17), wherein the column (15) engages in the static disc (17) and seals the static disc (17) to seal the second chamber (22) for liquid from the third chamber (23) for gas;

-            a first valve (19) provided between the inside of the first entry chamber (21) and the outside of the container

-            a second valve (29) provided between the inside of the second chamber (22) for liquid and the outside of the container

Remarks:

  • Novelty over D2 is established by the italic part above.
  • This claim sticks very closely to the literal wording/phrasing contained in the paper, but as a result, arguably covers some non-working embodiments. If one were to deviate a bit more from the literal wording/phrasing in the paper, the claim could perhaps be written to avoid such issues.
  • The static disc indirectly limits the device to having a cylindrical container. If this is to be avoided, one would have to choose a different wording, such as 'static wall', but this wording is not given in the paper (so probably not expected?).
  • D2's main embodiment simply uses an opening instead of a 'first valve'. This could perhaps also work for the invention (the operation is then controlled solely through the second valve). We didn’t implement this in the claim since [010] mentions that the valves are "necessary”, which we took at face-value.

2.           The device according to claim 1, further comprising a nozzle (35) at the valve (29).

3.           The device according to claim 1 or 2, wherein the container (11) is formed from a metal or metal alloy such as steel.     [essential? we decided against it being essential...]

4.           The device according to any one of claims 1 to 3, wherein the liquid capacity of the second chamber (22) for liquid is 5-10 litres when the moveable piston is in its starting position.

5.           The device according to any one of claims 1 to 4, wherein the total volume of the container is  15-50 litres.

6.           The device according to any one of claims 1 to 5, wherein the column (15) has a diameter of from 5 to 15 cm.

7.           A method of treating a well using the device according to any one of claims 1 to 6, comprising:

-             sealing gas in the third chamber (23) for gas at a given pressure, wherein the given pressure is selected to obtain a pressure difference of at least 500 kPa between a deployment location in the well and the chamber (23) for gas, wherein the given pressure in the third chamber (23) for gas is lower than at the deployment location in the well;

-             adding the liquid to be deployed to the second chamber (22) for liquid;

-             deploying the device into the deployment location in the well using a line (L);

-             opening the first valve (19) and the second valve (29).

Remarks:

  • The italic part is a late addition to our claim set. We agree with candidate's comments that it seems needed, at least for inventive step, that the pressure in the gas chamber is lower than the pressure in the well; the previous phrasing allowed this to be higher

8.           The method according to claim 7, comprising sealing the gas in the third chamber (23) for gas at 100 kPa +/- 10%.

9.           The method according to claim 7 or 8, wherein the pressure difference is between 700 kPA and 900 kPa.

10.        The method according to any one of claims 7 to 9, comprising reducing the pressure in the third chamber (23) before deployment.

11.        The method according to any one of claims 7 to 10, wherein the liquid is glue or acid.

12.        The method according to claim 7 to 10, wherein the liquid is glue and comprises:

-             30-60 wt% of bisphenol A epoxy resin,

-             30-40 wt% of a sulfone polymer having a weight average molecular weight of 50 000-100 000 g/mol, preferably 60 000-90 000 g/mol, wherein the weight average molecular weight is measured by light scattering according to ASTM D4001-20,

-             5-15 wt% of a toughening agent comprising liquid polysulfide rubber,

-             5-15 wt% of a curing agent comprising amines.

13.        The method according to claim 12, wherein the glue comprises 40 wt% bisphenol A epoxy resin, 40 wt% sulfone polymer, 10 wt% toughening agent and 10 wt% curing agent.

14.        The method according to claim 12, wherein the glue comprises one or more polymer additives, preferably phenolic antioxidants.

15.        The method according to any one of claims 7 to 14, comprising treating a vertically extending fracture by positioning the device at top or bottom of the fracture, activating the device, and moving the device along the fracture using the line (L).


Another (dependent) claim could be directed at applying the method to make an old well suitable for geothermal usage.

We debated whether to add a separate independent claim directed to a specific variant of the glue, for example as below. This seems be a claimable invention but runs the risk of a non-unity objection.

X.         A glue comprising:

 -            30-60 wt% of bisphenol A epoxy resin,

-             30-40 wt% of a sulfone polymer having a weight average molecular weight of 50 000-100 000 g/mol, preferably 60 000-90 000 g/mol, wherein the weight average molecular weight is measured by light scattering according to ASTM D4001-20,

-             5-15 wt% of a toughening agent comprising liquid polysulfide rubber,

-             5-15 wt% of a curing agent comprising amines, and

-             one or more phenolic antioxidants.


[edit: I corrected claim 14 to refer back only to claim 12]

[edit 2: Added further limitation and remark to claim 7]

[edit 3: Corrected typo in claim 5 to read "15" instead of "5" litre as lower boundary]

Comments

  1. Results are out!
    The Deltapatents solution by the way seems to be wrong

    ReplyDelete
  2. Is it possible to see a marked version of my own submission, e.g., to see for which features marks were awarded or deducted?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi, I failed the Paper A exam. I wrote this a my claim 1 but I had an independent glue claim. I got nothing for my device claim.

    1. A device (D) for deploying liquids in a well, the device comprising:
    a container (11) divided into three sections an entry chamber (21), a liquid chamber (22) and a low-pressure gas chamber
    (23), wherein the container (11) is formed at least in part from a metal,
    a moveable piston comprising a piston head (14) and a column (15) attached to the piston head (14), wherein the piston
    head (14) separates and seals the entry chamber (21) from the liquid chamber (22), and wherein the column (15) extends
    from the piston head (14) into the low-pressure gas chamber (23),
    a static disc (17) that separates the liquid chamber (22) and the low-pressure gas chamber (23), wherein the column
    (15) engages and seals the static disc 17, thereby sealing the liquid chamber (22) from the low-pressure gas chamber (23),

    a first valve (19) provided between the inside of the entry chamber (21) and outside of the container (11), to control passage
    of a well-liquid from the outside of the device (D) and the inside of the entry chamber (21), and
    a second valve (29) provided between the inside of the liquid chamber (22) and the outside of the container (11), to control
    pressure between the outside of the device (D) and the inside of the liquid chamber (22),
    wherein the first valve (19) and the second valve (29) when opened causes a net downward force on the moveable piston
    (14, 15) thereby compressing the liquid chamber (22) and expelling a deployment liquid in the liquid chamber (22) via the
    second valve (29).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I didn't pass to for few marks, they didn't take any count of complaints, I will file an Appeal just to give them a hard time ad they gave to us

      Delete
    2. Pissed off

      Good idea, I think they will not sleep tonight thinking that you would file an appeal.
      They will be more than happy to take your appeal fee.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous july 01 8:21, there is no need to mockering other people for their troubles and if they didn't pass. Some colleagues are not in a mood now for your jokes and they have the right to appeal if they want.

      Delete
    4. Noname,

      There is also no need to file an appeal "to give them a hard time". That will not solve anything. File an appeal only if there is a solid reason for it. Otherwise, candidates only behave like babies.

      Delete
    5. stop fighting everyone. be in peace.

      Delete
    6. Anonymous July 02, 2024 12:55 pm, let me take care about my problems, you think about yours thank you ;)

      Delete
    7. I said stop fighting you two

      Delete
  4. Yeah, you should ask to BoA how delighted they are to receive every years appeals form EQE, best moment in the year :))))

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hi Roel, come on there was a write admission by Epo about technical issues
    and there is any mark compensation?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes. Roel, please provide us with an update on this.

      Delete
  6. Hi, congrats to who passed Paper A. I was checking my failed paper today with examiners' report. I just scored 25 mark insted of 40 for my independent device claim, I really dont' understand why. Made of metal is ok, all essential feature are in. Two-part form shouldn't matter. Any hints ?

    1.   A device for deploy a liquid into a well comprising:
    - a container (11) made of metal divided into three sections:
    - a first entry chamber (21),
    - a second chamber (22) for a liquid;
    - a third chamber (23) for gas;
    - a moveable piston comprises a piston head (14) and a column (15);
    wherein the piston head (14) separates and seals the first entry chamber (21) from the second chamber (22) for liquid and
    wherein the column (15) is attached to the piston head (14) and extends through a static disc (17) where said column (15) is suitable to engages in the static disc (17) and seals it and wherein the static disc (17) separates and seals the second chamber (22) for liquid from the third chamber (23) for gas;
    and comprising a first valve (19) for liquid provided between the inside of the first entry chamber (21) and the outside of the container (11) and a second valve (29) for liquid provided between the inside of the second chamber (22).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think they took the points because the term "divided into 3 sections". That is a limiting feature

      Delete
    2. Stefano, I think that your claim is not well drafted.

      I understood it such that the device comprises a container, a first chamber, a second chamber, etc, and that the container is divided into three sections, but that it is unclear what these three sections are. There is no connection between the three sections and the chambers. Seems to me as if the container and its three sections are decoupled from the chambers. In that sense, your three sections are even very limitting, because you require the chambers, and additionally a container with three sections (whatever that may be).

      In that sense, I actually think that 25/40 was very generous. I would have deducted more marks.


      Delete
    3. Yes, I also think "divided into three sections" is very limiting. I do not see it so much as a clarity issue. I think in the context provided it is pretty clear that you meant the different chambers. But a competitor can easily work around your claim by just adding a fourth section to the conatainer and then would not infringe your claim.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous July 04, 2024 9:11 am, and you would be who? On which basis you would have deducted more marks?

      Delete
    5. I saw candidate answer on EQE compendium last day (now not present anymore) and in the model solution was claimed a container with three section

      Delete
    6. Candidate's best answer on EQE site claims a container divided into three section: a first chamber, a second chamber and a third chamber. Alle essentialy structural feature are present and Examiner report didn't mention anything about too limiting in describe a contaner divided into three section.

      Delete
    7. D42 I don't understand.... comprising 3 chamber meant that you are in infringment even if you add a 4th one.

      Delete
    8. Anonymous July 04, 2024 9:11 am here, Ok... that really surprises me. It appears as if there is not much of a difference between your solution and the best answer. I don't know, maybe you just had bad luck, sorry.

      Delete
    9. Anonymous July 04, 2024 9:11, thank you for sharing your opinion, have a nice day.

      Delete
  7. Plus a clarity issue.
    according to your claim the container is divided into 3 sections, but later you describe 4 sections (entry chamber, chamber for liquid, chamber for gas, and the piston)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you Mike, but 15 marks for this seems too much, the container was described as essential to be enabling with 3 section first second and third chamber, no hints or vantage for a possible 4th chamber. Piston is not a chamber is a moveable elements respect to container I think that it should be clear for every skilled person come on.

      Delete
  8. I just notice I missed to write at the end of claim after ".. between the inside of the second chamber (22).... - and the outside of the container (11) - ", as for the first entry chamber (21).
    It's a minor missing I think but here may I have lost at least 5 marks or more? In the report is clearly stated that not only the presence of valves but their position was expected.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Also 2 marks were deducted for not having a two part form.

      Delete
    2. "Also 2 marks were deducted for not having a two part form".

      That statement is not 100% true.

      2 marks were deducted if the two part form was not properly drafted. But it was not necessary to draft it in the two part form.

      Delete
    3. You are correct.

      Delete
    4. No, after the union of Mec/El and Chem papers two-part form is not expected anymore. Marks are deducted only if you use two-part form but not correctly.

      Delete
    5. Two part-form is not requested anymore for years, you're just spreading incorrect informations.

      Delete
  9. Our solution for Paper A 2024 explores effective methods for deploying liquid into a well, focusing on optimizing efficiency and precision in the process. This approach offers innovative insights for technical applications. For more details, visit Telkom University Jakarta: Telkom University Jakarta

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Oldest Older 201 – 233 of 233 comments