DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-20 have been presented for examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
3. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/27/26 has been entered.
i) Following Applicants arguments and amendments the 101 rejection of the Claims is WITHDRAWN.
ii) Following Applicants amendments an additional prior art rejection has been presented below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
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.
4. Claims 1-4, 7-11, and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHEN (US 20180119535 A1), herein SHEN, in view of LIN (In-Situ Stress Estimation by Back Analysis Based on Wellbore Deformation with Consideration of Pore Pressure), herein LIN, and in further view of ASHENA (Severe wellbore instability in a complex lithology formation necessitating casing while drilling and continuous circulation system), herein ASHENA and further in view of Khoo, C. Y., et al. "Identification of borehole breakout formation and estimation of stress direction and regime using LWD ultrasonic caliper measurements: A unique, systematic, and real-time methodology." SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition. SPE, 2015, herein KHOON.
Claim 1 is rejected because SHEN teaches comparing the predicted breakout geometry comprising crescent-shaped areas with an observed breakout geometry at an observed breakout angle determined in real time using real-time caliper log data obtained from a multi-finger caliper during the drilling operation SHEN ([0011] “In general, embodiments (multi-finger caliper) of the technology are directed to real time management of drilling operations. In particular, a drilling model is calibrated. Simulations are continually performed on using the calibrated drilling model. A predicted measurement value from the simulations is compared against an actual measurement value acquired from the field (comparing the predicted breakout geometry with an observed breakout geometry at an observed breakout angle). If the actual measurement value matches the simulated measurement value, then the simulations may be used to determine a simulated state of the drilling operation. Based on the simulated state, a condition of the drilling operation is determined and a notification of the condition is presented.”) See also SHEN ([0079] “In Block 711, the stress along the drillstring is calculated using the calibrated model in accordance with one or more embodiments. For each section (comprising crescent-shaped areas), the stress (with an observed breakout geometry) is determined. The stress (observed breakout geometry) may be cyclical based on the rotation of the drillstring. For example, at a certain angle of rotation (observed breakout angle), one or more sections may have compression based stress and at another angle, the same components may have tension based stress.” See also SHEN ([0025] “Sensors that perform MWD and LWD may include functionality to perform caliper logging (real-time caliper log data).”) See also SHEN ([Figure 7].) See also SHEN ([0077] “The simulation model models the various conditions that may cause stress (observed breakout geometry) on the drillstring. For example, the simulation model may model the dimensions (crescent-shaped areas) of the hole, the amount of rotation of different sections, interactions between the sections, as well as other aspects of the drillstring.”) See also SHEN ([0028] “Furthermore, the subterranean formation through which the directional well (217) is drilled may include multiple layers (not shown) with varying compositions, geophysical characteristics, and geological conditions. Both the drilling planning during the well design stage and the actual drilling according to the drilling plan in the drilling stage may be performed in multiple sections (crescent-shaped areas) (e.g., sections (201), (202), (202), (204)) corresponding to the multiple layers in the subterranean formation. For example, certain sections (e.g., sections (201) and (202)) may use cement (207) reinforced casing (206) (pattern of wear created on the inside of the protective casing) due to the particular formation compositions, geophysical characteristics, and geological conditions.”)
PNG
media_image1.png
676
936
media_image1.png
Greyscale
SHEN Figure 7 Reference
SHEN also teaches adjusting a maximum horizontal stress value in the analytical elastic breakout model until the predicted breakout geometry matches, within a percentage threshold, the observed breakout geometry SHEN ([0084] “In Block 723, a determination is made whether the total fatigue damage is greater than the threshold or whether the maximum stress is greater than the yield stress in accordance with one or more embodiments. In other words, a determination is made whether the fatigue for the drill string has accumulated sufficiently (percentage threshold) to cause a possible imminent failure of the drillstring or whether the current maximum stress may cause an imminent failure (observed breakout geometry). Imminent failure is determined to exist when the failure is within a predefined configurable threshold amount of time or use (percentage threshold) of the drillstring.”) See also SHEN ([0085] “If the determination is made that the total fatigue damage is greater than the threshold or the maximum stress is greater than the yield stress (analytical elastic breakout model until the predicted breakout geometry matches), the flow may proceed to Block 725 to present an alert (adjusting a maximum horizontal stress value). The alert may be presented by sending the alert via a network, displaying the alert via a display device, performing another alert presentation method, or any combination thereof. The alert may be presented with a recommendation for a drilling operation based on the alert. In one or more embodiments, a drilling operation may be performed based on the alert. See also SHEN ([Figure 7].)
SHEN also teaches updating, in response to the comparing and adjusting, mud weight calculations for the drilling operation SHEN ([0085] “For example, the drilling operation may be to modify (in response to the comparing and adjusting) the mud weight, change (updating) a drilling parameter of the rotation, POOH (e.g., based on the detection of imminent failure), halt drilling, continue drilling without modification of drilling parameters, perform another operation, or combination thereof.”)
SHEN also teaches changing, in real time and in response to the updating, drilling parameters for the drilling operation, the drilling parameters comprising a speed and a direction SHEN ([0086] “By using a continually calibrated simulation model that is updated using real time drilling data (changing in real time and in response to the updating), one or more embodiments (drilling parameters for the drilling operation) provide a mechanism to warn the drilling engineers when a current or future problem exists with the drillstring.”)
SHEN does not explicitly teach determining, using an analytical elastic breakout model, a predicted breakout geometry, including determining a predicted breakout width, a predicted breakout depth, and a predicted breakout angle for a drilling operation of a petrochemical well the analytical elastic breakout model using as an input a wellbore geometry comprising a borehole radius, an inclination, and an azimuth.
However, LIN teaches determining, using an analytical elastic breakout model, a predicted breakout geometry, comprising determining a predicted breakout width, a predicted breakout depth, and a predicted breakout angle for a drilling operation of a petrochemical well LIN ([Introduction | page 2 | Column 1 | ¶ 2) “Back analysis is a practical engineering tool (model) to evaluate geomechanical parameters of underground structures based on field measurements of some key parameters, such as displacements, strains and stresses (elastic breakout) and to optimize designs (Ledesma et al 1996a & b, Tang and Kung 2009, Yazdani et al 2012). This method has been applied over the last few decades to predict the in situ stress state and the mechanical properties (predict breakout geometries) surrounding rock masses (geometries, width, depth and angles) in geotechnical and mining engineering (drilling operation of a petrochemical well). A back analysis procedure (model) was introduced to identify elastic parameters (elastic breakout geometries, width, depth, and angles) and earth pressure in a tunnel lining by Gioda and Maier (1980).”)
LIN also teaches the analytical elastic breakout model using as an input a wellbore geometry comprising a borehole radius, an inclination, and an azimuth LIN ([Section 4 Effects of Pore Pressure and Mudd Pressure on Borehole Deformation] “This phenomenon (an input) induces different wellbore shapes (wellbore geometry) after drilling under these two conditions. The wellbore profiles plotted using enlarged displacements (40 times of the actual value) are given in Figure 10. The geometry of wellbore (wellbore geometry) is changed from circle to oval in both conditions. The ovalisation is a result of anisotropic geostatic stresses, which have a possible impact on wellbore stability. Undrained effect can decelerate well convergence in the direction of σhmax and its ovalisation (comprising a borehole radius, an inclination, and an azimuth) in the perpendicular direction… In this study, due to pore pressure distribution differs for drained and undrained conditions, two different back analysis models (analytical elastic breakout model) have been established, which can be selected on the basis of the type of rock formation. From the Eqns. (18), (19) and (24), the increase in pore pressure magnitude will reduce stresses and displacement at the borehole wall (method used in wellbore drilling to predict when and where a section of the wellbore will fail). This indicates the stresses applied on the rocks in the near wellbore region are partially supported by the pore pressure. For each increase of 20 MPa of the pore pressure, the reduced values of drained and undrained radial displacements are about 0.1 mm and 0.015 mm, respectively (Figure 9a). The changes in radial displacements as a result of the same pore pressure change show obvious difference for drained and undrained conditions. The mud pressure will also cause deviation in radial displacement. Figure 9b shows the radial displacement at the mud pressure of 0, 20, 40, 55 and 70 MPa. However, in the field, for a given depth, the mud pressure is limited in a range proportional to the mud density and depth. In this example of 2000 m depth, Pm may not reach 70 MPa but at deeper location, this may take place. The main borehole failure mechanisms include fracturing (tensile failure) and collapse (compressive failure). Based on the “mud weight window”– the range of mud weight that can maintain a stable borehole, compressive failures occur, possibly causing the well to collapse if the mud pressure is lower than Pwc.”) See also LIN ([Figure 9] and [Figure 10].)
PNG
media_image2.png
280
298
media_image2.png
Greyscale
LIN Figure 9 Reference
PNG
media_image3.png
620
586
media_image3.png
Greyscale
LIN Figure 10 Reference
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of LIN with SHEN as the references deal with techniques that can be used for correcting the maximum horizontal stress value in real time while drilling and subsequently accounting for its effect when calculating the optimum mud weight. LIN would modify SEHN by determining, using an analytical elastic breakout model, a predicted breakout geometry, including determining a predicted breakout width, a predicted breakout depth, and a predicted breakout angle for a drilling operation of a petrochemical well. The benefits of doing so provide an alternative tool for small operators in petroleum industry where analytical solution is derived from displacement-stress relationship around a well in an isotropic rock with consideration of pore pressure. LIN ([Abstract].)
The combination of SHEN and LIN does not explicitly teach controlling a drilling equipment to execute the drilling operation using the speed and the direction of drilling for updating the wellbore geometry comprising the borehole radius, the inclination, and the azimuth, and adjusting the speed and direction of the drilling equipment.
However, ASHENA teaches controlling a drilling equipment to execute the drilling operation using the speed and the direction of drilling for updating the wellbore geometry comprising the borehole radius, the inclination, and the azimuth ASHENA (Section Input Data and Parameters | pdf page 6 of 22) “Table 2 shows the input data required for building the 1D-MEM. It includes well trajectory, petrophysical logs, drilling and mud parameters, core data and formation integrity data (leak-off or formation strength test). The interpreted petrophysical data are shown in Fig. 7. The core laboratory results available at three depths are provided in Table 3 with drilling and mud data presented in Table 4. The interpretation of the cuttings analysis is given in Table 5. The recorded data for the mud loss and kick flow occurrences are, respectively, listed in Tables 6 and 7. The image log of well Z26 (for the underlying reservoir formation) was available for investigating the directions of the horizontal in situ stresses. The breakouts (with an example in Fig. 8) indicate the direction of minimum horizontal stress of N75W (285 degrees from North), and the drilling-induced fractures indicate the maximum horizontal stress of N15E (15 degrees from North).”) See also ASHENA ([Table 2] and [Table 4].)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of ASHENA with SHEN and LIN as the references deal with techniques that can be used for correcting the maximum horizontal stress value in real time while drilling and subsequently accounting for its effect when calculating the optimum mud weight. ASHENA would modify SEHN and LIN by controlling a drilling equipment to execute the drilling operation using the speed and the direction of drilling for updating the wellbore geometry comprising the borehole radius, the inclination, and the azimuth. The benefits of doing so applies innovative drilling technologies including casing while drilling to eliminate the casing running time with potential reduction in drilling time, and continuous circulation system to prevent cuttings settling and kick flows during connections. ASHENA ([Abstract].)
SHEN, LIN, and ASHENA do not explicitly recite adjusting, relative to the real-time caliper log data, …to generate an adjusted maximum horizontal stress value; using the adjusted maximum horizontal stress value;
However KHOON discloses adjusting, relative to the real-time caliper log data, …to generate an adjusted maximum horizontal stress value; using the adjusted maximum horizontal stress value. (KHOON. Top of page 6, “If knowledge of the vertical v and minimum horizontal h stress magnitudes are known, then the magnitude maximum horizontal H stress of can be calculated also, by using Eq. 3 (Prioul and Sun 2010b):” See also
Conclusion, “This paper presented a workflow to identify stress-induced borehole breakouts using LWD ultrasonic caliper from which horizontal stress directions and stress regime can be estimated. The key advantages of utilizing LWD caliper data for breakouts detection are the availability of the caliper data in real time and the 360 degree coverage regardless of the hole size. It provides key input to Real Time Drilling Geomechanics (RTDG), enables making prompt drilling decisions in the case of occurrence of wellbore formation breakouts. As the hole shape data in LWD caliper is normally recorded in 16 sectors (or less), it enables LWD caliper to assess borehole condition with much higher resolution compared to conventional multi arms mechanical caliper. However, LWD caliper data can only be acquired while the entire BHA is in rotation mode. LWD caliper application is therefore more valid in a BHA using the rotary steerable assembly system.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of ASHENA with SHEN and LIN in view of KHOON as the references deal with techniques that can be used for determining the maximum horizontal stress value in real time while drilling and “enables making prompt drilling decisions in the case of occurrence of wellbore formation breakouts. As the hole shape data in LWD caliper is normally recorded in 16 sectors (or less), it enables LWD caliper to assess borehole condition with much higher resolution compared to conventional multi arms mechanical caliper.” (KHOON, Conclusion, 1st paragraph)
Claim 2 is rejected because the combination of SHEN, LIN, ASHENA, and KHOON teach claim 1. SHEN does not explicitly teach wherein determining the predicted breakout geometry is based on a pore pressure, a maximum horizontal stress azimuth, a tensile strength, a maximum horizontal stress (ah), a maximum vertical stress (ov), a cohesion friction angle UCS, and a Young Modulus Poisson's ratio.
However, LIN teaches wherein determining the predicted breakout geometry is based on a pore pressure, a maximum horizontal stress azimuth (angular distant), a tensile strength, a maximum horizontal stress (ah), a maximum vertical stress(ov), a cohesion friction angle UCS, and a Young Modulus Poisson's ratio LIN ([Abstract] “An analytical solution (analytical elastic breakout model) is derived (determine) from displacement-stress relationship (a tensile strength resistance of material to breaking under tension) around a well in an isotropic rock (predicted breakout geometry) with consideration of pore pressure.”) See also LIN ([Introduction) “The stress state (tensile strength) at a given point in the rock formation prior to drilling is generally presented in terms of the principal components: the vertical stress σv (maximum vertical stress), the maximum horizontal stress σhmax (maximum horitzonal stress (ah)) and minimum horizontal stress σhmin.”) See also LIN ([Section 2.4 Relation Between Convergence of Two Opposite Points on the Borehole Wall and the In Situ Stress] “Figure 4 illustrates the convergence calculation model. θi_11 and θi_12 are the measurement angles (cohesion frictional angles) of two opposite points a and b; (xi_11, yi_11) and (xi_12, yi_12) are the coordinates of points a and b.”) See also LIN ([Section 2.6 Computer Programming] “The input data for back analysis are the geometry of borehole, the angles or coordinates of measurement locations, the diameter changes caused by drilling at different locations, pore pressure, mud pressure, the properties of rock mass including Young’s modulus (Young Modulus Poisson's ratio), drained and undrained Poisson’s ratio, Biot’s constant, seepage coefficient, porosity, and Skempton’s coefficient. The output data is a quantitative description of the in situ stresses {σx, σy, τxy} or {σhmax, σhmin, φ}.Figure 5 shows the program interface.”) See also LIN ([Figure 4] and [Figure 5].)
PNG
media_image4.png
349
425
media_image4.png
Greyscale
LIN Figure 4 Reference
PNG
media_image5.png
636
518
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Lin Figure 5 Reference
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of LIN with SHEN as the references deal with techniques that can be used for correcting the maximum horizontal stress value in real time while drilling and subsequently accounting for its effect when calculating the optimum mud weight. LIN would modify SHEN wherein determining the predicted breakout geometry is based on a pore pressure, a maximum horizontal stress azimuth (angular distant), a tensile strength, a maximum horizontal stress (ah), a maximum vertical stress (ov), a cohesion friction angle UCS, and a Young Modulus Poisson's ratio. The benefits of doing so provide an alternative tool for small operators in petroleum industry where analytical solution is derived from displacement-stress relationship around a well in an isotropic rock with consideration of pore pressure. LIN ([Abstract].) Accordingly, claim 2 is rejected based on the combination of these references.
Claim 3 is rejected because the combination of SHEN, LIN, ASHENA, and KHOON teach claim 1. SHEN teaches real-time data comprising an equivalent circulating density (ECD) SHEN ([0025] “Sensors (S) are located about the wellsite to collect data, may be in real time, concerning the operation of the wellsite, as well as conditions at the wellsite… Sensors that perform MWD and LWD may include functionality to perform caliper logging, acquire annulus pressure and equivalent circulating density (ECD) measurements, perform a well survey, acquire shock and vibration measurements, and obtain formation information at the drilling depths and ahead of a bit. The information collected by the sensors and cameras is conveyed to the various parts of the drilling system and/or the surface control unit.”)
The combination of SHEN and LIN do not explicitly teach wherein the analytical elastic breakout model uses geomechanical properties from a one-dimensional (1D) Mechanical Earth Model (MEM).
However, ASHENA teaches wherein the analytical elastic breakout model uses geomechanical properties from a one-dimensional (1D) Mechanical Earth Model (MEM) ASHENA ([Input Data and Parameters] “Table 2 shows the input data required for building the 1D-MEM. It includes well trajectory (analytical elastic breakout model), petrophysical logs, drilling and mud parameters (geomechanical properties), core data and formation integrity data (leak-off or formation strength test).
PNG
media_image6.png
613
818
media_image6.png
Greyscale
ASHENA Table 2 Reference
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of ASHENA with SHEN and LIN as the references deal with techniques that can be used for correcting the maximum horizontal stress value in real time while drilling and subsequently accounting for its effect when calculating the optimum mud weight. ASHENA would modify SHEN and LIN wherein the analytical elastic breakout model uses geomechanical properties from a one-dimensional (1D) Mechanical Earth Model (MEM). The benefits of doing so applies innovative drilling technologies including casing while drilling to eliminate the casing running time with potential reduction in drilling time, and continuous circulation system to prevent cuttings settling and kick flows during connections. ASHENA ([Abstract].) Accordingly, claim 3 is rejected based on the combination of these references.
Claim 4 is rejected because the combination of SHEN, LIN, ASHENA, and KHOON teach claim 1.
SHEN does not explicitly teach wherein the analytical elastic breakout model supports computing a plurality of effective stresses in combination with shear failure criteria.
However, LIN teaches wherein the analytical elastic breakout model supports computing a plurality of effective stresses LIN ([Section 2.2 Stresses Around a Well Pour Pressure] “The effective stress as defined by Terzaghi is equal to the total stress minus the pore pressure (Zhang et al 2006a)…By combining Eqns. (8), (9), (10) or (14), (15) together, the effective stresses components under drained and undrained conditions can be described by Eqn. (16) and (17), respectively….The near-wellbore stresses (plurality of effective stresses) under plain strain condition can be obtained based on the linear elastic model, which can decomposed into four parts, as shown in Figure 3.”) See also LIN ([Equations 8-17].)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of SHEN with LIN as the references deal with techniques that can be used for correcting the maximum horizontal stress value in real time while drilling and subsequently accounting for its effect when calculating the optimum mud weight. LIN would modify SEHN by wherein the analytical elastic breakout model supports computing effective stresses. The benefits of doing so provide an alternative tool for small operators in petroleum industry where analytical solution is derived from displacement-stress relationship around a well in an isotropic rock with consideration of pore pressure. LIN ([Abstract].)
The combination of SHEN and LIN do not explicitly teach in combination with shear failure criteria.
However, ASHENA does teach in combination with shear failure criteria ASHENA ([Drilling-Induced Stresses] “The greatest possibility for shear failure (breakout) at the wellbore wall is at - = 90 , where the Kirsch’s equations are simplified to:
PNG
media_image7.png
185
580
media_image7.png
Greyscale
ASHENA Equations 21 to 23 References
The induced stresses calculated for well Z26 are plotted in Fig. 12, and the ranges of induced stresses are provided in Table 12. Table 13 provides the order of the three induced stresses in the direction of minimum horizontal stress (which will be used to determine the potential shear failure) and also the order of the induced stresses in the direction of maximum horizontal stress (which will be considered in determination of the potential tensile failure pressure).”) See also ASHENA ([Table 8], [Table 12], and [Table 13].)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of ASHENA with SHEN and LIN as the references deal with techniques that can be used for correcting the maximum horizontal stress value in real time while drilling and subsequently accounting for its effect when calculating the optimum mud weight. ASHENA would modify SHEN and LIN wherein the analytical elastic breakout model supports computing effective stresses in combination with shear failure criteria. The benefits of doing so applies innovative drilling technologies including casing while drilling to eliminate the casing running time with potential reduction in drilling time, and continuous circulation system to prevent cuttings settling and kick flows during connections. ASHENA ([Abstract].) Accordingly, claim 4 is rejected based on the combination of these references.
Claim 7 is rejected because the combination of SHEN, LIN, ASHENA, and KHOON teach claim 1. The combination of SHEN and LIN do not explicitly teach wherein adjusting the maximum horizontal stress value in the analytical elastic breakout model comprises incrementally adjusting the predicted breakout depth by 1%.
However, ASHENA teaches wherein adjusting the maximum horizontal stress value in the analytical elastic breakout model includes incrementally adjusting the predicted breakout depth by 1% ASHENA ([Section: Input Data Parameters | Column 2] “The interpreted petrophysical data are shown in Fig. 7. The core laboratory results available at three depths (adjusting the predicted breakout depth incrementally by 1%) are provided in Table 3 with drilling and mud data presented in Table 4. The interpretation of the cuttings analysis is given in Table 5. The recorded data for the mud loss and kick flow occurrences are, respectively, listed in Tables 6 and 7. The image log of well Z26 (for the underlying reservoir formation) was available for investigating the directions of the horizontal in situ stresses. The breakouts (with an example in Fig. 8) indicate the direction of minimum horizontal stress of N75W (285 degrees from North), and the drilling-induced fractures indicate the maximum horizontal stress of N15E (15 degrees from North).”) See also ASHENA ([Table 3], [Figure 7] and [Figure 8] where Figure 7 illustrates on the left column depths in meters incrementally increasing by 1%.
PNG
media_image8.png
194
496
media_image8.png
Greyscale
ASHENA Table 3 Reference
PNG
media_image9.png
757
1157
media_image9.png
Greyscale
ASHENA Figure 7 Reference with Depth Intervals with 1% Incremental Adjustments Left Column
PNG
media_image10.png
421
595
media_image10.png
Greyscale
ASHENA Figure 8 Reference with
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of ASHENA with SHEN and LIN as the references deal with techniques that can be used for correcting the maximum horizontal stress value in real time while drilling and subsequently accounting for its effect when calculating the optimum mud weight. ASHENA would modify SHEN and LIN herein adjusting the maximum horizontal stress value in the analytical elastic breakout model includes incrementally adjusting the predicted breakout depth by 1%. The benefits of doing so applies innovative drilling technologies including casing while drilling to eliminate the casing running time with potential reduction in drilling time, and continuous circulation system to prevent cuttings settling and kick flows during connections. ASHENA ([Abstract].) Accordingly, claim 7 is rejected based on the combination of these references.
Claim 8 is rejected because it is the non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium embodiment of claim 1 with similar limitations to claim 1, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 1. SHEN also teaches SHEN ([0003] “In general, in one aspect, embodiments relate to a method, system, and non-transitory computer readable medium for managing drilling operations.”)
Claim 9 is rejected because it is the non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium embodiment of claim 2 with similar limitations to claim 2, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 2.
Claim 10 is rejected because it is the non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium embodiment of claim 3 with similar limitations to claim 3, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 3.
Claim 11 is rejected because it is the non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium embodiment of claim 4 with similar limitations to claim 4, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 4.
Claim 14 is rejected because it is the non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium embodiment of claim 7 with similar limitations to claim 7, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 7.
Claim 15 is rejected because it is the computer-implemented system embodiment of claim 1 with similar limitations to claim 1, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 1. SHEN also teaches SHEN ([0040] “For example, as shown in FIG. 4.1, the computing system ( 400) may include one or more computer processors ( 402), non-persistent storage ( 404) (e.g., volatile memory, such as random access memory (RAM), cache memory), persistent storage (406) (e.g., a hard disk, an optical drive such as a compact disk (CD) drive or digital versatile disk (DVD) drive, a flash memory, etc.), a communication interface (412) (e.g., Bluetooth interface, infrared interface, network interface, optical interface, etc.), and numerous other elements and functionalities.
Claim 16 is rejected because it is the computer-implemented system embodiment of claim 2 with similar limitations to claim 2, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 2.
Claim 17 is rejected because it is the computer-implemented system embodiment of claim 3 with similar limitations to claim 3, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 3.
Claim 18 is rejected because it is the computer-implemented system embodiment of claim 4 with similar limitations to claim 4, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 4.
5. Claims 5, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHEN, in view of LIN, in further view of ASHENA, further in view of KHOON, and in further view of ZENG (On the effective stress law and its application to finite deformation problems in a poroelastic solid), herein ZENG.
Claim 5 is rejected because the combination of SHEN, LIN, ASHENA, and KHOON teach claim 4. The combination of SHEN, LIN, and ASHENA do not explicitly teach wherein computing the plurality of effective stresses comprises computing various elastic solutions and poroelastic solutions.
However, ZHENG teaches wherein computing the effective stresses includes computing various elastic solutions and poroelastic solutions ZHENG ([5.2. The constitutive relation for a hyperelastic porous solid] “For the present poroelastic problem, one only needs to find the relation between E(2) and its work-conjugate stress T′(2). Noting that (43) takes exactly the same form as (29), we may thus employ the known form of strain-energy functions for a hyperelastic solid and then utilize (43) to obtain the effective stress T′(2). Whereas if the solid constituent compressibility is considered, the strain energy function must be sought in terms of the two independent constitutive variables (computing various elastic and poroelastic solutions) (see [44], [45], [46] for more details)… “Hence, the effective stress 𝝈′ accounts for the response of the solid skeleton under undrained conditions; we may thus utilize the constitutive models (computing various elastic solutions and poroelastic solution) of solids to obtain the strain-stress relations for porous solids only with substitution of the effective stress.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of ZHENG with SHEN, LIN, ASHENA, and KHOON as the references deal with techniques that can be used for correcting the maximum horizontal stress value in real time while drilling and subsequently accounting for its effect when calculating the optimum mud weight. ZHENG would modify SHEN, LIN, ASHENA, and KHOON wherein computing the effective stresses includes computing various elastic solutions and poroelastic solutions. The benefits of doing so the models show that the predicted steady surface settlement is in good agreement with the linear results under small compressive load. ZHENG ([Conclusion].) Accordingly, claim 5 is rejected based on the combination of these references.
Claim 12 is rejected because it is the non-transitory, computer-readable medium embodiment of claim 5 with similar limitations to claim 5, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 5.
Claim 19 is rejected because it is the computer-implemented system embodiment of claim 5 with similar limitations to claim 5, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 5.
6. Claims 6, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHEN, in view of LIN, in further view of ASHENA, and in further view of KHOON, and in further view of RAHIMI (Comparison of rock failure criteria in predicting borehole shear failure), herein RAHIMI.
Claim 6 is rejected because the combination of SHEN, LIN, ASHENA, and KHOON teach claim 4. The combination of SHEN and LIN do not explicitly teach wherein the shear failure criteria comprise Mohr-Coulomb, Drucker-Prager, modified Lade, and Mogi-Coulomb techniques.
However, ASHENA teaches wherein the shear failure criteria comprise Mohr-Coulomb, modified Lade, and Mogi-Coulomb techniques ASHENA ([Shear failure pressure gradient] “The drilling-induced shear failure is the compressive shear failure of the wellbore wall, which makes the intersecting conjugate shear planes resulting in pieces of rock spalling off the wellbore wall and its ovalization (Bell and Gough 1979; Meyer 2002). The shear failure criteria considered in this work are Mohr-Coulomb (MC), Mogi-Coulomb (MG), and Modified Lade (ML). The pressure causing the shear failure depends on the shear failure mode, which is determined based on the order of induced/near wellbore stresses (Aadnoy and Looyeh 2010). In the case of the studied well, based on the order of the induced stresses in the direction of the minimum horizontal stress ( 𝜎𝜃𝜃 > 𝜎zz > 𝜎rr ), the mode of failure is known as widebreakout (Bowes and Procter 1997) and the minimum mud pressure to avoid breakout, Pw,s is calculated as (Mohr–Coulomb criterion):
PNG
media_image11.png
243
587
media_image11.png
Greyscale
The combination of SHEN, LIN, ASHENA, and KHOON do not explicitly wherein the shear failure criteria include Drucker-Prager techniques.
However, RAHIMI does teach wherein the shear failure criteria include Drucker-Prager techniques RAHIMI ([Section 2 | Rock failure criteria] “Table 1 shows the characteristics of all rock failure criteria (Mohr-Coulomb, Drucker-Prager, modified Lade, and Mogi-Coulomb techniques) used in this paper and the Appendix describes the different rock criteria and the common names used throughout the paper. See also RAHIMI ([Section 3. Statistical Analysis of Rock Failure Criteria] “Borehole breakouts during drilling operation are a sort of rock shear failure. In this study, classical shear failure as result of concentration of differential stress at the borehole wall was considered and differences of the results by rock failure criteria (shear failure criteria) investigated are highlighted by color codes which stand for different percentage difference interval. According to the results, the variation of rock mechanical properties can significantly change the result of minimum required mud weight by some of the failure criteria. For instance, Circumscribed Drucker–Prager (Drucker-Prager technique) usually predicts the lower bounds for the minimum required mud weight (Figs. 1 and 5) but its results are in the middle range for shale with low internal angle of friction (Φ: 7°) (Figs. 3 and 7). In the same case for shale, higher UCS (in the order of 17 MPa) caused different failure criteria (shear failure criteria) to be in the lower boundary of results. This difference was clearly shown in table of contradictions where the largest difference (red color) moved from the corner of the contradiction table (Figs. 2 and 6) to the center of contradiction tables (Figs. 4 and 8).”) See also RAHIMI ([Table 1].)
PNG
media_image12.png
489
663
media_image12.png
Greyscale
RAHIMI Table 1 Reference
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of RAHIMI with SHEN, LIN, ASHENA, and KHOON as the references deal with techniques that can be used for correcting the maximum horizontal stress value in real time while drilling and subsequently accounting for its effect when calculating the optimum mud weight. RAHIMI would modify SHEN, LIN, and ASHENA wherein the shear failure criteria include Mohr-Coulomb, Drucker-Prager, modified Lade, and Mogi-Coulomb techniques. The benefits of doing so helps determine the appropriate minimum required mud weight by rock failure analysis is an essential step to control wellbore instability. RAHIMI ([Introduction].) Accordingly, claim 6 is rejected based on the combination of these references.
Claim 13 is rejected because it is the computer-implemented system embodiment of claim 6 with similar limitations to claim 6, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 6.
Claim 20 is rejected because it is the computer-implemented system embodiment of claim 6 with similar limitations to claim 6, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 6.
Conclusion
7. All Claims are rejected.
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
i) U.S. Patent No. 5987385 Method And Apparatus For Creating An Image Of An Earth Borehole Or A Well Casing
ii) U.S. Patent No. 6179069 Breakout Control To Enhance Wellbore Stability
iii) Maleki, Shahoo, et al. "Comparison of several different methods of in situ stress determination." International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 71 (2014): 395-404.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Saif A. Alhija whose telephone number is (571) 272-8635. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 10:00-6:00.
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, Renee Chavez, can be reached at (571) 270-1104. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300. Informal or draft communication, please label PROPOSED or DRAFT, can be additionally sent to the Examiners fax phone number, (571) 273-8635.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/SAIF A ALHIJA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186