DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 Jan. 14th, 2026 has been entered.
This action is in response to the amendments filed on Jan. 14th, 2026. A summary of this action:
Claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of both a mathematical concept and mental process without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1, 9-11, 13-14, 18-20, 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heathman, J., and F. E. Beck. "Finite element analysis couples casing and cement designs for HP/HT wells in East Texas." SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition. SPE, 2006 in view of Creel, P., et al. "Real-Time Cementing Designs vs. Actual Jobs in Progress." SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition. SPE, 2006.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heathman, J., and F. E. Beck. "Finite element analysis couples casing and cement designs for HP/HT wells in East Texas." SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition. SPE, 2006 in view of Creel, P., et al. "Real-Time Cementing Designs vs. Actual Jobs in Progress." SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition. SPE, 2006. And in further view of McPherson, S. A. "Cementation of horizontal wellbores." SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. SPE, 2000.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heathman, J., and F. E. Beck. "Finite element analysis couples casing and cement designs for HP/HT wells in East Texas." SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition. SPE, 2006 in view of Creel, P., et al. "Real-Time Cementing Designs vs. Actual Jobs in Progress." SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition. SPE, 2006 and in further view of Puwanto, US 2020/0362686
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heathman, J., and F. E. Beck. "Finite element analysis couples casing and cement designs for HP/HT wells in East Texas." SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition. SPE, 2006 in view of Creel, P., et al. "Real-Time Cementing Designs vs. Actual Jobs in Progress." SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition. SPE, 2006 and in further view of Jebutu, S. O., et al. "Enhanced formation integrity test fit interpretation and decision making through real-time downhole pressure measurements." SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition. SPE, 2017.
Claim(s) 6 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heathman, J., and F. E. Beck. "Finite element analysis couples casing and cement designs for HP/HT wells in East Texas." SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition. SPE, 2006 in view of Creel, P., et al. "Real-Time Cementing Designs vs. Actual Jobs in Progress." SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition. SPE, 2006 and in further view of Ringrose, Philip S. "Total-property modeling: dispelling the net-to-gross myth." SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 11.05 (2008): 866-873.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heathman, J., and F. E. Beck. "Finite element analysis couples casing and cement designs for HP/HT wells in East Texas." SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition. SPE, 2006 in view of Creel, P., et al. "Real-Time Cementing Designs vs. Actual Jobs in Progress." SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition. SPE, 2006 and in further view of Ringrose, Philip S. "Total-property modeling: dispelling the net-to-gross myth." SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 11.05 (2008): 866-873 in view of Puwanto et al., US 2020/0362686
Claim(s) 8, 12, 16-17, and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heathman, J., and F. E. Beck. "Finite element analysis couples casing and cement designs for HP/HT wells in East Texas." SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition. SPE, 2006 in view of Creel, P., et al. "Real-Time Cementing Designs vs. Actual Jobs in Progress." SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition. SPE, 2006 and in further view of Parsons et al., US 2017 /0096874.
This action is non-final
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 .
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Regarding the § 101 Rejection
Maintained, updated as necessitated by amendment.
With respect to the remarks, at pages 12-13, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(D): “A wide-area real-time performance monitoring system for monitoring and assessing dynamic stability of an electric power grid – Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1351 and n.1, 119 USPQ2d at 1740 and n.1; and”, and see the rationale in the rejection, including seeing the 2B evidence which shows that such real-time processes during cementing/drilling are not just well-known, but well-known as a result of changes to CFR and applicable industry standards. POSITA would not recognize this as an improvement to technology. ¶ 8 merely conveys a similar alleged improvement as Electric Power Group as well, i.e. its not an improvement to technology to simply do real-time performance monitoring by collecting data, analyzing data, and in the instant application a token post-solution insignificant application of simply pumping the cement (akin to In re Brown in 2106.05(f and g) of using scissors to cut hair after first determining a hair style).
To clarify, the claim has no particular recitations of how these steps are to be achieved in real-time in a technological manner (in contrast, and to give an example what types of limitations are lacking, see example 45, claim 3, e.g. an unconventional sensor used in the data gathering), rather its merely akin to MPEP § 2106.05(f): “Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).”
Regarding the § 102/103 Rejection
Withdrawn in view of the amendments, new grounds presented below.
Remarks are for the newly amended subject matter so see how it is rejected below.
Regarding the advisory action
§ 101 is maintained as noted above.
To clarify, in In re Brown (MPEP § 2106.05(g and f)) it was discussed (see opinion): “Brown themselves state the object of the invention, providing a "consistent and repeatable hair cut," is "achieved through the recited steps of defining a head shape, designating zones, and assigning patterns to zones." Appellants' Br. 15-16. They do not dispute that the hair cutting step "employs a well-known concept," id. at 17, or that the hair patterns applied are "industry recognized," id. at 7. They further suggest the inventive portion of the claims stem from steps (a) and (d), defining a head shape and assigning hair patterns to partial zones… And the [**3] final step, step (e), is to use scissors to cut the hair after you determine the appropriate hair style. Step (e) does not transform this abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. Much of Brown's briefing focuses on the use of scissors in step (e) to transform the abstract idea into a patent- eligible concept. They argue the hair cutting step in step (e) is a meaningful and necessary limitation, and that the scissors used in that step render the claims patent eligible under the machine-or-transformation test. While it is true that a hair cut would not result without practicing the final step of cutting hair, step (e) merely instructs
one to apply the abstract idea discussed above with scissors. Such a limitation is not the type of additional feature Alice envisioned as imparting patent eligibility. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 ("Stating an abstract idea while adding the words 'apply it' is not enough for patent eligibility.") (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294 (internal quotation marks omitted)). We hold that step (e), using scissors to cut hair, is insignificant post-solution activity.””
¶ 98 merely conveys performance monitoring in real-time, with “real-time” re-design of a cement blend but with no particularly on a technological means of designing cement blends, i.e. it’s simply something that has been done for millennia (e.g. see Ancient Roman aquifers) that does not require a computer it do, but now simply do it on a computer. Mere automation of manual/mental processes (MPEP § 2106.05(a)(I); Aug. 25 memorandum footnote 17) with a computer does not amount to an improvement to technology.
The determining a stress value limitation recites no particular in how to even do this, but for the mere instructions to do it on a computer.
It adds in generic conventional data gathering steps, but let’s do it in real-time (Electric Power Group). See example 45, claim 3, note the prong 2 analysis in particular, then the step 2B WURC consideration.
It adds a “repeating…” step which, at most, is merely conveying the use of a computer to re-design cement blends in real-time/by claiming the speed/efficiency inherent from the result of using a computer to automate a mental process (MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
To clarify, MPEP § 2106.04(d)(I): “The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application: Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g);” – e.g. In re Brown, e.g. the present case for simply pumping the cement blend (or, much like the scissors of In re Brown, simply adding conventional well-known machines to do this action).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of both a mathematical concept and mental process without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1, 14, and 22 are directed towards the statutory category of a process.
Claims 14 and 22, and the dependents thereof, are rejected under a similar rationale as representative claim 1, and the dependents thereof.
Step 2A – Prong 1
The claims recite an abstract idea of both a mental process and mathematical concept. The independent claims recite a mental process, and some of the dependent claims recite a math concept as well (see below for details).
As an initial matter, the Examiner notes that these claims share many similarities with the claims found to be an abstract idea without significantly more in Electric Power Group.
In particular, the following two similarities:
The analysis steps in the present independent claims are purely results-oriented, specifying what the desired results are, but lacking any recitation of how these results are to be determined. In other words, a mental process given the generality of these steps. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C): “• a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016);” and MPEP § 2106.05(f): “Electric Power Group., 830 F.3d at 1356, 1356, USPQ2d at 1743-44 (cautioning against claims "so result focused, so functional, as to effectively cover any solution to an identified problem")
Recitations of “real-time” in a results-oriented manner with no particularity in how the computer is to achieve such real-time functionality – e.g. claim 14. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(D): “A wide-area real-time performance monitoring system for monitoring and assessing dynamic stability of an electric power grid – Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1351 and n.1, 119 USPQ2d at 1740 and n.1; and”
In summary, the abstract idea recited herein, when described at a high level of abstraction, is the abstract idea of generically optimizing a cement blend for use in a particular field of use by mentally evaluating a collection of data related to that field of use.
Optimizing cement blends has been done since long before the invention of the computer, e.g. the cement used in Ancient Rome, for various constructions in the Roman Empire. Presumably, such optimization of cement blends was used in the construction of numerous buildings throughout history, e.g. in the Hoover Dam, erected before the invention of the computer.
To simply take that abstract idea, and to do it in a different data environment of wellbores, without adding anything to how the optimization is to be performed is not eligible subject matter.
To clarify, optimizing the strength of cement (its ability to resist a stress on the cement) for a particular field of use is part of the historical process of using cement, e.g. the Romans engineered their cement blends in such an optimized manner that their structures still stand today.
As a further point of clarity, routine optimization is a foundational tool of invention, underlying all of patent law (e.g. in a § 103 analysis, in an enablement consideration, etc.) and the work of scientists and engineers (e.g. Thomas Edison’s engineers, in their routine trial and error optimization to invent the lightbulb). MPEP § 2106.04(I): “The Supreme Court has explained that the judicial exceptions reflect the Court’s view that abstract ideas, laws of nature, and natural phenomena are "the basic tools of scientific and technological work", and are thus excluded from patentability because "monopolization of those tools through the grant of a patent might tend to impede innovation more than it would tend to promote it." Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 216, 110 USPQ2d at 1980 (quoting Myriad, 569 U.S. at 589, 106 USPQ2d at 1978 and Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 (2012)).”
The present claims add no technological implementation of how to do such optimization for cement blends, but rather merely recite the abstract idea itself of this long-standing mental process (since at least the days of Ancient Rome), and merely generically link it to a field of use that predates computers (e.g. oil wells were readily prevalent throughout the world prior to WWII and the invention of the digital computer).
As an additional note, the use of such cement blends for wellbore isolation is discussed extensively in API Standard 65, Part 2, Second Edition, Dec. 2010, “Isolating Potential Flow Zones During Well Construction” – e.g. see the checklist on page 79 for the “Critical Cement Slurry Parameters” for its numerous entries on “Slurry Design”, including: “Is the cement designed with mechanical properties suitable for long-term sheath integrity for anticipated well operations?” – and see § 5.7 for more details, include seeing § 5.7.9 and § 5.7.11.
What is presently recited in these claims is the abstract idea of a solution to the noted question above poised in the API standard, with no technological details on how the present claims actually accomplish/provide the solution, i.e. it simply claims “generating, by the design process, the cement blend” wherein this designed cement blend has a “mechanical property” which exceeds a threshold/stress value (e.g. the compressive strength requirement of 50 psi in API § 5.7.9).
To further clarify, see Merriam Webster Dictionary, Definition of “Compressive Strength”, accessed online on May 31st, 2025, URL: www(dot)merriam-webster(dot)com/dictionary/compressive strength.: “the maximum compressive stress that under gradually applied load a given solid material will sustain without fracture” – i.e. this claim is merely stating the idea of designing a cement blend to have sufficient compressive stress (the mechanical property), but use a computer to do it.
To further clarify on this reciting a mental process with historical evidence to reinforce how much of a mental process this is, in view of example 45 claim 1 for its discussion that engineers and scientists have been solving the Arrhenius equation mentally since the 1800s; and MPEP § 2111.01(I and III) for Phillips v. AWH and similar such cases, see Nelson, “Well Cementing Fundamentals”, Schlumberger, The Defining Series, Jan. 2012, URL: slb(dot)com/resource-library/oilfield-review/defining-series/defining-cementing - see page 1, col. 1 and the accompanying figures which visually depict the placement of the cement slurry into the borehole, wherein this is for “a well interval…to the desired depth” after drilling (caption of the figure) – and the figure on page 2 provides a clarifying picture which shows “As the well deepens, the diameter of each casing string is usually smaller than the preceding one” (page 2, ¶ 1) and that “Nearly all well cementing operations use port land cement, which consists mainly of anhydrous calcium silicate and calcium aluminate compounds that hydrate when added to water” wherein “In addition, more than 100 cement additives are available to adjust cement performance, allowing engineers to customize a cement formulation for a particular well environment. The principal objective is to formulate a cement that is pumpable for a time sufficient for placement in the annulus, develops strength within a few hours after placement and remains durable throughout the well's lifetime.” (page 2, ¶ 3) and “When a well has reached the end of its productive life, operators usually abandon the well by performing plug cementing. Engineers fill the casing interior with cement at various depths, thereby preventing interzonal communication and fluid migration into underground freshwater sources. The ultimate objective is to restore the natural integrity of the formations that were disrupted by drilling… Well cementing technology is more than 100 years old; however, chemists and engineers continue to introduce new formulations, materials and technology to meet the constantly changing needs of the energy industry.” (page 2, last two paragraphs).
As a further point of clarity, using different cement blends for different depth intervals (more commonly used term of art for depth segments) is a conventional practice. Dusseault, Maurice B., Richard E. Jackson, and Daniel Macdonald. "Towards a road map for mitigating the rates and occurrences of long-term wellbore leakage." (2014). Page 17, ¶ 3: “Producing formations are often not the source of a leak because, as pointed out by Watson and Bachu (2009) and Dusseault and Jackson (2013), these regions are often sealed with the highest quality cement in a wellbore. During placement, the cement at the bottom interval is subjected to high hydrostatic pressure. Since the hydrostatic pressure of the cement slurry when it is fully liquid is significantly higher than the surrounding pore pressure (large Dp), significant amounts of water are lost to adjacent strata that may be somewhat permeable, resulting in a dense cement with a good seal (Dusseault and Jackson, 2013). Conversely, intermediate and shallow depth intervals are often sealed with lower quality cement with a number of filler additives, which do not always generate good primary wellbore seals (Watson and Bachu, 2008).” - see fig. 3.1 to provide a visual clarification on this.
See MPEP § 2106.04: “...In other claims, multiple abstract ideas, which may fall in the same or different groupings, or multiple laws of nature may be recited. In these cases, examiners should not parse the claim. For example, in a claim that includes a series of steps that recite mental steps as well as a mathematical calculation, an examiner should identify the claim as reciting both a mental process and a mathematical concept for Step 2A Prong One to make the analysis clear on the record.”
To clarify, see the USPTO 101 training examples, available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility.
The mental process recited in claim 1 is:
retrieving, by a processor, at least one raw dataset associated with drilling a wellbore by a drilling rig, wherein the at least one raw dataset is selected from the group consisting of drilling equipment dataset, bottom hole assembly (BHA) dataset, mud system dataset, or combinations thereof; generating, by the processor, a drilling path record comprising depth segments with a plurality of processed data values, wherein the processed data values comprise at least one set of values selected from the group consisting of well trajectory, wellbore environment conditions, drilling parameters, formation data, mud data, or combinations thereof; - the mental process of directional drilling, routinely performed before the invention of a computer when recited at this level of generality, wherein directional drillers would mentally observe recorded datasets, and mentally evaluate them, with physical aids, to determine the drilling path, wherein computers are routinely used as a tool to implement this mental process. The claim places no restriction on how this is be done (the generating) but merely conveys what data is input in a generic manner (but use a computer as a tool), and what the desired generated result is to be (but use a computer as a tool to do it).
E.g., See Mantle, “Directional Drilling Practices”, Oilfield Review Winter 2013/2014, URL: www(dot)slb(dot)com/resource-library/oilfield-review/defining-series/defining-directional-drilling – see pages 1-2, including: page 1, ¶¶ 1-2 “The practice of directional drilling traces its roots to the 1920s, when basic wellbore surveying methods were introduced. These methods alerted drillers to the fact that supposedly vertical wells were actually deflecting in unwanted directions. To combat this deviation, drillers devised techniques to keep the well path as vertical as possible. The same techniques were later employed to deliberately deflect the well path to intersect hard-to-access reserves. The first intentionally drilled directional wells provided remedial solutions to drilling problems: straightening crooked wellbores, sidetracking around stuck pipe and drilling relief wells to kill blowouts (see Figure 1). Directional drillers used rudimentary survey instruments to orient the wellbore. By the 1930s, a controlled directional well was drilled in Huntington Beach, California, USA, from an onshore location to target offshore oil sands….” – to page 2, ¶ 2: “…During well planning, the directional driller must consider several factors to determine the required trajectory, particularly dogleg severity (DLS)—the rate of change in wellbore trajectory, measured in degrees per 30 m [100 ft]—as well as the capabilities of the BHA, drillstring, logging tools and casing to pass through the doglegs. Drilling limitations include rig specifications such as maximum torque and pressure available from surface systems. Geologic features such as faults or formation changes need to be carefully considered; for example, very soft formations may limit build rates, and formation dip may cause a bit to walk, or drift laterally. Local knowledge of drilling behavior enables the directional driller to derive the correct lead angle needed to intercept the target. The skill of the directional driller lies in projecting ahead, estimating the spatial position of the bit and, based on the specific circumstances, deciding what course to take to intercept the target or targets. In the early days of directional drilling, a manual slide rule device was used to calculate the toolface angle required to drill from the last survey station to a target. Today, computer programs perform the same function.”
performing, by the processor, a design process comprising: determining a stress value for the depth segments; - a mental process, for similar reasons as discussed above, given the generality and results-oriented nature of this limitation without any recitation of how this is to be determined, but do it on a computer. E.g. a person, such as an engineer tasked with designing the cement blend, provides a mental judgement/opinion of a stress value (note the claim doesn’t even require this step to be based on the abstract limitations, in particular note the antecedents); or a mental evaluation of the above data, e.g. on paper charts, or similar such displays of information readily mentally observable.
designing, a cement blend for the depth segments, wherein a mechanical property of the cement blend for the depth segments exceeds the stress value; - again, a mental process, for similar reasons as above, but do it on a computer. Designing cement blends has long been a routine mental practice, e.g. cement was used in Ancient Rome, millennia before the invention of the computer, wherein this limitation merely specifies a desired result of this mental process but contains no recitation on how to achieve this result. To do such a design, a person is readily able to do a mental trial and error process, e.g. mentally judge an initial cement design, trial it, mentally observe the results of the trial (e.g. by experiment, or by simple calculations), mentally evaluate said results and then mentally judge adjustments to make to the design, and repeat this process until the desired result (e.g. of a mechanical property, e.g. strength, porosity, etc.) was met.
and generating the cement blend for the depth segments of the drilling path record;
– a mental process, for similar reasons as above, but do it on a computer.
and repeating, by the processor, the design process, in response to a new depth segment being added to the drilling path record as the drilling rig continues to drill deeper, such that the cement blend is continually updated during the drilling,– simply repeating the mental process, as discussed above, for newly collected, e.g. observed, but do it on a computer. To clarify, this is akin to doing it in “real-time”, so see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(d)(III)(D): “A wide-area real-time performance monitoring system for monitoring and assessing dynamic stability of an electric power grid – Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1351 and n.1, 119 USPQ2d at 1740 and n.1; and” – i.e. simply doing the abstract idea with the inherent speed/efficiency (MPEP § 2106.05(f)) resultant from the use of a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea.
Claim 14 recites a similar mental process as claim 1, wherein the following limitation is also part of the mental process:
receiving, by a processor, at least one real-time dataset associated with drilling a wellbore by a drilling rig, wherein the at least one real-time dataset is selected from the group consisting of drilling equipment dataset, bottom hole assembly (BHA) dataset, mud system dataset, or combinations thereof; updating, by the processor, a drilling path record with the at least one real-time dataset, wherein the drilling path record comprises depth segments with processed data values, wherein the processed data values at least one set of values are selected from the group consisting of well trajectory, wellbore environment conditions, drilling parameters, formation data, mud data, or combinations thereof; - a similar mental process as discussed above, but do it on a computer. As noted above, see the discussion of EPG in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2)(III)(D) as cited above.
Claim 20 recites a similar mental process, but more broadly and generically claimed, as claims 1 and 14, of:
retrieving, by a processor, a revision one optimized cement design for an isolation barrier at a wellsite having a wellbore from a database, and wherein the revision one optimized cement design comprises a cement blend and a pumping procedure for depth segments of a drilling path record; receiving, by the processor, a real-time dataset indicative of a drilling operation at the wellsite associated with drilling a wellbore by a drilling rig; - again, a mental process for similar reasons as above, but do it on a computer. With respect to the database, see MPEP § 2106.05(f) for the discussion of TLI communications; also see the July 2024 Fed. Register Notice for the discussion of In re Killian.
And again, MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(D): “A wide-area real-time performance monitoring system for monitoring and assessing dynamic stability of an electric power grid – Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1351 and n.1, 119 USPQ2d at 1740 and n.1; and” – and MPEP § 2106.05(f) as discussed above
updating, by the processor, the revision one optimized cement design to a revision two optimized cement design by performing a design process comprising: designing a cement blend for the depth segments, wherein a mechanical property of the cement blend for the depth segments exceeds a stress value; and generating the cement blend for the depth segments of the drilling path record; repeating, by the processor, the design process, in response to a new depth segment being added to the drilling path record as the drilling rig continues to drill deeper, such that the cement blend is continually updated during the drilling; - rejected under a similar rationale as the similar limitations discussed above.
In summary, at issue for the present abstract idea rejection is that this is a claim to merely collecting and analyzing information (Electric Power Group), recited in a high degree of generality for how any step is to be performed, but rather merely reciting what the desired results are (Electric Power Group), wherein the information used merely is generally linking this to the field of use (e.g. Parker v. Flook and Electric Power Group in MPEP § 2106.05(h)) by selecting what data is to be used and the desired result, wherein the core of this abstract idea is a claim to the abstract idea of “generating…the cement blend” based on such data, where people have long generated cement blends and implemented them in countless fields of use (e.g. Ancient Rome), by tacking on another abstract idea of another long-prevalent mental process of direction drilling, historically done with the use of physical aids such as a slide rule to determine drilling paths/trajectories by the directional drillers, wherein computers are used as a tool to perform this abstract idea (e.g. Mantle, as cited above).
To clarify on cementing practices predating computers, see Langton, Christine A., and Della M. Roy. "Longevity of borehole and shaft sealing materials: characterization of ancient cement based building materials." MRS Online Proceedings Library 26 (1983): 543-549. Introduction, ¶ 2: “In this study, chemical and physical explanations were developed to account for the durability of selected ancient cement-containing building materials. Samples of more than 100 different ancient plasters, mortars, and concretes were collected from Italy, Greece, Crete, and Cyprus from ancient structures many of which are still functioning. Archaeological dating indicates that these structures are between 1400 and 3000 years old.” And the conclusion section: “Practical measures to achieve durable concrete involve design and control of the chemical and physical properties of the composite material and of the cementitious binder in particular. This was accomplished in ancient times as it is today by careful selection of the aggregates and cements and by control of proportioning and processing. The materials used in existing ancient structures, which in some cases are still used for the originally intended function, i.e., cisterns in Greece and Cyprus, are representative of durable products which are compatible with their environment…”
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations are process steps that cover mental processes including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of physical aids but for the recitation of a generic computer component. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Process" grouping of abstract ideas. A person would readily be able to perform this process either mentally or with the assistance of physical aids. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
To clarify, see the USPTO 101 training examples, available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility. In particular, with respect to the physical aids, see example # 45, analysis of claim 1 under step 2A prong 1, including: “Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper, a slide rule, or a calculator) to help them complete the recited calculation, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation.”; also see example # 49, analysis of claim 1, under step 2A prong 1: “Moreover, the recited mathematical calculation is simple enough that it can be practically performed in the human mind. Even if most humans would use a physical aid, like a pen and paper or a calculator, to make such calculations, the use of a physical aid would not negate the mental nature of this limitation.”
As such, the claims recite an abstract idea of both a mental process and mathematical concept.
Step 2A, prong 2
The claimed invention does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Refer to MPEP §2106.04(d).
The following limitations are merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f), including the “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more”:
The recitations such as “computer implemented” and “a processor” found in the independent claims.
In claim 20, the “communicating…to a pumping equipment” is mere instructions to “apply it” given the generic results-oriented nature of what is recited.
The recitations of “real-time” in claims 14 and 20 are part of the mere instructions to do it on a computer, and similar such recitations (e.g. continually updating the blend during hte drilling). Such generic recitations do not integrate a practical application nor do they amount to significantly more, rather its merely claiming the increased speed and efficiency inherent from performing an abstract idea in a computer environment. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(D) for: “A wide-area real-time performance monitoring system for monitoring and assessing dynamic stability of an electric power grid – Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1351 and n.1, 119 USPQ2d at 1740 and n.1; and”
The recitations such as “wherein the wellbore is cemented by pumping cement down the wellbore according to the generated cement blend” in claim 1 and similar such recitations in the other independent claims amount mere instructions to “apply it” as well as a token post-solution activity, akin to In re Brown for the cutting of hair with scissors after first determining a hair style. as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f and g).
The following limitations are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h):
The Examiner notes that the various recitations of doing this abstract idea, when considered at a high level of abstraction as discussed above, in the context of wellbores may readily be considered as generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use (should such recitations be found not to be part of the abstract idea itself). MPEP § 2106.05(h) for Electric Power Group to clarify.
The following limitations are adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g):
The “retrieving…” step in the independent claims, should this be found not to be part of the abstract idea itself, would be mere data gathering. Similar for the “receiving…” in claim 20.
In claim 20, the “communicating…to a pumping equipment” is also considered as an insignificant token post-solution activity and an act of mere data transmission, as would similar such recitations.
The recitations such as “wherein the wellbore is cemented by pumping cement down the wellbore according to the generated cement blend”, as well as “as the drilling rig continues to drill deeper, such that the cement blend is continually updated during the drilling,” in claim 1 and similar such recitations in the other independent claims amount mere instructions to “apply it” as well as a token post-solution activity, akin to In re Brown for the cutting of hair with scissors after first determining a hair style. as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f and g); and doing it in “real-time” akin to EPG as discussed above in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(D).
A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
E.g. MPEP § 2106(I): “Mayo, 566 U.S. at 80, 84, 101 USPQ2dat 1969, 1971 (noting that the Court in Diamond v. Diehr found “the overall process patent eligible because of the way the additional steps of the process integrated the equation into the process as a whole,”” – and see MPEP § 2106.05(e).
The claimed invention does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Refer to MPEP §2106.04(d).
Step 2B
The claimed invention does not recite any additional elements/limitations that amount to significantly more.
The following limitations are merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f), including the “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more”:
The recitations such as “computer implemented” and “a processor” found in the independent claims.
In claim 20, the “communicating…to a pumping equipment” is mere instructions to “apply it” given the generic results-oriented nature of what is recited.
The recitations of “real-time” in claims 14 and 20 are part of the mere instructions to do it on a computer, and similar such recitations (e.g. continually updating the blend during hte drilling). Such generic recitations do not integrate a practical application nor do they amount to significantly more, rather its merely claiming the increased speed and efficiency inherent from performing an abstract idea in a computer environment. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(D) for: “A wide-area real-time performance monitoring system for monitoring and assessing dynamic stability of an electric power grid – Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1351 and n.1, 119 USPQ2d at 1740 and n.1; and”
The recitations such as “wherein the wellbore is cemented by pumping cement down the wellbore according to the generated cement blend” in claim 1 and similar such recitations in the other independent claims amount mere instructions to “apply it” as well as a token post-solution activity, akin to In re Brown for the cutting of hair with scissors after first determining a hair style. as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f and g).
The following limitations are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h):
The Examiner notes that the various recitations of doing this abstract idea, when considered at a high level of abstraction as discussed above, in the context of wellbores may readily be considered as generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use (should such recitations be found not to be part of the abstract idea itself). MPEP § 2106.05(h) for Electric Power Group to clarify.
The following limitations are adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g):
The “retrieving…” step in the independent claims, should this be found not to be part of the abstract idea itself, would be mere data gathering. Similar for the “receiving…” in claim 20.
In claim 20, the “communicating…to a pumping equipment” is also considered as an insignificant token post-solution activity and an act of mere data transmission, as would similar such recitations.
The recitations such as “wherein the wellbore is cemented by pumping cement down the wellbore according to the generated cement blend”, as well as “as the drilling rig continues to drill deeper, such that the cement blend is continually updated during the drilling,” in claim 1 and similar such recitations in the other independent claims amount mere instructions to “apply it” as well as a token post-solution activity, akin to In re Brown for the cutting of hair with scissors after first determining a hair style. as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f and g); and doing it in “real-time” akin to EPG as discussed above in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(D).
In addition, the above insignificant extra-solution activities are also considered as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d):
The “retrieving…” step in the independent claims, should this be found not to be part of the abstract idea itself, would be mere data gathering. Similar for the “receiving…” in claim 20. This is considered similar to the example WURC activity as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) of: “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);” as well as MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) of: “iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log); iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;”
In claim 20, the “communicating…to a pumping equipment” - this is considered similar to the example WURC activity as discussed MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) of: “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);”
As a further clarifying point on the recitations of “real-time” so generically recited, see Torres, J. L., et al. "Real-time monitoring enables control and evaluation of cementing operations." SPE Latin America and Caribbean Mature Fields Symposium. SPE, 2017. Abstract: “The importance of real-time cementing monitoring was discounted by the oil & gas industry for years, until the Deepwater Horizon accident in 2010. The subsequent updates to US federal regulation 30 CFR Part 250 (released in 2016) caused a re-evaluation of the importance of real-time cementing services because of the role real-time well monitoring plays in the safety of critical well operations including cementing.” – then see the introduction for a more detailed description, include also see page 3, “Data Broadcasting”, and page 4 the “RTME” section followed by the “Field Implementation” section. Fig. 4 provides a “typical pumping schedule” in tabular form – i.e. its not just real-known, but merely a well-known as a result of updates to the CFR.
As a further clarifying point on the above, the Examiner notes that there are software packages readily available and well-known in the art to be used as tools to do stress evaluation of the cement so as to design the cement blend for the intended purpose of zonal isolation. E.g.:
Williams, H., et al. "Flexible, expanding cement system (FECS) successfully provides zonal isolation across Marcellus shale gas trends." SPE Canada Unconventional Resources Conference. SPE, 2011. See the section “Improved cement sheath stress modeling” starting on page 5, including ¶ 1
Heathman, J., and F. E. Beck. "Finite element analysis couples casing and cement designs for HP/HT wells in East Texas." SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition. SPE, 2006. Section “Finite Element analysis”: “The coupled wellbore modeling was conducted using a software that has as its core the DIANA finite elemental analysis program from the Diana Corporation. This software is a practical wellbore model in the sense that it takes into account all forces exerted on the cement sheath, casing, and formations caused by pressure and thermal changes. This design software was developed over several years and has proven itself in numerous situations”
Al-Yami, A. S., et al. "Drilling expert system for the optimal design and execution of successful cementing practices." IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drilling Technology Conference and Exhibition. SPE, 2010. Abstract and introduction, and note on page 6 how this is merely using AI to ensure “best practices” in cementing are followed in operational decisions.
Leipold, Georg. "Optimization of cement plug design in RAG wells in Austria." (2011). Montanuniversität Leoben, Austria. Bachelor’s Thesis. Abstract, then see § 2.2 including its subsections, including its discussion of the various people involved and their tasks in the process of cement jobs, and § 2.2 for how the engineers at a “service company” develop a cementation program, e.g. using commercially available software such as “CEMCADE” (§ 2.2.2), and § 2.2.3 describes the process followed at the rig site. § 5.1 discusses: “Nowadays every new rig that is manufactured is equipped with sensors to monitor and control the operations that are going on. Figure 5.1 shows a schematic of the rigs bus and sensor system. The sensors are indicated at the bottom (top drive, draw works…) that generate the real-time data. Over the bus system the data are delivered to the process server. The process server saves the generated data and displays it. The driller’s cabin is connected to the process server and the driller is capable to operate the rig.” – see fig. 5.1, note its citing to reference # 16 for source, § 5.1.1 describes the various sensors on the “rig”; § 5.2 discusses real-time data processing using “Microsoft Excel”; § 6 discusses “Simulation at Schlumberger”, wherein §§ 6.1.1-6.1.3 describe commercial software and a summary of their capabilities for cement design , followed by screen shots of the GUIs starting on pages 60 -61 (along with an accompanying description); §§ 7.2.3-7.2.4 provides pictures of typical conventional laboratory analyzers for testing cement blends; § 7.5 describes testing in the lab its compressive strength and its subsections provide pictures of off-the-shelf analysis machines to do this (see In re Grams for relevance, cited in MPEP § 2106.05(g); see Mayo as well in MPEP § 2106.05(d)), and chapter 8 provides various example results of using these programs, e.g. see § 8.5.1 including table 8.25. Also, see § 9.2.5: “During the data gathering for this thesis the author found out, that it is not possible to compare the real-time data from Schlumberger (pump rate, volume, etc) with the real time data, which is generated from the rig. The solution for that problem was to install a pressure gauge on the cement line. This line connects the rig with Schlumberger’s pump truck. The sensor is connected to the bus system of the rig.” – and see the picture. Also, see Appendix A, which is a “END OF JOB REPORT” from “Schulumberger”, e.g. page A.ii gives the pump schedule and hte like; note it includes the cement blend as well for “Class G” cement
Hennessey, C. D., Tupper, J. E., Villafuerte, L. J., Aschbacher, L. J., Innarelli, N. A., & Coppa, R. C. (2013). Ensuring the Safe Production of Natural Gas. See § 4.3.2 including page 42-43, see § 4.4 including fig. 16, see the pictures and figures in the following subsections to be clear on the various types of conventional off-the-shelf machinery used in cementing operations (from “Halliburton”; the instant assignee); § 4.4.2: “The computerized controller is the center of the modern process control system. The controller takes feedback from the process, provided by various sensors and instruments, and implements a control algorithm based on deviation (error) from the process set points. The controller then provides an actuation signal to control devices, such as the control valve on the water supply to the mixing head. By varying these parameters, the controller insures that the cement matches the consistency set point… Metering of chemical additives and admixture is another vital aspect of the cement process. As discussed earlier, additives and admixtures modify the critical cement properties to match those needed for a successful completion. The chemical metering system provides precise additions of chemicals to the slurry.” – and see fig. 21; see § 4.5 ¶¶ 1-3, followed by the figures and accompanying descriptions in this section
Kumar, Animesh, and Anjani Kumar. "Cementing Light & Tight: A CBM Cementing Story." SPE Asia Pacific Unconventional Resources Conference and Exhibition. SPE, 2013. Abstract: “This paper shares case histories and best practices developed for successful cementing operations in CBM wells; and experience of designing, simulating and real time data acquisition. With the application of real time data acquisition, downhole ECDs (equivalent circulating densities) of fluids can be monitored and kept in check.” Then see section “Cement Slurry Design” including its subsection on “Density and Cement Job simulation”, followed by “Job Execution” subsection: “…The recommended volume of preflush, spacer, and cement slurry properties were optimized to meet the well conditions. It was pumped as scheduled, based on the software simulation. The job was a great operational success under tremendous operational challenges.”, then subsection: “Real-Time Data Acquisition & ECD Monitoring): “The monitoring of job in real-time is a great tool to enhance executing a job as per plan and simulation design results. The important parameters, viz. density of cement, volume of fluid pumped, pump rate and pressure are recorded and monitored in real time. The simulation software has an added feature to calculate Equivalent Circulating Density (ECD), at actual depth, based on real-time values of parameters that could help you stay within the window. The real-time job analysis can be done with the help of comparison plot of real-time and designed ECD profile (Fig. 10).”
And using computers as a tool in this abstract idea has long been practiced: Creel, P., et al. "Real-Time Cementing Designs vs. Actual Jobs in Progress." SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition. SPE, 2006. Abstract, ¶ 2: “The development of computer simulations to model surface and downhole conditions has been used for more than 26 years to improve and facilitate cementing operations under different and variable scenarios. By using this engineering computer program, many cementing failures can be prevented not only before the actual cementing operation is performed, but during the operation itself. Maintaining control and predicting problems is possible by taking into account all the monitored and calculated variables on a real-time mode and comparing the outputted prediction output with the pre-job design and the actual job in progress.” And Introduction ¶¶ 2-4, summarizing references 1-8 – e.g.: case study I, starting on page 2, incl: “Conventional cementing methods were not gaining thorough annular coverage during their primary cementing applications due to cavernous weak intervals from general depths of 800 to 1,200 ft. Developments toward addressing the problems being encountered were conducted at information sharing and training sessions with the state regulatory body and the unit operator. The needs and clarifications were developed and logical policies formed for the situations…The processes developed on this project have been successfully applied on numerous other problem wells in this area as well as other locations both US and internationally” – and note, this used multiple cement blends, and real-time monitoring during the cementing operations (steps 1-6, followed by the second to last paragraph), note the references cited are from the early 2000’s.
Wolsfelt, G. C., C. Roger, and R. Fenoul. "A Cementing Job Preparation Advisor System." SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition?. SPE, 1989. Abstract and introduction, then on page 232 note: “The architecture of this expert system is very conventional”, wherein “Each rule…” is merely an “if…then” contingency, i.e. “Corporate rules” provided by humans (FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 120 USPQ2d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2016); MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C))
And the present claims do not even recite the use of any AI algorithm like an expert system to accomplish the desired results, rather its merely that by any means it designs the cement blend based on collected data.
With respect to the pumping of the cement blend, this is also a WURC activity in view of:
Torres, J. L., et al. "Real-time monitoring enables control and evaluation of cementing operations." SPE Latin America and Caribbean Mature Fields Symposium. SPE, 2017 for a visual example of a “typical pumping schedule” in tabular form
API Standard 65, Part 2, Second Edition, Dec. 2010, “Isolating Potential Flow Zones During Well Construction”, § 5.7.4 ¶ 1, § 7.3 ¶ 2, Appendix B, § B.2.4, the bulleted list for the cementing plan including “pump rates”; also § 5.6.4 ¶ 2: “Computer-based thermal modeling programs may be used to develop cementing testing temperatures. Such programs require input information such as static temperature, formation and well fluid thermal characteristics, rheologies, estimated job volumes, planned pump rates and well geometry. The predictions generated by thermal modeling programs may vary significantly; operators may consider employing more than one thermal model to arrive at a cement test temperature schedule”, and § 5.6.5.5: “Some computer programs may be used to determine the type and volume of spacers to be pumped for drilling fluid removal and predict the degree of fluid (cement, spacer, drilling fluid) intermixing that may occur during placement.”, § 5.9.5 ¶¶ 1-2 incl.: “Pumping the cement job with the designed pump rates is important but density control should not be sacrificed to obtain a planned rate”
Creel, P., et al. "Real-Time Cementing Designs vs. Actual Jobs in Progress." SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition. SPE, 2006. See the four case studies, see fig. 5. Note the cases studies are merely discussing prior activities performed by others, e.g. case study one, note the role of people and regulators in the process, and not the last paragraph as well of case study I
To further clarify on the receiving of datasets being WURC, see:
API Standard 65, Part 2, Second Edition, Dec. 2010, “Isolating Potential Flow Zones During Well Construction. § 7.2: “To further evaluate the cementing operations, the real time data can confirm fluid volumes, densities and rates in accordance with the initial design. Using computer software, the acquired versus predicted data can be compared to obtain pressure matching, equivalent circulating densities and confirm well security. When problems occur during the cementing operations, this information can be useful when investigating job failures.”, e.g. C.3.5.3: “The following downhole equipment practices will help reduce ECD to limit losses: — using downhole pressure measurements to monitor and manage ECDs in real time;”, e.g. § 7.3: “Caution should be exercised when using cement evaluation logs as the primary means of establishing the hydraulic competency of a cement barrier. The interpretations of cement evaluation logs are opinions based on inferences from downhole measurements”, e.g. § A.13: “Cooke et al [24,25] investigated the loss of hydrostatic pressure in columns of drilling fluid and cement slurries and reported the results in SPE papers 11206 and 11416 and in JPT articles dated August 1983 and December 1984. Cooke studied hydrostatic pressure losses by measuring annular pressures vs time at various depths with sensors installed on the casing and hard wired to surface recorders. Measurements were recorded prior to, during, and after primary cementing operations in several wells. Measurements were recorded for several months in some wells that showed long term reductions in drilling fluid column hydrostatic pressures.” – as detailed in § A.14
Torres, J. L., et al. "Real-time monitoring enables control and evaluation of cementing operations." SPE Latin America and Caribbean Mature Fields Symposium. SPE, 2017. Abstract: “Currently, cement job monitoring is limited to the acquisition of pressure, rate, and density measurements. Based on those measurements, a basic evaluation is performed during the job. A new software tool has been developed to improve the ability to make real-time interpretation to diagnose critical job parameters while the cement job is in progress. Acquisition of real-time data for cementing has evolved by using simulation models, which have helped to predict unstable wellbore conditions. These simulations enable both the well operator and service provider to take immediate decisions to eliminate or at least reduce an inadequate zonal isolation, which will affect the future of the well in the completion and productivity phases” and introduction: “The demands of cement operation have become challenging and have led us to venture into a new category of real-time monitoring, which, with the marked increase in software technology, has enabled us to have a deeper understanding of every cementing operation (Fig. 1)… As a result, cementing operations have become a critical part of the drilling process, and being able to predict the results of the cementing job before the cement sets is key to planning the drilling operations ahead. Furthermore, today regulations call for possible barrier verifications early enough during the well construction phase…”
Previously cited Hawthorn et al., “New Wireless Acoustic Telemetry System Allows Real-Time Downhole Data Transmission through Regular Drillpipe”, 2017, abstract: “One of the key enablers for the huge advancements in oil field drilling has been the ability to access downhole data in real-time to facilitate decision making”
Previously cited Dusseault et al., “Towards a Road Map for Mitigating the Rates and Occurrences of Long-Term Wellbore Leakage”, 2014, § 2.1.2: “Cement bond logs (CBLs), a commonly used suite of tools to evaluate the cement-casing and cement-borehole wall ‘bonds’, use acoustic signals emitted by a transmitter installed in a wireline logging tool to produce waves that travel through a section of the casing to evaluate the condition of the cement (e.g., good, moderate or poor). A receiver, installed in the same tool below the transmitter, measures the arrival time and attenuation of the transmitted and reflected acoustic waves. Depending on the degree of the attenuation, the acoustic impedance of the reflected wave signals can provide semi-quantitative insight whether or not there is adequate bond development, good contact, or faults in the cement sheath that may require remedial attention. More recently, ultrasonic imaging tools have been developed that apply ultrasonic waves on the casing wall. The resulting resonance of the casing can provide insight on the material behind the casing (solid, liquid or gas) based on the acoustic impedance. Ultrasonic imaging tools typically complement acoustic logs (see Bellabarba et al., 2008; Chatellier et al., 2012; Nelson, 2012).”
Previously cited Hannegan et al., “Closed-Loop Drilling, Cementing, and Frequent Dynamic Formation Integrity Testing – “State of the Art” for Deepwater Drilling Programs”: Abstract: “Dynamic Formation Integrity tests (FIT’S) are conducted much more frequently than industry norm (no need to stop drilling and exercise the BOP), perhaps after each stand is drilled in critical zones to spot weaker than predicted formations and to determine if the mud in the hole at the time is capable of preventing scenarios which may manifest excessive non-productive time and/or a well control incident of some significance. Closed-Loop Cementing enables actual (not predicted) data inputs to cementing simulator models, precise slurry displacement via annulus backpressure and ability to ascertain in real-time an induced fracture which may consume a quantity of the predetermined volume of cement required for effective zonal isolation and plug & abandonments (P&A). Deepwater drilling with closed circulating fluids systems (vs. conventional open-to-atmosphere annulus returns) and where mass flow in/out and other critical parameters of drilling and cementing hydraulics are precisely measured, controlled and documented in real time, enables safer & more efficient decision-making on challenging deepwater drilling & completions programs. Equally important, the methods described provide valuable documentation of compliance with API Standard 65, Part II - “Isolating Potential Flow Zones during Well Construction” with remote monitoring capability” and section industry need: “In respect to gaining assurance that the wellbore pressure containment integrity is suitable for drilling the rest of the open hole, planned casing running and cementing sequences, one must first consider that FIT’s are usually not conducted as frequently as perhaps they should be when drilling troublesome formations. One explanation for this is that a conventional FIT requires NPT and using well control equipment for an unintended purpose. In respect to cementing operations, it is a well known fact that getting good cement job for deepwater well construction is often a formidable task. Predicted instead of actual values are used in cementing simulator programs. Undetected fractures induced during pre-flush and slurry displacement consume quantities of the predetermined volume of slurry” – and see section “Applicable state-of-the-art technologies for drilling, well construction and plug & abandonments” to further clarify, include seeing fig. 1-2 in particular, and section “Dynamic Formation Integrity Tests (FIT’s)” starting on page 8; also see section: “Quantifying Ballooning/Breathing phenomenon with real-time mass flow data”: “Misinterpretations of wellbore ballooning phenomenon are frequent contributors to offshore well control incidents and such must be considered when planning cementing sequences and calculating required volumes of slurry. A skilled technician interprets the flow in vs. flow out signatures and can accurately determine ballooning vs. losses upon mud pump startup and breathing vs. the beginning of a kick upon mud pump shut down for connections (Figure 6)… Collectively, these benefits have prompted many drilling decision-makers to believe that within 5 years, 40% of all offshore prospects [i.e. by 2018] are likely to be practicing MPD in some form or fashion (SPE JPT, 2011). The drilling challenges presented by HPHT wells no doubt influenced this bold prediction (Hannegan, 2010).” And section “Closed-Loop Cementing”: “API Recommended Practice 65 - Part 2, First Edition (May 2010) and API Standard 65 - Part 2 (December 2010), both entitled - Isolating Potential Flow Zones during Well Construction are well-respected industry documents whose purpose includes guidelines before, during and after cementing operations. The primary difference between the two is that the latter was issued in a post-Macondo environment and a number of ‘should’s’ became ‘shall’s’…. Fulfilling the requirements highlighted in bold italics above can be aided by the application of Closed-Loop Cementing techniques. The data acquired when using an MPD system provides additional and more accurate data for improved onsite and offsite decision-making for cementing perations. These data also provide improved inputs for better hydraulics modeling, cementing, and wellbore behavior predictions. Additionally, the data is a candidate to serve as documentation for regulatory compliance purposes.”
Leipold, Georg. "Optimization of cement plug design in RAG wells in Austria." (2011). Montanuniversität Leoben, Austria. Chapter 2, as cited below for a dependent claim, and § 5.1: “Nowadays every new rig that is manufactured is equipped with sensors to monitor and control the operations that are going on. Figure 5.1 shows a schematic of the rigs bus and sensor system. The sensors are indicated at the bottom (top drive, draw works…) that generate the real-time data. Over the bus system the data are delivered to the process server. The process server saves the generated data and displays it.” And see fig. 5.1, then see § 5.1.1; then § 6.1.1: on “CemCAT”: “This software package is used on the rig site to record all relevant job data. The software is capable to record the real-time data such as pump rate, pressure, flow rate and the density of the pumped fluids. This recorded data allows post evaluating the job and comparing it with the planned parameters” – then § 6.1.2 on “CemCADE”: “CemCADE is the biggest software package. It is used for all kind of cement jobs (casing-, plug- and squeeze-cementations)…”
The claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea of both a mathematical concept and a mental process without significantly more.
Regarding the dependent claims
Claim 2 is adding more steps to the mental process. To clarify, the Examiner notes that typically pumping procedures are in the form of pumping schedules, and see fig. 4 in Torres, J. L., et al. "Real-time monitoring enables control and evaluation of cementing operations." SPE Latin America and Caribbean Mature Fields Symposium. SPE, 2017 for a visual example of a “typical pumping schedule” in tabular form, i.e. a simple table, readily the result of a mental process
Claim 3 is a token post-solution activity as well as generally linking to a particular technology environment, and mere instructions to “apply it” given the results-oriented nature of this limitation (i.e. “prevents…” limitation being the desired result, with a generic recitation of any downhole tool being used somehow to achieve said result). The use of such downhole tools in cementing operations is considered WURC in view of ¶ 6, as well as the generic nature of this limitation and the test of enablement (in particular that the specification preferably omits what is well-known in the art; see ¶ 102) – also, see API Standard 65, Part 2, Second Edition, Dec. 2010, “Isolating Potential Flow Zones During Well Construction” – see § 4.5 and its subsections, also see § 4.6.4.1, and § 5.4.3 ¶¶ 1-3
Claim 4 is considered as further limiting the mental process by merely stating what data is to be part of it, and should this be considered to not be part of the mental process its generally linking to the field of use and part of the mere data gathering. In addition, mud-pulse data is considered WURC in view of Hawthorn et al. "Utilizing Real-Time Downhole and Along String Measurements During Drilling and Cementing Operations to Improve Managed Pressure Operations in a Complex High Pressure, High Temperature North Sea Well." SPE Offshore Europe Conference and Exhibition. SPE, 2019. Page 1, last paragraph: “On a global basis the vast majority of on bottom drilling telemetry systems rely on mud pulse telemetry”. Also see
Jebutu, S. O., et al. "Enhanced formation integrity test fit interpretation and decision making through real-time downhole pressure measurements." SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition. SPE, 2017. Abstract and Introduction
Claim 5 is another mental step of a mental evaluation of data, given the generality recited in this step. Merely adding particularity to what data is to be processed does not render this eligible – at most, if it’s found not to be part of the abstract idea itself, then it’s merely generally linking to the field of use as it recites no particularity in how its processed.
See Electric Power Group as discussed in part above for its analysis steps, generally linked to the power grid environment (MPEP § 2106.05(h); and MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A))
Claim 6 is adding steps to the mental process, as well as adding a math concept.
A person is readily able to generate a set of depth segments – e.g. using a simple drawing of the wellbore, with a ruler, they can use pen and paper to annotate the segments, or make purely mental judgements. Or, they can measure a small wellbore with the age-old technique of throwing a rock or the like down the wellbore, counting the seconds until the rock hits the bottom to gauge the length of the wellbore, and then mentally judging segments.
Segmenting data is readily a mental process, akin to the discretizing/binning in example 47, claim 2. A person is readily able to do this, e.g. using tabular representations of the data, they may readily use a highlighter or marker to indicate the segments (by drawing across a row), or by mentally creating new tables using pen and paper to represent each segment
The data reduction techniques as claimed is readily a mental process, e.g. data cleansing of a tabular form of data would merely require a person to mentally observe the data, and cross out any outliers, wherein a person is readily able to use pen, paper, and a calculator as an aid in this process, e.g. calculate the mean and standard deviation of the dataset, and remove any data more than three standard deviations away from the mean
A numerosity reduction is also readily a mental process – e.g. using scientific notation, truncate all values in a data table to 2 significant figures, and then reduce the rows, e.g. observe a dataset has 10 rows with approximately the same number (e.g. 10.1, 10, 10.05, 9.95, etc.), truncate them, then round them to the nearest whole number (10), and replace the ten rows with a single row with a “10” value
Averaging data in the manner claimed is both a mental process and a math concept of math calculations in textual form
The assigning is a mental process, e.g. annotate the new tables of data values with the depth segment they correspond to
Claim 7 is merely part of doing it on a computer, and a token extra-solution activity of mere data storage that is WURC in view of MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)
Claim 8:
The retrieving step is considered as a mental act of data collection (EPG), or, if not part of the abstract idea, then a WURC step of mere data gathering as an insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) for WURC evidence)
The generating a stress state is considered as a mental evaluation of data. See ¶ 27 – neither the claim nor the disclosure recite any particularity in how this generating step is to be performed, rather it merely conveys generating new data (the stress state) by evaluating mentally collected data in a results-oriented manner (for what data is to be the desired result)
Comparing is a mental judgement, given the generality recited herein
Generating a user notification is a token post-solution activity of mere data displaying when recited at this level of generality, that is WURC in view of MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) and example 46, claim 1, for its displaying step (see its 2B analysis for its WURC consideration: “Similarly, limitation (c) is just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim, and displaying data is also well-known”)
Claim 9 – this is a token extra-solution activity of mere data gathering/a token post-solution activity that is WURC. See MPEP 2106.05(g) for In Re Grams and In Re Meyers, also see its citations to Mayo and Perkin Elmer. This is recited in such generality (and its accompanying description, e.g. ¶¶ 97-98) that this is considered WURC, for neither the claims nor the specification proscribed any particular laboratory testing methodology to be performed, let alone any that are assertedly inventive. The Examiner also notes that such testing of cement blends very likely predates the invention of computers, e.g. alchemists or engineers in the Roman Empire would have readily been able to perform such steps in the equivalent of labs of the times, or at the very least the engineers involved with the Hoover Dam would have readily performed such testing as part of determining what cement blend to use in the Hoover Dam prior. For more WURC evidence, see:
API Standard 65, Part 2, Second Edition, Dec. 2010, “Isolating Potential Flow Zones During Well Construction”, page 79, the table: “Cement shall be considered a physical barrier element only when it has attained a minimum of 50 psi compressive or sonic strength as measured at simulated pressure and temperature conditions (within the limits of the laboratory equipment) at the uppermost flow zone. Once the time to reach a minimum of 50 psi compressive or sonic strength has been determined by lab tests for the specific cement slurry, the operator shall wait on the cement to set for that amount of time prior to removing or disabling a barrier element” – and see § 4.6.3 to further clarify; also see § 5.1; then see § 5.7.9: “Compressive strength is the force per unit area required to mechanically fail the cement. While not identical, for the purposes of this standard, the sonic strength; (the extent of strength development based on specific mathematical correlations and calculated by measuring the velocity of sound through the sample) and the compressive strength are considered synonymous. As discussed in 4.6, development of a minimum of 50 psi compressive or sonic strength is required to consider cement a barrier element. The compressive or sonic strength also impacts the WOC requirements for drill out and can also be important when considering long term well integrity. The use of highly retarding surfactant spacers may require the compressive or sonic strength testing take into account contamination of the cement which may have occurred during placement”, then § 5.7.11: “The mechanical parameters of set cement such as compressive or sonic strength, tensile strength, Young’s modulus, Poisson’s ratio, cohesive strength, internal angle of friction, etc. play a key role in the integrity of the cement during the life of the well. The in-situ behavior of the casing and cement system is complex, as is the range of potential loading conditions the cement may be exposed to over the life of the well. Stresses placed on the cement such as changing wellbore temperatures, applying casing pressure or declining reservoir pressure can cause de-bonding between the cement and the casing or formation, tensile failure of the cement sheath, compressive failure of the cement sheath or a combination of the above”
Claim 10 – mere data gathering that is WURC (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) for evidence), followed by a mental process of mentally evaluating data to mentally judge a new cement blend (the generating step), followed by a token post-solution activity of mere data displaying/outputting WURC in view of MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) as well as example 46, claim 1, for its data displaying step at 2B as discussed above
Claim 11 is further limiting the mental process, and if found to not be part of the abstract idea then its merely generally linking to the field of use/technological environment
Claim 12 – further limiting the mental process, or if not part of the abstract idea generally linking to the field of use wherein Portland cement is typically used in this field of use (¶ 23)
As a point of clarity, Portland cement (and acts such as mixing its, designing its cement blend, etc.) substantially predate computers - Encyclopedia Britannica, Article: “History of Cement”: “The invention of portland cement usually is attributed to Joseph Aspdin of Leeds , Yorkshire , England, who in 1824 took out a patent for a material that was produced from a synthetic mixture of limestone and clay”; thus designing cement blends of Portland cement predates computers
Claim 13 – mere instructions to “apply it” given the results-oriented nature of these limitations, as well as an insignificant extra-solution activity that is WURC. See ¶¶ 4-7 and 23. Also, see:
API Standard 65, Part 2, Second Edition, Dec. 2010, “Isolating Potential Flow Zones During Well Construction”, § 5.7.4 ¶ 1, § 7.3 ¶ 2, Appendix B, § B.2.4, the bulleted list for the cementing plan including “pump rates”; also § 5.6.4 ¶ 2: “Computer-based thermal modeling programs may be used to develop cementing testing temperatures. Such programs require input information such as static temperature, formation and well fluid thermal characteristics, rheologies, estimated job volumes, planned pump rates and well geometry. The predictions generated by thermal modeling programs may vary significantly; operators may consider employing more than one thermal model to arrive at a cement test temperature schedule”, and § 5.6.5.5: “Some computer programs may be used to determine the type and volume of spacers to be pumped for drilling fluid removal and predict the degree of fluid (cement, spacer, drilling fluid) intermixing that may occur during placement.”, § 5.9.5 ¶¶ 1-2 incl.: “Pumping the cement job with the designed pump rates is important but density control should not be sacrificed to obtain a planned rate”
With respect to transporting the blend, see § 5.9 which details this, e.g. § 5.9.2: “The service company providing the cement and/or cement blend should follow all established, documented company procedures to ensure that all received neat cement is within acceptable specifications upon arrival at the bulk plant”, e.g. § 5.9.2: “All cement blends should be stored and transported in properly maintained bulk storage tanks”, e.g. page 80, table at the top of the page, the row for “Special Blending Mixing”
Leipold, Georg. "Optimization of cement plug design in RAG wells in Austria." (2011). Montanuniversität Leoben, Austria. See chapter to, in particular last two paragraph of § 2.2.1; followed by § 2.2.2 including its discussion of “CEMCADE”, then see § 2.2.3, noting: “Following to the safety meeting the circulation performed by the rig pumps stops and the lines are switched to the pump truck of the cementing company. Once the lines are mounted, they are pressure tested to avoid any leakage during the cement job. Subsequently the mud push is pumped according to the pump schedule. Shortly after the water is pumped, the pre-loaded drill pipe dart is released. The drill pipe dart avoids a mixture between the fluids while they are pumped through the string. According to the schedule the cement is pumped before the mud push post flush. While the cementing company pumps the fluids, the rig pumps regular drilling mud in the tank system of the cementing company. After the mud push has been pumped, the cement company pumps a defined volume of mud to set up the conditions for a proper u-tube effect (discussed in Chapter 4.2.5)”
Claim 15 – rejected under a similar rationale as claim 6 above, wherein the “processing…” is considered as a mental evaluation given its generality, but do it on a computer for being in “real-time” (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(D) for Electric Power Group); and the updating is also considered as a mental process, e.g. mentally updating data tables on pen and paper.
The updating, if not part of the abstract idea, would be considered as a token post solution activity akin to consulting and updating an activity log – MPEP § 2106.05(g) for Ultramercial, and WURC in view of “iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log)” in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)
Claim 16 – rejected under a similar rationale as claim 8 above
Claim 17 - rejected under a similar rationale as claim 11 above
Claim 18 - rejected under a similar rationale as claim 10 above
Claim 19 - rejected under a similar rationale as claim 13 above
Claims 21-22 are rejected under a similar rationale as the similar dependent claims discussed above
Claim 23 it considered as a token post-solution activity and mere instructions to “apply it” given the generic nature of these limitations, WURC in view of the evidence discussed above for claim 13
The claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea of both a mathematical concept and a mental process without significantly more
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.
Claim(s) 1, 9-11, 13-14, 18-20, 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heathman, J., and F. E. Beck. "Finite element analysis couples casing and cement designs for HP/HT wells in East Texas." SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition. SPE, 2006 in view of Creel, P., et al. "Real-Time Cementing Designs vs. Actual Jobs in Progress." SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition. SPE, 2006.
Regarding Claim 1
Heathman, in view of Creel teaches:
A computer-implemented method of designing a wellbore isolation barrier, comprising: (Heathman, abstract, including ¶¶ 2 and 4, and fig. 1 and 7 to clarify
retrieving, by a processor, at least one raw dataset associated with drilling a wellbore by a drilling rig, wherein the at least one raw dataset is selected from the group consisting of drilling equipment dataset, bottom hole assembly (BHA) dataset, mud system dataset, or combinations thereof; generating, by the processor, a drilling path record comprising depth segments with a plurality of processed data values, wherein the processed data values comprise at least one set of values selected from the group consisting of well trajectory, wellbore environment conditions, drilling parameters, formation data, mud data, or combinations thereof; (Heathman, abstract ¶ 2 incl.: “Finite element analysis (FEA) modeling coupled with log derived formation properties confirmed that the extreme stresses applied to these wells rendered previous casings and cement sheaths “under-designed.” Using an approach that combined formation, casing, and cement mechanical properties into a system, the wells were redesigned.” – to clarify, see the section “Model Setup and Initial Analysis” starting on page 2 incl.: “The wellbore was examined at multiple depths [depth segments], the most important being in the top of the reservoir sand, just below the previous casing shoe, and at depths that offset logs indicated substantial changes in formation lithology, pressures, and in-situ stresses.” – and see table 1 and fig. 1-6 as discussed in part on page 2: “Table 1 and Figs. 1 through 6 provide a substantial portion of the initial well design, formation, and operational event data used in the FEA model”
note in table 1 that the dataset includes the “mud type” [example of mud data of a mud system dataset], the “Estimated drilled hole size” [example of drilling parameters of a drilling equipment dataset], etc. which are examples of a retrieved raw dataset consisting of drilling equipment data, bottomhole assembly data (e.g. the “Bottomhole thermal gradient”), also, see the conclusions: “As each well was drilled and more formation data was gathered, the FEA model was adjusted to accommodate the improved data. Since the first well was drilled and tested, pore pressure/frac gradient confidence in the area has allowed the operator to simplify the casing design.”
to clarify on the depth segments, see fig. 1 and 6 which show the annotations for the various depth segments
to clarify this was drilling with a drilling rig, page 3, col. 1, ¶ 4: “Another advantage of displacing with brine rather than oilbasesd mud (OBM) is that it eliminates the rig time and expense of cleaning the OBM from the casing prior to perforating.” – also POSITA would have readily inferred this as well, because this data gathered was gathered at a “wellbore”, i.e. the result of a borehole being drilled by a drilling rig
performing, by the processor, a design process comprising: determining a stress value for the depth segments; designing, a cement blend for the depth segments, wherein a mechanical property of the cement blend for the depth segments exceeds the stress value; and generating the cement blend for the depth segments of the drilling path record; (Heathman, as discussed above, then see the section “New Cement Design” on page 3 which discusses the generation of a new cement blend, e.g. “To achieve the desired properties, a copolymer elastomer bead was chosen as a large portion of the cement blend. This material, in conjunction with a gas-generating additive and careful selection of other conventional components, provided the cement mechanical properties needed for the anticipated stresses.” – also, the abstract, as cited above: “Finite element analysis (FEA) modeling coupled with log derived formation properties confirmed that the extreme stresses applied to these wells rendered previous casings and cement sheaths “under-designed.” Using an approach that combined formation, casing, and cement mechanical properties into a system, the wells were redesigned”
i.e. they determined “anticipated stresses” using FEA modeling, and then generated a cement blend that would have sufficient properties to meet, and/or exceed these stresses (i.e. it wouldn’t fail like the prior “under-designed” ones)
with respect to having cement blends for the depth segments, see the last paragraph on page 3: “After the casing, cementing, and completion designs associated with the 5-in. production casing had been thoroughly explored, design analysis progressed to the acceptability of the 7 5/8- and 9 5/8-in. casings and associated cement sheaths used previously. The 9 5/8-in. casing was a full casing string that could provide an annular leak path to surface. The operation was expected to cover potentially productive intervals up through the Travis Peak formation. On the other hand, the entire 7 5/8-in. liner would be covered with cement during the production cementing operation…” – then see page 4 and compare figures 1 and 7, i.e. this system first optimized the cement blend for the 5 inch casing at the bottom of the wellbore, then optimized the blend for the next depth segment/interval for the 7 and 5/8th casing (as visually depicted in fig. 7, the casing above the 5 inch), etc.
and repeating, by the processor, the design process, in response to a new depth segment being added to the drilling path record [1] as the drilling rig continues to drill deeper, such that the cement blend is continually updated during the drilling
First, to clarify on the BRI on the term “continually”, ¶ 83 of the instant disclosure: “The design process in step 512 be repeated for every depth segment 310 added to the drilling path record 314 as the drilling operation continues to drill deeper, e.g., a greater value of total measured depth.”, i.e. every depth segment, repeat the process. ¶ 86 to clarify: “For example, the design process may continually design or revise the cement blend, the cementing procedure, and the downhole equipment as the drilling path record is updated [the depth segment is added to it] with real-time drilling data”
Heathman, note the “Finite Element Analysis” section on page 2, incl.: “This model accommodates all wellbore operations, as well as reservoir changes caused by pressure drawdown and formation subsidence. Interpretation of modeling results can produce a range of solutions—ranging from simple modifications to operational procedures or wellbore design to a complex cement sheath redesign, or any combination thereof.” Then see on page 2, col. 2, ¶ 2: “Table 1 and Figs. 1 through 6 provide a substantial portion of the initial well design, formation, and operational event data used in the FEA model” – then see page 2, col. 1, ¶ 4: “Before drilling another of these wells, the plan was to perform a detailed analysis of the casing and its metallurgy, the couplings, and the cement sheath” – then, see the “Scenario Improvement” section for: “After working both job simulation models and the FEA program congruently, it was decided that the best tradeoff for a displacement fluid was a completion brine no heavier than 13 lb/gal. But this maximum brine density value was contingent upon the accuracy of the data being placed in the model; thus, the general idea was still: the lighter the better.”
Then, see page 4, second to last paragraph: “One of the goals of this project was to continually evolve the casing and cement designs as confidence in the data improved so that the wells become optimized to the conditions. This continuous process has resulted in simplifications to both the casing design and the cementing procedure. The high pump pressures associated with the displacement program were of enough concern to revisit the brine density. Further review with the FEA model with improved and greater confidence in the formation property data has allowed the job to be displaced with a 12.8-lb/gal brine. This same review of improved wellbore data has also enabled the cementing program to be optimized in the sense that the elastomer slurry volume has been reduced to cover only those portions of the wellbore needing it.” And see the conclusions: “As each well was drilled and more formation data was gathered, the FEA model was adjusted to accommodate the improved data”
Finally, see table 1: “Derived by FracProPT curve-matching from mini-frac analysis of previous well. Will be updated with sonic logs as the well is drilled.”
There is a distinction however in that Heathman does not expressly teach [1] “as the drilling rig continues to drill deeper, such that the cement blend is continually updated during the drilling” however, this would have been obvious when Heathman as discussed above was taken in view of Creel, abstract, incl.: “This paper explains how design data and real-time simulation of cementing jobs can be used to make detailed predictions of many well parameters and provide information allowing adjustments to be made during the cementing
operation to alter the outcome or help improve the performance of the job. These tools can allow the operator and service provider to (1) more accurately predict cement tops, (2) change casing programs, (3) control flow-back rates and pressures, (4) monitor equivalent circulating density (ECD) on specific zones, or (5) enable personnel to create a better design for other wells in the field. Maintaining control and predicting problems is possible by taking into account all the monitored and calculated variables on a real-time mode and comparing the outputted prediction output with the pre-job design and the actual job in progress. By using this engineering computer program, many cementing failures can be prevented not only before the actual cementing operation is performed, but during the operation itself… While designing a plan, several parameters can be changed to predict the job performance or end results. Modifications or changes in various operational events for performance predictions may be used in making recommendations. Recommendations may be altered by changing such components as cementing materials, placement methods and even casing configurations to help ensure a better performance based on pre-job investigations.” – see introduction to clarify, incl.: “Maintaining control and predicting possible problems can be accomplished by analyzing all the monitored and calculated variables on a real-time mode and comparing these predictions with the pre-job design and the actual job itself… The wells’ conditions and the operational issues will provide knowledge and understanding that should help determine the type of job needed…” – then see section “Fully integrated process” including #1-3: “After the best solution has been provided and the laboratory testing has been done, the actual data during the cementing job needs to be acquired and assimilated. Densities, rates, pressures, and additive concentrations are collectively recorded. The program simultaneously calculates critical downhole parameters and allows the designer/operator to compare them with the original design… But if the well conditions change during the cement placement or the conditions are very complex, real-time decisions can improve the results by comparison matching. In this way, the simulation program enables the designer to analyze the data and provide the opportunity to improve the next cementing operation”
then, see the section “The Best solution”, incl.: “The highest quality data that the designer can obtain from a specific scenario will help ensure the best reproduction of the actual conditions of the well to be cemented… Once all the conditions are analyzed and the main issues and complexity of the job have been addressed, different options can be modeled with their resulting solutions provided. Then, a deeper analysis can then help tailor the scenarios to find the best solution”
e.g. see Case Study 1: “The well’s operator was experiencing excessive cost and uncertainty about the quality of the annular casing seal needed for protecting their freshwater-producing formations on the surface casing strings set at ±1,800 ft. Conventional cementing methods were not gaining thorough annular coverage during their primary cementing applications due to cavernous weak intervals from general depths of 800 to 1,200 ft [example of a depth segment that was added to a drilling path record, wherein there would have been prior segments, e.g. 0->800ft] … When pumping foamed cement, several parameters should be taken into consideration. Factors such as downhole pressures, temperatures, and wellbore geometries [example of data from the drilling for the depth segment] are needed. The final placement depths and in-situ energy will determine the final properties of the nitrified cement annular column. The well data was input into the program for modeling and included the laboratory analysis of the fluid’s rheology. Determinations within the program would calculate the pressure cycles the cement slurry would encounter during the job…” and see the remaining portions of this case study, including # 1-6, in particular note the multiple cement blends to be used in the designed cementing procedure, then see: “The [cement] job used the different data monitoring and recording sources during the actual job so that a comparison could be made of the designed model. The actual ratio of nitrogen mixed with the cement and the foamer-stabilizer chemical rates were compared. The program’s capability to generate plots in real-time showed the deviation of actual treating data versus the designed parameters. Comparisons are shown in Figs. 2 and 3. If the operator desired, these deviations could have been corrected while performing the cement job and improved the results of the operation. The more the operational performance matches the real-time calculations to the design parameters, the better the results of the job. The goal was to provide the best coverage and integrity for the life of the well.2,3 All of the job information was processed and the simulator output showed the final conditions and placement properties of the cement, including its final density. This is displayed on Fig. 4 and the final fluid positions shown on Table 1.”
In other words, in case study one a problem was encountered while drilling a well between 800ft to 1200 ft that would prevent conventional cementing techniques for functioning, and so the well data, including the well data from this depth segment, was used to continuously update the cement blend and cementing procedure before the cementing (wherein Creel also teaches performing real-time adjustments to the cement blend during the cementing operation)
To clarify, see Table 1, note the “Density” and “Quality” columns compared to “Measured depth”, i.e. in each of these depth segments there separate blends of the cement mixtures with different quality and density; as visually depicted in fig. 1, including an annotation of the encountered “Loss Zone” and corresponding densities plotted along a depth scale (the 0 to 2000 ft; this is the final cement job design including the cement blends for each depth interval), as further clarified by figure 4, which shows the “Density/Hydrostatic Gradient” of the cement as a function of the “Measured Depth” during the cementing job itself (the “real-time mode in second to last paragraph of case study one)
And, for a second example, see case study 2: “An operator detected gas channeling after performing primary cementing jobs on production casing strings. A high pressure gas zone was encountered during the drilling operations along with other low-pressure zones. The scenario was analyzed and a design program was used to accurately calculate the gas-flow potential (GFP) at any point of the wellbore geometry outside the casing…. Using this simulation technique, where the design addressed the annular pressures both during the complex placement and following the cement job, gave an understanding of what controls were required and what parameters would offset the influx problems. The simulation gave the service provider the capability to solve the gas flow problem and preserved the integrity of the formations being drilled… The pressure profiles of the various formations in the operator’s well were entered for (1) the high pressure and weak zones, (2) the gas flow potential was calculated, and (3) the high value obtained made it necessary to redesign the slurries and the placement method to be used on the job… It was determined that a foamed cement solution using an automated process as shown in Fig. 5 could overcome the GFP and protect the weak zones at the same time. A slurry consisting of 330 sk class H cement foamed from its base density of 15.2 lb/gal down to 13 to 11 lb/gal could be placed at an equivalent circulating density (ECD) above the reservoir’s pressure in the high-pressure zone and be below the fracture gradient in the well’s weakest zone. The real-time mode of the program was performed during the treatment to help ensure that the equivalent circulating pressures (ECP) were kept according to the design”
For a third example, see Case Study # 4: “While drilling the intermediate hole, the operator encountered a water-flow that compromised the operator’s ability to achieve his desired TD. The water flow was identified at ±2,500 ft and flowing into the wellbore up to surface at a rate of approximately 160 bbl/hr. If the well were shut-in, the surface pressure from the water influx would build up to 1,200 psi with a 10 lb/gal fluid in the hole. These critical parameters were input into the program simulation to provide a possible solution. The first design analysis conducted examined using a special slurry and trying heavy cement with a rapid onset and brief transition set time…” and see steps # 1-3 in this, followed by the last two paragraphs
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings from Heathman on a system which used computer simulation for cement job design to redesign cement blends with the teachings from Creel on a similar such system which included more real-time features for the cement blend redesigns for problems encountered during drilling. The motivation to combine would have been that “The logical processes including the use of computer simulators to provide solutions for cementing operations has proven to be beneficial for drilling operations under several environments and harsh conditions. The use of new engineering technology has improved the quality of the zonal isolation considerations in many scenarios that translate directly to more cost-effective drilling operations. The realtime mode of the jobs performed while running the program has lead to making relevant changes while performing actual jobs on location and has made possible the success of some operations where big challenges were present and historically operations had failed to achieve desired zonal isolation for the life of the wells.” (Creel, conclusion)
Also, the KSR rationale of Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results also applies. See example 1 in MPEP § 2143 discussing Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 163 USPQ 673 (1969). In Creel, in the above citations, note the litany of prior journal articles in each case study, i.e. Creel was simply a review article on how cementing simulations were being used in the early 2000s, wherein: “The development of computer simulations to model surface and downhole conditions has been used for more than 26 years to improve and facilitate cementing operations under different and variable scenarios. By using this engineering computer program, many cementing failures can be prevented not only before the actual cementing operation is performed, but during the operation itself. Maintaining control and predicting problems is possible by taking into account all the monitored and calculated variables on a real-time mode and comparing the outputted prediction output with the pre-job design and the actual job in progress.” (abstract), and last paragraph of case study 1: “The processes developed on this project have been successfully applied on numerous other problem wells in this area as well as other locations both US and internationally. The data acquisition and simulation program has been used on
every one of this type of problem wells and has shown extremely accurate predictions compared to the actual results” – i.e. by 2006, Creel is conveying such practices were routine and well-known.
wherein the wellbore is cemented by pumping cement down the wellbore according to the generated cement blend. (Heathman, as cited above, then see the conclusions: “To date, six HTHP wells have been drilled in the Hilltop Field. All have been successfully drilled, cemented, tested, and subjected to multiple-zone frac jobs down casing” – and see fig. 20 which provides the “Job placement summary” including annotations for when the “Lead Slurry” and “Tail Slurry” were pumped into the wellbore.
Regarding Claim 9
Heathman teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: generating a sample of the cement blend for at least one depth segment; testing, by a laboratory test, a plurality of mechanical properties of the cement blend; and validating, by the laboratory test, the cement blend in response to the mechanical properties exceeding the stress value of the at least one depth segment. (Heathman, section “New Cement Design”, last three paragraphs, and the associated figures, e.g. fig. 12 which is a photograph of the sample subjected to “Flow testing”
Should it be found Heathman does not teach this alone, then see Creel as cited above, section “A Fully Integrated Process”, # 2
Regarding Claim 10.
Heathman teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
inputting, by the design process, the stress value for a depth segment, a first cement blend, a design constraint, or combinations thereof; generating, by the design process, a second cement blend in response to the design constraint, the stress value, or a combination thereof; and outputting the second cement blend in response to a set of mechanical properties of the second cement blend for the depth segment exceeding the stress value. (Heathman, as cited above, including the abstract – i.e. the initial design is the “previous” “under-designed” cement sheath to design a new casing – page 2, last two paragraphs: “Using the new casing design as the basis for all modeling, the original cement sheath design was first examined to establish a new baseline case.” – then, “new cement design” is performed (page 3, see the section with this title) – wherein, as cited above: “To achieve the desired properties, a copolymer elastomer bead was chosen as a large portion of the cement blend. This material, in conjunction with a gas-generating additive and careful selection of other conventional components, provided the cement mechanical properties needed for the anticipated stresses.”
Regarding Claim 11.
Heathman teaches:
The method of claim 10, wherein the design constraint is a material inventory, a wellbore tubular, at least one customer input, or combinations thereof. (Heathman, as cited above for the casing which is tubular)
Regarding Claim 13.
Heathman teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
transporting an optimized cement design and a pumping equipment to a well site, wherein the optimized cement design comprises a cement blend, a pumping procedure, a downhole tool, or combinations thereof for the drilling path record; mixing a cement slurry, by the pumping equipment, per the pumping procedure; and pumping the cement slurry per the pumping procedure. (Heathman, as cited above – see the abstract, then see page 4 last two paragraphs, to page 6 last paragraph, incl.: “All have been successfully drilled, cemented, tested, and subjected to multiple-zone frac jobs down casing” – and page 4, col. 1, ¶ 1: “Fig. 20 provides the predicted vs. actual surface pump pressures for one of the 19,200-ft wells, illustrating the good predictive abilities of this new rheological model for complex fluids.” – and page 3, col. 2, ¶ 3 for its discussion of table 3, note that table 3 title indicates there was “300 miles” of “travel”
Should it be found Heathman alone does not teach this, see Creel figure 5, note the “Pump truck (downhole” and “Pump truck (mixing)” and “Mobile Bulk plant”, etc. – POSITA would have inferred that this setup was transported to the well site for the pumping, as they are trucks/mobile, POSITA would have been motivated to use such a setup because it was “an automated process” (description of fig. 5), e.g. note the “Mobile Control Centre” as well
Regarding Claim 14.
This is rejected under a similar rationale as claim 1 above, wherein with respect to doing this with real-time data and the like, see Heathman page 4, second to last paragraph: “One of the goals of this project was to continually evolve [i.e. in real-time] the casing and cement designs as confidence in the data improved so that the wells become optimized to the conditions. This continuous process has resulted in simplifications to both the casing design and the cementing procedure.” To clarify, the conclusions: “As each well was drilled and more formation data was gathered, the FEA model was adjusted to accommodate the improved data. Since the first well was drilled and tested, pore pressure/frac gradient confidence in the area has allowed the operator to simplify the casing design” – also, note the conclusions clarifies six wells were drilled, tested, cemented, and the like, and table 1 for its note on the formation properties being updated as each well is drilled. As was taken in view of the Creel citations above as discussed and TSM.
Regarding Claim 18.
This is rejected under a similar rationale as claim 10 above.
Regarding Claim 19.
This is rejected under a similar rationale as claim 13 above.
Regarding Claim 20.
This is rejected under a similar rationale as claim 1 above. As a point of clarity, see Heathman was discussed above for claim 10, i.e. this retrieved a “under-designed” cement blend (Heathman, abstract) that had caused failures (abstract, ¶ 1, also see the background), and then optimized the design.
With respect to using real-time data – see Heathman as discussed above for claim 14 (i.e. the last several paragraphs of Heathman). Also see Heathmen as was taken in view of Creel as cited above for claim 1.
Regarding Claim 23.
Heathman teaches this:
The method of claim 20, further comprising:
stationing the pumping equipment at the wellsite, wherein the pumping equipment is transported to the wellsite or the pumping equipment is assigned to a drilling rig, wherein the pumping equipment includes a unit controller, and wherein the unit controller comprises a processor and memory; transporting a supply of cement materials and downhole equipment to the wellsite; receiving, by the unit controller, a revision two optimized cement design; mixing a cement slurry, by the unit controller, where the cement slurry includes a second cement blend of the revision two optimized cement design; and pumping the cement slurry per the pumping procedure. (Heathman, as discussed above for claim 13)
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heathman, J., and F. E. Beck. "Finite element analysis couples casing and cement designs for HP/HT wells in East Texas." SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition. SPE, 2006 in view of Creel, P., et al. "Real-Time Cementing Designs vs. Actual Jobs in Progress." SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition. SPE, 2006 and in further view of McPherson, S. A. "Cementation of horizontal wellbores." SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. SPE, 2000.
Regarding Claim 2
While Heathman does not explicitly teach the following limitation in full, it is taught by Heathman in view of McPherson:
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
designing, by the design process, a pumping procedure for the depth segments, wherein a set of pump values within the pumping procedure for the cement blend of each of the depth segment (Heathman, page 4, col. 2, ¶ 1: “Fig. 20 provides the predicted vs. actual surface pump pressures for one of the 19,200-ft wells, illustrating the good predictive abilities of this new rheological model for complex fluids.” And page 6, last paragraph; then see page 7 for the conclusions, i.e. a pumping procedure was designed with pump pressures [pump value example] for the cement blends, and then it was implemented, and then the actual values from the pumping were compared to the designed, and finally additional measurements were carried out to verify the success of the cementing job – conclusions: “All have been successfully drilled, cemented, tested, and subjected to multiple-zone frac jobs down casing. Without exception, the mechanical integrity of all wells has been outstanding. Based on tracer surveys, all stimulation treatments stayed in zone.”
are within a threshold value, and wherein the threshold value comprises a pore pressure, a leak off rate, or combinations thereof for the depth segments. (While Heathman does not teach this portion of the claim Heathman, as cited above, Heathman in view of McPherson page 2, ¶ 4 teaches this – “Seventy-five barrels of water based spacer containing a surfactant, is weighted to part way between the density of the mud and the cement slurry, using barite. Weighting this fluid ensures the equivalent density of fluids in the annulus does not fall below the pore pressure of the formation [example of a pore pressure threshold value]. The surfactant aids the break down and removal of immobile mud and will prevent the formation of any incompatibility products at the spacer/mud interface.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings from Heathman on a system for optimizing cementing operations with the teachings from McPherson on using a surfactant during cement pumping. The motivation to combine would have been that “The surfactant aids the break down and removal of immobile mud and will prevent the formation of any incompatibility products at the spacer/mud interface.””
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heathman, J., and F. E. Beck. "Finite element analysis couples casing and cement designs for HP/HT wells in East Texas." SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition. SPE, 2006 in view of Creel, P., et al. "Real-Time Cementing Designs vs. Actual Jobs in Progress." SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition. SPE, 2006 and in further view of Puwanto, US 2020/0362686
Regarding Claim 3
While this is not taught by Heathman, it is obvious when Heathman is taken in view of Puwanto:
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
assigning, by the design process, a downhole tool for one of the depth segments, wherein the downhole tool for the one of the depth segments prevents the wellbore isolation barrier or a pumping procedure from exceeding a threshold value for the depth segment. (Heathman, as discussed above for claim 1 including the section “New Cement Design” and the abstract as discussed above; as taken in further view of Puwanto, ¶¶ 102-103 and 109, including in ¶ 102: “As an example, drilling can occur in sections where a cementing operation may be performed after drilling one section and before drilling another section. A shoe track or float joint can be a length of casing placed at a bottom of a casing string that may be left full of cement in an inside space to ensure that suitable cement remains on an outside space of the bottom of the casing. If cement were not left inside the casing, a risk of over-displacing the cement ( e.g., due to improper casing volume calculations, displacement mud volume measurements, etc.) can increase…”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings from Heathman on a system for optimizing cementing operations with the teachings from Puwanto on using various types of downhole tools “ensure that suitable cement remains on an outside space of the bottom of the casing” The motivation to combine would have been that “If cement were not left inside the casing, a risk of over-displacing the cement ( e.g., due to improper casing volume calculations, displacement mud volume measurements, etc.) can increase.”
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heathman, J., and F. E. Beck. "Finite element analysis couples casing and cement designs for HP/HT wells in East Texas." SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition. SPE, 2006 in view of Creel, P., et al. "Real-Time Cementing Designs vs. Actual Jobs in Progress." SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition. SPE, 2006 and in further view of Jebutu, S. O., et al. "Enhanced formation integrity test fit interpretation and decision making through real-time downhole pressure measurements." SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition. SPE, 2017.
Regarding Claim 4
While this is not taught by Heathman, it is obvious when Heathman is taken in view of Jebutu:
The method of claim 1, wherein the BHA dataset comprises a mud-pulse dataset, a periodic dataset, or combinations thereof. (Heathman, as cited above for claim 1 on the data retrieved/generated, as taken in further view of Jebutu, abstract ¶ 1)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings from Heathman on a system wherein “The wellbore was examined at multiple depths [depth segments], the most important being in the top of the reservoir sand, just below the previous casing shoe, and at depths that offset logs indicated substantial changes in formation lithology, pressures, and in-situ stresses.” (Heathman, page 2, as cited above) with the teachings from Jebutu on “With modern logging-while-drilling (LWD) technology, pressure profiles from a formation integrity test (FIT) or leak-off test (LOT) can now be measured during wellbore pressurization, stored in the memory of the downhole tool, and transmitted in a compressed 60-point pressure versus-time data format via mud-pulse telemetry when circulation is reestablished.” The motivation to combine would have been that “Acquiring accurate downhole pressure data for casing shoe test interpretation and real-time decision making… is critical to the delivery of a safe, efficient, and cost-effective well… The ability to transmit these data sets real-time, without a special downlink, saves rig time and ensures quality data as well as test objectives are attained before terminating the test.” (Jebutu, abstract).
Regarding Claim 5
Heathman, in view of Jebutu, teaches:
The method of claim 4, further comprising: processing the mud-pulse dataset of the BHA dataset to generate a periodic BHA dataset, a set of measurement values, or combinations thereof. (Heathman, in view of Jebutu as discussed above for claim 3; to clarify in the abstract: “If a higher-resolution data set is required, a "zoom" function using the same telemetry loop can be affected over a selected (smaller) time interval to provide another 60 (enhanced) pressure points” – then see page 4, last paragraph, incl.: “The downhole firmware automatically detects the start of the ramp-up in pressure (auto-zoom) for LOT/FITs and uses the same 60-point telemetry to compress each 10-minute line segment at a resolution of 10-seconds/point and advancing 10-minutes at a time until the entire LOT/FIT is sent (Fig. 5). In addition, a downlink is available to manually zoom to any starting point in the flow-off data and set a time-resolution (from 2 to 210 seconds per point). This downlink can be used to request even more detailed information or to break extremely long flow-off intervals into one-hour segments.”, e.g. page 6 ¶ 1) to page 7 ¶ 2 and the accompanying figures)
The rationale to combine is the same as discussed above for claim 3
Claim(s) 6 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heathman, J., and F. E. Beck. "Finite element analysis couples casing and cement designs for HP/HT wells in East Texas." SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition. SPE, 2006 in view of Creel, P., et al. "Real-Time Cementing Designs vs. Actual Jobs in Progress." SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition. SPE, 2006 and in further view of Ringrose, Philip S. "Total-property modeling: dispelling the net-to-gross myth." SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 11.05 (2008): 866-873.
Regarding Claim 6
While this is not taught by Heathman, it is obvious when Heathman is taken in view of Jebutu:
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
generating the depth segments by dividing a measurement of the wellbore into equal parts or unequal parts; determining a segmented set of a periodic dataset, a set of measurement values, or combinations thereof for each of the depth segments; generating a post-processing periodic dataset of the segmented set by applying one or more data reduction techniques to the segmented set of periodic dataset, wherein the data reduction techniques include data pre-processing, data cleansing, numerosity reduction, or a combination thereof; generating an averaged value for the post-processing periodic dataset by averaging the post-processing periodic dataset using a mathematical averaging technique, wherein the mathematical averaging techniques includes arithmetic mean, a median, a geometric median, a mode, a geometric mean, a harmonic mean, a generalized mean, a moving average, or combination thereof; and assigning the segmented set of processed data values comprising the averaged values, the measurement values, or combinations thereof to a corresponding depth segment of the depth segments. (Heathman, as discussed above for claim 1 including see the section “Model Setup and Initial Analysis” starting on page 2 incl.: “The wellbore was examined at multiple depths [depth segments], the most important being in the top of the reservoir sand, just below the previous casing shoe, and at depths that offset logs indicated substantial changes in formation lithology, pressures, and in-situ stresses.”
As taken in view of Ringrose, pages 867 and fig. 1, page 869 for fig. 4, then fig. 7 as discussed on page 870
In particular, this is to “Classify, block, and upscale” the log data – wherein fig. 7 shows an “Interval from example permeability showing effect of logging and blocking filters”, in particular a “3-m interval” [a 3-m depth segment of a generated set of depth segments] wherein this visually depicts the measurement values in the interval/depth segment (i.e. each interval has an associated segmented set of measurement values that was determined) and POSITA would have inferred that the intervals used herein were 3-m each (i.e. equal parts), page 867 clarifies in its description in section “Using the N/G Method” that there are a plurality of “intervals”; wherein as shown in fig. 7 there is a “Logging filter” in the interval, as per page 867: “It is assumed that the sand and cement flags are derived from analysis of gamma and neutron density logs (not shown) and that the porosity log is filtered to include only net-sand and net reservoir values (by means of a porosity cutoff) in the upscaled log” – i.e. the intervals filter (the “Logging Filter”) the measurement values as a data reduction technique – i.e. p. 867: “That is, only [reducing the amount of data by pre-processing/data cleansing with a filter] net-sand/-reservoir values for permeability, k, and porosity, , are to be included in the upscaled value.” – wherein, as visibly depicted in the figures, this reduces the numerosity (e.g. fig. 7)
Then, this is blocked, i.e. the “Blocking Filter” in fig. 7 as discussed on page 867, second to last paragraph: “The term “blocking” refers to the process of creating a discrete parameter from a higher-frequency continuous or discrete log. Blocking may use an averaging technique, or for the case of discrete variables (e.g., facies or sand indicator) may use a majority principle.” – wherein the end result of this process is the assignment of the processed data values of the averaged/blocked values to the “Upscaled log” (fig. 1, right-hand side)
To clarify, see page 870 the paragraph split between the pages, in particular this discusses that the “upscaled kh is estimated by the average…”) – page 871, col. 1, ¶ 2: ‘Even for the simplest case of an interbedded clean-sand/shale reservoir (using the N/G approach and the arithmetic average as an upscaling assumption),”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings from Heathman on a system which used a finite element model setup based on input log data with the teachings from Ringrose on the “N/G” method (Ringrose, section title on page 867, see the abstract as well). The motivation to combine would have been that “This approach can be applied consistently throughout the rescaling process (well data to geological model to reservoir-simulation model), but errors can propagate and the method should be applied with caution. Table 2 lists the most common sources of error, or misunderstandings, when applying the N/G method. In general, for high-N/G reservoirs, the N/G approach is useful and need not introduce significant errors provided that rescaling and discretization effects are verified and minimized.” (last paragraph of Ringrose’s “Using the N/G method” section
Regarding Claim 15.
This is rejected under a similar rationale as claim 6 above, wherein for the real-time see Heathman page 4, second to last paragraph: “One of the goals of this project was to continually evolve [i.e. in real-time] the casing and cement designs as confidence in the data improved so that the wells become optimized to the conditions. This continuous process has resulted in simplifications to both the casing design and the cementing procedure.” To clarify, the conclusions: “As each well was drilled and more formation data was gathered, the FEA model was adjusted to accommodate the improved data. Since the first well was drilled and tested, pore pressure/frac gradient confidence in the area has allowed the operator to simplify the casing design”
generating a set of additive depth segments equal in length to a prior depth segment;
… and updating the drilling path record comprising the segmented set of processed data values comprising averaged values, the measurement values, or combinations thereof for the corresponding depth segments. (Heathman, as taken in view of Ringrose above for this – to clarify, this claim is merely conveying generating additional intervals as drilling deeper, with constant length intervals – both references discusses extensively the use of intervals, e.g. Heathman, page 3, last paragraph; and Ringrose, as cited above, wherein Ringrose is using a “3-m reservoir interval” (fig. 5, caption; accompanying description to fig. 7) wherein fig. 7 shows that this a 3-m depth segment from 4504-4507 m; thus, when taken in combination, and used in real time as taught by Heathman as cited above, e.g. “As each well was drilled and more formation data was gathered, the FEA model was adjusted to accommodate the improved data” (Heathman, conclusions) – POSITA would have at least been suggested to have generated additional 3-m depth segment intervals for the logging technique to be applied to of Ringrose when applied to Heathman’s system (as discussed above for claim 6) – i.e. drill some more wells as taught by Heathman, log the data in real-time as discussed by Ringrose, and gather more logging data in the manner discussed by Ringrose during this process – and thus, POSITA would have arrived at updating the drilling path records for the wells as “more formation was gathered” as discussed by Heathman
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heathman, J., and F. E. Beck. "Finite element analysis couples casing and cement designs for HP/HT wells in East Texas." SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition. SPE, 2006 in view of Creel, P., et al. "Real-Time Cementing Designs vs. Actual Jobs in Progress." SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition. SPE, 2006 and in further view of Ringrose, Philip S. "Total-property modeling: dispelling the net-to-gross myth." SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 11.05 (2008): 866-873 in view of Puwanto et al., US 2020/0362686
Regarding Claim 7
While Heathman, in view of Ringrose does not explicitly teach the following, Heathman, in view of Ringrose and Puwanto teaches:
The method of claim 6, further comprising: storing the drilling path record in a historical database. (Heathman, pages 4-5 the paragraph split between the pages: “One of the goals of this project was to continually evolve the casing and cement designs as confidence in the data improved so that the wells become optimized to the conditions. This continuous process has resulted in simplifications to both the casing design and the cementing procedure… This same review of improved wellbore data has also enabled the cementing program to be optimized in the sense that the elastomer slurry volume has been reduced to cover only those portions of the wellbore needing it. While this still involves a substantial portion of the open hole section, inclusion of a nonelastomeric lead slurry with modified mechanical properties has resulted in simplified location logistics and reduced job cost. This step has also resulted in lower ECDs during placement…. Since the start of this project, these wells have encountered several shallower formations that have proven economically productivity” – i.e. POSITA would have inferred logically that this data was stored, and thus it was able to be “improved” as the procedures occurred
But neither Heathman or Ringrose teach storing it in a database – thus, see Puwanto, ¶¶ 81-87
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings from Heathman on “Using an approach that combined formation, casing, and cement mechanical properties into a system, the wells were redesigned. Detailed thermal and mechanical modeling of all wellbore operations resulted in redesigned casings and a cement sheath more applicable to the extreme loads being exerted. Minor changes were also implemented to the job placement procedures to lessen the loads placed on the cement sheath.” (Heathman, abstract) with the teachings from Puwanto on “The applications layer 340 also includes a database management component 342 that includes one or more search engine features ( e.g., sets of executable instructions to perform various actions, etc.).” (Puwanto, ¶¶ 81-87). The motivation to combine would have been that “As an example, the database management component 342 can include one or more search engine features that provide for searching one or more information that may be stored in one or more data repositories… The STUDIO FIND search functionality also provides for indexing content, for example, to create one or more indexes. As an example, search functionality may provide for access to public content, private content or both, which may exist in one or more databases, for example, optionally distributed and accessible via an intranet, the Internet or one or more other networks. As an example, a search engine may be configured to apply one or more filters from a set or sets of filters, for example, to enable users to filter out data that may not be of interest.”, e.g. ¶ 87: “As an example, the database management component 342 may include features for indexing, etc. As an example, information may be indexed at least in part with respect to wellsite. For example, where the applications layer 340 is implemented to perform one or more workflows associated with a particular wellsite, data, information, etc., associated with that particular wellsite may be indexed based at least in part on the wellsite being an index parameter (e.g., a search parameter)”
Claim(s) 8, 12, 16-17, and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heathman, J., and F. E. Beck. "Finite element analysis couples casing and cement designs for HP/HT wells in East Texas." SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition. SPE, 2006 i in view of Creel, P., et al. "Real-Time Cementing Designs vs. Actual Jobs in Progress." SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition. SPE, 2006 and in further view of Parsons et al., US 2017 /0096874.
Regarding Claim 8
While Heathman does not explicitly teach the following feature in full, Heathman, in view of Parsons teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
retrieving, by a stress model, the drilling path record, a design constraint, or combinations thereof; generating a stress state of an isolation barrier, wherein the isolation barrier is a cured cement blend, a tubular, a downhole tool, or combinations thereof; comparing the stress state of the isolation barrier to a threshold value; generating the stress value for each depth segment in response to the threshold value exceeding the stress state; and generating a user notification in response to the stress state exceeding the threshold value. (Heathman, as cited above for claim 1 – incl. seeing the abstract, ¶ 2 for its discussion of using a FEA model to simulate the stress state of “previous casings and cement sheaths” – and the tubular is the “casing” [e.g. page 2, col. 2, ¶ 2 notes the casing has a “diameter” – because it is a tube]
wherein Heathman, as discussed above for claim 1, e.g. the abstract, use the FEA simulations “confirmed that the extreme stresses applied to these wells rendered previous casings and cement sheaths “under-designed” – see the section “Model Setup and Initial Analysis” as well as “Finite Element Analysis” to further clarify
as taken in view of Parsons, abstract: “One such method includes determining a stress for the cement body within the wellbore by simulating hydration of the cement body using cementing operation parameters and wellbore conditions. The hydration simulation includes calculating pore pressure for the cement body and accounting for changes in pore pressure associated with chemical shrinkage of the cement body. The method further includes designing a cementing operation using the stress for the cement body and the cementing operation parameters” – then see fig. 4 and its accompanying description, including seeing # 402-403, then # 404: “Determine whether the total stress in the cement body will exceed a measured or known failure criteria.”, include seeing ¶ 51
then, with respect to the user notification, see ¶ 52: “If it is determined that the stresses in the cement body will cause the body to fail given the selected cementing operation parameters, the operator may choose to alter the cementing operation parameters such that the formed cement body does not fail or is less likely to fail (at 406).” – i.e. the user was notified, and in response to the notification the user “may choose to alter the cementing operation parameters…”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings from Heathman on “…Using an approach that combined formation, casing, and cement mechanical properties into a system, the wells were redesigned. Detailed thermal and mechanical modeling of all wellbore operations resulted in redesigned casings and a cement sheath more applicable to the extreme loads being exerted….” (Heathman, abstract) with the teachings from Parsons on “One such method includes determining a stress for the cement body within the wellbore by simulating hydration of the cement body using cementing operation parameters and wellbore conditions. The hydration simulation includes calculating pore pressure for the cement body and accounting for changes in pore pressure associated with chemical shrinkage of the cement body. The method further includes designing a cementing operation using the stress for the cement body and the cementing operation parameters”
The motivation to combine would have been that “a prediction of stresses that are experienced within a curing body of cement to enable an operator to optimize conditions and setting of cement to minimize the risk of failure. In some embodiments, models may be developed that permit an operator to design a cementing operation based on the demands of a given wellbore conditions by modifying cement set times or structural properties using model outputs.” (Parsons, ¶ 46)
An additional motivation to combine would have been “Considering the large hydrostatic compressive stresses present at large depths at the time of cement placement, when the cement is in liquid form, in many cases, there may be a sizable compressive stress remaining at the time of set, which may protect against radial fracture and debonding in some cases. In one or more embodiments, methods in accordance with the present disclosure incorporate nonlinear models that account for the changing properties of a curing cement based on known properties of constituents of cement, including hydraulic cements such as Portland cement.” Parsons, ¶ 58)
Regarding Claim 12.
While Heathman does not explicitly teach the following feature in full, Heathman, in view of Parsons teaches:
The method of claim 11, wherein the material inventory comprises an amount of Portland cement. (Heathman, as cited above, including the section “New cement design” and the abstract, taken in view of Parsons, abstract and fig. 4, then see ¶ 58: “Considering the large hydrostatic compressive stresses present at large depths at the time of cement placement, when the cement is in liquid form, in many cases, there may be a sizable compressive stress remaining at the time of set, which may protect against radial fracture and debonding in some cases. In one or more embodiments, methods in accordance with the present disclosure incorporate nonlinear models that account for the changing properties of a curing cement based on known properties of constituents of cement, including hydraulic cements such as Portland cement.” – to clarify, ¶ 123 provides an example of a material inventory: “be selected from hydraulic cements known in the art, such as those containing compounds of calcium, aluminum, silicon, oxygen and/or sulfur, which set and harden by reaction with water. These include "Portland cements," such as normal Portland or rapid-hardening Portland cement, American Petroleum Institute (API) Class A, C, G, or H Portland cements, sulfate-resisting cement, and other modified Portland cements, high-alumina cements, and high-alumina calcium- aluminate cement”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings from Heathman on “…Using an approach that combined formation, casing, and cement mechanical properties into a system, the wells were redesigned. Detailed thermal and mechanical modeling of all wellbore operations resulted in redesigned casings and a cement sheath more applicable to the extreme loads being exerted….” (Heathman, abstract) with the teachings from Parsons on “One such method includes determining a stress for the cement body within the wellbore by simulating hydration of the cement body using cementing operation parameters and wellbore conditions. The hydration simulation includes calculating pore pressure for the cement body and accounting for changes in pore pressure associated with chemical shrinkage of the cement body. The method further includes designing a cementing operation using the stress for the cement body and the cementing operation parameters”
The motivation to combine would have been that “a prediction of stresses that are experienced within a curing body of cement to enable an operator to optimize conditions and setting of cement to minimize the risk of failure. In some embodiments, models may be developed that permit an operator to design a cementing operation based on the demands of a given wellbore conditions by modifying cement set times or structural properties using model outputs.” (Parsons, ¶ 46)
An additional motivation to combine would have been “Considering the large hydrostatic compressive stresses present at large depths at the time of cement placement, when the cement is in liquid form, in many cases, there may be a sizable compressive stress remaining at the time of set, which may protect against radial fracture and debonding in some cases. In one or more embodiments, methods in accordance with the present disclosure incorporate nonlinear models that account for the changing properties of a curing cement based on known properties of constituents of cement, including hydraulic cements such as Portland cement.” Parsons, ¶ 58)
Regarding Claim 16.
This is rejected under a similar rationale as claim 8 above.
Regarding Claim 17.
Heathman and Parsons teach:
The method of claim 16, wherein:
the design constraint comprises a material inventory, a wellbore tubular, at least one customer input, or combinations thereof. (Heathman, as cited above, teaches that the “casing” is first -re-designed, and then the “New cement design” (page 3, section title as discussed above) was for the new casing, e.g. see page 4 col. 1 ¶ 2 then ¶¶ 3-6 – wherein the casing has a “diameter” (page 2, col. 2, ¶ 2) and is 3D with depth (e.g. fig. 1 and 7), i.e. it’s a wellbore tubular example as the casing is a tube)
Parsons, as cited above, e.g. the abstract and ¶¶ 34-35 describe a similar usage of a “casing” in combination the cementing process (e.g. ¶ 3: “Well-cement sheaths”), i.e. this is also one of the design constraints of Parsons process – see ¶ 50 of Parsons to clarify – then see ¶ 52 which gives an example of an “operator” providing alterations to the “cementing operation parameters” to optimize the blend, then “Once the modified cementing operation parameters are selected, the cementing operation may proceed or, if desired, the cementing operation parameters may be tested using the model created and repeating 402-404 to verify that the modified cementing operation parameters are below the failure criteria” – which is an example of customer input as a design constraint; and ¶ 123 provides an example of a material inventor: “be selected from hydraulic cements known in the art, such as those containing compounds of calcium, aluminum, silicon, oxygen and/or sulfur, which set and harden by reaction with water. These include "Portland cements," such as normal Portland or rapid-hardening Portland cement, American Petroleum Institute (API) Class A, C, G, or H Portland cements, sulfate-resisting cement, and other modified Portland cements, high-alumina cements, and high-alumina calcium- aluminate cement”
Regarding Claim 21.
This is rejected under a similar rationale as claim 8 above.
Regarding Claim 22.
This is rejected under a similar rationale as claim 10 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID A. HOPKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-0537. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 10AM to 7 PM EST.
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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at (571) 272-4071. 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.
/David A Hopkins/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188