DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the amendments filed on Apr. 13th, 2026. A summary of this action:
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 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
Withdrawn in view of recent guidance changes and updated trainings.
The final limitation of pumping cement down the wellbore according to the generated cement blend is a practical application at prong 2, akin to example 45 claims 2 and 4 as well as example 46, claim 3, and page 5 last paragraph. Conventionality is not considered at prong 2, i.e. regardless of whether this step is purely conventional (see prior evidence to clarify on this), it still is a practical application of the abstract idea. MEPP § 2106.04(d)(1).
Regarding the § 102/103 Rejection
Maintained and updated as necessitated by amendment.
With respect to the remarks, these are a piecemeal attack against Heathman alone, rather then Heathman (which has the varying lengths of depth segment, e.g. cf. 1 and 7 in Heathman as clarified on below in the § 103 rejection) in view of Creel of the continuous updating/adding.
Similarly, the remarks against Creel are a piecemeal attack against Creel alone, rather then the relied upon combination of Heathman and Creel and the rationale express in the rejection itself.
See the rejection below for clarity on how the amended subject matter is rejected under § 103.
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.
wherein the depth segments vary in length along the wellbore such that one or more first depth segments are longer than one or more second depth segments below the one or more first depth segments, and wherein the drilling path record is updated as additional depth segments are added while drilling deeper
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.”
Heathman, as cited above, also teaches that the depth segments vary in length along the well more in the manner claimed – see Heathman, fig. 1 and fig. 7 which visually depict the depth segments, including that a first depth segment (e.g. the one from about 3k ft to 11 k ft in fig. 7) is longer than later depth segments (fig. 7, left-hand side for the depth axis; fig. 1 gives more precise values of the original well design as well).
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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights