DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This communication is responsive to amended application filed on 10/24/2025.
Claims 3, and 9 have been canceled.
Claims 21 and 22 have been added.
Claims 1, 2, 4-8, and 10-22 are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants amended the independent claim to include “to monitor downhole failures of tubulars in real-time”. The monitoring data in real-time is simply generic computer component that performing generic computer function at a high level of generality, such as using a display to monitor the data in real-time. Further, the limitation is considered to be well-understood, routine and conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05(h)- iv. Specifying that the abstract idea of monitoring audit log data relates to transactions or activities that are executed in a computer environment, because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e. to monitor a data in real-time on a generic computer).
Applicant’s arguments/amendments, see Remarks pgs. 8-9, filed 10/24/2025, with respect to independent claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of 35 USC 102/103 has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of P.V. Suryanarayana et al (P. V. Suryanarayana, and Ravi. M. Krishnamurthy, “Post-Yield Tubular Design and Material Selection Consideration for improved geometric Well Integrity”, Feb. 12-14, 2018, pgs. 1-13).
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, 2, 4-8, 10-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 (Does this claim fall within at least one statutory category?): Yes, the claim recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process.
Step 2A, Prong 1: ((a) identify the specific limitation(s) in the claim that recites an abstract idea: and (b) determine whether the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groups of abstract ideas enumerates in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)):
Claim 1:
A method of designing tubular for use in a well, comprising:
receiving a well configuration for a well and at least one type of well operation for the well [insignificant extra solution, e.g. mere data-gathering];
receiving a selection of a tubular for use in the well [“mental process i.e. concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion)];
generating a temperature history and a pressure history for the well using the well configuration, the selection of the tubular, the at least one type of well operation, and one or more simulators [“mental process i.e. concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion)]; and
determining, using the temperature history and the pressure history, a derated strength of the tubular based on one or more effects of high temperature, cyclic thermal loadings on the tubular [“mental process i.e. concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion) and/or mathematical concepts] to monitor downhole failures of tubular in real time [imply generic computer component that performing generic computer function which is insignificantly extra-solution activity], wherein the one or more effect include a Bauschinger effect [mathematical concepts].
Step 2A, Prong 2 (1. Identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception; and 2. Evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application): The claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Claim 1 recites additional element of “receiving”. This additional element is insignificant pre-solution/post-solutions (i.e. data gathering and/or mere data output). In addition, claim 1 recites additional element of “one or more simulators”. This additional element recited at a high level of generality (e.g. a generic computer element for performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts to no more than mere application of the judicial exception using generic computer components. Further, claim 1 recites “monitor downhole failures of tubulars in real time’. The limitation adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (which imply generic computer component that performing generic computer function which is insignificantly extra-solution activity such as displaying) which does not integrate the exception into a practical application. is Accordingly, the additional element(s) of each of these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No): As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract into a practical application, the additional element of “receiving” is insignificant pre/post-solutions (i.e. data gathering and/or mere data output). At most the additional element is not found to including anything more than data gathering or mere data output. See MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(g), example (iv) - Obtaining information about transactions. Further, as explained above with respect to Step 2A, prong two, the claimed invention recites “monitoring in real-time”. For instance, a data gathering step that is limited to a particular data source (such as in real-time) could be considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity. This limitation is considered to be well understood, routine, and conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05(h)- iv. Specifying that the abstract idea of monitoring audit log data relates to transactions or activities that are executed in a computer environment, because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e. to execution on a generic computer.
As per Claims 2, and 4-8, the claims fall into [“mental process i.e. concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion) and/or mathematical concepts].
As per claim 10, the claim falls into [“mental process i.e. concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion) and/or mathematical concepts]. Further, the claim recites thermal simulator which falls under generic computer component.
As per Claim 11, the claim falls into [insignificant extra solution, e.g. mere data-gathering].
As per claim 12, independent claim 12 recites limitations analogous in scope to those of independent claim 1, and as such are similar rejected. Further, claim 12 recites additional elements of “an interface”, and “one or more processor”. The components recited at a high level of generality (e.g. a generic computer element for performing a generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere application of the judicial exception using generic computer component(s). Accordingly, the additional element(s) of each of these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, as discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract into a practical application, the additional elements of “an interface”, and “one or more processor” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer component(s). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
As per Claims 13-17, the claims fall into [“mental process i.e. concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion) and/or mathematical concepts].
As per Claim 18, the claim falls into [“mental process i.e. concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion) and/or mathematical concepts]. Further, claim 18 recites additional element of “a memory”. The component recited at a high level of generality (e.g. a generic computer element for performing a generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere application of the judicial exception using generic computer component(s). Accordingly, the additional element(s) of each of these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, as discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract into a practical application, the additional element of “a memory” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer component(s). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
As per Claims 19-20, independent claims 19-20 recite limitations analogous in scope to those of independent claim 1.
As per Claims 21-22, the claims fall into [“mental process i.e. concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion) and/or mathematical concepts].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 4-8, and 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication No. 2014/0039797 A1 issued to Gonzales et al in view of US Publication No. 2018/0096083 issued to Kang et al and further in view of P.V. Suryanarayana et al (P. V. Suryanarayana, and Ravi. M. Krishnamurthy, “Post-Yield Tubular Design and Material Selection Consideration for improved geometric Well Integrity”, Feb. 12-14, 2018, pgs. 1-13).
1. Gonzales et al discloses a method of designing tubular for use in a well, comprising:
receiving a well configuration for a well and at least one type of well operation for the well (See: Abstract, par [0011], par [0029], par [0047], receiving a selection of a well configuration of a well comprising one or more casing strings and a production tubing extending from adjacent a wellhead of the well to adjacent a bottom of the well; receiving a selection of a wellbore operation performed with the well configuration);
receiving a selection of a tubular for use in the well (See: Abstract, par [0011], par [0029], par [0047], receiving a selection of a well configuration of a well comprising one or more casing strings and a production tubing extending from adjacent a wellhead of the well to adjacent a bottom of the well; receiving a selection of a wellbore operation performed with the well configuration);
generating a temperature history and a pressure history for the well using the well configuration, the selection of the tubular, the at least one type of well operation, (See: par [0010] the well integrity tool may use temperature and pressure information to accurately calculate the loading conditions and to facilitate and simplify the process for well configuration; par [0012] the characteristic may be at least one of: a temperature of a fluid within an annulus defined between two casing strings; a temperature of a casing string in the one or more casing strings in the wellbore; a pressure of the fluid in the annulus; a thermal property of the well configuration; and a displacement force acting on a casing string in the one or more casing strings in the wellbore; par [0048] the characteristic may be at least one of: a temperature of a fluid within an annulus defined between two casing strings; a temperature of a casing string in the one or more casing strings in the wellbore; a pressure of the fluid in the annulus; a thermal property of the well configuration; and a displacement force acting on a casing string in the one or more casing strings in the wellbore); and
determining, using the temperature history and the pressure history, a derated strength of the tubular based on one or more effects of high temperature, cyclic thermal loadings on the tubular (See: par [0018] the method may further include performing a stress analysis on at least one of a casing string or the production tubing of the well configuration exposed to a thermal event; and determining a temperature deration of the casing string or the production tubing based on the stress analysis; [0086] In a twenty-first aspect according any of the preceding aspects, the well integrity tool may further perform operations including: determining a temperature deration of the casing string or the production tubing based on the stress analysis).
Gonzales et al fails to disclose but Kang et al discloses and one or more simulators (See: [0001] The present disclosure relates generally to downhole simulators and, more specifically, to a simulation of wellbore thermal, pressure, and stress analysis above the end of the operating string during complex well operations) and monitor downhole failures of tubular in real time (See: par [0034] processor 202 models the initial temperature and pressure conditions present during drilling, logging, trip pipe, casing, and cementing operations. At block 306b, drilling prediction module 212 models the “final” temperature and pressure conditions during the same operations. Note the term “final” may refer to the current drilling temperature and pressure of the wellbore if the present disclosure is being utilized to analyze the wellbore in real time; par [0045] 0045] Still referencing FIGS. 4-9, once the thermal results have been obtained by the system, the workflow process continues via the casing and tubing stress modules for stress analysis, whereby production module temperature and pressure results are applied for the casing and tubing stress analysis. This process will include the operation temperature and pressure generated in simulating such an above end of string operation. As previously mentioned, the presence of the plug and packers results in pressure discontinuity over the plug, and results in stress discontinuity along the casing and tubing, which may result in the failure of the casing and tubing).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to combine the down hole simulators as taught by Kang et al to well integrity method of Gonzales et al would be to simulate thermal and stress conditions of a wellbore above the end of the operating string (Kang et al, par [0018]).
Further, none of the references but Suryanarayana et al discloses a Bauschinger effect (See: Abstract, Geothermal wells undergo large thermal cycles during their life, impacting both design and well integrity. Literature addressing geothermal well integrity is scant, and the primary basis for design remains working stress design, whereby maximum stresses are within the yield strength of the material; 6. Concluding Remarks, The Modified Holliday Approach is a notionally strain-based approach that derives from the original work by Holliday (1969), and takes into consideration thermal effects such as yield deration at elevated temperatures, Bauschinger effect, thermal stress relaxation, and strain localization effects. The approach is a logical extension of the familiar Working Stress Design approach, and easy to implement for geothermal wells).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to combine post-yield tubular design and material selection considerations for improved geothermal well integrity as taught by Suryanarayana et al to well integrity method of Gonzales et al would be to ensure adequate life of the tubular (Suryanarayana et al, Abstract).
2. Gonzales et al discloses the method as recited in Claim 1, wherein the one or more effects include at least one of thermal stress relaxation, or a thermal deration effect (See: par [0018] In one or more specific aspects of the general embodiment, the method may further include performing a stress analysis on at least one of a casing string or the production tubing of the well configuration exposed to a thermal event; and determining a temperature deration of the casing string or the production tubing based on the stress analysis).
None of the references but Suryanarayana et al discloses a Bauschinger effect (See: Abstract, Geothermal wells undergo large thermal cycles during their life, impacting both design and well integrity. Literature addressing geothermal well integrity is scant, and the primary basis for design remains working stress design, whereby maximum stresses are within the yield strength of the material; 6. Concluding Remarks, The Modified Holliday Approach is a notionally strain-based approach that derives from the original work by Holliday (1969), and takes into consideration thermal effects such as yield deration at elevated temperatures, Bauschinger effect, thermal stress relaxation, and strain localization effects. The approach is a logical extension of the familiar Working Stress Design approach, and easy to implement for geothermal wells).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to combine post-yield tubular design and material selection considerations for improved geothermal well integrity as taught by Suryanarayana et al to well integrity method of Gonzales et al would be to ensure adequate life of the tubular (Suryanarayana et al, Abstract).
3. Cancelled.
4. Gonzales et al discloses the method as recited in Claim 1, further comprising generating a stress analysis of the tubular based on the derated strength (See: [0018] In one or more specific aspects of the general embodiment, the method may further include performing a stress analysis on at least one of a casing string or the production tubing of the well configuration exposed to a thermal event; and determining a temperature deration of the casing string or the production tubing based on the stress analysis).
5. Gonzales et al discloses the method as recited in Claim 4, further comprising verifying the tubular satisfies design requirements for the well based on the stress analysis (See: [0018] In one or more specific aspects of the general embodiment, the method may further include performing a stress analysis on at least one of a casing string or the production tubing of the well configuration exposed to a thermal event; and determining a temperature deration of the casing string or the production tubing based on the stress analysis).
6. Gonzales et al discloses the method as recited in Claim 5, further comprising receiving another selection for the tubular when the design requirements are not satisfied and providing the tubular for operating in the well when the design requirements are satisfied (See: [0011] In one general embodiment, a method performed with a computing system for determining well integrity includes receiving a selection of a well configuration of a well comprising one or more casing strings and a production tubing extending from adjacent a wellhead of the well to adjacent a bottom of the well; receiving a selection of a wellbore operation performed with the well configuration; determining, based on the well configuration and the wellbore operation, a characteristic of the well at or adjacent the one or more casing strings and the production tubing during the wellbore operation; modifying the well configuration to remove the production tubing; and determining, based on the modified well configuration and the wellbore operation, the characteristic of the well at or adjacent the one or more casing strings during the wellbore operation).
7. Gonzales et al discloses the method as recited in Claim 5, wherein the design requirements include at least one of design factors and design optimizations (See: par [0009] a well integrity tool implemented on a computation device determines and/or predicts well integrity of a well configuration (e.g., a proposed well configuration or a constructed (all or partially) well). The well integrity tool can analyze, compute, optimize, determine and predict critical values or properties of the well integrity, therefore aiding well design/planning and preventing various failure modes).
8. Gonzales et al discloses the method as recited in Claim 4, wherein generating the stress analysis further includes considering a whole well multi-string analysis of the tubular and a single string analysis of the tubular, wherein the whole well multi-string analysis considers a trapped annular pressure buildup effect in the well (See: [0039] In one or more specific aspects of the general embodiment, the operations may further include: receiving values corresponding to a thermal and mechanical properties of one of the first casing string, the second casing string, the production tubing, cement and formation surrounding the wellbore; [0054] In one or more specific aspects of the general embodiment, the well integrity tool operations may further include performing a stress analysis on at least one of a casing string or the production tubing of the well configuration exposed to a thermal event; and determining a temperature deration of the casing string or the production tubing based on the stress analysis; [0138] GUI window 523 shows multistring wellhead movement displacements, including both incremental displacement by casing and cumulative displacements due to the displacement force. In the example of FIG. 5E, the displacement values show that there is no well integrity failure event (e.g., liftoff) indicated. GUI window 524 shows a graphical representation of the stress analysis and suggests that although additional stress conditions are generated, they fall within the uni-biaxial/triaxial stability design envelopes)).
9. Cancelled.
10. Gonzales et al discloses the method as recited in Claim 4, wherein generating the temperature history and a hydraulic simulator for generating the pressure history (See: par [0010] the well integrity tool may use temperature and pressure information to accurately calculate the loading conditions and to facilitate and simplify the process for well configuration; par [0012] the characteristic may be at least one of: a temperature of a fluid within an annulus defined between two casing strings; a temperature of a casing string in the one or more casing strings in the wellbore; a pressure of the fluid in the annulus; a thermal property of the well configuration; and a displacement force acting on a casing string in the one or more casing strings in the wellbore; par [0048] the characteristic may be at least one of: a temperature of a fluid within an annulus defined between two casing strings; a temperature of a casing string in the one or more casing strings in the wellbore; a pressure of the fluid in the annulus; a thermal property of the well configuration; and a displacement force acting on a casing string in the one or more casing strings in the wellbore).
Gonzales et al fails to disclose but Kang et al discloses the one or more simulators includes a thermal simulator and a stress simulator (See: [0001] The present disclosure relates generally to downhole simulators and, more specifically, to a simulation of wellbore thermal, pressure, and stress analysis above the end of the operating string during complex well operations).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to combine the down hole simulators as taught by Kang et al to well integrity method of Gonzales et al would be to simulate thermal and stress conditions of a wellbore above the end of the operating string (Kang et al, par [0018]).
11. Gonzales et al discloses the method as recited in Claim 1, wherein the receiving the well configuration, the at least one type of well operation, and the selection of the tubular is via a graphical user interface (See: [0055] In one or more specific aspects of the general embodiment, the operation of receiving a selection of a well configuration of a well including one or more casing strings and a production tubing may include: receiving values corresponding to an outer diameter and a length of a first casing string; receiving values corresponding to an outer diameter and a length of a second casing string; receiving a selection of a fluid disposed between the first and second casings; and receiving values corresponding to an outer diameter and a length of the production tubing).
12. Gonzales et al discloses a computing system for designing tubulars for use in a well, comprising:
an interface (See: par [0047] In another general embodiment, a computing system may include one or more memory modules; one or more processors; a graphical user interface; and a well integrity tool stored on one or more of the memory modules) for receiving a well configuration for a well, at least one type of well operation for the well (See: Abstract, par [0011], par [0029], par [0047], receiving a selection of a well configuration of a well comprising one or more casing strings and a production tubing extending from adjacent a wellhead of the well to adjacent a bottom of the well; receiving a selection of a wellbore operation performed with the well configuration); and
one or more processor configured to (See: par [0047] In another general embodiment, a computing system may include one or more memory modules; one or more processors; a graphical user interface; and a well integrity tool stored on one or more of the memory modules) perform operations including:
generating a temperature history and a pressure history for the well using the well configuration, the at least one type of well operation, and a selection of a tubular for use in the well (See: par [0010] the well integrity tool may use temperature and pressure information to accurately calculate the loading conditions and to facilitate and simplify the process for well configuration; par [0012] the characteristic may be at least one of: a temperature of a fluid within an annulus defined between two casing strings; a temperature of a casing string in the one or more casing strings in the wellbore; a pressure of the fluid in the annulus; a thermal property of the well configuration; and a displacement force acting on a casing string in the one or more casing strings in the wellbore; par [0048] the characteristic may be at least one of: a temperature of a fluid within an annulus defined between two casing strings; a temperature of a casing string in the one or more casing strings in the wellbore; a pressure of the fluid in the annulus; a thermal property of the well configuration; and a displacement force acting on a casing string in the one or more casing strings in the wellbore); and
determining, using the temperature history and the pressure history, a derated strength of the tubular based on at least one of a Bauschinger effect, a relaxation effect, and a thermal deration effect (See: par [0018] In one or more specific aspects of the general embodiment, the method may further include performing a stress analysis on at least one of a casing string or the production tubing of the well configuration exposed to a thermal event; and determining a temperature deration of the casing string or the production tubing based on the stress analysis).
Gonzales et al fails to disclose but Kang et al discloses monitor downhole failures of tubular in real time (See: par [0034] processor 202 models the initial temperature and pressure conditions present during drilling, logging, trip pipe, casing, and cementing operations. At block 306b, drilling prediction module 212 models the “final” temperature and pressure conditions during the same operations. Note the term “final” may refer to the current drilling temperature and pressure of the wellbore if the present disclosure is being utilized to analyze the wellbore in real time; par [0045] Still referencing FIGS. 4-9, once the thermal results have been obtained by the system, the workflow process continues via the casing and tubing stress modules for stress analysis, whereby production module temperature and pressure results are applied for the casing and tubing stress analysis. This process will include the operation temperature and pressure generated in simulating such an above end of string operation. As previously mentioned, the presence of the plug and packers results in pressure discontinuity over the plug, and results in stress discontinuity along the casing and tubing, which may result in the failure of the casing and tubing).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to combine the down hole simulators as taught by Kang et al to well integrity method of Gonzales et al would be to simulate thermal and stress conditions of a wellbore above the end of the operating string (Kang et al, par [0018]).
Further, none of the references but Suryanarayana et al discloses a Bauschinger effect (See: Abstract, Geothermal wells undergo large thermal cycles during their life, impacting both design and well integrity. Literature addressing geothermal well integrity is scant, and the primary basis for design remains working stress design, whereby maximum stresses are within the yield strength of the material; 6. Concluding Remarks, The Modified Holliday Approach is a notionally strain-based approach that derives from the original work by Holliday (1969), and takes into consideration thermal effects such as yield deration at elevated temperatures, Bauschinger effect, thermal stress relaxation, and strain localization effects. The approach is a logical extension of the familiar Working Stress Design approach, and easy to implement for geothermal wells).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to combine post-yield tubular design and material selection considerations for improved geothermal well integrity as taught by Suryanarayana et al to well integrity method of Gonzales et al would be to ensure adequate life of the tubular (Suryanarayana et al, Abstract).
13. Gonzales et al discloses the computer system as recited in Claim 12, wherein the operations further include generating a stress analysis of the tubular based on the derated strength (See: [0018] In one or more specific aspects of the general embodiment, the method may further include performing a stress analysis on at least one of a casing string or the production tubing of the well configuration exposed to a thermal event; and determining a temperature deration of the casing string or the production tubing based on the stress analysis).
14. Gonzales et al discloses the computer system as recited in Claim 13, wherein generating the stress analysis further includes considering a whole well multi-string analysis of the tubular and a single string analysis of the tubular (See: [0039] In one or more specific aspects of the general embodiment, the operations may further include: receiving values corresponding to a thermal and mechanical properties of one of the first casing string, the second casing string, the production tubing, cement and formation surrounding the wellbore; [0054] In one or more specific aspects of the general embodiment, the well integrity tool operations may further include performing a stress analysis on at least one of a casing string or the production tubing of the well configuration exposed to a thermal event; and determining a temperature deration of the casing string or the production tubing based on the stress analysis).
15. Gonzales et al discloses the computer system as recited in Claim 14, wherein the whole well multi-string analysis considers a trapped annular pressure buildup effect in the well (See: [0053] In one or more specific aspects of the general embodiment, the well integrity tool operations may further include at least one of the following: a maximum burst pressure value of one casing string in between two annuli; a maximum collapse pressure value of the one casing string in between the two annuli; and a value of an annular fluid expansion in one of the two annuli; [0138] For example, the result of the analysis performed by the well integrity tool in steps 424-430 for the original well configuration may be presented to the user with or via a GUI of the well integrity tool, such as the GUI 520 illustrated in FIG. 5E. GUI window 521 illustrates the well configuration being analyzed, which includes a production tubing 324. GUI window 522 shows trapped annular pressure results during the well production operation. A quick check of how the additional loads generated by these incremental annular fluid expansion (AFE) pressures affects the integrity of the casing strings in the well is addressed through Von Misses triaxial and uni-biaxial stress analysis. GUI window 523 shows multistring wellhead movement displacements, including both incremental displacement by casing and cumulative displacements due to the displacement force. In the example of FIG. 5E, the displacement values show that there is no well integrity failure event (e.g., liftoff) indicated. GUI window 524 shows a graphical representation of the stress analysis and suggests that although additional stress conditions are generated, they fall within the uni-biaxial/triaxial stability design envelopes).
16. Gonzales et al discloses the computer system as recited in Claim 12, wherein the operations further include verifying the tubular satisfies design factors (See: par [0137] Alternatively or additionally, the well integrity tool may determine a displacement force on the casing string (e.g., a slip contact force) during the wellbore operation in the original well configuration having a production tubing. In step 426, the determined displacement force is compared against the static load defined on the casing string (e.g., the lock ring value). In step 428, the well integrity tool determines if the displacement force exceeds the static load based on the comparison in step 426. If the displacement load does not exceed the static load (e.g., is not greater than the static load acting the opposite (uphole) direction), then method 420 continues to step 442 of method 440. If the displacement load exceeds the static load, then method 420 continues to step 430, and provides an indication of a well integrity failure event, e.g., a liftoff event; [0142] At step 444, annulus pressure is compared with a predetermined range of pressure values. In the following step 446, if the annulus pressure is outside of a predetermined range of pressure values (string burst/collapse ratings), the program continues to and ends with step 448, where an indication of a failure event of a casing string is provided. Otherwise, the method may return to step 402. A failure event may include, for example, a casing collapse, a casing burst, or other failure event. In some example embodiments, step 448 may be accomplished with or via a GUI of the well integrity tool such as the GUI 520, 525, and/or 545 in FIGS. 5E, 5F, and/or 5J, respectively).
17. Gonzales et al discloses the computer system as recited in Claim 12, wherein the operations further include verifying the tubular satisfies design optimizations a well integrity tool implemented on a computation device determines and/or predicts well integrity of a well configuration (e.g., a proposed well configuration or a constructed (all or partially) well). The well integrity tool can analyze, compute, optimize, determine and predict critical values or properties of the well integrity, therefore aiding well design/planning and preventing various failure modes).
18. Gonzales et al discloses the computer system as recited in Claim 12, further comprising a memory that stores a tubular database and the operations (See: [0047] In another general embodiment, a computing system may include one or more memory modules; one or more processors; a graphical user interface; and a well integrity tool stored on one or more of the memory modules) further include selecting the tubular from the tubular database (See: [0019] In one or more specific aspects of the general embodiment, the method of receiving a selection of a well configuration of a well comprising one or more casing strings and a production tubing may further include: receiving values corresponding to an outer diameter and a length of a first casing string; receiving values corresponding to an outer diameter and a length of a second casing string; receiving a selection of a fluid disposed between the first and second casings; and receiving values corresponding to an outer diameter and a length of the production tubing).
Claims 19, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication No. 2014/0039797 A1 issued to Gonzales et al in view of P.V. Suryanarayana et al (P. V. Suryanarayana, and Ravi. M. Krishnamurthy, “Post-Yield Tubular Design and Material Selection Consideration for improved geometric Well Integrity”, Feb. 12-14, 2018, pgs. 1-13).
19. Gonzales et al discloses a computer program product having a series of operating instructions stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium that directs one or more processors when executed thereby to perform operations (See:), the operations comprising:
generating a temperature history and a pressure history for a well using a well configuration, a selection of a tubular, and at least one type of well operation (See: par [0010] the well integrity tool may use temperature and pressure information to accurately calculate the loading conditions and to facilitate and simplify the process for well configuration; par [0012] the characteristic may be at least one of: a temperature of a fluid within an annulus defined between two casing strings; a temperature of a casing string in the one or more casing strings in the wellbore; a pressure of the fluid in the annulus; a thermal property of the well configuration; and a displacement force acting on a casing string in the one or more casing strings in the wellbore; par [0048] the characteristic may be at least one of: a temperature of a fluid within an annulus defined between two casing strings; a temperature of a casing string in the one or more casing strings in the wellbore; a pressure of the fluid in the annulus; a thermal property of the well configuration; and a displacement force acting on a casing string in the one or more casing strings in the wellbore): and
determining, using the temperature history and the pressure history, a derated strength of the tubular string based on at least one of thermal relaxation effect, or a thermal deration effect (See: [0018] In one or more specific aspects of the general embodiment, the method may further include performing a stress analysis on at least one of a casing string or the production tubing of the well configuration exposed to a thermal event; and determining a temperature deration of the casing string or the production tubing based on the stress analysis).
Gonzales et al fails but Suryanarayana et al discloses a Bauschinger effect (See: Abstract, Geothermal wells undergo large thermal cycles during their life, impacting both design and well integrity. Literature addressing geothermal well integrity is scant, and the primary basis for design remains working stress design, whereby maximum stresses are within the yield strength of the material; 6. Concluding Remarks, The Modified Holliday Approach is a notionally strain-based approach that derives from the original work by Holliday (1969), and takes into consideration thermal effects such as yield deration at elevated temperatures, Bauschinger effect, thermal stress relaxation, and strain localization effects. The approach is a logical extension of the familiar Working Stress Design approach, and easy to implement for geothermal wells).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to combine post-yield tubular design and material selection considerations for improved geothermal well integrity as taught by Suryanarayana et al to well integrity method of Gonzales et al would be to ensure adequate life of the tubular (Suryanarayana et al, Abstract).
21. Suryanarayana et al discloses determining is based on the Bauschinger effect and the thermal stress relaxation effect (See: Abstract, Geothermal wells undergo large thermal cycles during their life, impacting both design and well integrity. Literature addressing geothermal well integrity is scant, and the primary basis for design remains working stress design, whereby maximum stresses are within the yield strength of the material; 6. Concluding Remarks, The Modified Holliday Approach is a notionally strain-based approach that derives from the original work by Holliday (1969), and takes into consideration thermal effects such as yield deration at elevated temperatures, Bauschinger effect, thermal stress relaxation, and strain localization effects. The approach is a logical extension of the familiar Working Stress Design approach, and easy to implement for geothermal wells).
22. Gonzales et al discloses wherein the monitoring status includes an alert when one or more of the safety factors is unsatisfied (See: par [0034] In one or more specific aspects of the general embodiment, the predetermined range of pressure values may include a maximum burst pressure value and a maximum collapse pressure value. The operations may further include: providing an indication of one of a casing burst or casing collapse event; and providing a graphical indication that the pressure of the fluid in the annulus exceeds one of the maximum burst pressure value or the maximum collapse pressure value).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication No. 2014/0039797 A1 issued to Gonzales et al in view of US Publication No. 2020/0265385 A1 issued to HOLTZ et al and further in view of P.V. Suryanarayana et al (P. V. Suryanarayana, and Ravi. M. Krishnamurthy, “Post-Yield Tubular Design and Material Selection Consideration for improved geometric Well Integrity”, Feb. 12-14, 2018, pgs. 1-13).
20. Gonzales et al discloses a method of monitoring a well, comprising:
receiving data from sensors in a wellbore, wherein the data at least includes temperature data and pressure data (See: par [0010] the well integrity tool may use temperature and pressure information to accurately calculate the loading conditions and to facilitate and simplify the process for well configuration; par [0012] the characteristic may be at least one of: a temperature of a fluid within an annulus defined between two casing strings; a temperature of a casing string in the one or more casing strings in the wellbore; a pressure of the fluid in the annulus; a thermal property of the well configuration; and a displacement force acting on a casing string in the one or more casing strings in the wellbore; par [0048] the characteristic may be at least one of: a temperature of a fluid within an annulus defined between two casing strings; a temperature of a casing string in the one or more casing strings in the wellbore; a pressure of the fluid in the annulus; a thermal property of the well configuration; and a displacement force acting on a casing string in the one or more casing strings in the wellbore); derating a yield strength of a tubular in the wellbore based on at least one of a Bauschinger effect, thermal deration effect, and thermal stress relaxation effect (See: [0018] In one or more specific aspects of the general embodiment, the method may further include performing a stress analysis on at least one of a casing string or the production tubing of the well configuration exposed to a thermal event; and determining a temperature deration of the casing string or the production tubing based on the stress analysis);
determining the derated yield strength of the tubular satisfies safety factors (See: [0018] In one or more specific aspects of the general embodiment, the method may further include performing a stress analysis on at least one of a casing string or the production tubing of the well configuration exposed to a thermal event; and determining a temperature deration of the casing string or the production tubing based on the stress analysis); and providing a monitoring status based on the determining (See: [0130] After defining the well configuration, a wellbore operation is selected and/or defined at step 404. In some embodiments, step 404 may be accomplished with or via a GUI such as the GUI 505 illustrated in FIG. 5B. The GUI 505 allows users to select the operating conditions of the well, such as pressure, location, depth, temperature, production rates, duration, or otherwise. Here, as an example, the wellbore operation is defined as a production of oil at the perforations location of 21,000 ft. depth, at a pressure of 15,000 psi, and at an inlet temperature of 275 deg F. The production rate is selected to be 100,000 bbl/D, and the duration is one year; 0138] For example, the result of the analysis performed by the well integrity tool in steps 424-430 for the original well configuration may be presented to the user with or via a GUI of the well integrity tool, such as the GUI 520 illustrated in FIG. 5E. GUI window 521 illustrates the well configuration being analyzed, which includes a production tubing 324. GUI window 522 shows trapped annular pressure results during the well production operation).
Gonzales et al fails to disclose but HOLTZ et al discloses sensor (See: par [0129] the standards or requirements documents 711 may address, but not limited to: placement 8 of well 1, depth 5 of casing 1, string tubing 10, one or more downhole tools 14, drill bit 18, sensors 16, casing 12 wear standard and, generally, any parameter 9, requirement or standard related to the drilling project including any equipment associated with a rig, for placing and producing well 1. The one or more downhole tools 14 may comprise, e.g., a logging-while-drilling tool, a communications tool, pressure testing equipment, or similar tools).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to combine the drilling project as taught by Holtz et al to well integrity method of Gonzales et al would be to create project specific design and operational parameters related to a drilling project, among other features (Holtz et al, par [0001]).
Further, none of the references but Suryanarayana et al discloses a Bauschinger effect (See: Abstract, Geothermal wells undergo large thermal cycles during their life, impacting both design and well integrity. Literature addressing geothermal well integrity is scant, and the primary basis for design remains working stress design, whereby maximum stresses are within the yield strength of the material; 6. Concluding Remarks, The Modified Holliday Approach is a notionally strain-based approach that derives from the original work by Holliday (1969), and takes into consideration thermal effects such as yield deration at elevated temperatures, Bauschinger effect, thermal stress relaxation, and strain localization effects. The approach is a logical extension of the familiar Working Stress Design approach, and easy to implement for geothermal wells).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to combine post-yield tubular design and material selection considerations for improved geothermal well integrity as taught by Suryanarayana et al to well integrity method of Gonzales et al would be to ensure adequate life of the tubular (Suryanarayana et al, Abstract).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 KIBROM K GEBRESILASSIE whose telephone number is (571)272-8571. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM-5:30 PM.
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, Rehana Perveen can be reached at 571 272 3676. 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.
KIBROM K. GEBRESILASSIE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2189
/KIBROM K GEBRESILASSIE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2189 01/26/2026