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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim 7 has been withdrawn. Claims 1-6 and 8-20 are pending. Claims 1-6 and 8-20 have been examined and rejected.
Response to Arguments
The objections to claims 10 and 15 have been withdrawn in light of amendments to these claims.
The 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claim 16 has been withdrawn in light of amendments to this claim.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-6 and 8-20, see pp. 5-8, have been considered but are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that Ravi and Reddy do not teach comparing the Nr for each selected cement composition to an expected number of cycles the cement sheath will experience, see p. 6 ¶ 3. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Reddy teaches cyclic compression test performed to determined resistance of the cements to repeated stress cycling they could be subjected to during the life of the well, see ¶ 0060. The repeated stress cycling could be subjected to during the life of the well can be broadly and reasonably interpreted as corresponding to an expected number of cycles the cement sheath would experience during the life of the well. The teaching also indicates determining a number of cycles a composition fails. These two teachings, hence, imply comparing a number of cycles a composition fails with the expected number of cycles a cement composition would experience.
The Applicant also argues that Ravi and Reddy do not teach “identifying a subset of the selected cement compositions whose Nr meets or exceeds the expected number of cycles,” see p. 6 ¶ 3. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In an example Reddy teaches identifying compositions identifying a subset of the selected cement compositions whose Nr meets or exceeds the expected number of cycles, see ¶ 0063 & Table 3. This teaching reads onto this limitation.
The Applicant also argues that Ravi and Reddy do not teach calculating an objective function for each cement composition in the identified subset, p. 6 ¶ 3. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Reddy teaches forming and placing the optimized cement composition within a first optimized range the wellbore; optimizing cement compositions within an optimized range indicates that there is an objective function to be calculated for each cement composition in the identified subset that passes the expected number of cycles as discussed immediately above.
In conclusion, Ravi and Reddy in combination teach all limitations in the claim. Claim 1 remains rejected.
Regarding claim 11, the Applicant argues that the claim is also amended with limitations analogous to claim 1 in arguments above, so claim 11 should be patentable for the same reasons, see p. 6 last paragraph – p. 7 ¶ 2. Since claim 1 remains rejected, claim 11 remains rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 2-6, 8-10 and 12-20 are argued patentable for depending on claims 1 and 11, respectively, see p. 7-8. Since claims 1 and 11 remain rejected, claims 2-6, 8-10 and 12-20 remain rejected.
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.
Claims 1-9, 11-14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ravi et al. (US 20050241829), in view of Reddy et al. (US 2007/0062691).
As per claim 1, Ravi teaches a method comprising:
selecting cement compositions having known mechanical properties (¶ 0024; Ravi teaches determining a group of effective cementing compositions from a group of cementing compositions having mechanical properties given estimated conditions; this teaching reads onto this limitation);
performing wellbore integrity analyses using models for cement sheaths based at least in part on the known mechanical properties of the selected cement composition, each cement sheath comprising a selected cement composition (¶ 0034-0035; Ravi teaches performing Finite Element Analysis to asses integrity of cement sheath for each of selected cementing compositions);
calculating an objective function for each cement composition (¶ 0038; Ravi teaches performing cost benefits analysis to minimize costs; this teaching indicates that there is an objective function of minimizing cost for each cement composition); and
selecting a composition for use in a wellbore based on a minimum or a maximum value of the objective function (¶ 0038; Ravi teaches performing cost benefits analysis to minimize costs; this teaching indicates that there is an objective function of minimizing cost for a selected cement composition).
Ravi does not teach:
determining a number of cycles to (Nr) failure for each cement sheath;
comparing the Nr for each selected cement composition to an expected number of cycles the cement sheath will experience;
identifying a subset of the selected cement compositions whose Nr meets or exceeds the expected number of cycles; and
calculating an objective function for each cement composition in the identified subset.
However, Reddy teaches:
determining a number of cycles to failure for each cement sheath (¶ 0009, 0059-0061; Reddy teaches performing cyclic tests to determine a number of cycles that each cement sheath will fail);
comparing the Nf for each selected cement composition to an expected number of cycles the cement sheath will experience (¶ 0060; Reddy teaches cyclic compression test performed to determined resistance of the cements to repeated stress cycling they could be subjected to during the life of the well, corresponding to an expected number of cycles the cement sheath will experience);
identifying a subset of the selected cement compositions whose Nf meets or exceeds the expected number of cycles (¶ 0063 & Table 3; Reddy teaches identifying compositions, 2 and 4, that meets or exceeds the expected number of cycles); and
calculating an objective function for each cement composition in the identified subset (¶ 0009, 0014; Reddy teaches forming and placing the optimized cement composition withing a first optimized range the wellbore; optimizing cement compositions within an optimized range indicates that there is an objective function to be calculated for each cement composition in the identified subset).
Ravi and Reddy are analogous art because they are in the same field of designing a cement composition for cement sheath. 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 of Ravi and Reddy. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because Reddy’s teachings would have determined an optimized cement composition in the wellbore (Reddy, ¶ 0009).
As per claim 2, Ravi and Reddy in combination teach a method of claim 1, Reddy further teaches comprising producing at least one selected cement composition from the identified subset based on the number of cycles to failure and the minimum or maximum value of the objective function (¶ 0009, 0014, 0059-0061; Reddy teaches forming and placing the optimized cement composition withing a first optimized range the wellbore based on the number of cycles to failure; optimizing cement compositions withing an optimized range indicates that there is an objective function to be calculated for each cement composition in the identified subset, and the optimized range indicates a maximum and minimum values).
As per claim 3, Ravi and Reddy in combination teach a method of claim 1, Ravi further teaches comprising receiving pressure, temperature, and time data for each cement sheath (¶ 0026-0027, Fig. 2a; Ravi teaches determining well events associated with pressure and temperature, and time data).
As per claim 4, Ravi and Reddy in combination teach a method of claim 1, Ravi further teaches comprising determining deviatoric stress levels from the wellbore integrity analyses (¶ 0025; Ravi teaches inputting data for a particular well analysis comprising maximum and minimum horizontal stress, corresponding to deviatoric stress levels according to the instant application’s specification ¶ 0020).
As per claim 5, Ravi and Reddy in combination teach a method of claim 4, Reddy further teaches comprising receiving the deviatoric stress levels with a fatigue model (¶ 0061; Ravi teaches using lower level and larger level of compressive strength, corresponding to deviatoric stress levels to perform cyclic tests for load cycle failure analyses; this teaching reads onto this limitation).
As per claim 6, Ravi and Reddy in combination teach a method of claim 1, Ravi further teaches comprising generating the models of the cement sheaths (¶ 0024, 0035; Ravi teaches selecting a group of cement compositions for cement sheaths and generating a model for cement sheath; this teaching indicates that Ravi teaches generating the models of the cement sheaths).
As per claim 8, Ravi and Reddy in combination teach a method of claim 1, Ravi further teaches wherein calculating the objective function comprises calculating at least one of
As per claim 9, Ravi and Reddy in combination teach a method of claim 8, Ravi further teaches comprising determining a minimum value for the (COGS), or
As per claim 11, Ravi teaches a method comprising:
selecting cement compositions having known mechanical properties (¶ 0024; Ravi teaches determining a group of effective cementing compositions from a group of cementing compositions having mechanical properties given estimated conditions; this teaching reads onto this limitation);
performing wellbore integrity analyses using models for cement sheaths based at least in part on the known mechanical properties of the selected cement composition, each cement sheath comprising a selected cement composition (¶ 0034-0035; Ravi teaches performing Finite Element Analysis to asses integrity of cement sheath for each of selected cementing compositions);
determining an objective function for at least one selected cement composition, wherein determining the objective function comprises determining at least one of
selecting a composition for use in a wellbore based on the objective function (¶ 0038; Ravi teaches performing cost benefits analysis to minimize costs; this teaching indicates that there is an objective function of minimizing cost for a selected cement composition).
Ravi does not teach:
determining a number of cycles to failure (Nr) for each cement sheath;
comparing the Nr for each selected cement composition to an expected number of cycles the cement sheath will experience; and
identifying a subset of the selected cement compositions whose Nf meets or exceeds the expected number of cycles.
However, Reddy teaches:
determining a number of cycles to failure (Nr) for each cement sheath (¶ 0009, 0059-0061; Reddy teaches performing cyclic tests to determine a number of cycles that each cement sheath will fail);
comparing the Nr for each selected cement composition to an expected number of cycles the cement sheath will experience (¶ 0060; Reddy teaches cyclic compression test performed to determined resistance of the cements to repeated stress cycling they could be subjected to during the life of the well, corresponding to an expected number of cycles the cement sheath will experience);
identifying a subset of the selected cement compositions whose Nf meets or exceeds the expected number of cycles (¶ 0063 & Table 3; Reddy teaches identifying compositions, 2 and 4, that meets or exceeds the expected number of cycles).
Ravi and Reddy are analogous art because they are in the same field of designing a cement composition for cement sheath. 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 of Ravi and Reddy. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because Reddy’s teachings would have determined an optimized cement composition in the wellbore (Reddy, ¶ 0009).
As per claim 12, these limitations have already been discussed in claim 8. They are, hence, rejected for the same reasons.
As per claim 13, these limitations have already been discussed in claim 9. They are, hence, rejected for the same reasons.
As per claim 14, Ravi and Reddy in combination teach a method of claim 13, Reddy further teaches comprising producing the at least one selected cement composition based on the minimum value (¶ 0026; Reddy teaches producing a composition with effective amount of an SMA with a CTR in the optimizing range; optimizing range here is interpreted as minimum value determined in claim 13).
As per claim 17, these limitations have already been discussed in claim 6. They are, hence, rejected for the same reasons.
As per claim 18, these limitations have already been discussed in claim 3. They are, hence, rejected for the same reasons.
As per claim 19, these limitations have already been discussed in claim 4. They are, hence, rejected for the same reasons.
As per claim 20, these limitations have already been discussed in claim 5. They are, hence, rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 10 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ravi et al. (US 20050241829) in view of Reddy et al. (US 2007/0062691) as applied to claims 1 and 12, respectively, and further in view of Singh et al. (WO 2020/204953).
As per claim 10, Ravi and Reddy in combination teach a method of claim 8,
Ravi and Reddy do not teach:
determining a maximum value for the CO2 footprint, cost of goods sold (COGS), or material usage.
However, Singh teaches:
determining a maximum value for the
Ravi, Reddy, and Singh are analogous art because they are in the same field of designing a cement composition for cement sheath. 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 of Ravi, Reddy, and Singh. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because Singh’s teachings would have helped generate a cement blend that is optimized for a particular objective function (Singh ¶ 0012).
As per claim 15, these limitations have already been discussed in claim 10. They are, hence, rejected for the same reasons.
As per claim 16, Ravi and Reddy in combination teach a method of claim 11,
Reddy further teaches:
comprising producing the at least one selected cement composition based on the optimized value (¶ 0026; Reddy teaches producing a composition with effective amount of an SMA with a CTR in the optimizing range).
Ravi and Reddy do not teach:
producing the at least one selected cement composition based on the maximum value.
However, Singh teaches:
producing the at least one selected cement composition based on the maximum value (¶ 0012-0013; Singh teaches an objective function may be maximized to generate a cement blend that is optimized for a particular objective function).
Ravi, Reddy, and Singh are analogous art because they are in the same field of designing a cement composition for cement sheath. 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 of Ravi, Reddy, and Singh. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because Singh’s teachings would have helped generate a cement blend that is optimized for a particular objective function (Singh ¶ 0012).
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 Cuong Van Luu whose telephone number is 571-272-8572. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday from 8:30 to 5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rehana Perveen, can be reached at telephone number (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.
/CUONG V LUU/Examiner, Art Unit 2189
/REHANA PERVEEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2189