Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 29, 2026
Application No. 17/701,921

Method For Selection Of Cement Composition For Wells Experiencing Cyclic Loads

Non-Final OA §101
Filed
Mar 23, 2022
Priority
Mar 04, 2022 — provisional 63/316,725
Examiner
LUU, CUONG V
Art Unit
2189
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 72% — above average
72%
Career Allowance Rate
695 granted / 968 resolved
+16.8% vs TC avg
Strong +37% interview lift
Without
With
+36.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 6m
Avg Prosecution
21 currently pending
Career history
1003
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
7.2%
-32.8% vs TC avg
§103
82.1%
+42.1% vs TC avg
§102
6.4%
-33.6% vs TC avg
§112
3.9%
-36.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 968 resolved cases

Office Action

§101
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/14/2026 has been entered. 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 Claims 4-5, 7, and 19-20 have been canceled. Claims 21-25 have been added. Claims 1-3, 6, 8-18, and 21-25 are pending. Claims 1-3, 6, 8-18, and 21-25 have been examined and rejected. 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 1-3, 6, 8-18, and 21-25 are rejected under 35 USC 101 for being directed to abstract ideas. Claim 1 is a method claim and recites: A method comprising: selecting cement compositions having known mechanical properties; (mental processes) performing wellbore integrity analyses to determine stress levels 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; (math concepts) determining a number of cycles to (Nf) failure for each cement sheath using a fatigue model wherein the stress levels are an input into the fatigue model; (math concepts) comparing the Nr for each selected cement composition to an expected number of cycles the cement sheath will experience; (mental processes) identifying a subset of the selected cement compositions whose predicted Nf meets or exceeds the expected number of cycles; (mental processes) calculating an objective function for each cement composition in the identified subset; and (math concepts) selecting a composition for use in a wellbore based on a minimum or a maximum value of the objective function. (mental processes) Step 2A, prong 1: limitations are grouped into abstract idea categories as indicated above. Step 2A, prong 2: the claim does not recite a limitation to integrate a practical application into abstract ideas. Step 2B: the claim does not recite additional elements. Claim 2 is a method claim depending on claim 1 and recites: A method of claim 1, further 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. (insignificant extra-solution activity, applying it MPEP 2106.05(f)) Step 2A, prong 1: no abstract idea limitation is recited. Step 2A, prong 2: the claim does not recite a limitation to integrate a practical application into abstract ideas. Step 2B: the claim does not recite additional elements. Limitation of insignificant extra-solution activity is indicated above. Claim 3 is a method claim depending on claim 1 and recites: A method of claim 1, further comprising receiving pressure, temperature, and time data for each cement sheath. (insignificant extra-solution activity, data gathering MPEP 2106.05(g)) Step 2A, prong 1: no abstract idea limitation is recited. Step 2A, prong 2: the claim does not recite a limitation to integrate a practical application into abstract ideas. Step 2B: the claim does not recite additional elements. Limitation of insignificant extra-solution activity is indicated above. Claim 6 is a method claim depending on claim 1 and recites: A method of claim 1, further comprising generating the models of the cement sheaths. (mental processes done by pen and paper) Step 2A, prong 1: limitations are grouped into abstract idea categories as indicated above. Step 2A, prong 2: the claim does not recite a limitation to integrate a practical application into abstract ideas. Step 2B: the claim does not recite additional elements. Claim 8 is a method claim depending on claim 1 and recites: A method of claim 1, wherein calculating the objective function comprises calculating at least one of a CO2 footprint, cost of goods sold (COGS), or material usage. (math concepts) Step 2A, prong 1: limitations are grouped into abstract idea categories as indicated above. Step 2A, prong 2: the claim does not recite a limitation to integrate a practical application into abstract ideas. Step 2B: the claim does not recite additional elements. Claim 9 is a method claim depending on claim 8 and recites: A method of claim 8, Ravi further teaches comprising determining a minimum value for the CO2 footprint, cost of goods sold (COGS), or material usage. (math concepts) Step 2A, prong 1: limitations are grouped into abstract idea categories as indicated above. Step 2A, prong 2: the claim does not recite a limitation to integrate a practical application into abstract ideas. Step 2B: the claim does not recite additional elements. Claim 10 is a method claim depending on claim 8 and recites: The method of claim 8, further comprising determining a maximum value for the CO2 footprint, cost of goods sold (COGS), or material usage. (math concepts) Step 2A, prong 1: limitations are grouped into abstract idea categories as indicated above. Step 2A, prong 2: the claim does not recite a limitation to integrate a practical application into abstract ideas. Step 2B: the claim does not recite additional elements. Claim 11 is a method claim comprising limitations analogous to those in claim 1 and 8. Claim 11 is, hence, rejected for the same reasons. Claim 12 is a method claim depending on claim 11 and recites limitations analogous to those in claim 8. Claim 12 is, hence, rejected for the same reasons. Claim 13 is a method claim depending on claim 12 and recites: The method of claim 12, further comprising determining a minimum value for the CO2 footprint, cost of goods sold (COGS), or material usage. (math concepts) Step 2A, prong 1: limitations are grouped into abstract idea categories as indicated above. Step 2A, prong 2: the claim does not recite a limitation to integrate a practical application into abstract ideas. Step 2B: the claim does not recite additional elements. Claim 14 is a method claim depending on claim 13 and recites: The method of claim 13, further comprising producing the at least one selected cement composition based on the minimum value. (insignificant extra-solution activity, applying it MPEP 2106.05(f)) Step 2A, prong 1: no abstract idea limitation is recited. Step 2A, prong 2: the claim does not recite a limitation to integrate a practical application into abstract ideas. Step 2B: the claim does not recite additional elements. Limitation of insignificant extra-solution activity is indicated above. Claim 15 is a method claim depending on claim 12 and recites: The method of claim 12, further comprising determining a maximum value for the CO2 footprint, cost of goods sold (COGS), or material usage. (math concepts) Step 2A, prong 1: limitations are grouped into abstract idea categories as indicated above. Step 2A, prong 2: the claim does not recite a limitation to integrate a practical application into abstract ideas. Step 2B: the claim does not recite additional elements. Claim 16 is a method claim depending on claim 15 and recites: The method of claim 15, further comprising producing the at least one selected cement composition based on the maximum value. (insignificant extra-solution activity, applying it MPEP 2106.05(f)) Step 2A, prong 1: no abstract idea limitation is recited. Step 2A, prong 2: the claim does not recite a limitation to integrate a practical application into abstract ideas. Step 2B: the claim does not recite additional elements. Limitation of insignificant extra-solution activity is indicated above. Claim 17 is a method claim depending on claim 11 and recites: The method of claim 11, further comprising generating the models. (mental processes done by pen and paper) Step 2A, prong 1: limitations are grouped into abstract idea categories as indicated above. Step 2A, prong 2: the claim does not recite a limitation to integrate a practical application into abstract ideas. Step 2B: the claim does not recite additional elements. Claim 18 is a method claim depending on claim 11 and recites: The method of claim 11, further comprising receiving pressure, temperature, and time data for each cement sheath. (insignificant extra-solution activity, data gathering MPEP 2106.05(g)) Step 2A, prong 1: no abstract idea limitation is recited. Step 2A, prong 2: the claim does not recite a limitation to integrate a practical application into abstract ideas. Step 2B: the claim does not recite additional elements. Limitation of insignificant extra-solution activity is indicated above. Claims 21-25 are method claims depending on claims 1 and recite limitations determined to me math concepts. The claims do not recite a limitation to integrate a practical application into abstract ideas. The claim does not recite additional elements. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-3, 6, 8-18, and 21-25 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: As per claim 1, Ravi et al. (US 20050241829), Parsons et al. (WO 2015/143368), and Reddy et al. (US 2007/0062691) in combination teach a method comprising: selecting cement compositions having known mechanical properties; comparing a number of cycles to failure 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 number of cycles to failure meets or exceeds the expected number of cycles; calculating an objective function for each cement composition in the identified subset; and selecting a composition for use in a wellbore from the identified subset based on a minimum or a maximum value of the objective function. However, Ravi, Parsons, and Reddy either alone or in combination do not teach: performing wellbore integrity analyses to determine stress levels 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; determining a number of cycles to failure (Nf) for each cement sheath using a fatigue model wherein the stress levels are an input into the fatigue model; in combination with other limitations as recited in the claim. Claim 11 recites limitations analogous to those in claim 1 including those determined to be allowable. Claim 11, hence, is allowable for the same reasons. Claims 2-3, 6, 8-9, 12-14, 17-18, and 21-25 are allowable for depending on claims 1 and 11, respectively. Conclusion 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 23, 2022
Application Filed
Dec 23, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §101
Jan 23, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 13, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §101
Apr 14, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Apr 23, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
May 06, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §101 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12639491
METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR ASSESSING COMPLIANCE OF AIRCRAFT ENGINES
5y 2m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12632809
DATA COMPILATION AND EXECUTION DEVICE AND DATA COMPILATION AND EXECUTION METHOD
3y 2m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Patent 12623316
CHEMICAL MECHANICAL POLISHING SYSTEM FOR A WORKPIECE, ARITHMETIC SYSTEM, AND METHOD OF PRODUCING SIMULATION MODEL FOR CHEMICAL MECHANICAL POLISHING
3y 8m to grant Granted May 12, 2026
Patent 12620456
DATA PROCESSING METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR QUANTUM CHEMISTRY SYSTEM
1y 10m to grant Granted May 05, 2026
Patent 12613355
AI/ML AND BLOCKCHAINED BASED AUTOMATED RESERVOIR MANAGEMENT PLATFORM
5y 8m to grant Granted Apr 28, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
72%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+36.8%)
3y 6m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 968 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month