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, 12, and 19-20 have been canceled. Claims 1-3, 6, 8-11, 13-18, and 21-25 are pending. Claims 1-3, 6, 8-11, 13-18, and 21-25 have been examined and rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant arguments regarding 35 USC 101 rejections of claims 1-3, 6, 8-18, and 21-25, see pp. 7-8, that for independent claims 1 and 11, limitations “preparing a cement slurry …” and “introducing the cement slurry into a wellbore …” integrate a practical application into abstract ideas. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The two limitations are only regarded as insignificant extra-solution activity, applying it MPEP 2106.05(f).
Other remaining claims argued eligible under 35 USC 101 for depending on independent claims 1 and 11, respectively, are also 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; (math concepts)
selecting a composition for use in a wellbore based on a minimum or a maximum value of the objective function. (mental processes)
preparing a cement slurry based on the selected composition; and (insignificant extra-solution activity, applying it MPEP 2106.05(f))
introducing the cement slurry into a wellbore, wherein the cement slurry has a property of meeting the minimum or maximum value of the objective function. (insignificant extra-solution activity, applying it MPEP 2106.05(f))
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. The limitations of preparing a cement slurry and introducing the cement slurry into a wellbore are considered to be applying the abstract idea as an insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B: the claim does not recite additional elements. The limitations of preparing a cement slurry and introducing the cement slurry into a wellbore are considered to be applying the abstract idea as an insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Therefore, claim 1 is still ineligible under 35 USC 101.
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 13 is a method claim depending on claim 11 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 11 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 be 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, 8-11, 13-18, 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;
selecting a composition for use in a wellbore from the identified subset based on a minimum or a maximum value of the objective function;
preparing a cement slurry based on the selected composition; and
introducing the cement slurry into a wellbore, wherein the cement slurry has a property of meeting the minimum or 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
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 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
Prosecution Insights