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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/03/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 6, 8-11, 13-18, and 21-25 have been considered but are not found persuasive. Claimed amendments do not overcome the 35 USC 101 rejections as being directed to abstract idea grouping. The rejections are modified below considering the newly amended language.
35 USC 101 Rejections
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 thereof, 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:
(Currently Amended) A method comprising:
selecting cement compositions having known mechanical properties; (mental process of observation and evaluation)
using a computer processor (generic computer component), for each selected cement composition, inputting one or more wellbore dimensions, pressure loads, temperature loads, or material properties into a finite-element or numerical wellbore model (insignificant extra-solution activity, data gathering MPEP 2106.05(g)) and outputting one or more meshes comprising a plurality of nodes representing rock, a cement sheath of that selected cement composition, and casing; (insignificant post-solution activity of outputting)
performing wellbore integrity analyses to determine stress levels using the one or more meshes by inputting the known mechanical properties of that selected cement composition and pressure load versus time and calculating stress, strain, and deformation at every node; (mental process with pen and paper, or alternatively, performing math operations)
inputting the stress, strain, and deformation determined from the wellbore integrity analyses into a fatigue model to determine a number of cycles to failure (Nf) for each cement sheath of a selected cement composition; (data gathering activity)
comparing the Nf for each selected cement composition to an expected number of cycles the cement sheath will experience; (mental process with pen and paper)
identifying a subset of the selected cement compositions whose predicted Nf meets or exceeds the expected number of cycles; (mental process of observation and evaluation)
calculating an objective function for each cement composition in the identified subset; (mental process with pen and paper, or alternatively, math calculations)
selecting a composition for use in a wellbore from the identified subset based on a minimum or a maximum value of the objective function; (mental process of observation and evaluation)
preparing a cement slurry based on the selected composition; (insignificant extra-
solution activity, applying it MPEP 2106.05(f)) and
introducing the cement slurry into a wellbore that experiences cyclic loads,
wherein the cement slurry forms, in the wellbore, a cement sheath of the selected composition having a predicted Nf that meets or exceeds the expected number of cycles under the cyclic loads and wherein the cement slurry has a property of meeting the minimum or maximum value of the objective function of the selected composition. (insignificant extra-solution activity, applying it MPEP 2106.05(f))
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 limitation of using a computer processor is utilizing generic computer component. 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.
2. (Previously Presented) The 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 a maximum value of the objective function. (applying the abstract idea as an insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(f))).
3. (Original) The method of claim 1, further comprising receiving pressure, temperature, and time data for each cement sheath. (insignificant extra-solution activity, data gathering activity, MPEP 2106.05(g))
4. - 5. (Canceled)
6. (Original) The method of claim 1, further comprising generating the models of the cement sheaths. (mental process with pen and paper)
7. (Canceled)
8. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 1, wherein calculating the objective function comprises calculating at least one of a C02 footprint, cost of goods sold (COGS), or material usage. (math calculations)
9. (Original) The method of claim 8, further comprising determining a minimum value for the C02 footprint, cost of goods sold (COGS), or material usage. (mental process with pen and paper)
10. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 8, further comprising determining a maximum value for the C02 footprint, cost of goods sold (COGS), or material usage. (mental process with pen and paper)
Claim 11 is a method claim comprising limitations analogous to those in claim 1 and 8. Claim 11 is, therefore, rejected under the same rationale.
12. (Canceled)
13. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 11, further comprising determining a minimum value for the C02 footprint, cost of goods sold (COGS), or material usage. (mental process with pen and paper)
14. (Original) 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))
15. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 11, further comprising determining a maximum value for the C02 footprint, cost of goods sold (COGS), or material usage. (mental process with pen and paper)
16. (Previously Presented) 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))
17. (Original) The method of claim 11, further comprising generating the models. (mental process with pen and papers)
18. (Original) 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))
19. - 20. (Canceled)
Claims 21-25 are method claims depending on claims 1 and 11, and recite limitations determined to be math concepts. The claims do not recite a limitation to integrate a practical application into abstract ideas. The claims do not recite additional elements.
Therefore, claims 1-3, 6, 8-11, 13-18, and 21-25 are not eligible under 35 USC 101 as described above.
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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REHANA PERVEEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3676. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6am-4pm.
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, John Cottingham, can be reached at 571-272-7079. 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.
/REHANA PERVEEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2189
Prosecution Insights