DETAILED ACTION
1. This office action is in response to the applicant’s arguments filed on 7/7/26.
2. The present application is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
3. Claims 1, 4-12 and 15-20 are currently pending.
4. Claims 1 and 12 are amended.
5. Claims 4-11 and 15-20 are original.
6. Claims 2-3 and 13-14 are canceled.
Response to Arguments
Response: Double Patenting
7. Applicants argue:
The applicant argues that the claims of present application contain elements that do not appear in claim 1 of application 18/734,910. The applicant also argues that none of the MIC-specific elements of claim 1 of application 18/734,910 appear in the claims of the present application. The applicant also argues that claim 9 of application 18/734,910 recites biocide use data as part of the likelihood criteria, where claim 7 of the present application has no counterpart. (Remarks: pages 7-8)
8. Examiner Response:
The examiner notes that even with the recent amendment to the present claims, claims 1, 4-7, 10-15 and 20 are patentably indistinct from claims 1-3, 6-14, 17 and 20 of Application No. 18/734,910. The language is not exactly the same in the present application as it is in application 18/734,910, however, as stated above, the claims listed above for the present application are patentably indistinct from the claims of application 18/734,910. Therefore, the rejection is being maintained.
Response: 35 U.S.C. § 101
9. Applicants argue:
The applicant argues that with the recent amendment to the claims, the claims as a whole integrate any exception into a practical application. The applicant also argues that the ordered combination of the limitations of claim 1 gives a specific technical solution to a specific technical problem. The applicant points to paragraphs [0017] – [0019], [0050] – [0056] and [0069] of the specification for support as to why the current claims should overcome the 101 rejection. (Remarks: pages 8-11)
10. Examiner Response:
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that the recent amendment to claims 1 and 12 state “and performing at least one mitigation action for the first pipe region based on the corrosion risk score, the corrosion risk profile, or any combination thereof, wherein the at least one mitigation action comprises rehabilitation or replacement of at least a portion of the first pip region.” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what is performing at least one mitigation action or how a person, machine or any combination thereof is performing at least one mitigation action. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, as stated in the Non-Final office action dated 4/8/26, the generating and analyzing limitations of claim 1 doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
The other limitations of the claim fall within Step 2A Prong 2 as shown in the Non-Final office action dated 4/8/26.
Also, the examiner found a reference Shang et al. (CN 201011409) as showing evidence that a mitigation action for a pipe region is being performed. On Pg. 2 2nd paragraph, “At the same time, it can increase the effect of corrosion protection, etc.” it shows that a region of a pipe is being rehabilitated or replaced. This demonstrates that performing a mitigation action for a pipe region is well understood, routine and conventional.
Further, the claim language of claim 1 does not recite a computer or components of a computer such as a processor, where an additional element is not claimed. Accordingly, the additional element of a processor does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Response: 35 U.S.C. § 103
10. Applicants argue:
The applicant argues that the prior art on file doesn’t teach the recent amendment that states “and performing at least one mitigation action for the first pipe region based on the corrosion risk score, the corrosion risk profile, or any combination thereof, wherein the at least one mitigation action comprises rehabilitation or replacement of at least a portion of the first pip region” (Remarks: pages 11-12)
11. Examiner Response:
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that on Pg. 19, 1st paragraph
“The presence of H2S sometimes leads, etc.” of the NACE International ‘21413 reference, it
teaches that the replacement of broken sucker rods and completely perforated tubing has been
replaced at frequent intervals. The intervals are 30 days or less, because of corrosion products
from the pipe accumulating in the pump or as a result of corrosion failures of pipelines. This
demonstrates that a mitigation action is being performed, since the pipe or sucker rods are being
replaced or repaired.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claims 1 and
12, there appears to be a grammatical in the last line of the limitations, where the letter “e” should be added to the end of the word “pip”. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
Claim 1, 4-7, 10-12, 15 and 20 of this application is patentably indistinct from claims 1-3,
6-14, 17 and 20 of Application No. 18/734,910. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f), when two or more applications filed by the same applicant or assignee contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822.
With respect to claim 1 of the current application, 1. A method comprising: generating a corrosion risk profile for a first pipe region of at least one pipe region of a hydrocarbon pipeline configured to carry a hydrocarbon fluid, wherein generating the corrosion risk profile comprises:
simulating hydraulic flow within a first sampling segment within the first pipe region using a hydraulic model, wherein a hydraulic model input comprises a pipe property, an operational property, a fluid property, or any combination thereof, and wherein a hydraulic model output comprises a per sampling segment hydraulic property;
simulating water wetting within the first sampling segment using a water wetting model, wherein a water wetting model input comprises the per sampling segment hydraulic property from the hydraulic model, and wherein a water wetting model output comprises a wetting condition indicator;
interpolating between the first sampling segment and a second sampling segment using a nodal model, wherein a nodal model input comprises the wetting condition indicator from the water wetting model, and wherein a nodal model output comprises a per node hydraulic property;
simulating corrosion for at least one first node between the first sampling segment and the second sampling segment using a corrosion model, wherein a corrosion model input comprises the per node hydraulic property, wherein the corrosion model input comprises a contact property, a pipe condition, or any combination thereof, and wherein a corrosion model output comprises a corrosion property;
and generating the corrosion risk profile for the first pipe region based on a corrosion likelihood criteria, the corrosion properties, the per sampling segment hydraulic property, and the per node hydraulic property;
analyzing the corrosion risk profile in order to calculate a corrosion risk score for the first pipe region;
and performing at least one mitigation action for the first pipe region based on the corrosion risk score, the corrosion risk profile, or any combination thereof, wherein the at least one mitigation action comprises rehabilitation or replacement of at least a portion of the first pip region.”
(Claim 1 of 18/734,910 “1. A method comprising :generating a microbiologically induced corrosion risk profile for a first pipe region of at least one pipe region of a hydrocarbon pipeline configured to carry a hydrocarbon fluid, wherein generating the microbiologically induced corrosion risk profile comprises: simulating hydraulic flow within a first sampling segment within the first pipe region using a hydraulic model, wherein a hydraulic model input comprises a pipe property, an operational property, a fluid property, or any combination thereof, and wherein a hydraulic model output comprises a hydraulic profile;
simulating microbiologically induced corrosion within the first sampling segment
using a microbiologically induced corrosion model, wherein a microbiologically induced
corrosion model input comprises the hydraulic profile, a microbial property, or any
combination thereof, and wherein a microbiologically induced corrosion model output
comprises biofilm thickness, biofilm density, microbiologically induced corrosion rate,
pitting frequency, or any combination thereof; generating the microbiologically induced corrosion risk profile for the first pipe region based on a likelihood criteria, the microbiologically induced corrosion model output, or any combination thereof; and analyzing the microbiologically induced corrosion risk profile in order to calculate a microbiologically induced corrosion risk score for the first pipe region. Claim 2 of 18/734,910 “2. The method of claim 1, further comprising: performing at least one mitigation action for the first pipe region based on the microbiologically induced corrosion risk score, the microbiologically induced corrosion risk profile, or any combination thereof. Claim 3 of 18/734,910 “3. The method of claim 2, wherein performing the at least one mitigation action for the first pipe region comprises: conducting a field evaluation of the first pipe region, rehabilitating the first pipe region, replacing at least a portion of the first pipe region, generating a corrosion mitigation plan for the first pipe region, or any combination thereof.)
With respect to claim 4 of the current application, 4. The method of claim 1, further comprising displaying the corrosion risk score, and optionally the corrosion risk profile, in a graphical user interface, wherein the graphical user interface comprises a geographic map that comprises a representation of the first pipe region localized to one or more locations on the geographic map, and wherein the corrosion risk score is displayed as a color code overlaid on the representation of the first pipe region. (Claim 6 of 18/734,910 “6. The method of claim 1, further comprising displaying the microbiologically induced corrosion risk score and, optionally, the microbiologically induced corrosion risk profile, in a graphical user interface, wherein the graphical user interface comprises a geographic map that comprises a representation of the first pipe region localized to one or more locations on the geographic map, and wherein the microbiologically induced corrosion risk score is displayed as a color code overlaid on the representation of the first pipe region.)
With respect to claim 5 of the current application, 5. The method of claim 4, further comprising identifying a corrosion risk cluster using the graphical user interface. (Claim 7 of 18/734,910 “7. The method of claim 6, further comprising identifying a microbiologically induced corrosion risk cluster using the graphical user interface.)
With respect to claim 6 of the current application, 6. The method of claim 1, wherein the per sampling segment hydraulic property comprises: a liquid phase in-situ velocity, a gas phase in-situ velocity, an oil density, a gas density, a water density, an oil viscosity, a gas viscosity, a water viscosity, an oil-water flow pattern, a gas-liquid flow pattern, a pressure, or any combination thereof. (Claim 8 of 18/734,910 “8. The method of claim 1, wherein the hydraulic profile comprises: a liquid phase in-situ velocity, a gas phase in-situ velocity, an oil density, a gas density, a water density, an oil viscosity, a gas viscosity, a water viscosity, an oil-water flow pattern, a gas-liquid flow pattern, a pressure, or any combination thereof.)
With respect to claim 7 of the current application, 7. The method of claim 1, wherein the corrosion likelihood criteria comprises: a production history, a leak history, a pipe coating composition, a pipe coating application history, a pipe coating location, a scraping compliance metric, or any combination thereof. (Claim 8 of 18/734,910 “9. The method of claim 1, wherein the likelihood criteria comprises: a production history, a leak history, a pipe coating composition, a pipe coating application history, a pipe coating location, a scraping compliance metric, biocide use data, or any combination thereof.)
With respect to claim 10 of the current application, 10. The method of claim 1, wherein the hydrocarbon pipeline comprises a dry gas pipeline, a wet gas pipeline, a liquid petroleum pipeline, or a multiphase pipeline. (Claim 10 of 18/734,910 “10. The method of claim 1, wherein the hydrocarbon pipeline comprises a dry gas pipeline, a wet gas pipeline, a liquid petroleum pipeline, or a multiphase pipeline.)
With respect to claim 11 of the current application, 11. The method of claim 1, wherein calculating the corrosion risk score comprises performing a statistical analysis using the corrosion risk profile. (Claim 11 of 18/734,910 “11. The method of claim 1, wherein calculating the microbiologically induced corrosion risk score comprises performing a statistical analysis using the microbiologically induced corrosion risk profile.)
With respect to claim 12 of the current application, 12. A machine-readable storage medium having stored thereon a computer program for performing the steps of: generating a corrosion risk profile for a first pipe region of at least one pipe region of a hydrocarbon pipeline configured to carry a hydrocarbon fluid, wherein generating the corrosion risk profile comprises: simulating hydraulic flow within a first sampling segment within the first pipe region using a hydraulic model, wherein a hydraulic model input comprises a pipe property, an operational property, a fluid property, or any combination thereof, and wherein a hydraulic model output comprises a per sampling segment hydraulic property; simulating water wetting within the first sampling segment using a water wetting model, wherein a water wetting model input comprises the per sampling segment hydraulic property from the hydraulic model, and wherein a water wetting model output comprises a wetting condition indicator; interpolating between the first sampling segment and a second sampling segment using a nodal model, wherein a nodal model input comprises the wetting condition indicator from the water wetting model, and wherein a nodal model output comprises a per node hydraulic property; simulating corrosion for at least one first node between the first sampling segment and the second sampling segment using a corrosion model, wherein a corrosion model input comprises the per node hydraulic property, wherein the corrosion model input comprises a contact property, a pipe condition, or any combination thereof, and wherein a corrosion model output comprises a corrosion property; and generating the corrosion risk profile for the first pipe region based on a corrosion likelihood criteria, the corrosion properties, the per sampling segment hydraulic property, and the per node hydraulic property; analyzing the corrosion risk profile in order to calculate a corrosion risk score for the first pipe region;
and causing a person, a machine, or any combination thereof to take at least one mitigation action for the first pipe region based on the corrosion risk score, the corrosion risk profile, or any combination thereof, wherein the at least one mitigation action comprises rehabilitation or replacement of at least a portion of the first pip region.” (Claim 12 of 18/734,910 “12. A machine-readable storage medium having stored thereon a computer program for performing the steps of: generating a microbiologically induced corrosion risk profile for a first pipe region of at least one pipe region of a hydrocarbon pipeline configured to carry a hydrocarbon fluid, wherein generating the microbiologically induced corrosion risk profile comprises: simulating hydraulic flow within a first sampling segment within the first pipe region using a hydraulic model, wherein a hydraulic model input comprises a pipe property, an operational property, a fluid property, or any combination thereof, and wherein a hydraulic model output comprises a hydraulic profile; simulating microbiologically induced corrosion within the first sampling segment using a microbiologically induced corrosion model, wherein a microbiologically induced corrosion model input comprises the hydraulic profile, a microbial property, or any combination thereof, and wherein a microbiologically induced corrosion model output comprises biofilm thickness, biofilm density, microbiologically induced corrosion rate, pitting frequency, or any combination thereof; generating the microbiologically induced corrosion risk profile for the first pipe
region based on a likelihood criteria, the microbiologically induced corrosion model output, or any combination thereof; and analyzing the microbiologically induced corrosion risk profile in order to calculate a microbiologically induced corrosion risk score for the first pipe region. Claim 13 of 18/734,910 “13. The machine-readable storage medium of claim 12, wherein the steps further comprise: performing at least one mitigation action for the first pipe region based on the microbiologically induced corrosion risk score, the microbiologically induced corrosion risk profile, or any combination thereof. Claim 14 of 18/734,910 “14. The machine-readable storage medium of claim 13, wherein performing the at least one mitigation action for the first pipe region comprises: conducting a field evaluation of the first pipe region, rehabilitating the first pipe region, replacing at least a portion of the first pipe region, generating a corrosion mitigation plan for the first pipe region, or any combination thereof.)
With respect to claim 15 of the current application, 15. The machine-readable storage medium of claim 12, wherein the method further comprises: displaying or causing to be displayed in a graphical user interface the corrosion risk score, and optionally the corrosion risk profile, wherein the graphical user interface comprises a geographic map that comprises a representation of the first pipe region localized to one or more locations on the geographic map, and wherein the corrosion risk score is displayed as a color code overlaid on the representation of the first pipe region. (Claim 17 of 18/734,910 “17. The machine-readable storage medium of claim 12, wherein the steps further comprise: displaying the microbiologically induced corrosion risk score and, optionally, the microbiologically induced corrosion risk profile, in a graphical user interface, wherein the graphical user interface comprises a geographic map that comprises a representation of the first pipe region localized to one or more locations on the geographic map, and wherein the microbiologically induced corrosion risk score is displayed as a color code overlaid on the representation of the first pipe region.)
With respect to claim 20 of the current application, 20. The machine-readable storage medium of claim 12, wherein calculating the corrosion risk score comprises performing a statistical analysis using the corrosion risk profile. (Claim 20 of 18/734,910 “20. The machine-readable storage medium of claim 12, wherein calculating the microbiologically induced corrosion risk score comprises performing a statistical analysis using the microbiologically induced corrosion risk profile.)
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, 4-12 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims cover performance of the limitation in the mind or by pencil and paper and as a mathematical concept.
Claims 1 and 12
Regarding step 1, claims 1 and 12 are directed towards a method and medium which has the claims fall within the eligible statutory categories of processes, machines, manufactures and composition of matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 1
Regarding step 2A, prong 1, claim 1 recites “generating a corrosion risk profile for a first pipe region of at least one pipe region of a hydrocarbon pipeline configured to carry a hydrocarbon fluid”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “and generating the corrosion risk profile for the first pipe region based on a corrosion likelihood criteria, the corrosion properties, the per sampling segment hydraulic property, and the per node hydraulic property”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “and analyzing the corrosion risk profile in order to calculate a corrosion risk score for the first pipe region.”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding step 2A, prong 2, the limitation of “simulating hydraulic flow within a first sampling segment within the first pipe region using a hydraulic model, wherein a hydraulic model input comprises a pipe property, an operational property, a fluid property, or any combination thereof, and wherein a hydraulic model output comprises a per sampling segment hydraulic property” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the first sampling segment is or how the first sampling segment is associated with the hydraulic model input. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “simulating water wetting within the first sampling segment using a water wetting model, wherein a water wetting model input comprises the per sampling segment hydraulic property from the hydraulic model, and wherein a water wetting model output comprises a wetting condition indicator” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the first sampling segment is. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “interpolating between the first sampling segment and a second sampling segment using a nodal model, wherein a nodal model input comprises the wetting condition indicator from the water wetting model, and wherein a nodal model output comprises a per node hydraulic property” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the first sampling segment and a second sampling segment are or how they’re associated to the nodal model input. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “simulating corrosion for at least one first node between the first sampling segment and the second sampling segment using a corrosion model, wherein a corrosion model input comprises the per node hydraulic property, wherein the corrosion model input comprises a contact property, a pipe condition, or any combination thereof, and wherein a corrosion model output comprises a corrosion property” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the first sampling segment and a second sampling segment are or how they’re associated to the corrosion model input. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “and performing at least one mitigation action for the first pipe region based on the corrosion risk score, the corrosion risk profile, or any combination thereof, wherein the at least one mitigation action comprises rehabilitation or replacement of at least a portion of the first pip region.” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what is performing at least one mitigation action. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Further, the claim language of claim 1 does not recite a computer or components of a computer such as a processor, where an additional element is not claimed. Accordingly, the additional element of a processor does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B, the limitation of“simulating hydraulic flow within a first sampling segment within the first pipe region using a hydraulic model, wherein a hydraulic model input comprises a pipe property, an operational property, a fluid property, or any combination thereof, and wherein a hydraulic model output comprises a per sampling segment hydraulic property” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the first sampling segment is or how the first sampling segment is associated with the hydraulic model input. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “simulating water wetting within the first sampling segment using a water wetting model, wherein a water wetting model input comprises the per sampling segment hydraulic property from the hydraulic model, and wherein a water wetting model output comprises a wetting condition indicator” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the first sampling segment is. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “interpolating between the first sampling segment and a second sampling segment using a nodal model, wherein a nodal model input comprises the wetting condition indicator from the water wetting model, and wherein a nodal model output comprises a per node hydraulic property” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the first sampling segment and a second sampling segment are or how they’re associated to the nodal model input. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “simulating corrosion for at least one first node between the first sampling segment and the second sampling segment using a corrosion model, wherein a corrosion model input comprises the per node hydraulic property, wherein the corrosion model input comprises a contact property, a pipe condition, or any combination thereof, and wherein a corrosion model output comprises a corrosion property” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the first sampling segment and a second sampling segment are or how they’re associated to the corrosion model input. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “and performing at least one mitigation action for the first pipe region based on the corrosion risk score, the corrosion risk profile, or any combination thereof, wherein the at least one mitigation action comprises rehabilitation or replacement of at least a portion of the first pip region.” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what is performing at least one mitigation action. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Further, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim language of claim 1 does not recite a computer or components of a computer such as a processor, where an additional element is not claimed.
Claim 12
Regarding step 2A, prong 1, claim 12 recites “generating a corrosion risk profile for a first pipe region of at least one pipe region of a hydrocarbon pipeline configured to carry a hydrocarbon fluid”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 12 recites “and generating the corrosion risk profile for the first pipe region based on a corrosion likelihood criteria, the corrosion properties, the per sampling segment hydraulic property, and the per node hydraulic property”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 12 recites “analyzing the corrosion risk profile in order to calculate a corrosion risk score for the first pipe region.”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding step 2A, prong 2, the limitation of “simulating hydraulic flow within a first sampling segment within the first pipe region using a hydraulic model, wherein a hydraulic model input comprises a pipe property, an operational property, a fluid property, or any combination thereof, and wherein a hydraulic model output comprises a per sampling segment hydraulic property” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the first sampling segment is or how the first sampling segment is associated with the hydraulic model input. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “simulating water wetting within the first sampling segment using a water wetting model, wherein a water wetting model input comprises the per sampling segment hydraulic property from the hydraulic model, and wherein a water wetting model output comprises a wetting condition indicator” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the first sampling segment is. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “interpolating between the first sampling segment and a second sampling segment using a nodal model, wherein a nodal model input comprises the wetting condition indicator from the water wetting model, and wherein a nodal model output comprises a per node hydraulic property” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the first sampling segment and a second sampling segment are or how they’re associated to the nodal model input. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “simulating corrosion for at least one first node between the first sampling segment and the second sampling segment using a corrosion model, wherein a corrosion model input comprises the per node hydraulic property, wherein the corrosion model input comprises a contact property, a pipe condition, or any combination thereof, and wherein a corrosion model output comprises a corrosion property” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the first sampling segment and a second sampling segment are or how they’re associated to the corrosion model input. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “and causing a person, a machine, or any combination thereof to take at least one mitigation action for the first pipe region based on the corrosion risk score, the corrosion risk profile, or any combination thereof, wherein the at least one mitigation action comprises rehabilitation or replacement of at least a portion of the first pip region” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate how a person, machine or any combination thereof is performing at least one mitigation action. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Further, the claim includes the additional element of a medium. The medium is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B, the limitation of “simulating hydraulic flow within a first sampling segment within the first pipe region using a hydraulic model, wherein a hydraulic model input comprises a pipe property, an operational property, a fluid property, or any combination thereof, and wherein a hydraulic model output comprises a per sampling segment hydraulic property” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the first sampling segment is or how the first sampling segment is associated with the hydraulic model input. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “simulating water wetting within the first sampling segment using a water wetting model, wherein a water wetting model input comprises the per sampling segment hydraulic property from the hydraulic model, and wherein a water wetting model output comprises a wetting condition indicator” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the first sampling segment is. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “interpolating between the first sampling segment and a second sampling segment using a nodal model, wherein a nodal model input comprises the wetting condition indicator from the water wetting model, and wherein a nodal model output comprises a per node hydraulic property” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the first sampling segment and a second sampling segment are or how they’re associated to the nodal model input. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “simulating corrosion for at least one first node between the first sampling segment and the second sampling segment using a corrosion model, wherein a corrosion model input comprises the per node hydraulic property, wherein the corrosion model input comprises a contact property, a pipe condition, or any combination thereof, and wherein a corrosion model output comprises a corrosion property” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the first sampling segment and a second sampling segment are or how they’re associated to the corrosion model input. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “and causing a person, a machine, or any combination thereof to take at least one mitigation action for the first pipe region based on the corrosion risk score, the corrosion risk profile, or any combination thereof, wherein the at least one mitigation action comprises rehabilitation or replacement of at least a portion of the first pip region” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate how a person, machine or any combination thereof is performing at least one mitigation action. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Further, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of the medium amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore cannot provide an inventive concept (See MPEP 2106.05(b).
Claims 4 and 15
Dependent claims 4 and 15 recite “displaying the corrosion risk score, and optionally the corrosion risk profile, in a graphical user interface, wherein the graphical user interface comprises a geographic map that comprises a representation of the first pipe region localized to one or more locations on the geographic map, and wherein the corrosion risk score is displayed as a color code overlaid on the representation of the first pipe region.”. This limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claims 5 and 16
Dependent claims 5 and 16 recite “identifying a corrosion risk cluster using the graphical user interface.”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 6
Dependent claim 6 recites “wherein the per sampling segment hydraulic property comprises: a liquid phase in-situ velocity, a gas phase in-situ velocity, an oil density, a gas density, a water density, an oil viscosity, a gas viscosity, a water viscosity, an oil-water flow pattern, a gas-liquid flow pattern, a pressure, or any combination thereof.”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 7
Dependent claim 7 recites “wherein the corrosion likelihood criteria comprises: a production history, a leak history, a pipe coating composition, a pipe coating application history, a pipe coating location, a scraping compliance metric, or any combination thereof.”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claims 8 and 17
Dependent claims 8 and 17 recite “wherein a water cut of the hydrocarbon fluid is from 0.1% to 85%.”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claims 9 and 18
Dependent claims 9 and 18 recite “wherein the hydrocarbon pipeline comprises a non-scrapable pipeline.”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claims 10 and 19
Dependent claims 10 and 19 recite “wherein the hydrocarbon pipeline comprises a dry gas pipeline, a wet gas pipeline, a liquid petroleum pipeline, or a multiphase pipeline.”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claims 11 and 20
Dependent claims 11 and 20 recite “wherein calculating the corrosion risk score comprises performing a statistical analysis using the corrosion risk profile.”. This limitation is performing a statistical analysis using the corrosion risk profile. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claims 1, 4-12 and 15-20 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-12 and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over online reference Internal Corrosion Direct Assessment Methodology for Liquid Petroleum Pipelines, written by NACE International item number 21127 (from IDS dated 12/1/22) in view of online reference Prediction of Internal Corrosion in Oilfield Systems from System Conditions, written by NACE International item number 21413 (from IDS dated 12/1/22).
With respect to claim 1, NACE International ‘21127 discloses “A method” as [NACE International ‘21127 (Pg. 1, sec. 1.1.2 “The primary purposes of the LP-ICDA method are ( 1) to enhance the assessment of internal corrosion in liquid petroleum pipelines, and (2) to improve
pipeline integrity.”)];
“generating a corrosion risk profile for a first pipe region of at least one pipe region of a hydrocarbon pipeline configured to carry a hydrocarbon fluid” as [NACE International ‘21127 (Pg. 2, sec. 1.2.2.2 Indirect Inspection, “The indirect inspection step covers flow predictions, developing a pipeline elevation profile, and identifying sites along a pipeline segment most likely to have corrosion damage caused by water, solids accumulation, or both, and other factors affecting corrosion distribution within a LP-ICDA region.”, NACE International ‘21127 (Pg. 12, sec. 4.2.4, “Accumulation of water does not necessarily lead to corrosion. Under this condition, wettability of the hydrocarbon on the steel determines corrosiveness. Based on the wettability, hydrocarbons can be classified into three categories:”, NACE International ‘21127 (Pg. 12, sec. 4.2.4.1 – sec. 4.2.4.3 “Oil-wet surface: On an oil-wet surface, the oil has a strong affinity to be in contact with carbon steel. Oil-wet surfaces physically isolate the pipe from the corrosive environment and, under such conditions, corrosion does not occur, etc.”)];
“wherein generating the corrosion risk profile comprises: simulating hydraulic flow within a first sampling segment within the first pipe region using a hydraulic model” as [NACE International ‘21127 (Pg. 11, sec. 4.1.1 “The objective of the LP-ICDA indirect inspection step is to evaluate the likelihood of internal corrosion as a function of distance within each LP-ICDA region using flow modeling analysis and detailed pipe elevation profiles.”, NACE International ‘21127 (Pg. 12, sec. 4.2.1 “The internal corrosion threat in liquid petroleum
systems is based on the assumption that corrosion only occurs when water drops out of the hydrocarbon phase and wets the steel surface of the pipe. Therefore, the operator shall predict critical parameters for water dropout and accumulation using flow modeling calculations for each identified LP-ICDA region.”)];
“wherein a hydraulic model input comprises a pipe property, an operational property, a fl1uid property, or any combination thereof” as [NACE International ‘21127 (Pg. 10, Table 1 Typical Data for Use of LP-IC DA Methodology, 2nd column Data to collect, 2nd row “Nominal pipe diameter, etc.”, NACE International ‘21127 (Pg. 16, sec. 4.7.4.1 “Solids accumulation resulting from flow disturbance effects is exacerbated by increasing pipe diameter and increasing hydrocarbon density.”, NACE International ‘21127 (Pg. 10, Table 1 Typical Data for Use of LP-IC DA Methodology, 1st column Category, 9th row, “Temperature”, NACE International ‘21127 (Pg. 12, sec. 4.2.2, “The operator shall consider the system operating conditions (i.e., liquid petroleum composition, pressure, temperature, flow rate, etc.) and select a model that is applicable to those conditions. The rationale for selecting the model shall be documented.”, NACE International ‘21127 (Pg. 10, Table 1 Typical Data for Use of LP-IC DA Methodology, 2nd column, 18th row, “Information about injection location, chemical type, and application method of fluid property modifiers such as draq-reducinq aqents (DRA), emulsifiers, and demulsifiers.”, The examiner considers the pipe diameter and temperature to be the pipe property and operational property, since the pipe diameter and temperature can be the pipe property and operational property, see paragraphs [0035] – [0036] of the specification.)];
“and wherein a hydraulic model output comprises a per sampling segment hydraulic property” as [NACE International ‘21127 (Pg. 32, Teevens Model, “This mass-transfer model is capable of yielding a general corrosion rate for uninhibited corroding multiphase or two-phase pipeline systems, in which 02, CO2, and H2S contribute to corrosion of carbon steel pipes. The gas-liquid flow model was updated mainly from the work of Petalas
and Aziz, Taite! and Dukler, and Barnea. The flow model predicts the flow pattern, liquid holdup, pressure drop, and friction losses, and it calculates gas and liquid velocities.”, The examiner considers the liquid and gas velocities to be the hydraulic property, since a liquid phase in-situ velocity and a gas phase in-situ velocity can be a hydraulic property, see paragraph [0089] of the specification)];
“simulating corrosion for at least one first node between the first sampling segment and the second sampling segment using a corrosion model, wherein a corrosion model input comprises the per node hydraulic property, wherein the corrosion model input comprises a contact property, a pipe condition, or any combination thereof, and wherein a corrosion model output comprises a corrosion property” as [NACE International ‘21127 (Pg. 15, sec. 4.6.7, “As an alternative to calculating the probability of corrosion distribution, a corrosion rate model may be used to determine which primary locations are most likely to contain internal corrosion. Appendix D (nonmandatory) contains a number of models to determine corrosion rate. Any corrosion rate model that considers multiphase flow may be used. The operator shall consider the system operating conditions (i.e., liquid petroleum composition, pressure, temperature, flow rate, BS&W, etc.) and select a corrosion model that is applicable to those conditions.”, NACE International ‘21127 (Pg. 28, Contact Angle Method, 1st – 4th paragraph, “The tendency of water to displace hydrocarbon from steel can be estimated by considering, etc.”, The examiner considers contact angle to be the contact property, since contact properties can include a contact angle, see paragraph [0045] of the specification)];
“and generating the corrosion risk profile for the first pipe region based on a corrosion likelihood criteria, the corrosion properties, the per sampling segment hydraulic property, and the per node hydraulic property” as [NACE International ‘21127 (Pg. 10, Table 1 Typical Data for Use of LP-IC DA Methodology, 1st column, 16th row, “Corrosion monitoring”, NACE International ‘21127 (Pg. 15, sec. 4.6.7, “As an alternative to calculating the probability of corrosion distribution, a corrosion rate model may be used to determine which primary locations are most likely to contain internal corrosion. Appendix D (nonmandatory) contains a number of models to determine corrosion rate. Any corrosion rate model that considers multiphase flow may be used. The operator shall consider the system operating conditions (i.e., liquid petroleum composition, pressure, temperature, flow rate, BS&W, etc.) and select a corrosion model that is applicable to those conditions.”)];
While the NACE International ‘21127 reference teaches simulating hydraulic flow within a first sampling segment within the first pipe region using a hydraulic model, NACE International ‘21127 does not explicitly disclose “simulating water wetting within the first sampling segment using a water wetting model, wherein a water wetting model input comprises the per sampling segment hydraulic property from the hydraulic model, and wherein a water wetting model output comprises a wetting condition indicator; interpolating between the first sampling segment and a second sampling segment using a nodal model, wherein a nodal model input comprises the wetting condition indicator from the water wetting model, and wherein a nodal model output comprises a per node hydraulic property; and analyzing the corrosion risk profile in order to calculate a corrosion risk score for the first pipe region; and performing at least one mitigation action for the first pipe region based on the corrosion risk score, the corrosion risk profile, or any combination thereof, wherein the at least one mitigation action comprises rehabilitation or replacement of at least a portion of the first pip region”
NACE International ‘21413 discloses “simulating water wetting within the first sampling segment using a water wetting model” as [NACE International ‘21413 (Pg. 63, 2nd paragraph “Within the flow regime, surface wettability is also a major parameter, especially in tandem with corrosive species such as CO2, water, chlorides, etc. The competition between oil and water wetting plays the deciding role. Generally, oil wetting is inhibitive, whereas water wetting is a root cause of flow assisted corrosion. The two wetting regimes have varying resistance to fluid shear, electrochemical (ions and polarity), and surface tension properties.”, as [NACE International ‘21413 (Pg. 10, Connection with Fluid Flow Modeling, 3rd paragraph, “The variation of temperature along a well or pipeline is often much more important to corrosion behavior than variation in flow velocity and flow regime, and the effects of flow parameters on CO2 corrosion are sometimes overemphasized. The effects of the flow parameters are the switch between oil and water wetting and the effect of flow on localized attack on surfaces covered by corrosion films, and not the effect of flow velocity on the corrosion rate itself.”)];
“wherein a water wetting model input comprises the per sampling segment hydraulic property from the hydraulic model, and wherein a water wetting model output comprises a wetting condition indicator” as [NACE International ‘21413 (Pg. 63, 2nd paragraph “Within the flow regime, surface wettability is also a major parameter, especially in tandem with corrosive species such as CO2, water, chlorides, etc. The competition between oil and water wetting plays the deciding role. Generally, oil wetting is inhibitive, whereas water wetting is a root cause of flow assisted corrosion. The two wetting regimes have varying resistance to fluid shear, electrochemical (ions and polarity), and surface tension properties.”, as [NACE International ‘21413 (Pg. 10, Connection with Fluid Flow Modeling, 3rd paragraph, “The variation of temperature along a well or pipeline is often much more important to corrosion behavior than variation in flow velocity and flow regime, and the effects of flow parameters on CO2 corrosion are sometimes overemphasized. The effects of the flow parameters are the switch between oil and water wetting and the effect of flow on localized attack on surfaces covered by corrosion films, and not the effect of flow velocity on the corrosion rate itself.”)];
“interpolating between the first sampling segment and a second sampling segment using a nodal model, wherein a nodal model input comprises the wetting condition indicator from the water wetting model, and wherein a nodal model output comprises a per node hydraulic property” as [NACE International ‘21413 (Pg. 10, Connection with Fluid Flow Modeling, 3rd paragraph, “The variation of temperature along a well or pipeline is often much more important to corrosion behavior than variation in flow velocity and flow regime, and the effects of flow parameters on CO2 corrosion are sometimes overemphasized. The effects of the flow parameters are the switch between oil and water wetting and the effect of flow on localized attack on surfaces covered by corrosion films, and not the effect of flow velocity on the corrosion rate itself.”)];
“and analyzing the corrosion risk profile in order to calculate a corrosion risk score for the first pipe region.” as [NACE International ‘21413 (Pg. 21, Table 5, Risk Scores for MIC in the Sooknah Model, Pg. 21, Sooknah Model, 1st paragraph, “The Sooknah model assumes boundary conditions in which MIC occurs and then provides quantitative scores for the risk of MIC”)];
“and performing at least one mitigation action for the first pipe region based on the corrosion risk score, the corrosion risk profile, or any combination thereof, wherein the at least one mitigation action comprises rehabilitation or replacement of at least a portion of the first pip region.” as [NACE International ‘21413 (Pg. 19 1st paragraph, “The presence of H2S sometimes leads to cracking and localized pitting corrosion. The occurrence of both cracking and corrosion in sour oil and sour gas production started in the 1950s. In many wells, replacement of broken sucker rods and completely perforated tubing has been done at frequent intervals. In some cases, the intervals have been 30 days or less, either because of corrosion products from the pipe accumulating in the pump or as a result of corrosion failures of pipelines.”)];
NACE International ‘21127 and NACE International ‘21413 are analogous art because they are from the same field endeavor of analyzing corrosion of a pipe.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person
of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of NACE International ‘21127 of simulating hydraulic flow within a first sampling segment within the first pipe region using a hydraulic model by incorporating simulating water wetting within the first sampling segment using a water wetting model, wherein a water wetting model input comprises the per sampling segment hydraulic property from the hydraulic model, and wherein a water wetting model output comprises a wetting condition indicator; interpolating between the first sampling segment and a second sampling segment using a nodal model, wherein a nodal model input comprises the wetting condition indicator from the water wetting model, and wherein a nodal model output comprises a per node hydraulic property; and analyzing the corrosion risk profile in order to calculate a corrosion risk score for the first pipe region; and performing at least one mitigation action for the first pipe region based on the corrosion risk score, the corrosion risk profile, or any combination thereof, wherein the at least one mitigation action comprises rehabilitation or replacement of at least a portion of the first pip region as taught by NACE International ‘21413 for the purpose of predicting corrosion oil field fluids.
NACE International ‘21127 in view of NACE International ‘21413 teaches simulating water wetting within the first sampling segment using a water wetting model, wherein a water wetting model input comprises the per sampling segment hydraulic property from the hydraulic model, and wherein a water wetting model output comprises a wetting condition indicator; interpolating between the first sampling segment and a second sampling segment using a nodal model, wherein a nodal model input comprises the wetting condition indicator from the water wetting model, and wherein a nodal model output comprises a per node hydraulic property; and analyzing the corrosion risk profile in order to calculate a corrosion risk score for the first pipe region; and performing at least one mitigation action for the first pipe region based on the corrosion risk score, the corrosion risk profile, or any combination thereof, wherein the at least one mitigation action comprises rehabilitation or replacement of at least a portion of the first pip region.
The motivation for doing so would have been because NACE International ‘21413 teaches that by predicting corrosion of oil field fluids, the ability to assess the corrosion rate of carbon steel components can be accomplished. This allows a way to know how long the carbon steel components can last with contact with fluids (NACE International ‘21413, Pg. 4, Sec. 1 Overall Corrosion Prediction, 1st – 6th paragraph, “There are numerous models available to provide an assessment on the likely corrosiveness, etc.”).
With respect to claim 4, the combination of NACE International ‘21127 and NACE International ‘21413 discloses the method of claim 1 above, and NACE International ‘21413 further discloses “displaying the corrosion risk score, and optionally the corrosion risk profile, in a graphical user interface, wherein the graphical user interface comprises a geographic map that comprises a representation of the first pipe region localized to one or more locations on the geographic map, and wherein the corrosion risk score is displayed as a color code overlaid on the representation of the first pipe region.” as [NACE International ‘21413 (Pg. 21, Table 5, Risk Scores for MIC in the Sooknah Model, Pg. 21, Sooknah Model, 1st paragraph, “The Sooknah model assumes boundary conditions in which MIC occurs and then provides quantitative scores for the risk of MIC”, NACE International ‘21413 Pg. 99, Description, 2nd – 3rd paragraph, “FC V1 .0 is a simple corrosion model, strongly rooted in theory. Currently, this model is capable, etc.”, Fig. 26 and 28, As shown in Fig. 28 of the NACE International ‘21413 reference, there are different shades for the performance map, which demonstrates that there are different colors representing the region)];
With respect to claim 5, the combination of NACE International ‘21127 and NACE International ‘21413 discloses the method of claim 4 above, and NACE International ‘21413 further discloses “identifying a corrosion risk cluster using the graphical user interface.” as [NACE International ‘21413, Pg. 99, Description, 2nd – 3rd paragraph, “FC V1 .0 is a simple corrosion model, strongly rooted in theory. Currently, this model is capable, etc.”, Fig. 26 and 28)];
With respect to claim 6, the combination of NACE International ‘21127 and NACE International ‘21413 discloses the method of claim 1 above, and NACE International ‘21127 further discloses “wherein the per sampling segment hydraulic property comprises: a liquid phase in-situ velocity, a gas phase in-situ velocity, an oil density, a gas density, a water density, an oil viscosity, a gas viscosity, a water viscosity, an oil-water flow pattern, a gas-liquid flow pattern, a pressure, or any combination thereof.” as [NACE International ‘21127 (Pg. 32, Teevens Model, “This mass-transfer model is capable of yielding a general corrosion rate for uninhibited corroding multiphase or two-phase pipeline systems, in which 02, CO2, and H2S contribute to corrosion of carbon steel pipes. The gas-liquid flow model was updated mainly from the work of Petalas and Aziz, Taite! and Dukler, and Barnea. The flow model predicts the flow pattern, liquid holdup, pressure drop, and friction losses, and it calculates gas and liquid velocities.”, NACE International ‘21127 (Pg.23, left col., For dilute dispersions, 1st – 2nd paragraph, “Under dilute flow conditions, the water droplets entrained in, etc.”)];The examiner considers the liquid and gas velocities and oil density to be the hydraulic property, since a liquid phase in-situ velocity and a gas phase in-situ velocity can be a hydraulic property, see paragraph [0089] of the specification)];
With respect to claim 7, the combination of NACE International ‘21127 and NACE International ‘21413 discloses the method of claim 1 above, and NACE International ‘21127 further discloses “wherein the corrosion likelihood criteria comprises: a production history, a leak history, a pipe coating composition, a pipe coating application history, a pipe coating location, a scraping compliance metric, or any combination thereof.” as [NACE International ‘21127 (Pg. 9, sec. 3.2.2.9 “Internal corrosion leak or failure history”, NACE International ‘21127 (Pg. 10, Table 1 Typical Data for Use of LP-IC DA Methodology, 1st column, 2nd row Operating history, NACE International ‘21127 (Pg. 16, sec. 4.7.5 “Site accessibility, repair history/records, and any internal leak/rupture history should be considered during site selection.”, NACE International ‘21127 (Pg. 10, Table 1 Typical Data for Use of LP-IC DA Methodology, 1st column, 18th row, “Internal coatings”, NACE International ‘21127 (Pg. 19, sec. 7.5.1.3.1 “Criteria and metrics”)];
With respect to claim 8, the combination of NACE International ‘21127 and NACE International ‘21413 discloses the method of claim 1 above, and NACE International ‘21127 further discloses “wherein a water cut of the hydrocarbon fluid is from 0.1% to 85%.” as [NACE International ‘21127 (Pg. 27, right col., Pots Model, “In the past, a minimum mixture velocity of 1 m/s and a maximum water cut of 20% was used for a safe and corrosion-free operation.”, International ‘21127 (Pg. 23, left col., For dilute dispersions: 2nd paragraph “Where (units are dimensionless unless otherwise stated): E:w is the in situ water cut (i.e., fractional flow that is water the disperse phase, in this case)”)];
With respect to claim 9, the combination of NACE International ‘21127 and NACE International ‘21413 discloses the method of claim 1 above, and NACE International ‘21413 further discloses “wherein the hydrocarbon pipeline comprises a non-scrapable pipeline.” as [NACE International ‘21413 (Pg. 44, XRD Analyses of Solids Taken from a Corroding System, 5th paragraph, “There is a confusing factor in this topic, and that is mill scale. Mill scale is a thin layer or incrustation of iron oxides formed under the high temperatures used to fabricate pipe. Although mill scale is commonly cleaned out by the manufacturer before the pipe is sold for
oilfield service, this cleaning function is sometimes done improperly, and consequently some of the remaining scale sloughs off (or is scraped off), and winds up in deposits sent for analyses.”)];
With respect to claim 10, the combination of NACE International ‘21127 and NACE International ‘21413 discloses the method of claim 1 above, and NACE International ‘21127 further discloses “wherein the hydrocarbon pipeline comprises a dry gas pipeline, a wet gas pipeline, a liquid petroleum pipeline, or a multiphase pipeline.” as [NACE International ‘21127 (Pg. 8, left col., Dry Gas Internal Corrosion Direct Assessment (DGICDA) “four-step direct assessment (DA) process to evaluate the impact of corrosion occurring on the inside wall
of a pipe normally carrying dry natural gas, but may suffer from infrequent upsets of water.”, NACE International ‘21127 (Pg. 32, Teevens Model, “This mass-transfer model is capable of yielding a general corrosion rate for uninhibited corroding multiphase or two-phase pipeline systems, in which O2, CO2, and H2S contribute to corrosion of carbon steel pipes”)];
With respect to claim 11, the combination of NACE International ‘21127 and NACE International ‘21413 discloses the method of claim 1 above, and NACE International ‘21413 further discloses “wherein calculating the corrosion risk score comprises performing a statistical analysis using the corrosion risk profile.” as [NACE International ‘21413 (Pg. 21, left col., last paragraph “The risk of MIC depends on nine parameters (temperature, flow rate, pressure, pH, Langelier Saturation Index (LSI), total suspended solids (TSS), total dissolved solids (TDS), redox potential (Eh), and sulfur content in solids). Each parameter is assigned a numerical value between O and 10, except for flow rate, which is assigned a numerical value between O and 20. Values approaching O signify low MIC risk and values approaching maximum signify higher MIC risk. The MIC risk factor (RF) is calculated as the sum of risk factors of all nine contributing parameters.”, Table 5)];
With respect to claim 12, NACE International ‘21127 discloses “A machine-readable storage medium having stored thereon a computer program” as [NACE International ‘21413, Pgs. 44-45 last paragraph “It is worth mentioning that XRD providers specializing in oilfield solids are preferred to other possible providers who let their computers select the best fit to the diffraction spectra. For example, goethite (common corrosion by-product found when oxygen enters producing systems) is occasionally misdiagnosed as ferrotychite, Na6Fe2(SO4)(CO3) 4, because the first three strong reflections in the XRD spectra are virtually coincident. This often happens when the XRD technician allows the computer to select the best fit from the associated mineral library.”)];
The other limitations of the claim recite the same substantive limitations as claim 1 above and are rejected using the same teachings.
With respect to claims 15-20, the limitations of the claims recite the same substantive limitations as claims 4-5 and 8-11 above and are rejected using the same teachings.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The relevance of Brookhart et al. (U.S. PGPub 2018/0149579) a method of assessing airframe corrosion risk.
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 BERNARD E COTHRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5594. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM -5:30PM EST M-F.
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, Ryan F Pitaro can be reached at (571)272-4071. 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.
/BERNARD E COTHRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188
