DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the submission filed on 5/20/2026. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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 .
Response to Arguments - 35 USC § 101
Applicant's arguments filed 5/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claims 1 and 14 have been amended to recite “performing a cementing operation in a subterranean formation based on the cement job plan by introducing a cementing fluid into the subterranean formation such that an observed surface pressure is within the surface pressure requirement window.” However the amended limitation is merely the intended effect of the cementing operation, which is mere result-oriented “apply it” language. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1) – the claim recites the idea of a solution or outcome without reciting any detail on how it is accomplished. The claim itself makes no attempt to explain what cementing operation is performed or how. It is entirely result-oriented and coverts "any attempt to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result”. The rejection is updated to reflect the claim amendments.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. To determine if a claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the Court has guided the Office to apply the Alice/Mayo test, which requires:
1. Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category;
2A. Determining if the claim is directed to a patent ineligible judicial exception consisting of a law of
nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea; and
2B. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, determining if the claim recites limitations or elements
that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.(See MPEP 2106).
Step 1: With respect to claims 1-20, applying step 1, the preamble of independent claims 1 and 14 claim a method and a method. As such these claims fall within the statutory categories of process and process.
Step 2A, prong one: In order to apply step 2A, a recitation of claim 1 is copied below. The limitations of the claim that describe an abstract idea are bolded.
A method of designing a cement job comprising:
(a) selecting a cement job plan comprising: cement placement variables, wellbore construction variables, and subterranean formation properties;
(b) calculating a predicted hydraulic pressure (Phydraulic)of the cement job plan using a physics based hydraulic model (mental process – observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion);
(c) calculating a pressure differential (ΔP) of the cement job plan using a data driven hydraulic model (mental process – observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion);
(d) calculating a predicted observed surface pressure (Pobserved) from the pressure differential (OP) and a predicted hydraulic pressure (Phydraulic) (mental process – observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion);
(e) comparing the predicted observed surface pressure (Pobserved) to a surface pressure requirement window, wherein steps (a)-(e) are repeated if the predicted observed surface pressure (Pobserved) is outside the surface pressure requirement window (mental process – observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion), wherein each repeated step of selecting comprises selecting at least one different cement placement variable or wellbore construction variable than previously selected, or step (f) is performed if the predicted observed surface pressure (Pobserved) is inside the surface pressure requirement window; and
(f) performing a cementing operation in a subterranean formation based on the cement job plan by introducing a cementing fluid into the subterranean formation such that an observed surface pressure is within the surface pressure requirement window.
The limitations as analyzed include concepts directed to the "mental process" groupings of abstract ideas performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). The claim involves calculating, and comparing. The selecting, steps are simple enough/broadly claimed that they could be performed mentally or with pen and paper. Thus, limitations noted above also fall into the "mental process" groupings of abstract ideas.
Step 2A, prong two: Under step 2A prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present insignificant extra-solution activity and result oriented “apply it” language. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations: “(a) selecting a cement job plan comprising: cement placement variables, wellbore construction variables, and subterranean formation properties” (insignificant extra-solution activity - mere data gathering MPEP 2106.05(g)), “wherein each repeated step of selecting comprises selecting at least one different cement placement variable or wellbore construction variable than previously selected” (insignificant extra-solution activity - mere data gathering MPEP 2106.05(g)), “or step (f) is performed if the predicted observed surface pressure (Pobserved) is inside the surface pressure requirement window” (result oriented “apply it” language – MPE 2106.05(f)(1)), “performing a cementing operation in a subterranean formation based on the cement job plan by introducing a cementing fluid into the subterranean formation such that an observed surface pressure is within the surface pressure requirement window” (result oriented “apply it” language – MPE 2106.05(f)(1)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Moving on to step 2B of the analysis, the Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as "apply it" or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations is considered directed towards data gathering and result oriented “apply it” language. See MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h). Furthermore, as Berkheimer evidence that the claim elements “(a) selecting a cement job plan comprising: cement placement variables, wellbore construction variables, and subterranean formation properties” and “wherein each repeated step of selecting comprises selecting at least one different cement placement variable or wellbore construction variable than previously selected” are Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional, MPEP § 2106.05(d) (II) provides support that mere data collecting is well understood, routine, and conventional: "The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well- understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra- solution activity:
• Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather
data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary
computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d
607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image
transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d
1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google,
Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives
and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.,
773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
• Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP
Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788
F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93
• Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115
USPQ2d at 1092-93
For the foregoing reasons, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The same conclusion is reached for the dependent claims.
Claims 2-13 are further directed towards variable, properties and selecting a property, which are directed towards concepts directed to the "mental process" groupings of abstract ideas performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). Thus, limitations also fall into the "mental process" groupings of abstract ideas. this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations: “selecting at least one different subterranean formation property…”(insignificant extra-solution activity - mere data gathering MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations is considered directed towards data gathering. See MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h). Furthermore, as Berkheimer evidence that the claim element is Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional, MPEP § 2106.05(d) (II) provides support that mere data collecting is well understood, routine, and conventional. See above cited court cases.
Step 2A, prong one: In order to apply step 2A, a recitation of claim 8 is copied below. The limitations of the claim that describe an abstract idea are bolded.
A method comprising:
extracting planned cement job data and completed cement job data from a dataset of cement job data, wherein the planned cement job data and the completed cement job data correspond to one geographic region and one type of wellbore cementing job type in the geographic region, wherein the planned cement job data comprises at least planned surface pumping pressures, planned pumping volumes, planned pumping rates, and planned fluid densities, and wherein the completed cement job data comprises at least observed surface pumping pressures, observed pumping volumes, observed pumping rates, and observed fluid densities (mental process – observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion);
correlating, using a regression model, an observed pressure differential AP, to all differences between the planned cement job data and the completed cement job data to generate a data driven hydraulic model (mental process – observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion);
calculating a predicted hydraulic pressure (Phydraulic) of a proposed cement job plan using a physics based hydraulic model, wherein the proposed cement job plan comprises at least proposed surface pumping pressures, proposed pumping volumes, proposed pumping rates, and proposed fluid densities (mental process – observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion);
calculating a pressure differential (ΔP) of the proposed cement job using the data driven hydraulic model (mental process – observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion);
calculating a predicted observed surface pressure (Ppredicted) from the pressure differential (ΔP) and the predicted hydraulic pressure (Phydraulic) (mental process – observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion);
comparing the predicted observed surface pressure (Ppredicted) to a surface pressure requirement window (mental process – observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) and modifying at least one of the proposed surface pumping pressures, the proposed pumping volumes, the proposed pumping rates, and/or the proposed fluid densities in response to the comparison; and
performing a cementing operation in a subterranean formation based on the cement job plan by introducing a cementing fluid into the subterranean formation such that an observed surface pressure is within the surface pressure requirement window.
The limitations as analyzed include concepts directed to the "mental process" groupings of abstract ideas performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). The claim involves extracting, correlating, calculating, and comparing. The selecting, steps are simple enough/broadly claimed that they could be performed mentally or with pen and paper. Thus, limitations noted above also fall into the "mental process" groupings of abstract ideas.
Step 2A, prong two: Under step 2A prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present generic computing components and result oriented “apply it” language. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations: “correlating, using a regression model” (generic computing components merely carrying out the abstract idea - see MPEP § 2106.05(f) and (b)), “modifying at least one of the proposed surface pumping pressures, the proposed pumping volumes, the proposed pumping rates, and/or the proposed fluid densities in response to the comparison” (result oriented “apply it” language – MPE 2106.05(f)(1)), and “performing a cementing operation in a subterranean formation based on the cement job plan by introducing a cementing fluid into the subterranean formation such that an observed surface pressure is within the surface pressure requirement window” (result oriented “apply it” language – MPE 2106.05(f)(1)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Moving on to step 2B of the analysis, the Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as "apply it" or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations is considered directed towards generic computing components and result oriented “apply it” language. See MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h).
Claims 15-20 are further directed to the job data and model factors which are directed towards concepts directed to the "mental process" groupings of abstract ideas performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). Thus, limitations also fall into the "mental process" groupings of abstract ideas. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no additional elements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 contain allowable subject matter.
The claims will be allowable if the rejections under 35 USC 101 are overcome.
The closest prior art of record, WO2017106021A1 (“Bogaerts”) teaches simulating a cementing operation including pumping sequences for selectively pumping drilling fluid and cement into the wellbore according to pre-operation simulated pumping parameters, measuring real-time pumping parameters of the drilling fluid and the cement according to the pumping sequences, during the measuring, simulating real-time pumping parameters for each of the defined pumping sequences based on the measured real-time pumping parameters, and comparing the real-time simulated pumping parameters with the pre-operation simulated pumping parameters. However, this reference and the remaining prior art of record, alone or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest
(claim 1)
“(c) calculating a pressure differential (ΔP) of the cement job plan using a data driven hydraulic model;
(d) calculating a predicted observed surface pressure (Pobserved) from the pressure differential (OP) and a predicted hydraulic pressure (Phydraulic);
(e) comparing the predicted observed surface pressure (Pobserved) to a surface pressure requirement window, wherein steps (a)-(e) are repeated if the predicted observed surface pressure (Pobserved) is outside the surface pressure requirement window, wherein each repeated step of selecting comprises selecting at least one different cement placement variable or wellbore construction variable than previously selected, or step (f) is performed if the predicted observed surface pressure (Pobserved) is inside the surface pressure requirement window”, and
(claim 14)
“extracting planned cement job data and completed cement job data from a dataset of cement job data, wherein the planned cement job data and the completed cement job data correspond to one geographic region and one type of wellbore cementing job type in the geographic region, wherein the planned cement job data comprises at least planned surface pumping pressures, planned pumping volumes, planned pumping rates, and planned fluid densities, and wherein the completed cement job data comprises at least observed surface pumping pressures, observed pumping volumes, observed pumping rates, and observed fluid densities;
correlating, using a regression model, an observed pressure differential AP, to all differences between the planned cement job data and the completed cement job data to generate a data driven hydraulic model;
calculating a predicted hydraulic pressure (Phydraulic)of a proposed cement job plan using a physics based hydraulic model, wherein the proposed cement job plan comprises at least proposed surface pumping pressures, proposed pumping volumes, proposed pumping rates, and proposed fluid densities;
calculating a pressure differential (ΔP) of the proposed cement job using the data driven hydraulic model;
calculating a predicted observed surface pressure (Ppredicted) from the pressure differential (ΔP) and the predicted hydraulic pressure (Phydraulic)”,
in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claimed invention. It is for these reasons that the applicant’s invention defines over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NITHYA J. MOLL whose telephone number is (571)270-1003. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-6pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rehana Perveen can be reached at 571-272-3676. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NITHYA J. MOLL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2189
Prosecution Insights