DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on August 9, 2024 and June 6, 2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the Examiner has considered the IDS as to the merits.
Drawings
The drawings received on 12 May 2023 are accepted.
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.
Regarding claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-18 are directed to a method, which is a process, which is a statutory category of invention. Therefore, claims 1-18 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claims 1 recites the abstract idea of evaluating a wellbore, constituting an abstract idea based on Mathematical Concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations or alternatively Mental Processes based on concepts performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper. The limitation of “providing a composition for a cement disposed in a wellbore” covers mental processes including providing the cement mixture that will be used for this evaluation. Additionally, the limitation of “selecting injection conditions for an invasive fluid for an injection or storage operation” covers mental processes including deciding the properties of the invasive fluid. Additionally, the limitation of “predicting a depth of penetration of the invasive fluid into the cement with a depth of penetration model based at least in part on the injection conditions and the composition for the cement” covers mathematical concepts including performing a plurality of calculations given the cement composition and injection conditions to generate a prediction of a depth of penetration. Alternatively, this limitation covers mental processes including performing a plurality of calculations given the cement composition and injection conditions to generate a prediction of a depth of penetration, which could be performed with the use of a pencil or paper. Additionally, the limitation of “predicting a material property of the cement with a cement property model based at least in part on the predicted depth of penetration” covers mathematical concepts including performing a plurality of calculations given the predicted depth of penetration to generate a prediction of a material property of the cement. Alternatively, this limitation covers mental processes including performing a plurality of calculations given the predicted depth of penetration to generate a prediction of a material property of the cement, which can be performed with the use of a pencil and paper. Additionally, the limitation of “performing an integrity analysis based at least in part on the predicted material property” covers mathematical calculations including performing calculations at a plurality of depths of the wellbore given the predicted material property of the cement to perform the integrity analysis. Alternatively, this limitation covers mental processes including performing calculations at a plurality of depths of the wellbore given the predicted material property of the cement to perform the integrity analysis, which can be performed with the use of a pencil and paper. Thus, the claims recite the abstract idea of a mental process performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Dependent claims 2-18 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In Claim 1, the limitation of “performing the injection or storage operation in the wellbore based at least in part on the integrity analysis” 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". See MPEP (2106.05(f)). The limitation does not disclose any detail in the claim itself on how either the injection or storage operation is “based at least in part” on the integrity analysis, nor is there any detail in the claim itself on the injection or storage operation itself either. It’s akin to saying “do it” or “apply it” after performing the abstract idea limitations. The limitation of “providing a composition for a cement disposed in a wellbore” can be viewed as is insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering/output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This is akin to selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a subsurface borehole environment, for collection, analysis and display, which has been identified as extra solution activity. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2-18 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims, and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration beyond those addressed above.
Step 2B: Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitation of “performing the injection or storage operation in the wellbore based at least in part on the integrity analysis” 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". See MPEP (2106.05(f)). The limitation does not disclose any detail in the claim itself on how either the injection or storage operation is “based at least in part” on the integrity analysis, nor is there any detail in the claim itself on the injection or storage operation itself either. It’s akin to saying “do it” or “apply it” after performing the abstract idea limitations. The limitation of “providing a composition for a cement disposed in a wellbore” can be viewed as is insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering/output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This is akin to selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a subsurface borehole environment, for collection, analysis and display, which has been identified as extra solution activity. Therefore, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated in Section I.B. of the December 16, 2014 101 Examination Guidelines, “[t]o be patent-eligible, a claim that is directed to a judicial exception must include additional features to ensure that the claim describes a process or product that applies the exception in a meaningful way, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.”
The dependent claims include the same abstract ideas recited as recited in the independent claims, and merely incorporate additional details that narrow the abstract ideas and fail to add significantly more to the claims.
Dependent claim 2 is directed to further defining the injection conditions, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 3 is directed to analyzing the output of the integrity analysis and updating the injection conditions accordingly, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 4 is directed to repeating steps defined in the independent claim until a predetermined criteria is satisfied, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes” or alternatively “Mathematical Concepts.”
Dependent claim 5 is directed to further defining the injection or storage operation, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 6 is directed to further defining the prediction of the depth of penetration using time intervals, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes” or alternatively “Mathematical Concepts.”
Dependent claim 7 is directed to repeating the prediction of the material property of the cement using the time intervals, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes” or alternatively “Mathematical Concepts.”
Dependent claim 8 is directed to further defining the injection or storage operation, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claims 9, 11, 12, and 13 is directed to further defining the integrity analysis, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes” or alternatively “Mathematical Concepts.”
Dependent claim 10 is directed to further defining the output of the numerical simulator, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes” or alternatively “Mathematical Concepts.”
Dependent claim 14 is directed to further defining the depth of penetration model or the cement property model, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception.” (MPEP 2106.05(f))
Dependent claims 15 and 16 are directed to further defining the depth of penetration model, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes” or alternatively “Mathematical Concepts.”
Dependent claim 17 is directed to further defining the cement property model, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes” or alternatively “Mathematical Concepts.”
Dependent claim 18 is directed to further defining the prediction of the material property, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes” or alternatively “Mathematical Concepts.”
Accordingly, claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without anything 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.
Claims 1-4, 6-10 and 12-13 and 15 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2015/143368 A1, hereafter P, in view of NPL: Yuan, B., Luo, W., Xu, B., & Fan, H. (2022). A prediction model for carbonation depth of cement sheath of carbon capture utilization and storage (CCUS) wells. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 121, 103780, hereafter Y.
Regarding Claim 1: P discloses a method comprising:
providing a composition for a cement disposed in a wellbore;
P [0035] “In some embodiments, cement slurry may be pumped into multiple annular regions within a wellbore such as, for example, (1) between a wellbore wall and one or more casing strings of pipe extending into a wellbore, or (2) between adjacent, concentric strings of pipe extending into a wellbore, or (3) in one or more of an A- or B-annulus (or greater number of annuli where present) created between one or more inner strings of pipe extending into a wellbore, which may be running in parallel or nominally in parallel with each other and may or may not be concentric or nominally concentric with the outer casing string.”
P [0050] “The cementing operation parameters may include: (i) cement composition (e.g., water to cement ratio, mass fractions of the cement components, and/or volume fractions of the cement components, such as clinker components and C-S-H particles)”
predicting a material property of the cement with a cement property model;
P [0096] “With particular respect to FIG. 8, predictions of Young's modulus Ε(ξ), for a type G Portland cement at a water to cement ratio (w/c) of 0.4 are shown as a function of time in hours. The graph shows that the model is in good agreement with the experimental results as the cement hydrates quickly within the first few hours as the hydration reaction progresses and continues to increase in rigidity over the studied interval. Similarly, with particular respect to FIG. 9, predictions of Young's modulus Ε(ξ) for a type G Portland cement at a w/c of 0.4 as a function of the degree of hydration also appear to be in agreement with the model over the studied interval. With particular respect to FIG. 10, the model predictions of the exponential decrease in permeability as a function of degree of hydration also matched that observed in experiments. With particular respect to FIG. 10, predictions of shear modulus θ(ξ) for a type G Portland cement at a w/c of 0.4 as a function of the degree of hydration also appear to be in agreement with the model over the studied interval.”
performing an integrity analysis based at least in part on the predicted material property;
P [0104] “Methods in accordance with the present disclosure may also include the step of simulating mechanical loading on a formed cement sheath. First, at a specified depth, the hydrostatic stress in the cement at the time of placement is calculated. This hydrostatic stress is caused by the self-weight of the cement at that depth and the weight of any fluid column above the cemented section of the annulus. The increment of stress caused by hydration of the cement is then added to this hydrostatic stress to calculate the initial stress in the cement sheath (the stress in the cement before any mechanical loading is imposed on the cement sheath). Mechanical loading may include expansion or contraction of the casing due to changes in well pressure (pressure test, fluid swap, stimulation, production) and changes in formation stress caused by creep or subsidence. These mechanical loads place an additional increment of stress upon the cement sheath. At a specified depth, the increment of stress caused by mechanical loading is added to the initial stress in order to determine the total stress in the cement sheath. The total stress may then be compared with failure criteria for the cement to determine if the mechanical loading will cause the cement sheath to fail.”
P [0105] “For example, methods of determining one or more stresses of an annular cement sheath of a wellbore may include determining volume fractions for a number of phases within the cement sheath as a function of degree of hydration; determining one or more poroelastic properties for the cement sheath as a function of degree of hydration; and determining the pore pressure of the cement body as a function of degree of hydration. In some embodiments, one or more stresses within the cement sheath may then be calculated using (i) the poroelastic properties for the cement sheath, (ii) pore pressure of the cement sheath, (iii) a mechanical property of the casing, (iv) geometry of the casing, (v) geometry of the wellbore, and (vi) wellbore conditions (e.g., depth, temperature, formation pore pressure, elastic properties of the formation, and fluid column weight).
P does not disclose selecting injection conditions for an invasive fluid for an injection or storage operation, predicting a depth of penetration of the invasive fluid into the cement with a depth of penetration model based at least in part on the injection conditions and the composition for the cement, or performing the injection or storage operation in the wellbore based at least in part on the integrity analysis.
However, Y discloses selecting injection conditions for an invasive fluid for an injection or storage operation, performing the injection or storage operation in the wellbore based at least in part on the integrity analysis, predicting a depth of penetration of the invasive fluid into the cement with a depth of penetration model based at least in part on the injection conditions and the composition for the cement.
Y [Page 5: Section 5] “According to the established mathematical model, the formation water saturation (Sw), CO2 partial pressure (PCO2), formation temperature (T), chloride ion content (Cl ), the water-cement ratio of cement (rw), the added amount of preservatives (m), and the duration of carbonation corrosion are analyzed. The basic parameters used in the analysis of influencing factors are shown in Table 1.
Y [Page 3: Section 2] “After the CO2 solution touches the cement sheath, the free calcium ions in the pores of the cement sheath reacts with the carbonate ions in the solution to form calcium carbonate, which then combines with CO2 to create soluble calcium bicarbonate. The porosity and permeability of the cement sheath increase, resulting in more CO2 entering the cement sheath matrix and accelerating the dissolution of CH in the matrix.”
Y [Page 3: Section 3] “The carbonation corrosion depth model takes into consideration the cement sheath’s static influence and dynamic factors during the carbonization process and the calcium carbonate precipitation and dissolution process.”
Y [Page 5: Section 4] “The CO2 corrosion prediction model was examined by the experimental data in reference (Zhang et al., 2022b) to verify its accuracy. When the linear concentration of CO2 calculated by the model is 0, the distance that CO migrates is the corrosion depth. Fig. 3 shows that the calculation results are highly close to the experimental data in reference (Zhang et al., 2022b), with an average error of 9.01%.”
P and Y are analogous to the claimed invention because they all pertain to the evaluation of a wellbore.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Y with P because “most of the current prediction models for CO2 corrosion depth are still semi-empirical models, which are fitted to experimental data but are not universally applicable, which may be resolved by our CO2 corrosion depth prediction model supported by the law of mass conservation, diffusion convection equation, and calcium precipitation rate” allowing the model of Y to be universally applicable. (See Y [Abstract]).
Regarding Claim 2: P in view of Y disclose the method of claim 1.
P does not disclose wherein the injection conditions comprise at least one condition selected from the group consisting of a volumetric flow rate, temperature, pressure, volume, phase, concentration, and any combinations thereof.
However, Y discloses wherein the injection conditions comprise at least one condition selected from the group consisting of a volumetric flow rate, temperature, pressure, volume, phase, concentration, and any combinations thereof.
Y [Page 5: Section 5] “According to the established mathematical model, the formation water saturation (Sw), CO2 partial pressure (PCO2), formation temperature (T), chloride ion content (Cl ), the water-cement ratio of cement (rw), the added amount of preservatives (m), and the duration of carbonation corrosion are analyzed. The basic parameters used in the analysis of influencing factors are shown in Table 1.
Y [Page 3: Section 3] “The physicochemical change process of cement sheath carbonization is highly dependent on carbonization time, so that the static influencing factors (temperature, pressure, water saturation) and dynamic influencing factors (porosity, CO2 concentration, permeability, calcium ion concentration) of cement sheath carbonization, diffusion coefficient, calcium content are considered as variables.”
P and Y are analogous to the claimed invention because they all pertain to the evaluation of a wellbore.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Y with P because “most of the current prediction models for CO2 corrosion depth are still semi-empirical models, which are fitted to experimental data but are not universally applicable, which may be resolved by our CO2 corrosion depth prediction model supported by the law of mass conservation, diffusion convection equation, and calcium precipitation rate” allowing the model of Y to be universally applicable. (See Y [Abstract]).
Regarding Claim 3: P in view of Y disclose the method of claim 2.
P does not disclose further comprising modifying at least one of the injection conditions based at least in part on the integrity analysis.
However, Y discloses further comprising modifying at least one of the injection conditions based at least in part on the integrity analysis.
Y [Page 5: Section 5.2] “Besides the porosity and permeability of the cement sheath, the CO2 content and corrosion depth in the cement sheath also increase alongside the elevating CO2 partial pressure (Fig. 5). When the partial pressure of CO2 changes from 6 to 12 MPa, the corrosion depth rises from 1.96 to 3.59 m (1.83 times), and the CO2 content from 98.45 to 410.41 mol (4.17 times). The higher partial pressure of CO2 contributes to higher solubility of CO2 and thus increased corrosion depth (Fang et al., 2011). The porosity and permeability drop suddenly at the corroded end face. Under 10 MPa partial pressure, CO2 content changes gently, resulting from the increase in the solubility and concentration of CO2, accelerated chemical reaction between CO2 and hydration products, and rapid accumulation of CO2 in cement sheath.”
P and Y are analogous to the claimed invention because they all pertain to the evaluation of a wellbore.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Y with P because “most of the current prediction models for CO2 corrosion depth are still semi-empirical models, which are fitted to experimental data but are not universally applicable, which may be resolved by our CO2 corrosion depth prediction model supported by the law of mass conservation, diffusion convection equation, and calcium precipitation rate” allowing the model of Y to be universally applicable. (See Y [Abstract]).
Regarding Claim 4: P in view of Y disclose the method of claim 2, further comprising repeating the steps of
P [0052] “Once the modified cementing operation parameters are selected, the cementing operation may proceed or, if desired, the cementing operation parameters may be tested using the model created and repeating 402-404 to verify that the modified cementing operation parameters are below the failure criteria.”
P [0051] “The method further includes simulating stress for the cement body caused by hydration of the cement (at 402) and simulating stress for the cement body caused by changes in wellbore conditions due to well operations or changes in formation stress (at 403). The hydration simulation at 402 may include calculating pore pressure for the cement body and accounting for changes in pore pressure caused by chemical shrinkage of the cement body.”
P does not disclose predicting a depth of penetration.
However, Y discloses predicting a depth of penetration.
Y [Page 3: Section 3] “The carbonation corrosion depth model takes into consideration the cement sheath’s static influence and dynamic factors during the carbonization process and the calcium carbonate precipitation and dissolution process.”
Y [Page 5: Section 4] “The CO2 corrosion prediction model was examined by the experimental data in reference (Zhang et al., 2022b) to verify its accuracy. When the linear concentration of CO2 calculated by the model is 0, the distance that CO migrates is the corrosion depth. Fig. 3 shows that the calculation results are highly close to the experimental data in reference (Zhang et al., 2022b), with an average error of 9.01%.”
P and Y are analogous to the claimed invention because they all pertain to the evaluation of a wellbore.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Y with P because “most of the current prediction models for CO2 corrosion depth are still semi-empirical models, which are fitted to experimental data but are not universally applicable, which may be resolved by our CO2 corrosion depth prediction model supported by the law of mass conservation, diffusion convection equation, and calcium precipitation rate” allowing the model of Y to be universally applicable. (See Y [Abstract]).
Regarding Claim 6: P in view of Y disclose the method of claim 1.
P does not disclose further comprising specifying a timespan, wherein the predicted depth of penetration is determined based at least in part on an exposure of the cement to the invasive fluid during the specified timespan.
However, Y discloses further comprising specifying a timespan, wherein the predicted depth of penetration is determined based at least in part on an exposure of the cement to the invasive fluid during the specified timespan.
Y [Pages 7-8: Section 5.5] “As the carbonation time increases, the CO2 content and corrosion depth rose alongside the porosity and permeability of the cement sheath (Fig. 8). The corrosion depth of carbonization is 0.81 m in the first year, and increases by 4.6 times and reaches 3.68 m in the seventh year. The CO2 content of carbonation corrosion for one year and seven years is 2.06 mol and 43.27 mol, respectively. The CO2 content declines as the distance from the corrosion end face extends, and the decrease is steeper with shorter carbonization corrosion time.”
P and Y are analogous to the claimed invention because they all pertain to the evaluation of a wellbore.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Y with P because “most of the current prediction models for CO2 corrosion depth are still semi-empirical models, which are fitted to experimental data but are not universally applicable, which may be resolved by our CO2 corrosion depth prediction model supported by the law of mass conservation, diffusion convection equation, and calcium precipitation rate” allowing the model of Y to be universally applicable. (See Y [Abstract]).
Regarding Claim 7: P in view of Y disclose the method of claim 6.
P does not disclose wherein predicting the material property of the cement is repeated using the cement property model for a plurality of time intervals within the specified timespan.
However, Y discloses wherein predicting the material property of the cement is repeated using the cement property model for a plurality of time intervals within the specified timespan.
Y [Page 3: Section 3.1] “As calcium ions and CO2 satisfy mass conservation during carbonization of cement sheath, the molar concentration of calcium ions and CO2 can be calculated from each other. According to the mass conservation of CO2, the mass change of CO2 includes three parts: ① the concentration change of CO2 in the pores per unit time; ② the CO2 flowing in and out of the pores; ③ the calcium carbonate generated by the reaction of CO2 and calcium ions.”
Y [Page 4: Section 3.3] “The porosity of the cement sheath during carbonization consists of two parts: the first part is the initial pores formed by the cement hydration reaction (φ0); the second part is the increased pores of cement sheath due to the dissolution of CH and hydrated calcium silicate during the carbonization process (Δφ). φ = φ0 + Δφ
The initial porosity is determined by the degree of cement hydration and the liquid-solid ratio during slurry mixing. According to the study of porosity during cement hydration by Wan et al. (2013), the initial porosity of the cement sheath can be expressed as:
PNG
media_image1.png
45
126
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The increased porosity is due to the dissolution of CH and calcium silicate hydrate (C–S–H).
PNG
media_image2.png
25
120
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The porosity produced by the dissolution of CH and C–S–H is related to their molar volume:
PNG
media_image3.png
51
127
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The permeability of the cement sheath changes dynamically during carbonization, and the permeability can be expressed as a function of porosity and tortuosity (Qiu et al., 2022):
PNG
media_image4.png
51
95
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The tortuosity is the true reflection of the moving distance of the molecules in the pore, and depends on the geometrical feature of the pore structure. It is only related to the porosity of the cement sheath. Koichi et al. (2003) found through experiments that the tortuosity de creases with the increase of porosity, and its mathematical expression is:
PNG
media_image5.png
18
208
media_image5.png
Greyscale
.” Examiner notes that all these equations are dependent on time.
P and Y are analogous to the claimed invention because they all pertain to the evaluation of a wellbore.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Y with P because “most of the current prediction models for CO2 corrosion depth are still semi-empirical models, which are fitted to experimental data but are not universally applicable, which may be resolved by our CO2 corrosion depth prediction model supported by the law of mass conservation, diffusion convection equation, and calcium precipitation rate” allowing the model of Y to be universally applicable. (See Y [Abstract]).
Regarding Claim 8: P in view of Y disclose the method of claim 1.
P does not disclose wherein the injection or storage operation comprises injecting an injection fluid comprising the invasive fluid into a permeable zone of a subterranean formation, the injecting conforming to the selected injection conditions.
However, Y discloses wherein the injection or storage operation comprises injecting an injection fluid comprising the invasive fluid into a permeable zone of a subterranean formation, the injecting conforming to the selected injection conditions.
Y [Page 3: Section 2] “After the CO2 solution touches the cement sheath, the free calcium ions in the pores of the cement sheath reacts with the carbonate ions in the solution to form calcium carbonate, which then combines with CO2 to create soluble calcium bicarbonate. The porosity and permeability of the cement sheath increase, resulting in more CO2 entering the cement sheath matrix and accelerating the dissolution of CH in the matrix.”
P and Y are analogous to the claimed invention because they all pertain to the evaluation of a wellbore.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Y with P because “most of the current prediction models for CO2 corrosion depth are still semi-empirical models, which are fitted to experimental data but are not universally applicable, which may be resolved by our CO2 corrosion depth prediction model supported by the law of mass conservation, diffusion convection equation, and calcium precipitation rate” allowing the model of Y to be universally applicable. (See Y [Abstract]).
Regarding Claim 9: P in view of Y disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the integrity analysis is performed with a numerical simulator, wherein the injection or storage operation is performed if an output of the numerical simulator meets a predetermined criteria.
P [0078] “The leak mitigation unit 620 may perform a risk assessment, a risk mitigation assessment and a prevention assessment of the wellsite 100 (as shown in FIG. 1) before drilling, during drilling, during completions, during injection operations, during sealing operations, during storage, and/or after abandonment of the wellsite 100. … Based on the pre-drilling data regarding the subterranean formations 130 and/or the downhole equipment to be used, the well mitigation plan may develop several courses of action to prevent the leaks for example, changing an initial drilling trajectory to avoid downhole risk, changing the type of cement to be used in the wellbore 104, changing the type of casing 200, changing the type of metal used in the casing 200, changing the type of connections used in the casing string, changing the type of seals to be used in the wellbore, changing the injection pressure of fluids injected into the wellbore 104, recommending not injecting fluids into the wellbore, recommending not drilling the wellbore 104 and the like.
Regarding Claim 10: P in view of Y disclose the method of claim 9, wherein the output of the numerical simulator comprises strain at each of a plurality of depths and azimuths at or near the wellbore.
P [0104] “Methods in accordance with the present disclosure may also include the step of simulating mechanical loading on a formed cement sheath. First, at a specified depth, the hydrostatic stress in the cement at the time of placement is calculated. This hydrostatic stress is caused by the self- weight of the cement at that depth and the weight of any fluid column above the cemented section of the annulus. The increment of stress caused by hydration of the cement is then added to this hydrostatic stress to calculate the initial stress in the cement sheath (the stress in the cement before any mechanical loading is imposed on the cement sheath). Mechanical loading may include expansion or contraction of the casing due to changes in well pressure (pressure test, fluid swap, stimulation, production) and changes in formation stress caused by creep or subsidence. These mechanical loads place an additional increment of stress upon the cement sheath. At a specified depth, the increment of stress caused by mechanical loading is added to the initial stress in order to determine the total stress in the cement sheath. The total stress may then be compared with failure criteria for the cement to determine if the mechanical loading will cause the cement sheath to fail. Examiner notes that at different depths, the magnitude of stress changes accordingly.
P [0065] “As the cement hydrates, the poroelastic properties evolve because the volume fractions of each phase of the cement vary over time. Changes in volume fractions of the phases within the cement in turn causes variations in strain and pore pressure that occur on a time scale that corresponds to the kinetics of the hydration reaction. Therefore, Equations 2 and 3 may be linearized in order to calculate the change in macroscopic stress and macroscopic porosity over a time increment during which the degree of hydration is approximately constant (e.g., on the order of minutes). The increment of macroscopic stress then becomes a function of the increments of strain and pore pressure as shown in Equation 4.” Examiner notes that the depth and azimuths directly correlate to the macroscopic stress and strain.
Regarding Claim 12: P in view of Y disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the integrity analysis comprises comparing a load and a failure property of the cement.
P [0104] “Methods in accordance with the present disclosure may also include the step of simulating mechanical loading on a formed cement sheath. First, at a specified depth, the hydrostatic stress in the cement at the time of placement is calculated. This hydrostatic stress is caused by the self-weight of the cement at that depth and the weight of any fluid column above the cemented section of the annulus. The increment of stress caused by hydration of the cement is then added to this hydrostatic stress to calculate the initial stress in the cement sheath (the stress in the cement before any mechanical loading is imposed on the cement sheath). Mechanical loading may include expansion or contraction of the casing due to changes in well pressure (pressure test, fluid swap, stimulation, production) and changes in formation stress caused by creep or subsidence. These mechanical loads place an additional increment of stress upon the cement sheath. At a specified depth, the increment of stress caused by mechanical loading is added to the initial stress in order to determine the total stress in the cement sheath. The total stress may then be compared with failure criteria for the cement to determine if the mechanical loading will cause the cement sheath to fail.”
Regarding Claim 13: P in view of Y disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the integrity analysis comprises comparing, for a plurality of regions at or near the wellbore, a maximum shear stress and an applied shear stress.
P [0116] “In one or more embodiments, methods in accordance with the present disclosure may include a step of predicting total stress in a formed cement sheath, including the stress contributions from hydration, which determine the initial state of stress, and the stress contributions to mechanical loading, and determining whether such stresses are sufficient to cause the cement sheath to fail. For example, compressive stresses within a cement sheath can be caused by an increase of wellbore pressure or formation stress, placing the cement at risk of shear failure.”
P [0118] “In one or more embodiments, predictions of the total stress on a formed cement sheath may include a determination of one or more of the maximum tensile effective stress, the maximum compressive stress, and the radial stress at the inner radius and outer radius of the cement sheath. Further, the maximum values for the stress modes may be calculated based on the wellbore conditions and results of simulating the hydration of the cement composition.”
Claim 15: P in view of Y disclose the method of claim 1.
P does not disclose “wherein the depth of penetration model has the form: DOP = f(x, a, t) where DOP is the depth of penetration as a function of at least x, a, and t, where x is a variable or a vector comprising one or more concentrations or amounts of a cement component in the cement, a is a variable or a vector comprising one or more determinable constants, and t is an exposure time.
However, Y discloses wherein the depth of penetration model has the form: DOP =f (x, a, t) where DOP is the depth of penetration as a function of at least x, a, and t, where x is a variable or a vector comprising one or more concentrations or amounts of a cement component in the cement, a is a variable or a vector comprising one or more determinable constants, and t is an exposure time.
Y [Page 5: Section 5] “According to the established mathematical model, the formation water saturation (Sw), CO2 partial pressure (PCO2), formation temperature (T), chloride ion content (Cl-), the water-cement ratio of cement (rw), the added amount of preservatives (m), and the duration of carbonation corrosion are analyzed. The basic parameters used in the analysis of influencing factors are shown in Table 1.” Examiner notes that “x” matches the water-cement ratio of cement (rw) and the added amount of preservatives (m), “a” matches with the formation water saturation (Sw), CO2 partial pressure (PCO2), formation temperature (T), and chloride ion content (Cl-), and “t” matches with the duration of carbonation corrosion.
P and Y are analogous to the claimed invention because they all pertain to the evaluation of a wellbore.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Y with P because “most of the current prediction models for CO2 corrosion depth are still semi-empirical models, which are fitted to experimental data but are not universally applicable, which may be resolved by our CO2 corrosion depth prediction model supported by the law of mass conservation, diffusion convection equation, and calcium precipitation rate” allowing the model of Y to be universally applicable. (See Y [Abstract]).
Regarding Claim 19: P disclose a method of evaluating a wellbore comprising:
preparing a plurality of cement slurries, wherein the plurality of cement slurries each comprise a cement and volume fraction of water;
P [0050] “The cementing operation parameters may include: (i) cement composition (e.g., water to cement ratio, mass fractions of the cement components, and/or volume fractions of the cement components, such as clinker components and C-S-H particles)”
curing the plurality of cement slurries to form a plurality of set cement samples;
P [0046] “In one or more embodiments, methods in accordance with the present disclosure may provide a prediction of stresses that are experienced within a curing body of cement to enable an operator to optimize conditions and setting of cement to minimize the risk of failure. In some embodiments, models may be developed that permit an operator to design a cementing operation based on the demands of a given wellbore conditions by modifying cement set times or structural properties using model outputs.”
measuring a cement property of each of the plurality of
P [0096] “With particular respect to FIG. 8, predictions of Young's modulus Ε(ξ), for a type G Portland cement at a water to cement ratio (w/c) of 0.4 are shown as a function of time in hours. The graph shows that the model is in good agreement with the experimental results as the cement hydrates quickly within the first few hours as the hydration reaction progresses and continues to increase in rigidity over the studied interval. Similarly, with particular respect to FIG. 9, predictions of Young's modulus Ε(ξ) for a type G Portland cement at a w/c of 0.4 as a function of the degree of hydration also appear to be in agreement with the model over the studied interval. With particular respect to FIG. 10, the model predictions of the exponential decrease in permeability as a function of degree of hydration also matched that observed in experiments. With particular respect to FIG. 10, predictions of shear modulus θ(ξ) for a type G Portland cement at a w/c of 0.4 as a function of the degree of hydration also appear to be in agreement with the model over the studied interval.”
predicting a cement property of a cement
P [0046] “In one or more embodiments, methods in accordance with the present disclosure may provide a prediction of stresses that are experienced within a curing body of cement to enable an operator to optimize conditions and setting of cement to minimize the risk of failure. In some embodiments, models may be developed that permit an operator to design a cementing operation based on the demands of a given wellbore conditions by modifying cement set times or structural properties using model outputs.”
and inputting the predicted cement property and one or more loads into a numerical simulator for modeling regions at or near the wellbore;
P [0046] “In one or more embodiments, methods in accordance with the present disclosure may provide a prediction of stresses that are experienced within a curing body of cement to enable an operator to optimize conditions and setting of cement to minimize the risk of failure. In some embodiments, models may be developed that permit an operator to design a cementing operation based on the demands of a given wellbore conditions by modifying cement set times or structural properties using model outputs.”
and performing an integrity analysis of the cement based at least in part on an output of the numerical simulator.
P [0104] “Methods in accordance with the present disclosure may also include the step of simulating mechanical loading on a formed cement sheath. First, at a specified depth, the hydrostatic stress in the cement at the time of placement is calculated. This hydrostatic stress is caused by the self-weight of the cement at that depth and the weight of any fluid column above the cemented section of the annulus. The increment of stress caused by hydration of the cement is then added to this hydrostatic stress to calculate the initial stress in the cement sheath (the stress in the cement before any mechanical loading is imposed on the cement sheath). Mechanical loading may include expansion or contraction of the casing due to changes in well pressure (pressure test, fluid swap, stimulation, production) and changes in formation stress caused by creep or subsidence. These mechanical loads place an additional increment of stress upon the cement sheath. At a specified depth, the increment of stress caused by mechanical loading is added to the initial stress in order to determine the total stress in the cement sheath. The total stress may then be compared with failure criteria for the cement to determine if the mechanical loading will cause the cement sheath to fail.”
P [0105] “For example, methods of determining one or more stresses of an annular cement sheath of a wellbore may include determining volume fractions for a number of phases within the cement sheath as a function of degree of hydration; determining one or more poroelastic properties for the cement sheath as a function of degree of hydration; and determining the pore pressure of the cement body as a function of degree of hydration. In some embodiments, one or more stresses within the cement sheath may then be calculated using (i) the poroelastic properties for the cement sheath, (ii) pore pressure of the cement sheath, (iii) a mechanical property of the casing, (iv) geometry of the casing, (v) geometry of the wellbore, and (vi) wellbore conditions (e.g., depth, temperature, formation pore pressure, elastic properties of the formation, and fluid column weight).
P does not disclose exposing the plurality of set cement samples to an invasive fluid or allowing the invasive fluid to at least partially modify the plurality of set cement samples to form a plurality of chemically modified cement samples.
However, Y discloses exposing the plurality of set cement samples to an invasive fluid, and allowing the invasive fluid to at least partially modify the plurality of set cement samples to form a plurality of chemically modified cement samples.
Y [Page 3: Section 2] “After the CO2 solution touches the cement sheath, the free calcium ions in the pores of the cement sheath reacts with the carbonate ions in the solution to form calcium carbonate, which then combines with CO2 to create soluble calcium bicarbonate. The porosity and permeability of the cement sheath increase, resulting in more CO2 entering the cement sheath matrix and accelerating the dissolution of CH in the matrix. When the CH is dissolved, the hydrated calcium silicate (C–S–H) with a high calcium-to-silicon ratio continues to react with the CO2 solution.”
P and Y are analogous to the claimed invention because they all pertain to the evaluation of a wellbore.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Y with P because “most of the current prediction models for CO2 corrosion depth are still semi-empirical models, which are fitted to experimental data but are not universally applicable, which may be resolved by our CO2 corrosion depth prediction model supported by the law of mass conservation, diffusion convection equation, and calcium precipitation rate” allowing the model of Y to be universally applicable. (See Y [Abstract]).
Regarding Claim 20: P in view of Y discloses the method of claim 19, wherein the output of the numerical simulator comprises strain … of the cement.
P [0063] “At a fixed degree of hydration, the elastic deformation of cement can be modeled by the Biot Poroelastic theory, which describes the linked interaction between fluids and deformation in porous media. For a hydrating cement, the components of the macroscopic stress in the cement are a function of the components of the small strain tensor E, the volumetric strain E.sub.v, and the pore pressure p as shown in Equation 2:
PNG
media_image6.png
58
503
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
92
495
media_image7.png
Greyscale
P does not disclose an interface between a carbonated portion and an uncarbonated portion of the cement.
However, Y discloses an interface between a carbonated portion and an uncarbonated portion of the cement.
Y [Page 3: Section 2] “After the CO2 solution touches the cement sheath, the free calcium ions in the pores of the cement sheath reacts with the carbonate ions in the solution to form calcium carbonate, which then combines with CO2 to create soluble calcium bicarbonate. The porosity and permeability of the cement sheath increase, resulting in more CO2 entering the cement sheath matrix and accelerating the dissolution of CH in the matrix. When the CH is dissolved, the hydrated calcium silicate (C–S–H) with a high calcium-to-silicon ratio continues to react with the CO2 solution. At this time, the cement sheath loses its ability to support and isolate the well wall. Fig. 1 shows the physicochemical changes that occur during the carbonization of the cement sheath. Examiner notes that the reaction front is the moving boundary where active carbonation is taking place (where carbonate ions meet unreacted CH and C-S-H, turning solid calcium components into soluble calcium bicarbonate and increasing porosity.
P and Y are analogous to the claimed invention because they all pertain to the evaluation of a wellbore.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Y with P because “most of the current prediction models for CO2 corrosion depth are still semi-empirical models, which are fitted to experimental data but are not universally applicable, which may be resolved by our CO2 corrosion depth prediction model supported by the law of mass conservation, diffusion convection equation, and calcium precipitation rate” allowing the model of Y to be universally applicable. (See Y [Abstract]).
Claim 14 is rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2015/143368 A1, hereafter P, in view of NPL: Yuan, B., Luo, W., Xu, B., & Fan, H. (2022). A prediction model for carbonation depth of cement sheath of carbon capture utilization and storage (CCUS) wells. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 121, 103780, hereafter Y, further in view of WO 2023039653 A1, hereafter DCR.
Regarding Claim 14: P in view of Y discloses the method of claim 1.
P and Y do not disclose wherein the depth of penetration model, the cement property model, or both comprise at least one algorithm selected from the group consisting of a supervised machine learning algorithm, a semi-supervised machine learning algorithm, an unsupervised machine learning algorithm, a reinforced machine learning model, a binary classification model, a multiclass classification model, a regression models, decision trees, a random forest classifier, logistic regression, support vector machine algorithms (SVM), a Naive Bayes classifier, a k-nearest neighbors (K-NN) algorithm, clustering, k-means clustering, a dimensionality reduction algorithm, a gradient boosting algorithm, a probabilistic classifier, and any combinations thereof.
However, DCR discloses the cement property model comprise at least one algorithm selected from the group consisting of a supervised machine learning algorithm, a semi-supervised machine learning algorithm, an unsupervised machine learning algorithm, a reinforced machine learning model, a binary classification model, a multiclass classification model, a regression models, decision trees, a random forest classifier, logistic regression, support vector machine algorithms (SVM), a Naive Bayes classifier, a k-nearest neighbors (K-NN) algorithm, clustering, k-means clustering, a dimensionality reduction algorithm, a gradient boosting algorithm, a probabilistic classifier, and any combinations thereof
DCR [0054] “Figure 5 illustrates the architecture of the predictive model for detection and estimation of cement quality, in a hierarchical way, using acoustic profiling through the production column, with the models represented, in this example, by neural networks, which can be replaced by other classes of models, without loss of generality of the invention, and where the 1st layer classifies the type of cement using the information contained in the i-th line of the reduced information matrix, giving as output the type of cement or nominal failure; this balance can be a probability of belonging to a class, or just categorical information, this estimate being used to switch which defect estimation model will be used to provide the defect estimate, and the final prediction depends on the concatenation of the predictions made in the 1st and 2nd layer, and constitute the classification and estimation of the magnitude of a defect”
DCR [0057] “a predictive model is created from supervised learning capable of mapping the information matrix to the quality metrics of cement; in this way, the model based on machine learning can be investigated, with new data obtained through measurements in the field, or experimentally, in order to provide predictions about the type and magnitude of the failure of the cement, being able to the model of detection and estimation of the cement quality be implemented in a computational system, through which the decision maker can include metrics that help him in the analysis of acoustic profiling data, which are difficult to interpret and of a large amount of data.” Examiner notes that the citation receives a supervise machine learning algorithm and a classification model.
P, Y and DCR are analogous to the claimed invention because they all pertain to the evaluation of a wellbore.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of DCR to P and Y because the monitoring system of DCR uses “high-fidelity digital simulation of waves” to perform predictive modeling in order “to isolate and identify cement defects in well using acoustic waves” and automate the “demanding and error-prone task” of reading acoustic data cutting down the need for highly trained experts and lowers human error. (See DCR [Abstract])
Claim 5 is rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2015/143368 A1, hereafter P, in view of NPL: Yuan, B., Luo, W., Xu, B., & Fan, H. (2022). A prediction model for carbonation depth of cement sheath of carbon capture utilization and storage (CCUS) wells. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 121, 103780, hereafter Y, further in view of U.S Patent Publication 2012/0109611 A1, hereafter L further in view of WO 2023039653 A1, hereafter DCR.
Regarding Claim 5: P in view of Y discloses the method of claim 2.
P and Y do not disclose comprising disposing a logging tool in the wellbore and performing a wellbore casing assessment prior to the injection or storage operation, wherein the injection or storage operation is performed if a sonic attenuation of the wellbore casing is below a threshold value.
However, L discloses comprising disposing a logging tool in the wellbore and performing a wellbore casing assessment prior to the injection or storage operation, wherein the injection or storage operation is performed if
L [0078] “The leak mitigation unit 620 may perform a risk assessment, a risk mitigation assessment and a prevention assessment of the wellsite 100 (as shown in FIG. 1) before drilling, during drilling, during completions, during injection operations, during sealing operations, during storage, and/or after abandonment of the wellsite 100. … Based on the pre-drilling data regarding the subterranean formations 130 and/or the downhole equipment to be used, the well mitigation plan may develop several courses of action to prevent the leaks for example, changing an initial drilling trajectory to avoid downhole risk, changing the type of cement to be used in the wellbore 104, changing the type of casing 200, changing the type of metal used in the casing 200, changing the type of connections used in the casing string, changing the type of seals to be used in the wellbore, changing the injection pressure of fluids injected into the wellbore 104, recommending not injecting fluids into the wellbore, recommending not drilling the wellbore 104 and the like.
P, Y and L are analogous to the claimed invention because they both pertain to the evaluation of a wellbore.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of L with P and Y because the method of testing the wellbore of L provides “at least one containment plan for minimizing the at least one leak in the wellsite.” (See L [0010])
P, Y and L do not disclose a sonic attenuation of the wellbore casing below a threshold value.
However, DCR discloses a sonic attenuation of the wellbore casing below a threshold value.
DCR [0082] “From the simulated cases it is possible to create output variables for the predictive model , and , based on the measured acoustic signals , the predictive model created through supervised learning can , in addition to distinguishing the type of defect from the nominal one , also estimate the magnitude of the failure.”
DCR [0089] “Thus, to obtain the output variable for supervised learning related to the type of failure, it is enough to relate the type of simulated failure with its respective class, and, additionally, if all the physical parameters are described by a closed set, you can use the threshold of this constraint to map directly to severity metrics.”
P, Y, L and DCR are analogous to the claimed invention because they all pertain to the evaluation of a wellbore.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of DCR to P, Y and L because the monitoring system of DCR uses “high-fidelity digital simulation of waves” to perform predictive modeling in order “to isolate and identify cement defects in well using acoustic waves” and automate the “demanding and error-prone task” of reading acoustic data cutting down the need for highly trained experts and lowers human error. (See DCR [Abstract])
Claim 11 is rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2015/143368 A1, hereafter P, in view of NPL: Yuan, B., Luo, W., Xu, B., & Fan, H. (2022). A prediction model for carbonation depth of cement sheath of carbon capture utilization and storage (CCUS) wells. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 121, 103780, hereafter Y, further in view of NPL: Wu X, Liu J, Li Z, Song W, Liu Y, Shi Q, Chen R. Failure Analysis of Cement Sheath Mechanical Integrity Based on the Statistical Damage Variable. ACS Omega. 2023 Jan 6;8(2):2128-2142, hereafter Wu.
Regarding Claim 11: P in view of Y disclose the method of claim 1.
P and Y do not disclose the integrity analysis comprises providing a maximum material property of the cement and comparing the maximum material property to the predicted material property.
However, Wu discloses the integrity analysis comprises providing a maximum material property of the cement and comparing the maximum material property to the predicted material property.
Wu [Page 2133: Section 3.4] “Therefore, the mechanical integrity analysis model of the cement sheath uses the linear elastic constitutive equation to calculate the stress distribution of the cement sheath and qualitatively judges the mechanical integrity of the cement sheath according to the maximum tensile stress criterion and the Mohr−Coulomb criterion. Finally, the damage variable d is used to quantitatively judge the mechanical integrity of the cement sheath … When the stress calculated by the model meets the maximum tensile stress criterion, that is, one of the three principal stresses in the cement sheath, the radial principal stress, the circumferential principal stress, or the axial principal stress, is greater than the tensile strength of the cement sheath. The cement sheath will be damaged by tensile cracks. Interpret this situation as tensile crack, as shown in Figure 8.”
P, Y and Wu are analogous to the claimed invention because they both pertain to the evaluation of a wellbore.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Wu with P and Y, because “the damage variable can quantitatively describe the cement sheath mechanical integrity”, which is “highly correlated with wellbore pressure and verifies the applicability of the variable and carried out with the analysis model for the cement sheath mechanical integrity. Reducing wellbore pressure will help maintain the mechanical integrity of the cement sheath providing sealing performance.” In addition to that, “maintaining the cement sheath mechanical integrity is the key to ensuring the benefit and safety of oil and gas well drilling and production.” (See Wu [Abstract])
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-18 would be allowable over the prior art of record pending resolving all intervening issues such as the 101 and 112 rejections above.
Claim 16 recites:
PNG
media_image8.png
344
847
media_image8.png
Greyscale
The limitation above in claim 16 is allowable. The prior art fails to teach the equation used to get the depth of penetration as shown above in combination with the remaining allowable analysis.
Claim 17 recites:
PNG
media_image9.png
230
827
media_image9.png
Greyscale
The limitation above in claim 17 is allowable. The prior art fails to teach the cement property model having inputs of a volume fraction of a chemically modified portion in a chemically modified cement, a material property of a chemically unmodified portion of the cement, and the material property of a modified portion of a chemically modified cement in combination with the remaining allowable analysis.
The closest prior art of record includes:
Du, J., Bu, Y., Shen, Z., & Cao, X. (2019). Maximum penetration depth and penetration time predicting model of cementing fluid flow through wellbore into weakly consolidated formation. Fractals, 27(5), 1950132$.
This reference discloses a model for predicting the penetration depth and penetration time of cementing fluid though the wellbore and the relationship between the maximum penetration time and volume of cementing fluid.
Bois, A.-P., Vu, M.-H., Ghabezloo, S., Sulem, J., Garnier, A., & Laudet, J.-B. (2013). Cement sheath integrity for CO₂ storage–An integrated perspective. Energy Procedia, 37, 5628–5641.
This reference discloses an integrated perspective of mechanical and chemical degradations that could lead to the loss of cement sheath integrity before and during CO2 sequestration.
EP 2404884 A1
This reference discloses a self-healing cement, which when carbon dioxide contacts the cement, the gas triggers a chemical reaction that automatically fills and repairs any cracks. The cement also blocks fluids, gases, or CO2 from leaking out of the wellbore.
US 20150198038 A1
This reference discloses a system for increasing the detecting degradation of a wellbore through determining the presence of at least one chemical species indicative of degradation of the wellbore in a fluid exiting the wellbore.
EP 2309259 A1
This reference discloses methods, apparatuses and systems for more effectively and efficiently monitoring cement degradation related to carbon dioxide exposure by measuring one or more electrical properties related to resistivity of cement behind a casing in a well.
However, the closest prior art of record does not explicitly teach or render obvious the limitations above, particularly in combination with the other limitations within the claims. The claims dependent on these claims are allowable for at least the same reasons as their respective dependent claims.
Conclusion
All Claims are rejected.
The prior art made record of and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
Du, J., Bu, Y., Shen, Z., & Cao, X. (2019). Maximum penetration depth and penetration time predicting model of cementing fluid flow through wellbore into weakly consolidated formation. Fractals, 27(5), 1950132$.
Bois, A.-P., Vu, M.-H., Ghabezloo, S., Sulem, J., Garnier, A., & Laudet, J.-B. (2013). Cement sheath integrity for CO₂ storage–An integrated perspective. Energy Procedia, 37, 5628–5641.
EP 2404884 A1
US 20150198038 A1
EP 2309259 A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Scott T. Tran whose telephone number is (571) 272-8533. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Thurs, 8:00-4:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Renee Chavez, can be reached at (571) 270-1104. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300. Informal or draft communication, please label PROPOSED or DRAFT, can be additionally sent to the Examiner’s fax phone number (571) 272-8533.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published a applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
STT
/SCOTT THANH BINH TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2186
/SAIF A ALHIJA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186
Prosecution Insights