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 .
Priority
Current application, US Application No. 18/334,923, is filed on 06/14/2023.
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 05/26/2026. Claims 1-14 and 16-18 are currently pending. Claims 15 and 19-20 are canceled per applicant’s request.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment is entered into further examination and appreciated by the examiner.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Regarding remarks on the rejections under 35 USC 112(b), applicant’s amendment is accepted and the previous rejections. However, the amendment introduced new ambiguities and new rejections are issued. Please see the updated office action below.
Regarding remarks on the rejections under 35 USC 101, applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive because of following reasons.
Applicant argues (see pg. 6 par. 2 from the bottom – pg. 7 par. 2) that the amended claims 1-7 belong to Statutory Subject Matter because claims recites two physical, tangible hardware component, i.e. memory of a computer.
Examiner respectfully submits that the amended independent claim 1 fails to positively recite memory of the computing platform. The memory of the computing platform is recited as part of an intended purpose such as being a storage to place the tool, i.e. program. So not much weight can be given to the memory. Even if the memory is positively recited, storing a program in the memory of the computing platform is not particular in the art. Furthermore, a program cannot change its identity from non-statutory subject matter to statutory subject matter and the program’s identity is independent from where the program is placed. Therefore, the arguments are unpersuasive and the rejections are maintained.
Applicant also argues (pg. 7 par. 3 – pg. 10 par. 3]) that (1) the amended claim 9 does not recite any of mathematical formula, equation, or expression by alleging the limitation "determining a cumulative risk weight for the well by summing the weights associated with the identified risks" describes a physical aggregation of risk data derived from real-world well monitoring equipment, and the limitation "determining a range of multiple, nonoverlapping ranges including the cumulative risk weight" describes a concrete classification step applied to physical well integrity data, not a mathematical relationship or mental observation’ at step 2A prong 1, and (2) the amended claim 9 recites operations that provide a practical application of any alleged judicial exception by alleging that the current claim is analogous to Example 42.
Examiner respectfully submits that (1) the amended claim 9 recites mathematical expression which is equivalent to a mathematical equation, e.g. determining a cumulative risk weight for the well by summing the weights associated with the identified risks, (see specification - the risks add up to 108 ( 60+ 16+ 16+ 16) [0022], and the limitation "determining a range of multiple, nonoverlapping ranges including the cumulative risk weight" represents a mathematical relationship among ranges of risk weights by showing numbers of each risk weight size (see specification – range of 0 to 4, range of 5 to 16 and range of 17 to 64, the cumulative risk weightages are … greater than 64 [0024]), and the allegation that the imitation “determining a cumulative risk weight for the well by summing the weights associated with the identified risks" is a physical aggregation of risk data derived from real-world well monitoring equipment is unpersuasive because “determining a cumulative risk weight for the well” is abstract and cannot be physical and the statement phrase “real-world well monitoring equipment” is not even recited in the amended claims.
And (2) Examiner notices that Example 41 and 42 are in quite different fields, cryptographic communications and Medical record updates respectively, than the current application. Example 41 recites steps of message encoding scheme. Examiner cannot locate any encoding scheme in the current application.
Example 42 recites patient’s condition information conversion into a standardized format and storing the converted information in the medical record records and communicate the message with the users over the computer network in real time.
Current application simply converts various well risk types to number values, i.e. risk severity level (see specification – [0021, table]), failing to show information conversion into a standard format which should still keep the original meaning of risk types beside severity risk level. Therefore, the current claims are not analogous to the Example 41 and 42, failing to show a practical application to the judicial exception at step 2A prong 2 and the rejections are maintained.
Regarding remarks on the rejections under 35 USC 103, applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are moot in view of new ground of rejection necessitated by the amendment because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection. The newly added limitations (underlined) are disclosed by newly found references. See the new office action below.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in paragraph [0009], the phrase “the risk model associates a category and a weight with each identified risk of the set of one or more identified risks” should be replaced with “the risk model associates a risk rating and a corresponding weight with each identified risk of the set of one or more identified risks” or with an appropriate phrase for clarity and consistency with the phrase in par. [0010], i.e. “wherein the risk model associates a risk rating and a corresponding weight with each identified risk of the one or more identified risks”.
The term “weightages” in par. [0022, 0024-0025] should be replaced with “weights” to be consistent with the other phases in the specification to reduce unnecessary confusion unless the term has a different meaning from “weights”. If the term has the different meaning, please explain how they are different.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-18 are objected to because of the following informalities: As per claims 1 and 17, the limitation “wherein the risk model associates a category and a weight with each identified risk of the set of one or more identified risks” should be replaced with “wherein the risk model associates a risk rating and weight with each identified risk of the set of one or more identified risks” or with an appropriate phrase for clarity and consistency with specification and the other claims. As per claim 9, the limitation “wherein the risk model associates a risk rating and a weight with each identified risk of the one or more identified risks” should be replaced with “wherein the risk model associates a risk rating and a corresponding weight with each identified risk of the one or more identified risks” or with an appropriate phrase for clarity and consistency. The limitation “determine a cumulative risk weight for the well by summing the weights associated with the one or more identified risks” should be replaced with “determine a cumulative risk weight for the well by summing the weights associated with the one or more identified risks linked (or connected) to the well” or with an appropriate phrase for clarity.
As per claims 2-8, 10-14, 16 and 18, claims are also objected because base claims 1, 9 and 17 are objected.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-14 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. As per claims 1, 9 and 17, the limitation “determine (or determining) a range of multiple, non-overlapping ranges including a cumulative risk weight” is ambiguous because the specification recites the term “range” three times only in par. [0024], which means the value range of a risk weight, is silent regarding phrase “non-overlapping ranges” despite it may be implied through examples, and fails to describe a range of … ranges including a cumulative risk weight. It is not clear how to differentiate “a range” from “multiple ranges” while ranges may have different value intervals of weight and the specification only describes “multiple ranges”. Furthermore, what this limitation really confuses is it is not clear why this limitation is recited after the earlier limitation “wherein the risk model associates a risk rating and a weight with each identified risk of the one or more identified risks” because each risk rating must be decided only by comparing each weight with different ranges of weight values associated with risk ratings. The earlier limitation “wherein the risk model associates a risk rating and a weight with each identified risk of the one or more identified risks” already assumes the risk ranges are specified for the association of the risk rating and the weight, but fails to explicitly recite the risk ranges.
For the sake of examination, the limitations “wherein the risk model associates a risk rating and a weight with each identified risk of the one or more identified risks, determine (or determining) a range of multiple, non-overlapping ranges including a cumulative risk weight” is interpreted as “wherein the risk model associates a risk rating and a weight with each identified risk of the one or more identified risks linked with the wellby comparing the weight against different ranges of weights which are assigned to corresponding risk ratings, checking which range covers the weight, and finding a matching range and the corresponding risk rating; determine (or determining) a final range for the cumulative risk weight as a superset of all the ranges which are non-overlapping from each other;”.
As per claim 2-7, 10-14, 16 and 18, claims are also rejected because base claims 1, 9 and 17 are rejected.
Claim Interpretation – 35 USC 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The current application includes limitations in claims 1-3 and 5-6, that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because of the following reasons:
Claims 1-3 and 5-6 include limitations/elements that use generic placeholders, i.e. identifier, analyzer and remediator, that are coupled with functional language, configured to “identify”, “determine”, “generate”, “issue”, or “calculate”, without reciting sufficient structures to perform the recited function and the generic placeholders are not preceded by structural modifiers.
The physical structures of the “identifier”, “analyzer” and “remediator” are interpreted as sub modules of a general computer (see specification – identifier module 108, WIM tool 102, analyzer 110, [0021-0022, 0025, 0031, Fig. 1], an identifier implemented by … processor [0035], WIM tool 102 [0020-0022], remediator module 114, WIM 102 [0023-0025], computer application programs 334 can include one or more of WIM tool 102, identifier 108, risk analyzer 110 and remediator 114 [0031, Fig, 1, 3]).
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the well integrity management tool, which is interpreted as a computer program (see specification -computer application programs 334 can include one or more of WIM tool 102, identifier 108, risk analyzer 110 and remediator 114 for [0031, Fig, 1, 3]) does not have a physical or tangible form (see MPEP 2106.03 I program per se, software per se). Although claim1 recites “memory of a computing platform having one or more processors“ in “a well integrity management tool for storage on memory of a computing platform having one or more processors”, the memory is recited as part of an intended purpose such as playing a role of a storage to place the tool, i.e. program. So not much weight can be given to the memory. Even if the memory is positively recited, storing a program in the memory of the computing platform is not particular in the art. Furthermore, a program cannot change its identity from non-statutory subject matter to statutory subject matter and its identity is independent from where the program is placed.
Claims 1-14 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to nonstatutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, representative claim 1 recites:
“A well integrity management tool for storage on memory of a computing platform having one or more processors, (1.A)
the well integrity management tool comprising:
an identifier, implemented by at least one processor, configured to identify one or more risks associated with a well based on well integrity data; (1.B)
a risk analyzer, implemented by the at least one processor, configured to:
determine a classification for the well based on a set of one or more identified risks using a risk model, (1.C.1) wherein the risk model associates a category and a weight with each identified risk of the set of one or more identified risks; (1.C.2)
determine a cumulative risk weight for the well by summing the weights associated with the one or more identified risks; (1.D)
determine a range of multiple, non-overlapping ranges including the cumulative risk weight; (1.E)
and a remediator, implemented by the at least one processor, configured to generate a remediation plan based on the classification and the range. (1.F)”.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (Process - Method).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exception. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation, that covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations), and mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion).
For example, highlighted limitations/steps (1.B) – (1.E) are treated by the Examiner as belonging to Mathematical Concept grouping or a combination of Mathematical Concept and Mental Processing groupings as the limitations include Mathematical Calculations or show Mathematical Relationship with optional Mental observation while the highlighted limitation/step (1.F) is treated as belonging to Mental Processing grouping as the limitation shows mental evaluation or judgement because the limitation “remediation plan” is recited in a high level of generality without any specifics and can even be interpreted as a trivial action plan such as thinking about speaking with the well operator or holding a meeting with the well operator for a discussion.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The above claims comprise the following additional elements: (Side Note: duplicated elements are not repeated)
In Claim 1: “A well integrity management tool for storage on memory of a computing platform having one or more processors”, “an identifier, implemented by at least one processor”, ”a risk analyzer, implemented by the at least one processor”, and “a remediator, implemented by the at least one processor”;
In Claim 9: “A method for managing well integrity”;
In Claim 10: “performing one or more steps of the remediation plan”;
In Claim 17: “A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions, which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to (perform following operations)”;
As per claim 1, the additional element in the preamble “A well integrity management tool for storage on memory of a computing platform having one or more processors” ” is not a meaningful limitation because the limitation simply links a tool, i.e. a program, with an intended purpose, i.e. managing well integrity (field of use) and the tool will be stored in the memory (where the tool will be placed). The limitations/elements “well integrity management” and “memory of a computing platform having one or more processors “are not particular in the art. The limitations/elements “an identifier, implemented by at least one processor”, ”a risk analyzer, implemented by the at least one processor”, and “a remediator, implemented by the at least one processor” represent sub modules (or components) of the tool in the general computer and they are not particular in the art.
As per claim 9, the additional element in the preamble “A method for managing well integrity” is not a meaningful limitation because the limitation simply links a method with an intended purpose, i.e. managing well integrity, which is not particular.
As per claim 10, the limitation/step “performing one or more steps of the remediation plan” is a standard well maintenance step in the art and only adds insignificant extra solution to the judicial exception,
As per claim 17, the additional element in the preamble “A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions, which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to (perform following operations)” is not qualified as a meaningful limitation because the limitation even fails to link the medium with a particular operation. The limitations/elements “A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions” and “a processor” represent standard components of a general computer and they are not particular in the art.
In conclusion, the above additional elements except those treated as patent eligible, considered individually and in combination with the other claim elements as a whole do not reflect an improvement to the computer technology or other technology or technical field, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. No particular machine or real-world transformation are claimed. Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
Under Step 2B analysis, the above claims fail to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as shown in the prior art of record.
The limitations/elements listed as additional elements above are well understood, routine and conventional steps/elements in the art according to the prior art of record. (See Egbo, Arba, Veen, Dooley and others in the list of prior art of record)
Claims 1-14 and 16-18, therefore, are not patent eligible.
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.
Claims 1, 2 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Egboga (US 20230078208 A1), hereinafter ‘Egbo’ in view of Arbad (US 20240376802 A1), hereinafter “Arba’, Chen (CN 108224096 A), hereinafter ‘Chen’ and Zhang (CN 107403266 A), hereinafter ‘Zhang’ best understood by the examiner.
As per claim 1, Egbo discloses
A well integrity management tool for storage on memory of a computing platform having one or more processors, (a computer program product [0155-0158], risk index value [0059], risk score [0063], memory, computing device, processors [0067-0069, 0146-0148, Fig. 2, 11], response … action [0065-0066], detect anomalous behavior, a drilling rig, wellbore [0067, 0082-0083, Fig, 2 & 4], monitor … well integrity [0085])
the well integrity management tool comprising:
an identifier, implemented by at least one processor, configured to identify one or more risks associated with a well based on well integrity data; (processors [0008-0009], state predictor 112 determined a risk index value, sensor data … monitored asset [0059], determine state … statistics based on the sensor data 102 [0086-0089, Fig, 5])
a risk analyzer, implemented by the at least one processor, configured to determine a classification for the well based on a set of one or more identified risks using a risk model, wherein the risk model associates a category and a weight with each identified risk of the set of one or more identified risks; (classifier, instructions, computer code, processors [0064, 0069, Fig. 1], predictive analytics and machine learning-based modeling are used to detect … anomalies [0090], analysis used data aggregation and … behavior modeling methods [0092], analysis, event types, categorized [0095-0096, 0099-1000], categorized … TP, FP, FN … model accuracy metrics … score [0138])
However, Egbo is silent regarding is silent regarding the cumulative risk rating is determined by summing the weights of the one or more identified risks.
Chen discloses calculating total risk level by summing individual risk levels (calculating the risk index of every relative risk weighting, summing to obtain total risk index [pg. 4 line 23-29, pg. 8 line 1-8]) and Chen is concerned about the integrity of the gas pipeline infrastructure similar to a well integrity of Egbo.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the Egbo in view of Chen to calculate a cumulative risk rating for the well, wherein the cumulative risk rating is determined by summing the weights of the one or more identified risks, with a rationale to ensure the integrity of a well with an accurate risk assessment. (see Egbo - significant benefit … derived from early detection of … abnormal behavior [0004], detecting … abnormal behavior … to avoid or mitigate downtime, false positives can increase costs or … offset … benefit [0005])
Egbo further discloses statistic calculator can include one or more range or maximum windowed change (range or maximum windowed change calculator [0088], Fig, 5).
Chen discloses (space range of the state [pg. 3 line 9-10], risk factor, range analytic [pg. 3 line 14-15]).
However, the combined prior art is not explicit on determine a range of multiple, non-overlapping ranges including the cumulative risk weight.
Zhang discloses well integrity risk amount calculation and recites distinct risk level intervals (well integrity risk amount calculating method [claim 1], RP (RP1, RP2] interval, represented by R* risk level of the factor, R* (RR1, RR2] interval [claim 2]).
Zhang is in the same well integrity monitoring art like the combined prior art.
Although Zhang is not explicit on non-overlapping ranges, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to set non-overlapping ranges, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves
only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the combined prior art in view of Chen to determine a range of multiple, non-overlapping (or distinct) ranges including the cumulative risk weight with a rationale to ensure the integrity of a well with an accurate risk assessment.
Egbo further discloses a remediator, implemented by the at least one processor, configured to generate a command for corrective action based on the state prediction which includes range calculations (response system, send a command, to change operation of the monitored asset, inspection activity or a maintenance activity, generate an alert to notify an operator or other responsible party [0065], the particular response system 130 that takes action or the particular action taken by the response system 130 may be determined based, at least partially, on the feature importance data [0066], instructions, computer code, processors, response system [0069-0071], the prediction
statistics calculator 118 includes one or more range or maximum windowed change calculators[0088, Fig. 5], make corrections [0091]), but is silent regarding generating a remedial plan based on the classification.
Arba discloses generating a corrective action plan based on the well integrity risk categorization (categorizing and assessing wells [abs, 0001, 0003], different types of well within the AoR are identified or categorized based on their well construction, penetrations, protections, and accessibility levels, a risk matrix is used to identify the risky wells within the AoR based only on the well reports, a standardized qualitative risk assessment technique can be applied to identify the risky wells within the AoR. In another embodiment, the wells which need immediate remedial actions for the success of the CCS projects are identified and/or prioritized [0068], Class … permit, corrective action plans, monitoring plans [0010], corrective action plan [0059, Fig. 25], The number and location of these wells within the AoR will dictate the corrective actions plan, risk matrix described herein helps in prioritizing which corrective actions to take and also helps in planning phased corrective actions [0115]).
Arba is in the same well integrity classification and analysis art as Egbo.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the combined prior art in view of Arba to generate a remediation plan based on the classification and the range utilizing computer resources with a rationale to ensure the well integrity through an accurate identification of a risk.
As per claims 2, Egbo, Arba, Chen and Zhang disclose claim 1 set forth above.
Egbo further discloses a second set of one or more risks associated with the well based on the second set of well integrity data (risk score, state prediction statistics … refer to time windows, none-time-based windowing … depth based windowing [0063], implying a second set of … risks associated with … the second set of asset integrity data, well integrity [0085]).
Arba further discloses second set of well integrity data for the determination of a second set of well risks (second case study [0049, Fig. 15], first case … qualitative risk assessment of legacy wells based on publicly available data, second case is a strategic qualitative risk assessment of … wells within the AoR ‘Area of Review’ … site [0161], second case … details [0181-0193]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the combined prior art to identify a second set of one or more risks associated with the well based on a second set of well integrity data, wherein the risk analyzer is further configured to determine a second classification for the well based on the second set of one or more identified risks using the risk model, and wherein the remediator is configured to generate a second remediation plan based on the second classification, with a rationale to ensure well integrities through an accurate identification of risks in well integrity assessments.
As per claim 17, Egbo discloses
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions, which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to: (computer system, a physical, tangible medium, non-transitory media [0148], memory devices … store instruction … executable by the processors [0149, Fig, 11])
Egbo in view of Arba, Chen and Zhang disclose the remaining limitations as shown in claim 1 above.
Claims 3, 4 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egbo, Arba, Chen and Zhang in view of Downton (US 20120292110 A1), hereinafter ‘Dow’.
As per claim 3, Egbo, Arba, Chen and Zhang disclose claim 1 set forth above.
Although Egbo discloses sending an alert based on the planned drilling operation outcome (plan and monitor drilling operations … alert the … team based on deviation [0097]), but Egbo is not explicit on issuing a remediation command based on the remediation plan.
Dow discloses sending a corrective action command based on the desired well plan (desired well plan, send … commands to correct [0027], ensure … integrity of the borehole [0004])
Dow is also in the same well integrity assessment art as the combined prior art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the combined prior art in view of Dow to issue a remediation command based on the remediation plan with a rationale to ensure the integrity of a well.
As per claim 4, Egbo, Arba, Chen, Zhang and Dow disclose claim 3 set forth above.
Egbo discloses using a iterative process of developing the model (iterations to improve the model’s performance [0139]), but is silent regarding re-capturing well integrity data following execution of the remediation command issued by the remediator.
Dow discloses repetitions of well data measurement and executing the corrective action command (closed loop trajectory control [0022], closing the trajectory loop around a steering system, MWD, , send … commands to correct [0026-0027]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the combined prior art to re-capture well integrity data following execution of the remediation command issued by the remediator with a rationale to ensure the integrity of a well.
As per claim 18, Egbo, Arba, Chen and Zhang disclose claim 17 set forth above.
Egbo further discloses a second set of one or more risks associated with the well based on the second set of well integrity data (risk score, state prediction statistics … refer to time windows, none-time-based windowing … depth based windowing [0063], implying a second set of … risks associated with … the second set of asset integrity data, well integrity [0085]).
Arba further discloses second set of well integrity data for the determination of a second set of well risks (second case study [0049, Fig. 15], first case … qualitative risk assessment of legacy wells based on publicly available data, second case is a strategic qualitative risk assessment of … wells within the AoR ‘Area of Review’ … site [0161], second case … details [0181-0193]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the combined prior art to identify a second set of one or more risks associated with the well based on a second set of well integrity data, wherein the risk analyzer is further configured to determine a second classification for the well based on the second set of one or more identified risks using the risk model, and wherein the remediator is configured to generate a second remediation plan based on the second classification, with a rationale to ensure the well integrities through an accurate identification of risks in well integrity assessments.
Although Egbo discloses sending an alert based on the planned drilling operation outcome (plan and monitor drilling operations … alert the … team based on deviation [0097]), but Egbo is not explicit on issuing a remediation command based on the remediation plan.
Dow discloses transmitting a corrective action command based on the desired well plan (desired well plan, send … commands to correct [0027], ensure … integrity of the borehole [0004])
Dow is also in the same well integrity assessment art as the combined prior art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the combined prior art in view of Dow to transmit a remediation command based on the remediation plan with a rationale to ensure the integrity of a well.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egbo, Arba, Chen, Zhang and Dow in view of Liu (CN 113739077 A).
As per claim 5, Egbo, Arba, Chen, Zhang and Dow disclose claim 4 set forth above.
The set forth combined prior art discloses the recapturing well integrity data and repeating process of identifying risks, but does not explicitly recite identifying risk from re-captured well integrity data.
Liu discloses identifying risk from re-captured well integrity data (identifying … risk, processing re-collected real-time telemetry sensing data, generate … risk map [claim 6]).
Liu is also in the same chemical industry art for the plant safety as the combined prior art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the combined prior art in view of Liu to identify risk from re-captured well integrity data with a rationale to ensure the integrity of a well with an accurate risk assessment.
As per claim 6, Egbo, Arba, Chen, Zhang, Dow and Liu disclose claim 5 set forth above.
Liu further discloses calculating overall risk and reclassify the well based on identification (processing re-collected real-time telemetry sensing data, generate … risk map [claim 6], classifying and processing [pg. 6 line 8-9 ], classification processing with … image … image database [pg. 6 line 10-13]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egbo, Arba, Chen and Zhang in view of Xu (CN 116256470 B), hereinafter ‘Xu’.
As per claim 7, Egbo, Arba, Chen and Zhang disclose claim 1 set forth above.
Egbo further discloses using a risk modeling technique considering at least four risk ratings (predictive analytics and machine learning-based modeling are used to detect … anomalies [0090], analysis used data aggregation and … behavior modeling methods [0092], average risk score, variation of a risk score from the average risk score, a metric indicating a quantile value of a risk score, a metric indicating a rate of change of a risk score, a metric indicating a number of prior alert conditions, risk score … based on one or more of the residual values, time windows, non-time-based windowing … depth-based windowing [0063], F1 score, TP difficulty level 1, level 2, level 3, FP, FN [0136-0139, Table 1])
However, the combined prior art is silent regarding a first risk rating of the at least four risk ratings is associated with a first weight, wherein each risk rating subsequent to the first risk rating is associated with different subsequent weight, and wherein each subsequent weight of the different subsequent weights is a multiplier of the first weight.
Xu discloses setting the first risk level associated with a first-level danger level and calculating the subsequent risk level to be determined by multiplying to the first risk level (a calculation result Iwxz is set as a first-level danger level, and the subsequent danger level is multiplied as Iwxz is multiplied [pg. 16 line 10-14])
Xu is concerned about the integrity, e.g. safety, of the industrial plant to similar to the combined prior art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the combined prior art in view of Xu to use a risk model including at least four risk ratings, wherein a first risk rating of the at least four risk ratings is associated with a first weight, wherein each risk rating subsequent to the first risk rating is associated with different subsequent weight, and wherein each subsequent weight of the different subsequent weights is a multiplier of the first weight with a rationale to ensure the integrity of a well with an accurate risk assessment.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egbo, Arba, Chen, Zhang and Xu in view of Chen (CN 108224096 A), hereinafter ‘Chen’.
As per claim 8, Egbo, Arba, Chen, Zhang and Xu disclose claim 7 set forth above
Xu further discloses classifying based on collected danger level (classifying and analyzing … collected data … quality of the hydrogen, danger level [pg. 4 line 30-38, pg. 9 line 29-37, pg. 13 line 4-12]), but is silent regarding the cumulative risk rating is determined by summing the weights of the one or more identified risks.
Chen discloses calculating total risk level by summing individual risk levels (calculating the risk index of every relative risk weighting, summing to obtain total risk index [pg. 4 line 23-29, pg. 8 line 1-8]) and Chen is concerned about the integrity of the gas pipeline infrastructure similar to a well integrity of the combined prior art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the combined prior art in view of Chen to perform classification based on a cumulative risk rating for the well, wherein the cumulative risk rating is determined by summing the weights of the one or more identified risks, with a rationale to ensure the integrity of a well with an accurate risk assessment.
Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egbo in view of Veeningen (US 20050209866 A1), hereinafter ‘Veen’ and Zhang.
As per claim 9, Egbo discloses
A method for managing well integrity, (method … state prediction, classification …. state [abs], risk index value [0059], risk score [0063], response … action [0065-0066], detect anomalous behavior, a drilling rig, wellbore [0067, 0082-0083, Fig, 2 & 4], monitor … well integrity [0085]) comprising:
identifying one or more risks associated with a well based on well integrity data; (state predictor 112 determined a risk index value, sensor data … monitored asset [0059], determine state … statistics based on the sensor data 102 [0086-0089, Fig, 5])
Egbo further discloses one or more identified risks using a risk model, wherein the risk model associates a risk rating and a weight with each identified risk of the one or more identified risks (predictive analytics and machine learning-based modeling are used to detect … anomalies [0090], analysis used data aggregation and … behavior modeling methods [0092], analysis, event types, categorized [0095-0096, 0099-1000], categorized … TP, FP, FN … model accuracy metrics … score [0138])
using at least four risk ratings (average risk score, variation of a risk score from the average risk score, a metric indicating a quantile value of a risk score, a metric indicating a rate of change of a risk score, a metric indicating a number of prior alert conditions, risk score … based on one or more of the residual values, time windows, non-time-based windowing … depth-based windowing [0063], F1 score, TP difficulty level 1, level 2, level 3, FP, FN [0136-0139, Table 1]), but is silent regarding determining a cumulative risk weight for the well based on one or more identified risks and generating a remediation plan based on a cumulative risk weight.
Veen discloses determining a cumulative risk weight for the well based on one or more identified risks (risk categories displayed … in visualization [0031-0032, Fig. 15-17, 0057, Fig. 4, ], risk categories, total risk … based on the cumulative … risks [0120, 0123], the referenced ‘risk values’ [0945]) and
generating a remediation plan based on a cumulative risk weight. (planning, plan [0003-0006, 0032-0062, 0110-0129], risk categories, total risk … based on the cumulative … risks [0120, 0123]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of Egbo in view of Veen to determine a cumulative risk weight for the well based on one or more identified risks using a risk model, wherein the risk model associates a risk rating and a weight with each identified risk of the one or more identified risks, and generate a remediation plan based on a cumulative risk weight with a rationale to ensure the integrity of a well with an accurate risk assessment.
Egbo further discloses statistic calculator can include one or more range or maximum windowed change (range or maximum windowed change calculator [0088], Fig, 5).
However, the combined prior art is not explicit on determine a range of multiple, non-overlapping ranges including the cumulative risk weight.
Zhang discloses well integrity risk amount calculation and recites distinct risk level intervals (well integrity risk amount calculating method [claim 1], RP (RP1, RP2] interval, represented by R* risk level of the factor, R* (RR1, RR2] interval [claim 2]).
Zhang is in the same well integrity monitoring art like the combined prior art.
Although Zhang is not explicit on non-overlapping ranges, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to set non-overlapping ranges, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves
only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the combined prior art in view of Chen to determine a range of multiple, non-overlapping (or distinct) ranges including the cumulative risk weight with a rationale to ensure the integrity of a well with an accurate risk assessment.
Egbo further discloses a remediator, implemented by the at least one processor, configured to generate a command for corrective action based on the state prediction which includes range calculations (response system, send a command, to change operation of the monitored asset, inspection activity or a maintenance activity, generate an alert to notify an operator or other responsible party [0065], the particular response system 130 that takes action or the particular action taken by the response system 130 may be determined based, at least partially, on the feature importance data [0066], instructions, computer code, processors, response system [0069-0071], the prediction
statistics calculator 118 includes one or more range or maximum windowed change calculators[0088, Fig. 5], make corrections [0091]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the combined prior art to generate a remediation plan based on the cumulative risk weight and the range utilizing computer resources with a rationale to ensure the well integrity through an accurate identification of a risk.
As per claim 11, Egbo, Veen and Zhang disclose claim 9 set forth above.
Egbo further discloses at least four risk ratings that can be included on a risk model (a metric indicating a quantile value of a risk score, a metric indicating a rate of change of a risk score, a metric indicating a number of prior alert conditions, risk score … based on one or more of the residual values, time windows, non-time-based windowing … depth-based windowing [0063], F1 score, TP difficulty level 1, level 2, level 3, FP, FN [0136-0139, Table 1], predictive analytics and machine learning-based modeling are used to detect … anomalies [0090], analysis used data aggregation and … behavior modeling methods [0092], analysis, event types, categorized [0095-0096, 0099-1000], categorized … TP, FP, FN … model accuracy metrics … score [0138]).
Veen discloses each risk rating is associated with a different weight. (risk severity, ranking, a plurality of logical expression [0008-0013], activity sequences [0110], risk indexing, a relative indicator of the likelihood that a particular risk will occur, percentage change [0124], Risk subcategory, severity [0947], risk multiplier [0955, 0958-0960, 0967-0971, 1010-012, 0126-0127]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the combined prior art to use the risk model including at least four risk ratings, and wherein each risk rating of the at least four risk ratings is associated with a different weight, with a rationale to determine an accurate identification of risks in well integrity assessments and generate its remedial planning.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egbo, Veen and Zhang in view of Arba.
As per claim 10, Egbo, Veen and Zhang disclose claim 9 set forth above.
Egbo further discloses performing one or more steps of the remediation plan (could be corrected to prevent lost time issues [0085], make corrections before … events could occur [0091], plan and monitor drilling operations … alert the … team based on deviation [0097]) and
a second set of one or more risks being associated with the well based on the second set of well integrity data (risk score, state prediction statistics … refer to time windows, none-time-based windowing … depth based windowing [0063], implying a second set of … risks associated with … the second set of asset integrity data, well integrity [0085]), but is not explicit on disclosing a second set of well integrity data for the determination of a second set of well risks and repeating the determining the second cumulative risk weights and generating a second remediation plan.
Arba discloses a second set of well integrity data for the determination of a second set of well risks (second case study [0049, Fig. 15], first case … qualitative risk assessment of legacy wells based on publicly available data, second case is a strategic qualitative risk assessment of … wells within the AoR ‘Area of Review’ … site [0161], second case … details [0181-0193]).
Veen already discloses determining a cumulative risk weight for the well based on one or more identified risks (risk categories displayed … in visualization [0031-0032, Fig. 15-17, 0057, Fig. 4, ], risk categories, total risk … based on the cumulative … risks [0120, 0123], the referenced ‘risk values’ [0945]) and
generating a remediation plan based on a cumulative risk weight. (planning, plan [0003-0006, 0032-0062, 0110-0129], risk categories, total risk … based on the cumulative … risks [0120, 0123])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the combined prior art in view of Arba to identify a second set of one or more risks associated with the well based on a second set of well integrity data determine a second cumulative risk weight for the well based on the second set of one or more identified risks using the risk model; and generate a second remediation plan based on the second cumulative risk weight with a rationale to determine an accurate identification of risks in well integrity assessments and generate its remedial planning.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egbo, Veen and Zhang in view of Dooley (US 20220129804 A1), hereinafter ‘Dooley’.
As per claim 12, Egbo, Veen and Zhang disclose claim 11 set forth above.
Egbo further discloses aggregating each identified risk of the one or more identified risks into risk categories based on risk ratings (analysis used data aggregation and … behavior modeling methods [0092], analysis, event types, categorized [0095-0096, 0099-1000], categorized … TP, FP, FN … model accuracy metrics … score [0138]), but is silent regarding a risk group includes a subset of the one or more identified risks having an equivalent weight.
Dooley discloses a risk group including a subset of the one or more identified risks having an equivalent weight (risk metrics for all current tasks or for a subset of tasks such as all tasks related to a specific client, customer, area of technology, region, risk type, those that exceed a specific risk level, etc. [0180], may include a default to equal weights or weights based on number of tasks having specific type or level of risk [0183], Risk vector may provide total risk metric for each of several categories of risk [0186]).
Dooley is in the same rick analysis art as the combined prior art and Dooley’s risk analysis is applied to a wider general project and organizational risk management beyond the well integrity management.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the combined prior art in view of Dooley to aggregate each identified risk of the one or more identified risks into risk groups based on risk ratings, wherein a risk group includes a subset of the one or more identified risks having an equivalent weight, with a rationale to determine an accurate identification of risks in well integrity assessments and generate its remedial planning.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egbo, Veen, Zhang and Dooley in view of Kang (KR 102517384 B1), hereinafter ‘Kang’.
As per claim 13, Egbo, Veen and Dooley disclose claim 12 set forth above.
Veen discloses determining a cumulative risks using a various logical expressions (total risk … based on the cumulative … risks [0120, 0123], risk severity, ranking, a plurality of logical expression [0008-0013]), but is silent regarding determining a cumulative weight for each risk group of the risk groups by multiplying the equivalent weight by a total number of the subset of the one or more identified risks having the equivalent weight.
Kang discloses calculating the total risk by multiplying risk weight to the number of risk items (multiplying the number of broken equipment by the fire risk weight, the total is summed [pg.11 line 8-9]) and Kang is concerned about the safety of the industrial site similar to the combined prior art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the combined prior art in view of Dooley to aggregate each identified risk of the one or more identified risks into risk groups based on risk ratings, wherein a risk group includes a subset of the one or more identified risks having an equivalent weight, with a rationale to determine an accurate identification of risks in well integrity assessments and generate its remedial planning.
As per claim 14, Egbo, Veen, Zhang, Dooley and Kang disclose claim 13 set forth above,
Kang further discloses determining a cumulative risk weight for the well by summing the cumulative weights for each risk group (risk level of lot size, safety class, aging of the equipment [pg.10 line15-28], for each ignition risk, the number of equipment judged to be faulty is multiplied by the ignition risk weight and summed up to calculate the ignition risk, multiplying the number of broken equipment by the fire risk weight, the total is summed [pg.11 line 1-24]).
As per claim 16, , Egbo, Veen, Zhang, Dooley and Kang disclose claim 14 set forth above,
Although the set forth combined prior art is silent regarding four different weights and four different ranges, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to disclose use four different weights and ranges since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the duplication of element and change of duplication size. Mere duplication of the essential working elements of an invention is held as involving only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8 and a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Notes with regard to Prior Art
The prior arts made of record are provided as additional references relevant to the current claims.
Wigner (US 2770591 A) discloses the cumulative risk rating is determined by summing the weights of the one or more identified risks (total danger sum … would be “summing equation” [col 4 line 1-14])
Bingham (US 20220148114 A1) discloses a risk analysis using a recaptured integrity data (risk analysis, recaptured database [0020], operational performance analytic … validate the operational integrity … to reduce the risk [0106]).
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS KAY, whose telephone number is (408)918-7569. The examiner can normally be reached on M, Th & F 8-5, T 2-7, and W 8-1.
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, Arleen M Vazquez can be reached on 571-272-2619. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DOUGLAS KAY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights