DETAILED ACTION
Non-Final Rejection
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 statement (IDS) submitted on 03/27/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, 11-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JANDHYALA (US 2023/0281355 A1) in view of BATHIJA (US 2022/0291419 A1).
Referring to Claim 1, JANDHYALA teaches a computer-implemented method for determining properties of a wellbore, the computer-implemented method comprising, by a processor ([0029]):
obtaining, in a memory, properties of a composite material ([0017]);
the wellbore including the composite material ([0038]; [0040]):
constructing, based on the obtained properties, a respective finite element (FE) model representing the wellbore at the stage ([0018]-[0019]);
performing a simulation using the respective FE model constructed to determine at least one property of the wellbore at the stage ([0020]).
JANDHYALA performs FE simulation through different stages of a well life, but does not explicitly teach for each stage of a plurality of stages of a lifecycle of a wellbore.
BATHIJA teaches for each stage of a plurality of stages of a lifecycle of a wellbore ([0005]; [0025]-[0027]; [0033]-[003]; Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine computer-implemented method for determining properties of a wellbore disclosed in JANDHYALA with stage specific wellbore model updating taught in BATHIJA with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have improved the precision of wellbore failure risk determinations by updating the model using data associated with the respective stages of the wellbore lifecycle, as taught by BATHIJA ([0033]-[0037]).
Referring to Claim 2, JANDHYALA teaches the computer-implemented method of Claim 1, wherein, for at least one stage, performing the simulation includes:
determining one or more effects on the wellbore based on a chemical reaction between the composite material and at least one other material of the wellbore ([0018]; [0020]-[0021]; [0025]; [0038]).
Referring to Claim 3, JANDHYALA teaches the computer-implemented method of Claim 2, wherein the chemical reaction is a carbonation reaction ([0038]; [0040]-[0043]; [0046]).
Referring to Claim 4, JANDHYALA teaches the computer-implemented method of Claim 1, wherein the obtained properties of the composite material ([0017]).
BATHIJA teaches include indications of respective properties of the composite material at each of the plurality of stages of the lifecycle ([0005]; [0020]-[0027]; [0033]-[003]; Fig. 3).
Referring to Claim 5, BATHIJA teaches the computer-implemented method of Claim 4, wherein the respective properties include changes in porosity of the composite material ([0028]-[0029]; [0035]).
Referring to Claim 6, BATHIJA teaches the computer-implemented method of Claim 5, wherein the changes in porosity are based on a carbonation reaction ([0028]-[0029]; [0035]).
Referring to Claim 8, BATHIJA teaches the computer-implemented method of Claim 1, wherein the plurality of stages of the lifecycle include any combination of:(1) initial equilibrium, (11) drilling, (111) casing, (iv) cement slurry, (v) cement hardening, and (vi) injection and reaction ([0023]; [0027]).
Referring to Claim 11, BATHIJA teaches the computer-implemented method of Claim 1, wherein the determined at least one property includes any combination of: (1) stress state, (11) strain state, (111) plastic strain development, and (iv) debonding at an interface ([0034]; [0036]; [0038]; [0040]; [0044]; [0048]; [0050]).
Claim 12 is essentially the same as Claim 1 and refers to the a computer-based system for determining properties of a wellbore, the computer-based system comprising: a processor ([0029]); and a memory with computer code instructions stored thereon ([0029]), the processor and the memory, with the computer code instructions, being configured to cause the computer- based system to perform the computer-implemented method of Claim 1. Therefore Claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons as applied to Claim 1 above.
Claim 13 is essentially the same as Claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons as applied to Claim 2 above.
Claim 14 is essentially the same as Claim 3 and is rejected for the same reasons as applied to Claim 3 above.
Claim 15 is essentially the same as Claim 4 and is rejected for the same reasons as applied to Claim 4 above.
Claim 16 is essentially the same as Claim 5 and is rejected for the same reasons as applied to Claim 5 above.
Claim 17 is essentially the same as Claim 6 and is rejected for the same reasons as applied to Claim 6 above.
Claim 20 is essentially the same as Claim 1 and refers to a computer program product for determining properties of a wellbore, the computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium with computer code instructions stored thereon ([0029]-[0030]), the computer code instructions being configured, when executed by a processor, to cause an apparatus associated with the processor to perform the computer-implemented method of Claim 1. Therefore Claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons as applied to Claim 1 above.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JANDHYALA in view of BATHIJA as applied to Claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of GONÇALVES DIAS PONZI (US 2022/0403223 A1).
Referring to Claim 7, JANDHYALA, as modified, teaches the computer-implemented method of Claim 1, but doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the properties are obtained from a three-dimensional (3D) microstructure image of the composite material or a virtual 3D microstructure image of the composite material.
GONÇALVES DIAS PONZI teaches the properties are obtained from a three-dimensional (3D) microstructure image of the composite material or a virtual 3D microstructure image of the composite material ([0005]; [0046]; [0052]; [0090]; [0099]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine computer-implemented method for determining properties of a wellbore disclosed in JANDHYALA with obtained properties taught in GONÇALVES DIAS PONZI with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided quantitative cement property information including degraded volume and porosity of the cement material for evaluating changes in the cement and maintaining well or borehole integrity, as taught by GONÇALVES DIAS PONZI ([0054]-[0055]; [0090]).
Claim(s) 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JANDHYALA in view of BATHIJA as applied to Claim(s) 1 and 12 above, and further in view of BOIS (US 2015/0033862 A1).
Referring to Claim 9, JANDHYALA teaches the computer-implemented method of Claim 1, wherein, for a given stage, constructing the respective FE model based on the determined homogenized properties ([0018]-[0019]).
JANDHYALA doesn’t explicitly teach constructing the respective FE model includes: determining homogenized properties of the composite material.
BOIS teaches for a given stage, constructing the respective FE model includes: determining homogenized properties of the composite material ([0190]; [0192]-[0195]);
constructing the respective FE model based on the determined homogenized properties ([0190]-[0194]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine computer-implemented method for determining properties of a wellbore disclosed in JANDHYALA with determining homogenized properties of the composite material taught in BOIS with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided effective mechanical properties representative of the heterogeneous cement material for use in modeling the mechanical behavior of the cement sheath over the life of the well, as taught by BOIS ([0005]-[0006]; [0190]-[0194]).
Claim 18 is essentially the same as Claim 9 and is rejected for the same reasons as applied to Claim 9 above.
Claim(s) 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JANDHYALA in view of BATHIJA as applied to Claim(s) 1 and 12 above, and further in view of SHEN (US 2019/0211653 A1).
Referring to Claim 10, JANDHYALA, as modified, teaches the computer-implemented method of Claim 1, but doesn’t explicitly teach wherein, for at least one stage, performing the simulation includes: performing a fully coupled thermal-hydro-mechanical analysis of the respective FE model.
SHEN for at least one stage, performing the simulation includes: performing a fully coupled thermal-hydro-mechanical analysis of the respective FE model ([0026]; [0029]-[0030]; [0041]-[0043]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine computer-implemented method for determining properties of a wellbore disclosed in JANDHYALA with performing a fully coupled thermal-hydro-mechanical analysis of the respective FE model taught in SHEN with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided a more accurate simulation of coupled temperature, pore pressure and mechanical deformation effects while requiring fewer computational resources than conventional sequential coupling techniques, as taught by SHEN ([0043]).
Claim 19 is essentially the same as Claim 10 and is rejected for the same reasons as applied to Claim 10 above.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. However, any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
BARLET-GOUEDARD (US 2012/0206144 A1) teaches method and apparatus for monitoring cement sheath degradation related to CO2 exposure.
SUN (US 2026/0251054 A1) teaches systems and methods for determining properties of a wellbore.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMIE M N'DURE whose telephone number is (571)272-6031. The examiner can normally be reached on 8AM-5:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Isam Alsomiri can be reached on 571-272-6970. 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 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). 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.
/AMIE M NDURE/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ABDALLAH ABULABAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights