DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-21 are presented for examination.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended.
This office action is in response to the request for continued examination submitted on 10-DEC-2025.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/10/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments - 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) has been withdrawn.
. Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments - 35 USC § 101
On pgs. 8-10 of the Applicant Arguments/Remarks submitted 12/10/2025 (hereinafter ‘Remarks’), Applicant argues the claims are eligible under 35 USC 101.
Applicant argues on pgs. 8-9 the amended limitation in claims 1, 8, and 15 of “facilitating drilling automation based on the determined torque” amounts to a practical application.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraph’s [0021], [0024], and [0041] use the term “facilitate”. The support from the [0021] does not provide any additional context in how “facilitating drilling” is performed.
[0041] recites the following “As illustrated control system 500 comprises a processing system 502 that includes a torque and drag module 504. Additionally, to facilitate the receipt and output/display of data, control system 500 can include input devices 506, output 510, and/or display 508.”
The term “facilitate” appears to be using the processing system, interpreted as a general-purpose computer, to determine the torque with the “facilitating” being the receipt and output/display of data. The “facilitating drilling automation” is interpreted as reading the output/display of “the determined torque”. This is interpreted as post solution activity (2106.05(g)) and applying a general-purpose computer (2106.05(f)).
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Rejection under 35 USC 101 is maintained.
Response to Arguments - 35 USC § 103
On pgs. 10-13 of the Remarks, Applicant argues the amended claims are patentably distinct over the prior art.
An updated search has been completed, and a new reference has been found that better teaches the currently amended limitations. The scope of the claims has been amended several times since the first non-final rejection, and a new reference better teaches the current presented scope of the claims. However, this should not be interpreted as the previous references do not teach the amended claims.
Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of
Ke et al., “Computationally Efficient Down-Hole Drilling System Dynamics Modeling Integrating Finite Element and Transfer Matrix” [2017] (hereinafter ‘Ke’) in view of
Chen et al., “Efficient and high-fidelity steering ability prediction of a slender drilling assembly” [10 August 2019] (hereinafter ‘Chen’).
Ke in view of Chen further in view of
McSpadden, et al., “Advanced Casing Design With Finite-Element Model of Effective Dogleg Severity, Radial Displacements, and Bending Loads” [2012] (hereinafter ‘McSpadden’).
Ke in view of Chen further in view of
Ahmed, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0266233 A1 (hereinafter ‘Ahmed’).
Ke in view of Chen further in view of
SAMUEL, International Publication WO 2016/137688 A1 (hereinafter ‘SAMUEL-688’).
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 (Statutory Category – Process)
Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes, the claim recites a mental process, specifically:
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(Ill) “Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, Judgments, and opinions.”
Further, the MPEP recites “The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation.”
segmenting a plurality of continuous nodes of the drilling string into a first segment based on first shared characteristics of nodes in the first segment and a second segment based on second shared characteristics of nodes in the second segment;
The “plurality of continuous nodes” are observed and an evaluation is performed to determine how the “segmenting” is completed based on judgement. A grouping is performed in the evaluation for the “first shared characteristics” and “second shared characteristics”. A person of ordinary skill in the art can observe the “nodes” and determined the “shared characteristics based on judgment.
selecting a first model to apply to the first segment based on the shared characteristics of the nodes in the first segment;
Selecting the first model to apply based on the element of “characteristics” performs an evaluation on some element. The claim does not recite the elements that the “characteristic” correspond to. The “first segment” is based on the is evaluated based on judgement of the observed “shared characteristics”.
computing a first set of values corresponding with one or more nodes in the first segment using the first model;
Computing “first set of values” is performing an evaluation. The evaluation is performed based on observation of the “nodes in the first segment”.
selecting a second model to apply to the second segment based on the shared characteristics of the nodes in the second segment,
Selecting the “second model” to apply based on the element of “characteristics” performs an evaluation on some element. The claim does not recite the elements that the “characteristic” correspond to.
wherein the first model is different from the second model;
Reciting two different models is only reciting two different methods for evaluation.
the second model is selected as a distinct model from the first model based on differences in the first shared characteristics of the nodes in the first segment and the second shared characteristics of the nodes in the second segment; and
Selecting a distinct model is performing an evaluation of which model to choose based on the observation of the nodes. The determine of the “differences” is an evaluation which can be performed by observing the “first” and “second shared characteristics”.
application of the first model is less computationally expensive than application of the second model;
The claim does recite having one model less computationally expensive, however, it is not how the model selects the segment that is computationally less expensive.
computing a second set of values corresponding with one or more nodes in the second segment using the second model;
Computing a second set of values is further evaluation based on further observation. Computing using two different models is performing two different evaluations.
computing a resolution more than one boundary node by automatically comparing one of a force, a drag and one or more wellbore-displacement characteristics to one or more boundary points to identify one or more common nodes;
Computing a resolution is an evaluation of the boundary nodes. The identifying of the “common nodes” is an observation and judgement found with in the “boundary points”. The comparing of the “force” can be reasonably done by a person of ordinary skill in the art by observing the “force” and comparing it to different “nodes”.
determining a torque of the drill string based on the first set of values and the second set of values; and
Determining a torque using the values of the first and second values is performing an evaluation based on the observation of the “first sets of values” and the “second set of values”.
Therefore, the claim recites a mental process.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Solution?
MPEP 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity has found mere data gathering and post solution activity to be insignificant extra-solution activity.
Post solution activity:
facilitating drilling automation based on the determined torque.
MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception has found simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
computer-implemented
The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
Therefore, no meaningful limits are imposed on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No, as discussed with respect to Step 2A, the additional limitation is mere data gathering/post solution activity (Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity) and a general purpose computer do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore the claim does not provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Further, in regards to step 2B and as cited above in step 2A, MPEP 2106.05(g) “Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir.2011)’ is merely data gathering.
MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(ii) “Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.")” is post solution activity.
The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in the significantly more consideration.
The claim is ineligible.
Claim 2 recites “determining a drag force on the drill string based on the first set of values and the second set of values” further determining of the drag force is further evaluation. (Step 2A Prong 1).
Claim 3 recites “segmenting the plurality of continuous nodes is performed based on user provided parameters” is mere data gathering using user provided elements. (Step 2A Prong 2).
Claim 4 recites “segmenting the plurality of continuous nodes is performed based on characteristics for one or more of the plurality of continuous nodes determined by a stiff-string model” performing further segmenting using a stiff-string model is further evaluation. (Step 2A Prong 1).
Claim 5 recites “the first model is a soft-string model” is evaluation using a specific model type. (Step 2A Prong 1).
Claim 6 recites “the second model is a stiff-string model” is evaluation using a specific model type. (Step 2A Prong 1).
Claim 7 recites “the second model utilizes finite element analysis” is evaluation using a known analysis method. (Step 2A Prong 1).
Claim 21 “wherein the second model is selected for application to the second segment based on either or both force and displacement values for the one or more nodes within the second segment” is using evaluation to select a specific model type. (Step 2A Prong 1).
Claims 8-14 are system claims, containing substantially the same elements as method Claims 1-7, respectively, and are rejected on the same grounds under 35 U.S.C. 101 as Claims 1-7, respectively, Mutatis mutandis. The additional components of “one or more processors; and a non-transitory memory coupled to the one or more processors, wherein the memory comprises instruction configured to cause the processors to perform operations for” are interpreted as a general purpose computer and mere instructions to apply.
Claims 15-20 are medium claims, containing substantially the same elements as method Claims 1-7, respectively, and are rejected on the same grounds under 35 U.S.C. 101 as Claims 1-7, respectively, Mutatis mutandis. The additional components of “A tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable media having instructions encoded thereon, the instructions, when executed by a processor, are operable to perform operations for” are interpreted as a general purpose computer and mere instructions to apply.
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, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Ke et al., “Computationally Efficient Down-Hole Drilling System Dynamics Modeling Integrating Finite Element and Transfer Matrix” [2017] (hereinafter ‘Ke’) in view of
Chen et al., “Efficient and high-fidelity steering ability prediction of a slender drilling assembly” [10 August 2019] (hereinafter ‘Chen’).
Regarding Claim 1:
A computer-implemented method for determining frictional force on a downhole drilling string, the method comprising:
Ke teaches segmenting a plurality of continuous nodes of the drilling string into a first segment based on first shared characteristics of nodes in the first segment and a second segment based on second shared characteristics of nodes in the second segment; (Pg. 121003-2 right col 1st paragraph Ke “…To enable the hybrid approach, an integration method that can seamlessly combine these two modeling techniques at the joints (Fig. 2) is very critical. In the following, we will present the modeling configuration of FEM and TMM along the drill-string and then describe the crucial element of this hybrid approach, i.e., the integration method…” Pg. 121003-4 left col 1st paragraph “…where i is imaginary unit, and the [uMz FzM]T and [uBz FzB]T are vectors containing both the axial displacements uMz , uBz and axial forces FzM, FzB. (M refers to an arbitrary point along the drillstring between boundary points A and B, as shown in Fig. 4.)…”)
PNG
media_image1.png
330
362
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ke teaches selecting a first model to apply to the first segment based on the shared characteristics of the nodes in the first segment; (Pg. 121003-5 left col 3rd paragraph Ke “…L is total length of segment modeled by TMM, and úAz(t) and úBz(t) (the inputs of Eq. (20)) are the axial velocities at point A and point B, respectively (note that points A and B are the two ends of the segment modeled by TMM, which are also the end and starting nodes for the two FEM segments connected to this TMM segment (Fig. 4))…”)
Ke teaches computing a first set of values corresponding with one or more nodes in the first segment using the first model; (Pg. 121003-3 right col 4th paragraph Ke “…Transfer matrix method is to relate the motion and force/torque vectors at any given location along the drill-string to those vectors at a different location, by a matrix in frequency domain. The axial, torsional, and flexural dynamics can be obtained, respectively, using the corresponding wave equations…”)
Ke teaches selecting a second model to apply to the second segment based on the shared characteristics of the nodes in the second segment, wherein: (Pg. 121003-2 right col 2nd paragraph Ke “…Modeling Curved Segment of Drill-String With Finite Element Method. As shown in Fig. 2, the curved and nonuniform portion is discretized into a number of nodes. The entire drillstring shares a single global coordinate frame, while each individual node can have local coordinate frame…”)
Ke teaches the first model is different from the second model; (Pg. 121003-2 right col 1st paragraph Ke “…Thus, the proposed hybrid approach distributes FEM and TMM to model different sections along the drill-string as shown in Fig. 2, which can offer benefits of both the two approaches…”)
Ke teaches the second model is selected as a distinct model from the first model based on differences in the first shared characteristics of the nodes in the first segment and the second shared characteristics of the nodes in the second segment; and (Pg. 121003-3 right col 2nd paragraph Ke “…Since Mglobal, Dglobal, and Kglobal can be obtained from drilling system material, geometric, and structural properties, to solve the motion dynamics Eq. (10), the only unknowns are the boundary force and torque vectors at the joint between the curved string (modeled with FEM) and the straight string (modeled with transfer matrix) (note that the referred boundary force and torque are terms of Fglobalext). Accurately obtaining these variables is very crucial for the proposed hybrid modeling approach and will be addressed in Sec. 3.3…”)
Ke teaches application of the first model is less computationally expensive than application of the second model; (Pg. 121003-4 left col 2nd paragraph Ke “…Since point B is also the starting point for the following FEM segment, the axial displacement uBz at point B (Fig. 4) can be calculated using the FEM result discussed in Sec. 3.1, and the force FzB can be obtained using method described in Sec. 3.3 (Eq. (21) in Sec. 3.3). The advantage of using TMM is that the dynamics is expressed as analytical matrix solutions, without the need to solve high-order differential equations. This requires significantly lower computational resources…”)
Ke teaches computing a second set of values corresponding with one or more nodes in the second segment using the second model; (Pg. 121003-2 right col 3rd paragraph Ke “…Ulocali_i+1 = [Ui Ui+1]T, Mlocal12x12, Dlocal12x12, and Klocal12x12 are the inertia, damping, and stiffness matrices under the local coordinate frame for nodes i and i+1, and their detailed expressions can be found in Ref. [6]. Flocalext(i_i+1) is the external force and torque vector exerted on the element formed by node i and node i+1…)
Ke teaches … more than one boundary node by automatically comparing one of a force, a drag and one or more wellbore-displacement characteristics to one or more boundary points to identify one or more common nodes; (Pg. 121003-5 left col 3rd paragraph Ke “…velocities at point A and point B, respectively (note that points A and B are the two ends of the segment modeled by TMM, which are also the end and starting nodes for the two FEM segments connected to this TMM segment (Fig. 4)). So, with Eqs. (20) and (21), we can obtain the boundary axial forces at point A and point B for the FEM segment (Fig. 4) using the axial velocities at the boundary. These two forces are then supplied to Eq. (10) in Sec. 3.1 to complement the FEM modeling…” Pg. 121003-5 right col 2nd paragraph Ke “…So with Eqs. (20)–(23), the force and torque vectors can be obtained at the joints of all segments (Fig. 4) and be used as boundary conditions (external force vector Fglobalext ) for the FEM segments (Eq. (10)). This completes the entire modeling process for the hybrid method…”)
Ke teaches determining a torque of the drill string based on the first set of values and the second set of values; and (Pg. 121003-7 left col 1st paragraph Ke “…The comparison for torsional torque modeling in Fig. 5(b) indicates the modeling effectiveness as well. With the numerically calculated boundary force and torque (at points A and B), the drill-string motion dynamics at any arbitrary point can be simulated using the hybrid approach, as shown in Fig. 5(c)…”)
Ke teaches facilitating drilling automation based on the determined torque. (Pg. 121003-7 right col last paragraph Ke “…A hybrid modeling approach integrating the FEM and the TMM is proposed to model the dynamics of down-hole well drilling system. It inherits the merits of both FEM and TMM methods, which maintains high fidelity for the curved/nonuniform portion of the drill-string and also requires significantly low computational resources. The hybrid approach is enabled by the uniqueness of the drill-string geometric structure, which is large scale in axial dimension but has very high axial-to-radial ratio. This makes the drill-string a single-dimensional element so the integration method proposed at the joints of FEM and TMM is feasible. The comparison with FEM validates the proposed hybrid approach in dynamics modeling, and the down-hole drilling vibration simulation also shows its effectiveness in drilling dynamics analysis and potential usage for control design…”
Pg. 121003-2 left col 3rd paragraph Ke “…A schematic of a typical down-hole drilling system is shown in Fig. 3. The main components are the top drive, the hook load, the drill-string, the bottom-hole-assembly (BHA), and the drill bit. Top drive is typically composed of rotary table and kelly, which provides the torsional drilling torque to the drill-string and then transmitted to the drill bit. The hook load is to support the weight of the whole drill-string, which determines the axial force exerted on the drill-string and bit. As the major component of the system, drill-string (composed a set of drill pipes connected with tool joints) serves as a mechanical linkage and transmits axial/torsional loads from rotary drive on the surface to the drill bit. Meanwhile, it is also a conduit for drilling fluid to clean the hole and cool the drill bit. The two most important drilling control inputs are the torque from top drive and the axial load on the hook load, which together determine the rock cutting mechanics at the drill bit…”)
Ke does not appear to explicitly disclose
computing a resolution of more than one boundary node
However, Chen teaches computing a resolution of more than one boundary node (Fig. 5 and pg. 3971 1st paragraph “…When the length of the beam element L < Lmin, such as element AB in Fig. 5c, elements AB, BC, and node B are removed, and a new element AC is added to the model. When the length of the beam element L > Lmax, such as element EF in Fig. 5c, a new Lagrangian node G is inserted between nodes E and F, and two new elements, EG and GF, are added to the existing model after element EF is removed…”)
PNG
media_image2.png
386
602
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Ke and Chen are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, subsurface modeling.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the computing a resolution of more than one boundary node as disclosed by Ke by more than one boundary node by automatically comparing one of a force, a drag and one or more wellbore-displacement characteristics to one or more boundary points to identify one or more common nodes as disclosed by Chen.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to use multiple models to improve accuracy and efficiency as discussed on pg. 3965 2nd paragraph by Chen “…In this paper, a “whole drill string” dynamic model based on an Arbitrary Lagrangian–Eulerian (ALE) formulation is presented to carry out a multiple-stand simulation for a long drilling distance in order to provide a straightforward assessment of the build rates accurately and efficiently. The four characteristics of our model are high-accuracy, computationally efficient, straightforward prediction of build rates, and the capability of multiple-stand simulation, which rely on the application of three techniques: ALE formulation, whole drill string model, and the law of bit–rock interaction, see Fig. 2. (i) ALE formulation provides a new approach to balance the efficiency and accuracy in the drilling process as the material points and the mesh nodes are not tied to each other…”
Claims 8 is a system claim, containing substantially the same elements as method Claim 1, respectively, and is rejected on the same grounds under 35 U.S.C. 103 as Claim 1, respectively, Mutatis mutandis.
Claims 15 is a medium claim, containing substantially the same elements as method Claim 1, respectively, and is rejected on the same grounds under 35 U.S.C. 103 as Claim 1, respectively, Mutatis mutandis.
Claims 2, 5-7, 9, 12-14, 16, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Ke et al., “Computationally Efficient Down-Hole Drilling System Dynamics Modeling Integrating Finite Element and Transfer Matrix” [2017] (hereinafter ‘Ke’) in view of
Chen et al., “Efficient and high-fidelity steering ability prediction of a slender drilling assembly” [10 August 2019] (hereinafter ‘Chen’) further in view of
McSpadden, et al., “Advanced Casing Design With Finite-Element Model of Effective Dogleg Severity, Radial Displacements, and Bending Loads” [2012] (hereinafter ‘McSpadden’).
Regarding Claim 2: Ke and Chen teach The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
Ke and Chen do not appear to explicitly disclose
determining a drag force on the drill string based on the first set of values and the second set of values.
However, McSpadden teaches determining a drag force on the drill string based on the first set of values and the second set of values. (Pg. 446 left col ¶2 McSpadden teaches determining the effects of drag loads, i.e. force, for sections “…For the bow-spring-centralizer case, an additional 20 kips of overpull for a total overpull value of approximately 140 kips may be applied before the maximum casing von Mises equivalent stress reaches 80 ksi. This reflects the effect of decreased drag loads caused by the effect of the bow-spring centralizers in the buildup section…”)
Ke, Chen, and McSpadden are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, subsurface modeling.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the determining a torque of the drill string based on the first set of values and the second set of values as disclosed by Ke and Chen by determining a drag force on the drill string based on the first set of values and the second set of values as disclosed by McSpadden.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to create model that is not overly conservative as discussed in the abstract of McSpadden “…In typical casing and tubular-stress design, a soft-string model assumes casing strings are coincident with the wellbore centerline. The known or assumed wellbore curvature is applied directly to the casing string. Any effect of casing-string stiffness and allowable radial displacement within the outer wellbore is ignored. In many cases, this results in an overly conservative analysis. Likewise, the impact of bending-stress magnification is typically ignored, along with the effects of centralizer placement. This may also be nonconservative for critical overpull situations, such as in extended-reach-drilling (ERD) and horizontal wells…”
Regarding Claim 5: Ke and Chen teach The computer-implemented method of claim 1,
Ke and Chen do not appear to explicitly disclose
wherein the first model is a soft-string model.
However, McSpadden teaches wherein the first model is a soft-string model. (Pg. 439 left col ¶2 McSpadden teaches the soft-string model “…The weight-transfer curve of surface vs. downhole axial load agrees closely between the FEA and the soft-string model, as shown in Fig. 4. At lockup, the profile of the helical period is in rough agreement with the soft-string model, as shown in Fig. 5. This is significant because the soft-string model uses an entirely analytical solution, whereas the FEA is strictly numerical…”)
Ke, Chen, and McSpadden are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, subsurface modeling.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the determining a torque of the drill string based on the first set of values and the second set of values as disclosed by Ke and Chen by wherein the first model is a soft-string model as disclosed by McSpadden.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to create model that is not overly conservative as discussed in the abstract of McSpadden “…In typical casing and tubular-stress design, a soft-string model assumes casing strings are coincident with the wellbore centerline. The known or assumed wellbore curvature is applied directly to the casing string. Any effect of casing-string stiffness and allowable radial displacement within the outer wellbore is ignored. In many cases, this results in an overly conservative analysis. Likewise, the impact of bending-stress magnification is typically ignored, along with the effects of centralizer placement. This may also be nonconservative for critical overpull situations, such as in extended-reach-drilling (ERD) and horizontal wells…”
Regarding Claim 6: Ke and Chen teach The computer-implemented method of claim 1,
Ke and Chen do not appear to explicitly disclose
wherein the second model is a stiff-string model.
However, McSpadden teaches wherein the second model is a stiff-string model. (Pg. 437 right col ¶5 McSpadden teaches the use of a stiff-string model “…Similar to finite-element BHA models discussed previously, the FEA stiff-string model used here is a matrix-displacement structural-analysis model, in which the casing string is approximated by general beam elements with six degrees of freedom at each node to account for all possible physical displacements and rotations. At each node, the 3D displacements and rotations are calculated for a moving local coordinate system, as shown in Fig. 1. The model involves an iterative solution, in which wall-contact forces are successively adjusted through use of elastic-radial-stiffness forces that are updated to constrain the inner string within the outer wellbore to within a specified tolerance…”)
Ke, Chen, and McSpadden are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, subsurface modeling.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the determining a torque of the drill string based on the first set of values and the second set of values as disclosed by Ke and Chen by wherein the second model is a stiff-string model as disclosed by McSpadden.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to create model that is not overly conservative as discussed in the abstract of McSpadden “…In typical casing and tubular-stress design, a soft-string model assumes casing strings are coincident with the wellbore centerline. The known or assumed wellbore curvature is applied directly to the casing string. Any effect of casing-string stiffness and allowable radial displacement within the outer wellbore is ignored. In many cases, this results in an overly conservative analysis. Likewise, the impact of bending-stress magnification is typically ignored, along with the effects of centralizer placement. This may also be nonconservative for critical overpull situations, such as in extended-reach-drilling (ERD) and horizontal wells…”
Regarding Claim 7: Ke and Chen teach The computer-implemented method of claim 1,
Ke and Chen do not appear to explicitly disclose
wherein the second model utilizes finite element analysis.
However, McSpadden teaches wherein the second model utilizes finite element analysis. (Pg. 438 right col 4th paragraph McSpadden “…In industry-standard software, critical buckling loads, buckling period, and consequent wall-contact force from buckling are determined by analytical solutions and correlations (Mitchell 2008). Ideally, the FEA model should be able to simulate real system behavior without resorting to analytical solutions. …”)
Ke, Chen, and McSpadden are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, subsurface modeling.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the determining a torque of the drill string based on the first set of values and the second set of values as disclosed by Ke and Chen by wherein the second model utilizes finite element analysis as disclosed by McSpadden.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to create model that is not overly conservative as discussed in the abstract of McSpadden “…In typical casing and tubular-stress design, a soft-string model assumes casing strings are coincident with the wellbore centerline. The known or assumed wellbore curvature is applied directly to the casing string. Any effect of casing-string stiffness and allowable radial displacement within the outer wellbore is ignored. In many cases, this results in an overly conservative analysis. Likewise, the impact of bending-stress magnification is typically ignored, along with the effects of centralizer placement. This may also be nonconservative for critical overpull situations, such as in extended-reach-drilling (ERD) and horizontal wells…”
Regarding Claim 21: Ke and Chen teach The computer-implemented method of claim 1,
Ke and Chen do not appear to explicitly disclose
wherein the second model is selected for application to the second segment based on either or both force and displacement values for the one or more nodes within the second segment.
However, McSpadden teaches wherein the second model is selected for application to the second segment based on either or both force and displacement values for the one or more nodes within the second segment. (Pg. 438 right col ¶4 McSpadden teaches the stiff-string model, i.e. second model is used for the ramped force and displacement “…The stiff-string model converges to realistic buckled configurations when run in dynamic mode through use of a ramped force or displacement input defined in pseudotimesteps of sufficient granularity. The model applies a lateral perturbation along the length of the string to initiate buckling. Model buckling can be unstable because there is an infinite number of equilibrium positions, so dynamic effects are included because the system mass provides sufficient stability, which leads to convergence…”)
Ke, Chen, and McSpadden are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, subsurface modeling.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the determining a torque of the drill string based on the first set of values and the second set of values as disclosed by Ke and Chen by wherein the second model is selected for application to the second segment based on either or both force and displacement values for the one or more nodes within the second segment as disclosed by McSpadden.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to create model that is not overly conservative as discussed in the abstract of McSpadden “…In typical casing and tubular-stress design, a soft-string model assumes casing strings are coincident with the wellbore centerline. The known or assumed wellbore curvature is applied directly to the casing string. Any effect of casing-string stiffness and allowable radial displacement within the outer wellbore is ignored. In many cases, this results in an overly conservative analysis. Likewise, the impact of bending-stress magnification is typically ignored, along with the effects of centralizer placement. This may also be nonconservative for critical overpull situations, such as in extended-reach-drilling (ERD) and horizontal wells…”
Claims 9 and 12-14 are system claims, containing substantially the same elements as method Claims 2 and 5-7, respectively, and are rejected on the same grounds under 35 U.S.C. 103 as Claims 2 and 5-7, respectively, Mutatis mutandis.
Claims 16 and 19-20 are medium claims, containing substantially the same elements as method Claims 2 and 5-7, respectively, and are rejected on the same grounds under 35 U.S.C. 103 as Claims 2 and 5-7, respectively, Mutatis mutandis.
Claims 3, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Ke et al., “Computationally Efficient Down-Hole Drilling System Dynamics Modeling Integrating Finite Element and Transfer Matrix” [2017] (hereinafter ‘Ke’) in view of
Chen et al., “Efficient and high-fidelity steering ability prediction of a slender drilling assembly” [10 August 2019] (hereinafter ‘Chen’) further in view of
Ahmed, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0266233 A1 (hereinafter ‘Ahmed’).
Regarding Claim 3: Ke and Chen teach The computer-implemented method of claim 1,
Ke and Chen do not appear to explicitly disclose
wherein segmenting the plurality of continuous nodes is performed based on user provided parameters.
However, Ahmed teaches wherein segmenting the plurality of continuous nodes is performed based on user provided parameters ([0019] Ahmed teaches the user provided parameters for the segments “…FIG. 7 is a table view of string component data useable within the graphical user interface of FIG. 3 to enter and display dimensions of drill string segments useable to calculate displacement features of a drilling mechanism, according to an example embodiment…”)
Ke, Chen, and Ahmed are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, finite element modeling.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the segmenting a plurality of continuous nodes of the drilling string into a first segment based on first shared characteristics of nodes in the first segment and a second segment based on second shared characteristics of nodes in the second segment as disclosed by Ke and Chen by wherein segmenting the plurality of continuous nodes is performed based on user provided parameters as disclosed by Ahmed.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to allow for the operator to adjust the model in real-time when intervention is required as discussed in ¶[0005] by Ahmed “…When realtime operators detect an anomaly or other operation of a rig that might require intervention, the realtime operator may consult with a drill site manager, who is another employee at a centralized control center. The drill site manager, typically a more experienced individual, will provide advice regarding possible responses to rig conditions. Such drill site managers generally rely on their experience to identify and respond to conditions at drill sites. Drill site managers therefore rely on realtime operators located at the centralized location to identify activity at drill sites that requires a response. Meanwhile mudloggers work on the rig site…”
Claims 10 is a system claim, containing substantially the same elements as method Claim 3, respectively, and is rejected on the same grounds under 35 U.S.C. 103 as Claim 3, respectively, Mutatis mutandis.
Claims 17 is a medium claim, containing substantially the same elements as method Claim 3, respectively, and is rejected on the same grounds under 35 U.S.C. 103 as Claim 3, respectively, Mutatis mutandis.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Ke et al., “Computationally Efficient Down-Hole Drilling System Dynamics Modeling Integrating Finite Element and Transfer Matrix” [2017] (hereinafter ‘Ke’) in view of
Chen et al., “Efficient and high-fidelity steering ability prediction of a slender drilling assembly” [10 August 2019] (hereinafter ‘Chen’) further in view of
SAMUEL, International Publication WO 2016/137688 A1 (hereinafter ‘SAMUEL-688’).
Regarding Claim 4: Ke and Chen teach The computer-implemented method of claim 1,
Ke and Chen do not appear to explicitly disclose
wherein segmenting the plurality of continuous nodes is performed based on characteristics for one or more of the plurality of continuous nodes determined by a stiff-string model.
However, SAMUEL-688 teaches wherein segmenting the plurality of continuous nodes is performed based on characteristics for one or more of the plurality of continuous nodes determined by a stiff-string model. (Pg. 6 lines 4-13 SAMUEL-688 teaches using a stiff-string model when determining segments to bend around curve using the nodes “…The FEA may be performed as a real-time calculation that is updated as measurements are acquired, or as a stand-alone calculation that is performed after measurement collection is complete. In either case, hole curvature can be modeled in reverse, i.e., by casting the situation as one having a curved pipe inside a straight borehole. Internal moments and forces are applied which would be required to bend the segments between adjacent nodes in the required curvature but in the opposite direction. In this way the curvature may be handled consistently throughout the sections being analyzed. It does not suffer from the frame-of-reference distortion that is often problematic with finite element solutions. This approach also enables the stiff string model to manage large deflections. This curvature formulation applies equally in both build (inclination change) and walk (azimuth change)…”)
Ke, Chen, and SAMUEL-688 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, finite element modeling.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the segmenting a plurality of continuous nodes of the drilling string into a first segment based on first shared characteristics of nodes in the first segment and a second segment based on second shared characteristics of nodes in the second segment as disclosed by Ke and Chen by wherein segmenting the plurality of continuous nodes is performed based on characteristics for one or more of the plurality of continuous nodes determined by a stiff-string model as disclosed by SAMUEL-688.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to adjust based on the dogleg severity as discussed on pg. 1 lines 17-24 by SAMUEL-688 “…Among the most important trajectory parameters that need to be monitored and controlled is the wellbore dogleg, i.e., the rate at which the trajectory changes direction. The rate of such direction changes can be expressed in terms of degrees per unit length or alternatively in terms of the radius of curvature. Decreasing the curvature radius corresponds to increasing the degrees of directional change per unit length, both of which correspond to increasing the dogleg severity. Severe doglegs create a number of difficulties including casing insertion difficulty, increased friction, increased casing wear, and increased likelihood of bottomhole component trapping…”
Claims 11 is a system claim, containing substantially the same elements as method Claim 4, respectively, and is rejected on the same grounds under 35 U.S.C. 103 as Claim 4, respectively, Mutatis mutandis.
Claims 18 is a medium claim, containing substantially the same elements as method Claim 4, respectively, and is rejected on the same grounds under 35 U.S.C. 103 as Claim 4, respectively, Mutatis mutandis.
Conclusion
Claims 1-21 are rejected.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Levitan, U.S. Patent Application Publication 20110040536 A1 teaches “boundary nodes” and determining “common boundary nodes” in [0144] and Fig. 6C.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN E JOHANSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8062. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-3PM.
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, Emerson Puente can be reached on 5712723652. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN E JOHANSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2187
