DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/20/26 has been entered.
Drawings
As discussed in a previous action, the drawings filed on 11/30/23 are accepted.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/12/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, in view of the applicant’s amendments, is discussed below.
With respect to 35 U.S.C. 103, the applicant argues:
PNG
media_image1.png
204
806
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
378
810
media_image2.png
Greyscale
This argument is not persuasive because both contrary to the applicant’s assertions, both Henderson and Marx disclose “kick.” Please see the modified rejection below for details.
The applicant’s other arguments repeat the same line of argument, as discussed above.
The rejection is maintained, though further detail and clarification is given in the rejection below, in response to the applicant’s 03/12/26 claim amendments.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 has been amended to include the following text:
PNG
media_image3.png
658
814
media_image3.png
Greyscale
This is a big block of text that comprises multiple separate limitations but which is presented as a single limitation. The examiner considered making a 112(b) rejection because when all this text is condensed together, it is difficult to ascertain which clauses/phrases/limitations modify which other clauses/phrases/limitations.
However, a 112(b) rejection will not be made at this time because analogous claims 9 and 17 have separated out limitations in the form of clearer formatting, and the examiner suspects that clearer formatting may solve any potential clarity issues.
The examiner suggests that the applicant break up the above long block of text into its appropriate limitations. The examiner will withhold judgement on a potential 112 rejection until it’s seen how the formatting of claim 1 is amended. For the purposes of examination, in the below rejection, the examiner has separated the big limitation above into sub-limitations, based on the best judgement of the examiner.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because 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.
With respect to step 1 of the patent subject matter eligibility analysis, the claims are directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Independent claim 9 is directed to one or more tangible non-transitory computer-readable storage media, which is a manufacture. As such, claims 9-16 are directed to a statutory category.
With respect to step 2A, prong one, the claims recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon. Specifically, the following limitations recite mathematical concepts and/or mental processes.
Claim 9
determining a fluid type of the drilling fluid (According to paragraph 0045 of the applicant’s original specification, the determination of fluid type appears to be based on fluid modeling using a mud flow model. Such a determination is therefore defined by mathematical relationships and recites an abstract mathematical concept.)
determining a gas wetness ratio and a balance ratio of the drilling fluid based on the fluid type (Paragraphs 0039-0040 disclose specific equations that define the determination of the gas wetness ratio and the balance ratio. The limitation therefore recites an abstract mathematical concept.)
determining and using the MW, the gas wetness ratio, and the balance ratio, at least one of a coefficient of performance (COP) cuttings transport ratio, a COP bit equivalent circulation density (ECD), a COP Wilcox ECD, a reverse circulation ECD, or a COP kill mud density (KMD) (The “determination” of these values involve mathematical calculations; see, for example, claims 4-5, which disclose mathematical equations)
determining whether a kick condition is present in the wellbore when at least one of the COP cuttings transport ratio, the COP bit ECD, the COP Wilcox ECD, the reverse circulation ECD, or the COP KMD exceeds a predetermined threshold (The comparison of a parameter to a threshold represents a specific mathematical relationship. Making a conclusion (such as whether a kick condition is present), based on comparison of a value to a threshold, is an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion that can be performed in the human mind. This limitation therefore recites abstract mathematical concepts and mental processes.)
when the kick condition is determined to be present, determining whether the kick condition corresponds to at least one of ballooning, background gas, a gas pocket, or formation influx using the gas wetness ratio and the balance ratio (Such a determination is an abstract mental process that can be performed in the human mind.)
when at least one of the COP cuttings transport ratio, the COP bit ECD, the COP Wilcox ECD, the reverse circulation ECD, or the COP KMD exceeds the predetermined threshold (Comparing a value to a threshold recites an abstract mathematical relationship.)
Claims 10-16 depend on independent claim 9 and also recite its abstract limitations by virtue of their dependence.
In addition, some of the dependent claims also recite their own abstract mathematical concepts and/or mental processes.
Claim 10 discloses outputting the alert when a value exceeds the predetermined threshold. This comparison to a threshold recites abstract mathematical relationships.
Claim 15 discloses determining a drilling fluid model parameter based on the fluid type. As discussed above, determination of model parameters are defined by abstract mathematical relationships and calculations.
Claim 16 discloses that the predetermined threshold is adjustable based on at least one of a subterranean formation, the drill string, or a drill bit. This limitation recites the ability to alter a mathematical relationship, as claim 9 discloses a relationship between a data variable and the threshold. This limitation therefore recites an abstract mathematical concept.
With respect to step 2A, prong two, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The following limitations are considered “additional elements” and explanation will be given as to why these “additional elements” do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 9
One or more tangible non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing computer-executable instructions for performing a computer process on a computing system (This limitation is not indicative of integration into a practical application because it merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).)
receiving, in real-time, one or more measured parameters (This limitation is not indicative of integration into a practical application because the “real-time” operations are a byproduct of computer processing. Merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is not indicative of integration into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Furthermore, receiving data for further data processing merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).)
from a drill string including at least a mud weight (MW) of a drilling fluid within a wellbore (This limitation is not indicative of integration into a practical application because it generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).)
generating a graphical user interface (GUI) displaying at least one of the coefficient of performance (COP) cuttings transport ratio, the COP bit equivalent density (ECD), the COP Wilcox ECD, the reverse circulation ECD, and the COP KMD (displaying computer processed data is not indicative of integration into a practical application because it merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). It also merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). In the present claims, data is processed and displayed, but the output of the data processing stays on the computer.)
generating an alert when at least one of the COP cuttings transport ratio, the COP bit ECD, the COP Wilcox ECD, the reverse circulation ECD, or the COP KMD exceeds the predetermined threshold, the alert presented using the GUI and indicating a required adjustment of at least one of the drilling fluid, a gas cutting percentage, or a drilling fluid ECD of the drilling fluid (This limitation is not indicative of integration into a practical application because providing an alert based on an abstract data processing output merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)); the solution is in the mathematical data processing. The alerting is extra-solution. Also, the alerting here is done by a computer, and merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is not indicative of integration into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Finally, mentioning parameters, such as drilling fluid, gas cutting percentage, and drilling fluid ECD merely serve to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).)
controlling the drill string by adjusting at least one of the drilling fluid, the gas cutting percentage, or the drilling fluid ECD in response to the alert (This limitation is not indicative of integration into a practical application because the limitation appears to merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The preamble is specifically directed to one or more tangible non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing computer-executable instructions for performing a computer process. As such, the claimed “controlling” appears to merely be a computerized control, rather than a structural control that performs a specific transformation, such as “replacing the drilling fluid” or “speeding up the drill to adjust the parameters.” The claimed control appears to be performed by simply sending out a computer signal; sending out a computer signal about drilling is not the same as actual drilling. The data appears to stay on the computer, rather than being used in a real-world transformation. As such, the limitation merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application. This is further supported by the fact that unlike claim 1, which is directed to a drill rig system, claim 9 is directed to tangible non-transitory computer-readable storage media. It is impossible for there to be a real-world transformation to a non-transitory computer-readable storage media, in the same way that there is to a drill rig system.)
during a drilling operation (This limitation is not indicative of integration into a practical application because it merely serves to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). No details about the drilling operation are given.)
With respect to step 2B, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claimed invention does not add significantly more because, as discussed above in step 2A, prong two, the claims do nothing more than merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The claims are directed to receiving data, processing data, and outputting a result based on the processed data. This is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Simply appending well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, and specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) (see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo).
Claims 9-16 therefore remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
However, in view of the applicant’s 09/05/25 amendments, claims 1, 4-8, and 17-19 do qualify as eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
The rationale for claims 1 and 4-8 being eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 was given in the previous action.
Independent claim 17 has been amended to more resemble independent claim 1, and it is now considered to qualify as eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 for similar reasons. Claims 18-19 depend on claim 17 and are also considered eligible, as a result of their dependency.
Although independent claim 9 has also been amended to more resemble independent claim 1, it is still explicitly directed to computer processing in a way that neither claims 1 nor 17 are. As such, claims 1, 4-8, and 17-19 qualify as eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101, but claims 9-16 are still rejected, as discussed above.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al Rubaii et al (US PgPub 20190316457) in view of Henderson et al (US PgPub 20110139464) and Marx et al (US PgPub 20140116776).
With respect to claim 1, Al-Rubaii et al discloses:
A drill rig system (figure 1)
a drill string operable to form a wellbore through at least a portion of a subterranean environment, the drill string having a drill bit disposed at a distal end (figure 1, reference 112; figure 1, reference 155)
a drilling fluid (paragraph 0042) disposed within at least a portion of the wellbore, the drilling fluid having a mud weight (MW) (paragraphs 0043-0045), the drill string operable to measure one or more drilling parameters including the MW in real-time (paragraph 0045 states, “The control system 152 obtains relevant drilling data in real-time while drilling … The relevant drilling data can be supplemented with various user inputs, such as mud weight and the like. The control system 152 may also use log data.”)
one or more drilling systems associated with the drill string, the one or more drilling systems configured to determine a fluid type of the drilling fluid (figure 3, reference 302 discloses “Mud Type”; paragraph 0003 states, “The motor may be, for example, operated by the flow of drilling fluid (“mud”) through an interior passage in the drill string.”; paragraph 0047 states, “The input data 302 may include one or more input parameters including … mud type …”; Here, Al-Rubaii et al specifies that drilling fluid is synonymous with “mud,” and it specifically discloses “mud type” as one of the considered parameters. Therefore, “fluid type of the drilling fluid” is disclosed, just using a different term than what the applicant uses.)
and determine, in real-time and using the MW measured by the drill string, at least one of a coefficient of performance (COP) cuttings transport ratio (transport ratio taught in figure 3, reference (TR) and paragraph 0067; paragraphs 0011 and 0044-0049 teach real-time processing), a COP bit equivalent circulation density (ECD) (paragraph 0012 states, “the systems and methods ensure optimum mud rheology values that have effective influence on drilling mud from the aspects of equivalent circulating density (ECD), cutting transport, shear thinning, and thixotropic properties.”; paragraphs 0044-0045 disclose real-time measuring/calculations), a COP Wilcox ECD, a reverse circulation ECD, or a COP kill mud density (KMD) (claim already anticipated by the teachings already cited)
With respect to claim 1, Al-Rubaii et al differs from the claimed invention in that it does not explicitly disclose:
determine a gas wetness ratio and a balance ratio of the drilling fluid using the fluid type of the drilling fluid
using the gas ratio and the balance ratio
the one or more drilling systems configured to generate a graphical user interface (GUI) displaying the COP cuttings transport ratio, the COP bit ECD, the COP Wilcox ECD, the reverse circulation ECD, and the COP KMD
the one or more drilling systems configured to determine whether a kick condition is present in the wellbore and whether the kick condition corresponds to at least one of ballooning, background gas, a gas pocket, or formation influx using the gas wetness ratio and the balance ratio when at least one of the COP cuttings transport ratio, the COP bit ECD, the COP Wilcox ECD, the reverse circulation ECD, or the COP KMD exceeds a predetermined threshold
the GUI presenting an alert generated when the at least one of the COP cuttings transport ratio, the COP bit ECD, the COP Wilcox ECD, the reverse circulation ECD, or the COP KMD exceeds the predetermined threshold
the alert indicating a required adjustment of at least one of the drilling fluid, a gas cutting percentage, and a drilling fluid ECD of the drilling fluid, and controlling the drill string by adjusting at least one of the drilling fluid, the gas cutting percentage, or the drilling fluid ECD during a drilling operation in response to the alert
With respect to claim 1, Henderson et al discloses:
determine a gas wetness ratio and a balance ratio of the drilling fluid using the fluid type of the drilling fluid (figures 13-15 and paragraphs 0036-0038, 0125-0126, 0128, and 0130 disclose a “gas ratio,” which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize to be indicative of and serve as a suggestion of a gas wetness ratio. One of ordinary skill in the art also understands that a balance ratio provides a comparison between lighter and heavier gas components, to help support a wetness ratio analysis. Although Henderson et al does not specifically use the phrase, “balance ratio,” it demonstrates the comparison that the balance ratio would indicate in figure 16. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the balance ratio based on the given data.)
using the gas wetness ratio and the balance ratio (obvious in view of the teachings of Henderson et al, as discussed in the preceding limitation)
the one or more drilling systems configured to determine whether a kick condition is present in the wellbore and whether the kick condition corresponds to at least one of ballooning, background gas, a gas pocket, or formation influx using the gas wetness ratio and the balance ratio when at least one of the COP cuttings transport ratio, the COP bit ECD, the COP Wilcox ECD, the reverse circulation ECD, or the COP KMD exceeds a predetermined threshold (figure 18; paragraph 0042 states, “FIG. 18 shows responses of the gas evaluation device for a kick occurring in a managed pressure drilling operation.”; The concept of “kick” is further discussed in Henderson paragraphs 0052, 0145, and 0153)
With respect to claim 1, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Henderson et al into the invention of Al-Rubaii et al. The motivation for the skilled artisan in doing so is to gain the benefit of improved gas content analysis
With respect to claim 1, Marx et al discloses:
the one or more drilling systems configured to determine whether a kick condition is present in the wellbore and whether the kick condition corresponds to at least one of ballooning, background gas, a gas pocket, or formation influx using the gas wetness ratio and the balance ratio when at least one of the COP cuttings transport ratio, the COP bit ECD, the COP Wilcox ECD, the reverse circulation ECD, or the COP KMD exceeds a predetermined threshold (paragraph 0099 of Marx et al states, “Well control refers to the management of the dangerous effects caused by an unexpected influx of formation fluids (gas/oil/condensate) into the wellbore and hence potentially causing damage … Part of well control includes preventing formation fluid, referred to as kick, from entering into the wellbore during drilling.” Table 13 also discloses “Kick data.” As seen, both Henderson and Marx teach “kick”.)
the one or more drilling systems configured to generate a graphical user interface (GUI) displaying the COP cuttings transport ratio, the COP bit ECD, the COP Wilcox ECD, the reverse circulation ECD, and the COP KMD (Marx et al discloses a graphical user interface (figures 31-34; paragraphs 0077-0080, 0095, 0099, 0122, and 0264). The claimed limitation is obvious in view of the combination of Al-Rubaii et al and Marx et al. Al-Rubaii et al teaches the various claimed parameters. Marx teaches the principle of graphical user interface display. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the GUI teachings of Marx et al with the drilling parameter teachings of Al-Rubaii et al, such that the drilling parameters of Al-Rubaii et al are shown.)
the GUI presenting an alert generated when the at least one of the COP cuttings transport ratio, the COP bit ECD, the COP Wilcox ECD, the reverse circulation ECD, or the COP KMD exceeds a predetermined threshold (Marx et al paragraph 0264 states, “At the yellow or red danger levels, the graphical user interface display may also flash to alert the user of the issue.”; The claimed limitation is obvious in view of the combination of Al-Rubaii et al and Marx et al. Al-Rubaii et al teaches the various claimed parameters. Al-Rubaii et al further teaches thresholds – claim 8 states, “determining the transport ratio is less than a predetermined threshold value …” Marx et al also teaches thresholds (paragraphs 0266, 0269, 0271). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the GUI and alert teachings of Marx et al with the drilling parameter teachings of Al-Rubaii et al, such that the drilling parameters of Al-Rubaii et al are shown. Please note that paragraph 0001 of Al-Rubaii et al does explicitly disclose, “displaying to drilling operations personnel values of drilling operating parameters that may optimize drilling …” It also shows various visuals that it would be obvious to display on a GUI (figures 6-10). It also discloses a computer (figure 2) that would support a GUI, such as the one taught in Marx et al.)
the alert indicating a required adjustment of at least one of the drilling fluid, a gas cutting percentage, and a drilling fluid ECD of the drilling fluid (obvious in view of combination; Al-Rubaii et al discloses, “What is needed is a real-time system to proactively calculate … to mitigate issues …”; Marx et al discloses, “optimized drilling parameters … may be used by the control software of the drill string to adjust drilling operations in view of the real-time predictions … Drilling operations may be adjusted manually … alternatively, the optimized drilling parameters 2072 may be automatically fed into the control software for operating a drilling rig, subject to a manual override by a human operator.” The combined art discloses the need and mechanism for adjustments. Furthermore, Marx specifically discloses parameters related to at least one of the drilling fluid, a gas cutting percentage, and a drilling fluid ECD of the drilling fluid. For example, figure 24d discloses “fluid loss” and “density”. Paragraph 0099 of Marx states, “Well control refers to the management of the dangerous effects caused by an unexpected influx of formation fluids … Part of well control includes preventing formation fluid …” Paragraph 0217 also discloses “Percent pressure loss at bit (% psib) …” Paragraph 0220 states, “the pressure reduction may be minimized by pulling the drill string at a slower speed and keeping mud viscosity as low as possible, bearing in mind that hole cleaning and cutting lift properties may have to be maintained while drilling.”)
and controlling the drill string by adjusting at least one of the drilling fluid, the gas cutting percentage, or the drilling fluid ECD during a drilling operation in response to the alert (obvious in view of combination; both Al-Rubaii (paragraphs 0004, 0009, 0014) and Marx (paragraphs 0092, and 0099) disclose control of drilling parameters and operations to account for operational deviations and to ensure proper operation. For example, paragraph 0099 of Marx states, “configured to interface with the drilling control system to automatically adjust drilling parameters to avoid well control hazards. The claimed parameters are well known drilling parameters, as shown by the cited art.)
With respect to claim 1, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Marx et al into the invention of Al-Rubaii et al. The motivation for the skilled artisan in doing so is to gain the benefit of controlling to account for process deviations.
Independent claim 9 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 1. It represents the non-transitory computer-readable storage media version of claim 1.
Independent claim 17 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 1. It represents the method claim version of claim 1.
With respect to claims 11 and 18, Al-Rubaii et al, as modified, discloses:
wherein the one or more measured parameters includes at least one of hole depth, bit position, bit size, bit true vertical depth (TVD), pipe diameter, flow rate in, top drive revolutions per minute (RPM), rate of penetration (ROP), annulus pressure, string speed, gas cutting percentage, or the MW (paragraphs 0042-0043 of Al-Rubaii et al)
With respect to claims 4 and 12, Al-Rubaii et al, as modified, discloses:
wherein the COP cuttings transport ratio is defined as (see claimed mathematical relationship) (obvious in view of transport ratio teachings of Al-Rubaii et al; It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to consider mathematical variations of a known parameter calculation)
With respect to claims 5 and 13, Al-Rubaii et al, as modified, discloses:
wherein the COP bit ECD is defined as (see claimed mathematical relationship) (obvious in view of ECD of Al-Rubaii et al; It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to consider mathematical variations of a known parameter calculation)
With respect to claims 6 and 14, Al-Rubaii et al, as modified, discloses:
wherein the one or more drilling systems receive an input to adjust at least one of the MW or the drilling fluid ECD/COP bit equivalent circulation density in response to the alert (obvious in view of combination; Al-Rubaii et al teaches altering values as a result of a threshold determination (see claims 8-9 of Al-Rubaii))
With respect to claims 7 and 15, Al-Rubaii et al, as modified, discloses:
wherein the one or more drilling systems are further configured to determine a drilling fluid model parameter based on the fluid type (Al-Rubaii et al figure 3, reference 306 discloses model calculations; figure 302 shows “mud type” as input data, and as discussed above, “mud type” is synonymous with “fluid type.”)
With respect to claims 8 and 16, Al-Rubaii et al, as modified, discloses:
wherein the predetermined threshold is adjustable based on at least one of the subterranean formation, the drill string, or the drill bit (obvious in view of combination; in addition to Al-Rubaii’s threshold teachings, paragraph 0269 of Marx et al states, “A person skilled in the art will appreciate that different threshold … may be used according to embodiments of the invention in the discretion of the operator or user.”)
With respect to claim 10, Al-Rubaii et al, as modified, discloses:
outputting the alert for display on the GUI when the at least one of the COP cuttings transport ratio, the COP bit ECD, the COP Wilcox ECD, the reverse circulation ECD, and/or the COP KMD exceeds the predetermined threshold (obvious in view of combination; alert, GUI, transport ratio, ECD, and threshold discussed above)
With respect to claim 19, Al-Rubaii et al, as modified, discloses:
wherein the one or more measured parameters comprises the gas cutting percentage, and the at least one of the COP cuttings transport ratio, the COP bit ECD, the COP Wilcox ECD, the reverse circulation ECD, or a COP KMD being adjusted based at least partly on the gas cutting percentage (paragraph 0048 of Al-Rubaii et al states, “Cutting concentration in the annulus is an effective tool that can indicate what percentage of cuttings generated while drilling are loaded in the annulus.”)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kelleher et al (US PgPub 20080115971) discloses a remote gas monitoring apparatus for sealed drilling.
Rapoport (US PgPub 20150268374) discloses means and methods for multimodality analysis and processing of drilling mud.
Kulkarni et al (US PgPub 20140202772) discloses drilling a well with predicting sagged fluid composition and mud weight.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEONARD S LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2148. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 AM - 7 PM.
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 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.
/LEONARD S LIANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2857 03/30/26
Prosecution Insights