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 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 29 April 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This is a non-final office action in response to the request for continued examination filed 29 April 2026. Claims 1, 9, and 17 have been amended. Claims 1-20 remain pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment to claims 1, 9, and 17 has been entered.
Applicant’s amendment is insufficient to overcome the pending 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection. The rejection remains pending and is updated below, as necessitated by amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that the claims require real-time drilling data with computer-to-computer data exchange for processor-executed stochastic simulation, automatic data transmission, and time-based trend analysis that is machine implemented in a manner that cannot be performed mentally or with pen and paper, and thus are subject matter eligible. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
While the recited data analysis limitations are complex, complexity of a mathematical concept and efficiency of a processor for performing the requisite computations is insufficient to confer patent subject matter eligibility. While the data analysis steps include additional elements that include risk modeling and simulations, both the claim limitations and the Specification are void of elements directed to the control of the drilling equipment in a manner that is analogous to Diamond v. Diehr or another practical application of the generated output beyond use as a decision making aid for planning drilling operations. The real-time drilling data is broadly and generically claimed as being received from the “drilling operation site … includes data obtained from downhole monitoring equipment within a wellbore” (see Spec. at [para. 0005]) with no specific source of the data. And the “enhanced interface comprising at least one input interface that is configured to modify a performance of drilling equipment of a drilling operation” is similarly broadly and generically claimed in a manner that does not amount to a practical application of the recited data collection, analysis, and output steps. The claimed invention is directed to collecting data and applying mathematical and statistical analysis to the data to generate risk probabilities based on parameters of a planned drilling run. Per the Specification at [para. 0024] the claimed invention “produces and implements a quantitative RTM that accounts for a variety of well-field characteristics that include, but are not limited to drilling time, location, downhole tools used, distance drilled, and well conditions. The RTM may standardize key performance indicators that may be used to differentiate drilling operators' products and services in the marketplace. The RTM may comprise a NPT parameter that indicates well failures from the product or service delivery of the drilling operator(s).” While the data may be collected “real-time” the application of the collection and analysis output is not implemented in a manner that controls drilling equipment or performs some other controlled automation in real-time. The output is merely transmitted to an interface for user interpretation and decision making. As a result, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is maintained and updated below, as necessitated by amendment.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation to “automatically execute the RTM implemented by the RTM module for the plurality of planned drillings runs” appears to contain a typographical error. The term “drillings” is construed to mean drilling. 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 1 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of collecting drilling related data, analyzing and manipulating the data, and generating an output in the form of a workflow simulation for risk mitigation, without significantly more. Independent claim 1 recites a product, independent claim 9 recites a system, and independent claim 17 recites a process for determining performance values for well drilling and operations planning. Claims 1, 9, and 17 recite substantially similar limitations.
Taking amended claim 1 as representative, amended claim 1 recites at least the following limitations:
receive, via the input interface, drilling data comprising real-time drilling data automatically transmitted from a drilling operation site for a plurality of actual drilling runs that at least partially corresponds to a plurality of planned drilling runs of drilling equipment for a well drilling operation, wherein the real-time drilling data that is automatically transmitted includes data obtained from downhole monitoring equipment within a wellbore;
automatically determine a current NPT performance value based on aggregation of the drilling data associated with the plurality of action drilling runs mapped to corresponding planned drilling runs;
obtain, via the input interface, planned drilling data associated with the plurality of planned drilling runs of the drilling equipment for the well drilling operation;
wherein the planned drilling data comprises: at least one hole size, at least one maximum depth, and at least one drilled length;
automatically dynamically map the planned drilling data into structured run-level records corresponding to a plurality of planned run categorizations, based on an application of a category definition matrix to the planned drilling data;
wherein the category definition matrix comprises a cross-reference of a plurality of predetermined category definitions to drilling data values;
automatically identify, based on the planned run categorization, at least one particular NPT event distribution in a library of NPT event distributions;
wherein each NPT event distribution in the library of NPT event distributions is indexed according to a particular combination of planned run categorizations of the plurality of predetermined category definitions;
automatically estimate, by execution of the RTM module implementing the RTM, future NPT performance values for the plurality of planned drilling runs based on: one or more statistical simulations for the plurality of planned drilling runs; at least one Monte Carlo trial using the at least one particular NPT event distribution, and the current NPT performance value and the planned drilling data;
extract at least one drilling data value for at least one drilling data variable from a plurality of operation reports associated with the planned drilling data;
automatically generate an NPT risk coordinate system based at least in part on the at least one drilling data value for the at least one drilling data variable;
wherein the NPT risk coordinate system maps NPT event severity as a function of NPT event frequency;
automatically generate, for each of the plurality of planned drilling runs, a planned drilling run iso-risk contour associated with the NPT risk coordinate system based at least in part on the current NPT performance value and estimated future NPT performance values;
automatically determine, for each of the plurality of planned drilling runs, an NPT modifier value based at least in part on the planned drilling run iso-risk contour;
automatically determine a below rotary table (BRT) hours value for each of the plurality of planned drilling runs as a baseline drilling time;
apply, for each of the plurality of planned drilling runs, the current NPT performance value, the estimated future NPT performance values and the NPT modifier value to the corresponding baseline BRT hours value;
automatically execute the RTM implemented by the RTM module for the plurality of planned drilling runs using the drilling data from the plurality of actual drilling runs that correspond to the plurality of planned drilling runs, based on result data of the one or more statistical simulations to generate RTM execution results;
utilize the RTM execution results of the RTM to estimate at least one actual downtime value associated with the drilling data for the plurality of actual drilling runs that correspond to the plurality of planned drilling runs;
determine a total non-productive time risk data for the plurality of planned drilling runs based on the result data of the one or more statistical simulations and the execution results of the RTM;
wherein the total non-productive time risk data comprises at least one NPT probability distribution value;
utilize the execution results of the RTM to estimate a future non-productive time performance distribution for the plurality of planned drilling runs based on the total non-productive time risk data, the NPT modifier values, and the at least one drilling data variable;
automatically generate a well completion time distribution based at least in part on the total non-productive time risk data, the estimated future NPT performance values, and the current NPT performance data;
automatically generate and store a well completion record as a structural data set comprising a minimum level of performance, based at least in part on the well completion time distribution and the execution results of the RTM, wherein the minimum level of performance in the well completion record reflects a quantitative assessment stored as at least one quantitative performance value of the risk and reliability associated with the plurality of planned drilling runs;
transmit the well completion record via the output interface for evaluation of the risk and reliability associated with the plurality of planned drilling runs and to determine whether to update to the well completion record; and
automatically update and output to the output interface, the well completion record based on an analysis of the minimum level of performance associated with the well completion time distribution and the execution results of the RTM, wherein the update of the well completion record includes machine-generated operational performance indicators that enhance the output interface with at least one digital interpretation of the current NPT performance value and the well completion time distribution,
wherein the at least one digital interpretation is associated with an enhanced interface comprising at least one input interface that is configured to modify a performance of drilling equipment of a drilling operation,
and wherein the execution of the RTM automatically generates, updates, and transmits, via the output interface, at least one machine-generated probability distribution graph representing the well completion time distribution or baseline-adjusted BRT hours distribution, the at least one machine-generated probability distribution graph being derived from the one or more statistical simulations including the at least one Monte Carlo trial, and provided via the output interface for real-time, data-driven operational assessment of the drilling operation.
Under Step 1, independent claims 1, 9, and 17 recite at least one step or act, including determining a current NPT performance value. Thus the claims fall within one of the statutory categories of invention.
Under Step 2A Prong One, the limitations for receiving drilling data, automatically determining a current NPT performance value, obtaining planned drilling data, automatically dynamically mapping the planned drilling data into structured run-level records corresponding to a plurality of planned run categorizations, automatically identifying at least one particular NPT event distribution, automatically estimating future NPT performance values for the plurality of planned drilling runs, extracting a least one drilling data value for at least one drilling data variable, automatically generating an NPT risk coordinate system, automatically generating a planned drilling run iso-risk contour, automatically determining an NPT modifier value, automatically determining a below rotary table hours value, applying the current NPT performance value, the estimated future NPT performance values, and the NPT modifier value to the corresponding baseline BRT hours value, automatically executing the RTM for the plurality of planned drilling[s] runs, utilizing the RTM execution results of the RTM to estimate at least one actual downtime value, determining a total non-productive time risk data for the plurality of planned drilling runs, utilizing the execution results of the RTM to estimate future non-productive time performance distribution for the plurality of planned drilling runs, automatically generating a well completion time distribution, automatically generating and storing a well completion record as a structural data set, transmitting the well completion record for evaluation of the risk and reliability associated with the plurality of planned drilling runs, automatically updating and outputting the well completion record, as drafted, illustrate a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion) because none of the additional elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind, or by a human using pen and paper. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). A petroleum engineer or risk analyst could gather the drilling related data and using a pen and paper estimate future NPT, perform statistical simulations for at least one planned run, apply at least one Monte Carlo mathematical analysis, generate an NPT coordinate system to map NPT event severity as a function of frequency, generate a planned drilling run iso-risk contour, determine an NPT modifier value, determine a BRT hours value, generate a well completion time distribution, and generate and store a well completion record comprising a minimum level of performance, and draft drill string handling instructions for a drilling operator to follow. The claims are directed to an abstract idea of collecting, analyzing and manipulating data, and outputting certain results of the collection and analysis. Therefore, the limitations fall into the mental processes grouping and accordingly the claims recite an abstract idea of gathering and analyzing data to generate drilling related statistical determinations and risk assessments for well completion procedures.
The claimed steps determine a current NPT, estimate a future NPT based on one or more statistical simulations, at least one Monte Carlo trial, and the current NPT performance value, extract a drilling data value, generate an NPT risk coordinate system, generate a planned drilling run iso-risk contour, determine an NPT modifier value, utilize the RTM execution results for the RTM to estimate actual downtown values, determine a total non-productive time risk data, generate a well completion time distribution, and generation a well completion record are each directed to preforming a mathematical calculation. Using Monte Carlo mathematical algorithms and computations for simulation and optimization falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. Therefore, the claims are also directed to the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
The limitations for receiving drilling data, obtaining planned drilling data, extracting at least one drilling data value from the operation reports, storing a well completion record as a structural data set, transmitting the well completion record, outputting the well completion record, are data collection/ data gathering steps that are construed as insignificant extra-solution activity because they merely provide input for the recited data processing steps. Storing data, such as the well completion record, is also a form of data gathering used to provide input for data processing. Outputting or transmitting data is insignificant post-solution activity because merely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information, without more, is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis. Therefore, these recited limitations do not confer patent eligibility. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Under Step 2A Prong Two the judicial exception of claim 1 is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites an input interface, output interface, database, non-transitory memory, and processor for performing the recited steps. These elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). For example, Applicant’s specification at paragraphs [0026-0027] states: “FIG. 1 is a schematic diagram of an embodiment of a RTM processing system 100 that may correspond to or may be part of a computer and/or any other computing device, such as a workstation, server, mainframe, super computer, and/or database. … The output interface 206 may include, but is not limited to a graphic display (e.g., monitors and display screens), a user interface, and/or an interface used to connect to a printing device configured to produce hard-copies of the generated results.” Adding generic computer components to perform generic functions, such as data gathering, performing calculations, and outputting a result would not transform the claim into eligible subject matter. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The claims are directed to an improved business process for determining risks associated with a planned drilling event, not to the improvement to the underlying generic computer processing and interface technology used as tools to apply the abstract concept of analyzing and manipulating known and received data to generate a risk model, and output a graphical representation of a result for human interpretation and decision making. As to the data operated upon, even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is ‘limited to particular content’ or a particular source, that limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
While claim 1 includes the limitations related to receiving input via an interface and machine-generated operational performance indicators that “enhance” the output interface with at least one digital interpretation, the limitations do not go beyond a general link to user interface technology because the interface is recited at a high level of generality with the only required functions of receiving input data and displaying the output, which are generic functions of interfaces. The claims fail to recite an improvement to interface functionality or specific limitations wherein specific interface control elements perform specific functions in response to specific user interaction beyond generic user interface functionality of displaying, filtering, transmitting, or receiving data. (See at least [para. 0027-0029, 0039-0040, 0043, 0063] of the specification regarding user input of parameters and input to adjust the RTM to generate a future risk score for assessing and quantifying risks related to a planned run). The claimed “enhanced interface” is not described with sufficient technical details to provide a meaningful improvement to graphical user interface technology, the enhancement is merely a description of the data that is presented and manipulated using generic interface technology. The user interface functionality is merely a general link to user interface technology, therefore the claims fail to integrate the judicial exception of collecting, analyzing, and outputting the results of the collection and analysis steps into a practical application. Further, the output of a result on an interface amounts to insignificant extra solution activity equivalent to a written report, that does not advance patentability to an otherwise ineligible claim.
To the extent that Applicant relies on providing the claimed “instructions” and “output” in “real-time” as the practical application, Applicant is reminded that in most cases, relying on a computer to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible. The claimed invention is directed to collecting data and applying mathematical and statistical analysis to the data to generate risk probabilities based on parameters of a planned drilling run. Per the Specification at [para. 0024] the claimed invention “produces and implements a quantitative RTM that accounts for a variety of well-field characteristics that include, but are not limited to drilling time, location, downhole tools used, distance drilled, and well conditions. The RTM may standardize key performance indicators that may be used to differentiate drilling operators' products and services in the marketplace. The RTM may comprise a NPT parameter that indicates well failures from the product or service delivery of the drilling operator(s).” While the data may be collected “real-time” the application of the collection and analysis output is not implemented in a manner that controls drilling equipment or performs some other controlled automation in real-time. The output is merely transmitted to an interface for user interpretation and decision making.
Under Step 2B the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Further, the Specification does not provide additional details about the claimed computer system (an input interface, user interface, database, non-transitory memory, and processor) that would distinguish it from any generic processing devices that communicate with one another in a network environment. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of interfaces, a processor, and storage device amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component which cannot provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claims 2 through 8, 10 through 16, and 18 through 20 include the abstract ideas of the independent claims. The dependent claims merely narrow the recited judicial exception by describing the type on data used for input and data analysis. The limitations of the dependent claims are not integrated into a practical application because none of the additional elements set forth any limitations that meaningfully limit the abstract idea implementation, therefore the claims are directed to an abstract idea. There are no additional elements that transform the claim into a patent eligible idea by amounting to significantly more. The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. Accordingly independent claims 9 and 17 and the claims that depend therefrom are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101 based upon the same analysis applied to claim 1 above. Therefore claims 1 - 20 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
Abreu et al. (US 2011/0264473) - various investment scenarios and simulated investment results for a variable annuity account, the known practices may include generating a model to project insurance cash flows, Monte Carlo simulations of risk neutral scenarios, and fair value estimates of the liability and sensitivities of the liability "Greeks" and "Cross-Greeks". (As is well known to those who are skilled in the arts, "Greeks" are also referred to as "risk sensitivities" or "risk measures" and are indicative of the sensitivities of the value of an asset or liability to changes in underlying parameters, such as the value of an underlying asset or assets, market volatility, interest rates, etc.)
Adler (US 9,691,046) - the Monte Carlo simulation work-steps includes performing a Monte Carlo simulation on the project activity network diagram utilizing the probability distributions for activity durations to compute a probability distribution for a duration of the entire program and performing a financial Monte Carlo simulation on cost and benefits of the program utilizing the probability distribution for the duration of the entire program, each step of the activity sequence, and other costs and benefits unrelated to duration to compute a probability distribution for Internal Rate of Return (IRR) and Net Present Value (NPV).
Bagchi et al. (US 2008/0255910) - method for improving project risk management based on (a) a quantitative analysis of risks affecting activities, i.e., the root factors leading to cost and time overruns on an activity by activity basis, and (b) an optimization of the resources allocation to each activity in the project plan, is employed to maximize the probability of completing projects on time and within-budget. The method can be employed prior to proceeding with one or more projects, but is also advantageous in that it is adaptive in the sense that more information can be learned during the course of a project about the risk factors present in the project, and this information is used to enable dynamically re-allocating resources to ensure a better outcome given an updated risk profile. A critical path analysis (step 3-4) is performed to calculate the probability of any activity being on the critical path for project completion, taking into account the estimated uncertainty levels of activity durations through Monte Carlo simulation. Then, optionally, a sensitivity analysis (step 3-5) can be performed to determine the probability distribution of project duration and cost, and their confidence intervals. In particular, the sensitivity analysis (step 3-5) can estimate the effect of mitigating a risk factor (e.g., implementing incentive programs, etc.) on activity durations, and allow for re-assessing project cost and schedule.
Givens et al. (US 8,812,334) - an automated process adapted for integrating both a wellbore construction planning workflow and accounting for process interdependencies exist. The automated process is based on a drilling simulator, the process representing a highly interactive process which is encompassed in a software system that: (1) allows well construction practices to be tightly linked to geological and geomechanical models, (2) enables asset teams to plan realistic well trajectories by automatically generating cost estimates with a risk assessment, thereby allowing quick screening and economic evaluation of prospects, (3) enables asset teams to quantify the value of additional information by providing insight into the business impact of project uncertainties, (4) reduces the time required for drilling engineers to assess risks and create probabilistic time and cost estimates faithful to an engineered well design, (5) permits drilling engineers to immediately assess the business impact and associated risks of applying new technologies, new procedures, or different approaches to a well design.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LETORIA G KNIGHT whose telephone number is (571)270-0485. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Rutao WU can be reached at 571-272-6045. 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.
/L.G.K/Examiner, Art Unit 3623 /RUTAO WU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights