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 .
Status of Claims
This is a final office action in response to the amendment filed 16 October 2025 . Claims 19, and 17 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are 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 is maintained and 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 claimed system and method use the quantitative outputs to generate operational performance indicators and transmit control signals that modify drilling equipment operation. Applicant further asserts that the claim amendments include “a structural data set” (event distributions, matrices, risk contours, transfer models) and “a quantitative assessment stored as at least one quantitative performance value of the risk and reliability associated with at least one drilling run”, and the claim as a whole, are not directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A. Prong One, that the claimed invention recites additional elements that integrate the inventive concept into a practical application per Step 2A, Prong Two that go beyond merely analyzing or displaying information, and are analogous to the Diamond v. Diehr decision because the quantitative modeling and simulations are applied in a process designed to control drilling equipment, achieving a tangible result. Applicant also asserts that the claimed invention aligns with the principle illustrated in Example 37, and that the combination of elements amount to significantly more than any alleged judicial exception under Step 2B because the combination of features provides an inventive concept that transforms the claimed subject matter into a concrete industrial process, and improves the field of drilling operations by enabling predictive and adaptive control informed by data-driven risk assessments as a technological improvement that integrates quantitative risk modeling into real-time control of drilling operations. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant’s arguments are more specific than the recited claim language and the disclosure. While the data analysis steps include additional elements that include risk modeling and simulations, the control of the drilling equipment in a manner that is analogous to Diamond v. Diehr is absent. Modeling risk and simulating a planned run is not a tangible result that confers patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101. Receiving data, analyzing it, manipulating the data through use of algorithms, mathematical formulas, modeling, and simulation, and generating a predicted risk assessment related to drilling operations is an abstract idea directed to processing data using generic computer components in a manner analogous to ineligible claim 2 of Example 47. A digital simulation of a drilling run that is modifiable by a user, as claimed, is not an automated control of actual drilling equipment. The modeling and simulation output is used to instruct an operator of risk related to control of the drilling equipment that may be mitigated. Output of the result of data analysis and manipulation using specific mathematical concepts is an abstract concept in and of itself. A process that employs mathematical algorithms to manipulate existing information to generate additional information is not patent eligible The inventive concept improves a business process, not the underlying technology used to implement the abstract idea of data processing, analysis, manipulation, and output.
The limitation “ in response to receiving the command via the input interface, transmit a signal to modify the performance of the drilling operation based on the command via the input interface” is broadly and generically claimed such that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language in view of the Specification is a user input that re-runs the simulation of the planned drilling run to subsequently “output, via the user interface being utilized by the at least one user, a graphic display of a result from a modification to the performance of the drilling equipment of the drilling operation.” The claim lacks technical details regarding what technical element receives the signal that is transmitted and how the signal implements an automated control of drilling equipment. A processor transmits a signal to an interface to output the results of data analysis. Display of a data processing output is construed as insignificant post-solution activity that does not confer patent eligibility.
Per MPEP 2106.05(g) extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. When determining whether an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity, examiners may consider the following: (1) Whether the extra-solution limitation is well known; (2) Whether the limitation is significant (i.e. it imposes meaningful limits on the claim such that it is not nominally or tangentially related to the invention); (3) Whether the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output). The limitations for receiving drilling data, obtaining planned drilling data, storing a well completion record as a structural data set, presenting the well completion record to the at least one user, updating the well completion record in response to user input, receiving a command from the at least one user, transmitting a signal to modify the performance of the drilling operation, and outputting a graphical display of the result 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.
The claims are not analogous to Example 37. In Example 37, the claimed subject matter was determined to be patent eligible because, “the additional elements recite a specific manner of automatically displaying icons to the user based on usage which provides a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in an improved interface for electronic devices.” The claimed subject matter does not improve the functioning of a device nor is it an improvement to a technology or a technical field. The specification and the claims lack specific technical elements for automated control of the drilling equipment and therefore fall short of patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 an interface being utilized by at least one user, drilling data comprising real time drilling data for a drilling run that corresponds to a plurality of planned runs of drilling equipment for a well drilling operation;
determine a current NPT performance value for the drilling run based on the drilling data;
obtain, via the interface being utilized by the at least one user, planned drilling data for at least one planned drilling run following the drilling run;
wherein the planned drilling data comprises at least one of: at least one hole size, at least one maximum depth, or at least one drilled length;
dynamically map the planned drilling data to at least one planned run categorization based on an application of at least one category definition matrix to the planned drilling data;
wherein the at least one category definition matrix comprises a cross-reference of a plurality of predetermined category definitions to drilling data values;
identify, based on the at least one 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 are indexed according to a particular combination planned run categorizations of the plurality of predetermined category definitions;
estimate a future NPT performance value associated with the at least one planned drilling run based on: one or more statistical simulations for the at least one planned run; 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;
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;
generate 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 an estimated future NPT performance value;
determine an NPT modifier value based at least in part on the planned drilling run iso-risk contour;
determine a below rotary table (BRT) hours value for the at least one planned drilling run based on the current NPT performance value, the estimated future NPT value and the NPT modifier value;
generate a transfer model for the drilling run based on result data of the one or more statistical simulations;
utilize the transfer model to estimate at least one actual downtime value associated with the drilling data for the drilling run that corresponds to the plurality of planned runs;
determine a total non-productive time risk data for the plurality of planned runs based on the result data of the one or more statistical simulations and the transfer model;
wherein the total non-productive time risk data comprises at least one NPT probability distribution value;
utilize the transfer model to predict a future non-productive time performance based on the total non-productive time risk data, the NPT modifier, and the at least one drilling data variable;
generate a well completion time distribution based at least in part on the total non-productive time risk data, the estimated future NPT performance value, and the current NPT performance data;
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 transfer model, 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 at least one planned drilling run;
present the well completion record to the at least one user to evaluate the risk and reliability associated with the at least one planned drilling run and determine whether to update to the well completion record;
update, in response to input provided by the at least one user via the interface being utilized by the at least one user, the well completion record based on an analysis of the minimum level of performance associated with the well completion time distribution and the transfer model, wherein the update of the well completion record generates operational performance indicators that enhance the interface with at least one digital interpretation of the current NPT 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;
receive a command from the at least one user via the input interface;
in response to receiving the command via the input interface, transmit a signal to modify the performance of the drilling operation based on the command via the input interface; and
output, via the user interface being utilized by the at least one user, a graphic display of a result from a modification to the performance of the drilling equipment 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 for the drilling run. Thus the claims fall within one of the statutory categories of invention.
Under Step 2A Prong One, the limitations for receiving drilling data, determining a current (NPT), obtaining planned drilling data, mapping the planned drilling data to at least one planned run categorization, identifying at least one particular NPT event distribution, estimating a future NPT, extracting a least one drilling data value, generating an NPT risk coordinate system, generating a planned drilling run iso-risk contour, determining an NPT modifier, determining a below rotary table hours value, generating a transfer model, utilizing the transfer model, determining a total non-productive time risk data, utilizing the transfer model to predict future non-productive time performance, generating a well completion time distribution, generating and storing a well completion record, presenting the well completion record to the at least one user, updating the well completion record in response to user input, generating operational performance indicators, receiving a command form a user, transmitting a signal to modify the performance of the drilling operation, and outputting a graphical display of a result, 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. 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 claims are directed to an abstract idea of collecting, analyzing and manipulating data, and outputting certain results of the collection and analysis.
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, generate a transfer model, utilize the transfer model, 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, presenting the well completion record to the at least one user, updating the well completion record in response to user input, receiving a command from the at least one user, transmitting a signal to modify the performance of the drilling operation, and outputting a graphical display of the result 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, user 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 user input via an interface, 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.
The limitation “ in response to receiving the command via the input interface, transmit a signal to modify the performance of the drilling operation based on the command via the input interface” is broadly and generically claimed such that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language in view of the Specification is a user input that re-runs the simulation of the planned drilling run to subsequently “output, via the user interface being utilized by the at least one user, a graphic display of a result from a modification to the performance of the drilling equipment of the drilling operation.” The claim lacks technical details regarding what technical element receives the signal that is transmitted and how the signal implements an automated control of drilling equipment. A processor transmits a signal to an interface to output the results of data analysis. Display of a data processing output is construed as insignificant post-solution activity that does not confer patent eligibility.
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. Example 42 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance highlighted the following regarding real-time data gathering steps: Claim 1’s data-gathering steps of a “server device being configured to receive real-time transactions through a network,” “transmitting” generic and specific attributes to database tables, and post-solution step of “a user interface configured to provide real-time access” to one of the database tables reasonably can be characterized as merely constituting insignificant extra-solution activity.
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:
Veeningen et al. (US 7,548,873) - `Automatic Well Planning Software System` including an advanced probabilistic `Automatic Well Planning Monte Carlo Simulation Software` that represents an automated process adapted for automatically generating and displaying time and cost data associated with oilfield related activities, the display of time and cost data including a numerical display and a graphical display. The `Automatic Well Planning Software System` represents an automatic process for integrating both wellbore construction and planning workflow accounting for process interdependencies. 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 geo-mechanical 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" which are faithful to an engineered well design, and (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.
Cullick et al. (US 2004/0220790) - system and method may be configured to support the evaluation of the economic impact of uncertainties associated with the planning of a petroleum production project, e.g., uncertainties associated with decisions having multiple possible outcomes and uncertainties associated with uncontrollable parameters such as rock properties, oil prices, etc. The system and method involve receiving user input characterizing the uncertainty of planning variables and performing an iterative simulation that computes the economic return for various possible instantiations of the set of planning variables based on the uncertainty characterization. The system and method may (a) utilize and integrate highly rigorous physical reservoir, well, production flow, and economic models, and (b) provide a mechanism for specifying constraints on the planning variables.
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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