DETAILED ACTION
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 10, 14, 18, 25-26, 31-32 and 37-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fogal et al., US-PGPUB 2005/0257611 (hereinafter Fogal) in views of Cazeneuve et al., US-PGPUB 2017/0115420 (hereinafter Cazeneuve), Rasmus, US Pat No. 4,833,914 (Rasmus) and Sehsah, US-PGPUB 2012/0227961 (hereinafter Sehsah) and Marland et al., US-PGPUB 2017/0306748 (hereinafter Marland)
Regarding Claims 1, 14, and 18. Fogal discloses positioning a drillstring in a wellbore and performing a drilling operation in the wellbore (Fig. 1; Paragraph [0034]), detecting a first pause in the drilling operation (Paragraph [0063], stop rotating to initiate formation test), obtaining first strain measurements from a strain gauge at a first depth in the wellbore (Paragraph [0101], first depth location among every depth point in the borehole; Paragraph [0086], strain gauges), based on detecting the first pause of a pause in drilling of the wellbore by the drillstring (Paragraph [0063], stopped rotating), resuming the drilling operation after the obtaining the first strain measurements (Paragraph [0063], drilling is stopped only during the formation testing, so drilling resumes after testing), detecting a second pause in the drilling operation (Paragraph [0063], stop rotating to initiate formation test), obtaining second strain measurements from the strain gauge at a second location depth in a wellbore, based on detecting the second pause in the drilling operation (Paragraph [0101], measuring pressures at every point in the well, which would involves a second depth location among every depth point in the boreholes. The drilling is also stopped to perform testing and obtain measurements at a second depth location; Paragraph [0102]); determining an offset value corresponding to a fluid pressure based on the second strain measurements, wherein the offset value indicates contribution of fluid pressure to the strain measurements and the fluid pressure comprises at least one of hydrostatic pressure or hydrodynamic pressure on the drillstring (Paragraph [0035], the MWS formation tester 10 with the strain gauges as disclosed in Paragraph [0086], is part of a drill string that experiences the same said pressure; Paragraph [0093], offset error due to fluid pressure), and performing an error checking of the offset values at various depths and taring the second strain measurements based on the error checking (Fig. 11; Paragraph [0092]-[0094], offset values may be used to adjust specific data points in the test, including test at various depths, which would include the second strain measurements at second depth).
Fogal further discloses using the formation pressure to optimize drilling parameters (Paragraphs [0125]), including adjustments to the mud system (Paragraph [0126] and other drilling parameters (Paragraphs [0127]-[0129])
Fogal does not explicitly disclose strain measurements for the drillstring, and hydrostatic or hydrodynamic pressure and performing an error checking of the offset value based on a comparison between the first strain measurements measured at the first depth of the wellbore and the second strain measurements at the second depth of the wellbore, and taring the second strain measurements based on the error checking to separate the contribution of the fluid pressure to the second strain measurements from other drilling forces to determine at least one of flow rate or mud weight values to control the drilling operation in the wellbore, and using the determined at least one of the flow rate or mud weight values to control drilling operation in the wellbore.
Cazeneuve discloses the strain measurements with respect to depths (Fig. 4, Paragraph [0016], depth dependent strain profile; Paragraph [0064]. The Fig. 4 discloses the strain measurements at first depth 408 and second depth 410, where the comparison between the strain measurements and the differences (or the offset) between the min and max is visually evident.)
Sehsah discloses what is commonly known in the art about the hydrodynamic pressure and hydrostatic pressure, and pressure exerting in the annular space between the drillstring and controlling the drilling operation (Paragraph [0002]-[0003])
Rasmus also disclose what is commonly known in the art about controlling the drilling operation by controlling the mud weight, which includes calculating the mud weight (Col. 1, lines 6-51)
Marland discloses strain in a component of a drillstring at each of plurality of depths (Claims 10; Abstract)
As such, at the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Cazeneuve, Sehsah, Marland and Rasmus with Fogal and obtain strain measurements for the drillstrings at first and second depths, and with hydrostatic or hydrodynamic pressure, perform an error checking of the offset value based on a comparison between the first strain measurements measured at the first depth of the wellbore and the second strain measurements at the second depth of the wellbore, and taring the second strain measurements based on the error checking to separate the contribution of the fluid pressure to the second strain measurements from other drilling forces to determine at least one of flow rate or mud weight values to control the drilling operation in the wellbore with accuracy and efficiency.
Regarding Claims 10, 26, 32 and 38. Fogal discloses determining an offset value comprises determining a hydrostatic offset value and a total offset value on the strain measurements, and determining a hydrodynamic offset value based, at least in part, on a difference between the total offset value and the hydrostatic offset value (Paragraphs [0092]-[0094], offset Eoffs1 for the duration of the test of the total offset)
Regarding Claim 25. Fogal discloses drilling of the wellbore resumes after taring of the second strain measurements (Paragraph [0063], drilling is stopped only during the formation testing, so drilling resumes after testing, and this includes after taring),
Regarding Claim 31. Fogal discloses drilling of the wellbore resumes drilling after taring of the second strain measurements (Paragraph [0063], drilling is stopped only during the formation testing, so drilling resumes after testing, and this includes after taring),
Regarding Claim 37. Fogal discloses resumes drilling after taring of the second strain measurements (Paragraph [0063], drilling is stopped only during the formation testing, so drilling resumes after testing, and this includes after taring).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21, 24, 27, 30, 33 and 36 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The claims (22-23), (28-29) and (34-35) are allowed due to their dependencies to said claims 21, 27 and 33.
The reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter have been given in the previous office action 09/18/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In Response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Fogal discloses correcting the strain measurements (which includes the first and second strain measurements (Paragraphs [0092]-[0094]) at different depths during the formation testing (Paragraph [0101]; claim 10). Fogal also discloses calculating and correcting the second offset at the end of the formation test where steady state conditions have been resumed, where other drilling forces would be negligible (Paragraphs [0093]-[0094]), which would include correcting the second strain measurements.
Cazeneuve, meanwhile, explicitly discloses the strain measurements with respect to depths, where the first and second strain measurements with respect to depth is compared (Fig. 4, Paragraph [0016], depth dependent strain profile; Paragraph [0064]), where the Fig. 4 discloses the strain measurements at first depth 408 and second depth 410, and the comparison between the strain measurements and the differences (or the offset) between the min and max is visually evident. Sahsah, additionally discloses what is commonly known in the art about the existence of the pressures (namely hydrodynamic pressure and hydrostatic pressure) and the pressures exerting in the annular space between the drillstring, and Marland, disclosing measuring strain in a component of a drillstring, where the strain measurements are affected by the existence of the pressures. As such, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the at the time of the invention to use the cited teachings and tare the second strain measurements based on the error checking of the offset value (obtained at the end of the formation test during the steady state condition) to separate the contribution of the fluid pressure (i.e., the hydrostatic or hydrodynamic pressure on the drillstring) to the second strain measurements from other drilling forces to determine at least one of flow rate of mud weight values. For this reason, the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 HYUN D PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-7922. The examiner can normally be reached 11-4.
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 Vazquez can be reached at 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.
/HYUN D PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857