DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the amendments filed on Dec. 30th, 2025. A summary of this action:
Claims 1-21 have been presented for examination.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement
Claims 8 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of both a mathematical concept and mental process without significantly more.
Claims 1- 21 are not rejected under § 102/103.
Closest combination of the prior art is the previously relied upon Qiu, Hongyuan. Dynamic analysis of a drill-string under deterministic and random excitations. Diss. Memorial University of Newfoundland, 2014, taken in view of previously relied upon Pelfrene, Gilles, et al. "Modelling the 3D bit-rock interaction helps designing better PDC bits." SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition. SPE, 2019, taken in further view of newly cited Al Dushaishi, Mohammed F., et al. "Stick-slip investigation of dual drilling and reaming bottom hole assembly." Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part C: Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science 236.3 (2022): 1352-1362 – see pages 1354-1355, then see fig. 9-10 and accompanying description, taken in further view of previously cited Chatar et al., US 2023/0349281, but this does not teach what is recited in ordered combination in the present independent claims 1 and 15 without the use of impermissible hindsight.
Next closest combination is Al Dushaishi MF, Alsaba MT, Abbas AK, Tashtoush T. Stick-slip investigation of dual drilling and reaming bottom hole assembly. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part C: Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science. 2021 in view of Xue et al., US 2019/0284921 and in further view of Pelfrene, Gilles, et al. "Modelling the 3D bit-rock interaction helps designing better PDC bits." SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition. SPE, 2019 but this does not fairly teach what is claimed, in particular the act of determining simulated aggressiveness values based on the simulated torque – instead, see in Dushaishi, pages 1357-1358 and fig. 9-10, along with accompanying description: “To illustrate the selection of an optimum ratio of the reamer to drill bit aggressiveness, several simulations were performed using cutter aggressiveness as the control parameter” – i.e. it was the input value
This action is Final
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 .
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Regarding the objections
Withdrawn in view of amendments
Regarding the § 112 Rejection
Withdrawn in part, maintained in part.
Remarks submit that POSITA would understand this variable, but do not submit anything showing what it is, or how POSITA from their own common knowledge would know what it is (to clarify, the equation “C=2 *pi * r” in MPEP § 2106.05(h) in the context of circular objects does not have variables defined, but it is well-known to most people that this is the equation for the circumference of a circle, and “r” is the radius, and “pi” is the well-known mathematical constant; in contrast the equation in claim 8 has not been shown nor admitted to being a well-known equation wherein POSITA would readily know what this equation is). ¶¶ 31-32 of the specification merely clarify it is “an equation” but give no proper name to it, let alone do not describe this being well-known to POSITA and in their common knowledge.
Evidence is required to show that this equation is so well-known to POSITA in their common knowledge that POSITA would in fact instant recognize it and therefore know what it is.
To give another example of two equations so well-known (in contrast) that most people would know what the equations are for, y=mx+b for a formula describing a line; and E=mc^2 needs no introduction for what equation it is. Common knowledge is for the first equation m=slope, b=y-intercept, x = x-coordinate, y = y-coordinate of a line; for the second equation its Einstein’s “celebrated law” (MPEP § 2106.04(b)), and thus even if POSITA did not know instantly what the variables were (E for Energy; m for mass; c for the speed of light) they could readily look it up in numerous sources.
But what is claimed is not a well-known equation, e.g. the Arrhenius equation in example 45 that was routinely in use since the 1800’s (example 45, claim 1 prong 1 analysis), and thus POSITA would not have known what this variable was, therefore rendering the metes and bounds indefinite as it was unknown what was actually required.
Regarding the § 101 Rejection
Maintained, updated as necessitated by amendment.
As an initial matter, the remarks allege there is a representative claim, but there is none. E.g. claim 20 does not recite the “modify a data package representing the earth-boring tool design to include the adjusted one or more design parameters”, etc., thus each and every claim must be considered separately for what they recite and require, i.e. remarks towards a limitation not expressly recited in a non-parallel independent claim are moot for its alleging unrecited features.
If the applicant desires to have parallel claims to simplify remarks, they must be amended. MPEP § 2111: “Because applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims during prosecution, giving a claim its broadest reasonable interpretation will reduce the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1984);… In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969) (Claim 9 was directed to a process of analyzing data generated by mass spectrographic analysis of a gas. The process comprised selecting the data to be analyzed by subjecting the data to a mathematical manipulation. The examiner made rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 102. In the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection, the examiner explained that the claim was anticipated by a mental process augmented by pencil and paper markings. The court agreed that the claim was not limited to using a machine to carry out the process since the claim did not explicitly set forth the machine. The court explained that "reading a claim in light of the specification, to thereby interpret limitations explicitly recited in the claim, is a quite different thing from ‘reading limitations of the specification into a claim,’ to thereby narrow the scope of the claim by implicitly adding disclosed limitations which have no express basis in the claim." The court found that applicant was advocating the latter, i.e., the impermissible importation of subject matter from the specification into the claim.).”
Remarks address newly amended limitations, so see below for how they are analyzed.
With respect to example 38, this is not reasonably analogous, for per MPEP § 2111.01(I): “The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification - the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification serves as a glossary for the claim terms. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) ("[T]he specification ‘is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.’" (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996))”
The present specification, as was noted in the rejection, is merely using the term “simulate” to indicate math calculations. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C): “A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation”
With respect to MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) for its citation to “Synopsys., 839 F.3d at 1148, 120 USPQ2d at 1481” this was to a “specific data encryption method”; in contrast see the July 2024 Fed. Register Notice: “Claims to “the use of an algorithm-generated content-based identifier to perform the claimed data-management functions,” which include limitations to “controlling access to data items,” “retrieving and delivering copies of data items,” and “marking copies of data items for deletion,” where the claims cover “a medley of mental processes that, taken together, amount only to a multistep mental process,” such that the steps can be practically performed in the human mind,PersonalWeb Techs. LLC v. Google LLC, 8 F.4th 1310, 1316-18 (Fed. Cir. 2021)” - also, MPEP § 2106.05(f): “Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the steps in the claims described "the creation of a dynamic document based upon ‘management record types’ and ‘primary record types.’" 850 F.3d at 1339-40; 121 USPQ2d at 1945-46. The claims were found to be directed to the abstract idea of "collecting, displaying, and manipulating data." 850 F.3d at 1340; 121 USPQ2d at 1946.”
Regarding the § 102/103 Rejection
Withdrawn, in view of the amendments and supporting remarks. See above to clarify.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 6 recites the term substantially in the phrase “substantially constant”. MPEP § 2173.05(b)(III)(D). See ¶ 17 for the standard: “By way of example, depending on the particular parameter, property, or condition that is substantially met, the parameter, property, or condition may be at least 90.0% met, at least 95.0% met, at least 99.0% met, or even at least 99.9% met.” The claim is read in view of ¶ 17, i.e. the torque values are to remain within 90% of a constant value, as this is the broadest scope in ¶ 17 standard.
Should this claim construction not be intended, then the Examiner suggests amending the claim to remove all relative and subjective terminology.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of the claims they depend upon.
See MPEP 2163(II)(A): "For example, in Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1371, 83 USPQ2d 1373, 1376-1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007), the examiner made a prima facie case by clearly and specifically explaining why applicant’s specification did not support the particular claimed combination of elements, even though applicant’s specification listed each and every element in the claimed combination. The court found the "examiner was explicit that while each element may be individually described in the specification, the deficiency was lack of adequate description of their combination" and, thus, "[t]he burden was then properly shifted to [inventor] to cite to the examiner where adequate written description could be found or to make an amendment to address the deficiency.""
Also, see MPEP 2163(I) for Lockwood v. Amer. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Claim 20 recites:
A computer-implemented method, comprising:
simulating performance of an earth-boring tool design for a range of rotations-per-minute (RPM) values within a planned drilling operation utilizing a force model equation, selected from a plurality of stored force model equations, dependent on at least input RPM values, cutting element positions within the earth-boring tool design, and cutting tool face geometry;
determining simulated aggressiveness values for the range of RPM values of the planned drilling operation based at least partially on the simulated performance of the earth-boring tool according to the earth-boring tool design:
based on the simulated performance of the earth-boring tool design, simulating torque values experienced by the earth-boring tool design across a range of increasing RPM values;
and based at least partially on the simulated torque values, determining aggressiveness values over the range of expected RPM values and estimating a probability of an actual earth-boring tool experiencing stick-slip within the planned drilling operation.
This is not sufficiently described in this particular order. See ¶¶ 36-38, in particular ¶ 37.
To clarify, the claim requires determining the aggressiveness values twice, first one based on the simulated performance, and the second one based on the simulated torque. At issue is that ¶ 37 conveys it was based on the simulated torque which was based on the simulated performance, but it does not convey twice determining the aggressiveness values.
Examiner suggests amending to more clearly reflect what is disclosed, e.g. see claims 1 and 3 (note the wherein in claim 3) and see claim 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of the claims they depend upon.
Claim 8 recites an equation. The variable
α
r
a
t
e
is undefined. ¶¶ 31-32. This renders the claim indefinite, as POSITA would not know what this variable is.
MPEP § 2173.05(b)(IV): “A claim term that requires the exercise of subjective judgment without restriction may render the claim indefinite. In re Musgrave, 431 F.2d 882, 893, 167 USPQ 280, 289 (CCPA 1970). Claim scope cannot depend solely on the unrestrained, subjective opinion of a particular individual purported to be practicing the invention. Datamize LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1350, 75 USPQ2d 1801, 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2005));”
Claim 21:
The method claim 1, wherein a decrease in the simulated aggressiveness values over an increasing range of RPM values indicates a greater probability of experiencing stick-slip during the increasing range of RPM values and the planned drilling operation, the simulated aggressiveness values remaining substantially constant over the increasing range of RPM values indicates a reduced probability of experiencing stick-slip during the increasing range of RPM values and the planned drilling operation, and a higher rate of change in the aggressiveness values over the increasing range of RPM values indicates a low probability of experiencing stick- slip during the increasing range of RPM values and the planned drilling operation.
These are indefinite relative terms (¶ 38), specifically these are specifying ranges in textual form for the aggressiveness values, but do not state what the ranges are, or whether low is lower than reduced. To further clarify, at issue is the ranges are, in essence, using A to stand for aggressiveness value:
For RPM from 0 to N (increasing RPM range):
If A decreases as N increase this indicates a “greater probability”
If A is “substantially constant” this indicates a “low probability”
If A is rapidly changing in slope of the curve (rate of change) over RPM range it is a “low probability”.
This is indefinite, because such ranges and what probabilities they result in are not clearly defined in the claims nor the specification, i.e. no objective standard is present for POSITA to ascertain definite metes and bounds between each of these, outside of POSITA simply subjectively exercising their own opinion to these ranges/conditions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of both a mathematical concept and mental process without significantly more.
Step 1
Claim 1 is directed towards the statutory category of a process.
Claim 15 is directed towards the statutory category of an apparatus.
Claim 20 is directed towards the statutory category of a process.
Step 2A – Prong 1
The claims recite an abstract idea of both a mental process and mathematical concept.
See MPEP § 2106.04: “...In other claims, multiple abstract ideas, which may fall in the same or different groupings, or multiple laws of nature may be recited. In these cases, examiners should not parse the claim. For example, in a claim that includes a series of steps that recite mental steps as well as a mathematical calculation, an examiner should identify the claim as reciting both a mental process and a mathematical concept for Step 2A Prong One to make the analysis clear on the record.”
See MPEP § 2106.05(I): “RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract")”
To clarify, see the USPTO 101 training examples, available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility.
The mathematical concept recited in claim 1 is:
identifying a force model equation from a plurality of stored force model equations to utilize in simulating performance of an earth-boring tool design within a planned drilling operation; simulating performance of the earth-boring tool design within the planned drilling operation utilizing the identified force model equation - identifying math equations/relations in textual form, but do it in a computer environment [the equations having been stored], for use in later math calculations. See ¶¶ 30-31. Also, see ¶ 49. This is then followed by math calculations in textual form using said equation (the simulating step is but a textual replacement for calculating with said equation).
See ¶¶ 34-35, incl.: “For example, the prediction system 129 may simulate performance of the earth-boring tool within the planned drilling operation utilizing the identified force model equation…In some embodiments, simulating performance of the earth-boring tool may include determining (e.g., calculate) one or more points of contact between the earth-boring tool and a wall of the borehole and forces experienced by the earth-boring tool at the one or more contact points and calculating forces experienced by the earth-boring tool at the one or more contact points. For example, the prediction system 129 may predict (e.g., estimate) axial and torsional friction to be experienced by an earth-boring tool during the planned drilling operation. Additionally, the prediction system 129 may predict (e.g., estimate) downhole torque values experienced by the earth-boring tool across a range of planned rotations-per-minute (RPM) values of the planned drilling operation… Additionally, the prediction system 129 may utilize the earth-boring tool design (e.g., the model) and the identified force model equation to determine and/or calculate in-situ rock strength, RPM values of the earth-boring tool in new and worn states, and/or ROP of the Earth-boring tool in new and worn states”. Also, see ¶ 48.
¶ 36: “FIGS. 4A and 4B depict graphs 401, 402 representing portions of simulated [calculated] performances of various earth-boring tool designs in new and worn states utilizing the force model equations [calculations using said equations] and methods described herein.”
determining simulated aggressiveness values for a range of expected rotations-per-minute (RPM) values of the planned drilling operation based at least partially on the simulated performance of the earth-boring tool according to the earth-boring tool design; - math calculations in textual form using the math equations/relationships.
This is merely specifying what result from the calculations is to be calculated, i.e. ¶¶ 34-36 as cited above, in particular: “Additionally, the prediction system 129 may utilize the earth-boring tool design (e.g., the model) and the identified force model equation to determine and/or calculate in-situ rock strength, RPM values of the earth-boring tool in new and worn states, and/or ROP of the earth-boring tool in new and worn states…. FIGS. 4A and 4B depict graphs 401, 402 representing portions of simulated performances of various earth-boring tool designs in new and worn states utilizing the force model equations and methods described herein. In particular, graphs 401, 402 depict simulated aggressiveness (Mu) values relative to simulated RPM (e.g., an expected range of RPM values for the planned drilling operation)….”
based at least partially on a change or a rate of change in the simulated aggressiveness values over the range of expected RPM values, estimating a probability of an actual earth-boring tool experiencing stick-slip within the planned drilling operation,– math calculations in textual form, using the results of the prior calculations discussed above. See ¶¶ 39-42; also see ¶ 43 incl.: “In one or more embodiments, the machine learning techniques may include applying a regression analysis ( e.g., a set of statistical processes for estimating the [mathematical] relationships among variables)…. Moreover, as is known in the art, in a linear regression model, the output variables from the simulations (i.e., observations) are assumed to be the result of random deviations from an underlying relationship between (i.e., a predictive algorithm correlating) the dependent variables (y) and independent variables (x)….” – see Digitech in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and subsection A. ¶ 44 merely provides a laundry listing of various generically described machine learning algorithms that may be used, which is just mere instructions to do the math calculations with a computer and commonplace software.
Claim 20 recites a similar math concept as claims 1 and 15, and adds another math calculation of “simulating torque values” in view of ¶¶ 30-35 as discussed above for similar reasons as discussed above.
Claim 15 recites a similar abstract idea as claims 1 and 20 above, and rejected under a similar rationale, i.e. the identifying of claim 1; the simulating torque values of 20, and the estimation of the probability of both claims 1 and 20.
As a further point of how abstract the present claim is, noting ¶¶ 30-32, the Examiner notes that “func” is a mathematical term serving to indicate that any mathematical equation(s) (i.e. any combination of mathematical operations) operating with the variables within the parentheses is the equation. In other words, this equation pre-empts any equation relating the total cutting force to static forces and the other variables recited.
Should further clarification be required on this point, see Pelfrene, Gilles, Stab, Olivier , Tilleman, Danny , Gallifet, Thomas , Cuillier, Bruno , and Julien Carlos. "Modelling the 3D Bit-Rock Interaction Helps Designing Better PDC Bits." Paper presented at the SPE/IADC International Drilling Conference and Exhibition, The Hague, The Netherlands, March 2019. Page 8, last paragraph: “To account for the variety of drilling contexts and the accessibility of lab/field data, several cutting models have been implemented in our simulator. Basically, they follow the same schematic description of the rock cutting process (Fig. 6)…. They all [all of the models/equations] follow some analytical expressions of the form:… analytical expressions are used to compute cutting forces (Fig.7)…” – wherein “f” is being used to indicate function/”func”
See Pelfrene, Gilles, Hedi Sellami, and Laurent Gerbaud. "Mitigating stick-slip in deep drilling based on optimization of PDC bit design." SPE/IADC drilling conference and exhibition. SPE, 2011. Page 3, last paragraph: “The cutter-rock interaction model has been built from successive versions of a cutting model developed at Mines ParisTech by [37, 30, 16]. Its constitutive equations are described in [34]. As shown in Eq. 1, the cutting model is defined by the relationship between control parameters (in the present study the depth-of-cut and the cutting velocity ) and output variables (the average normal force and the average tangential force )” – the equation in ¶¶ 30-32 is not any particular mathematical equation, but rather merely stating any and all mathematical relationships between the variables in the enclosed parenthesis, thereby pre-empting any and all equations that may yet to be discovered in this field of us.
MPEP § 2106.04(I): “The Supreme Court’s concern that drives this "exclusionary principle" is pre-emption. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 216, 110 USPQ2d at 1980.”
The abstract idea recited here and described in this disclosure, at a high level of abstraction, is simply the abstract idea of selecting a “best… equation” (wherein the disclosed exemplary selected equation pre-empts any equation relating the total cutting force to any series/combinations of mathematical operations performed on the variables in the parenthesis and further in ¶ 33) from a plurality of equations, and then performing math calculations with the equation selected, and then based on the results of those calculations estimating probabilities (another math calculation). ¶ 30, in a similar vein, presents a pre-emptive math equation for “loss” for any equation in that general form.
Claiming an entire class of math equations and pre-empting any future discoveries of new math equations that operate on those variables, and later calculations to be performed with said class of math equations is not eligible at prong 1.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim recites a mathematical concept – the above limitations are steps in a mathematical concept such as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is directed towards a mathematical concept, then it falls within the Mathematical Concepts grouping of abstract ideas. In addition, as per MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2): “It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula." In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 837 and n.1, 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1826 and n.1 (Fed. Cir. 1989). See, e.g., SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163, 127 USPQ2d 1597, 1599 (Fed. Cir. 2018)”
See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
To clarify, see the USPTO 101 training examples, available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility.
The mental process recited in claim 1 is:
identifying a force model equation from a plurality of stored force model equations to utilize in simulating performance of an earth-boring tool design within a planned drilling operation; - a mental process, as people are readily able to mentally select/judge an equation to be used, but do it in a computer environment. See the above cited portions of the disclosure, then see ¶ 47 (see In re Killian and PersonalWeb as cited to in the July 2024 Fed. Register Notice). See MPEP § 2106.05(a)(I) as well for BSG Tech LLC as improvements to the data in a database is not an improvement to the functionality of the database. MPEP § 2106.05(I): “An inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself." Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016)” to clarify. Also see below to clarify on how mental these steps are.
simulating performance of the earth-boring tool design within the planned drilling operation utilizing the identified force model equation; determining simulated aggressiveness values for a range of expected rotations-per-minute (RPM) values of the planned drilling operation based at least partially on the simulated performance of the earth-boring tool according to the earth-boring tool design; - a mental process, given the generality recited, e.g. when the equation selected is simple enough, a person is readily able to use physical aids to do this, e.g. pen/paper/calculator (Gottschalk v. Benson; MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)), or use a computer as a tool to do this mental evaluation of the math.
The equations in ¶¶ 30-31 are simple enough a person is readily able to do it. To further clarify, ¶¶ 31-32 doesn’t even recite any particular equation, but rather an idea of an equation. The “func” is mathematical short-hand for “function”, i.e. perform some math operation, or series of math operations, on the variables listed. E.g. a person, such as an engineer, can readily look at a chart of datapoints, e.g. previously gathered/historical data for total cutting force and the static cutting force as x-y axes, draw a line through the datapoints to an axis (or both) so as to the gather the necessary information to determine the values of variables in the equation of the line y=mx+b, or in this case Total cutting force = static cutting force * the variable in ¶ 32 + b [the y-intercept]. A person can even do this multiple times, e.g. as the slope and intercepts may change for “rock type” or the like, so as to tabulate a series of values of variables of the lines in a table, each entry in the table representing one simply mentally fit equation (with physicals aids, e.g. a ruler, pen/graph paper, and a calculator).
From that, upon observing a new problem, e.g. a new place to use an earth-boring tool, the person is readily able to observe the characteristics of where it will be used, e.g. “rock type” and how, e.g. “RPM” – e.g. observing a planned RPM range, as well as what tool they are thinking about using (e.g. “cutting tool face geometry”; “rake angles”) then observe in their table and mentally judge/evaluate which equation of the series of equations fits the conditions the closest, and select that equation to make new calculations with. The claims and specification at ¶¶ 30-32 show there is no complexity in the math itself that would make the math too complex for a person to mentally do, and the claim does not even limit itself to the exemplary embodiments disclosed on this point (MPEP § 2111 for In re Prater; e.g. dependent claim 8).
based at least partially on a change or a rate of change in the simulated aggressiveness values over the range of expected RPM values, estimating a probability of an actual earth-boring tool experiencing stick-slip within the planned drilling operation, determining one or more adjustments to one or more of the earth-boring tool design based at least partially on the probability;– a mental process, given the high level of generality recited herein, wherein a person is readily able to estimate a probability mentally or with physical aids, or using a computer as a tool. To give an example, see the practice of card counting in some casino games which readily has people estimating probabilities of the next card to be placed down based on what is left in the deck. Or, flip a coin 20 times, tabulate the results, and from there estimate the probability.
To clarify, a simple way to estimate a probability is fractions, e.g. flip a coin a number of times (or simply observe it has only one of two states, heads or tails), and either by logic or by calculations with the table one arrives at ½ probability of heads or tails. Similar but more complex probabilities are readily computed as well mentally, e.g. card counting with the dealer having 4-6 decks of cards (common in casinos) wherein people routinely get thrown out of casinos for doing this (the Examiner noting further practices at casinos reduce the ease of this, e.g. re-shuffling the decks mid game, changing dealers randomly and forcing a re-shuffle, etc.)
Also, to clarify on observing a change/rate of change, this is readily doable mentally, e.g. a person observing data points on charts on paper (or a display of a computer) and judging that a change or a change in the rate of change has occurred. E.g. watching the S&P 500 crash on a simple x-y chart, or observing that the rate of gains in the S&P 500 is increasing (the slope is increasing for a portion of the chart).
determining one or more adjustments to one or more of the earth-boring tool design based at least partially on the probability; adjusting one or more design parameters of the earth-boring tool design; and modifying a data package representing the earth-boring tool design to include the adjusted one or more design parameters. – mental process of engineers, i.e. observe a probability of failure (e.g. tabulate the number of occurrences of a failure compared to times it didn’t fail, e.g. the Ford Pinto lighting on fire, or in this case stick-slip, in historical operational data), determine/judge from that probability that a design change (or changes) are needed, and mentally evaluate the design so as to judge what adjustments to the design parameters would best solve the issue (e.g. judging to use a better alloy). But do it in a computer environment. ¶ 53: “…For example, the prediction system 129 may adjust one or more design parameters of the earth-boring tool design (e.g., make changes to a data package representing the earth-boring tool design).” MPEP § 2106.05(a) for examples of not being an improvement to computer functionality: “vii. Providing historical usage information to users while they are inputting data, in order to improve the quality and organization of information added to a database, because "an improvement to the information stored by a database is not equivalent to an improvement in the database’s functionality," BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1287-88, 127 USPQ2d 1688, 1693-94 (Fed. Cir. 2018); and”
MPEP § 2106.05(f): “Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the steps in the claims described "the creation of a dynamic document based upon ‘management record types’ and ‘primary record types.’" 850 F.3d at 1339-40; 121 USPQ2d at 1945-46. The claims were found to be directed to the abstract idea of "collecting, displaying, and manipulating data." 850 F.3d at 1340; 121 USPQ2d at 1946…nothing in the claims indicated what specific steps were undertaken other than merely using the abstract idea in the context of XML documents….” – or in this case, ¶ 55 merely convey in manipulating data in the context of “data packages” (i.e. in a computer enviroment).
¶ 53: “For instance, during an actual drilling procedure, based on simulations of an earth-boring tool design representing an actual earth-boring tool, adjustments may be made to drilling parameters to improve performance (e.g., reduce stick-slip and/or eliminate stick-slip) of the earth-boring tool during the drilling operation.” – see above, this is merely claiming the idea of routine experimentation and optimization long done by engineers and scientists, e.g. “…Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); …In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.").” in MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A)
Claim 20 is directed to a similar abstract idea as claim 1 above, i.e. this is a mental process for similar reasons as discussed above, given the purely results-oriented nature for how this is be done and the generic nature of what is described (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) and MPEP § 2106.05(g) for Electric Power Group).
To clarify, claim 20 is merely adding more particularly to what information the equations are dependent on when compared to claim 1 (and selecting instead of identifying, similar acts in this context, i.e. pick an equation that works and use it for calculations), but not what it is.
To clarify on the torque values, see ¶ 35: “…Additionally, the prediction system 129 may predict (e.g., estimate [calculate]) downhole torque values experienced by the earth-boring tool across a range of planned rotations-per-minute (RPM) values of the planned drilling operation…”, wherein a person is also readily able to mentally do such calculations using the simpler equations of mechanical engineers for rotating machinery (e.g. for drills, car wheels/tires, drive axles, etc., all of which were routinely mentally designed prior to the invention of the computer, with countless advances in their designs by better mental math calculations occurring in the 1900’s prior to computer).
Claim 15 recites a similar abstract idea as claims 1 and 20 above, and rejected under a similar rationale, i.e. the identifying of claim 1; the simulating torque values of 20, and the estimation of the probability of both claims 1 and 20.
The step of “receive…” in claim 15 is considered as a mental process, but done on a computer/in a computer environment, given the generality recited (i.e. but for specifying that it’s a computer model, the claim recites nothing that indicates how this is to be performed or by what particular tool is used to perform this step). MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) for Electric Power Group.
Should further clarification be sought on how abstract this is, the Examiner notes the term “aggressiveness” has a well-known definition to the common knowledge of POSITA (MPEP § 2111.01(I and III), as evidenced by: Kuang, Yuchun, et al. "Simulation and experimental research of PDC bit cutting rock." Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention 16.6 (2016): 1101-1107. Page 1106, equation 3: “The ‘‘attack’’ effect of the bit is determined based on the relationship between the drilling pressure and torque. In the case of single tooth, the drilling pressure T of the PDC single tooth is converted to tangential force Fc and the axial force Fa. The torque of drill bit Fa is converted to the axial force W of PDC teeth. It is known that the ‘‘aggressiveness’’ of PDC bit is determined by the ratio of tangential force and axial force to Fc/Fa [14]. Specific formula is as follows:…”
μ
=
36
T
W
D
– “In the above formula, T is the bit pressure, W is the bit torque, and D is the diameter of the bit”
To clarify, this is commonly a provided metric from PDC manufacturers. Beuershausen, Chad, et al. "Improving Horizontal Well Performance with PDC Bits Designed to Increase Aggressiveness through the Run." SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition. SPE, 2010. Page 2.
PNG
media_image1.png
286
980
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In other words, the definition/plain meaning (note the term “defined” in the above) of the term “aggressiveness” is given by a well-known equation from 1992, one simple enough a person may mentally solve, or use a calculator to solve. In said equation, in explicitly has a variable for “torque”.
To clarify on the simplicity of solving this equation, page 4 of Beuershausen 2010:
PNG
media_image2.png
332
972
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Thus, to determine values of aggressiveness using torque values is merely solving this equation (or other similar equations, this is evidenced as the most widely used one) which defines this well-known term of art’s plain meaning to POSITA in its ordinary way.
To clarify that this is well known to POSTIA for its plain meaning, Valbuena, Franklin, et al. "Improving reliability and performance of under-reaming operations." SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition. SPE, 2017. Page 3, equation 1 [same as above]: “In the drilling industry "bit aggressiveness" is a widely used term to describe how much on weight on bit
(WOB) is needed to generate a certain amount of torque. As Pessier (1992) describes, it is assumed that a cylindrical bit is pressed against a plate. Bit aggressiveness is calculated with the following formula:… Aggressiveness is defined as the torque generated for a given WOB applied, and torsional stability is defined as the ability of the bit to mitigate and reduce torque fluctuations [see the equation]” – i.e. it’s a math relationship in textual form by plain meaning, widely used in the relevant industry, and simple enough for mental calculation such as with a calculator and/or pen and paper.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations are process steps that cover mental processes including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of physical aids but for the recitation of a generic computer component. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Process" grouping of abstract ideas. A person would readily be able to perform this process either mentally or with the assistance of physical aids. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
To clarify, see the USPTO 101 training examples, available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility. In particular, with respect to the physical aids, see example # 45, analysis of claim 1 under step 2A prong 1, including: “Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper, a slide rule, or a calculator) to help them complete the recited calculation, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation.”; also see example # 49, analysis of claim 1, under step 2A prong 1: “Moreover, the recited mathematical calculation is simple enough that it can be practically performed in the human mind. Even if most humans would use a physical aid, like a pen and paper or a calculator, to make such calculations, the use of a physical aid would not negate the mental nature of this limitation.”
As such, the claims recite an abstract idea of both a mental process and mathematical concept.
Step 2A, prong 2
The claimed invention does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Refer to MPEP §2106.04(d).
The following limitations are merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f), including the “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more”:
The preamble of claim 15, the computer-implemented in the preambles of claims 1 and 20
The “stored” equations
“modifying a data package representing the earth-boring tool design to include the adjusted one or more design parameters” – MPEP § 2106.05(f): “Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the steps in the claims described "the creation of a dynamic document based upon ‘management record types’ and ‘primary record types.’" 850 F.3d at 1339-40; 121 USPQ2d at 1945-46. The claims were found to be directed to the abstract idea of "collecting, displaying, and manipulating data." 850 F.3d at 1340; 121 USPQ2d at 1946. In addition to the abstract idea, the claims also recited the additional element of modifying the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document [to be clear, it was propagating the modifications from the dynamic document to the underlying XML documents that was additional; whereas the dynamic document was being manipulated in the abstract idea]. 850 F.3d at 1342; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48. Although the claims purported to modify the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document, nothing in the claims indicated what specific steps were undertaken other than merely using the abstract idea in the context of XML documents. The court thus held the claims ineligible, because the additional limitations provided only a result-oriented solution and lacked details as to how the computer performed the modifications, which was equivalent to the words "apply it". 850 F.3d at 1341-42; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48 (citing Electric Power Group., 830 F.3d at 1356, 1356, USPQ2d at 1743-44 (cautioning against claims "so result focused, so functional, as to effectively cover any solution to an identified problem")).” – also, see MPEP § 2106.05(h) for its discuss of XML
The following limitations are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h):
The recitations such as “earth-boring tool” and “planned drilling operation” and the like are just generally linking this abstract idea to a particular field of use, if they are reconsidered at prong 2, or the above abstract idea is considered at a higher degree of abstraction.
To clarify, this abstract idea, described at a high level of abstraction is the abstract idea of identifying an equation, and then doing math calculations with said equation, and then estimating a probability based on the results of the math calculations (i.e. do more math calculations). Both of these math concepts are recited in such generality that they are also mental processes, as the claims recite no particular equation, and the one disclosed (¶¶ 30-32 or so) are so generically recited that this may readily be simple algebraic equations.
At a high level of abstraction, this abstract idea is merely generally linked to the field of use/technological environment with no particularity.
The following limitations are adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g):
Claim 15 – the “receive…” step, should it be found not to be part of the abstract idea then would merely be considered mere data gathering as an insignificant pre-solution activity.
and modifying a data package representing the earth-boring tool design to include the adjusted one or more design parameters. – should this be found not to be abstract, then this would also be (in addition to being akin the propagating of the modifications to the underlying XML of IV in MPEP 2106.05(f)) an insignificant token post-solution data storage step. MPEP § 2106.05(g): “adding a final step of storing data to a process that only recites computing the area of a space (a mathematical relationship) does not add a meaningful limitation to the process of computing the area”
In a similar vein, the “stored” recitation is merely data gathering/retrieval from previously stored data.
Claim 20 - based on the simulated performance of the earth-boring tool design, simulating torque values experienced by the earth-boring tool design across a range of increasing RPM values; - should this not be found to be part of the abstract idea (e.g. because it does not recite “utilizing the identified force model equation” as found in claim 15 for the similar limitation), then this would be considered an act of mere data gathering.
For compact prosecution:
Should the subject matter in ¶¶ 52-53 be incorporated into the claims, this would amount to no more than a token post-solution activity and mere instructions to “apply it” given the generic nature of what is described and how it is to be done, along with its results-oriented nature. See MPEP § 2106.05(g and f) for In Re Brown for the cutting of hair with scissors; also see MPEP § 2106.05(f) for the warning from Electric Power Group as cited to in Intellectual Ventures. See the adjusting of the alarm limits in Parker v. Flook in MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Should the subject matter in ¶ 46 be incorporated into the claims, see Mayo for its discussion of the measuring in MPEP § 2106.05(d), see In Re Grams in MPEP § 2106.05(g) along with Mayo and the other cases at the same bullet point in MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Should displaying an output be added (e.g. ¶ 52), see example 46 claim 1 for its displaying step; see Electric Power Group in MPEP § 2106.05(g and h) as well.
Should real-time be added (¶ 53), see Electric Power Group in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(D).
¶ 54 – a bare assertion of an improvement, without any description of how such alleged improvements are to be achieved. MPEP § 2106.05(a), including for Affinity Labs; furthermore this conveys that what provides the improvement is the abstract idea itself. A new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(I) for Synopsis and other similar case.
¶ 23 and ¶¶ 55-63 – mere instructions to do it on a computer with generic computer components. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) including its discussion of TLI communications, see the shift register of Gottschalk v. Benson in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C).
¶ 22 – generally linking to the field of use/technical environment (e.g. ¶ 23: “Furthermore, although the prediction system 129 is described herein as being part of the surface control unit 128, the disclosure is not so limited; rather, as will be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, the prediction system 129 may be discrete from the surface control unit 128 and may be disposed anywhere within the drilling assembly 114 or may be remote to the drilling assembly 114. In further embodiments, the prediction system 129 may be separate, remote, and discrete from the drilling system 100.”), in stark contrast to how the abstract idea of the math equation in Diamond v. Diehr was integrated into a particular control system and improved the field of rubber molding by solving the under curing and overcuring problems. See MPEP § 2106.04(d) for Mayo for its discussion of Diamond v. Diehr; see MPEP § 2106.05(e) for a discussion of Diamond v. Diehr, see example 45 claims 2-4 and note their particularity. With respect to example 45, claim 3, also see Thales in MPEP § 2106.05(a)(II) and MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I); also see XY LLC in the July 2024 Fed. Register notice; and Mayo in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
¶ 27 – mere data gathering with no particular tool identified for use in the data gathering and no particular method of data gathering.
¶ 28 – a model recited so generically, its readily part of the mental process, e.g. a few equations to be mentally evaluated by an engineer using physical aids, but for the mere instructions to do it on a computer. This is a purely results-oriented description, with no recitation of how the model is to acquire the desired results.
¶ 29 – a litany of information to be selected from in the mere data gathering. See MPEP § 2106.05(g) for Electric Power Group; also see MPEP § 2106.05(h) for Electric Power Group.
A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
E.g. MPEP § 2106(I): “Mayo, 566 U.S. at 80, 84, 101 USPQ2dat 1969, 1971 (noting that the Court in Diamond v. Diehr found “the overall process patent eligible because of the way the additional steps of the process integrated the equation into the process as a whole,”” – and see MPEP § 2106.05(e).
The claimed invention does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Refer to MPEP §2106.04(d).
Step 2B
The claimed invention does not recite any additional elements/limitations that amount to significantly more.
The following limitations are merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f), including the “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more”:
The preamble of claim 15, the computer-implemented in the preambles of claims 1 and 20
The “stored” equations
“modifying a data package representing the earth-boring tool design to include the adjusted one or more design parameters” – MPEP § 2106.05(f): “Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the steps in the claims described "the creation of a dynamic document based upon ‘management record types’ and ‘primary record types.’" 850 F.3d at 1339-40; 121 USPQ2d at 1945-46. The claims were found to be directed to the abstract idea of "collecting, displaying, and manipulating data." 850 F.3d at 1340; 121 USPQ2d at 1946. In addition to the abstract idea, the claims also recited the additional element of modifying the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document [to be clear, it was propagating the modifications from the dynamic document to the underlying XML documents that was additional; whereas the dynamic document was being manipulated in the abstract idea]. 850 F.3d at 1342; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48. Although the claims purported to modify the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document, nothing in the claims indicated what specific steps were undertaken other than merely using the abstract idea in the context of XML documents. The court thus held the claims ineligible, because the additional limitations provided only a result-oriented solution and lacked details as to how the computer performed the modifications, which was equivalent to the words "apply it". 850 F.3d at 1341-42; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48 (citing Electric Power Group., 830 F.3d at 1356, 1356, USPQ2d at 1743-44 (cautioning against claims "so result focused, so functional, as to effectively cover any solution to an identified problem")).” – also, see MPEP § 2106.05(h) for its discuss of XML
The following limitations are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h):
The recitations such as “earth-boring tool” and “planned drilling operation” and the like are just generally linking this abstract idea to a particular field of use, if they are reconsidered at prong 2, or the above abstract idea is considered at a higher degree of abstraction.
To clarify, this abstract idea, described at a high level of abstraction is the abstract idea of identifying an equation, and then doing math calculations with said equation, and then estimating a probability based on the results of the math calculations (i.e. do more math calculations). Both of these math concepts are recited in such generality that they are also mental processes, as the claims recite no particular equation, and the one disclosed (¶¶ 30-32 or so) are so generically recited that this may readily be simple algebraic equations.
At a high level of abstraction, this abstract idea is merely generally linked to the field of use/technological environment with no particularity.
To further clarify on this, and also to further show the WURC nature of such limitations, Canudas-de-Wit, Carlos, Francisco R. Rubio, and Miguel Angel Corchero. "D-OSKIL: A new mechanism for controlling stick-slip oscillations in oil well drillstrings." IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology 16.6 (2008): 1177-1191 § II ¶ 1: “Standard rotatory drilling equipment, as shown in Figure 1 to depict what is commonly used by oil companies to extract gas and oil from the earth surface, uses a dill-bit (called bit) to crush the rock and make the hole in the ground. As the hole becomes deeper, some pipe sections (called drill pipes) are added, leaving the bit coupled at the bottom part of the set. These pipes, together with the drill bit, form the so-called drillstring. This drillstring is moved by means of a motor or system of motors in the surface. As it has been shown in the previous Section, operation of the drill string looks just like that of a household electric drill, where a motor makes the bit rotate, and enough weight is applied to maintain the contact between the bit and the object to be drilled.” – then see the remaining portions of § II for further clarify clarification on the WURC structure of an earth boring tool. Also, see § III : “Multiple kind of models have been used in literature to describe drillstring systems (see for example [19] and [31])… Many models have been proposed in literature, some of them summarized in [22]….” – and the § III.A, note the title is “Model for simulations” and the model is a series of equations (for the BRI in view of MPEP § 2111.01).
Also, see Navarro-López, Eva María, and Rodolfo Suárez. "Practical approach to modelling and controlling stick-slip oscillations in oilwell drillstrings." Proceedings of the 2004 IEEE International Conference on Control Applications, 2004. Vol. 2. IEEE, 2004 – see the abstract, then see § I including page 1454, col. 2, ¶ 3 and the surrounding paragraphs, then see the last paragraph in this column and the numbers list that follows it. § II ¶ 1 provides a clarifying description of a drillstring.
The following limitations are adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g):
Claim 15 – the “receive…” step, should it be found not to be part of the abstract idea then would merely be considered mere data gathering as an insignificant pre-solution activity.
and modifying a data package representing the earth-boring tool design to include the adjusted one or more design parameters. – should this be found not to be abstract, then this would also be (in addition to being akin the propagating of the modifications to the underlying XML of IV in MPEP 2106.05(f)) an insignificant token post-solution data storage step. MPEP § 2106.05(g): “adding a final step of storing data to a process that only recites computing the area of a space (a mathematical relationship) does not add a meaningful limitation to the process of computing the area”
In a similar vein, the “stored” recitation is merely data gathering/retrieval from previously stored data.
Claim 20 - based on the simulated performance of the earth-boring tool design, simulating torque values experienced by the earth-boring tool design across a range of increasing RPM values; - should this not be found to be part of the abstract idea (e.g. because it does not recite “utilizing the identified force model equation” as found in claim 15 for the similar limitation), then this would be considered an act of mere data gathering.
Such data gathering/retrieving and data storage steps are WURC in view of MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II): “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);…iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log); iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;”
Claim 20 - based on the simulated performance of the earth-boring tool design, simulating torque values experienced by the earth-boring tool design across a range of increasing RPM values; - should this not be found to be part of the abstract idea (e.g. because it does not recite “utilizing the identified force model equation” as found in claim 15 for the similar limitation), then this would be considered an act of mere data gathering. This is considered WURC given the omission of any particular details of how this simulation is to be performed in the instant disclosure (see citations above to the disclosure). MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III): “(A) A citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s). A specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements when it describes the additional elements as well-understood or routine or conventional (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a).”
To clarify, see MPEP § 2164.01: “A patent need not teach, and preferably omits, what is well known in the art. In re Buchner, 929 F.2d 660, 661, 18 USPQ2d 1331, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 1991); Hybritech, Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1384, 231 USPQ 81, 94 (Fed. Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 947 (1987); and Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1463, 221 USPQ 481, 489 (Fed. Cir. 1984).”
For additional evidence, see:
Qiu, Hongyuan. Dynamic analysis of a drill-string under deterministic and random excitations. Diss. Memorial University of Newfoundland, 2014. See §§ 2.1-2.3.
Pelfrene, Gilles, et al. "Modelling the 3D bit-rock interaction helps designing better PDC bits." SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition. SPE, 2019. Pages 2-3, including the subsections titled. “Principle of a bit simulation” and “Existing 3D bit simulation” , include seeing: “A bit simulator basically aims at establishing the relationship between bit kinematic quantities (e.g. ROP,RPM, bit tilt) and bit mechanical quantities (e.g. WOB, TOB [torque on bit] or side force).”
For compact prosecution:
Should the subject matter in ¶¶ 52-53 be incorporated into the claims, this would be a mental process in view of ¶ 53: “For example, the prediction system 129 may adjust one or more design parameters of the earth-boring tool design (e.g., make changes to a data package representing the earth-boring tool design)” but done on a computer; and if actual adjustments are made this would amount to no more than a token post-solution activity and mere instructions to “apply it” given the generic nature of what is described and how it is to be done, along with its results-oriented nature. See MPEP § 2106.05(g and f) for In Re Brown for the cutting of hair with scissors; also see MPEP § 2106.05(f) for the warning from Electric Power Group as cited to in Intellectual Ventures. See the adjusting of the alarm limits in Parker v. Flook in MPEP § 2106.05(g). With respect to doing such adjustments in real-time, see the discussion of Electric Power Group in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(D) as that was in “real-time” as well.
Furthermore, such adjustments to reduce stick-slip are WURC in the art, as self-evidences by omission of any particular details of how to perform these adjustments but rather the ¶¶ 52-53 merely states desired results.
Additionally, see:
Qiu, Hongyuan. Dynamic analysis of a drill-string under deterministic and random excitations. Diss. Memorial University of Newfoundland, 2014. § 1.1 and its subsections, including § 1.1.1 and 1.1.2, followed by § 1.1.4, also see § 1.1.7 (for measurements while drilling being conventional), § 1.2 including fig. 1.5 middle figure, see § 1.2.2: “It is found by downhole measurements that applying a constant rotary speed at the surface does not necessarily lead to a steady rotational motion of the drill-bit… For torsional vibration, the most common phenomenon is stick-slip. Stick-slip happens when the rotation of the drill-string is slowed down (or even stopped) and then suddenly increased when the torque overcomes the anti-torque result from the rock cutting and friction. Stick-slip vibration sometimes happens when drilling in high angle wells with aggressive PDC bits and in the down-hole environment where the BHA to wellbore friction is high [11]. Stick-slip vibration can largely decrease ROP and cause fatigue failure of the drill-bit. Increasing RPM can relieve stick-slip once it is detected.”; also see the discussion of Sampaio on page 13, last sentence; see § 2.2 for Yigit, last two sentences and fig. 2.1; discussion on page 15, ¶ 1 last sentence; page 18 for discussion of Puebla last sentence; page 19 for Sarker last two sentences; then see Qiu’s abstract: “Drill-strings are slender structures used to dig into the rock in search of oil and gas. Failures of drill-strings are time and money consuming and therefore the dynamics of drill-strings must be investigated and carefully controlled.”, with respect to adjusting bit design/geometry see § 7.2: “Drill-string stick-slip behavior is studied in the thesis. In the future, comprehensive studies on the mechanical behaviors of bit-rock interaction under different types of drill-bits are required.” – and see § 1.1.2 as discussed above.
Qiu, Hongyuan, Jianming Yang, and Stephen Butt. "Stick‐Slip Analysis of a Drill String Subjected to Deterministic Excitation and Stochastic Excitation." Shock and Vibration 2016.1 (2016): 9168747. Page 5, col. 1, ¶ 3: “If stick-slip exists, the two representative points, entering and leaving the stick stage, have special interests, based on which some researchers developed control algorithms in order to mitigate the stick-slip. So knowing the times of these two points is crucial for the control strategy to be successful.”, e.g. see the title of reference # 5.
Kamel, Mahmoud A., et al. "Adaptive and real-time optimal control of stick–slip and bit wear in autonomous rotary steerable drilling." Journal of Energy Resources Technology 140.3 (2018): 032908. Abstract, § 1 , including see page 2 col. 1 last three paragraphs. See § 2.5 for a math equation for tooth wear that was the work of another (“Bourgoyne et al.”); see § 5.
Tian, Kaixiao, R. Ganesh, and Emmanuel Detournay. "Influence of bit design on the stability of a rotary drilling system." Nonlinear Dynamics 100.1 (2020): 51-75. Abstract, then see § 1, include seeing the last paragraph on page 52 then see page 53 ¶ 2 in col. 1; then see § 4 ¶ 1 and the subsections of § 4 for the various “types of bits” examined. Also § 5: “Specifically, two classes of bits are considered: fishtail bits with varying angular delays and symmetric bits with equal number of full and partial blades. The geometry of these two groups of bits are quantified by two numbers, one related to the number of blades, the other to the distribution of angular delays for the fishtail bit or the length of the partial blades for the symmetric bits.”
Pelfrene, Gilles, et al. "Modelling the 3D bit-rock interaction helps designing better PDC bits." SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition. SPE, 2019, background section.
Pelfrene, Gilles, Hedi Sellami, and Laurent Gerbaud. "Mitigating stick-slip in deep drilling based on optimization of PDC bit design." SPE/IADC drilling conference and exhibition. SPE, 2011. Abstract and introduction: “This phenomenon primarily affects PDC drillbits, which are subjected to intense velocity variations (Fig. 1, left) that can severely damage PDC cutters. Such vibrational issues have long been tackled in the field via efficient integrated approaches [24] and specific solutions have been developed to mitigate stick-slip, according to four main trends: definition of best drilling practices to avoid the unfavourable regime of stick-slip [1]; surface regulation systems designed to absorb upward torsional waves [39, 25]; hardware solutions to reduce friction along the drillstring [14, 2]; hardware technologies aiming at controlling the penetration of the drillbit into the rock [8, 20]. However, stick-slip still occurs today in a wide range of drilling applications [27].” – then see the background section. Note the PDC-cutter model on page 3. Then, on page 4, see the subsection PDC-bit model including: “In order to be used for predictions of real PDC drillbits dynamic responses, the cutting model has been integrated over real PDC drillbits via a bit design software named DRILSIM [38]. This software first computes numerically the individual cutting sections drilled by PDC cutters. Then it computes the corresponding individual cutting forces. Finally, it sums all these forces to provide the dynamic response of the full PDC drillbit as well as the geometry of the bottomhole profile. As the cutting model has been developed with rectangular shape cutters, a simple two scalar parameters correction of the model is required to use the model with cylindrical shape cutters (more details are provided in [34]).” – then, see the section “How the stick-slip is affected by PDC bit design” starting on page 5, including the second to last paragraph.
Schwefe, Thorsten, et al. "Development and testing of stick/slip-resistant PDC bits." SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition. SPE, 2014. Abstract and introduction.
Should the subject matter in ¶ 46 be incorporated into the claims, see Mayo for its discussion of the measuring in MPEP § 2106.05(d), see In Re Grams in MPEP § 2106.05(g) along with Mayo and the other cases at the same bullet point in MPEP § 2106.05(g). With respect to doing laboratory experimentation (¶ 47), this would be akin to the clinical testing of In Re Grams and the measurement of Mayo, i.e. part of the mere data gathering, and recited with such generality in these portions of the disclosure that it is WURC in the field of use. E.g., ¶ 25: “The sensors 140 may include any number and type of sensors 140, including, but not limited to, sensors generally known as the measurement-whiledrilling (MWD) sensors or the logging-while-drilling (L WD) sensors, and sensors 140 that provide information relating to the behavior of the drilling assembly 114, such as drill bit rotation (revolutions per minute or "RPM"), tool face, pressure, vibration, whirl, bending, and stick-slip.”, e.g. Qiu, Hongyuan. Dynamic analysis of a drill-string under deterministic and random excitations. Diss. Memorial University of Newfoundland, 2014. § 1.1 and its subsections, including § 1.1.1 and 1.1.2, followed by § 1.1.4, also see § 1.1.7 (for measurements while drilling being conventional).
Should displaying an output be added (e.g. ¶ 52), see example 46 claim 1 for its displaying step including at 2B; see Electric Power Group in MPEP § 2106.05(g and h) as well.
Should real-time be added (¶ 53), see Electric Power Group in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(D).
¶ 54 – a bare assertion of an improvement, without any description of how such alleged improvements are to be achieved. MPEP § 2106.05(a), including for Affinity Labs; furthermore this conveys that what provides the improvement is the abstract idea itself. A new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(I) for Synopsis and other similar case.
¶ 23 and ¶¶ 55-63 – mere instructions to do it on a computer with generic computer components. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) including its discussion of TLI communications, see the shift register of Gottschalk v. Benson in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C).
¶ 22 – generally linking to the field of use/technical environment (e.g. ¶ 23: “Furthermore, although the prediction system 129 is described herein as being part of the surface control unit 128, the disclosure is not so limited; rather, as will be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, the prediction system 129 may be discrete from the surface control unit 128 and may be disposed anywhere within the drilling assembly 114 or may be remote to the drilling assembly 114. In further embodiments, the prediction system 129 may be separate, remote, and discrete from the drilling system 100.”), in stark contrast to how the abstract idea of the math equation in Diamond v. Diehr was integrated into a particular control system and improved the field of rubber molding by solving the under curing and overcuring problems. See MPEP § 2106.04(d) for Mayo for its discussion of Diamond v. Diehr; see MPEP § 2106.05(e) for a discussion of Diamond v. Diehr, see example 45 claims 2-4 and note their particularity. With respect to example 45, claim 3, also see Thales in MPEP § 2106.05(a)(II) and MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I); also see XY LLC in the July 2024 Fed. Register notice; and Mayo in MPEP § 2106.05(d). For WURC evidence, see ¶ 2. Also, see the references discussed above as well.
With respect to the sensors (¶¶ 22 and 25), the Examiner notes the use of such sensors is WURC in the field of use. E.g. see ¶ 25: “sensors generally known as the measurement-while drilling (MWD) sensors or the logging-while-drilling (L WD) sensors”, e.g. Qiu 2014 as discussed above for this in chapter 1 of Qiu, e.g.
Pastusek, Paul, et al. "Drill rig control systems: Debugging, tuning, and long term needs." SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition?. SPE, 2016 – page 11, ¶ 2: “As part of a company-wide recommended practice, the electronic drilling recorder on both rigs was replaced with a new system to accommodate the use of one sample per second data. With this higher resolution data the drill team began trouble shooting the limiter by examining real time data and performing detailed bit forensic analysis. The bit dulls from the horizontal section showed a trademark ring-out pattern” – and see fig. 14 to further clarify. To further clarify, see fig. 16 which shows “Driller instructions drafted by the drill team once the problem was identified.” On a screenshot (see accompanying description). Also, page 15: “The bit was tripped and replaced with a roller cone bit. The roller cone drilled the sandstone intervals well but it had much slower ROP in the subsequent shale sections than a PDC bit.?... But when the bit hit the hard sandstone intervals it slowed to 10-15 ft/hr and the system went unstable with wide swings in torque, appearing to be stick slip. This was accompanied by wide swings in ROP and WOB as well. The rig crew noted that this had been their observation for this entire ‘ratty' hole section for the wells drilled in this area over the last few years… Given the rapid performance improvements, the team was given the freedom to trial a wide range of tuning parameters and was able to make the oscillation come and go on demand and document the results.” – e.g. see fig. 21.
¶ 27 – mere data gathering that is WURC in view of MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
¶ 28 – a model recited so generically, its readily part of the mental process, e.g. a few equations to be mentally evaluated by an engineer using physical aids, but for the mere instructions to do it on a computer. This is a purely results-oriented description, with no recitation of how the model is to acquire the desired results.
¶ 29 – a litany of information to be selected from in the mere data gathering. See MPEP § 2106.05(g) for Electric Power Group; also see MPEP § 2106.05(h) for Electric Power Group.
The claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea of both a mathematical concept and a mental process without significantly more.
Regarding the dependent claims
Claim 2 – as discussed above with respect to the disclosure, mere data gathering that is WURC in view of MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) given the generality recited and the claim reciting no particular tool or technological method for how this is to be gathered, i.e. it may simply be retrieved from memory as per 2106.05(d)(II); followed by merely further limiting the abstract idea (both mental and math) to use more data but no recitation of how this data is to be used in any particular way
Claim 3 - rejected under a similar rationale as the similar recitation in claims 15 and 20
Claim 4 – adding another step to the mental process of a mental analysis/evaluation of data; and further limiting the math calculations of the math concept
Claim 5 – further limiting the abstract idea (both mental and math) in a purely results-oriented way, followed by a mental judgement/opinion
Claim 6 – rejected under a similar rationale as claim 5
Claim 7 – further limiting both the math concept and the mental process
Claim 8 – a generic math equation recited in mathematical prose, simple enough a person is ready to mentally evaluate it
Claim 9 - – further limiting both the math concept and the mental process
Claim 10 – mere instructions to do it on a computer, as was discussed above, given the generic nature of this limitation.
Claim 11 – recited in such generality that this is a mental judgement (to clarify, the Examiner notes that historically such adjustments were manual adjustments by the drillers, evidence to demonstrate this is below), and should it be found its not then its mere instructions to “apply it” and a token post-solution activity. This is a purely results-oriented limitation, mere expressing a desired result of the adjustment with no recitation of how it is to be accomplished, WURC given the generic nature of the accompanying disclosure as was discussed above. For additional evidence, also see the above discussed evidence for the adjustments, and further see:
Pastusek, Paul, et al. "Drill rig control systems: Debugging, tuning, and long term needs." SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition?. SPE, 2016. Introduction, ¶¶ 1-3. Page 4 ¶ 2. Page 6 ¶¶ 3-5. Also, page 7. Then, see page 9 ¶¶ 1-4 which discuss the role of the person of the driller: “Knowing that stick slip is bad, he had been doing all he could to adjust WOB manually to avoid stick slip. We had failed to tell the driller the objectives of the tests. In this case the auto driller did not respond to stick slip as well as the driller could with a manual brake handle. No attempt was made to tune this brake handle auto driller at the time, though with hindsight some adjustment may have been available.”
Canudas-de-Wit, Carlos, Francisco R. Rubio, and Miguel Angel Corchero. "D-OSKIL: A new mechanism for controlling stick-slip oscillations in oil well drillstrings." IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology 16.6 (2008): 1177-1191. Page 2, last paragraph: “Historically, the experience of drillers has revealed that the manipulation of different drilling parameters (increasing the rotary speed, decreasing the weight-on-bit (WoB), modifying the drilling mud characteristics, introducing an additional friction at the bit [25], etc) is an effective strategy to suppress stick-slip motion [28].” – then see page 3 which provides a variety of adjustments that may be done to the drilling system itself
Claims 12-13 – rejected under similar rationales as claim 11.
Claim 14 – both mental and math. People are readily able to express probabilities as a percent value, e.g. a coin has a 50/50 probability of landing on heads or tails, i.e. it’s a 50% chance for heads; and a 50% chance for tails.
Claim 16 – merely further limiting the abstract idea by adding more information to be used in it.
Claim 17 - merely further limiting the abstract idea by adding more information to be used in it.
Claim 18-19 – rejected under similar rationales as claims 11-13 above
Claim 21 – a desired result, purely in the realm of abstract ideas, i.e. it’s merely specifying what the probabilities calculated are to “indicate” which is merely math relationships in textual form discussing how mathematically certain probability value ranges “indicate” certain conditions. Also further limiting the mental process (i.e. a person is readily able to judge ranges for probabilities, e.g. if a tire (or tires) of a car has increased baldness it indicates a higher probability that as the tire spins/driver accelerates (e.g. in the rain/snow) that the car will spin out of control; if a tire/tires are of a car are nominal and mid-life (e.g. by the penny test for Lincoln’s head) then this indicates a reduced probability of spinning out, and brand new tires would indicate the lowest probability). Should this be found not to be abstract, then it is merely generally linking the abstract idea to the field of use.
To clarify, the Examiner notes that the “baldness” of a tire is related to the aggressiveness of the tread, i.e. the more bald, the less aggressive the tread is and maintaining traction. Similar is readily said about a pair of running shoes and their tread, or knifes in the kitchen and the sharpness of the blade and various wear states as knifes dull out in use. Even patent examiners are subject to such ratings, e.g. PatentBots and similar such websites provide metrics indicating how difficult an examiner is (e.g. composite scores of affirmation rate, allowance rate, etc.), and lawyers know from this a mentally estimated probability of getting a patent granted (generally, factoring in the office action and specification itself) so as to advise clients such as whether or not than application has a strong likelihood of being granted.
The claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea of both a mathematical concept and a mental process without significantly more.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chen, Shilin, et al. "Identification and mitigation of friction-and cutting-action-induced stick/slip vibrations with PDC bits." SPE Drilling & Completion 35.04 (2020): 576-587. Abstract and pages 581-585
Fiksdal, Harald, et al. "Application of Rotary Steerable System/PDC Bits in Hard Interbedded Formations: A Multidisciplinary Team Approach to Performance Improvement." SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition. SPE, 2000. Page 5
Soares, Cesar, Miguel Armenta, and Neilkunal Panchal. "Enhancing reamer drilling performance in deepwater Gulf of Mexico wells." SPE Drilling & Completion 35.03 (2020): 329-356. Abstract and pages 330-338
Spencer, Reed, et al. "New directional drilling simulation tool reveals link between dynamic stability and tool face control." SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition. SPE, 2013. Abstract and pages 7-9
Taylor et al., US 2001/0020551, abstract, and ¶¶ 16, 57, 71
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 DAVID A. HOPKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-0537. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 10AM to 7 PM EST.
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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at (571) 272-4071. 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.
/David A Hopkins/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188