DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 09/08/2022 & 01/06/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDSs have been considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant discloses two groups of claims, Group I (claims 1-13) and Group II (claims 14-20).
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. § 121:
Claims 1-13, directed to providing analysis related to planning a wellbore, classified in G01V 1/50.
Claims 14-20, directed to machine learning/artificial intelligence related to earth drilling, classified in E21B 2200/22.
This restriction is proper under MPEP § 803(I) because (1) the inventions are distinct, each from the other, and (2) would require a serious search burden.
The inventions are distinct, each from the other, because of the following reasons: Inventions I and II are distinct, each from the other, because they are directed to different art areas as stated above. Group I is directed to providing analysis related to planning a wellbore. Group II is directed to machine learning/artificial intelligence related to earth drilling.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other under MPEP § 806.05(j) if: (A) the inventions as claimed do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive (i.e., a claim to the final product does not read on the intermediate, and vice versa); (B) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants; and (C) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect. See MPEP § 802.01. Claims are mutually exclusive if one claim recites limitations not in a second, while a second claim recites limitations not the first. Group I recites (and has the effect of) determining drillability values as a proxy for formation strength, which Group II does not have. Group II recites (and has the effect of) receiving a machine learning model trained to identify surface drilling parameters, which Group I does not have. Groups I-II have not been shown to be obvious variants. Applicant may admit otherwise.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all these inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
(a) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
(b) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter;
(c) the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries);
(d) the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention;
(e) the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with the Applicant’s representative Jeff Frantz (Reg. No. 56,189) on February 19th, 2026, a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-13. Affirmation of this election must be made by Applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, as being drawn to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b).
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancellation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be amended in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(b) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. Any amendment of inventorship must be accompanied by a request under 37 CFR 1.48(b) and by the fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
To determine if a claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the Court has guided the Office to apply the Alice/Mayo test, which requires:
1. Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category;
2A. Determining if the claim is directed to a patent ineligible judicial exception consisting of a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea; and
2B. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, determining if the claim recites limitations or elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
(See MPEP 2106).
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite a mental process. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
The following is an analysis based on the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG).
Step 1, Statutory Category:
Yes: Claims 1-13 are directed to the statutory category of a process. See MPEP § 2106.03.
Step 2A:
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry. See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A). Under the first prong, examiners evaluate whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). The second prong is an inquiry into whether the claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04(d).
Claim 1 Step 2A prong 1: Does the Claim Recite a Judicial Exception?
For the sake of identifying the abstract ideas, a copy of the claim is provided below. The limitations of the claims that describe abstract ideas are bolded.
1. A method for planning a wellbore, comprising:
receiving an offset protein code sequence for an offset wellbore, wherein the offset protein code sequence includes a plurality of protein codes, each protein code of the plurality of protein codes corresponding to a range of drillability values, wherein the range of drillability values are representative of a formation strength;
preparing a planned wellbore protein code sequence for a planned wellbore based on the offset protein code sequence of the offset wellbore; and
providing an analysis of target surface drilling parameters for the planned wellbore based on the offset protein code sequence.
The limitations “planning a wellbore, comprising: … preparing a planned wellbore protein code sequence for a planned wellbore based on the offset protein code sequence of the offset wellbore; and providing an analysis of target surface drilling parameters for the planned wellbore based on the offset protein code sequence” are abstract ideas because they are directed to mental processes, observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions. The limitations, as drafted and under broadest reasonable interpretation, “can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). For example, a human could, based on an “offset protein sequence” (e.g., Applicant’s FIG. 3-2), prepare a planned wellbore protein sequence and provide an analysis of drilling parameters for the planned wellbore, mentally or on paper with pen.
Claim 1 Step 2A prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception/Abstract idea into practical application?
Under Step 2A prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside of the abstract idea only present mere instructions to apply an exception, generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment, or insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations of:
• “receiving an offset protein code sequence for an offset wellbore, wherein the offset protein code sequence includes a plurality of protein codes, each protein code of the plurality of protein codes corresponding to a range of drillability values, wherein the range of drillability values are representative of a formation strength” (insignificant extra-solution activity – mere data gathering – See MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(g); this limitation can be viewed as nothing more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 1 Step 2B: Do the additional elements, considered individually and in combination, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
The Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As explained above, there is one type of additional element. The first and only type of additional element/limitation, which as explained previously, are insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data inputting/gathering). Recitations of “receiving an offset protein code sequence …” are mere data gathering that are recited at a high level of generality, and, is also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (WURC). See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data … utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information”)). These limitations therefore remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Considering the claim limitations as an ordered combination, claim 1 does not include significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim 1 is not patent subject matter eligible. Dependent claims 2-6 are further addressed below after addressing each independent claim.
Claim 7 Step 2A prong 1: Does the Claim Recite a Judicial Exception?
For the sake of identifying the abstract ideas, a copy of the claim is provided below. The limitations of the claims that describe abstract ideas are bolded.
1. A method for planning a wellbore, comprising:
receiving surface drilling parameters for the wellbore, wherein the surface drilling parameters include at least one of weight-on-bit (WOB), rotations per minute (RPM), drilling fluid flow rate, or rate of penetration (ROP);
inferring downhole drilling parameters based on the surface drilling parameters;
determining a plurality of drillability values for the wellbore based on the inferred downhole drilling parameters, wherein the plurality of drillability values are a proxy for formation strength;
assigning a plurality of protein codes to the plurality of drillability values, wherein each protein code of the plurality of protein codes corresponds to a drillability range of the plurality of drillability values, and wherein each protein code of the plurality of protein code has a depth range corresponding to a depth of the drillability range; and
preparing a protein code sequence for the wellbore based on the plurality of protein codes.
The limitations “planning a wellbore, comprising: … inferring downhole drilling parameters based on the surface drilling parameters; determining a plurality of drillability values for the wellbore based on the inferred downhole drilling parameters, wherein the plurality of drillability values are a proxy for formation strength; assigning a plurality of protein codes to the plurality of drillability values, …; and preparing a protein code sequence for the wellbore based on the plurality of protein codes” are abstract ideas because they are directed to mental processes, observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions. The limitations, as drafted and under broadest reasonable interpretation, “can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). For example, a human could infer another borehole in the same vicinity has a similar stratigraphy, including similar drilling parameters, assign codes (labeling) the drillability values and prepare a planned wellbore protein codes/sequence.
Claim 7 Step 2A prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception/Abstract idea into practical application?
Under Step 2A prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside of the abstract idea only present mere instructions to apply an exception, generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment, or insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations of:
• “receiving surface drilling parameters for the wellbore, wherein the surface drilling parameters include at least one of weight-on-bit (WOB), rotations per minute (RPM), drilling fluid flow rate, or rate of penetration (ROP)” (insignificant extra-solution activity – mere data gathering – See MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(g); this limitation can be viewed as nothing more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 7 Step 2B: Do the additional elements, considered individually and in combination, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
The Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As explained above, there is one type of additional element. The first and only type of additional element/limitation, which as explained previously, are insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data inputting/gathering). Recitations of “receiving surface drilling parameters …” are mere data gathering that are recited at a high level of generality, and, is also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (WURC). See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data … utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information”)). These limitations therefore remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Considering the claim limitations as an ordered combination, claim 7 does not include significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim 7 is not patent subject matter eligible. Dependent claims 8-13 are further addressed below.
Dependent Claims 2-6 and 8-13
Regarding claims 2-6 and 9-13, claim 2 depends from claim 1 and further recites: “wherein providing the analysis of the target surface drilling parameters include providing a heat map of the target surface drilling parameters”; claim 3 depends from claim 1 and further recites: “wherein providing the analysis of the target surface drilling parameters includes providing an analysis of the target surface drilling parameters for a protein code of the planned wellbore protein code sequence; claim 4 depends from claim 3 and further recites: “wherein providing the analysis of the target surface drilling parameters includes providing the analysis of the target surface drilling parameters for each protein code of the planned wellbore protein code sequence”; claim 5 depends from claim 1 and further recites: “wherein preparing the planned wellbore protein code sequence includes preparing the planned wellbore protein code sequence from a plurality of offset wellbores”; claim 6 depends from claim 5 and further recites: “wherein the plurality of offset wellbores are located within an analysis zone of the planned wellbore; claim 9 depends from claim 7 and further recites: “wherein assigning the plurality of protein codes include identifying a consensus sequence of the plurality of drillability values”; claim 10 depends from claim 9 and further recites: “wherein identifying the consensus sequence includes determining a probability of a mutation within the plurality of drillability values; claim 11 depends from claim 10 and further recites: “wherein, if the probability of the mutation is above a mutation threshold, identifying the consensus sequence includes omitting the mutation from the plurality of drillability values”; claim 12 depends from claim 9 and further recites: “wherein identifying the consensus sequence includes detecting changepoints in the drillability values”; and claim 13 depends from claim 12 and further recites: “wherein assigning the plurality of protein codes includes assigning different protein codes based on the detected changepoints”. These feature have been considered in combination with the features required by the claim(s) from which the claim depends. The bolded portion of the additional feature are considered to further clarify the details of the human’s mental activity, with pen and paper. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, these features are considered to be drawn to the abstract idea without adding significantly more, and hence claim claims 2-6 and 9-13 are considered to be ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 8, the claim depends from claim 7 and further recites: “wherein assigning the plurality of protein codes includes applying a low-pass filter to the plurality of drillability values”. These features have been considered in combination with the features required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The bolded portion of the additional feature are mere instructions to apply an exception to a generic computer (low pass filter), which cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, these features are considered to be drawn to the abstract idea without adding significantly more, and hence claim 8 is considered to be ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
For the foregoing reasons, claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent ineligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY’S BENNETT (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0003922A1) in view of LIMA (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0056478 A1).
Regarding claim 1, BENNETT teaches a method for planning a wellbore (improved reservoir model can be subject to reservoir analysis, visualization and/or simulation operations, which are typically performed to gain a better understanding of the subsurface formation structures that leads to informed well placement, reserves estimation and production planning, Para. [0183] of BENNETT), comprising: receiving an offset protein code sequence for an offset wellbore (FIG. 16A3 of BENNETT shows a “protein code sequence”, which is interpreted as an alphabetical sequence based on Applicant’s FIG. 3-2 of the instant application; FIG. 16A3 of BENNETT shows a sequence of MBMCBMBMCBCBMB), wherein the offset protein code sequence includes a plurality of protein codes (FIG. 16A3 of BENNETT shows a sequence of MBMCBMBMCBCBMB), each protein code of the plurality of protein codes corresponding to a range of drillability values (for the PP raytracing inversion shown in FIG. 8A, the range of inclination angles used is 88° 25°=63° to 88°+25°=113°, while for the SS ray tracing inversion shown in FIG. 9A, the range of inclination angles used is 75° 25°=50° to 75°+25°=100°, Para. [0128]; [Examiner’s note the code sequence of FIG. 16A3 of BENNETT includes M (magenta), B (brown) and C (cyan), which correspond to “PP reflected” ray path type, “SP refracted” ray path type and “PS refracted ray path type, as taught by Para. [0080] of BENNETT, which recites “each detected arrival event can be denoted by a marking where the hue of the marking can indicate ray path type (such as a “Cyan” color representing the ‘PP reflected’ ray path type, a “Brown” color representing the ‘SP refracted’ ray path type, a “Magenta” color representing the ‘PS refracted’ ray path type, and an “Orange” color representing the ‘SS reflected’ ray path type), while the intensity of the marking can depict the relative prominence of the corresponding arrival event … the ray path type for each detected arrival event is determined by the results of the ray tracing inversion and three-dimensional slowness time coherence workflow”; [Examiner’s Note: Para. [0080] of BENNETT also teaches “candidate arrival events may or may not correspond to near wellbore formation structures of interest (reflectors), which can be earth formation layer boundaries, fractures, faults, as well as nearby wellbores]; [Examiner’s Note: because the range of inclination angles are used for determining ray path types corresponding to arrival events, which may correspond to wellbore formation structures and/or boundaries, the range of inclination angles are interpreted as corresponding to a range of drillability values]), preparing a planned wellbore protein code sequence for a planned wellbore based on the offset protein code sequence of the offset wellbore (the information contained in the display maps of reflectors or the spreadsheet (or other structured data object(s)) of reflector information of block 1711 can be used to supplement a reservoir model for reservoir analysis, visualization and/or simulation … the reservoir model can be based on surface seismic measurements, VSP measurements, LWD electromagnetics measurements and possibly other measurements as well … in particular, the three-dimensional position and orientation of a particular reflector relative to the tool axis (or well track) can be used to supplement the information of the reservoir model that corresponds to the three-dimensional position and orientation of that reflector … in this manner, the improved reservoir model can be subject to reservoir analysis, visualization and/or simulation operations, which are typically performed to gain a better understanding of the subsurface formation structures that leads to informed well placement, reserves estimation and production planning, Para. [0183] of BENNETT; See also in logging-while drilling applications, the reflector information can be used to generate and display a real time mapping of fractures, faults, bed boundaries, and other acoustic reflectors relative to the well trajectory while drilling … such real-time mapping can be used to dynamically adjust the trajectory of the drilling operation (or stop the drilling operation) as deemed optimal for the geometry of the formation structures with knowledge of the location of the fractures, faults, bed boundaries, and other acoustic reflectors, Para. [0187] of BENNETT); and providing an analysis of target surface drilling parameters for the planned wellbore based on the offset protein code sequence (the information contained in the display maps of reflectors or the spreadsheet (or other structured data object(s)) of reflector information of block 1711 can be used to supplement a reservoir model for reservoir analysis, visualization and/or simulation … the reservoir model can be based on surface seismic measurements, VSP measurements, LWD electromagnetics measurements and possibly other measurements as well … in particular, the three-dimensional position and orientation of a particular reflector relative to the tool axis (or well track) can be used to supplement the information of the reservoir model that corresponds to the three-dimensional position and orientation of that reflector … in this manner, the improved reservoir model can be subject to reservoir analysis, visualization and/or simulation operations, which are typically performed to gain a better understanding of the subsurface formation structures that leads to informed well placement, reserves estimation and production planning, Para. [0183] of BENNETT; See also in logging-while drilling applications, the reflector information can be used to generate and display a real time mapping of fractures, faults, bed boundaries, and other acoustic reflectors relative to the well trajectory while drilling … such real-time mapping can be used to dynamically adjust the trajectory of the drilling operation (or stop the drilling operation) as deemed optimal for the geometry of the formation structures with knowledge of the location of the fractures, faults, bed boundaries, and other acoustic reflectors, Para. [0187] of BENNETT).
BENNETT, however, appears to fail to explicitly disclose wherein the range of drillability values are representative of a formation strength.
However, LIMA is in the field of predictive lithology and formation type for downhole drilling (Para. [0001] of LIMA) and teaches wherein the range of drillability values are representative of a formation strength (lithology can include any type of information that can be used to identify the material properties and/or physical characteristics of geological media including rock stiffness, toughness, roughness, grain size, pliability, Para. [0015] of LIMA; See also process of “measurement while drilling (MWD)” uses measurement tools to determine various downhole characteristics, such as formation and wellbore temperatures and pressures, the trajectory of the drill bit, etc. … information gathering can also occur in the process of “logging while drilling (LWD),” which includes using imaging tools to form an image of the wellbore and the geological formation surrounding the wellbore to determine additional formation properties such as permeability, porosity, resistivity, and other properties, Para. [0003] of LIMA; [Applicant’s specification, at Para. [0033], appears to indicate that formation strength is related to formation porosity, and permeability and/or resisitivty are interpreted as corresponding to strength]; See also formation type data can be determined by identifying one or more formation types based on the lithology values and assigning the one or more formation types to the depths … formation type data can be categorical description of the set of depths and their assigned formation types, Para. [0032] of LIMA).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the alphabet (protein) coding system for drilling/planning wellbores of BENNETT to include formation strength properties as in LIMA for the purpose of allowing operators to make real-time decisions and changes to ongoing drilling operations (Para. [0003] of LIMA).
Regarding claim 2, BENNETT as modified by LIMA teaches the method of claim 1 (as shown above), wherein providing the analysis of the target surface drilling parameters include providing a heat map of the target surface drilling parameters (the intensity of the [color-coded] marking can depict the relative prominence of the corresponding arrival event, Para. [0080] of BENNETT; See also, e.g., FIG. 3A of BENNETT, which appears to show a heat map of differing intensities]; See also maps the MSE response value range of 100-500 kpsi to the formation type of shale, and maps the MSE response value range of 750-2000 kpsi to the formation type of igneous rock, Para. [0034] of LIMA).
Regarding claim 3, BENNETT as modified by LIMA teaches the method of claim 1 (as shown above), wherein providing the analysis of the target surface drilling parameters includes providing an analysis of the target surface drilling parameters for a protein code of the planned wellbore protein code sequence (the information contained in the display maps of reflectors or the spreadsheet (or other structured data object(s)) of reflector information of block 1711 can be used to supplement a reservoir model for reservoir analysis, visualization and/or simulation … the reservoir model can be based on surface seismic measurements, VSP measurements, LWD electromagnetics measurements and possibly other measurements as well … in particular, the three-dimensional position and orientation of a particular reflector relative to the tool axis (or well track) can be used to supplement the information of the reservoir model that corresponds to the three-dimensional position and orientation of that reflector … in this manner, the improved reservoir model can be subject to reservoir analysis, visualization and/or simulation operations, which are typically performed to gain a better understanding of the subsurface formation structures that leads to informed well placement, reserves estimation and production planning, Para. [0183] of BENNETT; See also in logging-while drilling applications, the reflector information can be used to generate and display a real time mapping of fractures, faults, bed boundaries, and other acoustic reflectors relative to the well trajectory while drilling … such real-time mapping can be used to dynamically adjust the trajectory of the drilling operation (or stop the drilling operation) as deemed optimal for the geometry of the formation structures with knowledge of the location of the fractures, faults, bed boundaries, and other acoustic reflectors, Para. [0187] of BENNETT).
Regarding claim 4, BENNETT as modified by LIMA teaches the method of claim 3 (as shown above), wherein providing the analysis of the target surface drilling parameters includes providing the analysis of the target surface drilling parameters for each protein code of the planned wellbore protein code sequence (the information contained in the display maps of reflectors or the spreadsheet (or other structured data object(s)) of reflector information of block 1711 can be used to supplement a reservoir model for reservoir analysis, visualization and/or simulation … the reservoir model can be based on surface seismic measurements, VSP measurements, LWD electromagnetics measurements and possibly other measurements as well … in particular, the three-dimensional position and orientation of a particular reflector relative to the tool axis (or well track) can be used to supplement the information of the reservoir model that corresponds to the three-dimensional position and orientation of that reflector … in this manner, the improved reservoir model can be subject to reservoir analysis, visualization and/or simulation operations, which are typically performed to gain a better understanding of the subsurface formation structures that leads to informed well placement, reserves estimation and production planning, Para. [0183] of BENNETT; See also in logging-while drilling applications, the reflector information can be used to generate and display a real time mapping of fractures, faults, bed boundaries, and other acoustic reflectors relative to the well trajectory while drilling … such real-time mapping can be used to dynamically adjust the trajectory of the drilling operation (or stop the drilling operation) as deemed optimal for the geometry of the formation structures with knowledge of the location of the fractures, faults, bed boundaries, and other acoustic reflectors, Para. [0187] of BENNETT).
Regarding claim 5, BENNETT as modified by LIMA teaches the method of claim 1 (as shown above), wherein preparing the planned wellbore protein code sequence includes preparing the planned wellbore protein code sequence from a plurality of offset wellbores (a predictive matrix can be created based on data from the drilling of previous wells. To illustrate, this predictive matrix can be based on data from previous wells that are located in a same or similar basin in which a target well is to be drilled, Para. [0014] of LIMA).
Regarding claim 6, BENNETT as modified by LIMA teaches the method of claim 5 (as shown above), wherein the plurality of offset wellbores are located within an analysis zone of the planned wellbore (a predictive matrix can be created based on data from the drilling of previous wells. To illustrate, this predictive matrix can be based on data from previous wells that are located in a same or similar basin in which a target well is to be drilled, Para. [0014] of LIMA).
Claims 7-9, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY’S BENNETT (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0003922 A1) in view of LIMA (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0056478 A1).
Regarding claim 7, BENNETT teaches a method for planning a wellbore (improved reservoir model can be subject to reservoir analysis, visualization and/or simulation operations, which are typically performed to gain a better understanding of the subsurface formation structures that leads to informed well placement, reserves estimation and production planning, Para. [0183] of BENNETT), comprising: receiving surface drilling parameters for the wellbore, wherein the surface drilling parameters include at least one of weight-on-bit (WOB), rotations per minute (RPM), drilling fluid flow rate, or rate of penetration (ROP) (the MWD module 130 includes one or more of the following types of measuring devices: a weight-on-bit measuring device, a torque measuring device, a vibration measuring device, a shock measuring device, a stick slip measuring device, a direction measuring device and/or an inclination measuring device, Para. [0218] of BENNETT; See also modeling of fluid flow, Para. [0093] of BENNETT); determining a plurality of drillability values for the wellbore (for the PP raytracing inversion shown in FIG. 8A, the range of inclination angles used is 88° 25°=63° to 88°+25°=113°, while for the SS ray tracing inversion shown in FIG. 9A, the range of inclination angles used is 75° 25°=50° to 75°+25°=100°, Para. [0128]; [Examiner’s note the code sequence of FIG. 16A3 of BENNETT includes M (magenta), B (brown) and C (cyan), which correspond to “PP reflected” ray path type, “SP refracted” ray path type and “PS refracted ray path type, as taught by Para. [0080] of BENNETT, which recites “each detected arrival event can be denoted by a marking where the hue of the marking can indicate ray path type (such as a “Cyan” color representing the ‘PP reflected’ ray path type, a “Brown” color representing the ‘SP refracted’ ray path type, a “Magenta” color representing the ‘PS refracted’ ray path type, and an “Orange” color representing the ‘SS reflected’ ray path type), while the intensity of the marking can depict the relative prominence of the corresponding arrival event … the ray path type for each detected arrival event is determined by the results of the ray tracing inversion and three-dimensional slowness time coherence workflow”; [Examiner’s Note: Para. [0080] of BENNETT also teaches “candidate arrival events may or may not correspond to near wellbore formation structures of interest (reflectors), which can be earth formation layer boundaries, fractures, faults, as well as nearby wellbores]; [Examiner’s Note: because the range of inclination angles are used for determining ray path types corresponding to arrival events, which may correspond to wellbore formation structures and/or boundaries, the range of inclination angles are interpreted as corresponding to a range of drillability values]), assigning a plurality of protein codes to the plurality of drillability values (FIG. 16A3 of BENNETT shows a “protein code sequence”, which is interpreted as an alphabetical sequence based on Applicant’s FIG. 3-2 of the instant application; FIG. 16A3 of BENNETT shows a sequence of MBMCBMBMCBCBMB), wherein each protein code of the plurality of protein codes corresponds to a drillability range of the plurality of drillability values (for the PP raytracing inversion shown in FIG. 8A, the range of inclination angles used is 88° 25°=63° to 88°+25°=113°, while for the SS ray tracing inversion shown in FIG. 9A, the range of inclination angles used is 75° 25°=50° to 75°+25°=100°, Para. [0128]; [Examiner’s note the code sequence of FIG. 16A3 of BENNETT includes M (magenta), B (brown) and C (cyan), which correspond to “PP reflected” ray path type, “SP refracted” ray path type and “PS refracted ray path type, as taught by Para. [0080] of BENNETT, which recites “each detected arrival event can be denoted by a marking where the hue of the marking can indicate ray path type (such as a “Cyan” color representing the ‘PP reflected’ ray path type, a “Brown” color representing the ‘SP refracted’ ray path type, a “Magenta” color representing the ‘PS refracted’ ray path type, and an “Orange” color representing the ‘SS reflected’ ray path type), while the intensity of the marking can depict the relative prominence of the corresponding arrival event … the ray path type for each detected arrival event is determined by the results of the ray tracing inversion and three-dimensional slowness time coherence workflow”; [Examiner’s Note: Para. [0080] of BENNETT also teaches “candidate arrival events may or may not correspond to near wellbore formation structures of interest (reflectors), which can be earth formation layer boundaries, fractures, faults, as well as nearby wellbores]; [Examiner’s Note: because the range of inclination angles are used for determining ray path types corresponding to arrival events, which may correspond to wellbore formation structures and/or boundaries, the range of inclination angles are interpreted as corresponding to a range of drillability values]), and wherein each protein code of the plurality of protein code has a depth range corresponding to a depth of the drillability range (the 3D position of the reflector relative to the tool can be parameterized by a center point of the reflector defined by dimensions of measured depth, Para. [0022] of BENNETT; See also generate and display (1) logs of the detected arrival events showing their measured depth location and any of several attributes (ray path type, reflector azimuth around the circumference of the borehole, relative dip, reflector true dip angle and true azimuth angle), Para. [0034] of BENNETT); and preparing a protein code sequence for the wellbore based on the plurality of protein codes (the information contained in the display maps of reflectors or the spreadsheet (or other structured data object(s)) of reflector information of block 1711 can be used to supplement a reservoir model for reservoir analysis, visualization and/or simulation … the reservoir model can be based on surface seismic measurements, VSP measurements, LWD electromagnetics measurements and possibly other measurements as well … in particular, the three-dimensional position and orientation of a particular reflector relative to the tool axis (or well track) can be used to supplement the information of the reservoir model that corresponds to the three-dimensional position and orientation of that reflector … in this manner, the improved reservoir model can be subject to reservoir analysis, visualization and/or simulation operations, which are typically performed to gain a better understanding of the subsurface formation structures that leads to informed well placement, reserves estimation and production planning, Para. [0183] of BENNETT; See also in logging-while drilling applications, the reflector information can be used to generate and display a real time mapping of fractures, faults, bed boundaries, and other acoustic reflectors relative to the well trajectory while drilling … such real-time mapping can be used to dynamically adjust the trajectory of the drilling operation (or stop the drilling operation) as deemed optimal for the geometry of the formation structures with knowledge of the location of the fractures, faults, bed boundaries, and other acoustic reflectors, Para. [0187] of BENNETT).
BENNETT, however, appears to fail to explicitly disclose inferring downhole drilling parameters based on the surface drilling parameters; determining a plurality of drillability values for the wellbore based on the inferred downhole drilling parameters, wherein the plurality of drillability values are a proxy for formation strength.
However, LIMA is in the field of predictive lithology and formation type for downhole drilling (Para. [0001] of LIMA) and teaches receiving surface drilling parameters for the wellbore, wherein the surface drilling parameters include at least one of weight-on-bit (WOB), rotations per minute (RPM), drilling fluid flow rate, or rate of penetration (ROP); (the MSE response can be determined based on measurements that can be acquired at the surface, such as rotation rate, torque, WOB, and rate of penetration, Para. [0024] of LIMA); inferring downhole drilling parameters based on the surface drilling parameters (system 100 can perform operations to predict lithology and/or formation type based on MSE response values …. perform operations to correct or alter drilling operations based on the predicted lithology and/or formation type, Para. [0024] of LIMA; [the drilling operations are interpreted to correspond to downhole drilling parameters, and the predicted lithography based on the MSE response, which is based on the acquired measurements (e.g., WOB and/or ROP, Para. [0024] of LIMA) means the drilling operations (which would include parameters) are based on the acquired measurements (i.e., surface drilling parameters, such as WOB and/or ROP)); determining a plurality of drillability values for the wellbore based on the inferred downhole drilling parameters, wherein the range of drillability values are representative of a formation strength (lithology can include any type of information that can be used to identify the material properties and/or physical characteristics of geological media including rock stiffness, toughness, roughness, grain size, pliability, Para. [0015] of LIMA; See also process of “measurement while drilling (MWD)” uses measurement tools to determine various downhole characteristics, such as formation and wellbore temperatures and pressures, the trajectory of the drill bit, etc. … information gathering can also occur in the process of “logging while drilling (LWD),” which includes using imaging tools to form an image of the wellbore and the geological formation surrounding the wellbore to determine additional formation properties such as permeability, porosity, resistivity, and other properties, Para. [0003] of LIMA; [Applicant’s specification, at Para. [0033], appears to indicate that formation strength is related to formation porosity, and permeability and/or resisitivty are interpreted as corresponding to strength]; See also formation type data can be determined by identifying one or more formation types based on the lithology values and assigning the one or more formation types to the depths … formation type data can be categorical description of the set of depths and their assigned formation types, Para. [0032] of LIMA).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the alphabet (protein) coding system for drilling/planning wellbores of BENNETT to include surface measurement-based formation strength properties as in LIMA for the purpose of allowing operators to make real-time decisions and changes to ongoing drilling operations (Para. [0003] of LIMA).
Regarding claim 8, BENNETT as modified by LIMA teaches the method of claim 7 (as shown above), wherein assigning the plurality of protein codes includes applying a low-pass filter to the plurality of drillability values (the waveforms are processed to separate out and filter borehole modes and other interfering signals from the waveform data, Para. [0005] of BENNETT; See also processes the filtered waveform data to detect candidate arrival events, Para. [0020] of BENNETT).
Regarding claim 9, BENNETT as modified by LIMA teaches the method of claim 7 (as shown above), wherein assigning the plurality of protein codes include identifying a consensus sequence of the plurality of drillability values (the graphs of the detected time pick as a function of measured depth are compared to the graphs of the total travel times (or predicted time pick) as a function of measured depth as determined by the ray tracing inversion for the corresponding reflector positions shown in FIGS. 8A and 9A, respectively and observe that the agreement is very close … we can quantify this agreement using a relative error metric, Para. [0121] of BENNETT; See also next paragraph: relative errors of the PP and SS ray tracing inversion results shown in FIGS. 10A and 11A are 0.2% and 0.19% respectively, Para. [0122] of BENNETT; [a consensus is interpreted as corresponding to a general agreement, and as discussed above, PP and SS correspond to the color-coded drillability values]).
Regarding claim 12, BENNETT as modified by LIMA teaches the method of claim 9 (as shown above), wherein identifying the consensus sequence includes detecting changepoints in the drillability values (the measured depth of a detected arrival event is shown as the midpoint of the measured depth interval for the time pick of the detected arrival event, Para. [0041] of BENNETT).
Regarding claim 13, BENNETT as modified by LIMA teaches the method of claim 12 (as shown above), wherein assigning the plurality of protein codes includes assigning different protein codes based on the detected changepoints (the measured depth of a detected arrival event is shown as the midpoint of the measured depth interval for the time pick of the detected arrival event, Para. [0041] of BENNETT; See also arrival event corresponds to time pick, Para. [0021] of BENNETT; [as discussed above, the color codes of BENNETT are assigned based on the arrival event]).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY’S BENNETT (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0003922 A1) in view of LIMA (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0056478 A1), and further in view of LARSEN et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0285297 A1)
Regarding claim 10, BENNETT as modified by LIMA teaches the method of claim 9 (as shown above) but appears to fail to explicitly disclose wherein identifying the consensus sequence includes determining a probability of a mutation within the plurality of drillability values.
However, LARSEN is in the field of downhole exploration including formation properties/boundaries (Para. [0002] of LARSEN) and teaches wherein identifying the consensus sequence includes determining a probability of a mutation within the plurality of drillability values (exception occurs when an unexpected event is encountered, such as when a value is outside an acceptable range … when an exception occurs, an exception flag (i.e., an error flag) can be set … one example of such an exception of an unexpected event occurs when a rate of change of a slope (e.g., an angle of the formation boundary at a point relative to horizontal) of the formation boundary (i.e., oil-water contact) falls outside an expected range … for example an exception occurs if the difference in positions and/or istance or, Para. [0035] of LARSEN; [Examiner’s note: Applicant’s specification, at Para. [0042], indicates that a mutation probability may correspond to a rate of change (slope)]); See also when an exception occurs and an error flag is set meaning the well is likely (probably) drilling a hard formation, Para. [0035] of LARSEN)..
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the alphabet (protein) coding system for drilling/planning wellbores of BENNETT as modified by LIMA to further include determining anomalies/exceptions/mutations as in LARSEN for the purpose of avoiding incorrect data points, which could represent noise or other interference that is not accurate (Para. [0045] of LARSEN).
Regarding claim 11, BENNETT as modified by LIMA teaches the method of claim 10 (as shown above), wherein, if the probability of the mutation is above a mutation threshold, identifying the consensus sequence includes omitting the mutation from the plurality of drillability values ([MPEP 2111.04 recites “the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met”; Thus, because BENNETT as modified by LIMA teaches the method of claim 10 (as shown above), and the “identifying” limitation of claim 11 is not required to be performed, BENNETT as modified by LIMA teaches claim 11; To avoid this contingent limitation interpretation, Examiner recommends Applicant replace “if” with “when”, which must occur one, or “based on” or “responsive to” (with the latter two “is” should also be replaced with “being”)]; See also data falling outside of a range (e.g., above a high threshold or below a low threshold) is remove, Para. [0045] of LARSEN & discussion of Para. [0042] of LARSEN above related to mutations/anomalies and rate of change exception).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN P HOCKER whose telephone number is (571)272-0501. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 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, Rehana Perveen can be reached on (571)272-3676. 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.
JOHN P. HOCKER
Examiner
Art Unit 2189
/JOHN P HOCKER/Examiner, Art Unit 2189
/REHANA PERVEEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2189
Prosecution Insights