DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-25 and 29-34 are presented for examination.
Claims 26-28 were withdrawn per restriction.
This office action is in response to the election submitted on 06-FEB-2026.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 3-5, 8-10, 16, 21, and 23-24 contain allowable subject matter. Claim 26-28, previously withdrawn from consideration as a result of a restriction requirement, contain several elements of an allowable claims. Pursuant to the procedures set forth in MPEP § 821.04(a), the restriction requirement between inventions I and II, as set forth in the Office action mailed on 01/09/2026, is hereby withdrawn and claim 26-28 hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: Two periods are found in the claim. A period is found after “drillbit” in the middle limitation.
Claim 33 is amended to incorporate “wellborne”. Examiner interprets this to be “wellbore”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 19-21 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.
Regarding claims 19 and 20, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the heave motions of the rig". The “heave motion” and the “rig” are not introduced in previous limitations. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Claim 34 is directed towards transitory propagating signals, per se. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is obliged to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during proceedings before the USPTO. See In re ZIetz, 893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir.1989) (during patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer-readable medium (also called computer-readable storage and other such variations) typically covers forms of nontransitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer-readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Aug. 24, 2009; p.2.
A claim drawn to such a computer-readable medium that covers both transitory and nontransitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation “non-transitory” to the claim. Cf Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (suggesting that applicants add the limitation “non-human” to a claim covering a multi-cellular organism to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101). Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se. The limited situations in which such an amendment could raise issues of new matter occur, for example, when the specification does not support a non-transitory embodiment because a signal per se is the only viable embodiment such that the amended claim is impermissibly broadened beyond the supporting disclosure. See, e.g., Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134F.3d 1473 (Fed.Cir. 1998).
Claims 1-25 and 32-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 (Statutory Category – Process)
Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes, the claim recites a mental process, specifically:
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(Ill) “Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, Judgments, and opinions.”
Further, the MPEP recites “The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation.”
2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A) “Mathematical Relationships A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols. For example, pressure (p) can be described as the ratio between the magnitude of the normal force (F) and area of the surface on contact (A), or it can be set forth in the form of an equation such as p = F/A.”
2106.04(a)(2)(I)(B) “Mathematical Formulas or Equations A claim that recites a numerical formula or equation will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. In addition, there are instances where a formula or equation is written in text format that should also be considered as falling within this grouping. For example, the phrase "determining a ratio of A to B" is merely using a textual replacement for the particular equation (ratio = A/B). Additionally, the phrase "calculating the force of the object by multiplying its mass by its acceleration" is using a textual replacement for the particular equation (F= ma).”
2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C) “Mathematical Calculations 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.”
providing a model of the drillstring, the model representing the drillstring by a sequence of alternating springs and elements,
The “model of the drillstring” is an abstract idea of the representation of a drillstring. The drillstring is represented by “springs and elements”. The “spring and elements” are not components of the drillstring, such as drill pipe, but abstract representations of a drillstring. A representation of the “spring and elements” is shown in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 of the application. These elements are determine by an evaluation or estimation based on the performance of the drilling operation
where each element describes the mass and/or the moment of inertia of a corresponding part of the drillstring and each spring represents at least one of: axial, torsional and/or bending stiffnesses of one of the corresponding parts of the drillstring,
The “axial, torsional and/or bending stiffnesses” corresponding to the “elements” is a representation based on evaluation of “the corresponding parts of the drillstring”. The determination of the elements is based observation of the elements and a judgement of the potential values.
wherein the model describes one or more forces acting on each element by one or more systems of ordinary equations of first or second order, where each equation comprises a linear part with constant coefficients and a non-linear part that includes one or more of: one or more non-linear terms, one or more non-smooth terms, one or more time dependent terms and/or one or more coupled terms; and
The “forces acting on each elements” is represented by “ordinary equations”. Although the “equation” consists of “constant coefficients”, “non-linear terms”, “non-smooth terms”, “time dependent terms” or “couple terms”, these are all mathematical relationships and equations. To determine these “elements”, an evaluation is performed of the model.
the method comprises recalculating the model for a plurality of time steps,
The “recalculating” for a “plurality of time steps” amounts to performing the abstract idea repeated. An evaluation is performed for the “time steps” using the previous mathematical relationships and equations.
wherein recalculating the model for the respective time step comprises calculating one, two or three dimensional positions, orientations and/or derivatives thereof of all of the elements for the respective time step based on one, two or three dimensional positions, orientations and/or derivatives thereof of all element at a previous time step, by describing the non-linear part by a form of expansion with respect to time and solving the one or more systems of equations either analytically or by the use of exponential integrators for the duration of the respective time step.
The number of “dimensional positions” is recited in the alternative of “one, two or three”. The “dimensional positions”, “orientations”, and “derivatives” are also in the alternative. The “system of equations” is recite as being solved as “analytically” or “exponential integrators”. This can amount to solving the orientation in one dimension analytically. Solving such a model would be a simple model of a well, such as a well with little to no deviation. This can reasonably be done by observing a simple well sketch and then evaluating the length of the drillstring and the orientation to generate a system of equations to create a simple spring and element diagram as shown in Fig. 3. The “system of equation” is also establishing mathematical relationships.
Therefore, the claim recites a mental process and mathematical concepts.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Solution?
No.
There are no additional elements, additional to the abstract idea itself, and therefore no additional elements which could integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (in Step 2A Prong 2).
Therefore, no meaningful limits are imposed on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No.
There are no additional elements, additional to the abstract idea itself, and therefore no additional elements which could provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (in Step 2B).
The claim is ineligible.
Claim 2. The method of claim 1, wherein the recalculating of the model comprises dynamically and repeatedly recalculating the model according to a set, selected or predefined recalculation rate.
The “repeatedly recalculating” amounts to performing the abstract idea repeatedly. Step 2A prong 1.
Claim 3. The method of claim 2, wherein the predefined, or dynamically adjusted, recalculation rate has a time step in the order of 101 to 106 milliseconds.
A set “time step” with a range of “101 to 106 milliseconds” can be done in the mind for simple well conditions. A drilling observing the drilling of a well with little deviation would be able to intuitively understand the well conditions and evaluate the drilling at this rate. A simple diagram could be visualized in the mind of the basic conditions of the well. Step 2A prong 1.
Claim 4. The method of claim 3, wherein the constant coefficients of the linear term are not recalculated for every timestep, but are recalculated according to a recalculation condition.
The “recalculation condition” could be observing a new section of drillpipe being added to the drillstring causing the length to be extended. Based on the observation and an evaluation of well conditions, a simple set of equations could describe the recalculation. Step 2A prong 1.
Claim 5. The method of claim 4, wherein the recalculation condition comprises a change in one or more of; drillstring length or dimension, detected activity code, expected friction forces, and/or the expected intrinsic energy of the rock.
The “recalculation condition” is presented in the alternative. The “drillstring length” is a condition that can reasonably be observed as it changes. Step 2A prong 1.
Claim 6. The method of claim 1, wherein using the model to determine one or more parameters of the drillstring, in use comprises analytically solving the model in order to determine the one or more parameters.
Performing “analytically solving the model” is an evaluation and mathematical relationship/equations. Step 2A prong 1.
Claim 7. The method of claim 1, wherein the model comprise lateral movement functionality for determining properties associated with lateral movements of the drill string.
The “lateral movement” can be estimated and evaluated based on the results of the drilling. Vibration of the drillstring could be a form of lateral movements that can be reasonably evaluated. Step 2A prong 1.
Claim 8. The method of claim 1, wherein the model is configured to:
implement a buoyancy factor to adjust the model for buoyancy of the drillstring;
The “buoyancy factor” is added to the “model”. In a model with minor deviation, one could reasonably evaluate the “buoyancy factor” of the drillstring by observation of how the model is responding. Step 2A prong 1.
determine a factor for friction forces on the drillstring due to fluid in the wellbore;
The “factor for friction forces” can be estimated and evaluated based on how the the drillstring has previous wells with “fluid in the wellbore” that is of similar qualities. Step 2A prong 1.
implement a normal force model for modelling normal forces acting on each of the weights or segments so as to determine the friction between an inner wall of the wellbore and the outer surface of the drillstring;
The “normal force” can be reasonably determined in the mind when evaluating wells with minor deviations. The “friction” of the drillstring can be estimated based on previous performance in similar conditions. Step 2A prong 1.
determine forces and torques acting on every element of the drillstring including the bottom hole assembly and the drillbit.
The “forces and torques acting on every element” can be determined reasonably in the mind for wells of short length with minor deviations. Step 2A prong 1.
determine axial and rotational movements with derivatives on every element of the drillstring including the bottom hole assembly and the drillbit;
The “axial and rotational movements” may potentially be evaluated based on observation of how the drillstring is rotating. In simple wells, the rotation of the drillstring matches the bottom hole assembly and drillbit. Step 2A prong 1.
determine hookload of a drilling system that comprises the drillstring, in use;
The “hookload” can be estimated and evaluated based on the length of the drillstring and the well fluid conditions in wells with relatively minor deviation. Step 2A prong 1.
determine surface torque of a drilling system that comprises the drillstring, in use and/or determine which segments of the drillstring are moving and/or which are stalled.
The “surface torque of a drilling system” can be estimated based on the known drilling conditions and length of the drill string. Step 2A prong 1.
Claim 9. The method of claim 1, wherein the method comprises using the model to determine whether one or more segments of the drillstring are in an upper side or lower side of the part of the wellbore in which the respective segment is located when viewed in a lateral cross section.
The “upper side or lower side” can be reasonably determine by observation and evaluation. When incorporating high or low side into the model, it is a matter of reference for where the segment is located. Step 2A prong 1.
Claim 10. The method of claim 7, comprising determining whether the one or more segments of the drillstring lie on an upper side of the interior of the wellbore or on a lower side of the interior of the wellbore based on the sign of the normal forces and/or lateral accelerations on the section(s) of the drillstring.
The “sign of the normal forces and/or lateral accelerations” used when determining the low or high side of the well for the model can reasonably be done in the mind based on a well diagram. Step 2A prong 1.
Claim 11. The method of claim 1, comprising determining an alarm or alert condition and raising an alert or alarm based on the determination that the alarm or alert condition has been met based on an output of the model and/or automatically controlling a drilling operation and/or a issuing a control command to control a drilling operation based on the output of the model.
An “alert or alarm based on the determination” is an evaluation of the model. All the other conditions are in the alternative. Step 2A prong 1.
Claim 12. The method of claim 11, wherein the alarm or alert condition is indicative of one or more of: overpulls, tookweights, maxed out torque, top drive stallouts and/or erratic torque.
The conditions of “overpulls, tookweights, maxed out torque, top drive stallouts and/or erratic torque” can be determined by evaluation of the model. Step 2A prong 1.
Claim 13. The method of claim 1, comprising:
automatically detecting when one or more joints of the drillstring is added or removed;
The additional “joints of the drillstring” can be observed and added to the model. Step 2A prong 1.
determining a new drillstring length accounting for the addition or removal of the joints of the drillstring; and automatically updating the model with the new drillstring length.
The “new drillstring length” can be evaluated by adding the length of the “joint” to the existing model. Step 2A prong 1.
Claim 14. The method of claim 1, wherein the model comprises a bit rock model that describes the interaction between the drill bit of the drillstring and rock currently being drilled and determining one or more of: a weight on bit, a torque on bit, a rate of penetration of the bit and/or a hole depth or the wellbore, using the model comprising the bit-rock model.
The determination of the “interaction” between the parameters of “a weight on bit, a torque on bit, a rate of penetration of the bit and/or a hole depth or the wellbore” can be determined by evaluation of the model. Step 2A prong 1.
Claim 15. The method of claim 14, wherein the method comprises discounting effects due to axial vibrations in the bitrock model.
The “discounting effects due to axial vibrations” can be incorporated in the model by evaluation of the mathematical model. Step 2A prong 1.
Claim 16. The method of claim 14, comprising:
determining the interaction between the drill bit and the rock currently being drilled using the bit rock model based on an intrinsic specific energy associated with the rock currently being drilled; determining values of one or more of: the weight on bit, the torque on bit, the rate of penetration of the bit, the hole depth and the intrinsic specific energy by minimizing the difference between the measured and calculated values of one or more of: the hookload, the top side torque, or any other surface and/or downhole measurements.
The “intrinsic specific energy” is determined or evaluated based on the mathematical model. The “rock currently being drilled” is observed based on the drilling conditions, such as “weight on bit, the torque on bit, the rate of penetration of the bit, the hole depth”. The “minimizing the difference between the measured and calculated values” can be done by adjusting the model to fit based on the “hookload, the top side torque, or any other surface and/or downhole measurements”. Step 2A prong 1.
Claim 17. The method of claim 1, wherein the model comprises a friction model component for determining friction forces between the drill string and the wellbore wall based on a method that comprises updating the friction coefficients by minimizing the difference between measured and calculated values of one or more of: the hookload, the top side torque, or any other surface and/or downhole measurements.
Performing the “minimizing the difference between measured and calculated” can reasonably be done by observation of the result and adjusting of the model. Step 2A prong 1.
Claim 18. The method of claim 1, wherein the model is used to store wear characteristics of every joint of the drillstring, every position in the casing and in the open hole.
The “wear characteristics of every joint of the drillstring” can be reasonably estimated based on the operation of the drillstring. The “position in the casing and in the open hole” can be estimated based on the contact of the drillstring. Step 2A prong 1.
Claim 19. The method of claim 1, comprising using values calculated using the model to detect erroneous measurements, such as one or more of: hookload, weight on bit, rate of penetration, block height, bit depth, hole depth, rotary speed, torque, downhole weight on bit, downhole rotation speed, downhole torque, circulation rate, stand pipe pressure and ECD.
The model is used to “detect erroneous measurements”. This amounts to evaluating an estimate and then comparing the results to one of several potential results of measurements “hookload, weight on bit, rate of penetration, block height, bit depth, hole depth, rotary speed, torque, downhole weight on bit, downhole rotation speed, downhole torque, circulation rate, stand pipe pressure and ECD”. Step 2A prong 1.
Claim 20. The method of claim 1, comprising using the model to control how activities are executed, such as one or more of: starting and stopping rotation, starting and stopping tripping in, starting and stopping tripping out, starting and stopping reaming in, starting and stopping reaming out and starting and stopping to drill.
The model predicted the “tripping in” and “tripping out” is an estimated time based on the observed conditions of the drilling. Step 2A prong 1.
Claim 21. The method of claim 20, where measurements of the heave motions of the rig is taken into account in order to reduce axial vibrations.
The incorporation of “heave motion” can be done by evaluation in the mathematical model. When the “heave motion” is minor, it can be observed and reasonably incorporated by evaluation. Step 2A prong 1.
Claim 22. The method of claim 1, comprising using the model to detect resonant frequencies while drilling under various combinations of one or more of the following: rotary speed, weight on bit and rate of penetration, estimated intrinsic specific energy.
The model is detecting the “resonant frequencies” based on the “rotary speed, weight on bit and rate of penetration, estimated intrinsic specific energy”. These elements can be estimated based on known previous conditions such as at a known rotary speed. Step 2A prong 1.
Claim 23. The method of claim 1, comprising: storing states of the model for a plurality of time instances as snapshots, the states comprising historic information that the module requires to restart for a certain time instance; and providing a functionality to restart calculation of the drillstring form any of these stored snapshots.
The “snapshot” of the model is capturing the model at a certain point in time. A person could reasonably recall a previous point in the model for simple models. Step 2A prong 1.
Claim 24. The method of claim 1, comprising: determining one or more parameters of the wellbore using a rollback functionality and/or by providing the snapshots of the drillstring, wherein the determining of the one or more parameters of the wellbore comprises trying parameters or parameter curves by: determining a difference between a measured or calculated property and the corresponding values of the property determined based on the parameter curve; and rolling back or reverting to a snapshot and trying a different parameter or parameter curve when the difference between the measured or calculated property and the corresponding values of the property determined based on the parameter curve is greater than a threshold.
Determining the “difference” between two different points in the model can reasonably be done by comparison of the current time step and the previous time step. Step 2A prong 1.
Claim 25. The method of claim 1, wherein the system of equations for the second order differential equations is converted to a larger system of first order differential equations that are solved by exponential integrators.
The evaluation of the “system of equations” is an evaluation of a mathematical operation. Step 2A prong 1.
Claim 32. A system comprising at least one processing device and a computer readable data store storing a computer program, the computer program comprising instructions that, when the program is implemented by the at least one processing device, cause the processing device to carry out the method of claim 1.
The processing device and computer readable data are interpreted as a generic computer. MPEP 2106.05(f). Step 2A prong 2.
Claim 33. The system of claim 32 configured to communicate with a controller for controlling a drillstring handling system, the drillstring handling system comprising a hoist for hoisting the drillstring and a rotation mechanism for rotating the drillstring, the controller comprising at least one processor and a computer readable data store storing a computer program, the computer program comprising instructions that, when the program is implemented by the at least one processor, cause the processor to carry out the method of claim 1 to control the drillstring handling system.
The “controlling a drill string handling system” is interpreted as post solution activity. The controlling element does not contain any elements of how the drillstring is controlled or how the model is being incorporated into the controlling. MPEP 2106.05(g)
Claim 34. A computer program product comprising instructions that, when the program is implemented by the at least one processor, cause a processor or controller for a drillstring handling system to carry out the method of claim 1.
The computer program product is interpreted as a generic computer. MPEP 2106.05(f). Step 2A prong 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 6-7, 11-15, 17-20, 22, 25, and 32-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by
WU et al., Foreign Patent Publication CN110067550A [July 30 2019] (hereinafter ‘WU’) (paragraph numbers reference translation unless otherwise noted).
Regarding Claim 1: A method for modelling a drillstring in a wellbore, the method comprising:
WU teaches providing a model of the drillstring, the model representing the drillstring by a sequence of alternating springs and elements, ([0008] WU “…This invention proposes a method for modeling the rotational motion of a drill string system with multiple degrees of freedom and variable parameters. It simplifies the actual drill string system with variable length, obtaining a simplified system described by a multi-degree-of-freedom spring-damped system…”)
WU teaches where each element describes the mass and/or the moment of inertia of a corresponding part of the drillstring and each spring represents at least one of: axial, torsional and/or bending stiffnesses of one of the corresponding parts of the drillstring, wherein the model describes one or more forces acting on each element by one or more systems of ordinary equations of first or second order, ([0011] WU “…Step 2: Constructing the vibration equations: Based on vibration dynamics, the multi-degree-of-freedom spring-damped system is described in the form of second-order differential equations, and the corresponding expressions for the mass, damping, and stiffness matrices are derived…”)
WU teaches where each equation comprises a linear part with constant coefficients and ([0050] WU “…For fixed-length lhdp and l<sub>dc</sub>, their corresponding attributes are all constant values. The rotational inertia and damping of the turntable are also constant…”)
WU teaches a non-linear part that includes one or more of: one or more non-linear terms, one or more non-smooth terms, one or more time dependent terms and/or one or more coupled terms; and (Fig. 3 WU from the original publication. Translation of figure below)
PNG
media_image1.png
748
428
media_image1.png
Greyscale
WU teaches the method comprises recalculating the model for a plurality of time steps, (Fig. 7 WU from the original publication. Translation of figure below)
PNG
media_image2.png
354
636
media_image2.png
Greyscale
WU teaches wherein recalculating the model for the respective time step comprises calculating one, two or three dimensional positions, orientations and/or derivatives thereof of all of the elements for the respective time step based on one, two or three dimensional positions, orientations and/or derivatives thereof of all element at a previous time step, by describing the non-linear part by a form of expansion with respect to time and solving the one or more systems of equations either analytically or by the use of exponential integrators for the duration of the respective time step. ([0015] WU “…The technical advantages of this invention are as follows: it uses a multi-degree-of-freedom system and state-space equations to describe the actual drill string system, which conforms to the multi-unit combination characteristics of the drill string and improves the modeling accuracy of the drill string; at the same time, it introduces time-varying drill string length and LFT technology, which is conducive to analyzing the rotational motion of the drill string system throughout the drilling process and improves the applicability of the model…”)
Regarding Claim 2: The method of claim 1, wherein the recalculating of the model comprises dynamically and repeatedly recalculating the model according to a set, selected or predefined recalculation rate. ([0012] Wu “…Based on the time-varying nature of the drill string length, calculate the relationship between the rotational inertia, stiffness, and damping of each element of the drill string and the drill string length, and derive an LPV model with drill string length dependence based on the state space equation…”)
Regarding Claim 6: The method of claim 1, wherein using the model to determine one or more parameters of the drillstring, in use comprises analytically solving the model in order to determine the one or more parameters. ([0008] Wu “…Based on this, it expresses the system using vibration equations and transforms them into state-space equations. Simultaneously, considering the time-varying characteristics of the drill string length, a variable parameter model of the drill string system is derived, and a linear fractional representation is obtained using linear fractional transformation techniques…”)
Regarding Claim 7: The method of claim 1, wherein the model comprise lateral movement functionality for determining properties associated with lateral movements of the drill string. ([0078] Wu “…The drill bit-rock contact is the most intense process in the entire drilling process and the most significant external disturbance to the drill string system. A suitable and reasonable d(t) is very important for simulating the actual rotational motion of the drill string system…”)
Regarding Claim 11: The method of claim 1, comprising determining an alarm or alert condition and raising an alert or alarm based on the determination that the alarm or alert condition has been met based on an output of the model and/or automatically controlling a drilling operation and/or a issuing a control command to control a drilling operation based on the output of the model. ([0006] Wu “…Although measurement while drilling (MWD) devices can acquire downhole data, their realtime performance and accuracy are difficult to guarantee in deep, complex, and harsh formation environments, and they are extremely costly. At the same time, measurements and analyses based on surface data are difficult to accurately predict downhole conditions. Therefore, modeling the rotary motion of the drill string system is an effective method. On the one hand, establishing a rotary motion model of the drill string system can predict downhole variables in real time based on the model, and at the same time help to understand drill string torsion and stick-slip motion phenomena, reveal their generation mechanism, and provide pre-analysis for the drilling process; on the other hand, the rotary motion model of the drill string system can guide the design of the wellhead controller, achieve consistency between the wellhead and downhole rotation speeds, and ensure high-efficiency drilling…”)
Regarding Claim 12: The method of claim 11, wherein the alarm or alert condition is indicative of one or more of: overpulls, tookweights, maxed out torque, top drive stallouts and/or erratic torque. ([0090] Wu “…Next, combining model (10) and model (13), given a drilling pressure of 60KN and a motor output torque of 8500Nm, the response of the drill string system under the action of drill bitrock and drilling fluid damping was simulated, and the drilling pressure was increased to 80KN at t=30s…”)
Regarding Claim 13: The method of claim 1, comprising:
automatically detecting when one or more joints of the drillstring is added or removed; ([0008] Wu “…Simultaneously, considering the time-varying characteristics of the drill string length, a variable parameter model of the drill string system is derived, and a linear fractional representation is obtained using linear fractional transformation techniques…”)
determining a new drillstring length accounting for the addition or removal of the joints of the drillstring; and ([0013] Wu “…The drill string length is normalized and expressed, and the LPV model is separated into a linear time-invariant part and an uncertain block part through the linear fractional transformation (LFT) technique, as described above in the form of linear fractional transformation…”)
automatically updating the model with the new drillstring length. ([0047] Wu “…Therefore, in medium-deep drilling, the change in drill pipe length determines the change in the overall drill string length…”)
Regarding Claim 14: The method of claim 1, wherein the model comprises a bit rock model that describes the interaction between the drill bit of the drillstring and rock currently being drilled and determining one or more of: a weight on bit, a torque on bit, a rate of penetration of the bit and/or a hole depth or the wellbore, using the model comprising the bit-rock model. ([0082] Wu “…weight on bit (WoB) on the drill bit…”)
Regarding Claim 15: The method of claim 14, wherein the method comprises discounting effects due to axial vibrations in the bitrock model. ([0014] Wu “…Step 5: Introduce the drill bit-rock interaction model to complete the rotary motion model of the drill string system: Introduce the Karnopp friction model to describe the drill bit-rock interaction, and combine it with the drill string LFT model to complete the dynamic modeling of the rotary motion of the drill string system…”)
Regarding Claim 17: The method of claim 1, wherein the model comprises a friction model component for determining friction forces between the drill string and the wellbore wall based on a method that comprises updating the friction coefficients by minimizing the difference between measured and calculated values of one or more of: the hookload, the top side torque, or any other surface and/or downhole measurements. ([0008] Wu “…Finally, the Karnopp friction model is used to simulate the drill bit-rock interaction, and combined with the drill string model, the rotational motion of the drill string system is modeled…” [0033] Wu “…the input torque acting on the turntable, i.e., the output torque of the motor…”)
Regarding Claim 18: The method of claim 1, wherein the model is used to store wear characteristics of every joint of the drillstring, every position in the casing and in the open hole. ([00089] Wu “…Finally, consider that the drill string system length varies from 3000m to 6000m, corresponding to -1≤δ≤1; consider that the drill pipe contains 20 units, i.e., n＝20…”)
Regarding Claim 19: The method of claim 1, comprising using values calculated using the model to detect erroneous measurements, such as one or more of: hookload, weight on bit, rate of penetration, block height, bit depth, hole depth, rotary speed, torque, downhole weight on bit, downhole rotation speed, downhole torque, circulation rate, stand pipe pressure and ECD. ([0082] Wu “…weight on bit (WoB) on the drill bit…”)
Regarding Claim 20: The method of claim 1, comprising using the model to control how activities are executed, such as one or more of: starting and stopping rotation, starting and stopping tripping in, starting and stopping tripping out, starting and stopping reaming in, starting and stopping reaming out and starting and stopping to drill. ([0006] Wu “…On the one hand, establishing a rotary motion model of the drill string system can predict downhole variables in real time based on the model, and at the same time help to understand drill string torsion and stick-slip motion phenomena, reveal their generation mechanism, and provide pre-analysis for the drilling process; on the other hand, the rotary motion model of the drill string system can guide the design of the wellhead controller, achieve consistency between the wellhead and downhole rotation speeds, and ensure high-efficiency drilling…”)
Regarding Claim 22: The method of claim 1, comprising using the model to detect resonant frequencies while drilling under various combinations of one or more of the following: rotary speed, weight on bit and rate of penetration, estimated intrinsic specific energy. ([0089] Wu “…As can be seen from Figure 5, under the same δ value, the drill string system has a large amplitude at multiple resonant frequencies; the amplitude response of the system varies to some extent under different drill string lengths…”)
Regarding Claim 25: The method of claim 1, wherein the system of equations for the second order differential equations is converted to a larger system of first order differential equations that are solved by exponential integrators. ([0031] Wu “…Referring to Figure 2, based on vibration dynamics, a simplified model of the drill string system with n+3 degrees of freedom is described using a second-order differential equation, as shown in the following equation (vibration equation)…”)
Regarding Claim 32: A system comprising at least one processing device and a computer readable data store storing a computer program, the computer program comprising instructions that, when the program is implemented by the at least one processing device, cause the processing device to carry out the method of claim 1. ([0006] Wu “controller”)
Regarding Claim 33: The system of claim 32 configured to communicate with a controller for controlling a drillstring handling system, the drillstring handling system comprising a hoist for hoisting the drillstring and a rotation mechanism for rotating the drillstring, the controller comprising at least one processor and a computer readable data store storing a computer program, the computer program comprising instructions that, when the program is implemented by the at least one processor, cause the processor to carry out the method for modelling the drillstring in the wellborne, to control the drillstring handling system. ([0006] Wu “…Although measurement while drilling (MWD) devices can acquire downhole data, their realtime performance and accuracy are difficult to guarantee in deep, complex, and harsh formation environments, and they are extremely costly. At the same time, measurements and analyses based on surface data are difficult to accurately predict downhole conditions. Therefore, modeling the rotary motion of the drill string system is an effective method. On the one hand, establishing a rotary motion model of the drill string system can predict downhole variables in real time based on the model, and at the same time help to understand drill string torsion and stick-slip motion phenomena, reveal their generation mechanism, and provide pre-analysis for the drilling process; on the other hand, the rotary motion model of the drill string system can guide the design of the wellhead controller, achieve consistency between the wellhead and downhole rotation speeds, and ensure high-efficiency drilling…”)
Regarding Claim 34: A computer program product comprising instructions that, when the program is implemented by the at least one processor, cause a processor or controller for a drillstring handling system to carry out the method of claim 1. ([0006] Wu “controller”)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Khochbar et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0025270 A1 (hereinafter ‘Khochbar’) in view of
WU et al., Foreign Patent Publication CN110067550A [July 30 2019] (hereinafter ‘WU’) (paragraph numbers reference translation unless otherwise noted)
Regarding Claim 26: A method for cleaning a wellbore using a drillstring located within the wellbore and movable by a drillstring handling system, the method comprising:
Khochbar teaches operating the drillstring handling system to pull and/or lower the drillstring, with or without rotation, ([0028] Khochbar “…The pullout information may characterize operation characteristic(s) of the drilling tool during pullout of the drilling tool from one or more portions of the wellbore. For example, a wellbore may include lateral portion(s), vertical portion(s), and/or other portion(s), and the pullout information may characterize operating characteristic(s) of the drilling tool ( e.g., drill string) during pullout of the drilling tool from the lateral portion(s) of the wellbore, from the vertical portion(s) of the wellbore, and/or from other portions of the wellbore…”)
Khochbar teaches so as to selectively induce lateral motions of the drillstring in the wellbore in a direction between an upper and lower part of the wellbore; ([0028] Khochbar “…An operating characteristic of a drilling tool may refer to one or more features and/or one or more qualities of the drilling tool during operation. An operating characteristic of a drilling tool may include one or more values of operating parameter(s) that define the operation of the drilling tool. An operating characteristic of a drilling tool may include status of how a drilling component is being used (e.g., whether a component is being used, the translational and/or rotational direction of movement of a component). An operating characteristic of a drilling tool may include one or more conditions of the environment around and/or near the drilling tool. An operating characteristic of a drilling tool may include one or more values of environmental condition(s) and/or near the drilling tool…”)
WU does not appear to explicitly disclose
wherein the operation of the drillstring handling system to selectively induce the lateral motions is responsive to one or more outputs of a model of the drillstring, the model representing the drillstring by a sequence of alternating springs and elements, where each element describes the mass and/or the moment of inertia of a corresponding part of the drillstring and each spring represents at least one of: axial, torsional and/or bending stiffnesses of one of the corresponding parts of the drillstring.
However, WU teaches wherein the operation of the drillstring handling system to selectively induce the lateral motions is responsive to one or more outputs of a model of the drillstring, the model representing the drillstring by a sequence of alternating springs and elements, where each element describes the mass and/or the moment of inertia of a corresponding part of the drillstring and each spring represents at least one of: axial, torsional and/or bending stiffnesses of one of the corresponding parts of the drillstring. (([0011] WU “…Step 2: Constructing the vibration equations: Based on vibration dynamics, the multi-degree-of-freedom spring-damped system is described in the form of second-order differential equations, and the corresponding expressions for the mass, damping, and stiffness matrices are derived…” [0015] WU “…The technical advantages of this invention are as follows: it uses a multi-degree-of-freedom system and state-space equations to describe the actual drill string system, which conforms to the multi-unit combination characteristics of the drill string and improves the modeling accuracy of the drill string; at the same time, it introduces time-varying drill string length and LFT technology, which is conducive to analyzing the rotational motion of the drill string system throughout the drilling process and improves the applicability of the model…”)
Khochbar and WU are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, drill system operations.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the operating the drillstring handling system to pull and/or lower the drillstring, with or without rotation as disclosed by Khochbar by wherein the operation of the drillstring handling system to selectively induce the lateral motions is responsive to one or more outputs of a model of the drillstring, the model representing the drillstring by a sequence of alternating springs and elements, where each element describes the mass and/or the moment of inertia of a corresponding part of the drillstring and each spring represents at least one of: axial, torsional and/or bending stiffnesses of one of the corresponding parts of the drillstringas disclosed by WU.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the control of the drilling system as discussed in [0005] by Wu “…Meanwhile, the entire drill string system faces a complex and ever-changing geological environment, including the interaction between the drill bit and the rock at the bottom of the well, the frictional contact between the drill string and the well wall, and the damping of the drilling fluid. Under the combined influence of internal factors of the drill string system and external factors brought about by the formation environment, the entire drill string system is unable to maintain a constant rotational speed in the rotational direction, resulting in a certain difference in rotational speed between the surface and downhole, and the system exhibits torsional vibration or even stick-slip vibration. Severe torsion and stick-slip motion of the drill string system can accelerate drill string fatigue, lead to aging and failure of drill tools, reduce drilling efficiency, increase drilling costs, and in severe cases, even damage the drill string, seriously threatening drilling safety…”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 27-31 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 3-5, 8-10, 16, and 23-24 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 21 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph and 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Claims 1-26 and 32-34 are rejected.
Claims 27-31 are objected to.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN E JOHANSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8062. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-3PM.
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, Emerson Puente can be reached at 5712723652. 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 E JOHANSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2187
Prosecution Insights