DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9-11, 14-17, and 19-22 have been presented for examination.
Claims 2, 4, 8, 12-13, and 18 have been cancelled.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
PRIORITY
3. Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for priority to provisional application PRO 63/212,835 filed on 06/21/2021.
Response to Arguments
4. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/24/26 has been entered.
i) Following Applicants amendments and arguments the previously presented 112 rejection is WITHDRAWN.
ii) Following Applicants amendments an additional prior art rejection has been presented below.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
5. Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-7, 9-11, 14-17, 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Publication No. 20180045031, hereafter S in view of Cárdenas, Jorge Luis, et al. "Wellbore Cleanup Tools Save Rig Time in Approximately 30% Optimizing Workover and Completion Operations." SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition?. SPE, 2011, hereafter Cárdenas.
Regarding Claim 1: The reference discloses A method for generating and iteratively updating plans, comprising:
establishing a communication connection between a solver and a generic planner; (S. Various plan elements independent of physical conditions are recited such as, [0037] “For example, embodiments of the present disclosure may relate to integrated workflows for optimizing cementing job design and placement from a pre-job planning phase, while drilling and during cement placement and evaluation phases. Further, methods according to some embodiments include integrating drilling system design workflow(s) (e.g., including formation analysis and well planning) with zonal isolation workflow(s) (e.g., including well construction and cementing) in order to provide an integrated solution for predicting, analyzing and assuring wellbore quality, cement placement and cement evaluation.” [0038] “According to embodiments of the present disclosure, an integrated wellbore isolation plan may include designing and integrating together a drilling plan, a cementing plan and a cementing evaluation plan, such that design parameters and results from each of the drilling plan, cementing plan and cementing evaluation plan may be used to set and achieve desired zonal isolation parameters. The parameters of each of the drilling plan, cementing plan and cementing evaluation plan in an integrated wellbore isolation plan may interrelate with one another, where together and separately, the parameters of the plans affect zonal isolation of a borehole. For example, a borehole shape and quality may effect cement placement along the borehole, and cement placement and uniformity may effect whether sufficient isolation along the borehole is achieved.” [0039] “Additional factors, such as drilling parameters, borehole shape, drilling fluids, casing designs, formation properties and optionally cement evaluation methods, including post cement placement activities that contribute to the end result of achieving zonal isolation objectives, may be considered concurrently in the well planning stage and/or in the cement evaluation stage. Considering the different stages concurrently may assist in planning for contingencies and in avoiding unplanned remedial work.”)
generating, at the generic planner, a wellbore plan for an automated drilling system, wherein the generating is independent of physical conditions of the wellbore and does not use any physics-based model at the generic planner, and wherein the wellbore plan includes one or more recommended drilling operations and state data comprising one or more drilling parameters associated with the wellbore plan; (S. [0182] “The log information led to a recommendation that remedial operations (e.g., squeeze cementing) should be considered in areas that were well centralized 712, yet there was an absence of solids behind the casing. This strategy would maximize the probability of achieving complete cement placement around the casing and establishing zonal isolation, thereby allowing well completion operations (in this case, a frac-and-pack 713) to proceed.”)
performing, at the solver, a simulation of one or more effects of the one or more recommended drilling operations on the physical conditions of the wellbore, wherein the simulating is based on a physics-based model of the physical conditions of the wellbore using the state data; (S. [0042] “Measurements characterizing a formation may be used in modeling a reservoir system, for example, by using a mechanical earth model (“MEM”). As used herein, an MEM is a numerical representation of the geomechanical state of the reservoir, field, or basin. In addition to property distribution (e.g., density, porosity) and fracture system, an MEM may incorporate pore pressures, state of stress, and rock mechanical properties. The stresses on the reservoir may be caused by overburden weight (vertical stress), any superimposed tectonic forces, localized forces (e.g., resulting from faults, fractures, laminations, depositional orientation, variability in rock mechanical properties, etc), and by production and injection.” And [0045] “For example, a preliminary borehole design may be simulated as being drilled through a formation of interest represented by an MEM of the formation.”)
evaluating, based on the simulation, at least one of the one or more recommended drilling operations; (S. [0040] “and evaluating the cement using cement evaluation tools according to embodiments of the present disclosure (e.g., using a cement evaluation software platform). By designing an integrated wellbore isolation plan prior to drilling, cementing and cement evaluation, the likelihood of achieving zonal isolation objectives may be increased, and accurate confirmation of such achievement may be supported by the cement evaluation tools of the present disclosure. Confirmation may be provided by running cement evaluation tool(s) at a time appropriate given the particular well condition, cement system, mud system, and how they interact. For example, pre-job laboratory studies quantifying the impact of mud contamination on cement set-times may provide guidance on when to perform cement evaluation logging (referred to herein as “waiting-on-cement time”).”)
updating or selecting, at the generic planner based on the evaluating, the wellbore plan; and (S. [0182] “The log information led to a recommendation that remedial operations (e.g., squeeze cementing) should be considered in areas that were well centralized 712, yet there was an absence of solids behind the casing. This strategy would maximize the probability of achieving complete cement placement around the casing and establishing zonal isolation, thereby allowing well completion operations (in this case, a frac-and-pack 713) to proceed.”)
causing the automated drilling system to drill the wellbore according to the one or more recommended drilling operations of the updated wellbore plan or the selected wellbore plan. (S. “[0037] Embodiments of the present disclosure relate generally to systems and methods for evaluating cement behind a casing of a wellbore and applying such evaluations to the planning and execution of subsequent well completion operations. Workflows according to some embodiments may generally include pre job planning operations, drilling operations, and cement placement and evaluation, where during drilling operations and/or cement placement and evaluation, different aspects of the pre-job planning operations may be validated, modified or used for further analysis.”)
S does not explicitly recite wherein the one or more recommended drilling operations include a schedule for cleaning operations of the wellbore that is less conservative than a current fixed schedule of cleaning operations for the wellbore, and wherein the less conservative schedule includes less cleaning operations than the current fixed schedule
However Cárdenas recites wherein the one or more recommended drilling operations include a schedule for cleaning operations of the wellbore that is less conservative than a current fixed schedule of cleaning operations for the wellbore, and wherein the less conservative schedule includes less cleaning operations than the current fixed schedule. (Cárdenas. Abstract, “The time associated to clean up a well represents 40% up to 60% of the total workover time using conventional cleaning tools. Continuous process improvement and risk management has helped to use an alternative method that improved cleaning process reducing time and all the associated costs, this method includes the use of new technology on non rotating tools (scrappers and brushes), magnets, filters and sand recovery tools. Additional benefits are also obtained using this new technology, such as minimizing non‐productive time, reduction of formation damage due to workover fluids and rock interaction, improvement of ESPs run life among others.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize less cleaning operations as per Cárdenas for the drilling operation in S since, as per Cárdenas, Abstract, “The time associated to clean up a well represents 40% up to 60% of the total workover time using conventional cleaning tools. Continuous process improvement and risk management has helped to use an alternative method that improved cleaning process reducing time and all the associated costs, this method includes the use of new technology on non rotating tools (scrappers and brushes), magnets, filters and sand recovery tools. Additional benefits are also obtained using this new technology, such as minimizing non‐productive time, reduction of formation damage due to workover fluids and rock interaction, improvement of ESPs run life among others. This paper describes how changing the wellbore cleanup methods and the use of appropriate tools had permitted to reduce rig time in about 30% when a well is being intervened.”
Regarding Claim 3: The reference discloses The method of claim 1, further comprising predicting, at the solver, based on the simulation that is based on the physics-based model at least one operation that, when performed by the automated drilling system, improves efficiency and safety of a wellsite. (S. [0084] “Cement characteristics in a cementing job may be better understood by using simulations of fluid placement in a wellbore in combination with lab testing measurements of the cement slurry to more accurately predict the waiting-on-cement time in a well completion operation. For example, according to embodiments of the present disclosure, knowledge on fluids positions based on acquired cementing job data and predicted acoustic properties of the fluids with limited measurements may be used to determine a minimum waiting-on-cement time before running a cement evaluation log.”)
Regarding Claim 5: The reference discloses The method of claim 1, further comprising, during the simulation, evaluating a plurality of operations. (S. [0040] “and evaluating the cement using cement evaluation tools according to embodiments of the present disclosure (e.g., using a cement evaluation software platform). By designing an integrated wellbore isolation plan prior to drilling, cementing and cement evaluation, the likelihood of achieving zonal isolation objectives may be increased, and accurate confirmation of such achievement may be supported by the cement evaluation tools of the present disclosure. Confirmation may be provided by running cement evaluation tool(s) at a time appropriate given the particular well condition, cement system, mud system, and how they interact. For example, pre-job laboratory studies quantifying the impact of mud contamination on cement set-times may provide guidance on when to perform cement evaluation logging (referred to herein as “waiting-on-cement time”).”)
Regarding Claim 6: S does not explicitly recite The method of claim 5, wherein evaluating the plurality of operations includes evaluating trade-offs of risk against cost.
However Cárdenas discloses The method of claim 5, wherein evaluating the plurality of operations includes evaluating trade-offs of risk against cost. (Cárdenas, Abstract, “The time associated to clean up a well represents 40% up to 60% of the total workover time using conventional cleaning tools. Continuous process improvement and risk management has helped to use an alternative method that improved cleaning process reducing time and all the associated costs, this method includes the use of new technology on non rotating tools (scrappers and brushes), magnets, filters and sand recovery tools.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize risk and cost management as per Cárdenas for the drilling operation in S since, as per Cárdenas, Abstract, “The time associated to clean up a well represents 40% up to 60% of the total workover time using conventional cleaning tools. Continuous process improvement and risk management has helped to use an alternative method that improved cleaning process reducing time and all the associated costs, this method includes the use of new technology on non rotating tools (scrappers and brushes), magnets, filters and sand recovery tools. Additional benefits are also obtained using this new technology, such as minimizing non‐productive time, reduction of formation damage due to workover fluids and rock interaction, improvement of ESPs run life among others. This paper describes how changing the wellbore cleanup methods and the use of appropriate tools had permitted to reduce rig time in about 30% when a well is being intervened.”
Regarding Claim 7: The reference discloses A method by a generic planner that is designed to generate a wellbore plan without considering borehole conditions, the method comprising:
generating the wellbore plan using a modeling language incapable of considering the borehole conditions, wherein the generating is independent of physical conditions of the wellbore and does not use any physics-based model at the generic planner, and wherein the wellbore plan includes one or more recommended drilling operations and state data comprising one or more drilling parameters associated with the wellbore plan the generic planner; (S. Various plan elements independent of physical conditions are recited such as, [0037] “For example, embodiments of the present disclosure may relate to integrated workflows for optimizing cementing job design and placement from a pre-job planning phase, while drilling and during cement placement and evaluation phases. Further, methods according to some embodiments include integrating drilling system design workflow(s) (e.g., including formation analysis and well planning) with zonal isolation workflow(s) (e.g., including well construction and cementing) in order to provide an integrated solution for predicting, analyzing and assuring wellbore quality, cement placement and cement evaluation.” [0038] “According to embodiments of the present disclosure, an integrated wellbore isolation plan may include designing and integrating together a drilling plan, a cementing plan and a cementing evaluation plan, such that design parameters and results from each of the drilling plan, cementing plan and cementing evaluation plan may be used to set and achieve desired zonal isolation parameters. The parameters of each of the drilling plan, cementing plan and cementing evaluation plan in an integrated wellbore isolation plan may interrelate with one another, where together and separately, the parameters of the plans affect zonal isolation of a borehole. For example, a borehole shape and quality may effect cement placement along the borehole, and cement placement and uniformity may effect whether sufficient isolation along the borehole is achieved.” [0039] “Additional factors, such as drilling parameters, borehole shape, drilling fluids, casing designs, formation properties and optionally cement evaluation methods, including post cement placement activities that contribute to the end result of achieving zonal isolation objectives, may be considered concurrently in the well planning stage and/or in the cement evaluation stage. Considering the different stages concurrently may assist in planning for contingencies and in avoiding unplanned remedial work.”)
converting the state data into a data format usable by a borehole condition simulator; (S. [0182] “The log information led to a recommendation that remedial operations (e.g., squeeze cementing) should be considered in areas that were well centralized 712, yet there was an absence of solids behind the casing. This strategy would maximize the probability of achieving complete cement placement around the casing and establishing zonal isolation, thereby allowing well completion operations (in this case, a frac-and-pack 713) to proceed.”)
transmitting a query with the converted state data to the borehole condition simulator, the borehole condition simulator being configured to generate a borehole simulation, using a simulation language that uses the physical conditions of the wellbore and a physics-based model, based on the state data; (S. [0040] “and evaluating the cement using cement evaluation tools according to embodiments of the present disclosure (e.g., using a cement evaluation software platform). By designing an integrated wellbore isolation plan prior to drilling, cementing and cement evaluation, the likelihood of achieving zonal isolation objectives may be increased, and accurate confirmation of such achievement may be supported by the cement evaluation tools of the present disclosure. Confirmation may be provided by running cement evaluation tool(s) at a time appropriate given the particular well condition, cement system, mud system, and how they interact. For example, pre-job laboratory studies quantifying the impact of mud contamination on cement set-times may provide guidance on when to perform cement evaluation logging (referred to herein as “waiting-on-cement time”).”)
receiving a response to the query from the borehole condition simulator, the response to the query being based on the borehole simulation; (S. [0182] “The log information led to a recommendation that remedial operations (e.g., squeeze cementing) should be considered in areas that were well centralized 712, yet there was an absence of solids behind the casing. This strategy would maximize the probability of achieving complete cement placement around the casing and establishing zonal isolation, thereby allowing well completion operations (in this case, a frac-and-pack 713) to proceed.”)
evaluating, based on the borehole simulation, at least one of the one or more recommended drilling operations; (S. [0032] “FIG. 24 is an example of an integrated well log for integrated cement evaluation that includes recommendations for subsequent well operations, in accordance with an embodiment. [0033] FIG. 25 is an example of an integrated well log for integrated cement evaluation that includes recommendations for subsequent well operations, in accordance with an embodiment.”)
updating or selecting, based on the evaluating, the wellbore plan; and (S. [0182] “The log information led to a recommendation that remedial operations (e.g., squeeze cementing) should be considered in areas that were well centralized 712, yet there was an absence of solids behind the casing. This strategy would maximize the probability of achieving complete cement placement around the casing and establishing zonal isolation, thereby allowing well completion operations (in this case, a frac-and-pack 713) to proceed.”)
causing an automated drilling system to drill the wellbore according to the one or more recommended drilling operations of the updated wellbore plan or the selected wellbore plan. (S. “[0037] Embodiments of the present disclosure relate generally to systems and methods for evaluating cement behind a casing of a wellbore and applying such evaluations to the planning and execution of subsequent well completion operations. Workflows according to some embodiments may generally include pre job planning operations, drilling operations, and cement placement and evaluation, where during drilling operations and/or cement placement and evaluation, different aspects of the pre-job planning operations may be validated, modified or used for further analysis.”)
Regarding Claim 9: The reference discloses The method of claim 7, further comprising identifying a trigger condition satisfied by the wellbore plan, and wherein transmitting the query is in response to the identifying. (S. [0068] “Furthermore, the steps may be performed actively or passively. For example, some steps may be performed using polling or be interrupt driven in accordance with one or more embodiments of the disclosure. By way of an example, determination steps may not require a processor to process an instruction unless an interrupt is received to signify that condition exists in accordance with one or more embodiments of the disclosure. As another example, determination steps may be performed by performing a test, such as checking a data value to test whether the value is consistent with the tested condition in accordance with one or more embodiments of the disclosure.”)
Regarding Claim 10: The reference discloses The method of claim 9, wherein identifying the trigger condition includes identifying the trigger condition from measurements received from the wellbore. (S. [0068] “Furthermore, the steps may be performed actively or passively. For example, some steps may be performed using polling or be interrupt driven in accordance with one or more embodiments of the disclosure. By way of an example, determination steps may not require a processor to process an instruction unless an interrupt is received to signify that condition exists in accordance with one or more embodiments of the disclosure. As another example, determination steps may be performed by performing a test, such as checking a data value to test whether the value is consistent with the tested condition in accordance with one or more embodiments of the disclosure.”)
Regarding Claim 11: The reference discloses The method of claim 7, wherein transmitting the query includes preparing an interface object, including the query and the converted state data. (S. Figure 18, and “[0155] The data 452 relevant to the cement that has been stored (block 454) may be used in an integrated cement evaluation (block 476). The integrated cement evaluation may involve obtaining the acoustic logs discussed above (block 478) and evaluating the other data relevant to the cement that was stored in the cement evaluation storage (block 480). The collection of this data may be presented in an integrated log (block 482), such as the integrated logs discussed above and below.”)
Regarding Claim 14: The reference discloses The method of claim 10, wherein the query is based on the trigger condition, the trigger condition including a drilling parameter value. (S. [0068] “Furthermore, the steps may be performed actively or passively. For example, some steps may be performed using polling or be interrupt driven in accordance with one or more embodiments of the disclosure. By way of an example, determination steps may not require a processor to process an instruction unless an interrupt is received to signify that condition exists in accordance with one or more embodiments of the disclosure. As another example, determination steps may be performed by performing a test, such as checking a data value to test whether the value is consistent with the tested condition in accordance with one or more embodiments of the disclosure.” Figures 27-28 include various drilling parameter values such as elements 810, 812, and 818)
Regarding Claim 15: The reference discloses The method of claim 11, wherein the interface object is a first interface object, the response is a first response, and the state data is first state data, the method further comprises: after receiving the first response, preparing a second interface object based on the first response, the second interface object including second state data; transmitting the second interface object to the borehole condition simulator; and receiving a second response to the query from the borehole condition simulator, the second response to the query being based on the second state data. (S. Figure 18, and “[0155] The data 452 relevant to the cement that has been stored (block 454) may be used in an integrated cement evaluation (block 476). The integrated cement evaluation may involve obtaining the acoustic logs discussed above (block 478) and evaluating the other data relevant to the cement that was stored in the cement evaluation storage (block 480). The collection of this data may be presented in an integrated log (block 482), such as the integrated logs discussed above and below.” Each drawing element recited would corresponds to one state data and therefore this section alone denotes several options for a second state data.)
Regarding Claim 16: See analogous rejection to claim 7.
Regarding Claim 17: The reference discloses The wellbore planning and simulation system of claim 16, wherein transmitting the query includes preparing an interface object, including the query and the converted state data. (S. Figure 18, and “[0155] The data 452 relevant to the cement that has been stored (block 454) may be used in an integrated cement evaluation (block 476). The integrated cement evaluation may involve obtaining the acoustic logs discussed above (block 478) and evaluating the other data relevant to the cement that was stored in the cement evaluation storage (block 480). The collection of this data may be presented in an integrated log (block 482), such as the integrated logs discussed above and below.”)
Regarding Claim 19: The reference discloses The wellbore planning and simulation system of claim 17, wherein the memory includes instructions which further cause the processor to identify a trigger condition satisfied by the wellbore plan, and wherein preparing the interface object includes preparing the interface object in response to the identifying. (S. [0068] “Furthermore, the steps may be performed actively or passively. For example, some steps may be performed using polling or be interrupt driven in accordance with one or more embodiments of the disclosure. By way of an example, determination steps may not require a processor to process an instruction unless an interrupt is received to signify that condition exists in accordance with one or more embodiments of the disclosure. As another example, determination steps may be performed by performing a test, such as checking a data value to test whether the value is consistent with the tested condition in accordance with one or more embodiments of the disclosure.”)
Regarding Claim 20: The reference discloses The wellbore planning and simulation system of claim 17, wherein the interface object is a first interface object, the response is a first response, and the state data is first state data, and wherein the memory includes instructions which further cause the processor to: after receiving the first response, prepare a second interface object based on the first response, the second interface object including second state data; transmit the second interface object to the borehole condition simulator; and receive a second response to the query from the borehole condition simulator, the second response to the query being based on the second state data. (S. Figure 18, and “[0155] The data 452 relevant to the cement that has been stored (block 454) may be used in an integrated cement evaluation (block 476). The integrated cement evaluation may involve obtaining the acoustic logs discussed above (block 478) and evaluating the other data relevant to the cement that was stored in the cement evaluation storage (block 480). The collection of this data may be presented in an integrated log (block 482), such as the integrated logs discussed above and below.” Each drawing element recited would corresponds to one state data and therefore this section alone denotes several options for a second state data.)
Regarding Claim 21: The reference discloses The method of claim 7, further comprising: identifying a trigger condition satisfied by the wellbore plan, and wherein transmitting the query is in response to the identifying, wherein: identifying the trigger condition includes identifying the trigger condition from measurements received from the wellbore; transmitting the query includes preparing an interface object including the query and the converted state data; the query is based on the trigger condition, the trigger condition including a drilling parameter value; (S. [0068] “Furthermore, the steps may be performed actively or passively. For example, some steps may be performed using polling or be interrupt driven in accordance with one or more embodiments of the disclosure. By way of an example, determination steps may not require a processor to process an instruction unless an interrupt is received to signify that condition exists in accordance with one or more embodiments of the disclosure. As another example, determination steps may be performed by performing a test, such as checking a data value to test whether the value is consistent with the tested condition in accordance with one or more embodiments of the disclosure.”) the interface object is a first interface object; the response is a first response; and the state data is first state data; after receiving the first response, preparing a second interface object based on the first response, the second interface object including second state data; transmitting the second interface object to the borehole condition simulator; and receiving a second response to the query from the borehole condition simulator, the second response to the query being based on the second state data. (S. “[0068] While the various steps in the flowchart shown in FIGS. 27-29 are presented and described sequentially, some or all of the steps may be executed in different orders, may be combined or omitted, and some or all of the steps may be executed in parallel. Furthermore, the steps may be performed actively or passively. For example, some steps may be performed using polling or be interrupt driven in accordance with one or more embodiments of the disclosure. By way of an example, determination steps may not require a processor to process an instruction unless an interrupt is received to signify that condition exists in accordance with one or more embodiments of the disclosure.”)
Regarding Claim 22: The reference discloses The wellbore planning and simulation system of claim 16, wherein: transmitting the query includes preparing an interface object including the query and the converted state data; the memory includes instructions which further cause the processor to identify a trigger condition satisfied by the wellbore plan; preparing the interface object includes preparing the interface object in response to the identifying; (S. [0068] “Furthermore, the steps may be performed actively or passively. For example, some steps may be performed using polling or be interrupt driven in accordance with one or more embodiments of the disclosure. By way of an example, determination steps may not require a processor to process an instruction unless an interrupt is received to signify that condition exists in accordance with one or more embodiments of the disclosure. As another example, determination steps may be performed by performing a test, such as checking a data value to test whether the value is consistent with the tested condition in accordance with one or more embodiments of the disclosure.”) the interface object is a first interface object; the response is a first response; the state data is first state data; and the memory includes instructions which further cause the processor to: after receiving the first response, prepare a second interface object based on the first response, the second interface object including second state data; transmit the second interface object to the borehole condition simulator; and receive a second response to the query from the borehole condition simulator, the second response to the query being based on the second state data. (S. “[0068] While the various steps in the flowchart shown in FIGS. 27-29 are presented and described sequentially, some or all of the steps may be executed in different orders, may be combined or omitted, and some or all of the steps may be executed in parallel. Furthermore, the steps may be performed actively or passively. For example, some steps may be performed using polling or be interrupt driven in accordance with one or more embodiments of the disclosure. By way of an example, determination steps may not require a processor to process an instruction unless an interrupt is received to signify that condition exists in accordance with one or more embodiments of the disclosure.”)
Conclusion
6. Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9-11, 14-17, 19-22 are rejected.
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
i) Pinheiro, Marisa, et al. "Boreholes plans optimization methodology combining geostatistical simulation and simulated annealing." Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 70 (2017): 65-75.
ii) Halafawi, Mohamed, and Lazar Avram. "Wellbore trajectory optimization for horizontal wells: the plan versus the reality." Journal of Oil, Gas and Petrochemical Sciences 2.1 (2019): 49-54.
iii) Tahir, Muhammad, et al. "Optimum Well Trajectory Design And Optimization Based On Numerical Optimization Method PSO Algorithm and Wellbore Stability." Petroleum & Coal 62.1 (2020).
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Saif A. Alhija whose telephone number is (571) 272-8635. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 10:00-6:00.
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, Renee Chavez, can be reached at (571) 270-1104. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300. Informal or draft communication, please label PROPOSED or DRAFT, can be additionally sent to the Examiners fax phone number, (571) 273-8635.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
SAA
/SAIF A ALHIJA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186