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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/16/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 02/24/2026 has been entered. As directed, claims 1, 8, and 18-20 have
been amended, claim 22 has been added and claim 9 has been canceled. Thus claims 1-8, 10 and 12-22 remain pending in the application. The applicant’s amendments have overcome objections previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed 01/20/2026. However, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) has been made based on the newly added claim 22.
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments, see “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendments,” pages 7-12,
filed 02/24/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim(s) 1, 19 and 20 has been withdrawn.
The amended claim 1 recites limitations including generating a friction factor track in real-time, automatically determining a friction factor value based on the friction factor track in place of a broomstick plot, and automatically issuing a control signal to alter operation of at least one subsystem of a drilling rig when the friction factor value exceeds a threshold. When considered as whole, these limitations do not merely analyze or display drilling data. Rather, the claim uses the generated friction factor track to determine friction factor value as a threshold based trigger to control physical rig operation to reduce the risk of the drill bit becoming stuck or damaging the borehole or drillstring. The specification supports this practical application by describing friction factor based determinations used to trigger notifications or control actions, and by describing friction factor tracks as improving reactivity and reducing interpretation errors associated with manual broomstick plot analysis. (See e.g., paragraphs [0322]-[0323], [0349], and [00385]).
Therefore, the additional limitations integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claims 19 and 20 recite similar limitations, are also considered to integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Therefore, the claims 1-8, 10 and 12-22 are eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Applicant’s arguments, see “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment,” pages 12-16,
filed 02/24/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C 103 of claim(s) 1, 19 and 20 under statutory basis for the previous rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made.
The newly applied references:
Zheng US20190178059A1 teaches generating a friction factor track derived from the plurality of modeled loads …, wherein the friction factor track comprises the plurality of different friction factor values generated with respect to a time domain or a depth domain related to a depth of a drill bit, and determining a friction factor value that corresponds to the drillstring load based upon the friction factor track in place of a broomstick plot (e.g., See Figs 2-4. [0006], [0036]-[0037], [0041]-[0042], [0046] and [0050]).
Khochbar US20210025270A1 teaches automatically issuing a control signal to alter operation of at least one subsystem of a drilling rig performing the rig operations when the friction factor value exceeds a threshold to reduce a risk of the drill bit becoming stuck, damage to the specified borehole, or damage to the specified drillstring (e.g., See [0003], [0054], [0055] and [0059]).
Therefore, the combination of Kucs (“Automated Real-Time Hookload and Torque Monitoring,” published in 2008) in view of Zheng and Khochbar together teach or suggest limitations of claims 1, 19 and 20. Therefore, the rejection of claims 1, 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is maintained.
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.
Claim 22 is 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.
Claim 22 recites the limitation " wherein the plurality of different friction values" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, claim 22 recites “the plurality of different friction values,” but claims 1 and 21 recite “plurality of different fiction factor values.” Therefore, it is unclear whether “the plurality of different friction values” in claim 22 refers to the previously recited “plurality of different friction factor values” of claims 1 and 21, or to a different plurality of values.
Further, even assuming “the plurality of different friction values” is intended to refer to the “plurality of different friction factor values” of claims 1 and 21, the scope of the claim 22 remains unclear. Claim 1 recites that the plurality of modeled loads “correspond to a plurality of different friction factor values,” which indicates that the friction factor values are associated with the modeled loads before comparison between the drillstring load and the modeled loads, generating a friction factor track derived from the plurality of modeled loads … wherein the friction factor track comprises the plurality of different friction factor values, and a friction factor value is determined based upon the friction factor track. Claim 21 recites that dynamically adjusting one or more friction factors of the plurality of different friction factor values that correspond to a respective modeled load of the plurality of modeled loads to generate dynamically adjusted friction factor values. However, claim 22 further recites that the plurality of different friction values comprise five friction factors comprising pickup, slackoff, and torque friction factors that are “generated based upon” comparisons between a hook load pick up value, a hook load slackoff value, or torque loss values used as the drillstring load and at least one modeled loads. Thus, it is unclear whether the generated five friction factors refer to: 1) a plurality of different friction factor values corresponding to a plurality of modeled loads under claim 1; 2) the plurality of different friction factor values already included within the friction factor track derived from the plurality of modeled loads under claim 1; 3) dynamically adjust friction factor values of the plurality of different friction factor values under claim 21; 4) newly generated a plurality of different friction factor values determined from the comparison recited in claim 22.
For the purpose of substantive examination, the Examiner presumes that claim 22 recites “The method of claim 21, wherein the plurality of different friction factor values comprise five friction factors comprising a slackoff no rotation run in hole friction factor, a slackoff no rotation drilling friction factor, a pickup no rotation drilling friction factor, a pickup no rotation pull out of hole friction factor, and a torque friction factor, wherein the method further comprises: generating a pickup no rotation drilling friction factor value and a pickup no rotation pull out of hole friction factor value based upon a comparison of a hook load pickup value corresponding to the drillstring load with at least one modeled load of the plurality of modeled loads; generating a slackoff no rotation run in hole friction factor value and a slackoff no rotation drilling friction factor value based upon a comparison of a hook load slackoff value corresponding to the drillstring load with at least one modeled load of the plurality of modeled loads; generating a torque friction factor value based upon a comparison of a torque loss value corresponding to the drillstring load with at least one modeled load of the plurality of modeled loads.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 12-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kucs
(“Automated Real-Time Hookload and Torque Monitoring,” published in 2008) in view of Zheng US20190178059A1 and Khochbar US20210025270A1.
Claim 1, Kucs teaches A method comprising:
acquiring data during rig operations for a specified drillstring for drilling a specified borehole in a geologic environment, wherein the data comprise downhole survey data (Page.1, Introduction, “OMV is planning a campaign of 9 extended reach wells in the Maari field offshore New Zealand. When drilling extended reach wells, two major issues will have to be addressed as part of the preparation work for the project. On one hand this is torque and drag, …” Page.2, left column, lines 5-10, “The presented system is designed to give the user clear information about the trend of the hook load and the torque development during the drilling operation expressed in hook load and torque, which the driller can directly relate to the sensor information he gets on the rig.” Page.3, “The operator of the real time monitoring system must actively ensure that all information needed for keeping the system updated is at hand. It is the operator’s responsibility to establish a good cooperation and communication with the sources for the information needed: • Detailed BHAs: o ID o OD o Weight per meter o Length o Stabilizer: blade diameter o Connection type o Serial numbers o Motor, MWD, LWD: type and manufacturer • Mud data • Survey. Optimisation while Drilling, “While drilling” is defined as operations done within the stand currently being drilled off. These operations include the following: • RIH • RIH with rotation • POOH • POOH with rotation • ROB” Page.4, under When must the models be updated? “The input data for the calculations are: • Detailed BHA data • Wellbore geometry • Survey • Mud data • Block weight”);
determining a drillstring load based on at least a portion of the data (page.2, Hook Load Parameters Used for Analysis, “For the monitoring of the downhole situation not only the median value of the hook load per stand is of interest. Therefore, also the maximum hook load is calculated for each stand for POOH and the minimum hook load for RIH. For both operations, the out-of-slips hook load is also calculated ...”);
comparing the drillstring load to a plurality of modeled loads, wherein the plurality of modeled loads depend on the specified drillstring, the specified borehole, and at least a portion of the survey data and correspond to a plurality of different friction factor values (Page.2, Surface Hook Load Analysis, “… For this purpose not only one hook load over depth curve is calculated with one ideal friction factor but several curves within a friction factor range. This includes hook load over depth curves for friction factors from 0.1 to 0.5 for RIH and POOH plus one curve with 0 friction factor for ROB.” Graphical Evaluation of Hook Load Trends, “The method of choice is to plot the data in a hook load over depth plot. With the measured values plotted over the calculated values it is very easy to clearly see the trend of the real time data compared to the predicted trend of the calculated hook load over depth.” General workflow, “Each model behind the reports is valid for one BHA (examiner note: i.e., specified drillstring), one mud weight, and one wellbore geometry (examiner note: i.e., specified borehole).” Page.4, When must the models be updated? “The simulated hook load lines are calculated with a torque and drag simulation software. The input data for the calculations are: • Detailed BHA data • Wellbore geometry • Survey (examiner note: i.e., survey data) • Mud data • Block weight”); and
(Page.2, Surface Hook Load Analysis, “… For this purpose not only one hook load over depth curve is calculated with one ideal friction factor but several curves within a friction factor range. This includes hook load over depth curves for friction factors from 0.1 to 0.5 for RIH and POOH plus one curve with 0 friction factor for ROB.”) in real-time responsive to the data acquired during the rig operations (Page.2, left column, lines 5-10, “The presented system is designed to give the user clear information about the trend of the hook load and the torque development during the drilling operation expressed in hook load and torque…” Page.3, “The operator of the real time monitoring system must actively ensure that all information needed for keeping the system updated is at hand.” Page.1, Abstract, “… analysing drilling data is to automatically recognize ongoing operations in real time from this data … Relevant parameters can be sampled and analysed automatically in real time from the rig sensor data stream without interfering drilling operations.”) to account for changes in one or more rig parameters or changes in mud weight or string conditions in conjunction with the rig operations (page.4, When must the models be updated?, “If it is desired every change to the drill string, every minor change in the mud system, or every new survey can be put into the model immediately to keep the model most updated … The model for the simulation should be updated when: • Major changes of the BHA occur. • A new section is drilled • A significant change in mud weight occurs • New surveys have to be put into the model.”), (page.2, “ …This includes hook load over depth curves for friction factors from 0.1 to 0.5 for RIH and POOH plus one curve with 0 friction factor for ROB.” Graphical Evaluation of Hook Load Trends, “The method of choice is to plot the data in a hook load over depth plot. With the measured values plotted over the calculated values it is very easy to clearly see the trend of the real time data compared to the predicted trend of the calculated hook load over depth.”);
automatically determining (Page.1, Abstract, “… analysing drilling data is to automatically recognize ongoing operations in real time from this data … Relevant parameters can be sampled and analysed automatically in real time from the rig sensor data stream without interfering drilling operations.” Page.2., Surface Hook Load Analysis, “The measured hook load can be used to identify any increase or decrease in friction of the drill string that was lowered into the wellbore.” Page.4, right column, “While drilling every time the bit is off bottom and travels in one direction more than a manually set limit the calculation of one set of values is triggered for hook load
and torque. In real time the just calculated values are then added to the plot.”)
However, Kucs fails to teach generating a friction factor track derived from the plurality of modeled loads …, wherein the friction factor track comprises the plurality of different friction factor values generated with respect to a time domain or a depth domain related to a depth of a drill bit; determining a friction factor value that corresponds to the drillstring load based upon the friction factor track in place of a broomstick plot.
Zheng teaches generating a friction factor track derived from the plurality of modeled loads …, wherein the friction factor track comprises the plurality of different friction factor values generated with respect to a time domain or a depth domain related to a depth of a drill bit (See Fig.2 and Fig.3A, 3B, 4A and 4B. [0006], “…obtaining surface data regarding at least one parameter associated with running the string assembly within the wellbore over a range of depths; modeling the at least one parameter over the range of depths for a plurality of assumed friction factors to obtain modeled data for each assumed friction factor …”. [0042], For example, referring to FIG. 2, a conventional hook load plot generated by T&D modeling software is shown … The plot shows hook load (horizontal axis) at depths (vertical axis) between 1,000 and 15,500 ft. On the far left side of the plot, curves 302, 304, 306, and 308 correspond to modeled hook load during slack off (SO) operations assuming the average friction factor along the wellbore is 0.4, 0.3, 0.2, and 0.1, respectively. On the far right side of the plot, curves 312, 314, 316, and 318 represent modeled hook load during pick up (PU) operations assuming the average friction factor along the wellbore is 0.1, 0.2, 0.3 and 0.4, respectively. Curve 310 corresponds to the modeled hook load during ROT conditions. [0046], “… In FIG. 3A, lines 302, 304, 306, 308, 310, 312, and 314 correspond to modeled hook load data based on friction factors of 0.1, 0.15, 0.2, 0.25, 0.3, 0.35, and 0.4, respectively.” See also [0047]-[0057] for fig.3B, 4A and 4B).
determining a friction factor value that corresponds to the drillstring load based upon the friction factor track in place of a broomstick plot (Figs. 3B and 4B; [0036], “… determining one or more local friction factors for the range of depths based on the comparison …”. [0041], “Some computational T&D models exist that rely on surface data, such as hook load or surface torque measurements, to estimate overall friction factors by comparison to modeled or predicted behavior for various friction factors.” [0037], “determining one or more local friction factors for the range of depths may comprise adopting, as the local friction factor for each depth of the range of depths, the friction factor corresponding to the modeled data with a derivative value that matches a derivative value of the surface data at that depth.” [0050], “While this determination may be made by visual inspection of a slope plot such as FIG. 3B, it should be understood that plotting the slope is not required to practice the techniques described herein, and determining a local friction factor may be implemented according to the present disclosure by simply calculating the slope (i.e., derivative) of the observed hook load using to Eq. 1 and numerically comparing the value to the derivative value of modeled hook load behavior.”).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kucs to incorporate the teachings of Zheng, and apply generation of friction factor dependent modeled hook load data over a range of depths as a friction factor track, and determination of local friction factor values based on comparison between observed hook load behavior and modeled hook load behavior without requiring visual inspection of conventional plot in order to provide more depth specific friction evaluation and improve real time monitoring of drilling conditions during rig operations. The combination of teachings would predictably provide benefit of improving identification of localized friction conditions during drilling operations while reducing reliance on manual interpretation of hook load plots.
However, Kucs and Zheng fail to teach automatically issuing a control signal to alter operation of at least one subsystem of a drilling rig performing the rig operations when the friction factor value exceeds a threshold to reduce a risk of the drill bit becoming stuck, damage to the specified borehole, or damage to the specified drillstring.
Khochbar teaches automatically issuing a control signal to alter operation of at least one subsystem of a drilling rig performing the rig operations when the friction factor value exceeds a threshold to reduce a risk of the drill bit becoming stuck, damage to the specified borehole, or damage to the specified drillstring ([0003], “A comparison of the pullout friction factor to a pullout friction factor threshold may be performed to determine whether the pullout friction factor satisfies or violates the pullout friction factor threshold.” [0054], “… Based on the pullout friction factor satisfying the pullout friction factor threshold, a process to run the casing into the wellbore may be automatically started/run.” [0055], “responsive to the pullout friction factor violating the pullout friction factor threshold, the condition component 108 may effectuate back-reaming the wellbore, increase in drilling fluid density (to address wellbore stability), and/or other remedial actions.”[0058], “For example, the value of the pullout friction factor determined based on partial pullout of the drilling tool from the wellbore may indicate that the condition of the wellbore is unfavorable for a successful casing run and/or that the condition of the wellbore may result in unsuccessful pullout of the drilling tool (e.g., the drilling tool becoming stuck and/or damaged during pullout). In response, the pullout of the drilling tool from the wellbore may be stopped/paused and one or more remedial actions, such as cleaning of the wellbore, may be performed to improve the condition of the wellbore for a successful casing run and/or for successful pullout of the drilling tool.” [0059], “… Responsive to the pullout friction factor violating the pullout friction factor threshold, the pullout of the drilling tool may be stopped/paused, and one or more remedial actions may be performed to improve the condition of the wellbore. Thus, the remedial action(s) to improve the condition of the wellbore may be performed before the drilling tool is fully pulled out of the wellbore.”).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kucs and Zheng to incorporate the teachings of Khochbar, and apply threshold based automatic remedial control responsive to a friction factor threshold violation in order to automatically respond to high friction or poor wellbore conditions before the drilling tool or string becomes stuck or damaged. The combination of teachings would predictably provide benefit of automatically changing drilling operation parameters in response to elevated friction conditions, thereby reducing the risk of sticking, borehole problems or drillstring damage during rig operations.
Claim 2, Kucs further teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the drillstring load comprises a directional load (page.2, Hook Load Parameters Used for Analysis, “For the monitoring of the downhole situation not only the median value of the hook load per stand is of interest. Therefore, also the maximum hook load is calculated for each stand for POOH and the minimum hook load for RIH.”).
Claim 3, Kucs further teaches The method of claim 2, wherein the directional load comprises a pickup direction load (page.2, Hook Load Parameters Used for Analysis, “For the monitoring of the downhole situation not only the median value of the hook load per stand is of interest. Therefore, also the maximum hook load is calculated for each stand for POOH and the minimum hook load for RIH.”).
Claim 4, Kucs further teaches The method of claim 2, wherein the directional load comprises a slackoff direction load (page.2, Hook Load Parameters Used for Analysis, “For the monitoring of the downhole situation not only the median value of the hook load per stand is of interest. Therefore, also the maximum hook load is calculated for each stand for POOH and the minimum hook load for RIH.” Page.7, Conclusions, “The following conclusions can be made based on the development of the torque and drag monitoring system presented in this paper: • Automatic operations recognition can be used to detect picking-up, slacking-off, and rotating off-bottom hook loads automatically”).
Claim 5, Kucs further teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the drillstring load comprises a rotational load (Page.7, Conclusions, “The following conclusions can be made based on the development of the torque and drag monitoring system presented in this paper:• Automatic operations recognition can be used to detect picking-up, slacking-off, and rotating off-bottom hook loads automatically” Page 1, Abstract, “…That allows the automatic identification and picking of pulling-up; slacking-off and rotating hook loads, …”).
Claim 6, Kucs further teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the drillstring load corresponds to a stand of the specified drillstring (Page.2, Graphical Evaluation of Hook Load Trends, “The solution to this problem was to reduce the data points plotted to one data point per stand by using automated operations recognition to identify different motion patterns (rotating, non-rotating) while moving one stand of drill pipe. By recognizing the relevant operation a data set can be picked and then further processed …”).
Claim 7, Kucs further teaches The method of claim 1, comprising repeating the acquiring, determining, comparing and estimating on a stand-by-stand basis for stands of the specified drillstring (page.1, Abstract, “This automated process allows monitoring changing torque and drag trends for each stand of drill string moved during drilling, tripping, or reaming operations … Instant measures against increasing torque and drag can be taken before reaching critical ranges on a stand per stand basis.” Page.2, Hook Load Parameters Used for Analysis, “For the monitoring of the downhole situation not only the median value of the hook load per stand is of interest. Therefore, also the maximum hook load is calculated for each stand for POOH and the minimum hook load for RIH.” Examiner note: A POSITA would understand that stand level monitoring requires recalculating or updating the determined drillstring loads and comparing measure and modeled values for each stand of the specified string).
Claim 8, Kucs further teaches The method of claim 1, comprising detecting an activity state based on the at least a portion of the data, wherein the activity state comprises a pickup state or a slackoff state. (page.3, left column, par.2, “For this purpose, the T&D software automatically recognises different movements of the drill string. Each time the drill string is moved continuously over a minimum distance, which can be specified manually, it calculates the median value for hook load and torque In addition, the maximum and minimum value of the hook load are stored in the database for visualization … A further distinction is made automatically by the software, which is the differentiation between moving the string with or without rotation.” Page.7, Conclusions, “… • Automatic operations recognition can be used to detect picking-up, slacking-off, and rotating off-bottom (examiner note: i.e., detecting activity state) hook loads automatically …” Page.2, Surface Hook Load Analysis, “The measured hook load can be used to identify any increase or decrease in friction of the drill string …”).
Claim 12, Kucs further teaches The method of claim 1, comprising estimating at least three friction factor values for at least three different friction factors (Fig.6; page.6, Hook Load Modeling with one FF or with FF Zoning, “For the simulation of the hook load and torque curves friction factors must be assumed. For the optimization software five friction factors for RIH and five friction factors for POOH can be selected for simulating he hook loads. Also for the torque development, five friction factors are used to calculate five different simulation curves (examiner note: i.e., friction factor values) for torque over measured depth. The measured values for hook load plotted over the simulated curves, gives an idea of the apparent friction factor for the current drill string downhole.” Page.2, Surface Hook Load Analysis, “… For this purpose not only one hook load over depth curve is calculated with one ideal friction factor but several curves within a friction factor range. This includes hook load over depth curves for friction factors from 0.1 to 0.5 (examiner note: i.e., curves (friction factor values) for 0.1-0.5 (different friction factors)) for RIH and POOH plus one curve with 0 friction factor for ROB.”).
Claim 13, Kucs further teaches The method of claim 1, comprising estimating a drilling pickup friction factor value and estimating a drilling slackoff friction factor value (Figure 6: Plot showing a friction factor increase at the same depth for POOH while drilling with BHA #8 and RIH while tripping with BHA #9. The friction factor increase occurs at the same depth where the 9 5/8” casing was held up later. The figure shows friction factor changes with drilling direction (POOH is pick and RIH is slack-off) that separate friction factor values are calculated or determined for each model).
Claim 14, Kucs further teaches The method of claim 1, comprising determining a model-based free rotate load (Page.2, Surface Torque Analysis, “The same procedures and principles used for hook load can be applied for surface torque. Torque over measured depth curves are calculated by modeling software for a certain definable friction factor range. The measured torque is plotted in a torque over measured depth plot together with the calculated torque curves. Again, the trend of the curves is of great interest. A torque increase must be the result of a change in the downhole condition.” Page.4, right column, “For calculating a torque values operations are used when the bit is rotated off bottom.”).
Claim 15, Kucs further teaches The method of claim 14, wherein the data comprises a sensed free rotate load (Page.4, right column, “While drilling the development of the measured hook load and measured torque in relation to the calculated model lines is of great interest. For this monitoring of the hook load the drill string movements without rotation are more interesting than with rotation because no friction is lost to rotational movement. For the judgment of the wellbore situation. For calculating a torque values operations are used when the bit is rotated off bottom.” Page.2, Surface Torque Analysis, “… The measured torque is plotted in a torque over measured depth plot together with the calculated torque curves …”).
Claim 16, Kucs further teaches The method of claim 15, comprising rendering a representation of the model-based free rotate load and the sensed free rotate load to a display (Page.2, Surface Torque Analysis, “… The measured torque is plotted in a torque over measured depth plot together with the calculated torque curves. Again, the trend of the curves is of great interest.” Page.4, right column, “For calculating a torque values operations are used when the bit is rotated off bottom … In real time the just calculated values are then added to the plot. This is how any engineer connected to the system then can follow the trend of the hook load and the torque in comparison to the model lines in real time.” Page.2, Graphical Evaluation of Hook Load Trends, “The method of choice is to plot the data in a hook load over depth plot. With the measured values plotted over the calculated values it is very easy to clearly see the trend of the real time data compared to the predicted trend of the calculated hook load over depth.” Examiner note: Kucs teaches rendering to a display of measured (sensed) and calculated (model-based) torque, and the latter identifies the free rotate condition. In other words, the plotted measured torque is a sensed free-rotated load, and the plotted calculated torque curve is a model-based free-rotate load, and both are rendered on the display).
Claim 18, Kucs further teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the drillstring load comprises a pickup load and a slackoff load, and comprising rendering a plurality of pickup loads and slackoff loads with respect to time and/or with respect to depth (Fig.6; page.7, Conclusion, “… Automatic operations recognition can be used to detect picking-up, slacking-off, and rotating off-bottom hook loads automatically to feed a torque and drag monitoring system.” Page.1, Introduction, “…The aim was to generate • pulling up, • slacking off, and • rotating off bottom hook loads automatically and to overlay expected torque and drag values with such measurements graphically.” Page.2, Graphical Evaluation of Hook Load Trends, “The method of choice is to plot the data in a hook load over depth plot. With the measured values plotted over the calculated values it is very easy to clearly see the trend of the real time data compared to the predicted trend of the calculated hook load over depth.” Page.2, Hook Load Parameters Used for Analysis, “For both operations, the out-of-slips hook load is also calculated. These additional values can be added to the hook load over measured depth plot. This is very important, since the out of slips hook load peak will increase when differential sticking starts occurring, …” Page.4, under When must the models be updated? “The input data for the calculations are: • Detailed BHA data • Wellbore geometry • Survey • Mud data • Block weight”).
The elements of claims 19 and 20 are substantially the same as those of claim 1 . Therefore, the elements of claims 19 and 20 are rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claim 1. Further, the additional limitations of claims 19 and 20, “A system comprising: a processor; memory accessible by the processor; processor-executable instructions stored in the memory …” and “One or more computer-readable storage media comprising processor-executable instructions to instruct a computing system …” (see Kucs, page.2, “The presented system is designed to give the user clear information about the trend of the hook load and the torque development during the drilling operation expressed in hook load and torque, which the driller can directly relate to the sensor information he gets on the rig.” Page.3., “ … the T&D software automatically recognises different movements of the drill string … The operator of the real time monitoring system must actively ensure that all information needed for keeping the system updated is at hand.” Examiner note: A POSITA would understand that the real-time torque and drag monitoring system incudes processor, memory and computer-readable storage executing the T&D software to automatically recognize drilling operations, process sensor data, and generate plots of measured versus calculated loads.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kucs and Zheng and
Khochbar as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Aarsnes (“Estimating friction factors while drilling,” published in 2019).
Claim 10, Kucs and Zheng and Khochbar fail to teach, but Aarsnes teaches The method of claim 1, comprising rendering the friction factor value to a display with respect to time or with respect to depth (Fig.12. Estimation of static and kinetic friction factors for different initial conditions in the test against field data for, a)100Hz, b)5Hz and c)1Hz measurements. Page. 89, above Conclusion, “We have pictured in Fig. 12 the estimation given by the observer of the friction parameters for different starting points in the three different situations (100 Hz, 5Hz and 1Hz measurements). In the three cases the estimations converge to the same values (0.6 for the static friction and 0.35 for the kinetic friction) regardless of the initial guess.”).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kucs and Zheng and Khochbar to incorporate the teachings of Aarsnes, and apply estimation given by the observer of the friction parameters for different starting points in the three different situations in order to help optimize the drilling operation, detect faults and unwanted incidents, aid on-site decision making, and improve control of directional drilling (Abstract). The combination of teachings would provide benefit of improving real-time visualization and analysis of friction factor variation over time, thereby refining the accuracy of drilling performance assessment and facilitating timely corrective actions during drilling operations.
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kucs and Zheng and
Khochbar as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Chmela (“Detection and Prevention of Drilling Problems through Real-time Modeling,” published in 2014).
Claim 17, Kucs further teaches The method of claim 15, comprising comparing the model-based free rotate load and the sensed free rotate load and issuing an alarm based at least in part on the comparing (page.2, Surface Torque Analysis, “… The measured torque is plotted in a torque over measured depth plot together with the calculated torque curves. Again, the trend of the curves is of great interest. A torque increase must be the result of a change in the downhole condition.” Page.6, Possible Alerting, “The user would see the upcoming problem in the trouble formation because of his analysis done described in the chapter “Early Identification of the Trouble Zone”. He alerts the responsible drilling engineer …”).
However, Kucs and Zheng and Khochbar fail to teach issuing an alarm based at least in part on the comparing.
Chmela teaches issuing an alarm based at least in part on the comparing (Page.3, Additional Engineering-While-Drilling Calculations, “We have seen that comparison between modeled data and actual data provide insight to the current conditions in the well that may be deteriorating … Additional calculations can be performed based on this comparison of modeled data to actual sensor data. The deviations can be used to automatically calculate continuous direct physical indicators of hole problems. The continuously calculated data can include the following indicators: …” Page.5, right column, par.3, “The communication back to the driller or drilling team includes warnings of potential deterioration of the well conditions along with calculated indicators such as plots of sliding friction, hole cleaning index, pit level deviations, etc.”).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kucs and Zheng and Khochbar to incorporate the teachings of Chmela, and apply warnings of potential deterioration of the well conditions along with calculated indicators in order to proactively prevent the problems from occurring. (Abstract). The combination of teachings would provide benefit of improving real time visualization and comparison of modeled and measured drilling parameters, leading to earlier detection of abnormal well conditions and more accurate drilling performance assessment, thereby facilitating timely corrective action.
Claim(s) 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kucs and Zheng and
Khochbar as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ho US5044198A.
Claim 21, Kucs teaches The method of claim 1, further comprising (Page.6, Hook Load Modeling with one FF or with FF
Zoning, “… For the optimization software five friction factors for RIH and five friction factors for POOH can be selected for simulating he hook loads. Also for the torque development, five friction factors are used to calculate five different simulation curves for torque over measured depth.”)
However, Kucs and Zheng and Khochbar fail to teach dynamically adjusting one or more friction factors … to generate dynamically adjusted friction factor values at a time increment or time increments basis behind real-time, wherein dynamically adjusting the one or more friction factors is performed utilizing a statistical approach considering deviations about a mean to provide for more accurate estimates of the one or more friction factors.
Ho teaches dynamically adjusting one or more friction factors … to generate dynamically adjusted friction factor values at a time increment or time increments basis behind real-time, wherein dynamically adjusting the one or more friction factors is performed utilizing a statistical approach considering deviations about a mean to provide for more accurate estimates of the one or more friction factors (Col.9, lines 51-54, “The program can be run in two modes: (1) Forward mode: given friction coefficient, to find surface loads; (2) Inverse mode: given surface load(s), to find friction coefficient(s).” col.13, lines 19-27, “The coefficient of friction may be changed for analysis by both the trip in and trip out conditions until the variance between the measured and calculated data is minimized. The coefficient of friction resulting in this minimized variance may be presumed to be the actual coefficient of friction. Also, coefficients of friction may be calculated by the above procedure for selected zones of the well, resulting in a more accurate analysis of well conditions.” Examiner note: the reference teaches dynamically adjusting friction factor values used in load modeling by iteratively changing the coefficient of friction until the variance between measured and calculated data is minimized. The iterative recalculation based on updated operational data corresponds to adjusting friction factor values on a time increment basis behind real-time. Further, minimizing variance inherently applies a statistical approach based on deviations about a mean, and the resulting friction factor provides a more accurate estimate).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kucs and Zheng and Khochbar to incorporate the teachings of Ho, and apply statistical variance based friction factor adjustment in order to improve the accuracy and stability of friction factor estimation during drilling operations. The combination would provide benefit of improving the accuracy of friction factor estimates used for load modeling and enables more reliable, data control of drilling operations in response to changing downhole conditions.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 22 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, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
For purpose of substantive examiner, and based on the examiner’s presumed interpretation of claim 22 as set forth above, claim(s) 22 is considered allowable because none of the references of record alone or in combination discloses or suggests limitations specified in the presumed claim, specifically, “generating a pickup no rotation drilling friction factor value and a pickup no rotation pull out of hole friction factor value based upon a comparison of a hook load pickup value corresponding to the drillstring load with at least one modeled load of the plurality of modeled loads; generating a slackoff no rotation run in hole friction factor value and a slackoff no rotation drilling friction factor value based upon a comparison of a hook load slackoff value corresponding to the drillstring load with at least one modeled load of the plurality of modeled loads; generating a torque friction factor value based upon a comparison of a torque loss value corresponding to the drillstring load with at least one modeled load of the plurality of modeled loads.”
Prior Art of Record
The prior art references:
Kucs (“Automated Real-Time Hookload and Torque Monitoring,” published in 2008), discloses using multiple friction factors for RIH, POOH, and torque modeling. For example, five friction factors can be selected for RIH, five friction factors can be selected for POOH, and five friction factors can be used to calculate torque simulation curves. (See Page 6, Hook Load Modeling with one FF or with FF Zoning). However, the reference fails to teach generating the five specific friction factor values for slackoff no rotation RIH, slackoff no rotation drilling, pickup no rotation drilling, pickup no rotation POOH, and torque after comparison.
Zheng US20190178059A1, discloses comparing actual hook load or surface torque data with modeled data corresponding to different friction factors, and determining local friction factors based on that comparison, and further teaches PU, SO, and ROT conditions, modeled hook load, modeled torque and determining local friction factors from hook load or torque behavior. (See [0042]-[0043], [0046]-[0047] and [0054]). However, the reference fails to teach separate generated friction factor values for slackoff no rotation RIH, slackoff no rotation drilling, pickup no rotation drilling, pickup no rotation POOH, and torque after comparison.
Khochbar US20210025270A1, discloses using a friction factor threshold and automatically starting or effectuating remedial actions when the threshold is violated. However, the reference fails to teach separate generated friction factor values for slackoff no rotation RIH, slackoff no rotation drilling, pickup no rotation drilling, pickup no rotation POOH, and torque after comparison.
Ho US5044198A, discloses dynamically adjusting friction factor values used in load modeling by iteratively changing the coefficient of friction until the variance between measured and calculated data is minimized. The iterative recalculation based on updated operational data corresponds to adjusting friction factor values on a time increment basis behind real-time. However, the reference fails to teach separate generated friction factor values for slackoff no rotation RIH, slackoff no rotation drilling, pickup no rotation drilling, pickup no rotation POOH, and torque after comparison.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
P. Zöllner, "Automated Monitoring of Torque and Drag in Real-time,” Mining University Leoben Department Mineral Resources and Petroleum Engineering Drilling Engineering, Sep 2009, discloses The main principle behind the used technique is a hook load and torque comparison of actual versus planned (simulated) values. These actual values are calculated for different operations (drilling, tripping, running casing, etc.) on a stand per stand basis and plotted over the measured depth of the bit. The resulting trend analysis that can be performed, allows identification of upcoming critical situations at an early stage.
C. Lenamond et al., “A Graphical Hole Monitoring Technique to Improve Drilling in High-Angle and Inclined Deepwater Wells in Real-Time,” AADE 2003 National Technology Conference, March. 2003, discloses a graphical method of monitoring hole conditions in real-time, at the rig site, using simple surface measurements recorded by the driller. This technique still requires modeling of torque and drag for each hole section, but can be performed in the town and sent to the rig for real-time monitoring.
Erge US 20150134257A1, discloses HCM program may cause the computer (FIG. 11 and/or in 152 in FIG. 1) to compare measured (e.g., using the hookload and torque sensors described with reference to FIG. 1) and estimated (from a modeling computer program) friction factors. Measured friction factor may be estimated by measuring the amount of axial force required to move the drill string axially within the wellbore with respect to the weight of the drill string, i.e., the amount of force required to move the drill string in the absence of friction ([0036]).
S. Martineza et al., “Comprehensive evaluation of drilling events related to geomechanics in the Middle Magdalena Valley,” published in May 2021, discloses drilling event evaluation, operational conditions, monitoring of tight hole events, POOH, RIH, torque and drag related conditions, stuck pipe events, and mitigation strategies associated with drilling operations. See, e.g., Section 3, Section 5, table 6, and figures 5-6.
E. Cayeux et al., “Automation of Drawworks and Topdrive Management To Minimize Swab/Surge and Poor-Downhole-Condition Effects,” published in 2011, discloses using model based drilling control to compare actual/current hookload and torque related values with expected/model values, and to estimate friction during drilling and tripping operations. In particular, if there is no rotation, pick up and slackoff weights depend on friction and circulation rate, and that current sliding friction may be used to define hookload boundaries. See pages 562-563, “Hookload Margins.” The reference also teaches that surface torque varies with rational friction and flow rate, and that torque limits may be calculated based on friction and an acceptable threshold. See page 563, “ Surface-Torque Margins.” The reference further teaches that friction tests record pickup and slackoff weight and free rotating torque to obtain values for comparison, and that friction test results can be reported automatically. See pages 558-559, “Friction test," and page 566, “Friction-Test Configuration, Activation, and Emergency Stop; Results From Friction Test.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be
directed to whose telephone number is (571)270-1303. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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 (571)272-3652. 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.
/YI . HAO/
Examiner, Art Unit 2187
/JOHN E JOHANSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2187
Prosecution Insights