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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 11/10/2025 has been entered. As directed, claims 1, 6, 7, 10 and 18-20 have been amended, claim 21 has been added and claim 11 has been canceled. Thus claims 1-10 and 12-21 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the Applicant’s argued rejection under 35 § U.S.C. 101 in “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment,”:
Applicant argues:
…
Independent claims 1, 19, and 20 have been amended to recite the generation of a friction factor track derived from the plurality of modeled loads in real-time responsive to the data acquired during the rig operations to account for changes in one or more rig parameters or changes in conditions related to the rig operations. Applicants note that the requirement of real-time generation of the recited friction factor track precludes a human from being able to perform this recitation, since the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitations at least in real- time.
Additionally, the independent claims have been amended to recite automatically determining a friction factor value that corresponds to the drillstring load in a time responsive to the data acquired during the rig operations based upon the friction factor track. Again, the temporal requirement required in independent claims 1, 19, and 20 to determine a friction factor value precludes a human from being able to perform this recitation, since the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitations at least in in a time responsive to the data acquired during the rig operations. Furthermore, the recitations of the independent claims directed to the automatic issuance of a control signal cannot be performed in the human mind and the human mind is not equipped to issue a control signal to alter operation of at least one subsystem of a drilling rig performing the rig operations.
Thus, Applicant respectfully submits that independent claims 1, 19, and 20 do not merely perform mental processes, such as those that can be performed in the human mind including observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions. For at least these reasons, independent
claims 1, 19, and 20 do not recite a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). As such, the analysis under the revised § 101 guidelines may end since the claims do not recite a judicial exception and, therefore, are directed to patent-eligible subject matter. However, for the sake of argument, Applicant will proceed through the analysis to further exemplify and argue the patent-eligible subject matter of the pending claims.
(see Response filed 11/10/2025 [pages 8-11]).
In response to applicant's argument, the examiner respectfully disagree that claims 1, 19, and 20 do not recite a judicial exception.
As explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III): Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’); Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that computer-implemented method for "anonymous loan shopping" was an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer").
However, regarding claim limitations “determining a drillstring load based on at least a portion of the data; 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; generating a friction factor track derived from the plurality of modeled loads in real-time responsive to the data acquired during the rig operations to account for changes in one or more rig parameters or changes in conditions related to the rig operations, 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 in a time responsive to the data acquired during the rig operations based upon the friction factor track,” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of specification, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, a person is capable of (1) reviewing obtained rig operation data, including survey data, and identifying a drillstring load based on at least a portion of the data, (2) comparing that identified drillstring load to a plurality of modeled loads corresponding to different assumed friction factor values, (3) recording the friction factor values over a time domain or depth domain related to drill bit depth as a “friction factor track,” and (4) determining a friction factor value corresponding to the drillstring load at a given time or depth based upon the record.
The recited “comparing,” “generating a track,” and “determining a value” are, under BRI in light of specification, steps that can be performed by observation, evaluation, comparison, and judgment, including by a human using pen and paper to record values as a function of time or depth and to select or determine the corresponding friction factor value. The recited “real-time responsive” language does not preclude mental performance because the claim does not require any particular machine timing, sampling rate, or automated sensor processing, but merely recites performing the comparison and recording as data is received during the rig operations. Therefore, the claim limitation is a “mental process”, similar to the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), and rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 Step 2A, prong one is maintained.
With respect to the Applicant’s argued rejection under 35 § U.S.C. 101 in “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment,”:
Applicant argues:
…
As stated in the MPEP, "[a] claim that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort to monopolize the judicial exception." MPEP §2106.04(d). Applicant respectfully submits that the additional elements included in at least the independent claims perform specific technical operations. For example, the independent claims recite automatically issue 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. At least in view of these recitations, a specific technical operation is undertaken (i.e., issuance of a control signal to alter operations of at least one subsystem of a drilling rig) to provide a desirable outcome, namely the reduce a risk of the drill bit becoming stuck, damage to the specified borehole, or damage to the specified drillstring. Accordingly, even if the claims recite a judicial exception, independent claims 1, 19, and 20 (as well as all claims depending therefrom) integrate that judicial exception into a practical application and, therefore, are directed to patent-eligible subject matter.
(see Response filed 11/10/2025 [page 11]).
In response to applicant's argument, the examiner respectfully disagrees that “claims directed to specific improvements in computer functionality or data structure are patent-eligible.”
Further, In order to determine if additional element is integrating the abstract idea into a practical application, See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1), “first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. The claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification (e.g., "thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel").” In other words, the specification should describe the claimed improvement over the background invention or existing technology, and the claimed improvement should be reflected at least in the additional elements (emphasis added) by specifying how the claimed improvement perform the additional element different from existing technology, functioning of a computer or existing technical field.
However, the additional limitations, for example, “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,” which is merely adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and applying a computer component to perform a automate step using generic computing functionality to issuing a control signal at a high level of generality. Specially, the limitation merely recites automatically issuing a control signal to alter operation, without reciting any specific improvement to computer technology, and particular control architecture, or any non-conventional processing technique. The claim does not specified how the control signal is generated, how the threshold is technically implemented, or how issuing the control signal improves the functioning of the computer or drilling control system itself. Accordingly, this limitation amounts to no more than instructions to apply the judicial exception using a computer as a tool or to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Merely performing automation functions does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017) or speeding up a loan-application process by enabling borrowers to avoid physically going to or calling each lender and filling out a loan application, LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 Fed. App'x 991, 996-97 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential).
Therefore, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 Step 2A, prong two is maintained.
With respect to the Applicant’s argued rejection under 35 § U.S.C. 101 in “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment,”:
Applicant argues:
Under Step 2B of the test outlined in the MPEP, if additional elements recited by the claims, individually or in combination, amount to "significantly more" than the judicial exception, then the claim is eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See MPEP § 2106.05. Additional claim elements may amount to "significantly more," for example, by providing an inventive concept by adding a particular limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, or conventional. See id. Even if the Examiner determines that independent claims 1, 19, and 20 are directed to a judicial exception and do not incorporate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application, independent claims 1, 19, and 20 recite an inventive concept. Indeed, as described in more detail herein, independent claims 1, 19, and 20 include limitations, or combinations of limitations, that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. As such, Applicant respectfully submits that the claims recite an inventive concept under Step 2B and are directed to patentable subject matter.
In the Office Action, the Examiner contended that the claims "do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea." Office Action, pages 6-7. Applicant respectfully disagrees and submits that the recited features of independent claims 1, 19, and 20 add specific limitations to the claim that are not well-understood, routine, or conventional activity in the field. For example, the independent claims recite the generation of a friction factor track derived from the plurality of modeled loads in real-time responsive to the data acquired during the rig operations to account for changes in one or more rig parameters or changes in conditions related to the rig operations, 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. The independent claims additionally recite the automatic determination of a friction factor value that corresponds to the drillstring load in a time responsive to the data acquired during the rig operations based upon the friction factor track. Applicant has reviewed the cited art of record and submits that at least these portions of the independent claims appear to be absent from the cited art of record. Applicant additionally submits that at least these elements of the independent claims are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. Accordingly, Applicant submits that the independent claims provide an inventive concept and, accordingly, are directed to patentable subject matter.
For at least these reasons, Applicant respectfully submits that independent claims 1, 19, and 20 are subject matter eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection of independent claims 1, 19, and 20 and their dependent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
(see Response filed 11/10/2025 [pages 12-13]).
In response to applicant's argument, the examiner respectfully disagrees that “the independent claims provide an inventive concept and, accordingly, are directed to patentable subject matter.”
As discussed above, the claimed additional limitations do not recite any unconventional computer functionality, specific rules, technical constrains, or specialized hardware for performing the recited steps; therefore, the additional elements, individually or in combination, amount to no more than applying computer components to perform well-understood, routine and conventional functions in the field of data processing and modeling, which is insufficient to qualify as “significantly more” than the abstract idea under Step 2B, and independent claims 1, 19 and 20 and dependent claims are directed to patent ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Further, the reference Iversen (US20120059521A1) discloses known automation control steps, for example, [0036], “… in case a parameter is exceeding the continuously updated conditions for a critical situation, an automatic action is triggered automatically to minimize the effect of the critical situation.” [0033], “… If these commands are within the safeguards they are used directly to control the drilling machines. However, if the commands are outside the acceptable limits of both the well and the capability of the drilling machinery, the safest condition is applied.” [0077], “If indication of possible pack-off/bridging is measured, the driller is alerted and the flowrate (Q) is reduced to a reduced (emergency) flowrate (Qem).”
For the reasons discussed above, applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not
persuasive. The claims are directed to abstract ideas (mental process), are not integrated judicial exception into a practical application, and do not recite additional elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The rejection of claims 1, 19 and 20 and their dependent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 19 and 20 have been considered but are moot
because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The newly found references Wang (US20150275648A1) teaches amended limitation “generating a friction factor track … account for changes in one or more rig parameters or changes in conditions related to the rig operations, wherein the friction factor track comprises the plurality of different friction factor values …; automatically determining a friction factor value … during the rig operations based upon the friction factor track” and Iversen (US20120059521A1) teaches amended limitation “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.” Therefore, the combination of Kucs (“Automated Real-Time Hookload and Torque Monitoring,” published in 2008) in view of Wang US20150275648A1 and Iversen US20120059521A1 teach or suggest the 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 Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 18 recites “at least a portion of the data,” should read as “at least the portion of the data.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The claims 1-10 and 12-21 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to judicial exception, an abstract idea, it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1: Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?"
Yes, Claims 1-10, 12-18 and 21 are directed to method and fall within the statutory category of process;
Yes, Claim 19 is directed to system and falls within the statutory category of machine;
Yes, Claim 20 is directed to non-transitory computer-readable storage media and fall within the statutory category of article of manufacture.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry "Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?" we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claim 1: The limitations of “determining a drillstring load based on at least a portion of the data,” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) in light of specification, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example a person is capable of observing and evaluating obtained data during rig operations, mentally identifying or determining a corresponding drillstring load based on the data (The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011)) – MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 1: The limitations of “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,” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) in light of specification, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example a person is capable of observing and evaluating modeled load information, mentally comparing the identified drillstring load with modeled loads corresponds to different assumed friction factor values (The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011)) – MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 1: The limitations of “generating a friction factor track derived from the plurality of modeled loads in real-time responsive to the data acquired during the rig operations to account for changes in one or more rig parameters or changes in conditions related to the rig operations, 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,” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) in light of specification, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example a person is capable of observing/reviewing data acquired during rig operations and a plurality of modeled loads that correspond to different assumed friction factor values. As data is acquired during the rig operations, including changes in rig parameters or operating conditions, the person can record friction factor values over time or depth related to a depth of the drill bit. By repeatedly recording the friction factor values as the operational data changes, a running sequence or record of acquired data is produced that accounts for the changes in the rig parameter operating conditions (The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011)) – MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Examine note: the limitation recites that the friction factor track is generated in real time responsive to the acquired data does not preclude performance of the limitation in the human mind. Under BRI, the limitation “real time responsive” merely describes updating or revising the recorded sequence as information becomes available, which a human can do using mental judgement or pen and paper. Similarly, the limitation recites that the friction factor values are generated with respect to a time domain or a depth domain related to a depth of a drill bit does not preclude mental performance, as human can organize and record values indexed by time or depth.
Claim 1: The limitations of “determining a friction factor value that corresponds to the drillstring load in a time responsive to the data acquired during the rig operations based upon the friction factor track,” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) in light of specification, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example a person is capable of observing drillstring load data acquired during rig operations at a given time, and evaluating the friction factor track comprising friction factor values organized with respect to time or depth to determining a friction factor value by correlating the observed drillstring load with the friction factor track to identify a corresponding friction factor value (The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011)) – MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Examine note: the limitation recites that determining a friction factor value that corresponds to the drillstring load in a time responsive to the data acquired during the rig operations does not preclude performance of the limitation in the human mind. Under BRI, the limitation “time responsive” merely describes the determination is made as data is received or updated over time. A person can observe incoming data, record values over time or depth, and update a determination using mental judgement or pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under step 2A Prong I.
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.
Therefore, claims 1, 19 and 20 recite judicial exceptions. The claims have been identified to recite judicial exceptions, Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claims 1, 19 and 20: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements – “A system comprising: a processor; memory accessible by the processor; processor-executable instructions stored in the memory and executable to instruct the system to:" and “One or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media comprising processor-executable instructions to instruct a computing system to:” which are mere recitations of instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to implement the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) with the broad reasonable interpretation, which does not integrate judicial exception into a practical application.
Further, the following additional element – “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,” which is merely a recitation of insignificant extra-solution data gathering (i.e., acquiring/receiving data) activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application.
Further, the following additional element – “generating a friction factor track …” which is merely adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and applying a computer component to perform a generating step using generic computing functionality to process and organize information at a high level of generality. Specially, the limitation merely recites generating, updating or organizing fiction factor values over time or depth based on acquired data, without reciting any specific improvement to computer technology, and particular data structure, or any specialized processing technique. Accordingly, this limitation amounts to no more than instructions to apply the judicial exception using a computer as a tool or to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Merely performing generic data processing operations, such as generating and updating values indexed by time or depth, does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Further, the following additional element – “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,” which is merely adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and applying a computer component to perform a automate step using generic computing functionality to issuing a control signal at a high level of generality. Specially, the limitation merely recites automatically issuing a control signal to alter operation, without reciting any specific improvement to computer technology, and particular control architecture, or any non-conventional processing technique. The claim does not specified how the control signal is generated, how the threshold is technically implemented, or how issuing the control signal improves the functioning of the computer or drilling control system itself. Accordingly, this limitation amounts to no more than instructions to apply the judicial exception using a computer as a tool or to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Merely performing automation functions does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017) or speeding up a loan-application process by enabling borrowers to avoid physically going to or calling each lender and filling out a loan application, LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 Fed. App'x 991, 996-97 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential).
Therefore, "Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
After having evaluated the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claims 1, 19 and 20 not only recite a judicial exception but that the claims are directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B: Claims 1, 19 and 20: The claim does not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than generic computing components which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include: i. Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)); ii. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); iii. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)); …
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, …; ii. Performing repetitive calculations, … iii. Electronic recordkeeping, … (updating an activity log). iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory,…
Therefore, "Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, claims 1, 19 and 20 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-18 are also similar rejected under same rationale as cited above wherein these claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These claims are merely further elaborate the mental process and/or mathematical concepts, or providing additional definition of process which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 2-10 and 12-18 are also rejected for incorporating the deficiency of their independent claim 1.
Claim 2 recites “The method of claim 1, wherein the drillstring load comprises a directional load.”
The limitation further defines the drillstring load includes a directional load; therefore, it merely an extension of mental process. Therefore, the office finds that the claim 2 is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 3 recites “The method of claim 2, wherein the directional load comprises a pickup direction load.”
The limitation further defines the directional load includes a pickup direction load; therefore, it merely an extension of mental process. Therefore, the office finds that the claim 3 is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 4 recites “The method of claim 2, wherein the directional load comprises a slackoff direction load.”
The limitation further defines the directional load includes slackoff direction load; therefore, it merely an extension of mental process. Therefore, the office finds that the claim 4 is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 5 recites “The method of claim 1, wherein the drillstring load comprises a rotational load.”
The limitation further defines the drillstring load includes rotational load; therefore, it merely an extension of mental process. Therefore, the office finds that the claim 5 is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 6 recites “The method of claim 1, wherein the drillstring load corresponds to a stand of the specified drillstring.”
The limitation further defines the drillstring load corresponds to a stand of the drillstring; therefore, it merely an extension of mental process. Therefore, the office finds that the claim 6 is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 7 recites “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.”
The limitation specifies repeating acquiring and analysis steps for stands of the drillstring; therefore, it merely an extension of mental process and insignificant extra-solution data gathering (i.e., acquiring/receiving data) activity to the judicial exception (MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Therefore, the office finds that the claim 7 is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 8 recites “The method of claim 1, comprising detecting an activity state based on at least a portion of the data.”
The limitation specifies identifying activity state based on acquired data; therefore, it merely an extension of mental process, and adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to implement the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) with the broad reasonable interpretation. Therefore, the office finds that the claim 8 is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 9 recites “The method of claim 8, wherein the activity state comprises a pickup state or a slackoff state.”
The limitation further defines the activity state includes pickup state or slackoff state; therefore, it merely an extension of mental process. Therefore, the office finds that the claim 9 is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 10 recites “The method of claim 1, comprising rendering the friction factor value to a display with respect to time or with respect to depth.”
The limitation specifies displaying or outputting data to a generic display device; therefore, it merely adding insignificant extra-solution as output data (i.e., rendering data to a display with respect to time) activity to the judicial exception (MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Therefore, the office finds that the claim 10 is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 12 recites “The method of claim 1, comprising estimating at least three friction factor values for at least three different friction factors.”
The limitation specifies identifying three or more different friction factor values; therefore, it merely an extension of mental process. Therefore, the office finds that the claim 12 is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 13 recites “The method of claim 1, comprising estimating a drilling pickup friction factor value and estimating a drilling slackoff friction factor value.”
The limitation specifies identifying drilling pickup and slackoff friction factor values; therefore, it merely an extension of mental process. Therefore, the office finds that the claim 13 is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 14 recites “The method of claim 1, comprising determining a model-based free rotate load.”
The limitation specifies identifying free rotate load corresponds to a model; therefore, it merely an extension of mental process (e.g., observing and evaluating model, mentally identifying free rotate load). Therefore, the office finds that the claim 14 is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 15 recites “The method of claim 14, wherein the data comprises a sensed free rotate load.”
The limitation further defines the data including sensed free rotate load;; therefore, it merely adding insignificant extra-solution as data gathering (i.e., sensed data) activity to the judicial exception (MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Therefore, the office finds that the claim 15 is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 16 recites “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.”
The limitation specifies displaying or outputting data to a generic display device; therefore, it merely insignificant extra-solution as output data (i.e., rendering data to a display) activity to the judicial exception (MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Therefore, the office finds that the claim 16 is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 17 recites “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.”
The limitation specifies a data evaluation step that comparing a model-based free rotate load with a sensed free rotate load, and determining whether a threshold conditions met to issue an alarm; therefore, it merely an extension of mental process. Therefore, the office finds that the claim 17 is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 18 recites “The method of claim 1, comprising determining drillstring loads based on at least a portion of the data, wherein the drillstring loads comprise 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.”
The limitation specifies identifying drillstring load such as pickup and slackoff load based on acquired data and displaying or outputting data to a generic display device; therefore, it merely an extension of mental process and insignificant extra-solution as output data (i.e., rendering data to a display) activity to the judicial exception (MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Therefore, the office finds that the claim 18 is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 21 recites “The method of claim 1, further comprising 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 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.”
The limitation specifies dynamically updating friction factor values associated with modeled loads over time by applying statistical evaluation that considers deviations from a mean to refine estimated friction factor values; therefore, it merely a mathematical concept because the statistical evaluation of numerical values relative to a mean constitutes a mathematical relationship or calculation, and merely adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and applying a generic computing functionality to perform statistical analysis and update numerical values at time increments. The limitation does not recite any specific algorithm, specialized data structure, or improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. Instead, it merely instructs applying a computer as a tool to perform numerical optimization and/or statistical processing at a high level of generality. Accordingly, this limitation amounts to no more than instructions to apply the judicial exception using a computer as a tool or to implement the abstract idea on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the office finds that the claim 21 is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
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) 1-9, 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 Wang US20150275648A1 and Iversen US20120059521A1.
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.”) to (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.”);
However, Kucs fails to teach generating a friction factor track … account for changes in one or more rig parameters or changes in conditions related to the rig operations, wherein the friction factor track comprises the plurality of different friction factor values; determining a friction factor value that corresponds to the drillstring load in a time responsive to the data acquired during the rig operations based upon the friction factor track.
Wang teaches generating a friction factor track … account for changes in one or more rig parameters or changes in conditions related to the rig operations, wherein the friction factor track comprises the plurality of different friction factor values ([0047], bit friction factor μ “mu”. [0050], “… a dynamic value for bit aggressiveness (μ) is calculated at each of a number of particular times (t). The bit aggressiveness μ can then be monitored, for example, using the 2D data representation, or in the time or depth domains” Examiner note: the reference identifies μ (bit aggressiveness) as a bit friction factor (see [0047]), and further teaches calculating μ repeatedly over time and monitoring it in plotted representations. A POSITA would understand this as generating a track of friction factor values. Because the “μ” is a dynamic value calculated at “a number of particular times (t)” and monitored in the time or depth domains, a plurality of μ values necessarily form a friction factor track that reflects changes occurring during drilling operations. [0047], “One element of those methods is related to identification of a change in drilling conditions, at which time the stored data may require a refresh or some other action may be necessary.” [0053], “Equipment 118 on the drilling rig 116 is used to rotate the drillstring 108, pump fluids through the drillstring 108, and measure drilling parameters, such as the weight-on-bit (WOB), rotation rates (RPM), pressures, torques, bit position, and the like.” Examiner note: the reference links related friction parameter calculation (μ) to changing rig parameters and drilling conditions. Therefore, identification of changes in drilling conditions that trigger data refresh, and repeated recalculations of μ over time is interpreted as generating a friction factor track … account for changes in one or more rig parameters or changes in conditions related to the rig operations. [0051], “… the time derivatives of bit aggressiveness μ … may be calculated and used for one or more of the axes of the diagnostic plot.” Examiner note: A POSITA would understand that calculating μ at “a number of particular times” necessarily produces multiple friction factor values that form a track).
determining a friction factor value that corresponds to the drillstring load in a time responsive to the data acquired during the rig operations based upon the friction factor track ([0050], “… a dynamic value for bit aggressiveness (μ) is calculated at each of a number of particular times (t). [0051], “… the time derivatives of bit aggressiveness μ … may be calculated and used for one or more of the axes of the diagnostic plot.” [0053], “Equipment 118 on the drilling rig 116 is used to rotate the drillstring 108, pump fluids through the drillstring 108, and measure drilling parameters, such as the weight-on-bit (WOB), rotation rates (RPM), pressures, torques, bit position, and the like.” Examiner note: the reference teaches calculating/determining a friction related parameter μ at multiple times during drilling while measuring drilling parameters acting on the drillstring, including weight-on-bit (i.e., a form of drillstring load. Therefore, the μ value calculated at a given time corresponds to the drillstring load present at that time and is determined in a time responsive manner based upon the friction factor track).
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 Wang, and apply repeatedly calculating and monitoring a fiction related parameter over time in order to derive friction factor information that varies with drilling conditions and corresponds to measured drillstring loads. In this case, Kucs teaches comparing a drillstring load to a plurality of modeled loads corresponding to different fiction factor values in order to evaluate drilling conditions during rig operations. Wang teaches calculating a friction related parameter (μ) at a number of particular times during drilling and monitoring that parameter in time and/or depth domains while measuring drilling parameters acting on the drillstring, thereby generating a time varying set of friction factor values and determining a friction factor value corresponding to the drillstring load present at a given time. The combination of teachings would provide benefit of enabling the friction information used in Kucs’ modeled load comparison to be dynamically generated, tracked, and selected in real time based on actual drilling condition, thereby improving the responsiveness and accuracy of friction based load evaluation during drilling operations.
However, Kucs and Wang 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.
Iversen 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 ([0036], “… in case a parameter is exceeding the continuously updated conditions for a critical situation, an automatic action is triggered automatically to minimize the effect of the critical situation.” [0033], “… If these commands are within the safeguards they are used directly to control the drilling machines. However, if the commands are outside the acceptable limits of both the well and the capability of the drilling machinery, the safest condition is applied.” [0077], “If indication of possible pack-off/bridging is measured, the driller is alerted and the flowrate (Q) is reduced to a reduced (emergency) flowrate (Qem).” Examiner note: the reference teaches monitoring drilling parameters against continuously updated limits and automatically triggering remedial actions when a parameter exceeds the limits, including automatically altering drilling machine operations (e.g., reducing flowrate) to mitigate critical drilling conditions such as pack-off or bridging. A POSITA would understand the automatic actions as altering rig subsystems based on friction factor values (parameter) to reduce risks of drillstring stuck or damage).
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 Wang to incorporate the teachings of Iversen, and apply automated threshold based control of drilling rig subsystems in order to automatically alter drilling rig operations when friction related conditions indicated elevated operational risk. In this case, Kucs teaches comparing a measured drillstring load to a plurality of modeled loads corresponding to different fiction factor values in order to evaluate drilling conditions during rig operations. Wang teaches calculating a friction related parameter (μ) at a number of particular times during drilling and monitoring that parameter in time and/or depth domains while measuring drilling parameters acting on the drillstring, thereby generating a time varying set of friction factor values and determining a friction factor value corresponding to the drillstring load present at a given time. Iversen teaches monitoring drilling parameters against continuously updated threshold conditions and automatically triggering remedial actions that alter operation of drilling rig subsystems when a parameter exceeds acceptable limits. The combination of teachings would provide benefit of automatically responding to increased friction conditions identified through load comparison and friction factor tracking by adjusting drilling rig operation in real time, thereby reducing the possibility of drillstring stuck, borehole damage, or equipment damage during drilling 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 at least a portion of the data (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 9, Kucs further teaches The method of claim 8, wherein the activity state comprises a pickup state or a slackoff state (Page.7, Conclusions, “… • 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.”).
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, comprising determining drillstring loads based on at least a portion of the data, wherein the drillstring loads comprise 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.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 Wang and Iversen
as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Aarsnes (“Estimating friction factors while drilling,” published in 2019).
Claim 10, Kucs and Wang and Iversen 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 Wang and Iversen 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 Wang and Iversen
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 Wang and Iversen 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 Wang and Iversen 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 Wang and Iversen
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.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.”)
However, Kucs and Wang and Iversen fail to teach dynamically adjusting one or more friction factors of the plurality of different friction factor values 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 of the plurality of different friction factor values 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. Minimizing variance inherently applies a statistical approach based on deviations about a mean, and the resulting friction factor provides a more accurate estimate. Further, performing the adjustment for selected zones of the well that a POSITA would understand as updating friction factor values at discrete intervals rather than in real time.).
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 Wang and Iversen 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.
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.
Zheng US 20190178059A1, discloses determining one or more local friction factors for the range of depths based on the comparison; and adjusting at least one string assembly operating parameter based on the one or more local friction factors.
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]).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37
CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YI HAO 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
/EMERSON C PUENTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187
Prosecution Insights