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 .
Status
Claims 1-21 are pending. Claim(s) 1-2, 7-9, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102. Claim(s) 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103. Claims 3-6 and 10-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7-9, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Saeed et al. “Event Detection for Managed-Pressure Drilling: A New Paradigm” 2012.
Regarding claim 1, Saeed discloses a method comprising: accessing data related to performance of a fracturing operation in a wellbore during performance of a stage of the fracturing operation (pg. 2 ¶ 5 “Receive real-time data”, pg. 1 ¶ 2 “This paper presents a new, novel, and efficient approach to a real-time, automated event-detection system for managed pressure drilling operations.”);
accessing an event detection algorithm for detecting a specific event that occurs during the fracturing operation (pg. 4 ¶ 2 “Drilling parameters are received in real time and individually processed into unique collective (structured) sets to produce “signatures.” These signatures are then compared to a database of predefined event signatures to evaluate relative or complete matches, which, in turn, indicate the relative probability of an event occurring.”) ;
applying, during at least a portion of the stage of the fracturing operation, the event detection algorithm to the data to determine whether the specific event actually occurs during the at least a portion of the stage of the fracturing operation (pg. 4 ¶ 2 “Event database: Provides a set of pre-defined event signatures for comparison against. Also provides query services for generated signatures to be compared against the current database.” Fig. 4 “Query Event Signature Database” “Event Identification” The real-time data is compared to one or more signatures to determine which event has occurred.); and
generating an indication of the specific event occurring during the stage of the fracturing operation if it is determined that the specific event actually occurred during the at least a portion of the stage of the fracturing operation (pg. 4 ¶ 2 “This result is then output to a database, the user, or an automated action system.”, Fig. 12-13).
Regarding claim 2, Saeed discloses the method of claim 1, and Saeed discloses further comprising: selecting the event detection algorithm from a plurality of event detection algorithms for detecting different events during the fracturing operation (pg. 11 ¶ 1 “Other than kick events, trend-based event detection is useful for informing operators about a number of unusual well events. The detection system can be configured to recognize these events as well.” An alternative algorithm can be used to detect a different type of event.); and applying the event detection algorithm based on selection of the event detection algorithm from the plurality of event detection algorithms ( pg. 11 ¶ 1 Based on the configuration to detect a different type of event, the detection system applies the event detection algorithm.).
Regarding claim 7, Saeed discloses the method of claim 1, and Saeed discloses wherein the data related to the performance of the fracturing operation includes equipment data related to performance of the fracturing operation, sensor data gathered during performance of the fracturing operation, treatment status data of the fracturing operation, or a combination thereof (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, only one of the listed alternatives must be taught. More than one may be mapped for the sake of compact prosecution. pg. 1 ¶ 5 “1. Pressures 2. Temperatures 3. Flow rates 4. Fluid properties 5. Depths 6. Drill-rig-based readings” ).
Regarding claim 8, Saeed discloses the method of claim 1, and Saeed discloses further comprising aggregating the data related to the performance of the fracturing operation from a plurality of data sources (pg. 1 ¶ 5 “These parameters are taken at a variety of measurement points and can be categorized into the following categories: • Injection • Downhole • Production”) and synchronizing the data across the plurality of data sources in relation to performance of the fracturing operation (pg. 5 ¶ 6 “Pre-processing’s main goal is to perform raw data validation and may include offset and clamping functionality.”, Fig. 11 shows various parameters plotted along the same time axis.).
Regarding claim 9, Saeed discloses the method of claim 1, and Saeed discloses further comprising adding the indication of the specific event occurring during the stage of the fracturing operation to an event log for the fracturing operation (Fig. 12-13 highlight the event detected in the event log.).
Regarding claim 19, Saeed discloses the method of claim 1, and Saeed discloses further comprising facilitating automated control of the fracturing operation based, at least in part, on the specific event occurring during the fracturing operation in response to determining that the specific event actually occurred during the at least a portion of the stage of the fracturing operation (pg. 2 ¶ 2 “To facilitate and complement automatic bottomhole pressure control, automatic systems are being developed to evaluate well parameters and detect events. These applications are generically called ‘Event Detection Systems,’ and this document provides a description of one such system.” ).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saeed et al. “Event Detection for Managed-Pressure Drilling: A New Paradigm” 2012 in view of Haustveit et al. (US 20220403724 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Saeed discloses the limitations in the same way as claim 1, but Saeed does not explicitly disclose a system comprising: one or more processors; and at least one computer-readable storage medium having stored therein instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
Haustveit teaches a system comprising: one or more processors; and at least one computer-readable storage medium having stored therein instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: ([0144] The computer system 1400 may be a computing system capable of executing a computer program product to execute a computer process. Data and program files may be input to the computer system 1400, which reads the files and executes the programs therein. Some of the elements of the computer system 1400 are shown in FIG. 14, including one or more hardware processors 1402, one or more data storage devices 1404, one or more memory devices 1408, and/or one or more ports 1408-1412.).
Saeed and Haustveit are analogous because they are from the “same field of endeavor” oil exploration.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Saeed and Haustveit before him or her, to modify Saeed to include a computer as taught by Haustveit.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been Haustveit [0144] The computer system 1400 may be a computing system capable of executing a computer program product to execute a computer process.
Regarding claim 21, Saeed discloses the limitations in the same way as claim 1, but Saeed does not explicitly disclose a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored therein instructions which, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
Haustveit teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored therein instructions which, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: ([0008] In yet another implementation of the present disclosure, one or more non-transitory tangible computer-readable storage media is provided. The computer-readable storage media stores computer-executable instructions for performing a computer process on a computer system.)
Saeed and Haustveit are analogous because they are from the “same field of endeavor” oil exploration.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Saeed and Haustveit before him or her, to modify Saeed to include a computer as taught by Haustveit.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been Haustveit [0144] The computer system 1400 may be a computing system capable of executing a computer program product to execute a computer process.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6 and 10-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 3, the prior art as exemplified by Saeed teaches the method of claim 2, however, the prior art of record fails to teach, alone or in obvious combination, “wherein the event detection algorithm is selected from the plurality of event detection algorithms based on detection of a related event during the fracturing operation.”, in combination with the other limitations of the claims.
Claims 4-5 inherit the subject matter of claim 3.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art as exemplified by Saeed teaches the method of claim 2, however, the prior art of record fails to teach, alone or in obvious combination, “further comprising refraining from applying at least a subset of the plurality of event detection algorithms in response to selecting and applying the event detection algorithm.”, in combination with the other limitations of the claims. Saeed does disclose refraining from applying at least a subset of the plurality of event detection algorithms (Fig. 4 The flow line from the Parameter Data Object block to the Output block avoids the Event Identification Object block, refraining from comparing to the event signature.), but does not disclose refraining in response to selecting and applying the event detection algorithms.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art as exemplified by Saeed teaches the method of claim 1, however, the prior art of record fails to teach, alone or in obvious combination, “wherein the specific event is a pressure breakdown event occurring in relation to fracturing of a surrounding formation to the wellbore during the stage of the fracturing operation and the event detection algorithm is a pressure breakdown event detection algorithm.”, in combination with the other limitations of the claims.
Claims 11-16 inherit the subject matter of claim 10.
Regarding claim 17, the prior art as exemplified by Saeed teaches the method of claim 1, however, the prior art of record fails to teach, alone or in obvious combination, “wherein the specific event is an open well event occurring during the stage of the fracturing operation and the event detection algorithm is an open well event detection algorithm that compares pressure slope at a wellhead of the wellbore to a threshold pressure slope to identify the open well event.”, in combination with the other limitations of the claims.
Claim 18 inherits the subject matter of claim 17.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Shen et al. “Development of a Ball Seat Event Recognition Algorithm with Convolutional Neural Network for the Real-Time Hydraulic Fracturing Analytics System” 2020 discloses using a neural network for detection of a ball seat event.
The examiner respectfully requests, in response to this Office action, support is shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. Indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line number(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s).
When responding to this Office Action, the applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TROY A MAUST whose telephone number is (571)272-1931. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8AM to 4PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rehana Perveen, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-3676. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/T.A.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2189
/REHANA PERVEEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2189
Prosecution Insights