DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-6 and 8-20 are currently presented for examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/13/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Following Applicants arguments and amendments, the 112F interpretation of the Claims is Maintained.
Applicant’s Argument: Information handling system is improperly classified as a term than needs a 112F interpretation.
Examiner’s Response: The Examiner disagrees as one of ordinary skill in the art would not now the structure of an “information handling system” and how it performs the actions of the claim. While “system” may not be a “nonce word” the “information handling system” is a substitute for the term “means for.” Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Following Applicants arguments and amendments, the 112 rejections of the Claims is Maintained.
Applicant’s Argument: Applicant’s arguments directed to 112 rejections are based on newly amended subject matter."
Examiner’s Response: All arguments are addressed in the 112 rejections of the claims below.
Following Applicants arguments and amendments, and in light of the 2019 Patent Eligibility guidance, the 101 rejection of the Claims is Maintained.
Applicant’s Argument: Applicant’s arguments directed to 101 rejection are based on newly amended subject matter."
Examiner’s Response: All arguments are addressed in the 101 rejection of the claims below.
Following Applicants arguments and amendments, the 103 rejection of the claims is Maintained.
Applicant’s Argument: Applicant’s arguments directed to 103 rejection are based on newly amended subject matter."
Examiner’s Response: All arguments are addressed in the 103 rejection of the claims below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
information handling system in claims 1 and 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Examiner’s Note: For the purposes of examination, the structure for the information handling system will be interpreted as the computer as shown in figures 2 and 3 of the drawings and described in at least [0005]-[0006] and [0024] of the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6 and 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed functions of "information handling system." The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6 and 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitations " information handling system" invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. While the specification discloses a "computer" in [0024] of the specification, it is devoid of the algorithms that provide structures to convert the generic computer into a special purpose computer to perform the claimed functions. (MPEP 2181.11.(B)) There is no disclosure of any particular algorithms, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the actions of the information handling system. The use of the term "computer" in the specification alone is not adequate structure because it does not describe a special purpose computer for performing the functions. As such, the specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure performs the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Regarding claim 12, it is unclear if the non-transitory storage computer-readable medium or the processor are performing the actions of the information handling system. This renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear what is performing the actions.
Examiner’s Note: For the purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as being done by the processor that is executing a set of instructions that are stored in memory.
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.
Regarding claims 1-6 and 8-20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-6 and 8-10 are directed to a method, which is a process, which is a statutory category of invention. Claims 11-20 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium, which is a manufacture, which is a statutory category of invention. Therefore, claims 1-6 and 8-20 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claims 1 and 11 recite the abstract idea of forming a BHA model and solving a BVP for one or more segments, constituting an abstract idea based on Mental Processes based on concepts performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper. The limitation of "forming a model of the (BHA)” covers mental processes including making a judgement about how to model a borehole. But for the inclusion of the “information handling system”, there is nothing that preclude the operation of the claim in the human mind. This follows for each subsequent recitation. Additionally, the limitation of “segmenting the model into one or more segments; and” covers mental processes including making a judgement about how to segment the model. Additionally, the limitation of “solving a multipoint boundary value problem (BVP) based at least in part on the one or more segments, wherein a solution of the BVP is a static response of the BHA, and wherein the solving the BCP comprises:”, covers mental processes including a specific evaluation of the model. Additionally, the limitations of “determining a first distance from the BHA to a first borehole wall of the borehole for a segment of the one or more segments; determining a second distance from the BHA to a second borehole wall of the borehole for the segment of the one or more segments; and determining, a response of the segment of the one or more segments by solving a nonlinear mixed complementarity problem (MCP) based at least in part on the first distance and the second distance, wherein the MCP comprises a plurality of unknown variables” covers mental processes including additional specific evaluations of the model. Thus, the claims recite the abstract idea of a mental process performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Dependent claims 2-6, 8-10 and 12-20 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In Claims 1 and 12, the additional element of “information handling system”, as well as in Claim 12, the additional element of “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” and “a processor” merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) The limitation of “wherein the BHA is connected to a drill string and is communicatively coupled to the information handling system configured to control the BHA;” in claims 1 and 12 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Additionally, “receiving sensor data from one or more sensors disposed on or about a bottom hole assembly (BHA) in a borehole, wherein the BHA is connected to a drill string and is communicatively coupled to an information handling system configured to control the BHA; processing the received sensor data by:” could be viewed as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP (2106.05(f)) Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process or mathematical concept) does not amount to a practical application. The limitation of “based on the static response of the BHA, sending. via the information handling system, one or more operational commands to the BHA wherein the one or more operational commands affect one or more downhole operations being performed by the BHA.” only amounts to mere instructions to apply as it only recites the idea of a solution or outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, this could be viewed as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP (2106.05(f)) Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process or mathematical concept) does not amount to a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)) Additionally this can be viewed as well-understood, routine, convention activity. With regards to the Berkheimer memo, this amounts to “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, identified in MPEP 2106.05(d) and the spec does not relay how the method is used to influence downhole operations, which relies on the knowledge of one of ordinary skill. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2-6, 8-10 and 12-20 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims, and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration beyond those addressed above.
Step 2B: Claims 1 and 12 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In Claims 1 and 12, the additional element of “information handling system”, as well as in Claim 12, the additional element of “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” and “a processor” merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) The limitation of “wherein the BHA is connected to a drill string and is communicatively coupled to the information handling system configured to control the BHA;” in claims 1 and 12 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Additionally, “receiving sensor data from one or more sensors disposed on or about a bottom hole assembly (BHA) in a borehole, wherein the BHA is connected to a drill string and is communicatively coupled to an information handling system configured to control the BHA; processing the received sensor data by:” could be viewed as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP (2106.05(f)) Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process or mathematical concept) does not amount to significantly more. The limitation of “based on the static response of the BHA, sending. via the information handling system, one or more operational commands to the BHA wherein the one or more operational commands affect one or more downhole operations being performed by the BHA.” only amounts to mere instructions to apply as it only recites the idea of a solution or outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, this could be viewed as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP (2106.05(f)) Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process or mathematical concept) does not amount to significantly more. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)) Additionally this can be viewed as well-understood, routine, convention activity. With regards to the Berkheimer memo, this amounts to “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, identified in MPEP 2106.05(d) and the spec does not relay how the method is used to influence downhole operations, which relies on the knowledge of one of ordinary skill. Therefore, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated in Section I.B. of the December 16, 2014 101 Examination Guidelines, “[t]o be patent-eligible, a claim that is directed to a judicial exception must include additional features to ensure that the claim describes a process or product that applies the exception in a meaningful way, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.”
The dependent claims include the same abstract ideas recited as recited in the independent claims, and merely incorporate additional details that narrow the abstract ideas and fail to add significantly more to the claims.
Dependent claims 2 and 13 are directed to further defining the BVP, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claims 3 and 14 are directed to further defining the segments, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claims 4 and 15 are directed to further defining the solving of an auxiliary problem, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claims 5 and 16 are directed to further defining boundary conditions, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claims 6 and 17 are directed to further defining the external loading, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claims 8-9 and 18 are directed to further defining the additional determination of distances and forces, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claims 10-11 and 19-20 are directed to further defining the type of MCP problem solved, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Accordingly, claims 1-6 and 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-9 and 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailey et al. USPPN 2013/0282342 in view of Li et al. “Modeling and Experimental Study on Motion States of Laboratory-Scale Bottom Hole Assembly in Horizontal Wells”, and in further view of Shakib et al. “Nonlinear Modeling of Directional Drilling.”
Regarding claim 1, Bailey anticipates receiving sensor data from one or more sensors disposed on or about a bottom hole assembly (BHA) in a borehole, wherein the BHA is connected to a drill string and is communicatively coupled to an information handling system configured to control the BHA; processing the received sensor data by: ([0004]-[0007] sensors measure vibration data of a BHA and is analyzed by software tools)
forming, a model of the BHA; (Abstract, Figures 1 and 2, [0014], a BHA drilling model is used; Figure 1, [0033]-[0038], the model is connected to the drill string; Figure 3 [0096]-[0098] a computer is connected to the drill string equipment and executes the model)
segmenting the model into one or more segments; and (Figures 5c-9d, [0101]-[0108], all model parameters are set for and calculated for a given length)
solving a multipoint boundary value problem (BVP) based at least in part on the one or more segments, wherein a solution of the BVP is a static response of the BHA, and wherein solving the BVP comprises: ([0008], [0018], [0034], boundary conditions are set; [0073]-[0074], [0081]-[0082], the system is solved at multiple points using the boundary conditions; [0007], [0012], [0031], [0034], [0036], the models evaluate static responses)
based on the static response of the BHA, sending. via the information handling system, one or more operational commands to the BHA wherein the one or more operational commands affect one or more downhole operations being performed by the BHA (Figure 3 [0096]-[0098] a computer is connected to the drill string equipment and executes the model; Figure 1, [0033], [0037], the model is utilized in the operation of the drill string)
Bailey does not explicitly teach determining a first distance from the BHA to a first borehole wall of the borehole for a segment of the one or more setpoints;
Li teaches determining a first distance from the BHA to a first borehole wall of the borehole for a segment of the one or more setpoints. (Sections 2-2.3, Figures 2-3, the clearance from the BHA to the bore hole wall is calculated)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Bailey with Li as the references deal with modeling BHAs, in order to implement a system that takes into account when the BHA hits the bore hole and reaction forces from the contact. Li would modify Bailey by taking into account when the BHA hits the bore hole and reaction forces from the contact. The benefit of doing so measuring positions and forces in the wellbore helps drilling engineers to further understand the lateral vibration characteristics of BHA in horizontal wells and select suitable parameters for drilling engineering. (Li Section 1)
The combination of Bailey and Li does not explicitly teach determining a second distance from the BHA to a second borehole wall of the borehole for the segment of the one or more segments; and determining, a response of the segment of the one or more segments by solving a nonlinear mixed complementarity problem (MCP) based at least in part on the first distance and the second distance, wherein the MCP comprises a plurality of unknown variables having a nonlinear relationship
Shakib teaches determining a second distance from the BHA to a second borehole wall of the borehole for the segment of the one or more segments; and (Figures 2-4, Sections1-2 and 4, distances from the stabilizers of the BHA are determined for each of the multiple stabilizers;)
determining, a response of the segment of the one or more segments by solving a nonlinear mixed complementarity problem (MCP) based at least in part on the first distance and the second distance, wherein the MCP comprises a plurality of unknown variables having a nonlinear relationship (Figures 2-4, Sections1-2 and 4, distances from the stabilizers of the BHA are determined for each of the multiple stabilizers; Sections 2-4, forces from the contact are determined at multiple points; Sections 1 and 2, the problem solved is a mixed complementarity problem; Section 3 Figure 5, a plurality of unknown variables with a nonlinear relationship are used)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Bailey and Li with Shakib as the references deal with modeling BHAs, in order to implement a system that takes uses a mixed complementarity problem to solve for distances and forces. Shakib would modify Bailey and Li by using a mixed complementarity problem to solve for distances and forces. The benefit of doing so is the model is capable of predicting borehole rippling and thus provides valuable insight in this undesired phenomenon. (Shakib Section 5)
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Bailey, Li and Shakib teaches the limitations of claim 1. Bailey also teaches wherein the static response of the BHA corresponds to gravity, actuation, and deflection of the BHA, at one or more stabilizers of the. ([0047], [0056]-[0058], [0062] gravity of the system is used; [0062]-[0063], the rotational frequency and motion of the system is used; [0048], [0111]-[0112], deflection of the BHA is used; [0075]-[0076], where the interval of all calculations including gravity, actuation and deflection is from bit to stabilizer)
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Bailey, Li and Shakib teaches the limitations of claim 1. Bailey also teaches wherein each of the one or more segments has a constant mechanical property. ([0034], [0040], constant mechanical properties are set)
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Bailey, Li and Shakib teaches the limitations of claim 1. Bailey also teaches further comprising solving an auxiliary problem for each of the one or more segments using a nonlinear beam equation with two boundary conditions. ([0048]-[0058], nonlinear beam equations are used over multiple segments with different boundary conditions)
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Bailey, Li and Shakib teaches the limitations of claim 4. Bailey also teaches wherein the two boundary conditions are external loading or confines of the borehole. ([0009], [0034], [0038], [0043], weight on bit is used; [0004], [0141], a steerable bit is used; [0048]-[0056] gravity and borehole loads are applied)
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Bailey, Li and Shakib teaches the limitations of claim 5. Bailey also teaches wherein the external loading is an actuation or a weight-on-bit. ([0009], [0034], [0038], [0043], weight on bit is used)
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Bailey, Li and Shakib teaches the limitations of claim 1. Bailey does not explicitly teach further comprising determining a first reaction force for the first distance.
Li teaches further comprising determining a first reaction force for the first distance. (Sections 2-2.3, Figures 2-3, reaction forces are calculated)
See motivation of claim 1
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Bailey, Li and Shakib teaches the limitations of claim 8. The combination of Bailey and Li does not explicitly teach further comprising solving a mixed complementarity problem (MCP) based at least in part on the first distance, the first reaction force, and a second distance from the BHA to a second borehole wall.
Shakib teaches further comprising solving a mixed complementarity problem (MCP) based at least in part on the first distance, the first reaction force, and a second distance from the BHA to a second borehole wall. (Figures 2-4, Sections1-2 and 4, distances from the stabilizers of the BHA are determined for each of the multiple stabilizers; Sections 2-4, forces from the contact are determined at multiple points; Sections 1 and 2, the problem solved is a mixed complementarity problem)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Bailey and Li with Shakib as the references deal with modeling BHAs, in order to implement a system that takes uses a mixed complementarity problem to solve for distances and forces. Shakib would modify Bailey and Li by using a mixed complementarity problem to solve for distances and forces. The benefit of doing so is the model is capable of predicting borehole rippling and thus provides valuable insight in this undesired phenomenon. (Shakib Section 5)
In regards to claim 12, it is the computer readable medium embodiment of claim 1 with similar limitations to claim 1, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 1.
In regards to claim 13, it is the computer readable medium embodiment of claim 2 with similar limitations to claim 2, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 2.
In regards to claim 14, it is the computer readable medium embodiment of claim 3 with similar limitations to claim 3, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 3.
In regards to claim 15, it is the computer readable medium embodiment of claim 4 with similar limitations to claim 4, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 4.
In regards to claim 16, it is the computer readable medium embodiment of claim 5 with similar limitations to claim 5, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 5.
In regards to claim 17, it is the computer readable medium embodiment of claim 6 with similar limitations to claim 6, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 6.
In regards to claim 18, it is the computer readable medium embodiment of claims 8-9 with similar limitations to claims 8-9, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claims 8-9.
Claims 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailey in view of Li, in further view of Shakib, and in further view of Chen et al. “Modified Jacobian smoothing method for nonsmooth complementarity problems.”
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Bailey, Li and Shakib teaches the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Bailey, Li and Shakib does not explicitly teach wherein the MCP is solved using a Jacobian matrix.
Chen teaches wherein the MCP is solved using a Jacobian matrix. (Abstract, Sections 1-3, a Jacobian matrix is used in the Jacobian smoothing method of the MCP)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Bailey, Li and Shakib with Chen as the references deal with MCPs, in order to implement a system that uses an MCP with a Jacobian matrix. Chen would modify Bailey, Li and Shakib by using an MCP with a Jacobian matrix. The benefit of doing so is the model is capable of establishing the global and fast local convergence for the method under suitable assumptions. (Chen Abstract)
In regards to claim 19, it is the computer readable medium embodiment of claim 10 with similar limitations to claim 10, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 10.
Claims 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailey in view of Li, in further view of Shakib, and in further view of Chen et al. “Two new Levenberg-Marquardt methods for nonsmooth nonlinear complementarity problems.”
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Bailey, Li and Shakib teaches the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Bailey, Li and Shakib does not explicitly teach wherein the MCP is solved using a Levenberg-Marquardt Mixed Complementarity Problem (LMMCP).
Chen teaches wherein the MCP is solved using a Levenberg-Marquardt Mixed Complementarity Problem (LMMCP). (Abstract, Introduction, NEW LEVENBERG-MARQUARDT METHODS AND THEIR CONVERGENCE, a Levenberg-Marquardt method is used in the MCP)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Bailey, Li and Shakib with Chen as the references deal with MCPs, in order to implement a system that uses an MCP with a LMMCP. Chen would modify Bailey, Li and Shakib by using an MCP with a LMMCP. The benefit of doing so is the model using the Levenberg-Marquardt algorithms work quite well in practice. (Chen Numerical Tests)
In regards to claim 20, it is the computer readable medium embodiment of claim 11 with similar limitations to claim 11, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 11.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jogi USPAT 5141060: Also teaches a method for stabilizing a BHA.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL COCCHI whose telephone number is (469)295-9079. The examiner can normally be reached 7:15 am - 5:15 pm CT Monday - Thursday.
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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at 571-272-4071. 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.
/MICHAEL EDWARD COCCHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights