DETAILED ACTION
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 of Claims
Claims 1, 2, 7, 10 and 11 are amended, claim 16 is added and claim 8 is canceled.
Claims 1-7 and 9-16 are pending.
Claims 1-7 and 9-16 are rejected (Final Rejection).
Response to Amendments and Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and remarks (arguments) referred to below were filed 04/30/2026.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. § 103, Applicant’s arguments respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the previous prior art (§ 103) rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new ground(s) of rejection under § 103 are made.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claims 1-7, 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain 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, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 has been amended to recite “… the results include: … a ranking of factors of the optimized job design, the factors including a similarity to a previous job and a cost” (emphasis added).
Applicant indicates that the “amendments do not add any new matter” but fails to indicate where support for this limitation is allegedly provided at. Additionally, Para. [0031] of the specification indicates the ranked factors may include “cost, risk, safety, equipment availability and service quality” but does not include “similarity” as a ranked factor. In Para. [0031] of the specification, the rankings may be (sorted) from “high to low, low to high, similarity to previous projects”. That is, in the present specification, similarity is a way a factor is ranked/sorted/compared but is not itself a type of ranked factor (the ranked factor types supported are cost, safety, risk, equipment availability and service quality). Examiner’s Note: Para. [0032] of specification also recite “job feature may be any type of data, such as cost, performance, risk, total well depth, well (total)1 curvature, downhole temperature, downhole pressure, job type, fluid type, other performance features of previous jobs of similar quantities” (emphasis added).
Accordingly, Applicant has not particularly pointed out where each of the newly added claim limitations originate from in the original specification. There is no explanation in the original specification for the subject matter pertaining to: “… the results include: … a ranking of factors of the optimized job design, the factors including a similarity to a previous job and a cost” (emphasis added).
Accordingly, claim 1 is rejected for failing to comply with the written description requirement. Claim 16 has substantially similar limitations as recited in claim 1; therefore, it is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) for the same reasons. Claims 2-7 and 9 depend from rejected claim 1. Therefore, claims 2-7 and 9 are also rejected under the same rationale since these claims inherit the deficiencies of claim 1, while failing to cure the deficiencies of claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-7, 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recite “… the results include: … a ranking of factors of the optimized job design, the factors including a similarity to a previous job and a cost” (emphasis added). It is not clear how similarity is determined as a ranked factor. It would make more sense to have the claim recite that job (and/or tool) features include cost and at least one of total well curvature or job type, and the ranking is based on at least one of cost (low to high) or similarity to planned job total well curvature or job type. However, this is just an example based on reading of the specification, as best understood. The rankings are of previous jobs and so it is interpreted that the rankings are based on similarity to the planned job (not similarity of the ranked previous jobs to other previous jobs). Examiner also notes Para. [0032] includes variables including cable types and age, fluid types, well trajectory, curvature, casing information, etc. Thus, the specification has factors, features and variables, some of which overlap (e.g., cost is a factor and a feature) in addition to a method of ranking/sorting the results (e.g., high to low, low to high, similarity).
Accordingly, claim 1 is rejected for being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention. Claim 16 has substantially similar limitations as recited in claim 1; therefore, it is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) for the same reasons. Claims 2-7 and 9 depend from rejected claim 1. Therefore, claims 2-7 and 9 are also rejected under the same rationale since these claims inherit the deficiencies of claim 1, while failing to cure the deficiencies of claim 1.
For compact prosecution, Examiner has made an interpretation (as best understood), which is represented within the mapping of the claims under the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection (below). Specifically, Examiner has interpreted, based on Para. [0034] of Applicant’s specification, “similar geographic location” as a type of similarity used in determining (as a factor for) ranking(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claims 1-7 and 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over LI et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0209262 A1) in view of KUESTERS et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0310367 A1).
Regarding claim 1, LI discloses a method, comprising: collecting data from at least one of job parameters to be completed in a wireline operation and a job design to be optimized for the wireline operation (Examiner notes that “at least one of job parameters … and a job design” is being interpreted as “at least one of job parameters … and at least one of a job design …”; LI teaches as new information is collected from tool string processes, the information can be added to the set of training data, Para. [0061] of LI; See also data may be transferred before or after completion of such operations, such as, for example, after the tool string 125 has been removed to the surface 105 … data is transferred within an appropriate time frame commensurate with the operations or processes being performed with well system 100, Para. [0029] of LI; [operations/processes completed in a wireline/tool string process are interpreted as corresponding to job completed in a wireline operation]; See also analyzes data during, before, and after one or more operations (e.g., drilling, completion, workover, and otherwise) performed by well system 100, Para. [0030] of LI; Regarding job design, see citation to Paras. [0026] & [0045] of LI immediately below; See also FIGS. 1-7 of LI), wherein the job design comprises a use of at least one of a first set of equipment or a second set of equipment (tool string parameters can comprise information related to the tools within a tool string, including … the types of tools and other components arranged in the tool string, what order the tools and other components are arranged in the tool string, the type of connection between the tools and other components of the tool string, tool, and component weights, whether the tool string is comprised entirely of tubing and tools or whether the string is of the type deployed on line (e.g., wireline, slickline, e-line or other) and, if on line, the characteristics of the line such as the type of line, voltages, capacities, and the like, and other information, Paras. [0026] & [0045] of LI); transmitting the data to a hybrid model for processing (as new information is collected from tool string processes, the information can be added to the set of training data … the tool string model can then be re-trained using the data collected over time to provide for an improved model, Para. [0061] of LI; See also data is transferred within an appropriate time frame commensurate with the operations or processes being performed with well system 100, Para. [0029] of LI; See also server system receives and transmits, Para. [0032] of LI, and includes the modeling system 185, Para. [0034] & FIG. 1 of LI; [transfer is interpreted as corresponding to transmit in view of the server/computer/wireline context]); processing the data with the hybrid model (desired set of inputs such as a definition of the tool string process and constraints or conditions for the tool string process can be provided to the trained model, and one or more atoms can be identified as the output to represent the closest result (e.g., improved or optimized result) for obtaining the input parameters … the inputs used with the trained model can comprise one or more constraints or requirements for a particular tool string process … the inputs to the model can comprise any of the constraints or requirements as contained in the history store 235 … for example, the inputs to the tool design model can comprise various parameters such as sampling rate thresholds, type of samples (e.g., single-phase samples, multi-phase samples, etc.), contamination level threshold(s), pressure testing thresholds, pressure gradients, mobility testing thresholds, type of mobility tests (e.g., steady-state, transient, etc.), fracture testing parameters, injection testing parameters, wireline testing parameters, timing for reaching a desired tool string process result, costs associated with each tool string process result, safety procedures or requirements, and the like, Para. [0065] of LI) producing results, wherein the results include an optimized job design for the wireline operation (an output of the trained model can define a tool string design, operating parameters, and/or tool string design parameters for the tool string design, Para. [0067] of LI; See also the tool string design can comprise one or more sensors or test apparatuses that can be configured in a specific order and conveyed into a wellbore … once in the wellbore, the testing procedures can be used at one or more depths to perform the tool string process, Para. [0068] of LI).
Although LI discloses outputting definitions of tool string designs (i.e., the results discussed above) (Para. [0019] of LI) and I/O devices include printers, video monitors, electronic displays (Para. [0095] of LI), LI does not appear to explicitly disclose: the results include a ranking of factors of the optimized job design, the factors including a similarity to a previous job and a cost; outputting a ranking chart comprising a ranked list of plans of the optimized job design, the ranked list of plans including: a first plan comprising the first set of equipment and a first associated cost; and a second plan comprising the second set of equipment and a second associated cost; and at least one of displaying the ranking chart, printing the ranking chart or saving the results to a non-volatile memory.
KUESTERS, however, is in the field of hydrocarbon exploration and production (Para. [0003] of KUESTERS) and teaches the results include a ranking of factors of the optimized job design, the factors including a similarity to a previous job and a cost; outputting a ranking chart comprising a ranked list of plans of the optimized job design (display the top ranked tripping scenarios including details of the scenarios, such as the next time to trip, time of next BOP test, the total cost of the section, and the total time for the section, Para. [0103] of KUESTERS; [in Applicant’s specification, at Para. [0031], a type of job plan is for wireline operations (interpreted as drilling operations), and, at Para. [0032], the ranked order of jobs includes an example variable of tool string configuration]; [thus, Examiner’s understanding the is that the claimed job plan for drilling/wireline was, at its most basic, the type of equipment and cost. See also Applicant’s FIG. 4, which shows a ranked list of (two) job plans that simply include equipment and cost]; [In KUESTERS, the top ranked tripping scenarios are displayed, which includes drillstring (equipment) configurations. Examiner’s interpretation is that a drillstring is a toolstring, and two ranked drillstring scenarios (with associated cost) corresponds to FIG. 4’s example of toolstring plan 1 and toolstring plan 2. That is, the type of toolstring/drillstring used is the plan (and each cost different amounts)]), the ranked list of plans including: a first plan comprising the first set of equipment and a first associated cost; and a second plan comprising the second set of equipment and a second associated cost (for each possible number of bits and drill bit types, the bit trip calculator 128 can simulate different bit tripping scenarios, Para. [0097] of KUESTERS; See also the bit trip calculator simulates scenarios with 1 bit and scenarios with 2 bits, Para. [0098] of KUESTERS; [each scenario includes a number of drill bits and a type of drill bit(s), which are “utilized to drill a well to extract resources from the earth” (Para. [0005] of KUESTERS) and are interpreted as corresponding to a set of equipment]; Regarding cost(s), see also the bit trip calculator 128 can also display the top ranked tripping scenarios including details of the scenarios, such as the next time to trip, time of next BOP test, the total cost of the section, and the total time for the section, Para. [0103] of KUESTERS); and at least one of displaying the ranking chart, printing the ranking chart or saving the results to a non-volatile memory (display the top ranked tripping scenarios including details of the scenarios, such as the next time to trip, time of next BOP test, the total cost of the section, and the total time for the section, Para. [0103] of KUESTERS).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the wireline planning method of LI to include outputting/displaying the ranking chart as in KUESTERS for the purpose of determining the simulated scenario (i.e., proposed job/tool design) with the lowest total cost (Para. [0021] of KUESTERS).
Regarding claim 2, LI as modified by KUESTERS teaches the method according to claim 1 (as shown above), wherein the optimized job design is optimized for at least one of a risk quality or a service quality (the inputs to the tool design model can comprise various parameters such as contamination level threshold(s), safety procedures or requirements, Para. [0065] of LI; See also safety, regulatory compliance, events occurring in the well that prevent drilling, Para. [0021] of KUESTERS; [contamination levels and/or safety are interpreted as risk quality factors/variables and regulatory compliance is interpreted as a risk and/or service quality factor/variable]).
Regarding claim 3, LI as modified by KUESTERS teaches the method according to claim 1 (as shown above), wherein the hybrid model comprises artificial intelligence (the machine learning model 210 is a learning machine having “artificial intelligence”, Para. [0041] of LI; See also machine learning methods such as artificial neural networks, Para. [0042] of LI; [artificial neural networks are interpreted as corresponding to artificial intelligence]).
Regarding claim 4, LI as modified by KUESTERS teaches the method according to claim 3 (as shown above), wherein the hybrid model acts autonomously (the machine learning model 210 may perform pattern recognition, in which the adaptive machine learning model 210 “learn” to automatically recognize complex patterns, Para. [0041] of LI; See also conveyance of the tool string 125 through the well can be assisted, for example, by well tractor, autonomous well robot, by being pumped, and or in another manner, Para. [0025] of LI; See also automated applications, Para. [0033] of LI).
Regarding claim 5, LI as modified by KUESTERS teaches the method according to claim 1 (as shown above), wherein the hybrid model further retains historical data on completed wireline projects and uses this historical data to produce the optimized job design (machine learning model 210 can receive inputs 250 and provides output 270 based on the inputs 250 and data retrieved from a history store 235 (e.g., database or repository) … the machine learning model 210 utilizes historical data stored in the history store 235 (e.g., historical information on tool string designs, tool string parameters, operating parameters for the tool string processes, wellbore parameters, formation parameters, etc.) to predictively determine, for instance, one or more tool string designs, operating parameters, and other outputs, Para. [0041] of LI; See also data may be transferred before or after completion of such operations, such as, for example, after the tool string 125 has been removed to the surface 105 … data is transferred within an appropriate time frame commensurate with the operations or processes being performed with well system 100, Para. [0029] of LI; [operations/processes completed in a wireline/tool string process are interpreted as corresponding to job completed in a wireline operation]).
Regarding claim 6, LI as modified by KUESTERS teaches the method according to claim 5 (as shown above), wherein the historical data is stored in a data historian (machine learning model 210 can receive inputs 250 and provides output 270 based on the inputs 250 and data retrieved from a history store 235 (e.g., database or repository) … the machine learning model 210 utilizes historical data stored in the history store 235 (e.g., historical information on tool string designs, tool string parameters, operating parameters for the tool string processes, wellbore parameters, formation parameters, etc.) to predictively determine, for instance, one or more tool string designs, operating parameters, and other outputs, Para. [0041] of LI).
Regarding claim 7, LI as modified by KUESTERS teaches the method according to claim 1 (as shown above), wherein at least one of tool string designs, wireline types, and fixed components are part of the collected data (machine learning model 210 can receive inputs 250 and provides output 270 based on the inputs 250 and data retrieved from a history store 235 (e.g., database or repository) … the machine learning model 210 utilizes historical data stored in the history store 235 (e.g., historical information on tool string designs, tool string parameters, operating parameters for the tool string processes, wellbore parameters, formation parameters, etc.) to predictively determine, for instance, one or more tool string designs, operating parameters, and other outputs, Para. [0041] of LI).
Regarding claim 9, LI as modified by KUESTERS teaches the method according to claim 1 (as shown above), wherein the hybrid model is configured to learn from iterative runs (information in the history store 235 and the tool specifications store 230 can be used to train or develop the tool string design model … the illustrated history store 235 includes data for various tool string designs (e.g., tool parameters, tool string parameters, etc.), data for tool string processes performed with the tool string designs (e.g., operating parameters, timing of the processes, costs of the processes, etc.), and various other information such as the wellbore and formation parameters (e.g., wellbore parameters, formation parameters, etc.) measured during historical tool string processes, Para. [0043] of LI).
Regarding claim 10, LI discloses a method, comprising: inputting a first set of data regarding job parameters of a wireline operation to a hybrid model (as new information is collected from tool string processes, the information can be added to the set of training data, Para. [0061] of LI; See also data may be transferred before or after completion of such operations, such as, for example, after the tool string 125 has been removed to the surface 105 … data is transferred within an appropriate time frame commensurate with the operations or processes being performed with well system 100, Para. [0029] of LI; [operations/processes completed in a wireline/tool string process are interpreted as corresponding to job completed in a wireline operation]; See also analyzes data during, before, and after one or more operations (e.g., drilling, completion, workover, and otherwise) performed by well system 100, Para. [0030] of LI; See also the inputs to the tool design model can comprise various parameters such as sampling rate thresholds, type of samples (e.g., single-phase samples, multi-phase samples, etc.), contamination level threshold(s), pressure testing thresholds, pressure gradients, mobility testing thresholds, type of mobility tests (e.g., steady-state, transient, etc.), fracture testing parameters, injection testing parameters, wireline testing parameters, timing for reaching a desired tool string process result, costs associated with each tool string process result, safety procedures or requirements, and the like, Para. [0065] of LI); inputting a second set of data regarding job designs to be optimized for the wireline operation to the hybrid model, wherein the job designs include at least one of a first set of equipment or a second set of equipment (tool string parameters can comprise information related to the tools within a tool string, including … the types of tools and other components arranged in the tool string, what order the tools and other components are arranged in the tool string, the type of connection between the tools and other components of the tool string, tool, and component weights, whether the tool string is comprised entirely of tubing and tools or whether the string is of the type deployed on line (e.g., wireline, slickline, e-line or other) and, if on line, the characteristics of the line such as the type of line, voltages, capacities, and the like, and other information, Paras. [0026] & [0045] of LI; See also FIGS. 1-7 of LI); processing the first set of data and the second set of data with the hybrid model (desired set of inputs such as a definition of the tool string process and constraints or conditions for the tool string process can be provided to the trained model, and one or more atoms can be identified as the output to represent the closest result (e.g., improved or optimized result) for obtaining the input parameters … the inputs used with the trained model can comprise one or more constraints or requirements for a particular tool string process … the inputs to the model can comprise any of the constraints or requirements as contained in the history store 235 … for example, the inputs to the tool design model can comprise various parameters such as sampling rate thresholds, type of samples (e.g., single-phase samples, multi-phase samples, etc.), contamination level threshold(s), pressure testing thresholds, pressure gradients, mobility testing thresholds, type of mobility tests (e.g., steady-state, transient, etc.), fracture testing parameters, injection testing parameters, wireline testing parameters, timing for reaching a desired tool string process result, costs associated with each tool string process result, safety procedures or requirements, and the like, Para. [0065] of LI; See also as new information is collected from tool string processes, the information can be added to the set of training data … the tool string model can then be re-trained using the data collected over time to provide for an improved model, Para. [0061] of LI; See also data is transferred within an appropriate time frame commensurate with the operations or processes being performed with well system 100, Para. [0029] of LI; See also server system receives and transmits, Para. [0032] of LI, and includes the modeling system 185, Para. [0034] & FIG. 1 of LI) to produce a result, wherein the result includes an optimized job design for the wireline operation (an output of the trained model can define a tool string design, operating parameters, and/or tool string design parameters for the tool string design, Para. [0067] of LI; See also the tool string design can comprise one or more sensors or test apparatuses that can be configured in a specific order and conveyed into a wellbore … once in the wellbore, the testing procedures can be used at one or more depths to perform the tool string process, Para. [0068] of LI).
Although LI discloses outputting definitions of tool string designs (i.e., the results discussed above) (Para. [0019] of LI) and I/O devices include printers, video monitors, electronic displays (Para. [0095] of LI), LI does not appear to explicitly disclose: outputting a ranking chart comprising a ranked list of plans of the optimized job design, the ranked list of plans including: a first plan comprising the first set of equipment and a first associated cost; and a second plan comprising the second set of equipment and a second associated cost; and at least one of displaying the ranking chart, printing the ranking chart, or saving the ranking chart to a non-volatile memory.
KUESTERS, however, is in the field of hydrocarbon exploration and production (Para. [0003] of KUESTERS) and teaches outputting a ranking chart comprising a ranked list of plans of the optimized job design (display the top ranked tripping scenarios including details of the scenarios, such as the next time to trip, time of next BOP test, the total cost of the section, and the total time for the section, Para. [0103] of KUESTERS; [in Applicant’s specification, at Para. [0031], a type of job plan is for wireline operations (interpreted as drilling operations), and, at Para. [0032], the ranked order of jobs includes an example variable of tool string configuration]; [thus, Examiner’s understanding the is that the claimed job plan for drilling/wireline was, at its most basic, the type of equipment and cost. See also Applicant’s FIG. 4, which shows a ranked list of (two) job plans that simply include equipment and cost]; [In KUESTERS, the top ranked tripping scenarios are displayed, which includes drillstring (equipment) configurations. Examiner’s interpretation is that a drillstring is a toolstring, and two ranked drillstring scenarios (with associated cost) corresponds to FIG. 4’s example of toolstring plan 1 and toolstring plan 2. That is, the type of toolstring/drillstring used is the plan (and each cost different amounts)]), the ranked list of plans including: a first plan comprising the first set of equipment and a first associated cost; and a second plan comprising the second set of equipment and a second associated cost (for each possible number of bits and drill bit types, the bit trip calculator 128 can simulate different bit tripping scenarios, Para. [0097] of KUESTERS; See also the bit trip calculator simulates scenarios with 1 bit and scenarios with 2 bits, Para. [0098] of KUESTERS; [each scenario includes a number of drill bits and a type of drill bit(s), which are “utilized to drill a well to extract resources from the earth” (Para. [0005] of KUESTERS) and are interpreted as corresponding to a set of equipment]; Regarding cost(s), see also the bit trip calculator 128 can also display the top ranked tripping scenarios including details of the scenarios, such as the next time to trip, time of next BOP test, the total cost of the section, and the total time for the section, Para. [0103] of KUESTERS); and at least one of displaying the ranking chart, printing the ranking chart, or saving the ranking chart to a non-volatile memory (display the top ranked tripping scenarios including details of the scenarios, such as the next time to trip, time of next BOP test, the total cost of the section, and the total time for the section, Para. [0103] of KUESTERS).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the wireline planning method of LI to include outputting/displaying the ranking chart as in KUESTERS for the purpose of determining the simulated scenario (i.e., proposed job/tool design) with the lowest total cost (Para. [0021] of KUESTERS).
Claim 11 has substantially similar limitations as recited in claim 2, except it depends from parent base claim 10; therefore, it is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 using LI and/or KUESTERS, as applied in claim 2.
Claim 12 has substantially similar limitations as recited in claim 3, except it depends from parent base claim 10; therefore, it is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 using LI and/or KUESTERS, as applied in claim 3.
Claim 13 has substantially similar limitations as recited in claim 4, except it depends (indirectly) from parent base claim 10; therefore, it is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 using LI and/or KUESTERS, as applied in claim 4.
Claim 14 has substantially similar limitations as recited in claim 5, except it depends from parent base claim 10; therefore, it is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 using LI and/or KUESTERS, as applied in claim 5.
Claim 15 has substantially similar limitations as recited in claim 6, except it depends (indirectly) from parent base claim 10; therefore, it is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 using LI and/or KUESTERS, as applied in claim 6.
Regarding claim 16, LI discloses a method, comprising: collecting data from at least one of job parameters to be completed in a wireline operation and a job design to be optimized for the wireline operation (Examiner notes that “at least one of job parameters … and a job design” is being interpreted as “at least one of job parameters … and at least one of a job design …”; LI teaches as new information is collected from tool string processes, the information can be added to the set of training data, Para. [0061] of LI; See also data may be transferred before or after completion of such operations, such as, for example, after the tool string 125 has been removed to the surface 105 … data is transferred within an appropriate time frame commensurate with the operations or processes being performed with well system 100, Para. [0029] of LI; [operations/processes completed in a wireline/tool string process are interpreted as corresponding to job completed in a wireline operation]; See also analyzes data during, before, and after one or more operations (e.g., drilling, completion, workover, and otherwise) performed by well system 100, Para. [0030] of LI; Regarding job design, see citation to Paras. [0026] & [0045] of LI immediately below; See also FIGS. 1-7 of LI), wherein the job design comprises a use of at least one of: a first set of equipment comprising a toolstring and a first cable; or a second set of equipment comprising the toolstring and a second cable different than the first cable (tool string parameters can comprise information related to the tools within a tool string, including … the types of tools and other components arranged in the tool string, what order the tools and other components are arranged in the tool string, the type of connection between the tools and other components of the tool string, tool, and component weights, whether the tool string is comprised entirely of tubing and tools or whether the string is of the type deployed on line (e.g., wireline, slickline, e-line or other) and, if on line, the characteristics of the line such as the type of line, voltages, capacities, and the like, and other information, Paras. [0026] & [0045] of LI; [wireline, slickline and e-line are different types of strings deployed on the line, which is interpreted as corresponding to different types of cables in this context]); transmitting the data to a hybrid model for processing (as new information is collected from tool string processes, the information can be added to the set of training data … the tool string model can then be re-trained using the data collected over time to provide for an improved model, Para. [0061] of LI; See also data is transferred within an appropriate time frame commensurate with the operations or processes being performed with well system 100, Para. [0029] of LI; See also server system receives and transmits, Para. [0032] of LI, and includes the modeling system 185, Para. [0034] & FIG. 1 of LI; [transfer is interpreted as corresponding to transmit in view of the server/computer/wireline context]); processing the data with the hybrid model (desired set of inputs such as a definition of the tool string process and constraints or conditions for the tool string process can be provided to the trained model, and one or more atoms can be identified as the output to represent the closest result (e.g., improved or optimized result) for obtaining the input parameters … the inputs used with the trained model can comprise one or more constraints or requirements for a particular tool string process … the inputs to the model can comprise any of the constraints or requirements as contained in the history store 235 … for example, the inputs to the tool design model can comprise various parameters such as sampling rate thresholds, type of samples (e.g., single-phase samples, multi-phase samples, etc.), contamination level threshold(s), pressure testing thresholds, pressure gradients, mobility testing thresholds, type of mobility tests (e.g., steady-state, transient, etc.), fracture testing parameters, injection testing parameters, wireline testing parameters, timing for reaching a desired tool string process result, costs associated with each tool string process result, safety procedures or requirements, and the like, Para. [0065] of LI) producing results, wherein the results include: an optimized job design for the wireline operation (an output of the trained model can define a tool string design, operating parameters, and/or tool string design parameters for the tool string design, Para. [0067] of LI; See also the tool string design can comprise one or more sensors or test apparatuses that can be configured in a specific order and conveyed into a wellbore … once in the wellbore, the testing procedures can be used at one or more depths to perform the tool string process, Para. [0068] of LI).
Although LI discloses outputting definitions of tool string designs (i.e., the results discussed above) (Para. [0019] of LI) and I/O devices include printers, video monitors, electronic displays (Para. [0095] of LI), LI does not appear to explicitly disclose: the results include a ranking of factors of the optimized job design, the factors including a similarity to a previous job and a cost; outputting a ranking chart comprising a ranked list of plans of the optimized job design, the ranked list of plans including: a first plan comprising the first set of equipment and a first associated cost; and a second plan comprising the second set of equipment and a second associated cost; and at least one of displaying the ranking chart, printing the ranking chart, or saving the ranking chart to a non-volatile memory.
KUESTERS, however, is in the field of hydrocarbon exploration and production (Para. [0003] of KUESTERS) and teaches the results include a ranking of factors of the optimized job design, the factors including a similarity to a previous job and a cost; outputting a ranking chart comprising a ranked list of plans of the optimized job design (display the top ranked tripping scenarios including details of the scenarios, such as the next time to trip, time of next BOP test, the total cost of the section, and the total time for the section, Para. [0103] of KUESTERS; [in Applicant’s specification, at Para. [0031], a type of job plan is for wireline operations (interpreted as drilling operations), and, at Para. [0032], the ranked order of jobs includes an example variable of tool string configuration]; [thus, Examiner’s understanding the is that the claimed job plan for drilling/wireline was, at its most basic, the type of equipment and cost. See also Applicant’s FIG. 4, which shows a ranked list of (two) job plans that simply include equipment and cost]; [In KUESTERS, the top ranked tripping scenarios are displayed, which includes drillstring (equipment) configurations. Examiner’s interpretation is that a drillstring is a toolstring, and two ranked drillstring scenarios (with associated cost) corresponds to FIG. 4’s example of toolstring plan 1 and toolstring plan 2. That is, the type of toolstring/drillstring used is the plan (and each cost different amounts)]), the ranked list of plans including: a first plan comprising the first set of equipment and a first associated cost; and a second plan comprising the second set of equipment and a second associated cost (for each possible number of bits and drill bit types, the bit trip calculator 128 can simulate different bit tripping scenarios, Para. [0097] of KUESTERS; See also the bit trip calculator simulates scenarios with 1 bit and scenarios with 2 bits, Para. [0098] of KUESTERS; [each scenario includes a number of drill bits and a type of drill bit(s), which are “utilized to drill a well to extract resources from the earth” (Para. [0005] of KUESTERS) and are interpreted as corresponding to a set of equipment]; Regarding cost(s), see also the bit trip calculator 128 can also display the top ranked tripping scenarios including details of the scenarios, such as the next time to trip, time of next BOP test, the total cost of the section, and the total time for the section, Para. [0103] of KUESTERS); and at least one of displaying the ranking chart, printing the ranking chart or saving the results to a non-volatile memory (display the top ranked tripping scenarios including details of the scenarios, such as the next time to trip, time of next BOP test, the total cost of the section, and the total time for the section, Para. [0103] of KUESTERS).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the wireline planning method of LI to include outputting/displaying the ranking chart as in KUESTERS for the purpose of determining the simulated scenario (i.e., proposed job/tool design) with the lowest total cost (Para. [0021] of KUESTERS).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
ELMGERBI et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0265755) teaches, at Para. [0030], “predictive model may be used as a basis for artificial intelligence, in particular for machine learning, for identifying the probable presence of a specific downhole drilling event in view of captured sensor data”.
KLUMPEN et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0209836 A1) is in the field of well planning workflow control system (Para. [0002] of KLUMPEN) and teaches at least one of displaying, printing or saving the results to a non-volatile memory (recording or displaying … the set of results on a recorder or display device, Para. [0006] of KLUMPEN).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JOHN P HOCKER whose telephone number is (571)272-0501. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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, Rehana Perveen can be reached on (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 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.
JOHN P. HOCKER
Examiner
Art Unit 2189
/JOHN P HOCKER/Examiner, Art Unit 2189
/REHANA PERVEEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2189
1 Para. [0032] recites “well curvature” but FIG. 2 indicates “total curvature”.
Prosecution Insights