DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment filed 11/14/2025; claims 1-18 are pending.
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.
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 – 3 and 5 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. (US 2020/0277848 A1) in view of Robineau et al. (US 2015/0104767 A1)
Re claim 1:
1. A method for simulating a rig operation (Johnson, [0090]; [0273], “well planning can include a simulator”) comprising:
creating a digital twin of a rig based on a rig plan for the rig (Johnson, fig. 17 shows a rig plan; [0257]; fig. 10, “Receive Well Plan 1010”; [0039]);
simulating, via the digital twin, the rig plan, wherein the rig plan comprises a list of tasks for rig components to the rig (Johnson, fig. 17 shows a list of tasks; [0148], “one or more actions performed during drilling of the directional well can be performed using information in a digital well plan”); and
simulating, via the digital twin, the rig components at a rig site (Johnson, [0308], “executable to perform various tasks (e.g., receiving information, requesting information, processing information, simulation, outputting information”; [0273], “provides for well planning can include a simulator that can simulate time, simulate depth, simulate length, etc. Such a computing system may simulate multiple variables and associated such variables with particular operations (e.g., decisions, etc.”).
Johnson teaches a system for simulating an assembling a rig (Johnson, [0282], “For example, a rig up subsystem, a casing subsystem, a cement subsystem, a drilling subsystem and a rig down subsystem are illustrated as some possible examples of subsystems that can include associated tasks”). Johnson teaches an equipment 180 can be mobile as carried by a vehicle; noting that the equipment 170 can be assembled, disassembled, transported and re-assembled, etc (Johnson, [0039]) and rig down (Johnson, [0282]).
Johnson does not explicitly disclose simulating, via the digital twin, disassembly of the rig components at a rig site, wherein simulating disassembly of the rig components comprises animating a disassembly sequence of the rig components in a graphical model representation based on the list of tasks.
Robineau teaches a computer-based method for 3D simulation of oil and gas operations. Robineau teaches
creating a digital twin of a rig based on a rig plan for disassembling the rig (Robineau, [0002]; [0035]; [0040]; [0043]);
simulating, via the digital twin, the rig plan, wherein the rig plan comprises a list of tasks for disassembly of rig components to disassemble the rig (Robineau, [0055], “3D Scene is then updated accordingly to allow the user to visualize the consequences of his actions, on equipment and on the real-time data displayed”; [0040], “disassembly procedures for the various equipments”); and
simulating, via the digital twin, disassembly of the rig components at a rig site (Robineau, [0055], “3D Scene is then updated accordingly to allow the user to visualize the consequences of his actions, on equipment and on the real-time data displayed”; [0040], “disassembly procedures for the various equipments”; [0036], “The specification files may also include parameters specified by the user as he or she configures a particular simulation using the 3D simulation system”), wherein simulating disassembly of the rig components comprises animating a disassembly sequence of the rig components in a graphical model representation based on the list of tasks (Robineau, [0011], “displaying views and/or animations related to the equipment( s) and/ or environment upon request of a user, wherein the views and/or animations are derived from the 3D models”; [0035], “a maintenance guide application (215) could be used for allowing the user to visualize the maintenance steps of assembly and disassembly for each specific equipment”; [0040], “the 3D interactive functionality 31 allows the user to visualize a customized 3D scene. The 3D operations functionality 32 allows the user to perform an action and observe the real time response (or reaction) of the system in terms of 3D display and parameter management and performance. The 3D maintenance functionality 33 allows the user to access an interactive bill of materials and the assembly or disassembly procedures for the various equipments”; fig. 3).
Therefore, in view of Robineau, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method described in Johnson, by providing simulated instructions rig disassembly taught by Robineau, since one of an ordinary skill in the art would have provide disassembly instruction instead of assembly instruction so that the rig can be move to a different location. Since a user can then interact with the equipment by selecting a specific visualization (external or internal views) and equipment specific animations. He can select the level of details displayed for the equipments to better visualize their components. The display options are external views, transparency views and cut views. Equipment specific animations can also be launched to better understand its operation (Robineau, [0047]).
Re claim 2:
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
training, via the digital twin, an individual to perform at least a portion of the disassembly sequence of the rig components at the rig site (Johnson, fig. 2, 200 – Wellsite; [0046]; Robineau, [0002]).
Re claim 3:
3. The method of claim 2, further comprising:
comparing a performance of the individual of at least the portion of the disassembly sequence to an expected performance level of the individual (Johnson, [0173]; [0198]; [0182]; Robineau, [0002]; [0035]; [0043]; [0055], “3D Scene is then updated accordingly to allow the user to visualize the consequences of his actions, on equipment and on the real-time data displayed”; [0040], “disassembly procedures for the various equipments”).
Re claim 5:
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the graphical model representation of the rig components comprises 3D models of the rig components of the rig (Johnson, [0152], “a three-dimensional model”; [0241]).
Re claim 6:
6. The method of claim 1, wherein the list of tasks includes operations performed by rig equipment, one or more individuals, or combinations thereof to disassemble the rig at the rig site (Johnson, fig. 2, 200 – Wellsite; [0046]; Robineau, [0002]; fig. 17 shows a list of tasks; [0148], “one or more actions performed during drilling of the directional well can be performed using information in a digital well plan”).
Re claim 7:
7. The method of claim 6, further comprising:
comparing an actual disassembly of the rig at the rig site to the simulated disassembly of the digital twin (Johnson, fig. 12, “Access/Generate Comparison Results for Actual Drilled Offset Well(s) with respect Well Plan(s) for Drilled Offset Well(s) 1240”);
identifying a difference between the actual disassembly and the simulated disassembly (Johnson, fig. 12, “Optionally Revise Well Plan based at least in part on Additional Comparison Results 1280”); and
modifying the rig plan based on the difference (Johnson, [0195], “comparison results for the drilled well may be classified as comparison results for planned versus actual for the drilled well … the comparison results can be utilized for generating and/or revising a well plan for another well or wells”; [0197], “a computing system to investigate one or more adjustments to a well plan that is under design or that is being utilized for drilling”; [0219]).
Re claim 8:
8. The method of claim 7, wherein the difference is an unplanned event, and wherein the modifying the rig plan comprises simulating, via the digital twin, alternative rig plan tasks to manage the unplanned event, and modifying the rig plan to include the alternative rig plan tasks (Johnson, [0247], “a decision block 1440 for deciding whether an unexpected circumstance exists based at least in part on the analyzing, an analysis block 1450 for analyzing the unexpected circumstance as to being a positive outcome or a negative outcome (e.g., or a neutral outcome) and an optional revision block 1460 for optionally revising the well plan based at least in part on the analyzing of the unexpected circumstance”; [0251]; [0252]).
Re claim 9:
9. The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining zones of the rig, wherein each zone comprises one or more of the rig components (Johnson, [0029], “presence of one or more other wells in the area (e.g., collision avoidance)”; [0089], “a framework can include components for model building and visualization. Such a model may include one or more grids. For example, a geologic region can be represented as a numerical model that includes one or more spatial grids”; [0155]; fig. 17 includes different zones: casing, cement, drilling…).
Re claim 10:
10. The method of claim 9, wherein the one or more of the rig components are associated with one or more functions of the rig (Johnson, [0029], “presence of one or more other wells in the area (e.g., collision avoidance)”; [0089], “a framework can include components for model building and visualization. Such a model may include one or more grids. For example, a geologic region can be represented as a numerical model that includes one or more spatial grids”; [0155]; fig. 17 includes different zones: casing, cement, drilling…).
Re claim 11:
11. The method of claim 10, further comprising: determining, via the digital twin, disassembly of the rig based on the zones of the rig (Robineau, [0055], “the user will have to perform one action or a sequence of actions 53 to practice the operation of the equipments”; fig. 6A, 61, 62, 63, 64).
Re claim 12:
12. The method of claim 1, further comprising: adjusting the rig plan, based on the digital twin, thereby determining primary activities, secondary operations, or combinations thereof of the rig plan that can be performed simultaneously during disassembly of the rig (Johnson, [0287], “Such activities are shown with respect to a time line, which is indicated in month-date format (e.g., 12/11, 12/12, 12/13, 12/14, 12/15). As shown in FIG. 17, various activities may be performed sequentially and/or in parallel”; Robineau, [0002]; [0035]; [0043]; [0055], “3D Scene is then updated accordingly to allow the user to visualize the consequences of his actions, on equipment and on the real-time data displayed”; [0040], “disassembly procedures for the various equipments”).
Re claim 13:
13. The method of claim 1, further comprising: adjusting the rig plan, based on the digital twin, to optimize a performance criterion, wherein the performance criterion comprises speed, efficiency, risk, or combinations thereof (Johnson, [0140], “the geological service provider may then re-evaluate the well trajectory, or one or more other aspects of the well engineering plan, and may, in some cases, and potentially within predetermined constraints, adjust the well engineering plan according to the real-life drilling parameters (e.g., based on acquired data in the field, etc.)”; [0195], “the comparison results can be utilized for generating and/or revising a well plan for another well or wells”; [0206]; [0209]; [0225], “the generation block 1340 can include generating a well plan that can reduce risks and that can increase benefits”; [0226]; [0252]).
Re claim 14:
14. The method of claim 13, further comprising:
approving, via an individual or rig controller, an approved version of the rig plan after one or more simulations of the disassembling of the rig via the digital twin (Johnson, [0031], “a well plan may be provided to a well owner, approved”; [0138], “service provider may consider various factors as to whether the well engineering plan is acceptable”; [0139]; [0140], “an accepted well engineering plan, and a formation evaluation”).
Re claim 15:
15. The method of claim 14, further comprising:
assembling the rig components at the rig site based on the approved version of the rig plan (Johnson, [0031], “a well plan may be provided to a well owner, approved”; [0138], “service provider may consider various factors as to whether the well engineering plan is acceptable”; [0139]; [0140], “an accepted well engineering plan, and a formation evaluation”).
Re claim 16 – 18:
Johnson teaches 16. The method of claim 13, further comprising: monitoring an actual performance criterion during an actual disassembly of the rig at the rig site; comparing the actual performance criterion to a simulated performance criterion of the digital twin; and identifying differences between the actual performance criterion and the simulated performance criterion. 17. The method of claim 16, further comprising: modifying the digital twin, based on the differences, to reduce errors between the actual performance criterion and the simulated performance criterion. 18. The method of claim 1, further comprising: based on the rig plan, operating at least a portion of the rig during at least a portion of the disassembly sequence of the rig components at the rig site (Johnson, fig. 12, “Access/Generate Comparison Results for Actual Drilled Offset Well(s) with respect Well Plan(s) for Drilled Offset Well(s) 1240”; fig. 12, “Optionally Revise Well Plan based at least in part on Additional Comparison Results 1280”; [0195], “comparison results for the drilled well may be classified as comparison results for planned versus actual for the drilled well … the comparison results can be utilized for generating and/or revising a well plan for another well or wells”; [0197], “a computing system to investigate one or more adjustments to a well plan that is under design or that is being utilized for drilling”; [0219]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson and Robineau as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Roberts (US 20210200916 A1).
Re claim 4:
Johnson does not explicitly 4. The method of claim 3, further comprising one of: adjusting the training of the individual to improve the performance of the individual to a performance level at or above the expected performance level; continuing the training of the individual to improve the performance of the individual to a performance level at or above the expected performance level; and stopping the training if the performance level of the individual is at or above the expected performance level.
Roberts teaches a systems and methods for automatically generating mechanical part designs and manufacturing specifications/instructions that account for geometric distortions that may occur during manufacturing or post-processing. Roberts teaches 4. The method of claim 3, further comprising one of: adjusting the training of the individual to improve the performance of the individual to a performance level at or above the expected performance level; continuing the training of the individual to improve the performance of the individual to a performance level at or above the expected performance level; and stopping the training if the performance level of the individual is at or above the expected performance level (Roberts, [0062] – [0068] [0067], “5) If the score is bad (e.g., higher than a specified threshold in some scenarios), then the simulation may be run again and again using different parameters. When a final score is obtained that shows accurate simulation (e.g., a score within or under a specified threshold), then the iterative simulation process may be halted”). Therefore, in view of Roberts, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method described in Johnson, by providing threshold score as taught by Roberts, in order to providing training to a user until the performance threshold is satisfied.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
With respect to simulating an assembling of a rig, Johnston teaches, "a graphical user interface (GUI) 1700 that includes various subsystem tasks as may be part of a well plan. For example, a rig up subsystem, ... and a rig down subsystem are illustrated .... As shown in the example of FIG. 17, the GUI 1700 includes a timeline, which can be incremented by minute, hour, day, etc. In the example of FIG. 17, the GUI 1700 can be render information as to scheduled tasks that are organized by subsystem type where a scheduled task may aim to achieve a desired state of wellsite equipment," See Johnston, paragraph [0282]. Listing a timeline and rendering information about scheduled tasks is not the same as, "animating a disassembly sequence of the rig components in a graphical model representation based on the list of tasks," as recited in independent claim 1.
With respect to simulating a disassembly of a rig, Robineau teaches, "The 3D operations functionality 32 allows the user to perform an action and observe the real time response (or reaction) of the system in terms of 3D display and parameter management and performance." See Robineau, paragraph [0040]. Performing an action and observing the response of a 3D scene is not the same as "animating a disassembly sequence of the rig components in a graphical model representation based on the list of tasks," as recited in the amended independent claim 1.
The examiner respectful submits that Robineau teaches the added limitations: … wherein simulating disassembly of the rig components comprises animating a disassembly sequence of the rig components in a graphical model representation based on the list of tasks (Robineau, [0011], “displaying views and/or animations related to the equipment( s) and/ or environment upon request of a user, wherein the views and/or animations are derived from the 3D models”; [0035], “a maintenance guide application (215) could be used for allowing the user to visualize the maintenance steps of assembly and disassembly for each specific equipment”; [0040], “the 3D interactive functionality 31 allows the user to visualize a customized 3D scene. The 3D operations functionality 32 allows the user to perform an action and observe the real time response (or reaction) of the system in terms of 3D display and parameter management and performance. The 3D maintenance functionality 33 allows the user to access an interactive bill of materials and the assembly or disassembly procedures for the various equipments”; fig. 3). Robineau explicitly disclose the user can interact with the equipment by selecting a specific visualization (external or internal views) and equipment specific animations (Robineau, [0047]).
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8- 10, filed 11/14/2025, with respect to Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1 – 18 has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACK YIP whose telephone number is (571)270-5048. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru 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, XUAN THAI can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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.
/JACK YIP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715