DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 have been 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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filled application is acknowledged under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) to U.S. Provisional Application 63/266,040 filed on 27 December 2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 16 September 2025, 28 August 2025, 6 May 2025, 14 February 2025, and 7 July 2023 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings received on 21 December 2022 are accepted.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending U.S. Patent Application No. 2023/0206779 A1 in view of U.S. Patent Application No. US 2020/0277848 A1, hereafter J, as of the amended claims filed 3/10/26. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of the instant claim are found in the parent application as noted above. See table below with bold for emphasis.
Claim 1 of instant application
Claim 1 of U.S. Patent Application No. 2023/0206779 A1
A method for simulating a rig operation comprising:
A method for simulating a rig operation comprising:
creating a digital twin of a rig based on a rig plan for disassembling a rig;
creating a digital twin of a rig, wherein the digital twin comprises three-dimensional models of rig equipment, including at least support equipment for transporting the rig equipment
simulating, via the digital twin, [[the]]a rig plan for disassembling and transporting the rig equipment, wherein the rig plan comprises a list of tasks for disassembly and transport of the rig
simulating, via the digital twin, the rig plan, wherein the rig plan comprises a list of tasks for assembly of rig components to assemble the rig;
simulating, via the digital twin, [[the]]a rig plan for disassembling and transporting the rig equipment, wherein the rig plan comprises a list of tasks for disassembly and transport of the rig
simulating, via the digital twin, disassembly of the rig components at a rig site;
wherein simulating disassembly and transport of the rig equipment comprises animating the list of tasks in a graphical model representation
and simulating, via the digital twin, configuring of one or more of the rig components to be transported by one or more conveyance vehicles according to a sequence, wherein the sequence is based on the rig plan.
simulating, via the digital twin, [[the]]a rig plan for disassembling and transporting the rig equipment, wherein the rig plan comprises a list of tasks for disassembly and transport of the rig
evaluating, via the digital twin, the rig plan for disassembly and transport of the rig equipment relative to an operational parameter;
and adjusting the rig plan for disassembly and transport of the rig equipment based on the operational parameter.
Copending U.S. Patent Application No. 2023/0206779 A1 does not disclose simulating via the digital twin, the rig plans, wherein the rig plans comprise a list of tasks for assembly of rig components to assemble the rig.
However, J discloses simulating via the digital twin, the rig plans, wherein the rig plans comprise a list of tasks for assembly of rig components to assemble the rig.
J [0039] “As shown in FIG. 1, the equipment 180 can be mobile as carried by a vehicle; noting that the equipment 170 can be assembled, disassembled, transported and re-assembled, etc.”
J [0282]: “FIG. 17 shows an example of 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, 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.”
The copending application and J are analogous to the claimed invention as they both pertain to simulating a rig system.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of J with A because one with ordinary skill in the art understands that for a rig to be disassembled (rig down), it must have first been assembled (rig up). Conversely, if the rig components are to be transported, the rig must be assembled in order for the rig to function again (See J [0282]).
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-20 are directed to a method, which is a process, which is a statutory category of invention. Claims 1 and 11 are independent claims, which both claims are directed to a method. Therefore, claims 1-20 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claims 1 and 11 recite the abstract idea of simulating a rig operation, 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 limitations “creating a digital twin of a rig based on a rig plan for disassembling a rig” of claim 1 and “creating a digital twin of a rig based on a rig plan for the rig” of claim 11 cover mental process including evaluating a dataset and generating a model, which is just a logical result of the evaluation process. Additionally, the limitation of “simulating, via the digital twin, the rig plan, wherein the rig plan comprises a list of tasks for assembly of rig components to assemble the rig;” of claim 1 and “simulating, via the digital twin, the rig plan, wherein the rig plan comprises a list of tasks for moving rig components of the rig;” of claim 11 cover mental process including further defining the rig plan and following instructions that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. Additionally, the limitation of “simulating, via the digital twin, configuring of one or more of the rig components to be transported by one or more conveyance vehicles according to a sequence, wherein the sequence is based on the rig plan” of claim 1 covers mental process including listing the rig components to be transported according to the rig plan.
Dependent claims 2-10 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 2A, Prong 2: Claims 1-20 lack recitation of additional limitations which would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Claims 1 and 11 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations of “simulating, via the digital twin, disassembly of the rig components at a rig site;” of claim 1 and “simulating, via the digital twin, moving the rig components from a first location to a second location” of claim 11 are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities to one with ordinary skill in the art. With respect to the Berkheimer court case, below can be found evidence provided by the Examiner that provides, based on 2B analysis, how the claims are viewed as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity for consistency with the Federal Circuit’s decision in Berkheimer and MPEP 2106.5(d). The acts of disassembling a rig and moving rig components are well-understood, routine, and conventional. For example, Applicant’s specification recites the action of assembling and disassembling based on rig plan and mention transporting the rig components using a vehicle. The Applicant has not proven the acts of disassembling a rig and moving rig components is anything other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional because the Applicant is relying on a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filling to understand the process of assembling and disassembling a rig and moving the rig components. In particular, the acts of disassembling a rig and moving rig components are merely recited in the specification, such as in paragraphs [0003 and 0005], and thus the recitation of these elements are determined to be nothing more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Therefore, the acts of disassembling a rig and moving rig components are determined to be well-understood, routine and conventional. Therefore, as shown by Applicant’s own disclosure, the 2B features of the invention are “well-understood, routine and conventional.” 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, 9, 13 and 19 are directed to further making an observation of the efficiency of the sequence and adjusting based on those observations, 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 efficiency of the sequence, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claims 4, 8, 10, 15, 18 and 20 are directed to further defining the transportation process, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to being well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Dependent claims 5-7 and 16-17 are directed to further defining the simulation variables, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes” or alternatively “Mathematical Concepts.”
Accordingly, claims 1-20 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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application US 2020/0277848 A1, hereafter J.
Regarding Claim 1: J discloses a method for simulating a rig operation comprising:
creating a digital twin of a rig based on a rig plan for disassembling a rig;
J [0090]: "As an example, the model simulation layer may provide domain objects, act as a data source, provide for rendering and provide for various user interfaces. Rendering may provide a graphical environment in which applications can display their data while the user interfaces may provide a common look and feel for application user interface components. A user interface can be a graphical user interface (GUI) that is rendered to a display of a computing device or system. A GUI can be rendered based in part on execution of instructions by a processor or processors. As an example, a digital well plan can include instructions that can be utilized to render a GUI or GUIs.”
J [0282]: “FIG. 17 shows an example of 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, 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.” Examiner notes that the well plan includes the rig up and rig down sequences which incorporates the rig plan as a subset of the well plan.
simulating, via the digital twin, the rig plan, wherein the rig plan comprises a list of tasks for assembly of rig components to assemble the rig;
J [0090]: "As an example, the model simulation layer may provide domain objects, act as a data source, provide for rendering and provide for various user interfaces. Rendering may provide a graphical environment in which applications can display their data while the user interfaces may provide a common look and feel for application user interface components. A user interface can be a graphical user interface (GUI) that is rendered to a display of a computing device or system. A GUI can be rendered based in part on execution of instructions by a processor or processors. As an example, a digital well plan can include instructions that can be utilized to render a GUI or GUIs.”
J [0039] “As shown in FIG. 1, the equipment 180 can be mobile as carried by a vehicle; noting that the equipment 170 can be assembled, disassembled, transported and re-assembled, etc.”
J [0282]: “FIG. 17 shows an example of 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, 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.”
simulating, via the digital twin, disassembly of the rig components at a rig site; and simulating, via the digital twin;
J [0090]: "As an example, the model simulation layer may provide domain objects, act as a data source, provide for rendering and provide for various user interfaces. Rendering may provide a graphical environment in which applications can display their data while the user interfaces may provide a common look and feel for application user interface components. A user interface can be a graphical user interface (GUI) that is rendered to a display of a computing device or system. A GUI can be rendered based in part on execution of instructions by a processor or processors. As an example, a digital well plan can include instructions that can be utilized to render a GUI or GUIs.”
J [0039] “As shown in FIG. 1, the equipment 180 can be mobile as carried by a vehicle; noting that the equipment 170 can be assembled, disassembled, transported and re-assembled, etc.”
J [0282]: “FIG. 17 shows an example of 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, 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.”
and simulating, via the digital twin, configuring of one or more of the rig components to be transported by one or more conveyance vehicles according to a sequence, wherein the sequence is based on the rig plan.
J [0090]: "As an example, the model simulation layer may provide domain objects, act as a data source, provide for rendering and provide for various user interfaces. Rendering may provide a graphical environment in which applications can display their data while the user interfaces may provide a common look and feel for application user interface components. A user interface can be a graphical user interface (GUI) that is rendered to a display of a computing device or system. A GUI can be rendered based in part on execution of instructions by a processor or processors. As an example, a digital well plan can include instructions that can be utilized to render a GUI or GUIs.”
J [0039-0040] “As shown in FIG. 1, the equipment 180 can be mobile as carried by a vehicle; noting that the equipment 170 can be assembled, disassembled, transported and re-assembled, etc. … The equipment 170 includes a platform 171, a derrick 172, a crown block 173, a line 174, a traveling block assembly 175, drawworks 176 and a landing 177 (e.g., a monkeyboard).”
J [0290]: “In the example of FIG. 18, the GUI 1800 may be an operational dashboard where the state of one or more pieces of equipment, operations, etc. may be rendered visually, for example, via graphics and/or numbers.”
Regarding Claim 2: J discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: identifying an efficiency of the sequence; and adjusting the rig plan to improve the efficiency of the sequence.
J [0287]: “As shown in FIG. 17, a well plan can include information as to various activities, some of which may be classified as Sub-Activities as shown. Examples in FIG. 17 include activities such as rig up, casing, cement, drilling, and rig down. 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.” Examiner notes that “rig down” is a term of the art, which indicates disassembly of the rig.
J [0035] “Where a model is trained based on outcomes (e.g., and underlying factors), such a model may be utilized for purposes of well plan generation, revision, etc., where output may aim to increase likelihood of one or more positive outcomes and/or decrease likelihood of one or more negative outcomes.”
J [0282]: “FIG. 17 shows an example of 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, 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.” Examiner notes that the well plan includes the rig up and rig down sequences which incorporates the rig plan as a subset of the well plan.
Regarding Claim 3: J discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the efficiency of the sequence comprises one of:
a disassembly sequence of the rig components;
J [0287]: “As shown in FIG. 17, a well plan can include information as to various activities, some of which may be classified as Sub-Activities as shown. Examples in FIG. 17 include activities such as rig up, casing, cement, drilling, and rig down. 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,” Examiner notes that “rig down” is a term of the art, which indicates disassembly of the rig.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 4-5 and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Johnson et al. (US 2020/0277848 A1), hereafter J in view of NPL: OPTIMIZATION OF ANCILLARY SYSTEM MOBILIZATION FOR DRILLING RIGS WITH ADVANCED TRANSPORT CAPABILITIES (Carpenter, 2019), hereafter C.
Regarding Claim 4: J discloses the method of claim 1 … transporting the rig components … via the one or more conveyance vehicles.
J [0039] “As shown in FIG. 1, the equipment 180 can be mobile as carried by a vehicle; noting that the equipment 170 can be assembled, disassembled, transported and re-assembled, etc.”
J doesn’t disclose simulating, via the digital twin… for the rig site to a new rig site.
However, C discloses simulating, via the digital twin… for the rig site to a new rig site.
C [ Pages 33-34: Section 3.1]: “In the third phase of the project, the resulting pairwise comparison was then used to develop a preliminary bill of materials (B.O.M.) comprised of major ancillary components and subsequent 34 performance specifications. These components were then modeled using Creo Parametric software and unitized into prototype assemblies that encompassed the greater whole of the DH-350 ancillary system. The resulting ancillary system assembly and sub-system trailers were then optimized to minimize the overall footprint of the rig on location, as well as streamline the mobilization sequence for transport between locations. With the full assembly configured, the layout was assessed for total reduction in spatial footprint as well as for overall reduction in load count, and the results reported.”
J and C are analogous because they both pertain to the field of drilling rigs.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of C with J because the simulation of transporting the rig components between locations would allow for a much more streamlined transportation process for the overall rig plan (See C [ Pages 33-34: Section 3.1]).
Regarding Claim 5: J in view of C disclose the method of claim 4.
J doesn’t disclose wherein the digital twin further comprises simulating one of: a weight of each of the one or more conveyance vehicles while transporting the rig components;
However, C discloses wherein the digital twin further comprises simulating one of: a weight of each of the one or more conveyance vehicles while transporting the rig components;
C [Page 130: Section 4.3.6] “In total, the combined weight of the mud pump, prime mover, supercharger, and the trailer is an estimated 64,500 lbs per unit.”
C [Page 162: Section 4.4.4] “Using the maximum transport distance of 53.1 miles, transport fees and subsequent trucking costs were estimated for 1,500 HP rigs actively drilling within the region. Given the estimated axle configuration and subsequent weights for each of the ancillary system loads, loads contained within the conventional rig ancillary system were expected to require state issued permits for all loads due to exceeding gross vehicle weight maximums of 80 kips. The resulting estimates for fee schedules and trucking costs are tabulated in Table XX.”
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of C with J because the simulation of transporting the rig components between locations would allow for a much more streamlined transportation process for the overall rig plan (See C [ Pages 33-34: Section 3.1]).
Regarding Claim 11: J discloses a method for simulating and performing a rig operation comprising:
creating a digital twin of a rig based on a rig plan for based on a rig plan for the ring;
J [0090]: "As an example, the model simulation layer may provide domain objects, act as a data source, provide for rendering and provide for various user interfaces. Rendering may provide a graphical environment in which applications can display their data while the user interfaces may provide a common look and feel for application user interface components. A user interface can be a graphical user interface (GUI) that is rendered to a display of a computing device or system. A GUI can be rendered based in part on execution of instructions by a processor or processors. As an example, a digital well plan can include instructions that can be utilized to render a GUI or GUIs.”
J doesn’t disclose simulating, via the digital twin, the rig plan, wherein the rig plan comprises a list of tasks for moving rig components of the rig; and simulating, via the digital twin, moving the rig components from a first location to a second location.
However, C discloses simulating, via the digital twin, the rig plan, wherein the rig plan comprises a list of tasks for moving rig components of the rig;
C [ Pages 33-34: Section 3.1]: “These components were then modeled using Creo Parametric software and unitized into prototype assemblies that encompassed the greater whole of the DH-350 ancillary system. The resulting ancillary system assembly and sub-system trailers were then optimized to minimize the overall footprint of the rig on location, as well as streamline the mobilization sequence for transport between locations. With the full assembly configured, the layout was assessed for total reduction in spatial footprint as well as for overall reduction in load count, and the results reported.”
and simulating, via the digital twin, moving the rig components from a first location to a second location.
C [ Pages 33-34: Section 3.1]: “These components were then modeled using Creo Parametric software and unitized into prototype assemblies that encompassed the greater whole of the DH-350 ancillary system. The resulting ancillary system assembly and sub-system trailers were then optimized to minimize the overall footprint of the rig on location, as well as streamline the mobilization sequence for transport between locations. With the full assembly configured, the layout was assessed for total reduction in spatial footprint as well as for overall reduction in load count, and the results reported.”
J and C are analogous because they both pertain to the field of drilling rigs.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of C with J because the simulation of transporting the rig components between locations would allow for a much more streamlined transportation process for the overall rig plan (See C [ Pages 33-34: Section 3.1]).
Regarding Claim 12: J in view of C disclose the method of claim 11, further comprising: simulating, via the digital twin, configuring of one or more of the rig components to be transported by one or more conveyance vehicles according to a sequence, wherein the sequence is based on the rig plan.
J [0039-0040] “As shown in FIG. 1, the equipment 180 can be mobile as carried by a vehicle; noting that the equipment 170 can be assembled, disassembled, transported and re-assembled, etc. … The equipment 170 includes a platform 171, a derrick 172, a crown block 173, a line 174, a traveling block assembly 175, drawworks 176 and a landing 177 (e.g., a monkeyboard).”
J [0290]: “In the example of FIG. 18, the GUI 1800 may be an operational dashboard where the state of one or more pieces of equipment, operations, etc. may be rendered visually, for example, via graphics and/or numbers.”
Regarding Claim 13: J in view of C disclose the method of claim 12, further comprising: identifying an efficiency of the sequence; and adjusting the rig plan to improve the efficiency of the sequence.
J [0287]: “As shown in FIG. 17, a well plan can include information as to various activities, some of which may be classified as Sub-Activities as shown. Examples in FIG. 17 include activities such as rig up, casing, cement, drilling, and rig down. 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.”
J [0035] “Where a model is trained based on outcomes (e.g., and underlying factors), such a model may be utilized for purposes of well plan generation, revision, etc., where output may aim to increase likelihood of one or more positive outcomes and/or decrease likelihood of one or more negative outcomes.”
Regarding Claim 14: J in view of C disclose the method of claim 13, wherein the efficiency of the sequence comprises one of: a disassembly sequence of the rig components;
J [0287]: “As shown in FIG. 17, a well plan can include information as to various activities, some of which may be classified as Sub-Activities as shown. Examples in FIG. 17 include activities such as rig up, casing, cement, drilling, and rig down. 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.”
Regarding Claim 15: J in view of C disclose the method of claim 12.
J doesn’t disclose simulating, via the digital twin, transporting the rig components for a rig site to a new rig site via the one or more conveyance vehicles.
However, C discloses simulating, via the digital twin, transporting the rig components for a rig site to a new rig site via the one or more conveyance vehicles.
C [ Pages 33-34: Section 3.1]: “In the third phase of the project, the resulting pairwise comparison was then used to develop a preliminary bill of materials (B.O.M.) comprised of major ancillary components and subsequent 34 performance specifications. These components were then modeled using Creo Parametric software and unitized into prototype assemblies that encompassed the greater whole of the DH-350 ancillary system. The resulting ancillary system assembly and sub-system trailers were then optimized to minimize the overall footprint of the rig on location, as well as streamline the mobilization sequence for transport between locations. With the full assembly configured, the layout was assessed for total reduction in spatial footprint as well as for overall reduction in load count, and the results reported.”
J and C are analogous because they both pertain to the field of drilling rigs.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of C with J because the simulation of transporting the rig components between locations would allow for a much more streamlined transportation process for the overall rig plan (See C [ Pages 33-34: Section 3.1]).
Regarding Claim 16: J in view of C disclose the method of claim 15.
J doesn’t disclose wherein the digital twin further comprises simulating one of: a weight of each of the one or more conveyance vehicles while transporting the rig components;
However, C discloses wherein the digital twin further comprises simulating one of: a weight of each of the one or more conveyance vehicles while transporting the rig components;
C [Page 130: Section 4.3.6] “In total, the combined weight of the mud pump, prime mover, supercharger, and the trailer is an estimated 64,500 lbs per unit.”
C [Page 162: Section 4.4.4] “Using the maximum transport distance of 53.1 miles, transport fees and subsequent trucking costs were estimated for 1,500 HP rigs actively drilling within the region. Given the estimated axle configuration and subsequent weights for each of the ancillary system loads, loads contained within the conventional rig ancillary system were expected to require state issued permits for all loads due to exceeding gross vehicle weight maximums of 80 kips. The resulting estimates for fee schedules and trucking costs are tabulated in Table XX.”
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of C with J because the simulation of transporting the rig components between locations would allow for a much more streamlined transportation process for the overall rig plan (See C [ Pages 33-34: Section 3.1]).
Claims 6-10 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Johnson et al. (US 2020/0277848 A1), hereafter J in view of NPL: OPTIMIZATION OF ANCILLARY SYSTEM MOBILIZATION FOR DRILLING RIGS WITH ADVANCED TRANSPORT CAPABILITIES (Carpenter, 2019), hereafter C further in view of NPL: Heavy Truck Modeling for Fuel Consumption Simulations and Measurements (Sandberg, 2001), hereafter S.
Regarding Claim 6: J in view of C disclose the method of claim 4 … the one or more conveyance vehicles.
J and C do not disclose predicting an estimated fuel consumption for each one of the one or more conveyance vehicles.
However, S discloses predicting an estimated fuel consumption for each one of the one or more conveyance vehicles.
S [Page 96: Section 7.3.7] “The overall purpose with the simulations is to derive values of fuel consumption. To compare Simulations with measured values one must first decide which reference for consumed fuel from Table 7.6 to use, cans or control unit . As discussed before, the most correct value of fuel consumption is derived using the cans.”
S [Page 97: Tables 7.9 and 7.10] display measured and simulated results of fuel consumption.
S is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to the subject of simulating the transportation of components and analyzing the fuel consumption.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of S with J and C because the estimation of fuel consumption through simulations would optimize the selection of components in the powertrain (gearbox, central gear ration, tire dimension) for the conveyance vehicle to ensure the vehicle is capable of transporting heavy objects while maintaining fuel efficiency (See S [ Page 13: Introduction]).
Regarding Claim 7: J in view of C disclose the method of claim 4 … the one or more conveyance vehicles.
J and C do not disclose predicting an estimated fuel consumption of the one or more conveyance vehicles.
However, S discloses predicting an estimated fuel consumption of the one or more conveyance vehicles.
S [Page 96: Section 7.3.7] “The overall purpose with the simulations is to derive values of fuel consumption. To compare Simulations with measured values one must first decide which reference for consumed fuel from Table 7.6 to use, cans or control unit . As discussed before, the most correct value of fuel consumption is derived using the cans.”
S [Page 97: Tables 7.9 and 7.10] display measured and simulated results of fuel consumption.
S is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to the subject of simulating the transportation of components and analyzing the fuel consumption.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of S with J and C because the estimation of fuel consumption through simulations would optimize the selection of components in the powertrain (gearbox, central gear ration, tire dimension) for the conveyance vehicle to ensure the vehicle is capable of transporting heavy objects while maintaining fuel efficiency (See S [ Page 13: Introduction]).
Regarding Claim 8: J in view of C further in view of S disclose the method of claim 7, further comprising: transporting the rig components to the new rig site according to the rig plan.
J and C do not disclose comparing an actual fuel consumption to the estimated fuel consumption.
However, S discloses comparing an actual fuel consumption to the estimated fuel consumption.
S [Page 96: Section 7.3.7] “The overall purpose with the simulations is to derive values of fuel consumption. To compare Simulations with measured values one must first decide which reference for consumed fuel from Table 7.6 to use, cans or control unit . As discussed before, the most correct value of fuel consumption is derived using the cans.”
S [Page 97: Tables 7.9 and 7.10] display measured and simulated results of fuel consumption.
S is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to the subject of simulating the transportation of components and analyzing the fuel consumption.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of S with J and C because the estimation of fuel consumption through simulations would optimize the selection of components in the powertrain (gearbox, central gear ration, tire dimension) for the conveyance vehicle to ensure the vehicle is capable of transporting heavy objects while maintaining fuel efficiency (See S [ Page 13: Introduction]).
Regarding Claim 9: J in view of C further in view of S disclose the method of claim 8, further comprising: adjusting the rig plan.
J [0035] “Where a model is trained based on outcomes (e.g., and underlying factors), such a model may be utilized for purposes of well plan generation, revision, etc., where output may aim to increase likelihood of one or more positive outcomes and/or decrease likelihood of one or more negative outcomes.”
J and C do not disclose differences between the estimated fuel consumption and the actual fuel consumption.
However, S discloses differences between the estimated fuel consumption and the actual fuel consumption.
S [Page 96: Section 7.3.7] “The overall purpose with the simulations is to derive values of fuel consumption. To compare Simulations with measured values one must first decide which reference for consumed fuel from Table 7.6 to use, cans or control unit . As discussed before, the most correct value of fuel consumption is derived using the cans.”
S [Page 97: Tables 7.9 and 7.10] display measured and simulated results of fuel consumption.
S is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to the subject of simulating the transportation of components and analyzing the fuel consumption.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of S with J and C because the estimation of fuel consumption through simulations would optimize the selection of components in the powertrain (gearbox, central gear ration, tire dimension) for the conveyance vehicle to ensure the vehicle is capable of transporting heavy objects while maintaining fuel efficiency (See S [ Page 13: Introduction]).
Regarding Claim 10: J in view of C further in view of S disclose the method of claim 9, further comprising: transporting the rig from the new rig site to another rig site based on the adjusted rig plan.
J [0035] “Where a model is trained based on outcomes (e.g., and underlying factors), such a model may be utilized for purposes of well plan generation, revision, etc., where output may aim to increase likelihood of one or more positive outcomes and/or decrease likelihood of one or more negative outcomes.”
J [0039-0040] “As shown in FIG. 1, the equipment 180 can be mobile as carried by a vehicle; noting that the equipment 170 can be assembled, disassembled, transported and re-assembled, etc.
C [ Pages 33-34: Section 3.1]: “The resulting ancillary system assembly and sub-system trailers were then optimized to minimize the overall footprint of the rig on location, as well as streamline the mobilization sequence for transport between locations.
Regarding Claim 17: J in view of C disclose the method of claim 15 … the one or more conveyance vehicles.
J and C do not disclose predicting an estimated fuel consumption of the one or more conveyance vehicles.
However, S discloses predicting an estimated fuel consumption of the one or more conveyance vehicles.
S [Page 96: Section 7.3.7] “The overall purpose with the simulations is to derive values of fuel consumption. To compare Simulations with measured values one must first decide which reference for consumed fuel from Table 7.6 to use, cans or control unit . As discussed before, the most correct value of fuel consumption is derived using the cans.”
S [Page 97: Tables 7.9 and 7.10] display measured and simulated results of fuel consumption.
S is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to the subject of simulating the transportation of components and analyzing the fuel consumption.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of S with J and C because the estimation of fuel consumption through simulations would optimize the selection of components in the powertrain (gearbox, central gear ration, tire dimension) for the conveyance vehicle to ensure the vehicle is capable of transporting heavy objects while maintaining fuel efficiency (See S [ Page 13: Introduction]).
Regarding Claim 18: J in view of C further in view of S disclose the method of claim 17, further comprising: transporting the rig components to the new rig site according to the rig plan.
J and C do not disclose comparing an actual fuel consumption to the estimated fuel consumption.
However, S discloses comparing an actual fuel consumption to the estimated fuel consumption.
S [Page 96: Section 7.3.7] “The overall purpose with the simulations is to derive values of fuel consumption. To compare Simulations with measured values one must first decide which reference for consumed fuel from Table 7.6 to use, cans or control unit . As discussed before, the most correct value of fuel consumption is derived using the cans.”
S [Page 97: Tables 7.9 and 7.10] display measured and simulated results of fuel consumption.
S is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to the subject of simulating the transportation of components and analyzing the fuel consumption.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of S with J and C because the estimation of fuel consumption through simulations would optimize the selection of components in the powertrain (gearbox, central gear ration, tire dimension) for the conveyance vehicle to ensure the vehicle is capable of transporting heavy objects while maintaining fuel efficiency (See S [ Page 13: Introduction]).
Regarding Claim 19: J in view of C further in view of S disclose the method of claim 18, further comprising: adjusting the rig plan.
J [0035] “Where a model is trained based on outcomes (e.g., and underlying factors), such a model may be utilized for purposes of well plan generation, revision, etc., where output may aim to increase likelihood of one or more positive outcomes and/or decrease likelihood of one or more negative outcomes.”
J and C do not disclose differences between the estimated fuel consumption and the actual fuel consumption.
However, S discloses differences between the estimated fuel consumption and the actual fuel consumption.
S [Page 96: Section 7.3.7] “The overall purpose with the simulations is to derive values of fuel consumption. To compare Simulations with measured values one must first decide which reference for consumed fuel from Table 7.6 to use, cans or control unit . As discussed before, the most correct value of fuel consumption is derived using the cans.”
S [Page 97: Tables 7.9 and 7.10] display measured and simulated results of fuel consumption.
S is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to the subject of simulating the transportation of components and analyzing the fuel consumption.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of S with J and C because the estimation of fuel consumption through simulations would optimize the selection of components in the powertrain (gearbox, central gear ration, tire dimension) for the conveyance vehicle to ensure the vehicle is capable of transporting heavy objects while maintaining fuel efficiency (See S [ Page 13: Introduction]).
Regarding Claim 20: J in view of C further in view of S disclose the method of claim 19, further comprising: transporting the from the new rig site to another rig site based on the adjusted rig plan.
J [0035] “Where a model is trained based on outcomes (e.g., and underlying factors), such a model may be utilized for purposes of well plan generation, revision, etc., where output may aim to increase likelihood of one or more positive outcomes and/or decrease likelihood of one or more negative outcomes.”
J [0039-0040] “As shown in FIG. 1, the equipment 180 can be mobile as carried by a vehicle; noting that the equipment 170 can be assembled, disassembled, transported and re-assembled, etc.
Examiner notes that C also recites “The resulting ancillary system assembly and sub-system trailers were then optimized to minimize the overall footprint of the rig on location, as well as streamline the mobilization sequence for transport between locations.” (See C [ Pages 33-34: Section 3.1])
Conclusion
All Claims are rejected.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
U.S. Patent Application No. 2015/0104767 A1 discloses a computer-based method for 3D simulation of oil and gas operation including visualizing both assembly and disassembly of equipment.
Andrea Gómez Ramírez, Francisca Irene Soler Anguiano, “Simulation based optimization of drilling equipment logistics: a case of study”, Procedia Computer Science, Volume 217, 2023, Pages 866-875, ISSN 1877-0509, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2022.12.283. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877050922023614)
This reference discloses the use of the Agent Based Simulation (ABS) to simulate the initial proposed route of a single transportation agent must take to move the drilling equipment among the oil wells and the time it took using the first route, and simulating optimized routes and the time and number of transport units that must be employed to reduce time and costs of delivery.
Wang, Jiang & Shang, Qi & Bao, Ze. (2011). Assembly and Motion Simulation of Turntable of Drilling Rig Based on SolidWorks. Key Engineering Materials. 474-476. 2253-2257. 10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.474-476.2253.
This reference discloses the assembly and motion simulation of the turntable of a drilling rig.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Scott T. Tran whose telephone number is (571) 272-8533. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 8:00-4:00.
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://uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Renee Chavez, can be reached at (571) 270-1104. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300. Informal or draft communication, please label PROPOSED or DRAFT, can be additionally sent to the Examiner’s fax phone number (571) 272-8533.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published a applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
STT
/SCOTT THANH BINH TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2186
/RENEE D CHAVEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2186
Prosecution Insights