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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a Final Office Action of the instant application 18/078,809
(hereinafter the ‘809 application) filed on 12/9/2022, responsive to the Amendment and Arguments of 4/22/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oliver et al., Publication No. 2005/0010382, hereinafter Oliver and Cariveau et al., Publication No. 2006/0167669, hereinafter Car.
With regard to claims 1, 11, and 17, which teach “A method (computer readable storage medium storing instructions / system )for downhole cutting structure design, the method comprising: executing a first computer-simulated drilling by at least one downhole cutting structure of a wellbore into a subsurface formation”, Oliver teaches a system, method, and instructions for evaluating drilling information, in a simulation, to provide a solution to improve drilling performance. Oliver obtains drilling information from an actual drilling operation including performance of an actual drilling tool assembly (see paragraphs 16-18 and 45-46). Oliver then tests combinations of adjustments to both drill tool assembly design parameters and operation parameters.
With regard to claims 1, 11, and 17, which teach “based on an original data set that includes at least one drilling parameter and at least one downhole cutting structure attribute associated with an actual drilling of the wellbore into the subsurface formation using the at least one downhole cutting structure;” Oliver further teaches starting the simulation with drilling information including information characterizing the “geometry of the wellbore, geological information, a drilling tool assembly design, and drilling operation parameters” (see paragraph 57 and step 510 of figure 4). Oliver notes acquiring this information from offset wells (existing wells close to the proposed location). Specific geological information including formation type, rock strength, etc.
Oliver further describes a drilling simulation based upon current drilling characteristic to confirm the simulation will give a good representation of the actual drilling (see paragraph 58).
With regard to claims 1, 11, and 17, which teach “establish a base drilling performance corresponding to the actual drilling of the wellbore”
Oliver discloses simulating drilling operations using data derived from actual or offset wells and evaluating potential solutions by modifying drilling parameters and tool configurations (see paragraphs [57-59], [62], and [65]).
With regard to claims 1, 11, and 17, which teach “recursively performing the following operations using a result of a preceding computer-simulated drilling until a drilling performance threshold is satisfied,” Oliver teaches identifying possible solutions to improve drilling performance and simulating each of the possible solutions evaluating effectiveness (see paragraphs 58-59). This being accomplished through iteratively improving the solution [61]. Specifically: “further improvement or adjustment to the drilling performance many be desired after using the solution in the drilling of a well (step 560)”… “post-run drilling information may be obtained from the drilling performed with the provided solution (step 570)”.. as comparison is made with “new or the original selected drilling performance criterion (step 580)”… “If further improvement to the drilling performance is desired, the post-run drilling information may be evaluated to define additional solutions that may improve drilling performance (step 520). This iterative process of obtaining post-run drilling information and evaluating it to define additional solutions may be repeated to further improve drilling performance” (from paragraph 61).
With regard to claims 1, 11, and 17, which teach “changing at least one of the at least one drilling parameter and the at least one downhole cutting structure attribute in the original data set to create a modified data set; and executing a second computer-simulated drilling by the at least one downhole cutting structure of the wellbore into the subsurface formation based and the modified data set”, Oliver teaches iterating through the simulation process changing different characteristics / parameters to further improve the resulting improved model (see paragraphs 61-62). Oliver further provides both a bit based example of its operation (see paragraphs 66-74) and a drilling tool assembly (as a whole) based example of its operation (see paragraphs 75-78).
Oliver, however, is not specific about the simulation involving multiple iterations (without in-between in field testing) changing parameters each time building on the last iteration till a threshold is met.
Car teaches a system for optimizing drilling into an earth formation via simulation (see paragraph 18), where both structural drilling tool parameters and drilling parameters are iteratively tested and compared to determine the best combination of aspects for the drilling task, similar to that of Oliver, but further repeating the simulation with adjustments to hone in on an ideal solution without the need for actual implementation between iterations (see paragraph 137), while only stopping repeating when a threshold is met (see paragraphs 140-142).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include Car’s simulation iteration with gradual improvements in the system of Oliver as this would enable the improvement of metrics without the need for costly test drilling while providing an off ramp at a threshold.
With regard to claims 2, 12, and 18, which further teach “further comprising: receiving response data defining a response by the at least one downhole cutting structure to the actual drilling of the wellbore into the subsurface formation; and determining an approximate subsurface formation property into which the wellbore is drilled, based the response data”:
Oliver further teaches receiving response data from an actual well being drilled both initially and after using the modified drill design, and using that data to model subsurface conditions (see paragraphs 57 and 61), where this data includes information about rock structure, formation type, rock strength, etc.
With regard to claim 3, which further teaches “wherein the approximate subsurface formation property includes at least one of an unconfined compressive strength, confined compressive strength, and friction angle”:
Oliver further teaches the subsurface properties including compressive strength (see paragraph 80), unconfined compressive strength (see paragraph 69), as well as friction angle information (see paragraph 70).
With regard to claim 4, which further teaches “wherein the response data includes a downhole weight-on-bit (WOB), a downhole torque-on-bit (TOB), a downhole cutting structure rotation frequency, and at least one downhole cutting structure vibration measurement”:
Oliver further teaches data includes a weight-on-bit (WOB), torque-on-bit (TOB) measure, rotation speed, and vibration measurement (see paragraph 48).
With regard to claims 5, 13, and 19, which further teach “further comprising: determining a cutter dull severity of the at least one downhole cutting structure that is a result of the actual drilling, wherein executing the first computer-simulated drilling comprises executing the first computer-simulated drilling based on the cutter dull severity, and updating the cutter dull severity based on the modified data set to create an updated cutter dull severity, wherein executing the second computer-simulated drilling comprises executing the second computer-simulated drilling based on the updated cutter dull severity”:
Oliver further teaches evaluating dulling patterns in drill bits that have undergone actual drilling (see paragraph 66), and the causes of premature dulling. Then evaluating potential solution that avoid those causes.
Car further teaches evaluating a data set and modified data sets to minimize wear (see paragraphs 18, 80, 93, and 125). Car teaches modifying the drill bit model according to the wear model and dynamically modeling the drill bit.
With regard to claims 6, 14, and 20, which further teach “further comprising: calibrating an approximate subsurface formation property based on at least one of the cutter dull severity and the at least one drilling parameter to generate a calibrated subsurface formation property, wherein executing the first computer-simulated drilling comprises executing the first computer-simulated drilling based on the calibrated subsurface formation property, and wherein executing the second computer-simulated drilling comprises executing the second computer-simulated drilling based on the calibrated subsurface formation property”:
Oliver further teaches defining the material / material properties of different segments of the formation defining the wellbore, where several of the inhomogeneous regions are of different rock types (see paragraphs 61, 78, and 106). Executing the model against the defined earth formations (see paragraph 107).
Car further teaches using both the wear data (and wear models) and drilling parameters as input to determine subsurface formation property data (including bottom hole geometry / makeup). This updated bottomhole data is then utilized in simulations (see paragraphs 90, 93-94, and 103).
With regard to claims 7 and 15, which further teach “further comprising: determining at least one of a final downhole cutting structure design and final drilling parameters based on the first computer-simulated drilling and the second computer-simulated drilling”:
Oliver further teaches generating a final cutting structure model and ideal drilling parameter set based upon the simulations (see paragraphs 45 and 60-61).
Car further teaches a final output where both optimal bit design parameters and drilling parameters are provided to the system designer or operator for implementation (see paragraph 215 and 218).
With regard to claims 8 and 16, which further teach “further comprising: separating the wellbore into one or more sections based on drilling depths of the wellbore, wherein executing the first computer-simulated drilling comprises executing the first computer-simulated drilling for each of the one or more sections, and wherein executing the second computer-simulated drilling comprises executing the second computer-simulated drilling for each of the one or more sections”:
Oliver further teaches defining the material / material properties of different segments of the formation defining the wellbore, where several of the inhomogeneous regions are of different rock types (see paragraphs 61, 78, and 106). Executing the model against the defined earth formations (see paragraph 107).
Car further teaches modeling multilayer rock through with the drilling simulation is executed through, the multiple inhomogeneous region and transitions between regions is modeled with each region being made up of different materials each having its own characteristic stored in a library of rock data (see paragraphs 106 and 178).
With regard to claim 9, which further teaches “wherein the at least one downhole cutting structure includes at least one of a polycrystalline diamond compact (PDC) drill bit, a stand-alone reamer, and a coring bit”:
Oliver further teaches the cutting structure comprising polycrystalline diamond drill bit (see paragraphs 8), reamers (see paragraphs 4 and 50), and a bit (see paragraphs 4-9).
Car further teaches the cutting structure comprising polycrystalline diamond drill bit (see paragraph 8 and 209), reamers (see paragraph 57), and a bit (see paragraph 8).
With regard to claim 10, which further teaches “wherein the at least one downhole cutting structure attribute comprises a cutter design and a downhole cutting structure design”:
Oliver further teaches the cuter material, geometry, and placement being varied and tested to provide the optimal combination of elements for the drilling operation (see paragraph 209). Oliver further provides both a bit based example of its operation (see paragraphs 66-74) and a drilling tool assembly (as a whole) based example of its operation (see paragraphs 75-78).
Car further teaches being both the cutter design and structure being evaluated, varied, and tested to provide the optimal combination of elements for the drilling operation (see paragraph 215).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “(the) amendment makes explicit that the claimed method performs a stateful, recursive refinement of a baseline simulation derived from actual drilling performance, where each iteration depends on and is informed by the results of a prior simulation.
…
The cited combination of Oliver and Cariveau fails to teach or suggest this framework. Oliver discloses simulating drilling operations using data derived from actual or offset wells and evaluating potential solutions by modifying drilling parameters and tool configurations¹. However, Oliver evaluates independent candidate solutions and does not disclose recursively modifying a simulation based on the result of a prior simulation, nor establishing a baseline simulation that is iteratively updated, as recited in claim 1 (as amended). Cariveau teaches iterative simulation to improve drilling performance and repeating simulations until a threshold is met², but similarly does not disclose that each iteration is derived from or dependent upon prior simulated results, or that the simulation is anchored to a baseline representing actual drilling performance, as recited in claim 1 (as amended). Rather, the references collectively describe comparative evaluation of alternative configurations, not a recursive, result-driven update of a baseline simulation as now claimed. Claims 11 and 17 have been amended to recite similar features. Accordingly, Applicant's representative submits claims 1-20 are patentable over the cited art.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully submits that Applicant admits that “Oliver discloses simulating drilling operations using data derived from actual or offset wells and evaluating potential solutions by modifying drilling parameters and tool configurations” (see page 10 of the response and Oliver at [57-59, 62, and 65]), but argue against any recursive modifying the simulation. Oliver does however present a recursive process of using actual previously measured real life drill characteristics (drill life / performance) to identify a potential solution [57-58], then testing the solutions [59], checking them against improvement criterion [60], and iteratively improving the solution [61]. Specifically:
“further improvement or adjustment to the drilling performance many be desired after using the solution in the drilling of a well (step 560)”… “post-run drilling information may be obtained from the drilling performed with the provided solution (step 570)”.. as comparison is made with “new or the original selected drilling performance criterion (step 580)”… “If further improvement to the drilling performance is desired, the post-run drilling information may be evaluated to define additional solutions that may improve drilling performance (step 520). This iterative process of obtaining post-run drilling information and evaluating it to define additional solutions may be repeated to further improve drilling performance” (from paragraph 61).
Clearly this shows recursively evaluating prior results and using that data to further develop better solutions. Cariveau is further relied upon for recursive solutions completely within the realm of simulation (supra).
Conclusion
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 DENNIS G BONSHOCK whose telephone number is (571)272-4047. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:15 - 4:45.
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, Alexander Kosowski can be reached at (571) 272-3744. 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.
/DENNIS G BONSHOCK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Prosecution Insights