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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Drawings
For previously stated reasons, the 12/30/22 drawings are accepted.
Examiner’s Note - 35 USC § 101
For previously stated reasons, claims 1-20 qualify as eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 9-13, and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chanpura et al (US PgPub 20200291765) in view of Tang et al (US PgPub 20090055135).
With respect to claim 1, Chanpura et al discloses:
A computer-implemented method (figure 13 shows computer; described in paragraphs 0082-0088)
operating a measurement while drilling (MWD) tool within a tool string (paragraphs 0015-0016 state, “this disclosure describes diagnostics for a Rotary Steerable System (RSS) in some embodiments … some embodiments may be used for diagnostics of Measurement While Drilling (MWD) tools … Some embodiments include a closed-loop automated diagnostic system using SoS data analytics, and fault model-based diagnostics to assess the operational condition of a RSS …”; ) at a well site (paragraph 0016 states, “A SoS may comprise rig site surface elements, mud system, wellbore, drill pipe and bottom hole assembly (BHA) elements.”)
utilizing at least one software programmed computer processor (figure 13, reference 1301)
With respect to claim 1, Chanpura et al differs from the claimed invention in that it does not explicitly disclose:
filtering by separating binary data downloaded from the MWD tool into separate data sets
wherein the separate data sets correspond to respective components that collectively form the MWD tool string and subcomponents that collectively form the respective components
wherein the separate data sets each represent conditions indicative of the operational condition of the respective components and subcomponents of the MWD tool
selecting, for each of the separate data sets, a processing algorithm from a store of predetermined algorithms, based on characteristics of the respective data set
processing each of the separate data sets with the algorithm selected for that separate data set for tool-condition data that is associated with the operational condition of each of the respective components and subcomponents of the MWD tool
wherein the processing each of the separate data sets comprises processing at least two or more data sets such that at least a portion of the processing the at least two or more data sets overlap in time
determining, based on respective tool-condition data output by each algorithm-processed data set, whether the respective components that correspond to the respective data set meet a predetermined operational capability requirement to be operated in a subsequent run of the MWD tool
displaying a visible representation of the respective components that collectively form the MWD tool and enabling user interaction therewith for displaying details about selected components of the MWD tool, wherein the visible representation is interactive to display a visible representation of the subcomponents that collectively form the respective components upon selection of one of the respective components, and wherein the visible representation includes the associated conditions and statuses of the respective components and subcomponents
advancing the MWD tool in a wellbore based on the determination of the respective components meeting the predetermined operational capability requirement
With respect to claim 1, the following limitation(s) is/are obvious in view of the total teachings of Chanpura et al:
filtering by separating binary data downloaded from the MWD tool into separate data sets (Paragraph 0043 of Chanpura et al states, “data from different records is extracted from the field data file as different/individual datasets.” However, here, Chanpura et al does not specifically mention filtering. Paragraph 0051 states, “tiered filters are applied to diagnostic data and measurements when applicable. For example, programmable code may apply the tiered filters in which there may be multiple layers of filtering. For example, a first filter may be based on flow rate being greater than a flow threshold. A second filter may follow the first filter and may be based on tool mode such as active versus passive rectification.” Although Chanpura discloses both separate datasets and filtering, it does not necessarily disclose them together. However, the claimed limitation is obvious under a number of different interpretations, in light of broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI). One interpretation is that extracting data as different datasets (as described in paragraph 0043) is inherently a type of “filtering” operation, even if the word filtering is not used there. Another interpretation is that the filtering in paragraph 0051 inherently results in separate data sets; for example, one dataset for the first filter could be “flow rate greater than a flow threshold,” and another dataset could be “flow rate less than a flow threshold.” Or after the second filter, one dataset could be “active rectification,” and another dataset could be “passive rectification.” A third possible interpretation is that because Chanpura discloses both separate datasets and filtering (albeit in different paragraphs), it would be obvious to combine their use for more efficient and effective data processing. The claimed limitation would be obvious in view of any of these limitations. Data transmitted by a computer is inherently binary. Furthermore, please note paragraphs 0041-0042, which state, “Parsing files for memory data read are pre-defined based on tools used in the tool string … Data recorded at the tool can be in a binary file format with sensor measurements, tool modes, diagnostic information etc …”)
wherein the separate data sets correspond to respective components that collectively form the MWD tool string (figure 1A, reference 126; Paragraph 0026 states, “Tool string 126 includes RSS 128 and a compass unit 132 … Tool string 126 may also include a logging-while-drilling (‘LWD’)/measurement-while-drilling (‘MWD’) tool 134 …” Paragraph 0016 states, “Some embodiments include a closed-loop automated diagnostic system using SoS data analytics, and fault model-based diagnostics to assess the operational condition of a RSS.” Paragraph 0002 states, “Such tools can include rotary steerable system (RSS) tools, measurement while drilling (MWD) tools … Such tools may operate in severe conditions …” Although Chanpura et al does not neatly disclose the claimed limitation in a single paragraph, it identifies different components of the tool string, such as RSS and MWD. It also identifies RSS and MWD tools as examples of diagnostic data that is processed. As such, the claimed limitation is obvious in view of the overall disclosure of Chanpura et al, when considered as a whole. Furthermore, please note paragraphs 0041-0042, which state, “Parsing files for memory data read are pre-defined based on tools used in the tool string … Data recorded at the tool can be in a binary file format with sensor measurements, tool modes, diagnostic information etc …”)
wherein the separate data sets each represent conditions indicative of the operational condition of the respective components and subcomponents of the MWD tool (obvious in view of complete teachings of Chanpura et al; figure 7; paragraph 0008 states, “FIG. 7 is a flowchart depicting operations and functions for generating anomaly codes based on tiered filtering …”; see also paragraphs 0017, 0021, 0049, 0051, 0060-0061, 0067, and 0089-0091 for more disclosure of “tiered filtering.” Also, as discussed in the preceding limitation, Chanpura teaches tool string components, such as RSS and MWD. It also discloses assessing operating condition of such components. Paragraph 0021 of Chanpura discloses “different sub-assemblies or components of the downhole tool.”)
selecting, for each of the separate data sets, a processing algorithm from a store of predetermined algorithms, based on characteristics of the respective data set (obvious in view of complete teachings of Chanpura et al; paragraph 0018 states, “Algorithms can be developed to log the anomaly codes based on data from the tool of interest (e.g., RSS) and other parameters from the SoS dataset.” Paragraph 0043 states, “data from different records is extracted from the field data file as different/individual datasets. The field data can contain data in different formats. For example, an algorithm or programmable code executed by the processor—can generate these individual datasets.”);
processing each of the separate data sets with the algorithm selected for that separate data set for tool-condition data that is associated with the operational condition of each of the respective components and subcomponents of the MWD tool (obvious in view of complete teachings of Chanpura et al; Paragraph 0029 states, “a standalone application or programmed algorithms integrated with the surface system software can generate an SoS dataset for a downhole tool …” Paragraph 0043 states, “data from different records is extracted from the field data file as different/individual datasets. The field data can contain data in different formats. For example, an algorithm or programmable code executed by the processor—can generate these individual datasets.” Also, as discussed above, Chanpura discloses consideration of operational condition for specific components of the tool string, such as RSS and MWD tools.)
wherein the processing each of the separate data sets comprises processing at least two or more data sets such that at least a portion of the processing the at least two or more data sets overlap in time (Chanpura et al does not explicitly use the language of “two or more data sets overlap in time,” though the applicant’s disclosure also does not use this language. The examiner interpreted the support for this limitation to be in paragraph 0043 of the applicant’s original specification, which states, “the remote and local processor(s) can work synchronously … synchronization is defined as several processes accessing and processing data sets concurrently. That is, the several processors 326 … can process data simultaneously in parallel, in series, or in any combination thereof.” Chanpura et al discloses using multiple processors (paragraph 0082 states, “The computer includes a processor 1301 (possibly using multiple processors …)” Chanpura et al also discloses parallel processing (paragraph 0088 states, “the operations may be performed in parallel …” Therefore, the claimed limitation is obvious, even though Chanpura et al, like the applicant, uses different language to describe what is happening.)
determining, based on respective tool-condition data output by each algorithm-processed data set, whether the respective components that correspond to the respective data set meet a predetermined operational capability requirement to be operated in a subsequent run of the MWD tool (obvious in view of total teachings of Chanpura et al; figures 2-3; paragraph 0040 states, “the operations depicted in FIGS. 2-3 are implemented to determine accurate operational condition and re-run criteria for one or more downhole tools … if anomaly codes for secondary functions are flagged, the downhole tool could still be re-run without repair if legacy based redundant tools could be used for secondary functions or if service can be delivered without the secondary function, and if nor preventative maintenance triggers are flagged for primary or critical functionality … if anomaly codes for primary or critical functionality are flagged, the tool fault diagnostic results can be updated with pose run shop level test observations …”; Chanpura et al discloses generating various anomaly codes. Some indicate non-critical failures that allow for continued operational capability in subsequent runs of the MWD tool string (as do no anomaly codes). Other anomaly codes indicate critical failures that require maintenance and/or repair.)
advancing the MWD tool in a wellbore based on the determination of the respective components meeting the predetermined operational capability requirement (obvious in view of total teachings of Chanpura et al; Chanpura discloses multiple responses to results that could be construed by one of ordinary skill in the art as “control.” For example, paragraphs 0077-0078 state, “Based on results from the cause and effect dependencies and tool fault model, further available tests … can be performed … schematics and/or interactive displays are provided for repair and maintenance to facilitate troubleshooting.” Paragraph 0032 states, “In response to determining that a critical failure code has not been generated/triggered, operations of the flowchart 200 continue …” Paragraph 0034 states, “In response to determining that a non-critical failure code has not been generated/triggered, operations of the flowchart 200 continue …” Chanpura teaches the principle of continuing or resuming (or “advancing”) when there is not a critical failure (i.e. respective components meet the predetermined operational capability requirement).)
With respect to claim 1, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the total teachings of Chanpura et al. The motivation for the skilled artisan in doing so is to gain the benefit of more efficient data processing.
With respect to claim 1, Tang et al discloses:
displaying a visible representation of the respective components that collectively form the MWD tool and enabling user interaction therewith for displaying details about selected components of the MWD tool, wherein the visible representation is interactive to display a visible representation of the subcomponents that collectively form the respective components upon selection of one of the respective components, and wherein the visible representation includes the associated conditions and statuses of the respective components and subcomponents (Tang et al figure 24, references 2009-2010; paragraph 0190 states, “the secondary cutting structure 2102 may be modeled on a drilling tool assembly 2009, including additional drilling tool assembly components, such as, for example, a drill bit, stabilizers, measurement-while-drilling and logging-while drilling apparatuses, stabilizers, directional drilling devices … drill collars, special drilling tools … an analytical model of a drilling tool assembly including a secondary cutting structure may be generated, graphically displayed, and the design elements and drilling tool assembly design parameters modified and/or saved accordingly.” Although Chanpura figure 11 arguably shows a visible representation of the components, in a broad sense, Tang specifically shows individual components related to the MWD tool, in a much more specific manner. The claimed limitation is obvious in view of the combination of Chanpura et al and Tang et al.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Tang et al into the invention of Chanpura et al. The motivation for the skilled artisan in doing so is to gain the benefit of improved visualization of and design focus on specific drilling tool assembly components.
Independent claims 9 and 15 represent variations of method claim 1 and are rejected for similar reasons. The minor differences between the claims are also anticipated by Chanpura et al (US PgPub 20200291765).
Claim 9 discloses:
A system (figures 1A-1B; paragraph 0002)
a measurement while drilling (MWD) tool string configured to be positioned in a borehole (paragraph 0002)
memory (figure 13, reference 1307; paragraph 0082)
one or more software programmed processors coupled to the memory (figure 13, reference 1301)
Claim 15 discloses:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon instructions which, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to (perform claimed operations) (figure 13, references 1301 and 1307; paragraph 0082)
With respect to claims 2, 10, and 16, Chanpura et al, as modified, discloses:
recommending at least a GO / NO-GO decision based on the determination of whether the tool that corresponds to the respective data set meets a predetermined operational capability requirement to be operated in the subsequent run of the MWD tool (Chanpura paragraph 0022 states, “Anomaly codes can be analyzed and failure suspects classified by functions and/or modules. Additionally, some embodiments provide flexibility to re-run the tool in the field without repair if only noncritical or secondary functional anomaly codes are flagged. Suspects can be classified based on function (e.g., power generation (high voltage or low voltage), communications, downlink, valve tool face (TF), control sensors (e.g., gamma, directional, etc.), and/or modules like alternator assembly, sonde etc.”; recommendations are suggested by analysis; noncritical anomaly codes suggest “GO”, while critical codes suggest “NO-GO”)
With respect to claims 3, 11, and 17, Chanpura et al, as modified, discloses:
wherein the GO / NO-GO decision further comprises generating instructions for displaying a visible representation of the decision (Chanpura figure 9, reference 910 states, “Display the health status in a dashboard with predefined color schemes for different functions and/or tool elements.”; paragraph 0018 states, “specific plots, charts, and statistics with relevant signals can be generated and displayed based on anomaly codes …”)
With respect to claims 4, 12, and 18, Chanpura et al, as modified, discloses:
wherein the visible representation is interactive to display a visible representation of a characteristic of interest of the subcomponents upon selection of one of the associated conditions and statuses of the subcomponents (obvious in view of combination; Chanpura figure 9, reference 914 states, “Provide schematics and/or interactive displays for repair and maintenance to facilitate troubleshooting.”; Tang et al figure 24 discloses specific conditions and statuses for the subcomponents. The display of figure 24 also shows buttons that suggest interactivity.)
With respect to claims 6, 13, and 19, Chanpura et al, as modified, discloses:
wherein the computer processor/one or more software programmed processors/the one or more processors synchronously processes multiple data sets (Paragraph 0043 of the applicant’s original specification states, “the remote and local processor(s) can work synchronously (i.e. multi-processing and/or concurrent processing) … synchronization is defined as several processes accessing and processing data sets concurrently … the several processors 326 … can process data simultaneously in parallel …”; paragraph 0030 of Chanpura et al discloses “processing multi-system information.”; paragraph 0082 states, “The computer includes a processor 1301 (possibly including multiple processors …”; paragraph 0087 states, “The program code may execute entirely on a stand-alone machine, may execute in a distributed manner across multiple machines, and may execute on one machine while providing results and or accepting input on another machine.”; paragraph 0088 states, “Additional operations may be performed; fewer operations may be performed; the operations may be performed in parallel ...”)
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chanpura et al (US PgPub 20200291765) in view of Tang et al (US PgPub 20090055135), as applied to claims 1-4, 6, 9-13, and 15-19 above, and further in view of Veeningen et al (US PgPub 20050211468).
With respect to claim 5, Chanpura et al, as modified, discloses:
The computer-implemented method of claim 4 (as applied to claim 4 above)
With respect to claim 5, Chanpura et al, as modified, differs from the claimed invention in that it does not explicitly disclose:
wherein selectable options for displaying desired details about a particular component of the tool string are enabled via a user-engageable, drop- down menu of the selectable options
With respect to claim 5, Veeningen et al discloses:
wherein selectable options for displaying desired details about a particular component of the tool string are enabled via a user-engageable, drop- down menu of the selectable options (paragraph 1268 discloses “Display in a dropdown list …”; figures 2A-2C and 3A also explicitly show drop-down menus of selectable options.)
With respect to claim 5, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the drop-down menu teachings of Veeningen et al into the invention of modified Chanpura et al. The motivation for the skilled artisan in doing so is to gain the benefit of providing the display and graphical user interface capabilities of modified Chanpura et al with added capabilities for direct user interaction.
Claim(s) 7-8, 14, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chanpura et al (US PgPub 20200291765) in view of Tang et al (US PgPub 20090055135), as applied to claims 1-4, 6, 9-13, and 15-19 above, and further in view of Bolchover et al (US PgPub 20180106133).
With respect to claim 7, Chanpura et al, as modified, discloses:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1 (as applied to claim 1 above)
With respect to claim 7, Chanpura et al, as modified, differs from the claimed invention in that it does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the computer processor comprises multiple, cloud based, virtual servers
With respect to claim 7, Bolchover et al discloses:
wherein the computer processor comprises multiple, cloud based, virtual servers (figure 4, reference 416; paragraph 0082 states, “The client layer 410 can include features that allow for access and interactions via one or more private networks 412, one or more mobile platforms and/or mobile networks 414 and via the ‘cloud’ 416, which may be considered to include distributed equipment that forms a network such as a network of networks.”)
With respect to claim 7, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Bolchover et al into the invention of modified Chanpura et al. The motivation for the skilled artisan in doing so is to gain the benefit of saving costs on physical infrastructure, while adding data redundancy, in case physical infrastructure fails.
With respect to claims 8, 14, and 20, Chanpura et al, as modified, discloses:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1 (as applied to claim 1 above)
The system of claim 9 (as applied to claim 9 above)
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15 (as applied to claim 15 above)
With respect to claims 8, 14, and 20, Chanpura et al, as modified, differs from the claimed invention in that it does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the programmed software accommodates plugins configured to receive and utilize additional algorithms that drive displayable visualizations of operability conditions of components of the MWD tool without reprogramming an original software
With respect to claims 8, 14, and 20, Bolchover et al discloses:
wherein the programmed software accommodates plugins configured to receive and utilize additional algorithms that drive displayable visualizations of operability conditions of components of the MWD tool without reprogramming an original software (paragraphs 0128-0129 state, “As an example, stability can depend on direction (NS/EW) a trajectory takes within a geologic environment, which may be considered by an algorithm or algorithms of the geomechanics block 818 … various blocks associated with an optimizer may include algorithms that can be executed …”; paragraphs 0134-0135 state, “Additionally or alternatively, one or more of the blocks … may be plugins to other applications and/or may be accessed by plugins …” The claimed invention is obvious in view of the combination. Chanpura et al discloses the claimed algorithms, visualizations, conditions and components. Chanpura also discloses updating with additional data (such as in paragraph 0020 and figure 2, reference 220). Chanpura does not explicitly use the word “plugin”, which Bolchover et al explicitly discloses.)
With respect to claims 8, 14, and 20, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Bolchover et al into the invention of modified Chanpura et al. The motivation for the skilled artisan in doing so is to gain the benefit of enhanced data connection, efficiency, and functionality.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Whalley et al (US PgPub 20160247316) discloses a three dimensional wellbore visualization.
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 LEONARD S LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2148. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 AM - 7 PM.
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, ARLEEN M VAZQUEZ can be reached on (571)272-2619. 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.
/LEONARD S LIANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2857 05/31/26
/ARLEEN M VAZQUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights