DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the applicant’s reply filed on July 28, 2025. Claims 1-31 are pending and addressed below.
Response to Amendment
In response to the applicant’s amendments to the abstract to reduce the word length to under 150 words. The objection to the specification has been withdrawn.
Claims 1, 15, and 22 have been amended. Claims 1-31 are pending and addressed below.
The new grounds of rejection set forth below for claims 1-31 are necessitated by Applicant’s amendment filed on July 28, 2025. In particular, claims 1 and 22 have been amended to include “a data acquisition tool (DAT) included in the drill string and arranged to acquire the drilling data” and “a data acquisition tool (DAT) included in the drill string”, respectively. For these reasons, the present action is properly made final.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 1-31 under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1 and 22, the Applicant has amended claim 1 to include “a data acquisition tool (DAT) is included in the drill string and arranged to acquire the drilling data” while the drill rig is operating and claim 22 has been amended to include “a data acquisition tool (DAT) included in the drill string”. Applicant argues that such a recitation of the use and inclusion of the DAT thus makes clear that steps of the claimed method are not purely a mental process and as such the claims and thus the claims are not directed to an abstract idea and are in compliance with the requirements of 35 USC 101. The Examiner disagrees.
The claim 1 now recites “a data acquisition tool (DAT) included in the drill string and arranged to acquire the drilling data” and similarly claim 22 now recites “a data acquisition tool (DAT) included in the drill string” . These recitations are merely additional elements whose function is recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform the abstract idea. Including the DAT in the drill string arranged to acquire drilling data does not overcome the high-level of generality. Accordingly, even as amended these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Further, the data acquisition tool (DAT) included in the drill string and arranged to acquire drilling data are mere instruction to apply the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Additionally, the Specification as filed on April 6, 2023 (hereinafter Specification) notes that the data acquisition tool (DAT) is simply a generic computer system (Specification, pg 4, ln 36-39, pg 16, pg 6-21).
Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
Regarding claims 2-21 and 23-31, the arguments as presented above with respect to claims 1 and 22 with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101 are equally applicable to claims 2-21 and 23-31.
Applicant’s arguments, filed July 28, 2025, with respect to claims 1-31 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Regarding claims 1 and 22, the applicant has argued that Beach et al. WO2008113127 (hereinafter Beach) in view of Juergens et al. US4955438 (hereinafter Juergens) and Rodney et al. US7054750 (hereinafter Rodney) fails to disclose continuously acquiring core orientation data as well as rig operational data, where the rig operation data includes both near bit rig data and at surface rig data and using a combination of continuously acquired core orientation data, the near bit rig data and the at surface rig data to determine orientation of a core sample prior to being broken from the ground. The Examiner disagrees with this position.
Applicant has again argued that Beach does not disclose a continual acquisition of data, much less the continual acquisition of rig operational data that is comprised of both near bit rig data and surface rig data. In particular, Beach does not disclose a continual acquisition of data, much less the continual acquisition of rig operational data that is comprised of both near bit rig data and surface rig data. Instead , Applicant asserts that Beach discloses monitoring for one or more down hole events and, upon detecting one of these events, a trigger signal is simply produced, and orientation is logged. While the Examiner agrees that Beach does not monitor core orientation during the entire drilling process, there are no limitations in the claims which require that the drilling data be continuously monitored during the entire drilling process. Instead the claim recites “continuously acquiring drilling data from a data acquisition tool (DAT) included in the drill string and arranged to acquire the drilling data while the drill rig is operating to acquire the core sample” and thus continuous data acquisition is only required while the drill rig is acquiring the core sample. As indicated by the Applicant, Beach acquires core orientation once a trigger signal has been received. This meets the limations of claim 1 as continuous data acquisition is only required while the drill rig is operating to acquire the core samples. Thus there is no need to operate the gyroscope prior to the trigger signal and as long as core orientation is continuously acquired during core sample collection. While the Examiner agrees that Beach may teach away from the continual acquisition of core orientation data during the entire time in which the drill rig is operating, the claim only requires continual data acquisition “while the drill rig is operating to acquire the core sample” and not during the entire time in which the drill rig is operating. As the time period of continual drilling data acquisition is limited to “while the drill rig is operating to acquire the core sample” a modification of Beach with Jurgens would not be in direct contradiction of Beach, which discloses “continually providing data indicative of core and/or bore hole orientation” after receiving a trigger signal (Beach, pg 12, ln 15-21). For these reasons Beach, Jurgens, and Rodney clearly disclose the limitations as claimed.
Regarding claims 2-21 and 23-31, the arguments as presented above with respect to claims 1 and 22 with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 103 are equally applicable to claims 2-21 and 23-31.
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 1-14, 16-23, and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 of the USPTO’s eligibility analysis entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claims 1 and 22 are directed to a method (process) and a system (machine or manufacture), respectively. As such, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention.
If the claim recites a statutory category of invention, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A. Step 2A of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Claim 1 recites abstract limitations, including “determining core orientation of a core sample cut from the ground…the method comprising:
continuously acquiring drilling data,…wherein the drilling data is a combination of core orientation data and rig operational data, wherein the rig operational data is constituted by both of: (a) near bit rig data; and, (b) at surface rig data; and
analyzing the drilling data for a specific pattern of rig operational data…and on detection of the specific pattern determining orientation of the core sample prior to being broken from the ground using the acquired core orientation data”.
Claim 22 recites the limitations of “system…comprising:…continuously acquire core orientation data at least while the drill rig is operating to acquire the core sample; and
both of a (a)…continuously acquire near bit rig data (Nn); and,
(b)…continuously acquire surface rig data (Sn) while the drill rig is operating to acquire the core sample; and
…analyze drilling data comprising a combination of the core orientation data, the near bit rig data, and the at surface rig data, and…analyze the drilling data for a specific pattern of rig operational data indicative of the core sample being broken from ground by operation of the drill rig and on detection of the specific pattern determining orientation of the core sample prior to being broken from the ground using the acquired core orientation data”.
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind, or by a human using pen and paper, and therefore recite mental processes. More specifically, there are no limitations in the claim which precludes the aforementioned steps from practically being performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. The mere recitation of generic computing elements does not take the claim out of the mental process grouping. Furthermore, as discussed in MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), claims directed toward a mental process include claims to “‘collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,’ where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 199 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
If the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two. In Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
Claim 1 also recites the additional elements of: a core sample cut from the ground and a drill rig having a drill string, and a drill bit coupled to a downhole end of the drill string. The core sample cut from the ground and a drill rig having a drill string and a drill bit coupled to a downhole end of the drill string, amount to insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, mere data gathering, and are merely linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular field of use.
The data acquisition tool (DAT) included in the drill string and arranged to acquire the drilling data, is an additional element whose functions are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform the abstract idea.
Claim 22 also recites the additional elements of a data acquisition tool (DAT) included in the drill string, a near bit rig data acquisition system, an at the surface rig data acquisition system, and an at surface analysis device in communication with the DAT.
The data acquisition tool (DAT) included in the drill string and arranged to acquire the drilling data, a near bit rig data acquisition system, and an at the surface rig data acquisition system (i.e. processors) which are arranged to continuously acquire core orientation data, near bit rig data, and surface rig data, are additional elements whose functions are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform the abstract idea. The at surface analysis device in communication with the DAT is an additional element whose functions are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform the abstract idea.
The communication between the at surface analysis device and the DAT is a well-understood, routine, conventional function as claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, and requires further analysis under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
As discussed above, the additional elements of the a core sample cut from the ground and a drill rig having a drill string and a drill bit coupled to a downhole end of the drill string, the specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of these additional elements as it describes the additional element in a manner that indicates that the additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. §112(a). For example, the specification discusses in the background section of the application that core orientation is a well-developed art which is used to enable determination of the in situ orientation of a core sample (Specification, pg 1, ln 9-11).
As discussed above, the data acquisition tool (DAT) included in the drill string and arranged to acquire drilling data, a near bit rig data acquisition system, an at the surface rig data acquisition system, and the at surface analysis device are mere instruction to apply the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Additionally, the specification notes that the data acquisition tool (DAT), near bit rig data acquisition system, at the surface rig data acquisition system, and the at surface analysis device are to a generic computer systems (Specification, pg 4, ln 36-39, pg 16, pg 6-21).
With respect to the communication between the at surface analysis device and the DAT, the Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs. and buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere receiving or transmitting data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
Regarding claims 2, 6-11, 14, and 16-21 the recitation of the specific variables and data limitations are insufficient as “merely selecting information, by content or source, for collection, analysis, and display does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes, whose implicit exclusion from §101 undergirds the information-based category of abstract ideas (See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Similar to claims 1 and 11, this recitation does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, and is not significantly more.
Regarding claims 3-5, the recitations of “the event is applying pull-up to the drill string”, “the event is retrieval of the core sample through the drill string”, and “the event is extraction of the core sample from the drill string” are insufficient to provide a practical application given the high level of generality, and, as noted above, are merely limiting the well-understood, routine, and conventional process with something is just as well-understood, routine, and convention as cited above in the specification and discussed in the rejection of claims 21 and 31 above.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, the recitation of “storing the acquired data on a memory device” and “an at surface electronic device” are other computer components recited at a high level of generality and amounts to applying the abstract idea on a generic computer. This recitation does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea and is not significantly more.
Regarding claims 23 and 27-28, the near bit rig data acquisition system provided in the DAT, the on-board memory, and the processor which act to store and process data are additional elements whose functions are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-18, 22-27, and 30-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beach et al. WO 2008113127 (hereinafter Beach) in view of Juergens et al. US 4,955,438 (hereinafter Juergens) and Rodney et al. US 7,054,750 (hereinafter Rodney).
Claim 1: Beach discloses a method (normal use and intended use of the core orientation tool 10 in Figures 1-2 and 4-6 discloses the method) of determining core orientation (Beach; abstract; “providing an indication of orientation of a core sample”) of a core sample (Beach; Fig. 6; core 112) cut from the ground by a drill rig (Beach; the surface system that provides the drilling inputs such as weight, rotation, and fluid flow/circulation for borehole drilling and coring; pg 13 lines 3-4 the surface system that provides the uphole motion of the core drill and tool (10) having a drill string (Beach; core drill 193) and a drill bit (Beach; Fig. 5; drill bit 195) coupled to a downhole end of the drill string (Beach; Fig. 5; downhole end of core drill 193), the method comprising:
continuously acquiring drilling data (Beach; pg 4 lines 11-13 continuously monitor vibration motion throughout the drilling and coring process) from a data acquisition tool (DAT) included in the drill string (Beach; core orientation tool 10) and arranged to acquire the drilling data ( Beach; core orientation tool 10), while the drill rig is operating to acquire the core sample (at detection of event associated with operation of the core drill, Beach, pg 12, ln 15-pg 13, ln 12) wherein the drilling data is a combination of core orientation data (Beach; page 8 lines 1-4 “core face orientation device which records rotational orientation of a core sample’; gyroscope 35 for logging azimuth and dip; page 3 lines 24-28 orientation includes dip and azimuth; page 7 lines 20-22 dip and azimuth for both the borehole and the core orientation) and rig operational data (Beach; page 4 lines 11-13 continuously monitor vibration motion throughout the drilling and coring process), wherein the rig operational data is constituted by (a) near bit rig data (Beach; Fig. 2; page 11 lines 33-36 electronic core orientation device 20 provides near-bit rig data); and
analyzing the drilling data for a specific pattern of rig operational data indicative of the core sample being broken from ground by operation of the drill rig (Beach; Fig. 2; page 12 lines 30-37 to page 13 lines 1-37 to page 14 lines 1-3; using a trigger system 24 and orientation module 26 for detecting rig operational patterns that monitor the core sample breakage) and on detection of the specific pattern determining orientation of the core sample prior to being broken from the ground using the acquired core orientation data (Beach; Fig. 2; page 12 lines 30-37 to page 13 lines 1-37 to page 14 lines 1-3; using orientation module 26 for logging in-situ core sample orientation data before and during core breakage).
Beach fails to disclose continuously acquiring drilling data; (b) at surface rig data.
Juergens discloses continuously acquiring drilling data (Juergens; col. 1:20 “continuous data acquisition’; col. 2:67-68 to col. 3:1-7 “measure value pickups 30”; col. 3:23-29 “constant data transmission” provided by measurement unit 10 in combination with pressure pulse generator).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the data acquisition as taught by Beach to be continuous while the drill rig is operating to acquire the core sample (at trigger signal) as taught by Juergens as this modification would have yielded the predictable results of providing a more complete set of data and to avoid missing any critical operational information related to drilling/coring operations that may be missed by data acquisition that is not continuous while the drill rig is operating to acquire the core sample.
Beach, as modified by Juergens, are silent regarding rig operation data constituted by (b) at surface rig data.
Rodney teaches method and systems for controlling the drilling of a borehole (abstract). Real-time control of downhole and surface logging while drilling operations using data collected from downhole and surface sensors (Rodney; Fig. 4-5 combining both downhole data and surface rig data for processing, analysis, and rig/tool operational control; col. 16:27-36 surface rig sensors such as weight-on-bit sensors provide surface rig data for controlling surface rig equipment such as drawworks 315; col. 17:19-37 surface raw data is used for generating control commands for both downhole controllable elements 545 and surface controllable elements 550).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the rig operational data as taught by Beach and Juergens to include both downhole and surface rig data as taught by Rodney for the purpose of providing real-time operational feedback to inform a rig/tool controller so that operational decisions can be made and control commands can be executed based on the surface rig data in combination with the downhole near bit rig data (Rodney; Fig. 4-5 combining both downhole data and surface rig data for processing, analysis, and rig/tool operational control; col. 16:27-36 surface rig sensors such as weight-on-bit sensors provide surface rig data for controlling surface rig equipment such as drawworks 315; col. 17:19-37 surface raw data is used for generating control commands for both downhole controllable elements 545 and surface controllable elements 550).
Claim 2: Beach, as modified by Juergens and Rodney, teaches wherein acquiring the drilling data comprises acquiring the drilling data at least for a period which includes a continuous period (Juergens; col. 1:20 “continuous data acquisition”; col. 2:67-68 to col. 3:1-7 “measure value pickups 30”; col. 3:23-29 “constant data transmission” provided by measurement unit 10 in combination with pressure pulse generator) from commencement of operation of the drill rig to cut the core sample to any event occurring after commencement of operating the drill rig to break the core sample from in situ strata (Beach; Fig. 2; page 12 lines 30-37 to page 13 lines 1- 37 to page 14 lines 1-3; using a trigger system 24 and orientation module 26 for continuously monitoring drilling data before, during, and after the core sample breakage).
Claim 3: Beach, as modified by Juergens and Rodney, teaches wherein the event is applying pull-up to the drill string to affect the breaking of the core sample from in situ strata (Beach; page 3 line 36 motion in an uphole direction; page 13, lines 3-4 detect uphole motion of the core drill and tool 10).
Claim 4: Beach, as modified by Juergens and Rodney, teaches wherein the event is retrieval of the core sample through the drill string (Beach; page 5 lines 14-15 “retrieval of the backend assembly from the drill hole”).
Claim 5: Beach, as modified by Juergens and Rodney, teaches wherein the event is extraction of the core sample from the drill string (Beach; page 5 lines 14-15 “retrieval of the backend assembly from the drill hole”).
Claim 8: Beach, as modified by Juergens and Rodney, teaches wherein the core orientation data includes dip and azimuth of a known reference datum on or transferable to the core sample ( Beach; gyroscope 35 for logging azimuth and dip; page 3 lines 24-28 orientation includes dip and azimuth; page 7 lines 20-22 dip and azimuth for both the borehole and the core orientation; Fig. 6; page 10 lines 7-9 Fig. 6 shows template for transferring core orientation indications to a core sample).
Claim 9: Beach, as modified by Juergens and Rodney, teaches wherein the rig operational data comprises any one, or any combination of any two or more, of: rotational speed of the drill string, displacement of the drill in an up hole direction; displacement of the drill in adown hole direction; ambient fluid pressure; the existence of fluid flow in the drill string; rate of fluid flow into the bore hole; vibration in the drill string; mechanical shock; rate of penetration, hole depth; number of drill pipe joints passed when a data acquisition tool (DAT) is transported down the drill string or retrieved from the drill string or both; latent torque in the drill string; weight on bit; and torque on bit (Beach; page 12 line 11 “vibration sensors” of electronic core orientation device/system 20; page 4 lines 11-13 continuously monitor vibration motion throughout the drilling and coring process).
Claim 10: Beach, as modified by Juergens and Rodney, teaches wherein the specific pattern of drilling data comprises data indicative of: (a) cessation of rotation of the drill string (Beach; page 14 lines 31- 37 to page 15 lines 1-9 RPM sensor and detecting a “zero speed of rotation”); and subsequently (Beach; page 12 lines 30-37 to page 13 lines 1-37 to page 14 lines 1-3; monitor the cessation of drilling which is indicated by stopping rotation, and then sensing a subsequent uphole/pull-up motion to confirm that the “motion is characteristic of a core break”): (b) application of pull-up to the drill string (Beach; page 3 line 36 motion in an uphole direction; page 13 lines 3-4 detect uphole motion of the core drill and tool 10).
Claim 11: Beach, as modified by Juergens and Rodney, teaches wherein the specific pattern of rig operational data comprises, subsequent to the occurrence of the application of pull-up (Beach; page 3 line 36 motion in an uphole direction; page 13 lines 3-4 detect uphole motion of the core drill and tool 10), data indicative of (c) vibration (Beach; page 12 line 11 “vibration sensors” of electronic core orientation device/system 20; page 4 lines 11-13 continuously monitor vibration motion throughout the drilling and coring process) arising from impact of an overshot with a head assembly (Beach; backend assembly 14) of an inner core barrel assembly (Beach; core tube 12) containing the core sample cut by the drill rig (Beach; page 5 lines 11-12 “overshot hitting and latching onto the backend assembly”).
Claim 12: Beach, as modified by Juergens and Rodney, teaches s comprising storing the acquired drilling data on a memory device which is disposed near the drill bit while the drill rig is in operation cutting the core sample (Beach; page 14 lines 23-25 “memory device” of the electronic orientation system 20).
Claim 13: Beach, as modified by Juergens and Rodney, teaches wherein core orientation data and near bit rig data are electronically communicated to an at surface electronic device or system either (a) while the drill rig is in operation cutting the core sample; or (b) while the core sample is within the drill string; or (¢) at the surface after retrieval of the core sample (Beach; page 12 lines 24-28 transceiver 28 and antenna 30 to communicate with hand-held computer at the surface after retrieval of the core sample).
Claim 14: Beach, as modified by Juergens and Rodney, teaches wherein analysing the drilling data occurs: while the drill rig is in operation cutting the core sample; or, while the core sample is within the drill string; or after retrieval of the core sample (Beach; Fig. 2; page 12 lines 30-37 to page 13 lines 1-37 to page 14 lines 1-3; using a trigger system 24 and orientation module 26 for detecting rig operational patterns that monitor the core sample breakage which is performed cutting the core sample).
Claim 15: Beach, as modified by Juergens and Rodney, teaches comprising transporting a data acquisition tool (DAT) (Beach; electronic core orientation device/system 20) provided with one or more sensors capable of acquiring the core orientation data and the near bit rig data through the drill string toward the drill bit (Beach; page 12 lines 7-28).
Claim 16: Beach, as modified by Juergens and Rodney, teaches continuously acquiring the core orientation data and rig operational data (Juergens; col. 1:20 “continuous data acquisition”; col. 2:67 -68 to col. 3:1-7 “measure value pickups 30”; col. 3:23-29 “constant data transmission” provided by measurement unit 10 in combination with pressure pulse generator) at a known sample rate (Beach; page 20 lines 3-6 logging data cyclically for a prescribed period of time).
Claim 17: Beach, as modified by Juergens and Rodney, teaches wherein the at surface rig data comprises weight on bit (Rodney; Fig. 4-5 combining both downhole data and surface rig data for processing, analysis, and rig/tool operational control; col. 16:27 -36 surface rig sensors such as weight-on-bit sensors provide surface rig data for controlling surface rig equipment such as draw works 315; col. 17:19-37 surface raw data is used for generating control commands for both downhole controllable elements 545 and surface controllable elements 550).
Claim 18: Beach, as modified by Juergens and Rodney, teaches wherein determining the core orientation involves using one or more of the acquired core orientation data ( Beach; Fig. 6; abstract; “providing an indication of orientation of a core sample”; page 11 lines 33-35; page 12 lines 15- 18; page 26 lines 26-31 use template 198 as part of the analysis of acquired core orientation data; gyroscope 35 for logging azimuth and dip; page 3 lines 24-28 orientation includes dip and azimuth; page 7 lines 20-22 dip and azimuth for both the borehole and the core orientation).
Claim 22: Beach discloses a system (Beach; assembly of Fig. 1-2 with Fig. 4-6 that combines core orientation tool 10 with mechanical bottom orientator 146) for determining core orientation (Beach; abstract; “providing an indication of orientation of a core sample”) of a core sample (Beach; Fig. 6; core 112) cut from the ground by a drill rig (Beach; the surface system that provides the drilling inputs such as weight, rotation, and fluid flow/circulation for borehole drilling and coring; page 13 lines 3-4 the surface system that provides the uphole motion of the core drill and tool 10) having a drill string (Beach; core drill 193) and a drill bit (Beach; Fig. 5; drill bit 195) coupled to a downhole end of the drill string (Beach; Fig. 5; downhole end of core drill 193) comprising:
a data acquisition tool (DAT) (Beach; core orientation tool 10) included in the drill string (Beach , core drill 193) wherein the DAT is arranged to continuously acquire core orientation data at least while the drill rig is operating to acquire the core sample (Beach; orientation data is acquired continuously from the core orientation tool 10 once a trigger signal has been retrieved, pg 12, ln 6-pg 13, ln 12);
a (a) near bit rig data acquisition system arranged to acquire near bit rig data (Nn) (Beach; Fig. 2; page 11 lines 33-36 electronic core orientation device 20 provides near-bit rig data); while the drill rig is operating to acquire the core sample (Beach; page 8 lines 1-4 “core face orientation device which records rotational orientation of a core sample’); and
analyzing the drilling data for a specific pattern of rig operational data indicative of the core sample being broken from ground by operation of the drill rig (Beach; Fig. 2; page 12 lines 30-37 to page 13 lines 1-37 to page 14 lines 1-3; using a trigger system 24 and orientation module 26 for detecting rig operational patterns that monitor the core sample breakage) and on detection of the specific pattern determining orientation of the core sample prior to being broken from the ground using the acquired core orientation data (Beach; Fig. 2; page 12 lines 30-37 to page 13 lines 1-37 to page 14 lines 1-3; using orientation module 26 for logging in-situ core sample orientation data before and during core breakage).
Beach fails to disclose (a) the near bit rig data acquisition system arrange to continuously acquire surface rig data, (b) at surface rig data acquisition system arranged to continuously acquire surface rig data (Sn) while the drill rig is operating to acquire a core sample; and an at surface analysis device in communication with the DAT, the at surface analysis device configured to analyze drilling data comprising a combination of the core orientation data, the near bit rig data.
Juergens discloses continuously acquiring drilling data (Juergens; col. 1:20 “continuous data acquisition’; col. 2:67-68 to col. 3:1-7 “measure value pickups 30”; col. 3:23-29 “constant data transmission” provided by measurement unit 10 in combination with pressure pulse generator).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the data acquisition as taught by Beach to be continuous as taught by Juergens at least while the drill rig is operating to acquire the core sample (after trigger signal) as this modified would have yielded the expected results of providing a more complete set of data and to avoid missing any critical operational information related to drilling/coring operations that may be missed by data acquisition that is not continuous.
Beach, as modified by Juergens fails to disclose an b) at surface rig data acquisition system arranged to continuously acquire surface rig data (Sn) while the drill rig is operating; and an at surface analysis device in communication with the DAT, the at surface analysis device configured to analyze drilling data comprising a combination of the core orientation data, the near bit rig data.
Rodney teaches method and systems for controlling the drilling of a borehole (abstract). Real-time control of downhole and surface logging while drilling operations using data collected from downhole and surface sensors (Rodney; Fig. 4-5 combining both downhole data and surface rig data for processing, analysis, and rig/tool operational control; col. 16:27-36 surface rig sensors such as weight-on-bit sensors provide surface rig data for controlling surface rig equipment such as drawworks 315; col. 17:19-37 surface raw data is used for generating control commands for both downhole controllable elements 545 and surface controllable elements 550) and a surface analysis device (surface real-time processor 385) configured to analyze drilling data (col 16, ln 13-15, 26-36, col 17, 48-53, col 18, ln 47-53).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the rig operational data as taught by modified Beach to include both downhole and surface rig data in communication with surface analysis as taught by Rodney for the purpose of providing real-time operational feedback to inform a rig/tool controller so that operational decisions can be made and control commands can be executed based on the surface rig data in combination with the downhole near bit rig data (Rodney; Fig. 4-5 combining both downhole data and surface rig data for processing, analysis, and rig/tool operational control; col. 16:27-36 surface rig sensors such as weight-on-bit sensors provide surface rig data for controlling surface rig equipment such as drawworks 315; col. 17:19-37 surface raw data is used for generating control commands for both downhole controllable elements 545 and surface controllable elements 550).
Claim 23: Beach, as modified by Juergens and Rodney, teaches wherein the near bit rig data acquisition system is provided in the DAT (Beach; Fig. 2; electronic core orientation device 20 of the core orientation tool 10).
Claim 24: Beach, as modified by Juergens and Rodney, teaches a DAT tripping system capable of transporting the DAT through the drill string toward ate of a hole drilled by the drill rig and subsequently retrieving the DAT from the drill string (Beach; page 25 lines 3-6 describes wireline for lowering the assembly toward the toe of a borehole; page 35 line 11 describes retrieval).
Claim 25: Beach, as modified by Juergens and Rodney, teaches the DAT comprises one or more core orientation sensors arranged to enable the DAT to acquire one or any two or more of: dip, azimuth, gravitational top or bottom of borehole, Magnetic Tool face or True North measurements of a known reference datum on or transferable to the core sample (Beach; gyroscope 35 for logging azimuth and dip; page 3 lines 24-28 orientation includes dip and azimuth; page 7 lines 20-22 dip and azimuth for both the borehole and the core orientation).
Claim 26: Beach, as modified by Juergens and Rodney, teaches wherein the DAT comprises one or more near bit rig parameter sensors arranged to enable the DAT to acquire one, or any combination of any two or more, of the following drilling parameter data: rotational speed of the drill, differential rotation between the drill string and an inner core barrel assembly, displacement of the drill in an up hole direction; displacement of the drill Ina down hole direction; ambient fluid pressure; the existence of fluid flow through the drill string; rate of fluid flow into the bore hole; vibration; mechanical shock; rate of penetration, hole depth; number of drill pipe joints passed when the DAT is transported down the string or retrieved from the drill string, or both; torque when the drill is drilling; or latent torque in the drill string (Beach; page 12 line 11 “vibration sensors” of electronic core orientation device/system 20; page 4 lines 11-13 continuously monitor vibration motion throughout the drilling and coring process).
Claim 27: Beach, as modified by Juergens and Rodney, teaches an on-board memory to enable on-board storage of the acquired data (Beach; page 14 lines 23-25 “memory device” of the electronic orientation system 20).
Claim 30: Beach, as modified by Juergens and Rodney, teaches an inner core barrel assembly wherein the DAT is coupled to or housed within the inner core barrel assembly (Beach; core tube 12).
Claim 31: Beach, as modified by Juergens and Rodney, teaches wherein the DAT comprises an event sensor arranged to automatically activate the DAT to continuously (Juergens; col. 1:20 “continuous data acquisition”; col. 2:67-68 to col. 3:1-7 “measure value pickups 30”; col. 3:23-29 “constant data transmission” provided by measurement unit 10 in combination with pressure pulse generator) acquire one or more of the core orientation data, the surface rig data, and the near bit data in response to a sensed event pertaining to the lowering or locking of the DAT (Beach; Fig. 2; page 12 lines 30-37 to page 13 lines 1-37 to page 14 lines 1-3; using a trigger system 24 and orientation module 26 for detecting rig operational patterns that monitor the core sample breakage; page 13 lines 14-23 detecting various events relating to the lowering/deployment of the backend assembly 14 of core orientation tool 10 into the wellbore and through the core drill and landing/hitting a landing ring of the core drill).
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beach in view of Juergens and Rodney et al. US7054750 as applied to claim 2, and further in view of Parfitt, Canadian Patent No. 2559030 (hereinafter Parfitt).
Claim 6: Beach, as modified by Juergens and Rodney, teaches wherein acquiring the drilling data includes acquiring, during the operation of the drill rig to break the core sample (Beach; core 112), an inner core tube (Beach; core tube 12) supported by the drill string and into which the core sample advances during drilling (Beach; core tube 12).
Beach, as modified by Juergens and Rodney, does not teach rig operational data relating to relative rotational motion between the core sample and an inner core tube.
Parfitt teaches rig operational data relating to relative rotational motion between the core sample and an inner core tube (Parfitt; page 20 at claim 13: “A core drill as claimed in claim 12, wherein the core drill comprises core drill recording means for recording a relative rotational orientation of a core sample drilled by the core drill and the inner tube such that a measure of the rotational orientation of the core sample can be established using the indication of the orientation of the inner tube.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method and sensing system as taught by Beach, Juergen, and Rodney to include the method and means for measuring relative rotational motion between the core sample and the inner core tube as taught by Parfitt for the purpose of accounting for any relative rotational displacement between the core sample and the inner core tube because not accounting for the relative rotational displacement would lead to an error in determining the core orientation (Parfitt; page 20 at claim 13: “such that a measure of the rotational orientation of the core sample can be established using the indication of the orientation of the inner tube.”).
Claim 7: Beach, Juergens and Rodney as modified by Parfitt teaches compensating the core orientation acquired upon the occurrence of the specific pattern to account for the relative rotational motion and using the compensated core orientation as the core orientation of the core sample cut by the drill rig (Parfitt; page 20 at claim 13: “A core drill as claimed in claim 12, wherein the core drill comprises core drill recording means for recording a relative rotational orientation of a core sample drilled by the core drill and the inner tube such that a measure of the rotational orientation of the core sample can be established using the indication of the orientation of the inner tube.”).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beach in view of Juergens and Rodney et al. US7054750 as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Chen et al. US 2018/0292477 (hereinafter after Chen).
Claim 19: Beach, Juergens and Rodney discloses wherein determining the core orientation involves obtaining a plurality of the acquired core orientation data (Beach; page 8 lines 1-4 “core face orientation device which records rotational orientation of a core sample”; gyroscope 35 for logging azimuth and dip; page 3 lines 24-28 orientation includes dip and azimuth; page 7 lines 20-22 dip and azimuth for both the borehole and the core orientation).
Beach, Juergens and Rodney fails to disclose obtaining an average of a plurality of the acquired core orientation data.
Chen discloses obtaining an average of a plurality of the acquired core data (Chen; [0050] “averaging data points” relating to a core sample).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method as taught by Beach, Juergens and Rodney to include the step of averaging the data as taught by Chen for the purpose of identifying the most likely to be the accurate/correct reading of the core orientation (such as a core orientation dip value or a core orientation azimuth value).
Claim(s) 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beach in view of Juergens and Rodney as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Beach et al. WO2007137356 (hereinafter Beach 356).
Claim 20: Beach, Juergens and Rodney core orientation data acquired within a time period (Beach; page 8 lines 1-4 “core face orientation device which records rotational orientation of a core sample”; gyroscope 35 for logging azimuth and dip; page 3 lines 24-28 orientation includes dip and azimuth; page 7 lines 20-22 dip and azimuth for both the borehole and the core orientation; data is taken over a time period according to event patterns detected by trigger system 24).
Beach, Juergens and Rodney does not teach a user selectable time period.
Beach ‘356 teaches a user selectable time period (Beach ‘356; page 10 lines 20-25 “Just prior to or after breaking of the core sample 24 from the in situ ground, an operator presses the “take reading" button 26 on the remote control unit 22. This activates the timer within the control unit 22 to log the period of time between initiation of the orientation device 12, and the time just before or after core break.”; page 9 lines 35-37 to page 10 lines 1-3 describes an internal timer within orientation device 12 being synchronized with an internal timer of remote control unit 22 and having wireless communication by a transceiver in the orientation device 12; page 6 lines 30-36 describe the remote control unit 22 and the orientation device 12; Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method and core orientation tool and time period as taught by Beach, Juergens and Rodney to include a user selectable time period and associated timer equipment as taught by Beach ‘356 for the purpose of providing additional functionality and flexibility in selecting the desired data to be acquired in relation to core sample orientation determination.
Regarding claim 21, Beach, Juergens and Rodney teaches wherein the user selectable time period comprises a period of time selected from the group consisting of: (a) before the core sample is broken away from the ground; (b) after the core sample has been broken away from the ground; and (c) before and after the core sample has been broken away from the ground (Beach ‘356; page 10 lines 20-25 “Just prior to or after breaking of the core sample 24 from the in situ ground, an operator presses the "take reading” button 26 on the remote control unit 22. This activates the timer within the control unit 22 to log the period of time between initiation of the orientation device 12, and the time just before or after core break.” which provides taking data before or after the core sample is broken away from the ground; page 9 lines 35-37 to page 10 lines 1-3 describes an internal timer within orientation device 12 being synchronized with an internal timer of remote control unit 22 and having wireless communication by a transceiver in the orientation device 12; page 6 lines 30-36 describe the remote control unit 22 and the orientation device 12; Fig. 5).
Claim(s) 28-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beach in view of Juergens and Rodney as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Van Puymbroeck et al. US 6,006,844 (hereinafter Puymbroeck).
Regarding claim 28, Beach, Juergens and Rodney does not teach wherein the DAT comprises a processor capable of processing the acquired data to produce processed downhole data.
Van Puymbroeck teaches wherein the DAT comprises a processor capable of processing the acquired data to produce processed downhole data (Van Puymbroeck; col. 11:5- 11 processor for core barrel 302).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system as taught by modified Beach to include the processor as taught by Van Puymbroeck for the purpose of processing the raw sensor signals into useable data for analysis.
Regarding claim 29, Beach, Juergens and Rodney teaches comprising a telemetry system (Beach; Fig. 2; transceiver 28 in tool 10; page 17 lines 33-34) arranged to enable the DAT to communicate the acquired data to an electronic device located at the surface (page 17 lines 33- 34; hand-held computer).
Beach, Juergens and Rodney does not teach communicate the acquired data in in real time.
Van Puymbroeck teaches in real time (Van Puymbroeck; col. 13:1-2 short-hop and long- distance telemetry systems; col. 4:58-67).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the telemetry system as taught by modified Beach to include real-time capabilities as taught by Van Puymbroeck for the purpose of providing instantaneous data to an user/operator so that decisions can be made based on real-time data to ensure that the desired coring operation and results have been achieved or to help in deciding if additional coring should be performed to achieve better results.
Conclusion
Claims 1-31 are rejected. No claims are allowed.
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 fina