DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application
This action is a Non-Final Rejection. This action is in response to the application filed on April 24, 2023.
Claims 1-19 are pending and rejected.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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 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.
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Does the Claim Fall within a Statutory Category? (see MPEP 2106.03)
Yes, with respect to claims 1-19, which recite a non-transitory storage medium and, therefore, are directed to the statutory class of manufacture.
Step 2A, Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited? (see MPEP 2106.04(a))
The following claims identify the limitations that recite the abstract idea in regular text and that recite additional elements in bold:
1. A non-transitory storage medium comprising program instructions which when executed by a processor to perform the operations of:
acquiring values of mechanical specific energy (MSE) for at least portion of a drilled well;
categorizing the MSE values into a plurality of groups according to different ranges of MSE values;
mapping the groups to which the MSE values are categorized to locations along the drilled well;
creating a geomechanical model of the mapped groups;
determining one or more parameters of a well completion design for the drilled well from the geomechanical model; and
creating the well completion design with the one or more parameters.
2. The non-transitory storage medium of claim 1, wherein the one or more parameters are selected from a group consisting of locations of perforation clusters, quantities of perforation clusters, locations of fracking stages, lengths of fracking stages, and one or more parameters to induce and maintain hydraulic fractures including selecting fracturing fluid type and proppant type.
3. The non-transitory storage medium of claim 1, wherein the one or more parameters comprise a parameter relating to perforation operations of the well completion design and a parameter relating to hydraulic fracturing operations of the well completion design.
4. The non-transitory storage medium of claim 1, wherein the different ranges of MSE values represent different facies of rock, and wherein the program instructions for determining the one or more parameters of the well completion design comprise program instructions for delineating fracking stages at positions along the geomechanical model corresponding to boundaries of neighboring facies.
5. The non-transitory storage medium of claim 1, further comprising program instructions for demarcating subsets of the geomechanical model such that lengths of the subsets correspond to sections of the drilled well, and wherein the program instructions for determining the one or more parameters of the well completion design use the demarcated subsets.
6. The non-transitory storage medium of claim 5, wherein the program instructions for determining the one or more parameters of the well completion design comprise program instructions for designating locations of perforation clusters along one or more of the demarcated subsets, wherein at least some of designated locations are arranged along a portion of a demarcated subset having associated MSE values of the same group.
7. The non-transitory storage medium of claim 5, wherein the different ranges of MSE values represent different facies of rock, wherein the program instructions for determining the one or more parameters of the well completion design comprise program instructions for designating a number of perforation clusters for each of one or more of the demarcated subsets, and wherein the designated number for at least one of the one or more demarcated subsets is based on a composite length of one or more particular facies within the respective demarcated subset.
8. The non-transitory storage medium of claim 5, wherein the demarcated subsets are of approximately equal length, and wherein the program instructions for determining the one or more parameters of the well completion design comprise program instructions for:
designating locations of perforation clusters in each of the demarcated subsets based on lengths and positions of the mapped groups of categorized MSE values in each of the subsets; and
amending the demarcation of the subsets based on the mapped groups to which the MSE values of each subset are categorized and the designated locations of the perforation clusters.
9. The non-transitory storage medium of claim 1, wherein the different ranges of MSE values represent different facies of rock, wherein the program instructions for determining the one or more parameters of the well completion design comprise program instructions for:
delineating multiple fracking stages along the geomechanical model;
designating locations of perforation clusters in each of the fracking stages; and
defining one or more parameters of a fracking operation for each fracking stage based on the range of MSE values associated with a single facie in each fracking stage in which one or more perforation clusters have been designated.
10. The non-transitory storage medium of claim 1, wherein the different ranges of MSE values represent different facies of rock, and wherein the program instructions for determining the one or more parameters of the well completion design comprise program instructions for:
delineating one or more fracking stages along the geomechanical model; identifying a single facie in one of the fracking stages in which perforation clusters are designated;
defining one or more parameters of a fracking operation for the one fracking stage based on the range of MSE values associated with the identified facie; and
conducting the steps of identifying a single facie and defining one or more parameters of a fracking operation for other fracking stages of the one or more fracking stages.
11. The non-transitory storage medium of claim 1, wherein the well is a production well, and wherein the program instructions for creating the geomechanical model is further based on locations of perforation clusters created during an initial well completion of the production well.
12. A non-transitory storage medium comprising program instructions which when executed by a processor to perform the operations of:
acquiring values of mechanical specific energy (MSE) for at least portion of a drilled well;
creating a geomechanical model of at least a portion of the well based at least in part on the calculated MSE values;
determining multiple parameters of a well completion design for the drilled well from the geomechanical model, wherein the multiple parameters comprise at least two different parameters selected from a group consisting of locations of perforation clusters, quantities of perforation clusters, locations of fracking stages, and lengths of fracking stages; and
creating the well completion design with the multiple parameters.
13. The non-transitory storage medium of claim 12, wherein the multiple parameters further comprise parameters selected from a group consisting of hydraulic horsepower, volume of proppant, one or more types of proppant, volume of fracking fluid, one or more types of fracking fluids and placement of fracturing sleeves.
14. The non-transitory storage medium of claim 12, further comprising program instructions for demarcating subsets of the geomechanical model such that lengths of the subsets correspond to sections of the drilled well, and wherein the program instructions for determining one or more parameters of the well completion design use the demarcated subsets.
15. The non-transitory storage medium of claim 14, wherein the program instructions for demarcating subsets of the geomechanical model comprise demarcating subsets of one or more set lengths along the geomechanical model.
16. The non-transitory storage medium of claim 12, wherein the step of acquiring values of MSE comprises:
receiving data regarding a drilling operation of the well; and
calculating the values of MSE from the data.
17. The non-transitory storage medium of claim 16, wherein the step of acquiring values of MSE further comprises:
analyzing the data to identify distortions which are not related to geomechanical properties of rock drilled in the well;
amending and/or removing some of the data that correlates to the distortions; and
calculating the MSE values with the data subsequent to amending at least some of the data.
18. The non-transitory storage medium of claim 16, wherein the received data comprises:
first data for variables used to calculate the MSE values; and
second data which does not include variables of the calculated MSE values, and
wherein the non-transitory storage medium further comprises program instructions for amending at least some of the first data with respect to the second data prior to calculating the MSE values.
19. The non-transitory storage medium of claim 16, wherein the received data comprises:
first data for variables used to calculate the MSE values; and
second data which does not include variables of the calculated MSE values, and
wherein the non-transitory storage medium further comprises program instructions for amending the geomechanical model with respect to the second data prior to determining the one or more parameters of the well completion design.
Yes. But for the recited additional elements as shown above in bold, the remaining limitations of the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity. The claims are directed to designing a well. Per paragraph 0006 of the Specification, Applicant is “determining one or more parameters of a well completion design for at least a portion of a drilled well that causes little or no delay between the drilling and completion phases of the well.” The Specification further states that “[i]t would be further beneficial for such a method to be relatively low cost and deliver higher efficacies relative to wells completed on the assumption that the rock along the wellbore trajectory is homogenous and isotropic.” This type of method of organizing human activity is a fundamental economic principle or practice because it includes designing a well that cost efficient and a commercial interaction such as agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, and business relations.
The claims also recite mental processes. For example, limitations of “acquiring values” includes observation; limitations of “categorizing,” “mapping,” and “determining,” include evaluation and judgment; and limitations of “creating a geomechanical model” and “creating the well completion design” include judgment and opinion.
Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Is the Abstract Idea Integrated into a Practical Application? (see MPEP 2106.04(d))
No. The claims as a whole merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The computing components (i.e., additional elements that are in bold above) are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to implement the steps. For example, only a programmed general purpose computing device (i.e., the claimed non-transitory storage medium) is needed to implement the claimed process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Additionally, there is no improvement to the functioning of a computer or technology. Therefore, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the Claim Provide an Inventive Concept? (see MPEP 2106.05)
No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements in the claims, both individually and in combination, amount to no more than tools to perform the abstract idea. Merely performing the abstract idea using a computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims do not provide an inventive concept.
As such, the claims are not patent eligible.
35 USC §§ 102 and 103
The claims are not rejected under 35 USC §§ 102 and 103 for the same reasons as parent application number 14/734,290. An updated search of the prior art did not result in a finding that the claims are obvious or not novel.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,634,979 B2.
Instant Application – Claim 1
Patent Number 11,634,979 B2 (Application Number 14/734,290) – Claim 1
1. A non-transitory storage medium comprising program instructions which when executed by a processor to perform the operations of:
acquiring values of mechanical specific energy (MSE) for at least portion of a drilled well;
categorizing the MSE values into a plurality of groups according to different ranges of MSE values;
mapping the groups to which the MSE values are categorized to locations along the drilled well;
creating a geomechanical model of the mapped groups;
determining one or more parameters of a well completion design for the drilled well from the geomechanical model; and
creating the well completion design with the one or more parameters.
1. A non-transitory storage medium comprising program instructions which when executed by a processor perform the operations of:
receiving data regarding a drilling operation of a well;
calculating values of mechanical specific energy (MSE) from the received data;
categorizing the MSE values into a plurality of groups according to different ranges of MSE values;
mapping groups to which the MSE values are categorized to locations along the drilled well;
creating a geomechanical model of the mapped groups;
demarcating subsets of the geomechanical model such that lengths of the subsets correspond to sections of the drilled well;
determining one or more parameters of a well completion design for the drilled well using the demarcated subsets of the geomechanical model, wherein the one or more parameters are selected from a group consisting of locations of perforation clusters, quantities of perforation clusters, locations of fracking stages, lengths of fracking stages, and one or more parameters to induce and maintain hydraulic fractures fractures including selecting fracturing fluid type and proppant type; and
creating the well completion design with the one or more parameters.
Instant Application – Claim 12
Patent Number 11,634,979 B2 (Application Number 14/734,290) – Claim 1
12. A non-transitory storage medium comprising program instructions which when executed by a processor to perform the operations of:
acquiring values of mechanical specific energy (MSE) for at least portion of a drilled well;
creating a geomechanical model of at least a portion of the well based at least in part on the calculated MSE values;
determining multiple parameters of a well completion design for the drilled well from the geomechanical model, wherein the multiple parameters comprise at least two different parameters selected from a group consisting of locations of perforation clusters, quantities of perforation clusters, locations of fracking stages, and lengths of fracking stages; and
creating the well completion design with the multiple parameters.
1. A non-transitory storage medium comprising program instructions which when executed by a processor perform the operations of:
receiving data regarding a drilling operation of a well;
calculating values of mechanical specific energy (MSE) from the received data;
categorizing the MSE values into a plurality of groups according to different ranges of MSE values;
mapping groups to which the MSE values are categorized to locations along the drilled well;
creating a geomechanical model of the mapped groups;
demarcating subsets of the geomechanical model such that lengths of the subsets correspond to sections of the drilled well;
determining one or more parameters of a well completion design for the drilled well using the demarcated subsets of the geomechanical model, wherein the one or more parameters are selected from a group consisting of locations of perforation clusters, quantities of perforation clusters, locations of fracking stages, lengths of fracking stages, and one or more parameters to induce and maintain hydraulic fractures fractures including selecting fracturing fluid type and proppant type; and
creating the well completion design with the one or more parameters.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, the reference claim is not patentably distinct from instant claims 1 and 12 because each is drawn to the same invention. Claims 1 and 12 are anticipated by or made obvious by reference claim 1. As shown in the above tables, most of claims 1 and 12 are disclosed in reference claim 1. The differences are minor and inherent in the reference claim. To the extent that any of the differences are not determined to be inherent, they are obvious in light of reference claim 1. For example, reference claim 12 recites “creating a geomechanical model of at least a portion of the well based at least in part on the calculated MSE values.” Reference claim 1 recites “creating a geomechanical model of the mapped groups.” Because reference claim 1 states that the mapped groups are related to the drilled wells, the limitation of instant claim 12 is inherently disclosed in reference claim 1. To overcome this rejection, Applicant should file a Terminal Disclaimer or amend the claims. Upon double patenting being the only remaining rejection in this application, Examiner will review and update it, as appropriate, in light of the pending claims.
Relevant Prior Art
The following references are relevant to Applicant’s invention:
Samuel et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2014/0326449 A1. This reference teaches a method of determining optimal parameters for a downhole operation.
Edbury et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2013/0032407 A1. This reference teaches a method for drilling.
Krueger et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2012/0261190 A1. This reference teaches a mechanical specific energy drilling system.
Johnson et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2009/0076873 A1. This reference teaches a method to improve industrial engineered systems such as oil well drilling decisions and transfer risk.
Pena, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2013/0087385 A1. This reference teaches a method for detecting and mitigating drilling inefficiencies.
Burge et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2008/0289875 A1. This reference teaches the design of oil wells by defining a number of design parameters, some of which are interdependent.
Additionally, see prior art references cited in parent application.
Email Communications
Per MPEP 502.03, Applicant may authorize email communications by filing Form PTO/SB/439, available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf, via the USPTO patent electronic filing system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH H ROSEN whose telephone number is (571) 270-1850 and email address is elizabeth.rosen@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10 AM ET - 7 PM ET.
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, Michael Anderson, can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/ELIZABETH H ROSEN/Primary Examiner, 3693
Prosecution Insights