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 filed 05/05/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, the applicant’s amended limitation, regarding “mitigating the identified type of dysfunction …” is considered to be indicative of integration into a practical application. However, the limitation also necessitated a 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection, and a 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection may still be needed, depending on how the 112(a) rejection is overcome.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, the applicant argues:
PNG
media_image1.png
621
605
media_image1.png
Greyscale
These arguments are not persuasive because paragraphs 0069-0070 of Ertas, which were not previously cited in detail, appear to provide disclosure that is relevant to the rejection of the claims in question. Explanation of these specific paragraphs are detailed in the art rejection below.
The rejection is maintained.
Specification and Drawings
As stated in a previous action, the drawings of 01/31/23 are accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9-12, 14-20, 22, 24-27, 29-35, 37, 39-42, and 44-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claims 1, 16, and 31 have been amended to include the following limitation:
mitigating the identified type of dysfunction by reducing the rotational velocity of the drill bit to reduce a velocity weakening effect while the drill bit is rotating in the wellbore
The examiner could not find support for this limitation in the applicant’s disclosure. Although the examiner found support for dysfunction mitigation (paragraphs 0022, 0038, 0074, 0076, 0079, 0083, 0085, 0089-0091, and 0097 of the applicant’s original specification); rotational velocity (paragraphs 0026, 0028, 0032, 0043, 0059, and 0177 of the applicant’s original specification); and velocity weakening effect (paragraphs 0035, 0048, 0053, 0098-0101, and various sections of 0103-0135 of the applicant’s original specification), the examiner could not find a section that taught the nexus of these disparate concepts being used together to “mitigate the identified type of dysfunction by reducing the rotational velocity of the drill bit to reduce a velocity weakening effect while the drill bit is rotating in the wellbore.” The examiner requests that the applicant demonstrate where the claimed limitation is supported in the disclosure.
All other claims depend on independent claims 1, 16, and 31. They are also rejected, as a result of their dependency.
Examiner’s Note - 35 USC § 101
In the 05/05/26 response, the applicant has amended independent claims 1, 16, and 31 with the following limitation:
mitigating the identified type of dysfunction by reducing the rotational velocity of the drill bit to reduce a velocity weakening effect while the drill bit is rotating in the wellbore
Under step 2A, prong two, this limitation would be indicative of integration into a practical application because it applies any judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine. Here, the particular machine is positively recited in the form of a drill bit that is structurally transformed to have its rotational velocity reduced, in order to reduce a velocity weakening effect while the drill bit is rotating in the wellbore.
However, please note that this limitation is also subject to the above 112(a) rejection, and depending on how the 112 rejection is addressed, the 101 rejection may again be necessitated.
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) 1-5, 7, 9-12, 14-20, 22, 24-27, 29-35, 37, 39-42, and 44-48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cayeux et al NPL (Cayeux, Eric and Ambrus, Adrian – “Analysis of Torsional Stick-Slip Situations Observed with Downhole High-Frequency Magnetometer Data; This paper was prepared for presentation at the IADC/SPE International Drilling Conference and Exhibition held in Galveston, Texas, 3-5 March 2020) in view of Ertas et al (US PgPub 20120130693).
With respect to claim 1, Cayeux et al NPL discloses:
A method (abstract, page 1, paragraph 1 states, “The use of downhole rotational speed measurements made at 300 Hz gives new insight into the conditions under which stick-slip torsional oscillations occur.” The description that follow describes the method of Cayeux et al NPL.)
acquiring downhole measurements of a force, comprising a torque and a weight, and a rotational velocity experienced by a drill bit while the drill bit is drilling in a wellbore (abstract, page 1, paragraph 3 states, “Downhole measurements have shown that when the drill-string is subject to strong stick-slip conditions, the downhole rotational speed changes from stationary to more than 400 rpm in just a fraction of a second.”; page 2, Introduction, paragraph 3 states, “Although the majority of modern BHA systems include downhole measurements of torsional and axial vibration …” This shows that downhole measurements are well-known and well-established.; Cayeux et al NPL discloses force and rotational velocity throughout its disclosure. For example, please see figures 9-10, which show both rotational velocity and torque (i.e. twisting force) data. In addition, Cayeux et al NPL also discloses torque and weight throughout its disclosure. For example, page 2, paragraph 5 states, “We recognize an initial stick condition during which the torque builds up … Note also that the rotational speed, tension and torque are all measured in the same sub.” See also figure 1, which shows torque increase. Please also note the last paragraph of page 11, which states, “FIG. 12 shows how the free-rotating weight (FRW) is impacted by a change of flow rate …”)
With respect to claim 1, Cayeux et al NPL differs from the claimed invention in that it does not explicitly disclose:
identifying, by at least one processor, a type of dysfunction that distinguishes between cutting-induced, drillpipe-induced, or friction-induced stick-slip vibration experienced by the drill bit based on a determined fit between the measurement of the force and the measurement of the rotational velocity over time as a distribution, and predetermined torsional behavior curves
mitigating the identified type of dysfunction by reducing the rotational velocity of the drill bit to reduce a velocity weakening effect while the drill bit is rotating in the wellbore
With respect to claim 1, Ertas et al discloses:
identifying, by at least one processor, a type of dysfunction that distinguishes between cutting-induced, drillpipe-induced, or friction-induced stick-slip vibration experienced by the drill bit based on a determined fit between the measurement of the force and the measurement of the rotational velocity over time as a distribution, and predetermined torsional behavior curves (This limitation is obvious in view of the combination of Ertas et al and Cayeux et al NPL. Paragraphs 0068-0069 of Ertas et al states, “These operating parameters can be managed by one or more of: (a) real-time feeds of surface drilling mechanics data … Examples of reference downhole conditions include: (1) the state of ‘full stick-slip’ … (2) the state of ‘bit bounce’ … (3) an axial vibration state … (4) extreme values of stick-slip … The reference downhole condition may be expressed as a vibration amplitude or as a vibration amplitude ratio …“ (emphasis mine). Although this section does not explicitly use the phrase, “torsional behavior curves,” one of ordinary skill in the art recognizes that it would be obvious to plot the ratios representing the collected data of the different drill states in graphical form, which would then anticipate the claimed torsional behavior curves. The torsional behavior curves correspond to different problematic drill states. These drill states are expressed here in numerical form. Expressing the same data in graphical form would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Also, as disclosed, Ertas uses real-time data, which suggests measurement over time as a distribution. Furthermore, paragraph 0120 of Ertas et al states, “For instance, if the surface monitoring system is capable of real-time spectral analysis, the torque signal can be analyzed for the prevalent period to automatically decide the type of stick-slip that is present … It is beneficial to the driller to know the type of torsional oscillation as well as the severity, since mitigation measures may be different for each type.” (emphasis mine). Here, Ertas recognizes distinguishing between different types of dysfunction. As stated above, it also recognizes real-time monitoring and analysis (see also Ertas paragraph 0065 for further real-time teachings); determining trend relationships would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, in view of real-time monitoring and analysis. Ertas does not specifically mention cutting-induced, drillpipe-induced, or friction-induced stick-slip vibration in these passages. However, Cayeux et al NPL recognizes various types of stick-slip and gives more context that would indicate that such types of stick-slip vibrations would be well-understood or obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The “Conclusions” section on page 26 of Cayeux et al NPL states, “There are many sources of excitations for stick-slips, amongst others: Static to kinetic friction transitions … Pressure engendered forces … Forces resulting from cuttings during their transport and deposition …” Static to kinetic friction transitions appear to be indicative of friction-induced stick-slip. Forces resulting from cuttings appears to be indicative of cutting-induced stick-slip. Pressure engendered forces appears to be indicative of drillpipe-induced stick-slip. This is especially in view of the first paragraph on page 11 of Cayeux, which states, “for each change of pipe diameter, the axially directed pressure gradient engenders a net force that is axially oriented.” Therefore, Cayeux et al recognizes the different types of claimed stick-slip vibrations, while Ertas et al goes into more detail about deciding the type of stick-slip that is present using real-time analysis, with different types of mitigation measures for each type.)
mitigating the identified type of dysfunction by reducing the rotational velocity of the drill bit to reduce a velocity weakening effect while the drill bit is rotating in the wellbore (obvious in view of combination; Cayeux et al incorporates, by reference, multiple references that contemplate mitigating stick-slip. For example, please note the “References” section on page 29. This includes disclosures, such as “Improved Methods to Understand and Mitigate Stick-Slip Torsional Vibrations;” “Mitigating land Understanding Stick-Slip in Unconventional Wells;” and “A Comparison of Stick-Slip Mitigation Tools.” The claimed limitation is obvious in view of the expanded teachings of Caveux et al NPL, in view of its incorporated references. For example, please note the abstract of Bailey et al NPL (Bailey, J. R., Payette, G. S., & Wang, L. (2018, March 6). Improved Methods to Understand and Mitigate Stick-Slip Torsional Vibrations. Society of Petroleum Engineers.), which states, “In this paper, it will be shown how stick-slip vibration distributions can be used to evaluate drill string and parameter redesign options …” Please also note the abstract of Kyllingstad NPL (Kyllingstad, A. (2017, March 14). A Comparison of Stick-Slip Mitigation Tools. Society of Petroleum Engineers.), which states, “The most effective way to mitigate torsional stick-slip oscillations is to apply smart control of the top drive …” Please also note the abstract of Dao et al NPL (Dao, N.-H., Menand, S., & Isbell, M. (2019, March 4). Mitigating and Understanding Stick-Slip in Unconventional Wells. Society of Petroleum Engineers., which states, “With a better understanding of the initiation and translation of stick-slip from the bit up the hole to surface provided by this case study, engineers can be better informed when making decisions on factors such as drill pipe size and type, bit aggressiveness, and parameter changes in wells with severe stick-slip in unconventional wells application.” Also, as seen above, Ertas et al also discloses different types of mitigation depending on type of stick-slip (paragraph 0120). Furthermore, Ertas et al specifically discloses velocity-weakening (see paragraphs 0205, 0244-0245, and 0248).)
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 teachings of Ertas et al into the invention of Cayeux et al NPL. The motivation for the skilled artisan in doing so is to gain the benefit of mitigating against different types of stick-slip.
Independent claim 16 represents the non-transitory, machine-readable medium version of method claim 1. It is rejected for similar reasons. Page 17, last paragraph suggests computers by stating, “Another way of looking at the stability of downhole RPM is by computing …” Page 5, last paragraph discloses memory by stating, “The sub stored measurements in memory for offline uploading …” Page 6, paragraph 4 also disclose memory by stating, “The high sample rate creates a raw dataset … the vibration sub has a highspeed memory read-out … Page 6, paragraph 4 also discloses, “an onshore processing center.”
Independent claim 31 represents the system version of method claim 1. It is rejected for similar reasons. Abstract on page 1 discloses a rotary steerable system. Page 17, last paragraph suggests computers by stating, “Another way of looking at the stability of downhole RPM is by computing …” Page 5, last paragraph discloses memory by stating, “The sub stored measurements in memory for offline uploading …” Page 6, paragraph 4 also disclose memory by stating, “The high sample rate creates a raw dataset … the vibration sub has a highspeed memory read-out … Page 6, paragraph 4 also discloses, “an onshore processing center.”
With respect to claims 2, 17, and 32, Cayeux et al NPL, as modified, discloses:
wherein identifying the type of dysfunction comprises identifying the type of dysfunction while the drill bit is positioned in the wellbore (obvious in view of combination, for reasons discussed above)
With respect to claims 3, 18, and 33, Cayeux et al NPL, as modified, discloses:
the drill bit to drill the wellbore (for claim 33) (page 2, paragraph 5 states, “Fig. 1 shows an example of a stick-slip … behind the bit while drilling …” Page 4, last paragraph states, “Both BHAs utilize a rotary steerable system (RSS) and … PDC (polycrystalline diamond compact) bit.)
performing the following operations while the drill bit is positioned in the wellbore (page 3, last paragraph states, “The wellbore architecture, the horizontal and vertical projections of the trajectory and a schematic view of the drillstring/BHA used to drill the reservoir sections are shown on Fig. 3 and 4.”)
communicating the measurements to the at least one processor (page 6, paragraph 4 states, “Operational experience shows that it is important to have a high bandwidth network connection from the rig site to an onshore processing center …”)
and mitigating the type of dysfunction by adjusting a parameter of the drill bit (obvious in view of mitigation art discussed above)
With respect to claims 4, 19, and 34, Cayeux et al NPL, as modified, discloses:
wherein the at least one processor is at a surface of the wellbore (page 6, paragraph 4 states, “Operational experience shows that it is important to have a high bandwidth network connection from the rig site to an onshore processing center …”)
With respect to claims 5, 20, and 35, Cayeux et al NPL, as modified, discloses:
wherein communicating the measurements comprises communicating the measurements to the at least one processor at the surface of the wellbore in real time (obvious in view of art that Cayeux et al NPL incorporates by reference. For example, page 29, lines 3-5 incorporate a reference directed to “Real-Time Evaluation of Hole-Cleaning Conditions With a Transient Cuttings-Transport Model.” Page 29, lines 8-9 incorporate a reference directed to “On the Importance of Boundary Conditions for Real-Time Transient Drill-String Mechanical Estimations.”)
With respect to claims 7, 22, and 37, Cayeux et al NPL, as modified, discloses:
wherein the parameter of the drill bit comprises at least one of a weight on bit or a torque on bit (obvious in view of art incorporated by reference into Cayeux et al NPL; For example, page 3, paragraph 5, of Bailey et al NPL (Bailey, J. R., Payette, G. S., & Wang, L. (2018, March 6). Improved Methods to Understand and Mitigate Stick-Slip Torsional Vibrations. Society of Petroleum Engineers.), which was referenced above, states, “Downhole torque: the torque required by the bit and string, which may in some cases be effectively modeled by the bit friction factor, weight on bit …”)
With respect to claims 9, 24, and 39, Cayeux et al NPL, as modified, discloses:
wherein the dysfunction comprises a vibration (Page 2, paragraph 1 states, “severe stick-slip and high torsional vibrations often cause bottom hole assembly (BHA) tool failures and reduced drilling efficiency.”)
With respect to claims 10, 25, and 40, Cayeux et al NPL, as modified, discloses:
wherein the vibration comprises a torsional vibration (page 2, paragraph 1)
With respect to claims 11, 26, and 41, Cayeux et al NPL, as modified, discloses:
wherein the vibration comprises torsional oscillation (page 1, paragraph 1 states, “The use of downhole rotational speed measurements made at 300Hz gives new insight into the conditions under which stick-slip torsional oscillations occur.”)
With respect to claims 12, 27, and 42, Cayeux et al NPL, as modified, discloses:
wherein the vibration comprises a three-dimensional vibration (obvious in view of art incorporated by reference into Cayeux et al NPL; For example, page 7, paragraph 4 of Dao et al NPL, which was discussed in claim 1 above, states, “To consider the contact friction along a drillstring, a static calculation is performed using an advanced 3D drillstring behavior model …” Dao et al NPL also incorporates, by reference, a piece of art entitled, “Advancements in 3D Drillstring mechanics: From the Bit to the Topdrive.” (see reference 32 on page 17). 3D modelling of drill strings is well-known and well-established. The claimed limitation is considered obvious in view of the broad and expansive teachings of Cayeux et al NPL, especially when considering the broad and vast teachings that it incorporates by reference.)
With respect to claims 14, 29, and 44, Cayeux et al NPL, as modified, discloses:
wherein identifying the type of dysfunction comprises identifying the type of dysfunction based on at least one of a ratio of the WOB to the rotational velocity and a ratio of the TOB to the rotational velocity (obvious in view of expansive teachings of Cayeux et al NPL. Weight on bit, rotational velocity, and torque on bit are all common parameters used for identifying dysfunction in drilling, such as via stick-slip. The abstract, paragraph 2, of Dao et al NPL states, “The results reinforce the importance of drilling parameters, such as the weight on bit and associated torque on bit that define the bit aggressiveness and are key in controlling or mitigating stick-slip vibration.” Identifying a simple ratio of key variables that are already known would be mathematically obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of the KSR rationales for obviousness is “Design Incentives or Market Forces Prompting Variations.” Here, there is a base device, or method, or product that is similar or analogous to the claims. Design incentives or market forces would have prompted change. Known variations or principles would meet the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art and the implementation would have been predictable.)
With respect to claims 15, 30, and 45, Cayeux et al NPL, as modified, discloses:
wherein identifying the type of dysfunction comprises identifying when the measurements fit one or more torsional behavior trends (obvious in view of combination; Ertas et al paragraph 0065 states, “By diagnosing the axial and torsional behavior of the drill string, this invention complements the operator’s ROP management process that uses the Mechanical Specific Energy (MSE) as a diagnostic surface measurement of downhole behavior. As discussed above, both Cayeux et al NPL and Ertas et al discuss different types of stick-slip, which each have their own types of behavior and mitigation patterns. As seen here, Ertas et al also explicitly recognizes torsional behavior of the drill string. Paragraphs 0069, as stated above, discloses various “reference downhole conditions,” which are broadly construed to serve as the claimed “one or more torsional behavior trends.”)
With respect to claims 46-48, Cayeux et al NPL, as modified, discloses:
wherein identifying, by the at least one processor, the type of dysfunction comprises biased behavior detection, to report function over dysfunction to avoid false detection of drilling dysfunctions, or to report instances of destructive types of dysfunctions over less destructive types of dysfunctions to prevent damage to the drill bit (obvious in view of combination; Ertas et al paragraph 0120 states, “the appropriate severity level can then be displayed.” Ertas does not only distinguish between type of dysfunction; it also accounts for severity of dysfunction and displays the data, which accounts for “to report instances of destructive types of dysfunctions over less destructive types of dysfunctions …” Please also note paragraphs 0069-0070 of Ertas, which discloses “The reference downhole condition may be expressed as a vibration amplitude or as a vibration amplitude ratio … full stick-slip for which the ratio of the vibration amplitude (A(t) above) to the rotary speed is 1, or 100% stick-slip. It follows that other natural reference downhole vibration conditions may be selected … the amplitude and severity of the corresponding reference levels of surface parameters are calculated …” Severity calculation suggests more or less dysfunction, depending on the type of reference downhole vibration condition being considered.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ringer et al (US Pat 11230914) discloses systems and methods for determining and/or using estimate of drilling efficiency.
Chen et al (US PgPub 20030010534) discloses a steerable drilling system and method.
Dupriest (US PgPub 20090250264) discloses a method of drilling and production hydrocarbons from subsurface formations.
Veltman (US PgPub 20140284105) discloses a method of and a device and an electronic controller for mitigating stick-slip oscillations in borehole equipment.
Remmert et al (US PgPub 20080105424) discloses a method of drilling and producing hydrocarbons from subsurface formations.
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 07/16/26
/ARLEEN M VAZQUEZ/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights