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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/01/25 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5, 7, 9-12, 14-20, 22, 24-27, 29-35, 37, 39-42, and 44-48 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Nonetheless, the examiner will respond to the applicant’s arguments, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection.
The applicant first gives some background, as to how courts have traditionally evaluated 101 rejections.
With respect to step 2A, prong one, the applicant argues:
PNG
media_image1.png
692
792
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
650
794
media_image2.png
Greyscale
This argument is not persuasive because the claims do not merely involve mathematical relationship. They are defined by them. The claimed “trend relationship” of the measurement of the force and the measurement of the rotational velocity is a mathematical relationship. “Measurement of the force” can be considered analogous to a first variable, while “measurement of the rotational velocity” can be considered analogous to a second variable. The “trend relationship” between the two variables defines a mathematical relationship.
Furthermore, the applicant’s amended claims appear to find some support in figure 1, reference 180 and paragraph 0038 of the applicant’s original disclosure. Here, it is disclosed that measurement sets 160 are fit to one of the behavior curves 180. Fitting data to a curve is a mathematical operation.
Next, the applicant argues:
PNG
media_image3.png
342
780
media_image3.png
Greyscale
This argument is not persuasive because the applicant’s support for the claimed identifying steps, aside from figure 1, appears to be found in figure 3. Figure 3A represents a decision tree that can be performed in the human mind. The human mind can evaluate a limited set of conditions, such as whether there is torsional, axial, and rotational dysfunction (reference 331); torsional and rotational dysfunction (reference 341); and/or high frequency torsional oscillations or 3D coupled vibrations (reference 344) and then comes to an evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion about whether there is cutting-induced (reference 332), drillpipe-induced (reference 342), and/or friction-induced (reference 322) stick-slip vibration. Processing a limited amount of conditions to arrive at a limited amount of conclusions is something that the human mind can process.
With respect to step 2A, prong two, the applicant argues:
PNG
media_image4.png
686
800
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
544
802
media_image5.png
Greyscale
This argument is not persuasive because there is a distinction between an improvement to a judicial exception and an improvement to technology. Here, the claimed mitigation is not clearly defined and positively recited. The mitigation limitation serves the function of a computer processing “data output” limitation that merely communicates the result of data processing, rather than affirmatively and positively reciting some sort of transformative drilling mitigation, such as stopping the drilling or removing a drill bit, etc …
The examiner views a difference between a “computer processing” type of mitigation, where the data is output and then stays on the computer, versus a physical and structural type of mitigation, where the condition of the drill is actually changed. In their current form, the claimed mitigation resembles the former more than the latter. If the claimed mitigation is actually structural and transformative, the examiner suggests that the applicant positively and affirmatively recite the structural and transformative aspects of the mitigation in the claims. The examiner would also suggest clearly showing where such structural and transformative mitigation is supported in the applicant’s disclosure.
With respect to step 2A, prong two, the applicant argues:
PNG
media_image6.png
338
788
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
242
780
media_image7.png
Greyscale
This argument is not persuasive because as stated above, there is a distinction between an improvement to a judicial exception, versus an improvement to technology.
As a whole, the claims are directed to collecting data, processing that data through a mathematical data processing technique, and then outputting that data. As stated above, if there is an actual physical and/or structural change to the drill that results in effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)), it is suggested that such elements be positively and affirmatively recited.
For the above reasons, the 101 rejection is maintained.
The applicant’s arguments, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, are moot, in view of the new grounds of rejection below that were necessitated by the applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Specification and Drawings
As stated in a previous action, the drawings of 01/31/23 are accepted.
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 1-5, 7, 9-12, 14-20, 22, 24-27, 29-35, 37, 39-42, and 44-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
With respect to step 1 of the patent subject matter eligibility analysis, the claims are directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Independent claim 1 is directed to a method, which is a process. Independent claim 16 is directed to a non-transitory machine-readable medium, which is a manufacture. Independent claim 31 is directed to a system, which is a machine. All other claims depend on independent claims 1, 16, and 31. As such, claims 1-5, 7, 9-12, 14-20, 22, 24-27, 29-35, 37, 39-42, and 44-48 are directed to a statutory category.
With respect to step 2A, prong one, the claims recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon. Specifically, the following limitations recite mathematical concepts and/or mental processes.
Claim 1
identifying a type of dysfunction that distinguishes between cutting-induced, drillpipe-induced, or friction-induced stick-slip vibration experienced by a drill bit based on a determined trend relationship of the measurement of the force and the measurement of the rotational velocity (This limitation recites an abstract mathematical concept in the form of a mathematical relationship. The limitation “based on a determined trend relationship …” recites a mathematical relationship between two variables, force and rotational velocity. In addition, support for the amended limitation of, “identifying a type of dysfunction that distinguishes between cutting-induced, drillpipe-induced, or friction-induced stick-slip vibration appears to be supported by figure 3A of the applicant’s drawings. Figure 3A represents a decision tree that can be grasped and executed by the human mind. The limitation therefore recites an abstract mental process. Distinguishing between three options is an evaluation, judgment, or opinion that can be performed in the human mind.)
Independent claims 16 and 31 recite a similar abstract idea. All other claims depend on independent claims 1, 16, and 31 and also recite an abstract idea as a result of their dependency. Furthermore, some of the dependent claims further recite their own abstract ideas.
For example, claims 14, 29, and 44 disclose a ratio, which is a mathematical relationship.
Claims 15, 30, and 45 disclose identifying when measurements fit one or more torsional behavior trends. As discussed above, a general identification, shown in applicant’s figure 3A decision tree, is an abstract mental process. Also, fitting trends defines an abstract mathematical relationship.
Claims 46-48 disclose identifying 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. The support for these limitations appears to be paragraph 0038 of the applicant’s original specification, which discuss evaluating a behavior curve 180 (from a limited subset of choices) and then identifying that the curve chosen best fits a specific type of function based torsional behavior. This is an observation, evaluation, or judgement that can be performed in the human mind.
With respect to step 2A, prong two, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The following limitations are considered “additional elements” and explanation will be given as to why these “additional elements” do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 1
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 (This limitation is not indicative of integration into a practical application because its function in the claims is merely to perform routine and conventional data gathering for the abstract data processing limitations. Routine and conventional data gathering merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The inclusion of “downhole” measurements and “while the drill bit is drilling in a wellbore” merely serve to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). A general and generic recitation of acquiring downhole measurements while a drill bit is drilling is a routine and conventional element that is well-known and well-established in the drilling field (please see cited art below). No detail is given to distinguish the data acquisition limitation as part of the “solution” of the invention, as opposed to merely insignificant extra-solution activity.)
by at least one processor (This limitation merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). It is not indicative of integration into a practical application.)
mitigating the identified type of dysfunction (This limitation is not indicative of integration into a practical application because there are no positive recitation of details that apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b); that effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c); or that otherwise would be indicative of integration into a practical application under additional rationales. As seen below, the additional limiting elements of the claimed “mitigating” are not indicative of integration into a practical application.)
by communicating an identified drill bit behavior to a controller (Mere communication is akin to outputting a result from the abstract data processing. It does not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. It merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).)
to adjust a parameter of the drilling (This limitation is not indicative of integration into a practical application because it is not clear what type of adjustment this is. Is it a data adjustment, where a computer simply adjusts a data point, or is this a structural adjustment, such as speeding up or slowing down the drill bit? Based on the applicant’s original specification, it would appear that the adjustment is a data adjustment. Adjusting was only found to be disclosed in paragraphs 0037, 0039, and 0167 of the applicant’s original specification. Paragraph 0167 merely states, “wherein mitigating the identified drill bit dysfunction comprises adjusting at least one of a drilling parameter and a drill bit parameter.” It does not give any details as to what adjusting entails. Paragraphs 0037 and 0039 disclose adjusting the slope and y-intercept of a line of behavior curves. This would suggest using different data parameters in the abstract mathematical data processing. Merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is not indicative of integration into a practical application. Furthermore, this adjustment step also adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. There was a relevant discussion about “adjusting” in the 09/01/23 Patent Board Decision of 16/081528. On page 17, paragraph 1 of the Decision, the Board stated, “The ‘adjusting’ step does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and is also not enough to ensure the claims are directed to significantly more than an abstract idea. The ‘adjusting’ step is directed to the insignificant post-solution activity of outputting data. See MPEP § 2106.05(g); see also Ans. 3-4 (‘Claims merely recite a solution or outcome without describing how the adjusting of equipment is done to identify the optimal balance of multiple parameters in oilfield operations that would render the subject matter patent-eligible or otherwise impose meaningful limits on the abstract idea.’).”
comprising the rotational velocity of the drill bit while the drill bit is rotating in the wellbore (Here, the mere mention of the rotational velocity of the drill bit while the drill bit is rotating in the wellbore merely serves to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The claims do not positively recite effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, such as by stating, “mitigating the identified type of dysfunction by decreasing the rotational velocity of the drill bit, while the drill bit is drilling in a wellbore.” As a whole, the “solution” proposed by the claims appears to merely use computer processing to output a result, rather than structurally changing something about the drill. The examiner suggests positively recited an affirmative change, rather than merely referencing a computer processing operation.)
Independent claims 16 and 31 recite similar limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application. All other claims depend on independent claims 1, 16, and 31 and also recite limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application as a result of their dependency. Furthermore, some of the dependent claims further recite their own limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claims 2, 17, and 32 disclose “while the drill bit is positioned in the wellbore.” As discussed above, this phrase merely serves to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. It is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claims 3, 18, and 33 disclose performing operations, such as communicating measurements to a processor and mitigating dysfunction. These operations appear to be computer processing operations, rather than operations that result in a structural change to a machine or a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is not indicative of integration into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claims 4, 19, and 34 disclose a position of a processor. This appears to merely serve to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as the applicant’s disclosure does not appear to have established any criticality to the location of the processor.
Claims 5, 20, and 35 disclose real time communication. Simply adding the words “real time” does not necessarily render a claim eligible (see Cardionet). Here, the real time processing is generically claimed and appears to merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Claims 7, 22, and 37 disclose that the parameter comprises at least one of rotational velocity, a weight on bit, and a torque on bit. These limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application because they merely serve to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The limitations are directed to data about a structural property but do not positively recite the structural conditions behind the properties.
Claims 9, 24, and 39 disclose that the dysfunction comprises a vibration. These limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application because they merely serve to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The limitations are directed to data about a structural property but do not positively recite the structural conditions behind the properties.
Claims 10, 25, and 40 disclose that the vibration comprises at least one of a torsional vibration and a torsional oscillation. These limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application because they merely serve to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The limitations are directed to data about a structural property but do not positively recite the structural conditions behind the properties.
Claims 11, 26, and 41 disclose that the vibration comprises at least one of a high-frequency torsional oscillation and a low-frequency torsional oscillation. These limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application because they merely serve to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The limitations are directed to data about a structural property but do not positively recite the structural conditions behind the properties.
Claims 12, 27, and 42 disclose that the vibration comprises a three-dimensional vibration. These limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application because they merely serve to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The limitations are directed to data about a structural property but do not positively recite the structural conditions behind the properties.
With respect to step 2B, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claimed invention does not add significantly more because, as discussed above in step 2A, prong two, the claims do nothing more than merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The claims are directed to receiving and processing data. This is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Simply appending well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, and specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) (see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo).
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 trend relationship of the measurement of the force and the measurement of the rotational velocity
mitigating the identified type of dysfunction by communicating an identified drill bit behavior to a controller to adjust a parameter of the drilling comprising the rotational velocity of the drill bit 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 trend relationship of the measurement of the force and the measurement of the rotational velocity (This limitation is obvious in view of the combination of Ertas et al and Cayeux et al NPL. 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. 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 communicating an identified drill bit behavior to a controller to adjust a parameter of the drilling comprising the rotational velocity of the drill bit 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).)
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.)
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 …”)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ertas et al (US PgPub 20110077924) discloses methods and systems for mitigating drilling vibrations.
Chen et al (US PgPub 20190178075) discloses drilling energy calculation based on transient dynamics simulation and its application to drilling optimization.
Nessjoen et al (US PgPub 20110245980) discloses methods and apparatus for reducing stick-slip.
Bailey et al (US PgPub 20180283161) discloses a method for drilling wellbores utilizing a drill string assembly optimized for stick-slip vibration conditions.
Mauldin et al (US PgPub 20130092439) discloses an analysis of drillstring dynamics using an angular rate sensor.
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 04/02/26