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 .
Status of Claims
The following is a Final Office Action in response to the documents filed on 01/26/2026. Claims 1—7, 9—16, 18—20, and 22 are currently pending.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/26/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
Information Disclosure Statement received 02/23/2023 has been reviewed and considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and amendments filed 01/26/2026 in response to the rejection of claims 4, 5, 13, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The modifications made to claims 4 and 13 overcome the issues for which the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) was previously issued; as such, the previously provided rejection of claims 4, 5, 13, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) is withdrawn. Examiner notes that a new rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) is provided below in response to the amendments made to claim 13 which also impacts claim 14. Claim 22, which is new, is likewise rejected for the same reasons.
Applicant's arguments and amendments filed 01/26/2026 in response to the rejection of claims 1—7, 9—16, and 18—20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in overcoming the rejection of record provided in the Final Rejection dated 10/01/2025. The amendments necessitate a new grounds for rejection as provided below. The provided amendment, which has been applied to claims 1, 12, and 20, states “wherein determining that the drilling parameter is likely to overshoot the drilling parameter setpoint comprises determining the following condition: a current reading of the drilling parameter is in-between the drilling parameter setpoint and the drilling parameter setpoint minus a threshold.” This limitation, as discussed below, is anticipated by Belaskie which utilizes a response window of differential pressure limits 512 (e.g., comprising an upper limit separated from a lower limit) along with a trigger 505 (e.g., which functions within the differential pressure limits) to monitor the behavior of the operational differential pressure and prevent overshooting. For the foregoing reasons, the previously recited rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is withdrawn and replaced with the revised rejection as provided below.
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 13, 14, and 22 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.
Claims 13 and 22 recite the limitation “the current reading of the drilling parameter and each of the one or more previous readings of the drilling parameter are in-between the drilling parameter setpoint and the drilling parameter setpoint minus the threshold, wherein the one or more previous readings are stored in a buffer of drilling parameter readings,” which, as combined in the claim, is not disclosed in the Specification. The instant Specification at para. [0094] states the following (emphasis added by Examiner):
“[a]ccording to some embodiments, in order to identify a potential overshoot, the following conditions must be fulfilled:
The current differential pressure (“DP”) is in-between the differential pressure setpoint (DP_SP) and DP_SP-rop.dop.dp.prox.thresh.
The slope of a linear regression calculated based on the DP readings in the buffer is positive.
The calculated overshoot score (see below) for the current iteration and the last iteration are valid. As described in further below, the overshoot score is measure of a likelihood of the differential pressure setpoint being overshot.
The current DP reading and each previous DP reading in the buffer is greater than rop.dop.dp.prox.thresh.
The calculated overshoot score for the current iteration is greater than that of the last iteration.
rop.dop.dp.prox.thresh is a threshold at which overshoot detector and mitigator 226 enters the predicting state. Below the threshold, the algorithm is off since it is determined that DP is sufficiently far below DP_SP that there is no immediate risk of DP_SP being exceeded. Once all of the above conditions are met, overshoot detector and mitigator 226 transitions from the predicting state to the mitigating state.”
The foregoing is the full extent of how and where a buffer is expressly described as being used with respect to the overshoot conditions. Moreover, the Specification only recites two conditions which utilize a buffer (e.g., as identified above) and neither of them are the condition recited in claims. For the foregoing reason, claims 13 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for the inclusion of new matter. Claim 14 depends from claim 13 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for depending from a claim which includes new matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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—7, 9—13, 15—16, and 18—20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Published US Patent Application to Belaskie et al., hereinafter “Belaskie,” (US 20240044210 A1) in view of Issued US Patent to Aldred et al., hereinafter “Aldred” (US 5368108 A).
Regarding claim 1, Belaskie discloses [a] method of performing automated drilling of a wellbore, comprising, during drilling of the wellbore: in a predicting state: monitoring a drilling parameter (drilling parameters and response measurements, para. [0078], “[w]hile the response measurement is within the response window, the method may involve continuously monitoring the drilling parameters and the responses.”); and determining, based on the monitored drilling parameter, that the drilling parameter is likely to overshoot a drilling parameter setpoint associated with the drilling parameter (para. [0078], “[i]n response to determining that the response measurement is below the desired lower limit, the method may involve taking corrective action to return the response measurement to the window.”; para. [0097], “[w]hile the above example describes updating the upper bound of the ROP window, a similar process may be used to update the lower bound of the ROP window.” Examiner notes that the drilling parameter may exceed a drilling parameter set point by either surpassing an upper boundary by being above the boundary or surpassing a lower boundary by being below the boundary.); in a mitigating state: in response to determining that the drilling parameter is likely to overshoot the drilling parameter setpoint (para. [0093] “[i]n response to determining that the differential pressure is below the lower limit of the predefined differential pressure window or trending downwards towards the predefined differential pressure window, the method may involve determining 408 a new ROP value that will increase the differential pressure.”; para. [0097], “ [w]hile the above example describes updating the upper bound of the ROP window, a similar process may be used to update the lower bound of the ROP window.”; Examiner notes that updating the lower bound of the ROP is done in response to determining that the differential pressure is above or is trending towards an upper boundary of a predetermined differential pressure window.), reducing a rate of penetration (ROP) setpoint (updating the lower bound of the ROP in a downward manner reduces the lower ROP limit); and adjusting the drilling of the wellbore according to the reduced ROP setpoint so as to mitigate a likelihood of the drilling parameter increasing above the drilling parameter setpoint (please see para. [0093], [0094], and [0097] as cited above. Examiner notes the method of Belaskie modifies the rate of penetration in order to maintain the differential pressure (e.g., a drilling parameter) within a predefined pressure differential window), and wherein determining that the drilling parameter is likely to overshoot the drilling parameter setpoint comprises determining the following condition: a current reading of the drilling parameter is in-between the drilling parameter setpoint and the drilling parameter setpoint minus a threshold (FIG. 5A and 5B depict Differential Pressure 510 being monitored between differential pressure limits 512 which include an upper limit and a lower limit. In addition to the differential pressure limits 512, Belaskie further utilizes trigger 505 where Belaskie at para. [0103] states “[t]he trigger 505 represents one approach to determining whether the response measurement is within a response window…”. As depicted in FIG. 5B, trigger 505 is activated when the differential pressure 514 increases above a certain point within the differential pressure window thereby functioning as a safety factor (e.g., or threshold) which triggers an adjustment in the ROP to reduce the ability of the differential pressure 514 from exceeding the upper differential pressure limit 512.).
While the disclosure of Belaskie reads on the limitation “wherein the drilling parameter is a differential pressure and the drilling parameter setpoint is a differential pressure setpoint,” Belaskie may not disclose “a differential pressure setpoint that is less than a differential pressure upper limit.” Aldred, which is in the same field of endeavor as the instant application insofar as it is directed to optimizing the performance of a drilling motor and therefore avoiding motor stall scenarios, teaches the deficient limitations. For example, Aldred sets forth a relationship between hydraulic power (independent variable which is a function of pressure drop across the motor; see Col. 2, Lines 3—8) and mechanical power (which has a linear relationship to rate of penetration; see Col. 2, Lines 19—34). The relationship of Aldred may be mathematically modeled as presented in FIG. 3 which depicts an absolute upper boundary of operation where the motor stalls. The differential pressure associated with the motor stall criterion constitutes “a differential pressure upper limit,” where the motor cannot function at differential pressures which exceed this value. Moreover, elevated values of differential pressure will cause damage to the motor as taught by Aldred. For example, Aldred states “[a]t a certain level of torque, the load on the drilling motor is such that the pressure drop begins to deform the stator, and the motor works less efficiently. It will be recognized that if the torque value continues to increase, eventually the motor will stall so that the rotational speed of the motor output shaft goes to zero.” (Aldred, Col. 3, Lines 51—56).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the differential pressure associated with a motor stall condition of Aldred (e.g., see the power curve depicted in FIG. 3) as a differential pressure upper limit in the method of Belaskie. Belaskie and Aldred both provide for well-described models and methods to improve drilling performance by utilizing known characteristics (e.g., analytical models describing motor behavior) of mud motors (e.g., Moineau pumps operated in reverse). The differential pressure setpoints of Belaskie, cannot simultaneously do both of maintaining motor function and exceeding differential pressure of the stall condition. Therefore, in all scenarios where the setpoints are associated with a functional motor, the set points must exist below the stall criteria. As such, inclusion of the differential pressure associated with the failure point in the method of Belaskie does not change the function of the failure point or the method of Belaskie. Furthermore, Examiner notes the failure criterion of a mud motor inherently exists whether or not Belaskie explicitly states that the motor has a failure point. As such, the combination would provide for the predictable result of modifying and maintain the drilling parameters according to a setpoint which are established below a failure point.
Regarding claim 2, Belaskie modified by Aldred discloses reducing the ROP setpoint comprises continuously reducing the ROP setpoint over a time window (Belaskie, para. [0087], “…may involve gradually increasing the upper limit of the drilling parameter window to the new drilling parameter value. For example, it may be desirable to smoothly ramp up a drilling parameter over a period of time.”; para. [0087] “… may generate transition values for the drilling parameter window that gradually transition the upper limit of the drilling parameter window to the new drilling parameter value.” As noted above with respect to claim 1, para. [0097] discloses the changes may include reducing the ROP setpoint.).
Regarding claim 3, Belaskie modified by Aldred teach wherein reducing the ROP setpoint comprises reducing the ROP setpoint by a step change (Belaskie, para. [0079], “… the method may trigger changes to the drilling parameter while there is sufficient time to impact the response measurement and keep it within the response window.” Examiner notes that making any one or more changes to a drilling parameter constitutes a step change. As noted above with respect to claim 1, the changes may include reducing the ROP setpoint.).
Regarding claims 4—5, Belaskie modified by Aldred teach wherein determining that the drilling parameter is likely to overshoot the drilling parameter setpoint further comprises determining one or both of the following conditions: the current reading of the drilling parameter is greater than a next most recent reading of the drilling parameter (Belaskie, para. [0010], “[i]f the differential pressure is below the lower limit of the predefined differential pressure window or trending downwards towards the lower limit of the predefined differential pressure window, the system may determine a new rate of penetration value that will increase the differential pressure…”; para. [0097], “[w]hile the above example describes updating the upper bound of the ROP window, a similar process may be used to update the lower bound of the ROP window.” Examiner notes that the drilling parameter set point may exceed either an upper boundary by being above the boundary or a lower boundary by being below the boundary.); and a slope of a linear regression calculated based on a set of drilling parameter readings, including the current reading of the drilling parameter and one or more older readings of the drilling parameter, is positive (Belaskie, Please see the above citations to paragraphs [0010] and [0097].).
Regarding claim 6, Belaskie modified by Aldred teach wherein, after drilling the wellbore according to the reduced ROP setpoint, the method returns to the predicting state if any of the following conditions is true: the current reading of the drilling parameter is less than the drilling parameter setpoint minus a threshold (Belaskie, para. [0086], “[o]nce the response measurement returns to the response window, the method… may begin again with a system monitoring the drilling parameter measurements and the response measurements as described above.”); the current reading of the drilling parameter is greater than the drilling parameter setpoint; a slope of a linear regression calculated based on a set of drilling parameter readings, including the current reading of the drilling parameter and one or more older readings of the drilling parameter, is negative; and an elapsed time since the method has been in the mitigation state has increased above a threshold.
Regarding claim 7, Belaskie modified by Aldred teach wherein reducing the ROP setpoint comprises reducing the ROP setpoint by an amount based on one or more of: a rate of change of ROP; a rate of change of a weight on bit (WOB); a rate of change of torque; and a rate of change of differential pressure (Belaskie, para. [0077], “[t]he method may also involve receiving 304 response measurements during the drilling operation… responses are changes in values that result from changes to the drilling parameters... Another example is a change to differential pressure across a motor in response to changes in rate of penetration (ROP).”; para. [0079], “…determining a rate of change of the response measurement…”; para. [0077], “[t]he response measurement may be, for example, drillstring torque, hookload, weight on bit, differential pressure, or a combination thereof.”; para. [0078], “[i]n response to determining that the response measurement is below the desired lower limit, the method may involve taking corrective action to return the response measurement to the window.” Examiner notes that response measurements, which may include at least differential pressure, torque, and hookload, may be analyzed as a rate of change. If the response measurement is not functioning in a way that is conducive to the drilling operation, the drilling parameters may be adjusted where a drilling parameter may include a rate of penetration.).
Regarding claim 12, Belaskie discloses [a] system for performing automated drilling of a wellbore, the system comprising: a height control apparatus configured to adjust a height of a drill string comprising a drill bit used to drill the wellbore (Belaskie drawworks 207, para. [0039] “…a drawworks 207 for winching drill line or drill lines 212…”); a height sensor for monitoring a height of the drill string (Belaskie, para. [0070] “[a]s an example, one or more of the sensors 264 can be provided for tracking pipe, tracking movement of at least a portion of a drillstring, etc.”); a rotational drive unit (Belaskie, top drive 240, para. [0039] “… a top drive 240, a kelly drive bushing 219…”) comprising a rotational drive unit controller and a rotation rate sensor for monitoring a rotation rate of the drill bit (Belaskie, para. [0076] “[t]he drilling parameters being measured may be… surface drillstring rotation speed...”); a depth sensor for monitoring a depth of the drill bit (Belaskie, para. [0100] “FIGS. 5A and 5B illustrate example measurements displayed on a time and depth chart … and depth values (such as 12237) along they axis.” Examiner notes that having depth measurements implies the existence of a depth sensor.); a hookload sensor for measuring a weight applied to the drill bit (Belaskie, para. [0077] “[t]he response measurement may be, for example… hookload, weight on bit...”); a pressure sensor for monitoring a differential pressure (Belaskie, para. [0077] “[t]he response measurement may be, for example… differential pressure, or a combination thereof.”); a drilling controller (“rig control system”) communicatively coupled to the rotational drive unit controller, the rotation rate sensor, the height control apparatus, the height sensor, the depth sensor, the hookload sensor, and the pressure sensor (Belaskie, para. [0109], “[t]he drilling system may include a rig control system that communicates with the rig equipment. In one embodiment, the computer system may be part of the rig control system. ”; para. [0110], “… the computer system may receive, in real time, drilling parameter measurements and response measurements during the drilling operation.”), and the drilling controller being configured to perform a method comprising: in a predicting state: monitoring a drilling parameter (Belaskie, drilling parameters and response measurements, para. [0078], “[w]hile the response measurement is within the response window, the method may involve continuously monitoring the drilling parameters and the responses.”); and determining, based on the monitored drilling parameter, that the drilling parameter is likely to overshoot a drilling parameter setpoint associated with the drilling parameter (Belaskie, para. [0078], “[i]n response to determining that the response measurement is below the desired lower limit, the method may involve taking corrective action to return the response measurement to the window.”; para. [0097], “[w]hile the above example describes updating the upper bound of the ROP window, a similar process may be used to update the lower bound of the ROP window.” Examiner notes that the drilling parameter may exceed a drilling parameter set point by either surpassing an upper boundary by being above the boundary or surpassing a lower boundary by being below the boundary.); in a mitigating state: in response to determining that the drilling parameter is likely to overshoot the drilling parameter setpoint (Belaskie, para. [0093] “[i]n response to determining that the differential pressure is below the lower limit of the predefined differential pressure window or trending downwards towards the predefined differential pressure window, the method may involve determining 408 a new ROP value that will increase the differential pressure.”; para. [0097], “ [w]hile the above example describes updating the upper bound of the ROP window, a similar process may be used to update the lower bound of the ROP window.”; Examiner notes that updating the lower bound of the ROP is done in response to determining that the differential pressure is above or is trending towards an upper boundary of a predetermined differential pressure window.) reducing a rate of penetration (ROP) setpoint and adjusting the drilling of the wellbore according to the reduced ROP setpoint so as to mitigate a likelihood of the drilling parameter increasing above the drilling parameter setpoint (please see para. [0093], [0094], and [0097] of Belaskie as cited above. Examiner notes the method of Belaskie modifies the rate of penetration in order to maintain the differential pressure (e.g., a drilling parameter) within a predefined pressure differential window), and wherein determining that the drilling parameter is likely to overshoot the drilling parameter setpoint comprises determining the following condition: a current reading of the drilling parameter is in-between the drilling parameter setpoint and the drilling parameter setpoint minus a threshold (FIG. 5A and 5B depict Differential Pressure 510 being monitored between differential pressure limits 512 which include an upper limit and a lower limit. In addition to the differential pressure limits 512, Belaskie further utilizes trigger 505 where Belaskie at para. [0103] states “[t]he trigger 505 represents one approach to determining whether the response measurement is within a response window…”. As depicted in FIG. 5B, trigger 505 is activated when the differential pressure 514 increases above a certain point within the differential pressure window thereby functioning as a safety factor (e.g., or threshold) which triggers an adjustment in the ROP to reduce the ability of the differential pressure 514 from exceeding the upper differential pressure limit 512.).
While the disclosure of Belaskie reads on the limitation “wherein the drilling parameter is a differential pressure and the drilling parameter setpoint is a differential pressure setpoint,” Belaskie may not disclose “a differential pressure setpoint that is less than a differential pressure upper limit.” Aldred, which is in the same field of endeavor as the instant application insofar as it is directed to optimizing the performance of a drilling motor and therefore avoiding motor stall scenarios, teaches the deficient limitations. For example, Aldred sets forth a relationship between hydraulic power (independent variable which is a function of pressure drop across the motor; see Col. 2, Lines 3—8) and mechanical power (which has a linear relationship to rate of penetration; see Col. 2, Lines 19—34). The relationship of Aldred may be mathematically modeled as presented in FIG. 3 which depicts an absolute upper boundary of operation where the motor stalls. The differential pressure associated with the motor stall criterion constitutes “a differential pressure upper limit,” where the motor cannot function at differential pressures which exceed this value. Moreover, elevated values of differential pressure will cause damage to the motor as taught by Aldred. For example, Aldred states “[a]t a certain level of torque, the load on the drilling motor is such that the pressure drop begins to deform the stator, and the motor works less efficiently. It will be recognized that if the torque value continues to increase, eventually the motor will stall so that the rotational speed of the motor output shaft goes to zero.” (Aldred, Col. 3, Lines 51—56).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the differential pressure associated with a motor stall condition of Aldred (e.g., see the power curve depicted in FIG. 3) as a differential pressure upper limit in the method of Belaskie. Belaskie and Aldred both provide for well-described models and methods to improve drilling performance by utilizing known characteristics (e.g., analytical models describing motor behavior) of mud motors (e.g., Moineau pumps operated in reverse). The differential pressure setpoints of Belaskie, cannot simultaneously do both of maintaining motor function and exceeding differential pressure of the stall condition. Therefore, in all scenarios where the setpoints are associated with a functional motor, the set points must exist below the stall criteria. As such, inclusion of the differential pressure associated with the failure point in the method of Belaskie does not change the function of the failure point or the method of Belaskie. Furthermore, Examiner notes the failure criterion of a mud motor inherently exists whether or not Belaskie explicitly states that the motor has a failure point. As such, the combination would provide for the predictable result of modifying and maintain the drilling parameters according to a setpoint which are established below a failure point.
Regarding claim 13, Belaskie modified by Aldred teaches wherein determining that the drilling parameter is likely to overshoot the drilling parameter setpoint comprises determining one or more of the following conditions: the current reading of the drilling parameter is greater than a next most recent reading of the drilling parameter (Belaskie, para. [0010], “[i]f the differential pressure is below the lower limit of the predefined differential pressure window or trending downwards towards the lower limit of the predefined differential pressure window, the system may determine a new rate of penetration value that will increase the differential pressure…”; para. [0097], “[w]hile the above example describes updating the upper bound of the ROP window, a similar process may be used to update the lower bound of the ROP window.” Examiner notes that the drilling parameter set point may exceed either an upper boundary by being above the boundary or a lower boundary by being below the boundary.); a slope of a linear regression calculated based on a set of drilling parameter readings, including the current reading of the drilling parameter and one or more older readings of the drilling parameter, is positive (Belaskie, Please see the above citations to paragraphs [0010] and [0097].); and the current reading of the drilling parameter and each of one or more previous readings of the drilling parameter are in-between the drilling parameter setpoint and the drilling parameter setpoint and the drilling parameter setpoint minus the threshold (FIG. 5A and 5B depict Differential Pressure 510 being monitored between differential pressure limits 512 which include an upper limit and a lower limit. The utilization of the differential pressure limits is described in para. [0104]—[0106] of Belaskie. As depicted, both the current and the previous measurements are taken into consideration. The difference between the upper limit 512 and the lower limit 512 constitutes the requisite threshold as claimed.), wherein the one or more previous readings are stored in a buffer of drilling parameter readings.
Regarding claim 15, Belaskie modified by Aldred teaches wherein, after drilling the wellbore according to the reduced ROP setpoint, the drilling controller is configured to return the method to the predicting state if any of the following conditions is true: the current reading of the drilling parameter is less than the drilling parameter setpoint minus the threshold (Belaskie, para. [0086], “[o]nce the response measurement returns to the response window, the method… may begin again with a system monitoring the drilling parameter measurements and the response measurements as described above.”); the current reading of the drilling parameter is greater than the drilling parameter setpoint; a slope of a linear regression calculated based on a set of drilling parameter readings, including the current reading of the drilling parameter and one or more older readings of the drilling parameter, is negative; and an elapsed time since the method has been in the mitigation state has increased above a threshold.
Regarding claim 16, Belaskie modified by Aldred teaches wherein reducing the ROP setpoint comprises reducing the ROP setpoint by an amount based on one or more of: a rate of change of ROP; a rate of change of a weight on bit (WOB); a rate of change of torque; and a rate of change of differential pressure (Belaskie, para. [0077], “[t]he method may also involve receiving 304 response measurements during the drilling operation… responses are changes in values that result from changes to the drilling parameters... Another example is a change to differential pressure across a motor in response to changes in rate of penetration (ROP).”; para. [0079], “…determining a rate of change of the response measurement…”; para. [0077], “[t]he response measurement may be, for example, drillstring torque, hookload, weight on bit, differential pressure, or a combination thereof.”; para. [0078], “[i]n response to determining that the response measurement is below the desired lower limit, the method may involve taking corrective action to return the response measurement to the window.” Examiner notes that response measurements, which may include at least differential pressure, torque, and hookload, may be analyzed as a rate of change. If the response measurement is not functioning in a way that is conducive to the drilling operation, the drilling parameters may be adjusted where a drilling parameter may include a rate of penetration.).
Regarding claim 20, Belaskie discloses [a] non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon program code executable by a processor and configured, when executed, to cause the processor to perform a method of performing automated drilling of a wellbore (para. [0007] “… a non-transitory, tangible computer-readable storage medium, and a system for dynamically adjusting drilling parameters during a drilling operation.”) using a drill bit (drill bit 226), comprising: in a predicting state: monitoring a drilling parameter (drilling parameters and response measurements, para. [0078], “[w]hile the response measurement is within the response window, the method may involve continuously monitoring the drilling parameters and the responses.”); and determining, based on the monitored drilling parameter, that the drilling parameter is likely to overshoot a drilling parameter setpoint associated with the drilling parameter (para. [0078], “[i]n response to determining that the response measurement is below the desired lower limit, the method may involve taking corrective action to return the response measurement to the window.”; para. [0097], “[w]hile the above example describes updating the upper bound of the ROP window, a similar process may be used to update the lower bound of the ROP window.” Examiner notes that the drilling parameter may exceed a drilling parameter set point by either surpassing an upper boundary by being above the boundary or surpassing a lower boundary by being below the boundary.); in a mitigating state: in response to determining that the drilling parameter is likely to overshoot the drilling parameter setpoint (para. [0093] “[i]n response to determining that the differential pressure is below the lower limit of the predefined differential pressure window or trending downwards towards the predefined differential pressure window, the method may involve determining 408 a new ROP value that will increase the differential pressure.”; para. [0097], “ [w]hile the above example describes updating the upper bound of the ROP window, a similar process may be used to update the lower bound of the ROP window.”; Examiner notes that updating the lower bound of the ROP is done in response to determining that the differential pressure is above or is trending towards an upper boundary of a predetermined differential pressure window.) reducing a rate of penetration (ROP) setpoint and adjusting the drilling of the wellbore according to the reduced ROP setpoint so as to mitigate a likelihood of the drilling parameter increasing above the drilling parameter setpoint (please see para. [0093], [0094], and [0097] as cited above. Examiner notes the method of Belaskie modifies the rate of penetration in order to maintain the differential pressure (e.g., a drilling parameter) within a predefined pressure differential window), and wherein determining that the drilling parameter is likely to overshoot the drilling parameter setpoint comprises determining the following condition: a current reading of the drilling parameter is in-between the drilling parameter setpoint and the drilling parameter setpoint minus a threshold (FIG. 5A and 5B depict Differential Pressure 510 being monitored between differential pressure limits 512 which include an upper limit and a lower limit. In addition to the differential pressure limits 512, Belaskie further utilizes trigger 505 where Belaskie at para. [0103] states “[t]he trigger 505 represents one approach to determining whether the response measurement is within a response window…”. As depicted in FIG. 5B, trigger 505 is activated when the differential pressure 514 increases above a certain point within the differential pressure window thereby functioning as a safety factor (e.g., or threshold) which triggers an adjustment in the ROP to reduce the ability of the differential pressure 514 from exceeding the upper differential pressure limit 512.).
While the disclosure of Belaskie reads on the limitation “wherein the drilling parameter is a differential pressure and the drilling parameter setpoint is a differential pressure setpoint,” Belaskie may not disclose “a differential pressure setpoint that is less than a differential pressure upper limit.” Aldred, which is in the same field of endeavor as the instant application insofar as it is directed to optimizing the performance of a drilling motor and therefore avoiding motor stall scenarios, teaches the deficient limitations. For example, Aldred sets forth a relationship between hydraulic power (independent variable which is a function of pressure drop across the motor; see Col. 2, Lines 3—8) and mechanical power (which has a linear relationship to rate of penetration; see Col. 2, Lines 19—34). The relationship of Aldred may be mathematically modeled as presented in FIG. 3 which depicts an absolute upper boundary of operation where the motor stalls. The differential pressure associated with the motor stall criterion constitutes “a differential pressure upper limit,” where the motor cannot function at differential pressures which exceed this value. Moreover, elevated values of differential pressure will cause damage to the motor as taught by Aldred. For example, Aldred states “[a]t a certain level of torque, the load on the drilling motor is such that the pressure drop begins to deform the stator, and the motor works less efficiently. It will be recognized that if the torque value continues to increase, eventually the motor will stall so that the rotational speed of the motor output shaft goes to zero.” (Aldred, Col. 3, Lines 51—56).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the differential pressure associated with a motor stall condition of Aldred (e.g., see the power curve depicted in FIG. 3) as a differential pressure upper limit in the method of Belaskie. Belaskie and Aldred both provide for well-described models and methods to improve drilling performance by utilizing known characteristics (e.g., analytical models describing motor behavior) of mud motors (e.g., Moineau pumps operated in reverse). The differential pressure setpoints of Belaskie, cannot simultaneously do both of maintaining motor function and exceeding differential pressure of the stall condition. Therefore, in all scenarios where the setpoints are associated with a functional motor, the set points must exist below the stall criteria. As such, inclusion of the differential pressure associated with the failure point in the method of Belaskie does not change the function of the failure point or the method of Belaskie. Furthermore, Examiner notes the failure criterion of a mud motor inherently exists whether or not Belaskie explicitly states that the motor has a failure point. As such, the combination would provide for the predictable result of modifying and maintain the drilling parameters according to a setpoint which are established below a failure point.
Claim(s) 14 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Published US Patent Application to Belaskie et al., hereinafter “Belaskie,” (US 20240044210 A1) in view of Issued US Patent to Aldred et al., hereinafter “Aldred” (US 5368108 A) as provided above with respect to claims 1 and 12, and in further view of Published US Patent Application to Al-Rubaii et al., hereinafter “Al-Rubaii,” (US 20230296010 A1).
Claim 14 requires the determination of each condition recited in claim 13. As presented above, Belaskie modified by Aldred renders obvious each of the conditions recited in claim 13 with the exception of the italicized portion of the following limitation: “the current reading of the drilling parameter and each of the one or more previous readings of the drilling parameter are in-between the drilling parameter setpoint and the drilling parameter setpoint minus the threshold, wherein the one or more previous readings are stored in a butter of drilling parameter readings.” For example, while Belaskie discusses multiple forms of computer memory (e.g., storage media 606 as address in para. [0114]), Belaskie as modified by Aldred do not disclose storing drilling parameter readings in a buffer. However, Al-Rubaii, which is in the same field of endeavor as the instant application insofar as it is directed to drilling models used to assess and optimize drilling operations in real-time, teaches the deficient limitation.
For example, Al-Rubaii at para. [0027] teaches “the data gathering and analysis system (160), as depicted in FIG. 1A above, that has multiple components, including, for example, a buffer (204), a drilling modelling engine (201), a hydraulics real-time display engine (201), and a drilling control engine (203).” Al-Rubaii further teaches “the buffer (204) may be implemented in hardware (i.e., circuitry), software, or any combination thereof. The buffer (204) is configured to store data generated and/or used by the data gathering and analysis system (160). The data stored in the buffer (204) includes rig parameters (205), sensor measurement data (206), drilling hydraulics model (207), modeled hydraulics data (208), and drilling parameter target values (209).” (Al-Rubaii, para. [0029]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claims invention to have added/incorporated a data management feature, such as the buffer of Al-Rubaii, to the one or more processors 604 and storage media 606 components of Belaskie (e.g., as included in Belaskie modified by Aldred). As taught by Al-Rubaii at para. [0027], the buffer 204 may be located and executed on a computing device including a general purpose computer such that 1.) each element (e.g., processor of Belaskie and buffer of Al-Rubaii) performs the same function in combination as separately and 2.) the combination would render the predictable result of a processor with a buffer configured to store sensor data gathered by the measurement system.
Regarding claim 22, Belaskie modified by Aldred teaches wherein determining that the drilling parameter is likely to overshoot the drilling parameter setpoint further comprises determining the following condition: the current reading of the drilling parameter and each of one or more previous readings of the drilling parameter (the assessment related to the trigger 505 is determined for the current drilling parameter measurements and the previous drilling parameter measurements) are in-between the drilling parameter setpoint and the drilling parameter setpoint minus the threshold (FIG. 5A and 5B depict Differential Pressure 510 being monitored between differential pressure limits 512 which include an upper limit and a lower limit. In addition to the differential pressure limits 512, Belaskie further utilizes trigger 505 where Belaskie at para. [0103] states “[t]he trigger 505 represents one approach to determining whether the response measurement is within a response window…”. As depicted in FIG. 5B, trigger 505 is activated when the differential pressure 514 increases above a certain point within the differential pressure window thereby functioning as a safety factor (e.g., or threshold) which triggers an adjustment in the ROP to reduce the ability of the differential pressure 514 from exceeding the upper differential pressure limit 512.).
While Belaskie discuss the use of one or more processors 604 and multiple forms of computer memory (e.g., storage media 606 as address in para. [0114]), Belaskie as modified by Aldred does not disclose storing drilling parameter readings in a buffer. As such, Belaskie modified by Aldred does not teach “wherein the one or more previous readings are stored in a buffer of drilling parameter readings.” However, Al-Rubaii, which is in the same field of endeavor as the instant application insofar as it is directed to drilling models used to assess and optimize drilling operations in real-time, teaches the deficient limitation.
For example, Al-Rubaii at para. [0027] teaches “the data gathering and analysis system (160), as depicted in FIG. 1A above, that has multiple components, including, for example, a buffer (204), a drilling modelling engine (201), a hydraulics real-time display engine (201), and a drilling control engine (203).” Al-Rubaii further teaches “the buffer (204) may be implemented in hardware (i.e., circuitry), software, or any combination thereof. The buffer (204) is configured to store data generated and/or used by the data gathering and analysis system (160). The data stored in the buffer (204) includes rig parameters (205), sensor measurement data (206), drilling hydraulics model (207), modeled hydraulics data (208), and drilling parameter target values (209).” (Al-Rubaii, para. [0029]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claims invention to have added/incorporated a data management feature, such as the buffer of Al-Rubaii, to the one or more processors 604 and storage media 606 components of Belaskie (e.g., as included in Belaskie modified by Aldred). As taught by Al-Rubaii at para. [0027], the buffer 204 may be located and executed on a computing device including a general purpose computer such that 1.) each element (e.g., processor of Belaskie and buffer of Al-Rubaii) performs the same function in combination as separately and 2.) the combination would render the predictable result of a processor with a buffer configured to store sensor data gathered by the measurement system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9—11 and 18—19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to URSULA NORRIS whose telephone number is (703)756-4731. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 7 AM to 4 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, TARA SCHIMPF can be reached at 571-270-7741. 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.
/U.L.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3676
/TARA SCHIMPF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676