DETAILED ACTION
Claim(s) 1-9 and 21-29 is/are pending.
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
Examiner notes that the most recent 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejection are withdrawn in light of the current claims amendments.
Applicant's arguments filed 02/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s representative amended claim 1 (and, similarly claim 21) to further recite the information related to the BHA in the wellbore being received during the sampling of the drilling mud and varying the frequency of the sampling based at least in part on the location of the BHA during the sampling of the drilling mud or the information related to the drilling operations. Examiner notes that the claim(s) is/are still broad in nature as there is nothing limiting to what the time period of sampling the drilling mud is limited to. With that being said, e.g., one skilled in the art could reasonably broadly interpret that time period to be the start of the process of getting to the actual sampling stage itself, rather than concurrently doing the steps, therefore Mullins still anticipates the claim(s). If there is a critical feature in the claims that have a certain degree of importance, it is advised to include that language in the claim(s) in keeping with the instant specification for purposes of overcoming the most recent prior art rejection.
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 1-9 & 21-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 of the USPTO’s eligibility analysis entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claims 1 and 21 are directed to a system (machine or manufacture) and a non-transitory medium (manufacture), respectively. As such, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention.
If the claim recites a statutory category of invention, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A. Step 2A of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance is a two- prong inquiry. In Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Claims 1 and 21 recite abstract limitations including (or, substantially similar to):
“[...] sending one or more control signals to the mud analysis system for sampling a drilling mud in the wellbore, wherein the one or more control signals determine a frequency of the sampling...” (e.g., mental process).
Examiner notes that both predicting and selecting are actions which are within the scope of abilities which can be performed in a human mind. As such, when viewed under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations as recited cover performance of the limitations in the mind, or by a human using pen and paper, and therefore recite mental processes. More specifically, nothing in the claim precludes the aforementioned steps from practically being performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. The mere recitation of generic computing elements (e.g., as recited in claim 19) and/or sensors (e.g., as recited in claims 1, 19, and 20) does not take the claim out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
If the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two. In Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
Claim 1 recites the additional elements of: Claims 1 (and similarly claim 21) recite(s) abstract limitations including (or, substantially similar to):
“[...] receiving information related to a current location of a bottom hole assembly (BHA) in the wellbore during the sampling of the drilling mud and information related to drilling operations...” (e.g., insignificant extra-solution activity constituting mere data gathering);
“[...] varying the frequency of the sampling based at least in part on the current location of the BHA during the sampling of the drilling mud or the information related to the drilling operations;
varying a type of measurement analysis of the drilling mud based at least in part on the current location of the BHA or the information related to the drilling operations, wherein the type of analysis is based on a measurement comprises comprising one or more the following: mud resistivity, mud viscosity, mud temperature, mud density, mud gamma ray level, mud pH value, mud chemical composition, mud particle size distribution, mud particle shape, mud magnetic susceptibility, and a mud weight” (e.g., a technological environment/field of use);
“[...] receiving information regarding the drilling mud from the mud analysis system for each of a plurality of samples of the drilling mud analyzed by the mud analysis system...” (e.g., insignificant extra-solution activity constituting mere data gathering);
“[...] logging the information regarding the drilling mud to generate the mud log...” (e.g., a technological environment/field of use); and
“[...] steering the drilling of the wellbore responsive to the mud log” (e.g., mere instructions to implement the abstract idea recited at a high level of generality equivalent to the words “apply it”).
Claim 21 also recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions executable by a processor. The functions of the processor and supporting system components (i.e. non-transitory machine-readable storage medium, memory) are additional elements whose functions are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform the abstract idea.
Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, and requires further analysis under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
Regarding claim 1, and as discussed above, the additional element of “[...] receiving information related to a current location of a bottom hole assembly (BHA) in the wellbore during the sampling of the drilling mud and information related to drilling operations...” and “[...] receiving information regarding the drilling mud from the mud analysis system for each of a plurality of samples of the drilling mud analyzed by the mud analysis system...” is mere data gathering which is insignificant extra-solution activity as described in MPEP 2106.05(g). Receiving data for analysis by a mental process does not provide for a practical application of the abstract idea.
The additional element(s) of “[...] varying the frequency of the sampling based at least in part on the current location of the BHA during the sampling of the drilling mud or the information related to the drilling operations; varying a type of measurement analysis of the drilling mud based at least in part on the current location of the BHA or the information related to the drilling operations, wherein the type of analysis is based on a measurement comprises comprising one or more the following: mud resistivity, mud viscosity, mud temperature, mud density, mud gamma ray level, mud pH value, mud chemical composition, mud particle size distribution, mud particle shape, mud magnetic susceptibility, and a mud weight”; and “[...] logging the information regarding the drilling mud to generate the mud log...” merely indicate a field of use as described in MPEP 2106.05(b). For example, MPEP 2106.05 (b) states “[u]se of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not integrate a judicial exception or provide significantly more.”
The additional element(s) of “[...] steering the drilling of the wellbore responsive to the mud log” is equivalent to the words “apply it.” Examiner notes the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.” (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)).
Regarding claims 2-9 and 22-29 are further directed to a method encompassing a mental process, as described above in regards to claims 1 and 21. For the reasons described above with respect to claims 1 and 21, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 21-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mullins et al. (US Publication Number 2009/0288881 A1; hereinafter “Mullins”).
In regards to claim 1, Mullins discloses: A system (system, as introduced in at least figures 1B and 3A) for generating a mud log (i.e., via 116, 126, 138, 142) during drilling of a wellbore (102 — paragraphs [0041, 0043, 0045, 0053, 0112]), the system comprising:
a control system (comprising 120, 146, 148), wherein the control system comprises one or more control systems for a drilling rig (100) drilling the wellbore (paragraph [0038, 0052, 0056]);
a mud analysis system (comprising 116, 126, 138, 142), coupled (via 150) with the control system (paragraph [0040]), wherein the mud analysis system is coupled with a drilling mud system (comprising 26, 27, 29 — paragraphs [0030, 0041] and figure 1);
wherein the control system comprises a processor and a memory coupled with the processor (i.e., processor and memory of 146), and wherein the memory comprises instructions executable by the processor for:
sending one or more control signals to the mud analysis system for sampling a drilling mud in the wellbore (paragraphs [0038, 0052, 0091, 0094]), wherein the one or more control signals determine a frequency of the sampling (Mullins cites that if “[...] a discrepancy exists between the measured and the predicted mud gas logging data, a surface system 120 may cause the sampling while drilling tool 142 to extract and optionally to store one or more fluid samples from the formation and perform one or more fluid sample measurements. Thus, a sidewall fluid sampling operation may be performed if the mud gas logging data indicates that a significant change in fluid composition has occurred” — paragraph [0091]. Also, see paragraph [0098]);
receiving information related to a location of a bottom hole assembly (BHA) in the wellbore during the sampling of the drilling mud and information related to drilling operations (i.e., such as “fluid composition” from “mud gas logging data” — paragraph [0091]);
varying the frequency of the sampling based at least in part on the location of the BHA during the sampling of the drilling mud or the information related to the drilling operations (paragraphs [0091, 0098]);
varying a type of analysis of the drilling mud based at least in part on the current location of the BHA or the information related to the drilling operations, wherein the type of analysis based on a measurement comprising one or more the following: mud resistivity, mud viscosity, mud temperature, mud density, mud gamma ray level, mud pH value, mud chemical composition, mud particle size distribution, mud particle shape, mud magnetic susceptibility, and a mud weight (paragraphs [0041, 0048, 0088-0089, 0091, 0098, 0112]);
receiving information regarding the drilling mud from the mud analysis system for each of a plurality of samples of the drilling mud analyzed by the mud analysis system (paragraphs [0038, 0052, 0091, 0094]);
logging the information regarding the drilling mud to generate the mud log (paragraphs [0041, 0043, 0045, 0053, 0112]); and
steering the drilling of the well responsive to the mud log (paragraphs [0043, 0055, 0075-0076, 0103-0105]).
In regards to claim 2, Mullins further discloses: wherein logging the information regarding the drilling mud comprises generating the mud log that associates the information regarding the drilling mud with measured depth of the wellbore (paragraphs [0061, 0077]).
In regards to claim 3, Mullins further discloses: instructions for correlating at least a portion of the mud log with a reference log (i.e., the predicted log data — paragraphs [0074-0075]).
In regards to claim 4, Mullins further discloses: wherein the reference log comprises a mud log, a gamma ray log, a resistivity log, or a combination thereof, from at least one reference well or from a portion of the wellbore that was previously drilled (paragraphs [0074-0075]).
In regards to claim 5, Mullins further discloses: wherein the frequency of the sampling comprises sampling at regular or inconsistent time intervals (paragraphs [0091, 0098]).
In regards to claim 6, Mullins further discloses: wherein the frequency of the sampling comprises sampling based on drilling information, wherein the drilling information comprises one or more drilling parameters or a condition of the drilling mud (paragraphs [0091, 0098]).
In regards to claim 7, Mullins further discloses: wherein the frequency of the sampling comprises sampling based on a volume of drilling mud (i.e., arbitrary volume of drilling mud) circulated between sampling (paragraphs [0091, 0098]).
In regards to claim 8, Mullins further discloses: instructions for adjusting one or more drilling parameters responsive to the information regarding the drilling mud (paragraphs [0043, 0055, 0075-0076, 0103-0105]).
In regards to claim 10, Mullins further discloses: wherein the information regarding the drilling mud comprises one or more of the following: mud resistivity, mud viscosity, mud temperature, mud density, mud gamma ray level, mud pH value, mud chemical composition, mud particle size distribution, mud particle shape, mud magnetic susceptibility, and a mud weight (paragraphs [0041, 0048, 0088-0089, 0112]).
In regards to claim 21, Mullins discloses: A non-transitory, computer readable medium (comprising 146) comprising instructions that, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to:
send one or more control signals (i.e., via combination of 120, 146, 148) to a mud analysis system (comprising 116, 126, 138, 142) for sampling a drilling mud in a wellbore during drilling (paragraphs [0038, 0052, 0091, 0094]), wherein the one or more control signals determine a frequency of the sampling (Mullins cites that if “[...] a discrepancy exists between the measured and the predicted mud gas logging data, a surface system 120 may cause the sampling while drilling tool 142 to extract and optionally to store one or more fluid samples from the formation and perform one or more fluid sample measurements. Thus, a sidewall fluid sampling operation may be performed if the mud gas logging data indicates that a significant change in fluid composition has occurred” — paragraph [0091]. Also, see paragraph [0098]);
receive information related to a location of a bottom hole assembly (BHA) in the wellbore during the sampling of the drilling mud or information regarding drilling operations (i.e., such as “fluid composition” from “mud gas logging data” — paragraph [0091]);
vary the frequency of the sampling based at least in part on the current location of the BHA during the sampling of the drilling mud or the information related to the drilling operations (paragraphs [0091, 0098]);
varying a type of analysis of the drilling mud based at least in part on the current location of the BHA or the information related to the drilling operations, wherein the type of analysis is based on a measurement comprising one or more the following: mud resistivity, mud viscosity, mud temperature, mud density, mud gamma ray level, mud pH value, mud chemical composition, mud particle size distribution, mud particle shape, mud magnetic susceptibility, and a mud weight (paragraphs [0041, 0048, 0088-0089, 0091, 0098, 0112]);
receive information regarding the drilling mud from the mud analysis system for each of a plurality of samples of the drilling mud analyzed by the mud analysis system (paragraphs [0038, 0052, 0091, 0094]);
log the information regarding the drilling mud to thereby generate a mud log (paragraphs [0041, 0043, 0045, 0053, 0112]); and
send one or more control signals to steer the drilling of the wellbore responsive to the mud log (paragraphs [0043, 0055, 0075-0076, 0103-0105]).
In regards to claim 22, Mullins further discloses: wherein logging the information regarding the drilling mud comprises generating the mud log that associates the information regarding the drilling mud with measured depth of the wellbore (paragraphs [0061, 0077]).
In regards to claim 23, Mullins further discloses: instructions for correlating at least a portion of the mud log with a reference log (i.e., the predicted log data — paragraphs [0074-0075]).
In regards to claim 24, Mullins further discloses: wherein the reference log comprises a mud log, a gamma ray log, a resistivity log, or a combination thereof, from at least one reference well or from a portion of the wellbore that was previously drilled (paragraphs [0074-0075]).
In regards to claim 25, Mullins further discloses: wherein the frequency of the sampling comprises sampling at regular or inconsistent time intervals (paragraphs [0091, 0098]).
In regards to claim 26, Mullins further discloses: wherein the frequency of the sampling comprises sampling based on drilling information, wherein the drilling information comprises one or more drilling parameters or a condition of the drilling mud (paragraphs [0091, 0098]).
In regards to claim 27, Mullins further discloses: wherein the frequency of the sampling comprises sampling based on a volume of drilling mud (i.e., arbitrary volume of drilling mud) circulated between sampling (paragraphs [0091, 0098]).
In regards to claim 28, Mullins further discloses: instructions for adjusting one or more drilling parameters responsive to the information regarding the drilling mud (paragraphs [0043, 0055, 0075-0076, 0103-0105]).
In regards to claim 29, Mullins further discloses: wherein the one or more drilling parameters comprise one or more of the following drilling parameters: rate of penetration, weight on bit, differential pressure, rotational velocity of a drill bit, and mud flow rate (Mullins cites: “Although the example methods and apparatus described herein can be used to adjust a well trajectory by adjusting the direction, travel, and path of a well trajectory, adjusting a well trajectory as described herein may also include terminating all further planned drilling operations”. With that being said, Examiner notes that the termination/adjustment, would constitute of reducing at least the rate of penetration and weight on bit to zero — paragraph [0027]. Also, see paragraphs [0043, 0055, 0075-0076, 0103-0105]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NEEL PATEL whose telephone number is (469)295-9168. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00AM-5:00PM CST.
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.
/NEEL GIRISH PATEL/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights