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 Action in response to the communication filed on 02/24/2026. Claims 1—18 and 20—21 are currently pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
Information Disclosure Statement received 8/14/2023 and 5/10/2024, respectively, have been reviewed and considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and amendments filed 02/24/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 3 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. 101 for reciting a human per se have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 3 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. 101 for reciting a human per se is withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments and amendments filed 02/24/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1—18 and 20—21 under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to a judicial exception have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The Response at page 6 notes that the claims have been amended to recite “utilizing at least a strain gauge in a downhole environment.” The Response at page 6 subsequently states “the claims recite a particular machine under section 2106.05(b). This is because the measurement assembly includes particular hardware (strain gauge) and is within its technical operating environment (downhole environment),” to which the Examiner does not agree. The MPEP states “[w]hen determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception, into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two and whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B, examiners should consider whether the judicial exception is applied with, or by use of, a particular machine.” (MPEP 2106.05(b)). Examiner notes that the identified judicial exceptions include: “separating the BOB data into two classes…”; “determining a t1… wherein the t1 is a total time during the neutral RSS configuration”; “determining a t2… wherein the t2 is a total time during the geostationary RSS configuration”; and “calculating a real time duty cycle based at least on the t1 and t2.” The foregoing identified judicial exceptions are not applied with or by a strain gauge. Rather, the strain gauge is merely utilized in necessary data gathering where the gathered data is utilized to perform the judicial exception. Moreover, utilizing strain gauges disposed on downhole tools to gather drilling data is well-known, routine, and conventional activity. For example, Published US Patent Application to Kraft et al. (US 20190271223 A1) states “[b]ending or bending moments of a downhole tool are usually measured by strain gauges, which is a well-known and well understood technology.” (Kraft, para. [0003]). The Response states “under step 2A Prong II well-understood, routine, and conventional activity is irrelevant.” (Response, pg. 7). Examiner notes that the foregoing argument is moot because that analysis is performed at Step 2B, not Step 2A Prong II. After an additional element, such as a strain gauge, is identified at Step 2A, it is subsequently analyzed at Step 2B to determine whether or not the additional element integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. An additional element which is identified as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (e.g., utilizing a strain gauge as identified above) cannot provide for a practical application of the judicial exception. As such, both the data gathering limitation and the specifically recited sensor constitute extra-solution activity and cannot provide for a practical application of the judicial exception. For the foregoing reasons the rejection of claims 1—18 and 20—21 under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained as provided below.
Applicant's arguments and amendments filed 02/24/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1—18 and 20—21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in part. The provided amendments necessitate new grounds for rejection as provided below. The arguments set forth regarding deficiencies of Sugiura in view of Miller and Schuh are not persuasive. To start, Sugiura discloses an operational parameter utilized in a directional drilling plan where the operational parameter is a ratio comprising two classifications. As such, the directional drilling plan includes the two classifications. Schuh teaches collecting actual directional drilling data associated with a drilling plan and comparing the actual values to the planned values with the objective of modifying the operation to adhere to the plan. As such, in order to adhere to the plan of Sugiura, it would be obvious to compare the gathered data to the planned data which inherently requires that the gathered data is separated into the categories which align with the drilling plan. For the foregoing reasons the arguments set forth on page 7 is not persuasive. A rejection which is modified in accordance with the newly recited limitations is 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 1—18 and 20 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 1 and 11 recite the limitation “separating the BOB data into two classes, wherein a first class comprises BOB data when the RSS was at least partially in a neutral configuration and a second class comprises BOB data when the RSS was at least partially in a geostationary configuration.” It is unclear where the foregoing limitations are supported by the Specification. For example, the Specification does not discuss the classification of data when it is “at least partially in a neutral configuration” or “at least partially in a geostationary configuration.” The Specification at para. [0044] states “In block 504 BOB data from block 502 may be implemented for classification of RSS 130. Specifically, the time periods that RSS 130 is in a neutral or a geostationary configuration. A neutral configuration may be used to drill relatively straight and stable. Whereas in a geostationary configuration may be used to control and change direction to follow more detailed requirements of a well plan such as a dogleg.” The instant specification does not include any statements related to a “partial” configuration.
Claims 2—10 depend from claim 1 and claims 12—18 and 20 depend from claim 11. As such claims 2—18 and 20 are likewise rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for depending from a rejected base claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1—18 and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 11 recite the limitation “separating the BOB data into two classes, wherein a first class comprises BOB data when the RSS was at least partially in a neutral configuration and a second class comprises BOB data when the RSS was at least partially in a geostationary configuration,” which renders the claims indefinite because it obfuscates the metes and bounds of the first class and the second class. For example, the as described in the application the RSS is either in the neutral configuration or the geostationary configuration. However, as claimed, the first class can include data which is in the geostationary configuration as long as it at least partially includes data in the neutral configuration. Likewise, the second class can include data which is in the neutral configuration as long as it also includes the geostationary configuration. As discussed above, this is not how the Specification presents these classifications. Additionally, the metrics which define the metes and bounds of the first class and the second class are unclear rendering the claims indefinite.
Claims 1 and 11 recite the limitations “the neutral RSS configuration” and “the geostationary RSS configuration,” without a previous recitation of “a neutral RSS configuration” and “a geostationary RSS configuration.” As such, the claims do not have sufficient antecedent basis for the limitations of “the neutral RSS configuration” and “the geostationary RSS configuration.”
Claims 2—10 depend from claim 1 and claims 12—18 and 20 depend from claim 11. As such claims 2—18 and 20 are likewise rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for depending from a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 – Claims directed to a judicial exception
Claims 1—18 and 20—21 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.
Independent claims 1, 11, and 21 are directed to a method (process), a system (machine or manufacture), and a method (process) 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 11 recite abstract limitations including, or substantially similar to: “separating the BOB data into two classes, wherein a first class comprises BOB data when the RSS was at least partially in a neutral configuration and a second class comprises BOB data when the RSS was at least partially in a geostationary configuration” (e.g., a mental process and/or mathematical concept); “determining t1… wherein t1 is a total time during a neutral RSS configuration” (e.g., a mental process and/or mathematical concept); and “determining t2… wherein t2 is the total time during a geostationary RSS configuration.” Claim 21 further recites the abstract limitation of.
Claim 21 recites abstract limitations including, or substantially similar to: “classifying at least two or more sections of time of the BOB data into a neutral RSS configuration or a geostationary configuration” (e.g., a mental process and/or mathematical concept); “determining t1… wherein t1 is a total time during a neutral RSS configuration” (e.g., a mental process and/or mathematical concept); “determining t2… wherein t2 is the total time during a geostationary RSS configuration” (e.g., a mental process and/or mathematical concept); and “determining an error based at least on the Duty Cycle” (e.g., a mental process and/or mathematical concept).
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the foregoing limitations cover actions that are within the scope of abilities which may be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper, and therefore recite mental processes. For example, actions such as “separating… data into two classes”; “determining”; and “calculating” are well within the mental capabilities of a human mind. In some scenarios, the actions may include one or more mathematical concepts; however, both mental processes and mathematical concepts constitute abstract ideas. Notably, the claims are not drafted in a manner which precludes the aforementioned steps from practically being performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper, with or without the benefit of a mathematical concept. Examiner notes that the mere recitation of generic computing elements and/or sensors (e.g., “a measurement assembly”) does not take the claim out of the mental process/mathematical concept 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.
Claims 1, 11, and 21 recite the additional element of, or substantially similar to: “disposing a bottom hole assembly (BHA) comprising a rotary steerable system (RSS) into a borehole” (e.g., merely indicative of a field of use); “obtaining a bending at a drill bit (BOB) data with a measurement assembly” (e.g., extra-solution activity); “utilizing at least a strain gauge in a downhole environment disposed on the BHA” (e.g., extra-solution activity). Claim 21 recites the additional element of “transmitting the error to a surface” (e.g., extra-solution activity).
The above identified additional elements are directed to field of use applications and extra-solution activity which, as detailed below, 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).
As identified above the additional elements of “a bottom hole assembly”; “a rotary steerable system”; and “a borehole” constitute additional elements. However, the elements are generic oil field tools recited at a high level of generality which merely indicate of a field of use in which the abstract idea is applied. The MPEP states “limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.” (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 21, the additional element of “obtaining [data] with a measurement assembly utilizing at least a strain gauge in a downhole environment wherein the BOB data comprises at least one of a force, a moment, and/or a strain” is directed extra solution activity which is classified as “well understood, routine, and conventional,” and is therefore insignificant extra solution activity which cannot provide for a practical application. It is well known to utilize a downhole strain gauge during a directional drilling operation to obtain bending data. For example, Published US Patent Application to Kraft et al. (US 20190271223 A1) teaches “[b]ending or bending moments of a downhole tool are usually measured by strain gauges, which is a well-known and well understood technology.” (Kraft, para. [0003]). The MPEP states “[l]imitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:… Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception…” (MPEP 2106.05 A). As such, using a well-known sensor for a well-known and well understood purpose does not properly integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Additionally, Examiner notes that limitations directed to “mere data gathering,” amount to insignificant extra-solution activity, especially in cases where “the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output).” (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding claim 21, the additional element of “transmitting the error to a surface,” constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity where transmitting data from a subsurface location to a surface location during a drilling operation is well-known in the art. For example, Published US Patent Application to Barr et al. (US 6089332 A), which teaches a directional drilling tool, states “[t]here are various well known methods currently employed for transmitting data from a bottom hole assembly to the surface, since such requirement also exists for directional drilling using a downhole motor as well as for measurement-while-drilling (MWD) systems generally. One method commonly used is to transmit data to the surface as a sequence of pulses transmitted upwardly through the drilling fluid by a specially designed pulser which is included in the bottom hole assembly and responds to data signals from appropriate sensors in the assembly.” (Barr, Col. 2, Lines 26—34). As such, the limitation “transmitting the error to a surface,” constitutes a type of well-known activity in the field of drilling/directional drilling thereby rendering the limitation insignificant extra-solution activity which cannot provide for a practical application of the judicial exception.
Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
The limitations of claims 2 and 12 are directed to an abstract idea. For example, generating/calculating/determining a value (e.g., a Duty Cycle set point) from one or more models (e.g., well plan and steering capability) is equivalent to generating a value or solution from a model which constitutes and abstract idea. More specifically, the limitation directed to “generating”/”generate” could either be classified as a mental process and/or a mathematical concept depending on the complexity the one or more models. As such, claims 2 and 12 do not provide for a practical application of the abstract ideas identified in claims 1 and 11 insofar as the subject matter of claims 2 and 12 is also abstract.
Claims 3 and 13 recite a steering control system which is understood to be a generic computing component (processor, memory, input, output). Merely reciting a generic computing component as a means through which the judicial exception is applied is equivalent to a limitation directed to merely applying the judicial exception. The MPEP states “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity… or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone).” (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations of claims 4 and 14 are directed to an abstract idea consisting of a mental process, mathematical concept, or a combination thereof. For example, “comparing” data, values, information, outputs, results, and so forth, is an action that can be performed in a human mind with or without the benefit of a mathematical concept and/or pen and paper. As such, claims 4 and 14 do not provide for a practical application of the abstract ideas identified in claims 1 and 11 insofar as the subject matter of claims 4 and 14 is also abstract.
The limitations of claims 5 and 15 are directed to an abstract idea consisting of a mental process, mathematical concept, or a combination thereof. For example, “forming drilling parameter command updates,” is equivalent to forming new results, commands, or inputs based on a mathematical metric (e.g., “the error”). More specifically, the limitations are directed to actions that can be performed in a human mind with or without the benefit of a mathematical concept and/or pen and paper. As such, claims 5 and 15 do not provide for a practical application of the abstract ideas identified in claims 1 and 11 insofar as the subject matter of claims 4 and 14 is also abstract.
The limitation of claims 6 and 16 recite the additional element of “transmitting the drilling parameter commands…”. However, transmitting data over a network constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity which the courts have identified as well understood, routine, and conventional. For example, the MPEP states “[t]he courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).” (MPEP 2106.05(d), Section II). Insignificant extra-solution activity cannot provide for a practical application of the abstract idea.
The limitations of claims 7 and 17 recite the additional element of “updating at least the RSS with the drilling parameter command updates,” which does not provide for a practical application of the judicial exception as identified in claims 1 and 11. Merely updating a dataset constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity which is further identified by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional. For example, the MPEP states “[t]he courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log).” Examiner notes that while the drilling parameters commands are updated, the claim does not go as far as to execute an adjustment to the drilling operation using the updated drilling parameter commands. Merely updating commands does not provide any information as to how the commands are used. The claim also does not require that the updated commands are materially different from the previous commands. As such, the limitations of claims 7 and 17 do not provide for a practical application of abstract idea(s) identified in claims 1 and 11.
The limitations of claims 8 and 18 function to further limit the drilling parameter commands to a specific type of data (e.g., weight on bit, rotations per minute, or flow rate) which does not provide for a practical application. Moreover the courts have identified “[s]electing information… for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016),” as insignificant extra-solution activity. (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Moreover, reciting specific drilling parameter commands which are updated does not provide for a practical application unless the commands are directly tied to an actual adjustment (e.g., not an assumed or implied adjustment) the drilling operation. As noted above with claims 7 and 17, updating commands does not inherently require that the commands are used or that the commands are materially different from the previous set of commands.
The limitations of claim 9 is directed to the mathematical concept of “calculating real time duty cycle” which constitutes an abstract idea. Claim 9 cannot provide for a practical application of the abstract idea of claims 1 and 11 because the material of claim 9 is also abstract.
The limitations of claims 10 and 20 are directed to mere data gathering (e.g., obtaining weight on bit data or torque on bit data). The MPEP states “[t]he term ‘extra-solution activity’ can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process…” (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Examiner notes that limitations directed to “mere data gathering,” amount to insignificant extra-solution activity, especially in cases where “the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output).” (MPEP 2106.05(g)). As such, the limitations of claims 10 and 20 constitute insignificant extra-solution activity and cannot provide for a practical application of the judicial exceptions identified in claims 1 and 11.
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—3, 9—13, and 19—20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Published US Patent Application to Sugiura (US 20130333946 A1) in view of Published US Patent to Gutarov et al., hereinafter “Gutarov” (US 20220120176 A1) and Published US Patent Application to Schuh (US 6523623 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Sugiura discloses disposing a bottom hole assembly (BHA) comprising a Rotary Steerable System (RSS) into a borehole (para. [0030], “[i]n the disclosed embodiments, the rotary steerable tool is used to control the direction of drilling of the twin well.”);
obtaining a bending at a drill bit (BOB) data with a measurement assembly… disposed on the BHA (para. [0027], “[i]t will be understood that substantially any suitable rotary steerable tool may be used in the disclosed method embodiments… [a] rotating shaft deployed in the outer housing transfers rotary power and axial weight-on-bit to the drill bit during drilling. Accelerometer and magnetometer sets may be deployed in the outer housing and therefore are non-rotating or rotate slowly with respect to the borehole wall.”; para. [0028], “[t]he swivel is actively tilted via pistons so as to change the angle of the lower section with respect to the upper section and maintain a desired drilling direction as the bottom hole assembly rotates in the borehole. Accelerometer and magnetometer sets may rotate with the drill string or may alternatively be deployed in an internal roll-stabilized housing such that they remain substantially stationary (in a bias phase) or rotate slowly with respect to the borehole (in a neutral phase). To drill a desired curvature, the bias phase and neutral phase are alternated during drilling at a predetermined ratio (referred to as the steering ratio).”) wherein the BOB data comprises at least one of a force (para. [0019], “the BHA further includes an electrical current generating tool 30 and a measurement while drilling (MWD) tool 26 including a magnetic field sensor 28, for example, including a tri-axial magnetometer set.” Examiner notes a magnetic field is a vector field which accounts for both magnitude (e.g., force) and direction), a moment, and/or a strain;
separating the BOB data into two classes (para. [0028], “[t]o drill a desired curvature, the bias phase and neutral phase are alternated during drilling at a predetermined ratio (referred to as the steering ratio).”), wherein a first class comprises BOB data when the RSS was at least partially in a neutral configuration (the first class of data would be that which was gathered during the neutral phase) and a second class comprises BOB data when the RSS was at least partially in a geostationary configuration (the second class of data would be that gathered during the bias phase). Examiner notes that the drilling operation of Sugiura is executed according to a planned steering ratio where portions of the operation are executed in the neutral phase and portions of the operation are executed in the bias phase, as such all of the associated data is inherently separated into one of these two classes because it occurs during one of these two classes. Furthermore, as addressed below, it would be obvious to gather real-time measurements associated with the drilling plan in order to compare the planned operation to the actual operation and make adjustments as necessary);
determining a t1 based at least on the neutral RSS configuration, wherein the t1 is a total time during the neutral RSS configuration (para. [0028], “rotate slowly with respect to the borehole (in a neutral phase).” The neutral phase is understood to be equivalent to the time duration of t1. As addressed below, it would be obvious to track this given the directional plan was designed using this metric);
determining a t2 based at least on the neutral RSS configuration, wherein the t2 the total time during the geostationary RSS configuration (para. [0028], “remain substantially stationary (in a bias phase)” The bias phase is understood to be equivalent to the time duration of t2. As addressed below, it would be obvious to track this given the directional plan was designed using this metric); and
calculating a real time Duty Cycle based at least on the t1 and the t2 (para. [0028], “[t]o drill a desired curvature, the bias phase and neutral phase are alternated during drilling at a predetermined ratio (referred to as the steering ratio).”; para. [0046], “a look-up table may be constructed based on a mathematical model and certain steering strategy considerations. The x- and y-axis magnetic field measurements may then be evaluated with the look up table to obtain new steering tool settings (e.g., bias and neutral phase times and ratio).” Examiner notes that the steering ratio is a function of the time spent in the bias phase and the time spent in the neutral phase. As such, the steering ratio of Sugiura reads on the duty cycle of the instant application).
While Sugiura discloses using accelerometers and magnetometers to gather drilling measurements, Sugiura may not explicitly disclose utilizing at least a strain gauge in a downhole environment disposed on the BHA. However, Gutarov, which is in the same field of endeavor as the instant application insofar as it is directed to directional drilling, teaches the deficient limitation. For example, Gutarov teaches “a drillstring can include a tool or tools that include various sensors that can make various measurements. For example, consider the OPTIDRILL tool (Schlumberger Limited, Houston, Tex.), which includes strain gauges, accelerometers, magnetometer(s), gyroscope(s), etc… For example, such a tool can acquire weight on bit measurements (WOB) using a strain gauge… torque measurements using a strain gauge… bending moment using a strain gauge” (Gutarov, para. [0158]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the strain gauge of Gutarov into the bottom hole sensor assembly of Sugiura. The strain sensor may be incorporated into Sugiura by known methods, where the strain sensor would perform the same function as combined into Sugiura as described in Gutarov. The addition of the strain gauge would achieve the predictable result of including a strain sensor in a bottom hole assembly, which is a known configuration as set forth in Gutarov, in order to collect various strain gauge measurements including a bending moment.
In addition to the foregoing, Examiner notes that the manner in which the strain gauge or associated data is utilized is not claimed. As such, the claim is not drafted in a manner which requires that the strain gauge data is expressly or exclusively part of the “bending at a drill bit (BOB) data.” The claim merely requires that the bottom hole assembly which gathers the BOB data utilizes a strain gauge disposed on the bottom hole assembly.
Sugiura modified by Gutarov teaches generating a directional drilling plan according to a steering ratio (e.g., which is a function of the time spent in the bias phase and the neutral phase). It is well-known in the art of directional drilling to collect measured operational data related to the drilling plan and compared the actual values collected to the planned values in order to understand how the actual operation compares to the planned operation. For example, Published US Patent Application to Schuh (US 6523623 B1) teaches “during drilling, the actual borehole path B will often deviate from the planned trajectory A. Obviously, if the path B is not adequately corrected, the borehole will miss its intended target. At point D, a comparison is made between the preplanned condition of corresponding to planned point on curve A and the actual position. Conventionally, when such a deviation is observed between the actual and planned path, the directional driller redirects the assembly back to the original planned path A for the well.” (Schuh, Col. 1, Lines 37—47). As such, it is not only well-known to compare the planned measurements to the actual measurements, it is necessary to perform such a comparison to ensure the well does not miss the intended target. Therefore, whether or not Sugiura expressly states that the collected directional data, including the strain gauge data of Gutarov (e.g., bend at bit data), is actively separated into data gathered during the neutral configuration and data gathered during the bias configuration, it would be obvious to do so in order to format the operational data in a manner which could be comparable with the planned metrics of Sugiura.
Regarding claim 2, Sugiura modified by Gutarov and Schuh teaches a Duty Cycle set point (para. [0028], “drilling at a predetermined ratio (referred to as the steering ratio).”; para. [0046], “[i]n a closed loop well twinning operation, the demand toolface and the steering ratio of the rotary steerable tool (the ratio of the bias and neutral phases) may be automatically adjusted in a closed loop manner...”; Examiner notes that, since the directional drilling operation is controlled by the steering ratio, there is a steering ratio associated with every portion of the drilling operation where directional adjustments are made) based on a current steering capability (“look up table”; para. [0026], “a desired displacement vector to obtain a steering vector, which may then be used to compute (or look up) the new settings… The new rotary steerable tool settings may alternatively be obtained derived directly from the magnetic field measurements, e.g., via an onboard look up table.”; para. [0046] “a look-up table may be constructed based on a mathematical model and certain steering strategy considerations. The x- and y-axis magnetic field measurements may then be evaluated with the look up table to obtain new steering tool settings (e.g., bias and neutral phase times and ratio).”) and a well plan (para. [0025], “a rotary steerable tool is used to control the direction of drilling of the twin well, e.g., via steering the drill bit while drilling. As is known to those of ordinary skill in the art, adjustment of various rotary steerable tool parameters enables the drilling direction to be changed in a predictable and controllable manner while drilling.”; para. [0026], “the magnetic field measurements may be used to compute a displacement vector (a distance and direction) between the twin and target wells which may in turn be compared with a desired displacement vector to obtain a steering vector, which may then be used to compute (or look up) the new settings.” Examiner notes that the well plan is based on the trajectory of the twin well (e.g., to avoid well path collisions.).
Regarding claim 3, Sugiura modified by Guratov and Schuh teaches wherein generating the Duty Cycle set point further comprises a steering control system (Gutarov, para. [0047], “BHAs and/or rotary steerable tools suitable for use with the disclosed embodiments generally include at least one electronic controller. Such a controller may include signal processing circuitry including a digital processor (a microprocessor), an analog to digital converter, and processor readable memory. The controller may also include processor-readable or computer-readable program code embodying logic, including instructions for making, processing, and filtering magnetic field measurements.”; para. [0048], “[a] suitable controller may include a timer including, for example, an incrementing counter, a decrementing time-out counter, or a real-time clock. The controller may further include multiple data storage devices, various sensors, other controllable components, a power supply, and the like. The controller may also optionally communicate with other instruments in the drill string, such as telemetry systems that communicate with the surface or an EM (electro-magnetic) shorthop that enables the two-way communication across a downhole motor.”).
Regarding claim 9, Sugiura modified by Gutarov and Schuh teaches calculating real time Duty Cycle with at least: t1/(t1+t2) real time Duty Cycle = x 100 (para. [0026], “bias phase and neutral phase are alternated during drilling at a predetermined ratio (referred to as the steering ratio).”; para. [ 0046], “new steering tool settings (e.g., bias and neutral phase times and ratio).”; Examiner notes that the equation for duty cycle is merely the equation for steering ratio.).
Regarding claim 10, Sugiura modified by Gutarov and Schuh teaches obtaining Weight on Bit data (Gutarov, para. [0158], “such a tool can acquire weight on bit measurements (WOB) using a strain gauge… torque measurements using a strain gauge… bending moment using a strain gauge…”) or Torque on Bit data (see citation to Gutarov, para. [1058]) with measurement assembly disposed on the BHA (the bottom hole assembly of Sugiura is modified to include the strain gauge of Gutarov where the recited measurements of Weight on Bit and Torque on Bit are measurements taken by the strain gauge as set forth in para. [0158] of Gutarov).
Regarding claim 11, Sugiura discloses a bottom hole assembly (BHA) comprising a Rotary Steerable System (RSS) disposed into a borehole (para. [0030], “[i]n the disclosed embodiments, the rotary steerable tool is used to control the direction of drilling of the twin well.”; para. [0027], “[i]t will be understood that substantially any suitable rotary steerable tool may be used in the disclosed method embodiments”); and a steering control system configured to: obtain a bending of a drill bit (BOB) data with a measurement assembly… disposed on the BHA (para. [0027], “[i]t will be understood that substantially any suitable rotary steerable tool may be used in the disclosed method embodiments… [a] rotating shaft deployed in the outer housing transfers rotary power and axial weight-on-bit to the drill bit during drilling. Accelerometer and magnetometer sets may be deployed in the outer housing and therefore are non-rotating or rotate slowly with respect to the borehole wall.”; para. [0028], “[t]he swivel is actively tilted via pistons so as to change the angle of the lower section with respect to the upper section and maintain a desired drilling direction as the bottom hole assembly rotates in the borehole. Accelerometer and magnetometer sets may rotate with the drill string or may alternatively be deployed in an internal roll-stabilized housing such that they remain substantially stationary (in a bias phase) or rotate slowly with respect to the borehole (in a neutral phase). To drill a desired curvature, the bias phase and neutral phase are alternated during drilling at a predetermined ratio (referred to as the steering ratio).”), wherein the BOB data comprises at least one of a force (para. [0019], “the BHA further includes an electrical current generating tool 30 and a measurement while drilling (MWD) tool 26 including a magnetic field sensor 28, for example, including a tri-axial magnetometer set.” Examiner notes a magnetic field is a vector field which accounts for both magnitude (e.g., force) and direction), a moment, and/or a strain; separate the BOB data into two classes (para. [0028], “[t]o drill a desired curvature, the bias phase and neutral phase are alternated during drilling at a predetermined ratio (referred to as the steering ratio).”), wherein a first class comprises BOB data when the RSS was at least partially in a neutral configuration (the first class of data would be that which was gathered during the neutral phase) and a second class comprises BOB data when the RSS was at least partially in a geostationary configuration (the second class of data would be that gathered during the bias phase). Examiner notes that the drilling operation of Sugiura is executed according to a planned steering ratio where portions of the operation are executed in the neutral phase and portions of the operation are executed in the bias phase, as such all of the associated data is inherently separated into one of these two classes because it occurs during one of these two classes. Furthermore, as addressed below, it would be obvious to gather real-time measurements associated with the drilling plan in order to compare the planned operation to the actual operation and make adjustments as necessary);
determine a t1 based at least on the neutral RSS configuration, wherein the t1 is a total time during the neutral RSS configuration (para. [0028], “rotate slowly with respect to the borehole (in a neutral phase).” The neutral phase is understood to be equivalent to the time duration of t1. As addressed below, it would be obvious to track this given the directional plan was designed using this metric); determine a t2 based at least on the neutral RSS configuration, wherein the t2 is the total time during the geostationary RSS configuration (para. [0028], “remain substantially stationary (in a bias phase)” The bias phase is understood to be equivalent to the time duration of t2. As addressed below, it would be obvious to track this given the directional plan was designed using this metric); and determine a real time Duty Cycle based at least on the t1 and the t2 (para. [0028], “[t]o drill a desired curvature, the bias phase and neutral phase are alternated during drilling at a predetermined ratio (referred to as the steering ratio).”; para. [0046], “a look-up table may be constructed based on a mathematical model and certain steering strategy considerations. The x- and y-axis magnetic field measurements may then be evaluated with the look up table to obtain new steering tool settings (e.g., bias and neutral phase times and ratio).” Examiner notes that performing an operation according to a predetermined steering ratio does not preclude a real-time steering ratio from being determined. As discussed below, it is standard to gather actual data to confirm that operational parameters related to the wellbore trajectory, which includes a steering ratio, aligns with the data associated with the wellbore plan.
While Sugiura discloses using accelerometers and magnetometers to gather drilling measurements, Sugiura may not explicitly disclose utilizing at least a strain gauge in a downhole environment disposed on the BHA. However, Gutarov, which is in the same field of endeavor as the instant application insofar as it is directed to directional drilling, teaches the deficient limitation. For example, Gutarov teaches “a drillstring can include a tool or tools that include various sensors that can make various measurements. For example, consider the OPTIDRILL tool (Schlumberger Limited, Houston, Tex.), which includes strain gauges, accelerometers, magnetometer(s), gyroscope(s), etc… For example, such a tool can acquire weight on bit measurements (WOB) using a strain gauge… torque measurements using a strain gauge… bending moment using a strain gauge” (Gutarov, para. [0158]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the strain gauge of Gutarov into the bottom hole sensor assembly of Sugiura. The strain sensor may be incorporated into Sugiura by known methods, where the strain sensor would perform the same function as described in Gutarov as in the combination with Sugiura. The addition of the strain gauge would achieve the predictable result of including a strain sensor in a bottom hole assembly, which is a known configuration as set forth in Gutarov, in order to collect strain gauge measurements.
Sugiura modified by Gutarov teaches generating a directional drilling plan according to a steering ratio (e.g., which is a function of the time spent in the bias phase and the neutral phase). It is well-known in the art of directional drilling to collect measured operational data related to the drilling plan. It is additionally well-known to compare the measured operational data to any analogous features used to design the well plan (e.g., steering ratio). For example, Published US Patent Application to Schuh (US 6523623 B1) teaches “during drilling, the actual borehole path B will often deviate from the planned trajectory A. Obviously, if the path B is not adequately corrected, the borehole will miss its intended target. At point D, a comparison is made between the preplanned condition of corresponding to planned point on curve A and the actual position. Conventionally, when such a deviation is observed between the actual and planned path, the directional driller redirects the assembly back to the original planned path A for the well.” (Schuh, Col. 1, Lines 37—47). As such, it is not only well-known to compare the planned measurements to the actual measurements, it is necessary to perform such a comparison to ensure the well does not miss the intended target. Therefore, whether or not Sugiura expressly states that the collected directional data, including the strain gauge data of Gutarov (e.g., bend at bit data), is actively separated into data gathered during the neutral configuration and data gathered during the bias configuration, it would be obvious to do so in order to format the operational data in a manner which could be comparable with the planned metrics of Sugiura.
Regarding claim 12, Sugiura modified by Gutarov and Schuh teaches steering control system (Sugiura, para. [0047], “It will be understood that while not shown in FIG. 1, BHAs and/or rotary steerable tools suitable for use with the disclosed embodiments generally include at least one electronic controller.”; para. [0048], “A suitable controller may include a timer including, for example, an incrementing counter, a decrementing time-out counter, or a real-time clock.”) is further configurated to generate a Duty Cycle set point (Sugiura, para. [0028], “drilling at a predetermined ratio (referred to as the steering ratio).”; para. [0046], “[i]n a closed loop well twinning operation, the demand toolface and the steering ratio of the rotary steerable tool (the ratio of the bias and neutral phases) may be automatically adjusted in a closed loop manner...”; Examiner notes that, since the directional drilling operation is controlled by the steering ratio, there is a steering ratio associated with every portion of the drilling operation where directional adjustments are made) based on a current steering capability (Sugiura, “look up table”; para. [0026], “a desired displacement vector to obtain a steering vector, which may then be used to compute (or look up) the new settings… The new rotary steerable tool settings may alternatively be obtained derived directly from the magnetic field measurements, e.g., via an onboard look up table.”; para. [0046] “a look-up table may be constructed based on a mathematical model and certain steering strategy considerations. The x- and y-axis magnetic field measurements may then be evaluated with the look up table to obtain new steering tool settings (e.g., bias and neutral phase times and ratio).”) and a well plan (Sugiura, para. [0025], “a rotary steerable tool is used to control the direction of drilling of the twin well, e.g., via steering the drill bit while drilling. As is known to those of ordinary skill in the art, adjustment of various rotary steerable tool parameters enables the drilling direction to be changed in a predictable and controllable manner while drilling.”; para. [0026], “the magnetic field measurements may be used to compute a displacement vector (a distance and direction) between the twin and target wells which may in turn be compared with a desired displacement vector to obtain a steering vector, which may then be used to compute (or look up) the new settings.” Examiner notes that the well plan is based on the trajectory of the twin well (e.g., to avoid well path collisions.).
Regarding claim 13, Sugiura modified by Guratov and Schuh teaches wherein generating the Duty Cycle set point further comprises a steering control system (Gutarov, para. [0047], “BHAs and/or rotary steerable tools suitable for use with the disclosed embodiments generally include at least one electronic controller. Such a controller may include signal processing circuitry including a digital processor (a microprocessor), an analog to digital converter, and processor readable memory. The controller may also include processor-readable or computer-readable program code embodying logic, including instructions for making, processing, and filtering magnetic field measurements.”; para. [0048], “[a] suitable controller may include a timer including, for example, an incrementing counter, a decrementing time-out counter, or a real-time clock. The controller may further include multiple data storage devices, various sensors, other controllable components, a power supply, and the like. The controller may also optionally communicate with other instruments in the drill string, such as telemetry systems that communicate with the surface or an EM (electro-magnetic) shorthop that enables the two-way communication across a downhole motor.”).
Regarding claim 19, Sugiura modified by Gutarov and Schuh teaches calculating real time Duty Cycle with at least: t1/(t1+t2) real time Duty Cycle = x 100 (Sugiura, para. [0026], “bias phase and neutral phase are alternated during drilling at a predetermined ratio (referred to as the steering ratio).”; para. [ 0046], “new steering tool settings (e.g., bias and neutral phase times and ratio).”; Examiner notes that the equation for duty cycle is merely the equation for steering ratio.).
Regarding claim 20, Sugiura modified by Gutarov and Schuh teaches obtaining Weight on Bit data (Gutarov, para. [0158], “such a tool can acquire weight on bit measurements (WOB) using a strain gauge… torque measurements using a strain gauge… bending moment using a strain gauge…”) or Torque on Bit data (see citation to Gutarov, para. [1058]) with measurement assembly disposed on the BHA (the bottom hole assembly of Sugiura is modified to include the strain gauge of Gutarov where the recited measurements of Weight on Bit and Torque on Bit are measurements taken by the strain gauge as set forth in para. [0158] of Gutarov).
Subject Matter Allowable over the Prior Art of Record
Claims 4—8, 14—18, and 21 include subject matter which is allowable over the prior art of record. Please note, however, that claims 4—8, 10, 14—18, and 20—21 are all rejected under 35 U.S.C 101, 35 U.S.C. 112(a), and 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Additionally the claims 4—8, 10, 14—18, and 20 depend from rejected base claims 1 and 11 (e.g., claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as provided above).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Published US Patent Application to Dykstra et al. (US 20180373823 A1) teaches that strain gauges are part of a measurement while drilling (“MWD”) package at para. [0016].
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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