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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 (maintained)
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-8 and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Buerger et al., U.S. Patent No. 10,900,343 B1 (hereinafter: ‘343).
It is noted that in the interest in providing the applicant with the most thorough explanations possible, the examiner has updated the rationale so as to provide even greater clarity and guidance with respect to how Buerger et al. anticipates the features of the aforementioned claims. It is further noted, that the specification from Buerger et al. has been notated with paragraph #s which the examiner will reference, and a copy of this examiner notated specification has been included herein.
As per claim 1, ‘343 discloses a method for optimizing at least one drilling parameter during an ongoing drilling process, the drilling being carried out by a percussive drilling machine, the drilling machine being set to drill at an operating point, the operating point of the drilling being determined by a setting of a plurality of control parameters (e.g., See ‘343, [0012], [0045] and [0046], which disclose that during percussive drilling, a controller regulates WOB, hammer pressure, and rotary speed in real time, wherein setpoints are determined by a higher-level controller (AOPC) and are optimized via an optimization algorithm), the method comprising:
determining a first plurality of drilling machine operating points, the first plurality of drilling machine operating points being set by the plurality of control parameters, wherein the first plurality of drilling machine operating points are determined based on a difference in parameter values in relation to an initial drilling machine operating point of parameters being controlled (e.g., See ‘343; [0034], [0049] and [0050], which disclose starting with multiple candidate operating setpoint and then defining a search interval range around an initial AOPC setpoint and sequentially selecting and evaluating settings with that interval while shrinking the interval);
performing percussive drilling at each of the first plurality of drilling machine operating points (e.g., See ‘343; [0045] and [0050], which disclose drilling at each setpoint for 10-20 seconds while penetrating rock layers);
evaluating at least one resulting drilling parameter for each of the plurality of drilling machine operating points (e.g., See ‘343; [0045] and [0050], which disclose that for each tested setpoint, outcomes (torque and/or ROP) are measured over a stable interval to estimate ROP);
determining a new plurality of drilling machine operating points to be drilled based on the evaluation (e.g., See ‘343; [0046], [0049] and [0050], which disclose using an optimization algorithm to narrow and select new setpoints from the results); and
drilling the new plurality of drilling machine operating points (e.g., See ‘343; [0045], [0049], [0050] and [0052], which disclose applying the newly determined setpoints and continuing the percussive drilling using them).
As per claim 2, ‘343 further discloses continuously determining the first plurality of drilling machine operating points during ongoing drilling based on evaluation of drilled operating points; and continuously drilling and evaluating the determined first plurality of drilling machine operating points (e.g., See ‘343; [0045], [0049] and [0050], which disclose trying new drilling settings during drilling, measuring results (drilling speed), narrowing the potential choices, and repeating until the best settings are discovered).
As per claim 3, ‘343 further discloses that when evaluating at least one drilling parameter for each of the drilled plurality of drilling machine operating points, evaluating a plurality of drilling parameters for each of the first plurality of drilling machine operating points (e.g., See ‘343; [0012] and [0045], which disclose that for each setpoint tested, several results (drilling speed and torque) are measured so that the best overall settings can be determined).
As per claim 5, ‘343 further discloses selecting the new plurality of operating points starting from a drilling machine operating point of the drilled plurality of drilling machine operating points being considered the most optimal drilling machine operating point of the drilled plurality of drilling machine operating points (e.g., See ‘343; [0049] and [0050], which disclose testing several settings, then picking the best one and basing the next chosen settings around that chosen best result).
As per claim 6, ‘343 further discloses continuing optimization of the drilling machine operating point by determining a new plurality of drilling machine operating points to be drilled at least for as long as a more optimal drilling machine operating point is identified among the new plurality of drilling machine operating points (e.g., See ‘343; [0012], [0049] and [0050], which disclose testing setting, narrowing the search interval range, and repeating until the best drilling settings are found and are implemented).
As per claim 7, ‘343 further discloses that when evaluation of a drilled plurality of operating points does not identify a more optimal drilling machine operating point in relation to the optimal drilling machine operating point from which the drilled plurality of operating points was determined, determining at least one further plurality of drilling machine operating points to be drilled from a previously drilled operating point that has not formed basis for determining a new set of drilling machine operating points (e.g., See ‘343; [0012], [0049] and [0050], which disclose that if the tested settings do not identify a more optimal operating point, the search continues by selecting other candidate settings within the search range interval, wherein the search interval range is narrowed based on the results of the previously evaluated settings).
As per claim 8, ‘343 further discloses that prior to evaluating a drilling machine operating point: performing percussive drilling for at least a predetermined number of percussions and/or a predetermined period of time at the drilling machine operating point to be evaluated (e.g., See ‘343; [0050], which discloses that before judging newly determined settings, the drilling occurs in the range of 10-20 seconds, to allow stabilization before measuring the drill speed).
As per claim 11, ‘343 further discloses drilling is to be performed at a particular drilling machine operating point: determining control parameter settings to be used when drilling at the particular drilling machine operating point; setting the drilling control parameters to the determined control parameter settings; and performing drilling at the particular drilling machine operating point following setting of the drilling control parameters (e.g., See ‘343; [0045], [0046] and [0052], which disclose selecting WOB, hammer pressure and/or rotary speed setpoints, then drilling using them).
As per claim 12, ‘343 further discloses that prior to determining a plurality of drilling machine operating points to be drilled based on a previously drilled operating point, determining whether a difference in control parameter values between drilling machine operating points is to be increased or decreased prior to generating a new plurality of drilling machine operating points (e.g., See ‘343; [0034] and [0049], which disclose setting a search range around the current setting, then shrinking that range to choose the select the next setpoints to test).
As per claim 13, ‘343 further discloses that when drilling is commenced: selecting an initial operating point as a drilling machine operating point previously being used as an optimal drilling machine operating point in an earlier drilling session, the drilling machine operating point set by an operator of a drill rig or an empirically determined drilling machine operating points (e.g., See ‘343; [0025] and [0052], which disclose that when drilling starts, the best settings determined from past drilling are used, or they are chosen by the operator).
As per claim 14, ‘343 further discloses optimizing drilling by maximizing at least one drilling parameter and/or minimizing at least one drilling parameter (e.g., See ‘343; [0032] and [0034], which disclose optimizing drilling by selecting settings that maximize drilling speed and/or minimize energy used per rock volume).
As per claim 15, ‘343 further discloses the plurality of control parameters comprises two or more from the group: rotation pressure, percussion pressure, feed pressure, and flush flow (e.g., See ‘343; [0043] and [0045], which disclose controlling at least two operational settings (hammer pressure and feed or WOB via cylinder pressure (plus rotation control)).
As per claim 16, ‘343 further discloses that when determining a plurality of drilling machine operating points to be drilled starting from a drilling machine operating point being considered the most optimal drilling machine operating point of a drilled plurality of operating points: selecting higher and/or lower values of control parameters in relation to the drilling machine operating point being considered the most optimal drilling machine operating point (e.g., See ‘343; [0012] and [0034], which disclose choosing slightly higher and/or lower control settings around the current most optimal operating settings, which are then tested as well).
As per claim 17, ‘343 further discloses respecting maximum and/or minimum limitations of the at least one drilling parameter when determining a subsequent plurality of drilling machine operating points to be drilled (e.g., See ‘343; [0035], [0036] and [0049], which disclose that operational limits (e.g., max torque threshold) are constrained when determining subsequent operating setpoints to be tested).
As per claims 18 and 19, these claims are apparatus/rig counterparts of claim 1; therefore, the rationale as set forth above with respect to the rejection of claim 1, is incorporated herein by reference and is applied to claims 18 and 19 for the corresponding features. Further, the additional feature of a difference relative to an initial operating point, of claim 1, is not relied upon in claims 18 and 19 and therefore the rational set forth in the rejection of claim 1, directed to that feature, is not relied upon with respect to claims 18 and 19.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 (maintained)
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buerger et al., U.S. Patent No. 10,900,343 B1 (hereinafter: ‘343), in view of Vempati et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0047206 A1 (hereinafter: ‘206).
As per claim 4, ‘343 does not specifically disclose assigning different weights and/or priorities to the plurality of drilling parameters in the evaluation.
In analogous art, ‘206 discloses this feature (e.g., See Claim 19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teachings of ‘206 into ‘343 for the purpose of prioritizing parameters that are determined to have a more meaningful impact on the optimization of the drilling process, thereby forming a more efficient and optimal overall drilling optimization system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 10 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 (see previous office action for details).
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 RONALD D HARTMAN JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3684. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 - 4:30 EST.
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, Mohammad Ali can be reached at (571) 272-4105. 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.
/RONALD D HARTMAN JR/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119 February 13, 2026
/RDH/