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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s response to Office action was received on October 29, 2025.
In response to Applicant’s amendment of the claims, Examiner has correspondingly amended the 101 rejections for the corresponding claims.
In response to Applicant’s amendment of the claims, please see the Claim Interpretation section, below in this Office action.
Regarding the 101 rejections, Applicant first argues based on the latest claim amendments. Examiner has revised the claim rejections to address such claim amendments. The main revision is how the “commission…” limitation is now addressed. The limitation is now addressed primarily as a combination of part of the abstract idea, plus a limitation that is treated as insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional. To further explain, as part of the commission limitation, the abstract idea outputs information intended to cause implementation of the desired drilling schedule, which is intended to include mobilizing the drilling rig to a selected well site. The extra-solution, well-understood/routine/conventional limitation is “communicating instructions to the implementation hardware and causing the implementation hardware to implement the instructions, wherein the implementation hardware includes transportation hardware or construction hardware”. Examiner included the Swift reference as the Berkheimer reference for well-understood/routine/conventional here. The extra-solution limitation was treated that way due to being insignificant application. Note that Examiner reviewed Applicant’s application before completing this Office action, and did not find any indication that the non-computing-elements that implement the commission limitation do so without the involvement of people, and in a completely automated way. For example, Examiner did not find any disclosure of Applicant’s transportation hardware being automatically and directly controlled by the computer system to mobilize the drill rig. Therefore, Examiner’s interpretation of the claims allows for a human to read a received instruction on a vehicle display and operate the vehicle to mobilize the drill rig for such feature. See the 101 rejection for the full details of how this limitation is addressed.
Regarding Applicant’s 101 argument with respect to not having prior art rejections, see MPEP 2106.05(I), which states: “Specifically, lack of novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 or obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 of a claimed invention does not necessarily indicate that additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional elements. Because they are separate and distinct requirements from eligibility, patentability of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.” Therefore, Examiner does not find this Applicant argument to be persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claim improves a technical field of well drilling. Examiner disagrees. The claims do not actually improve well drilling itself. Rather, the substantive matter of the claims is focused on planning a well drilling operation, such as determining a drilling schedule. This planning is not technological but instead is a business and/or organizational process. Therefore, Examiner does not find this 101 argument to be persuasive.
Applicant next argues 101 by arguing that claim 1 utilizes a particular machine including drilling rig, a drilling rig monitoring system, and rig-up implementation hardware. In response, each of these features was dismissed under 101 analysis for not helping with eligibility. For example, “a drilling rig for drilling a hydrocarbon well at a well site” was dismissed as mere field of use. “Communicating instructions to the implementation hardware and causing the implementation hardware to implement the instructions, wherein the implementation hardware includes transportation hardware or construction hardware” was dismissed as insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional. In addition, a number of computer-related limitations were dismissed as mere instructions to apply an exception. See the 101 rejections for the full details. Therefore, Examiner does not find this argument to be persuasive.
Applicant next argues 101 by arguing that claim 1 effects a transformation by mobilizing the rig-up implementation hardware. This 101 consideration is discussed in MPEP 2106.05(c), which states: “"Transformation" of an article means that the "article" has changed to a different state or thing. Changing to a different state or thing usually means more than simply using an article or changing the location of an article. A new or different function or use can be evidence that an article has been transformed.” Therefore, it does not appear that this consideration applies to Applicant’s claims for eligibility purposes.
Applicant again argues 101 based on not having prior art rejections, but Examiner already addressed that argument above.
Therefore, Examiner does not find Applicant’s 101 arguments to be persuasive.
Novel/Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Examiner has determined that all of Applicant’s claims have overcome having prior art rejections. The reason for this is that Examiner does not believe that, at the time of Applicant’s priority date, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine prior art disclosures to result in the particular combinations of elements/limitations in the claims, including the particular configurations of the elements/limitations with respect to each other in the particular combinations, without the use of impermissible hindsight.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “transportation hardware” in claims 1, 8, and 19; “construction hardware” in claims 1, 8, and 19.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per Claim(s) 1, 8, and 19, Claim(s) 1, 8, and 19 recite(s):
- stochastic modeling for drilling forecasts;
- stochastic modeling;
- determine a plurality of potential well sites and a well attribute of the plurality of potential well sites for drilling in a predetermined time period;
- determine available assets for drilling a well at each of the plurality of potential well sites, wherein determining the available assets includes determining an asset identifier and an asset type for each of the available assets;
- determine a plurality of historical wells with a common attribute as the well attribute of the plurality of potential well sites;
- use a stochastic process to estimate a plurality of drilling costs and drilling times for drilling the well at each of the plurality of potential well sites;
- generate from the plurality of potential well sites, the available assets, and the plurality of historical wells, a predetermined number of drilling schedules for the plurality of potential well sites;
- predict a cost and time estimate for drilling of each well at the plurality of potential well sites for each of the predetermined number of drilling schedules;
- determine from the cost and time estimate, a probability distribution of cost for implementing a subset of the predetermined number of drilling schedules for the predetermined time period;
- select the desired drilling schedule from the predetermined number of drilling schedules;
- commission implementation of the desired drilling schedule, wherein commissioning implementation of the desired drilling schedule includes communicating the desired drilling schedule and causing to implement the drilling schedule, wherein implementation includes mobilizing the available assets and implementing the drilling schedule, wherein implementing the drilling schedule includes mobilizing the drilling rig to a selected well site;
- providing the probability distribution of cost for output prior to a start of the predetermined time period.
(NOTE: The “rig-up” part of the term of “rig-up implementation hardware” simply follows from the drilling context, which Examiner addressed in the abstract idea section, as well as by treating “a drilling rig for drilling a hydrocarbon well at a well site” as a field of use limitation, below in these rejections.)
Each of the above limitations falls within the abstract-idea category of “Certain methods of organizing human activity.” Specifically, those limitations relate to the following subject matter that is grouped into the category of “Certain methods of organizing human activity”:
- commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations): plans the drilling of wells, which encompasses a common commercial activity;
- managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions): manages well drilling operations, which may involve people.
To the extent that any of these limitations are recited alongside recitations of generic computer components, as described below in this rejection: If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers subject matter recognized as certain methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim(s) recite the following additional elements/limitations, each of which are addressed in the list below with the reason(s) why they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
- monitoring system for detecting at least one attribute; implementation hardware; computing system; processor; data memory; output translation module; the data memory storing a software module that, when executed by the processor, causes the system to perform; computing device; hardware; a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that stores logic thereon that, when executed by a computing device, causes the computing device to perform: These element(s)/limitation(s) amount to mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In making this determination, examiners may consider whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Mere instructions to apply an exception is a consideration with respect to both integration of an abstract idea into a practical application and significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) states: “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) 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 provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).” This is the case with these particular claim element(s)/limitation(s). Those elements/limitations do not meaningfully limit the claim because implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. Therefore, these particular claim element(s)/limitation(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for at least this reason.
- communicating instructions to the implementation hardware and causing the implementation hardware to implement the instructions, wherein the implementation hardware includes transportation hardware or construction hardware: These element(s)/limitation(s) amount to mere insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). MPEP 2106.05(g) states: “The 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.” These particular element(s)/limitation(s) do not meaningfully limit the claim because it amounts to insignificant application of the judicial exception. For example, after determining plans, it naturally follows to simply carry those plans out. Therefore, these particular claim element(s)/limitation(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for at least this reason.
Examiner presents the following examples of activities that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity, as relevant to these particular element(s)/limitation(s):
Insignificant application:
Cutting hair after first determining the hair style, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential).
Printing or downloading generated menus, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1241-42, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1854-55 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
- a drilling rig for drilling a hydrocarbon well at a well site: These element(s)/limitation(s) amount to mere generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h). As explained in that section of the MPEP, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use. Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the exception itself.
As further explained in that section of the MPEP, the courts often cite to Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 198 USPQ 193 (1978), as providing a classic example of a field of use limitation. In Flook, the claim recited steps of calculating an updated value for an alarm limit (a numerical limit on a process variable such as temperature, pressure or flow rate) according to a mathematical formula in a process comprising the catalytic chemical conversion of hydrocarbons. Processes for the catalytic chemical conversion of hydrocarbons were used in the petrochemical and oil-refining fields. Although the applicant argued that limiting the use of the formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields should make the claim eligible because this limitation ensured that the claim did not preempt all uses of the formula, the Supreme Court disagreed and found that this limitation did not amount to an inventive concept. The Court reasoned that to hold otherwise would exalt form over substance, because a competent claim drafter could attach a similar type of limitation to almost any mathematical formula.
These particular element(s)/limitation(s) do not meaningfully limit the claim because the presence of the drilling rig and well site essentially merely serve to attempt to place the scheduling judicial exception into the field of use of well drilling. Therefore, these particular claim element(s)/limitation(s) do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor add significantly more for at least this reason.
Examiner presents the following examples of limitations that the courts have described as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, as relevant to these particular Applicant element(s)/limitation(s):
Additional elements limiting the wireless delivery of regional broadcast content to cellular telephones (as opposed to any and all electronic devices such as televisions, cable boxes, computers, or the like) merely confined the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (cellular telephones) and thus failed to add an inventive concept to the claims. Affinity Labs of Texas v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1258-59, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1204 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
A step of administering a drug providing 6-thioguanine to patients with an immune-mediated gastrointestinal disorder, because limiting drug administration to this patient population did no more than simply refer to the relevant pre-existing audience of doctors who used thiopurine drugs to treat patients suffering from autoimmune disorders, Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 78, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1968 (2012).
Identifying the participants in a process for hedging risk as commodity providers and commodity consumers, because limiting the use of the process to these participants did no more than describe how the abstract idea of hedging risk could be used in the commodities and energy markets, Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 595, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010).
Limiting the use of the formula C = 2 (pi) r to determining the circumference of a wheel as opposed to other circular objects, because this limitation represents a mere token acquiescence to limiting the reach of the claim, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 595, 198 USPQ 193, 199 (1978).
Specifying that the abstract idea of monitoring audit log data relates to transactions or activities that are executed in a computer environment, because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer, FairWarning v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1094-95, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Language specifying that the process steps of virus screening were used within a telephone network or the Internet, because limiting the use of the process to these technological environments did not provide meaningful limits on the claim, Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1319-20, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1361 (2016).
Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Language informing doctors to apply a law of nature (linkage disequilibrium) for purposes of detecting a genetic polymorphism, because this language merely informs the relevant audience that the law of nature can be used in this manner, Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1379, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1549 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Language specifying that the abstract idea of budgeting was to be implemented using a "communication medium" that broadly included the Internet and telephone networks, because this limitation merely limited the use of the exception to a particular technological environment, Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Bank, 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1640 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Specifying that the abstract idea of using advertising as currency is used on the Internet, because this narrowing limitation is merely an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Requiring that the abstract idea of creating a contractual relationship that guarantees performance of a transaction (a) be performed using a computer that receives and sends information over a network, or (b) be limited to guaranteeing online transactions, because these limitations simply attempted to limit the use of the abstract idea to computer environments, buySAFE Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1354, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1095-96 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Accordingly, the 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. The claim(s) are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, either individually or as an ordered combination. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of computer-related components amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. As also discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “communicating instructions to the implementation hardware and causing the implementation hardware to implement the instructions, wherein the implementation hardware includes transportation hardware or construction hardware” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity, which does not provide an inventive concept. As also discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “a drilling rig for drilling a hydrocarbon well at a well site” amount to mere field of use.
If an examiner previously concludes under Step 2A that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity, the examiner should evaluate whether that additional element is more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field, in step 2B. Examiner addresses below why that element was well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field:
- communicating instructions to the implementation hardware and causing the implementation hardware to implement the instructions, wherein the implementation hardware includes transportation hardware or construction hardware: See Swift, US 20190370756 A1, paragraph [0004], which states (in the BACKGROUND section): “For instance, in a typical warehouse implementation, a forklift truck is equipped with a communications device that links a corresponding forklift truck operator to a management system executing on an associated computer enterprise via a wireless transceiver. Essentially, the communications device is used as an interface to the management system to direct the tasks of the forklift truck operator, e.g., by instructing the forklift truck operator where and/or how to pick, pack, put away, move, stage, process or otherwise manipulate items within a facility.” Thus, “communicating instructions to the implementation hardware and causing the implementation hardware to implement the instructions, wherein the implementation hardware includes transportation hardware or construction hardware” was well-understood, routine, and conventional activity.
The claim(s) are not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim(s) 2-7, 9-18, and 20, these claim(s) incorporate the above abstract idea via their dependencies on the respective independent claim(s). The additional element(s)/limitation(s) of the respective independent claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they add significantly more, with respect to those dependent claim(s), under the same reasoning as above with respect to the respective independent claim(s).
The added elements/limitations of those dependent claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor add significantly more because they all merely add further functional step(s) and/or detail to the abstract idea; as part of the abstract idea, they cannot integrate into a practical application or be significantly more than the abstract idea of which they are a part. For example, claim 2 merely specifies types of well attributes.
Claim(s) 1-20 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application and is without significantly more.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
a. Braniff, US 20220341309 A1, discloses:
- a system for stochastic modeling for drilling forecasts (paragraph [0047]; paragraph [0070]; paragraph [0084]; paragraph [0140]; paragraph [0149]; claim 79);
- a drilling rig for drilling a hydrocarbon well at a well site (paragraph [0075]; paragraph [0092]; paragraph [0144]);
- a drilling rig monitoring system coupled to the drilling rig for detecting at least one attribute of the well site (paragraph [0035]; paragraph [0038]; paragraph [0085]);
- rig-up implementation hardware for implementing a desired drilling schedule (paragraph [0078]; paragraph [0085]);
- a stochastic modeling computing system that includes a stochastic modeling processor, a well site data memory, and a drilling forecast output translation module, the well site data memory storing a drilling forecast software module that, when executed by the stochastic modeling processor, causes the system to perform (paragraph [0047]; paragraph [0070]; paragraph [0084]; paragraph [0085]; paragraph [0098]; paragraph [0140]; paragraph [0149]; claim 79);
- determine a plurality of potential well sites and a well attribute of the plurality of potential well sites for drilling in a predetermined time period (paragraph [0073]; paragraph [0074]; paragraph [0089]);
- determine a plurality of historical wells with a similar attribute as the well attribute of the plurality of potential well sites (paragraph [0076]; paragraph [0088]);
- use a stochastic process to estimate a plurality of drilling costs and drilling times for drilling the well at each of the plurality of potential well sites (paragraph [0047]; paragraph [0070]; paragraph [0084]; paragraph [0140]; paragraph [0149]; claim 79);
- commission implementation of the desired drilling schedule, wherein commissioning implementation of the desired drilling schedule includes utilizing the drilling forecast output translation module to communicate the desired drilling schedule to the rig-up implementation hardware (paragraph [0035]; paragraph [0038]; paragraph [0047]; paragraph [0070]; paragraph [0078]; paragraph [0084]; paragraph [0085]; paragraph [0098]; paragraph [0140]; paragraph [0144]; paragraph [0149]; claim 79).
b. Cullick, US 20040220846 A1, discloses:
- determine available assets for drilling a well at each of the plurality of potential well sites, wherein determining the available assets includes determining an asset identifier and an asset type for each of the available assets (paragraph [0098]; paragraph [0105]).
c. Jamieson, US 20220253761 A1, discloses:
- generate from the plurality of potential well sites and the plurality of historical wells, a number of drilling schedules for the plurality of potential well sites (abstract; paragraph [0196]; claim 1);
- select the desired drilling schedule from the predetermined number of drilling schedules (abstract; paragraph [0196]; claim 1).
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 NATHAN ERB whose telephone number is (571)272-7606. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 11:30 AM - 8 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, NATHAN UBER can be reached at (571) 270-3923. 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.
nhe
/NATHAN ERB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628