DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/23/2026 has been entered.
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, 5-17, 19-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BOUALLEG ET AL. (US 20220170359 A1) (hereinafter “BOUALLEG”) in view of MADASU ET AL. (US 20210148213 A1) (hereinafter “MADASU”).
With respect to Claim(s) 1, 19, BOUALLEG teaches acquiring drilling performance data for a downhole tool; modeling drilling performance of the downhole tool to generate results; training a machine learning model using the drilling performance data and the results to generate a trained machine learning model; and predicting behavior of the downhole tool using the trained machine learning model and the BRI of:
one or more processors (See, e.g., ¶ 0214; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 4);
a memory in electronic communication with the one or more processors (See, e.g., ¶ 0214; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 4); and
instructions stored in the memory, the instructions being executable by the one or more processors to:
receive trajectory data, the trajectory data including a trajectory for steering a downhole tool toward a downhole target, the downhole tool operating in a borehole (See, e.g., ¶ 0056, 0057, 0159, 0168, 0233, 0241, 0244, 0251, 0262, 0266, 0314, 0353, 0354, 0356, 0385; See, e.g., See also, e.g., Fig(s). 3-47);
identify downhole tool data for the downhole tool (See, e.g., ¶ 0346; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 3);
based on the trajectory data and the downhole tool data, predict one or more engineering metrics associated with an implementation of the trajectory (See, e.g., ¶ 0180, 0200, 0424; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 3);
determine a coherency for the trajectory including determining whether the engineering metrics are within one or more predetermined thresholds (See, e.g., ¶ 0180, 0200, 0424; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 3);
and
generate a report of at least some of the one or more engineering metrics, including a value of each engineering metric and an indication of a whether the value is within one or more of the predetermined thresholds (See, e.g., ¶ 0204, 0205);
automatically
select the trajectory based on values of the one or more engineering metrics associated with the trajectory if the values of the one or more engineering metrics are within the one or more predetermined thresholds for the selected trajectory (See, e.g., ¶ 0125);
and
automatically cause the selected trajectory to be implemented by
steering the downhole tool toward the downhole target on the selected trajectory (See, e.g., ¶ 0125).
However, BOUALLEG is lacking the explicit language of:
the downhole tool data including an ability of the downhole tool to withstand one or more of torque, drag, bending, buckling, stress, strain, borehole pressure, or hydraulic pressure.
MADASU teaches ‘System and methods for optimizing parameters for drilling operations are provided. Real-time data including values for input variables associated with a current stage of a drilling operation along a planned well path are acquired. A neural network model is trained to produce an objective function defining a response value for at least one operating variable of the drilling operation. The response value for the operating variable is estimated based on the objective function produced by the trained neural network model. Stochastic optimization is applied to the estimated response value so as to produce an optimized response value for the operating variable. Values of controllable parameters are estimated for a subsequent stage of the drilling operation, based on the optimized response value of the operating variable. The subsequent stage of the drilling operation is performed based on the estimated values of the controllable parameters.’ and the BRI of:
the downhole tool data including an ability of the downhole tool to withstand one or more of torque, drag, bending, buckling, stress, strain, borehole pressure, or hydraulic pressure (See, e.g., ¶ 0052).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify BOUALLEG to include the downhole tool data including an ability of the downhole tool to withstand one or more of torque, drag, bending, buckling, stress, strain, borehole pressure, or hydraulic pressure.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify BOUALLEG because it would be beneficial to detect failure of a plurality of downhole tools. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With respect to Claim(s) 20, BOUALLEG teaches acquiring drilling performance data for a downhole tool; modeling drilling performance of the downhole tool to generate results; training a machine learning model using the drilling performance data and the results to generate a trained machine learning model; and predicting behavior of the downhole tool using the trained machine learning model and the BRI of:
one or more processors (See, e.g., ¶ 0214; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 4);
a memory in electronic communication with the one or more processors (See, e.g., ¶ 0214; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 4); and
instructions stored in the memory, the instructions being executable by the one or more processors to:
receive trajectory data, the trajectory data including a trajectory for steering a downhole tool toward a downhole target, the downhole tool operating in a borehole (See, e.g., ¶ 0056, 0057, 0159, 0168, 0233, 0241, 0244, 0251, 0262, 0266, 0314, 0353, 0354, 0356, 0385; See, e.g., See also, e.g., Fig(s). 3-47);
identify downhole tool data for the downhole tool (See, e.g., ¶ 0346; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 3);
based on the trajectory data and the downhole tool data, predict one or more engineering metrics associated with an implementation of the trajectory (See, e.g., ¶ 0180, 0200, 0424; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 3);
determine a coherency for the trajectory including determining whether the engineering metrics are within one or more predetermined thresholds (See, e.g., ¶ 0180, 0200, 0424; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 3);
and
generate a report of at least some of the one or more engineering metrics, including a value of each engineering metric and an indication of a whether the value is within one or more of the predetermined thresholds (See, e.g., ¶ 0204, 0205);
automatically
select the trajectory based on values of the one or more engineering metrics associated with the trajectory if the values of the one or more engineering metrics are within the one or more predetermined thresholds for the selected trajectory (See, e.g., ¶ 0125);
and
automatically cause the selected trajectory to be implemented by
steering the downhole tool toward the downhole target on the selected trajectory (See, e.g., ¶ 0125).
However, BOUALLEG is lacking the explicit language of:
the downhole tool data including an ability of the downhole tool to withstand one or more of torque, drag, bending, buckling, stress, strain, borehole pressure, or hydraulic pressure; the one or more predetermined thresholds include one or more of failure limits, yield limits, or safety limits of the ability of the downhole tool to withstand one or more of torque, drag, bending, buckling, stress, strain, borehole pressure, or hydraulic pressure.
MADASU teaches ‘System and methods for optimizing parameters for drilling operations are provided. Real-time data including values for input variables associated with a current stage of a drilling operation along a planned well path are acquired. A neural network model is trained to produce an objective function defining a response value for at least one operating variable of the drilling operation. The response value for the operating variable is estimated based on the objective function produced by the trained neural network model. Stochastic optimization is applied to the estimated response value so as to produce an optimized response value for the operating variable. Values of controllable parameters are estimated for a subsequent stage of the drilling operation, based on the optimized response value of the operating variable. The subsequent stage of the drilling operation is performed based on the estimated values of the controllable parameters.’ and the BRI of:
the downhole tool data including an ability of the downhole tool to withstand one or more of torque, drag, bending, buckling, stress, strain, borehole pressure, or hydraulic pressure; the one or more predetermined thresholds include one or more of failure limits, yield limits, or safety limits of the ability of the downhole tool to withstand one or more of torque, drag, bending, buckling, stress, strain, borehole pressure, or hydraulic pressure (See, e.g., ¶ 0052).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify BOUALLEG to include the downhole tool data including an ability of the downhole tool to withstand one or more of torque, drag, bending, buckling, stress, strain, borehole pressure, or hydraulic pressure; the one or more predetermined thresholds include one or more of failure limits, yield limits, or safety limits of the ability of the downhole tool to withstand one or more of torque, drag, bending, buckling, stress, strain, borehole pressure, or hydraulic pressure.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify BOUALLEG because it would be beneficial to detect failure of a plurality of downhole tools. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With respect to Claim(s) 2, the cited reference(s) of the parent claim(s) teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
BOUALLEG further teaches the BRI of:
the method is performed while drilling with the downhole tool (See, e.g., ¶ 0057, 0121, 0164, 0204, 0221).
With respect to Claim(s) 3, the cited reference(s) of the parent claim(s) teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
BOUALLEG further teaches the BRI of:
predicting, determining, and generating are performed in 60 seconds or less (See, e.g., ¶ 0214; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 4),
and
predicting the one or more engineering metrics is based at least in part on formation data (See, e.g., ¶ 0116-0124),
the formation data including one or more of
surveys, maps, models, analyses, 3D seismic cubes, facies distributions, lithology, stratigraphy, geomechanical properties, or offset well data, of the earth formation (See, e.g., ¶ 0166, 0192, 0198, 0221, 0249).
With respect to Claim(s) 5, the cited reference(s) of the parent claim(s) teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
BOUALLEG further teaches the BRI of:
the one or more engineering metrics include
one or more downhole tool metrics associated with an operation of the downhole tool in accordance with the trajectory (See, e.g., ¶ 0056, 0057, 0159, 0168, 0233, 0241, 0244, 0251, 0262, 0266, 0314, 0353, 0354, 0356, 0385; See, e.g., See also, e.g., Fig(s). 3-47).
With respect to Claim(s) 6, the cited reference(s) of the parent claim(s) teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
BOUALLEG further teaches the BRI of:
the one or more engineering metrics include
one or more completion metrics associated with a completion of the borehole at the downhole target (See, e.g., ¶ 0123-0125).
With respect to Claim(s) 7, the cited reference(s) of the parent claim(s) teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
BOUALLEG further teaches the BRI of:
presenting the report via a graphical user interface (GUI) of a user device (See, e.g., ¶ 0217; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 5).
With respect to Claim(s) 8, the cited reference(s) of the parent claim(s) teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
BOUALLEG further teaches the BRI of:
determining the coherency further includes determining whether the trajectory is consistent with a completion plan for the downhole system (See, e.g., ¶ 0159, 0251, 0266, 0356).
With respect to Claim(s) 9, the cited reference(s) of the parent claim(s) teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
BOUALLEG further teaches the BRI of:
determining the coherency further includes determining whether the trajectory is consistent with a casing plan for the downhole system (See, e.g., ¶ 0129, 0132, 0135, 0142, 0143, 0199, 0201).
With respect to Claim(s) 10, the cited reference(s) of the parent claim(s) teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
BOUALLEG further teaches the BRI of:
determining the coherency further includes
determining whether the trajectory is consistent with a bottom hole assembly (BHA) plan associated with the downhole system (See, e.g., ¶ 0124, 0201, 0203, 0293, , 0400).
With respect to Claim(s) 11, the cited reference(s) of the parent claim(s) teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
BOUALLEG further teaches the BRI of:
predicting the one or more engineering metrics includes
applying a machine learning model trained to predict one or more the engineering metrics based on input trajectory data (See, e.g., ¶ 0120).
With respect to Claim(s) 12, the cited reference(s) of the parent claim(s) teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
BOUALLEG further teaches the BRI of:
receiving formation data including measurements from one or more downhole sensors (See, e.g., ¶ 0124).
With respect to Claim(s) 13, the cited reference(s) of the parent claim(s) teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
BOUALLEG further teaches the BRI of:
the one or more downhole sensors include one or more of
gamma ray sensors, resistivity sensors, neutron density sensors, porosity sensors, and acoustic sensors (See, e.g., ¶ 0124).
With respect to Claim(s) 14, the cited reference(s) of the parent claim(s) teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
BOUALLEG further teaches the BRI of:
receiving a subsurface geology model of a subsurface geology of the earth formation (See, e.g., ¶ 0192),
the subsurface geology model being generated based on the trajectory data and the formation data (See, e.g., ¶ 0192),
the subsurface geology model including
a representation of the downhole target and the trajectory (See, e.g., ¶ 0192).
With respect to Claim(s) 15, the cited reference(s) of the parent claim(s) teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
BOUALLEG further teaches the BRI of:
predicting the one or more engineering metrics includes
simulating an application of the trajectory based on the subsurface geology model (See, e.g., ¶ 0180, 0184, 0358).
With respect to Claim(s) 16, the cited reference(s) of the parent claim(s) teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
BOUALLEG further teaches the BRI of:
generating the report includes presenting the subsurface geology model with the engineering metrics via a graphical user interface (See, e.g., ¶ 0217; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 5).
With respect to Claim(s) 17, the cited reference(s) of the parent claim(s) teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
BOUALLEG further teaches the BRI of:
receiving second trajectory data including a second trajectory for steering the downhole tool toward the downhole target (See, e.g., ¶ 0056, 0057, 0159, 0168, 0233, 0241, 0244, 0251, 0262, 0266, 0314, 0353, 0354, 0356, 0385; See, e.g., See also, e.g., Fig(s). 3-47);
based on the second trajectory data and the downhole tool data, predicting one or more second engineering metrics including one or more second downhole tool metrics associated with an operation of the downhole tool in accordance with the second trajectory and one or more second completion metrics associated with a second completion of the borehole at the downhole target (See, e.g., ¶ 0180, 0200, 0424; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 3);
determining a coherency for the second trajectory including determining whether the second engineering metrics are within the one or more predetermined thresholds (See, e.g., ¶ 0180, 0200, 0424; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 3);
and
wherein
automatically selecting the trajectory based on values of the one or more engineering metrics associated with the trajectory includes
automatically selecting one of the trajectory or the second trajectory if the values of the one or more engineering metrics or one or more second engineering metrics are within the one or more predetermined thresholds for the selected trajectory (See, e.g., ¶ 0125);
wherein
automatically causing the selected trajectory to be implemented by steering the downhole tool toward a downhole target on the selected trajectory includes implementing the trajectory or the second trajectory (See, e.g., ¶ 0125);
and
wherein
generating the report includes presenting a graphical representation of the trajectory in association with the engineering metrics and of the second trajectory in association with the second engineering metrics including, for each engineering metric and second engineering metric, a value and an indication of whether the value is within one or more of the predetermined thresholds (See, e.g., ¶ 0204, 0205).
With respect to Claim(s) 21, 22, the cited reference(s) of the parent claim(s) teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
BOUALLEG teaches the BRI of:
the one or more predetermined thresholds.
MADASU further teaches the BRI of:
the one or more predetermined thresholds include one or more of failure limits, yield limits, or safety limits of the ability of the downhole tool to withstand one or more of torque, drag, bending, buckling, stress, strain, borehole pressure, or hydraulic pressure (See, e.g., ¶ 0052).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify BOUALLEG to include the one or more predetermined thresholds include one or more of failure limits, yield limits, or safety limits of the ability of the downhole tool to withstand one or more of torque, drag, bending, buckling, stress, strain, borehole pressure, or hydraulic pressure.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify BOUALLEG because it would be beneficial to detect failure of a plurality of downhole tools. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments, filed on 03/23/2026, have been entered and fully considered. In light of the applicant’s amendments changing the scope of the claimed invention, the rejection(s) have been withdrawn or updated. However, upon further consideration, a new or updated ground(s) of rejection(s) have been made, and applicant's argument(s)/remark(s) pertaining to the amended language have been rendered moot.
Applicant's argument(s)/remark(s), see page(s) 8-10, filed 03/23/2026, with respect to the art rejection(s) has/have been fully considered.
-Applicant states
“Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claims 1-3, 5-17 and 19-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Boualleg, et al. (US 2022/0170359; hereinafter, "Boualleg") in view of Chanpura, et al. (US 2023/0117396; hereinafter, "Chanpura").
The PTO has not established a prima facie case of obviousness against currently amended independent claim 1 because the PTO has not demonstrated that the cited references teach or suggest each and every limitation of claim 1. For example, the PTO has not demonstrated that the cited references teach or suggest "identifying downhole tool data for the downhole tool, the downhole tool data including an ability of the downhole tool to withstand one or more of torque, drag, bending, buckling, stress, strain, borehole pressure, or hydraulic pressure," as recited in claim 1. (Emphasis added). The PTO states "BOUALLEG is lacking the explicit language of: the downhole tool data including one or more of strength properties, wear properties, or fatigue properties of the downhole tool." Office Action. p. 4.
In order to cure the above-noted deficiency, the PTO cites Chanpura for the proposition that Chanpura "teaches systems and methods are disclosed for identifying one or more vibration mechanisms or other mechanism associated with tool failure and the BRI of: downhole tool data including one or more of strength properties, wear properties, or fatigue properties of the downhole tool." Id. However, the PTO-cited portions of Chanpura are directed to a "cumulative index (CI) may be determined as the combination of vibration index values across multiple tool runs performed by a particular tool" and "pre-job planning block 850 may involve the thresholds obtained from the latest adaptive model 820 using cumulative vibration indexes for tools of interest." Chanpura, 11 [0039] and [0061]. Accordingly, the PTO has not demonstrated that the cited references teach or suggest "identifying downhole tool data for the downhole tool, the downhole tool data including an ability of the downhole tool to withstand one or more of torque, drag, bending, buckling, stress, strain, borehole pressure, or hydraulic pressure," as recited in claim 1.
Based at least on the foregoing, claim 1 is patentable over the cited references. The PTO has not established a prima facie case of obviousness against currently amended independent claim 19 because the PTO has not demonstrated that the cited references teach or suggest each and every limitation of claim 19. For example, and for at least the same reasons noted above with respect to claim 1, the PTO has not demonstrated that the cited references teach or suggest "identifying downhole tool data for the downhole tool, the downhole tool data including an ability of the downhole tool to withstand one or more of torque, drag, bending, buckling, stress, strain, borehole pressure, or hydraulic pressure," as recited in claim 19. (Emphasis added).
Based at least on the foregoing, claim 19 is patentable over the cited references.
The PTO has not established a prima facie case of obviousness against currently amended independent claim 20 because the PTO has not demonstrated that the cited references teach or suggest each and every limitation of claim 20. For example, and for at least the same reasons noted above with respect to claim 1, the PTO has not demonstrated that the cited references teach or suggest "identify downhole tool data for the downhole tool, the downhole tool data including an ability of the downhole tool to withstand one or more of torque, drag, bending, buckling, stress, strain, borehole pressure, or hydraulic pressure," as recited in claim 20. (Emphasis added).
Further, the PTO has not demonstrated that the cited references teach or suggest" determine a coherency for the trajectory including determining whether the engineering metrics are within one or more predetermined thresholds, wherein the one or more predetermined thresholds include one or more of failure limits, yield limits, or safety limits of the ability of the downhole tool to withstand one or more of torque, drag, bending, buckling, stress, strain, borehole pressure, or hydraulic pressure" as recited in claim 20. (Emphasis added). For example, the cited references do not appear to consider the ability of the downhole tool to withstand one or more of torque, drag, bending, buckling, stress, strain, borehole pressure, or hydraulic pressure" at all, much less "predetermined thresholds [that] include one or more of failure limits, yield limits, or safety limits" of the same. Rather, as noted above, the PTO merely relies on Chanpura for "identifying one or more vibration mechanisms or other mechanism associated with tool failure." Office Action, p. 4 (citing Chanpura, " [0039] and [0061]). Accordingly, the PTO has not demonstrated that the cited references teach or suggest the above-quoted limitation of claim 20.
Based at least on the foregoing, claim 20 is patentable over the cited references.
Each of dependent claims 2-3, 5-17, 21, and 22 is patentable over the cited references in view of the subject matter recited therein and also at least for depending from an allowable base claim-currently amended independent claim 1 or 19, respectively.
In view of the foregoing, Applicant requests withdrawal of the rejections against claims 1-3, 5-17, and 19-22 in view of Boualleg and Chanpura and reconsideration of all pending claims.”.
The underlined argument(s)/remark(s) are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the previous rejected limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAYMOND NIMOX whose telephone number is (469)295-9226. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 10am-8pm CT.
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, ANDREW SCHECHTER can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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.
RAYMOND NIMOX
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2857
/RAYMOND L NIMOX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights