ri 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. Drawings The drawings are objected to because Fig. 2 text in 217 box recites “Drillstring” that has typo, should be “Drill string” to be consistent with the disclosure. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Specification recites “drillstring” that has typo, should be “drill string” to be consistent with the re s t of the disclosure. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Objections Claims 1, 7 -8 , 11, 14 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim s 1 and 7 recites “the one or more operational parameter” that has typo, should be “the one or more operational parameters”. Claim 1 recites “a maximum pressure and maximum flowrate” that has typo, should be “a maximum pressure and a maximum flowrate”. Claim 1 recites “ the maximum pressure and maximum flowrate ” in several places that has typo, should be “ the maximum pressure and the maximum flowrate ”. Claim 1 recites “responsive to comparing the maximum pressure and maximum flowrate to equipment limits” that has typos, should be “responsive to comparing the maximum pressure and maximum flowrate to the equipment limits”. Claims 1, 7 -8 , 11 and 20 recite abbreviation “MPD” that , the first appearance of “MPD” in the claims 1 and 11 should be replaced by “m anaged pressure drilling (MPD) ” . Claim 7 recites abbreviation “SB P ” that lacks definition , the “SBP” should be replaced by “ surface backpressure ( SBP ) ” . Claim 14 recites abbreviation “WBM” and “OBM” that lack definitions , the “WBM” should be replaced by “ water-based mud (WBM) ” and the “OBM” should be replaced by “ oil-based mud (OBM) ” . Claim s 8 and 20 recite abbreviation “RCD” that lacks definition , the “RCD” should be replaced by “ rotating control device (RCD) ” . Claims 7 and 20 recites “drillstring” that has typo, should be “drill string” to be consistent with the disclosure. Appropriate correction is required. 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 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed to a signal - claim 18 recites “A programmable storage device” that could be transitory. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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 and 7 are 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. Claim s 1 and 7 recites “ the one or more operational parameter of the MPD system ” that lacks antecedent basis. Claim 1 recites “using the data” that lacks antecedent basis. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. (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 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & (a)(2) as being anticipated by VAN OORT WO 2016040272 A1 . Regarding claim 1 , VAN OORT teaches a method for drilling a well using an MPD system (Figs. 1, 9A&9B [0020]), comprising: drilling a wellbore using the MPD system (Figs. 1, 9A&9B [0020] [0053] during drilling using a MPD system); monitoring, using one or more sensors, one or more operational parameters associated with drilling the wellbore ([0054] flow rate out and flow rate in is sensed, changes are detected and compared, an influx event is detected); responsive to detection of an influx in the MPD system, receiving, at a control system, data regarding size and duration of the detected influx ([0040] [0041] [0054] [0055] pit gain i.e. “size” vs time i.e. “duration” of the detected influx is calculated); receiving, at the control system, data regarding the one or more operational parameter of the MPD system (Table 1 [0037] [0038] [0056] the operational parameters of the MPD system is input to simulation); using, via the control system, a simulator to estimate a maximum pressure and maximum flowrate for the MPD system using the data (Table 1 [0037] [0038] [0043] [0056] [0059] the simulator estimates the maximum surface pressure based on the input operational parameters and the data of the detected size of the influx, determines the maximum flowrate that is sufficient to arrest the influx, and comparing the maximum surface pressure to a predetermined MASP based on the equipment and comparing the maximum flowrate to the maximum allowable flowrate for the mud pumps); comparing, via the control system, the maximum pressure and maximum flowrate to equipment limits of the MPD system ([0043] [0056] [0059] comparing the maximum surface pressure to a predetermined MASP based on the equipment and comparing the maximum flowrate to the maximum allowable flowrate for the mud pumps); and responsive to comparing the maximum pressure and maximum flowrate to equipment limits, initiating an action in the MPD system; wherein the influx can be circulated out with the MPD system if the maximum pressure and maximum flowrate are both less than the equipment limits ([0043] [0056] [0059] [0062] when the maximum surface pressure and the maximum flow rate required to arrest the influx are under the equipment limits, the pump rate is increased until the influx is arrested). Regarding claim 3, VAN OORT further teaches the simulator uses a Drift Flux Model (DFM) ([0037] drift-flux model). Regarding claim 6, VAN OORT further using the simulator to estimate the maximum pressure and maximum flowrate comprises calculating profiles of pressure and flow rate to determine the maximum pressure and maximum flowrate (Figs. 2, 4 and 8). Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & (a)(2) as being anticipated by JAMISON WO 2015072962 A1 . Regarding claim 11, JAMISON teaches a method for drilling a well using an MPD drilling system (Fig. 1 [0033] simulating circulating profile for managed pressure drilling), comprising: receiving, at a processor, data regarding one or more parameter of the MPD system ([0031] – [0033] operational parameters are used as input to the simulation model); iteratively using, by the processor, a simulator to determine an optimized circulation process ([0033] [0034] simulator changes operational parameters and simulates the circulation profile iteratively); and responsive to determining the optimized circulation process, initiating an action in the MPD system based on the optimized circulation process (Fig. 1 [0029] operational parameter is changed based on the predicted circulation profile). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 2, 4 and 1 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VAN OORT as applied to claims 1, 3 and 6 above, in view of DURET US 20020193976 A1 . Regarding claim 2, VAN OORT does not explicitly further teach the simulator uses a multi-phase flow model. DURET explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the simulator uses a multi-phase flow model ([0045] a multiphase drift flow type modelling). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified VAN OORT to incorporate the teachings of DURET , because they all directed to fluid circulation , to make the method wherein the simulator uses a multi-phase flow model . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to model the multiphase flow , as DURET teaches in [00 43 ]. Regarding claim 4, DURET further teaches the model considers mass conservation of the gas and liquid phases separately and uses a mixture momentum equation ([0045] mass conservation equation per phase and mixture momentum conservation equation are used). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified VAN OORT to incorporate the teachings of DURET , because they all directed to fluid circulation , to make the method wherein the model considers mass conservation of the gas and liquid phases separately and uses a mixture momentum equation . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to model the multiphase flow , as DURET teaches in [00 43 ]. Regarding claim 18, VAN OORT further teaches programmable storage device having program instructions stored thereon for causing a processor to perform the method ( Fig. 1 [0030] computing system 150 ) . Clai m 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VAN OORT in view of DURET as applied to claims 2, 4 and 1 8 above, further in view of Al-Nakhli US 20250027375 A1 . Regarding claim 5, neither VAN OORT nor DURET explicitly further teaches the simulator is effective for both water-based mud (WBM) and oil-based mud (OBM), further comprising selecting the model for the simulator based on mud type . Al-Nakhli explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the simulator is effective for both water-based mud (WBM) and oil-based mud (OBM), further comprising selecting the model for the simulator based on mud type (Table 1 [0069] multiphase model based on the mud type for OBM and WBM) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified VAN OORT and DURET to incorporate the teachings of Al-Nakhli , because they all directed to fluid circulation , to make the method wherein the simulator is effective for both water-based mud (WBM) and oil-based mud (OBM), further comprising selecting the model for the simulator based on mud type . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to model the different drilling fluid , as Al-Nakhli teaches in [00 85 ]. Claim s 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VAN OORT as applied to claims 1, 3 and 6 above, in view of Choe US 20030139916 A1 . Regarding claim 7, VAN OORT further teaches the one or more operational parameter of the MPD system are selected from the following: mud density ([0036] density of mud), flow rate (Table 1 mud flow rate), and post-influx SBP (Fig. 4 [0043] maximum surface backpressure as a result of influx); and wherein the simulator further uses data regarding the well configuration comprising at least one selected from the following: wellbore diameter ([0033] wellbore diameter), drill string outer diameter (Table 1 drill string outer diameter), well temperature (Table 1 Tbottom), and well inclination ([0171] well angle). VAN OORT does not explicitly further teach the one or more operational parameter of the MPD system are selected from the following : bit depth, mud viscosity . Choe explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the one or more operational parameter of the MPD system are selected from the following : bit depth (Choe: claim 3 drilling depth), mud viscosity ([0093] mud viscosity) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified VAN OORT to incorporate the teachings of Choe , because they all directed to fluid circulation , to make the method wherein the one or more operational parameter s of the MPD system are selected from bit depth and mud viscosity . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to simulate controlling the kick , as Choe teaches in [00 26 ]. Regarding claim 9, Choe further teaches initiating circulation process or shut-in process based on the comparison; and responsive to completion of the circulation process, resuming drilling ([0016] resume drilling after circulating out the kick). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified VAN OORT to incorporate the teachings of Choe , because they all directed to fluid circulation , to make the method wherein initiating circulation process or shut-in process based on the comparison; and responsive to completion of the circulation process, resuming drilling . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to circulate out the kick to keep the wellbore stabilized , as Choe teaches in [00 16 ]. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VAN OORT as applied to claims 1, 3 and 6 above, in view of Veeningen US 20130087388 A1 . Regarding claim 8 , VAN OORT further teaches the equipment limits of the MPD drilling system comprise a pressure limit of a casing shoe ([0052]), a pressure limit of an RCD ([0043] RCD) . VAN OORT does not explicitly further teach the equipment limits of the MPD drilling system comprise a flowrate limit of a gas separator . Veeningen explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the equipment limits of the MPD drilling system comprise a flowrate limit of a gas separator ( [0034] maximum flow rate capacity of mud-gas separator ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified VAN OORT to incorporate the teachings of Veeningen , because they all directed to fluid circulation , to make the method wherein the one or more operational parameter s of the MPD system are selected from bit depth and mud viscosity . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to avoid producing a risk , as Veeningen teaches in [00 34 ]. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VAN OORT as applied to claims 1, 3 and 6 above, in view of Choe and JAMISON WO 2015072962 A1 . Regarding claim 10, VAN OORT does not explicitly further teach: using the simulator to determine an optimized fluid circulation process ; determining an optimized fluid circulation process comprises: iteratively using the simulator to determine the optimized circulation process ; responsive to determining the optimized circulation process, initiating a circulation process in the MPD system based on the optimized circulation process . Choe explicitly teaches in an analogous art that using the simulator to determine an optimized fluid circulation process ([0026] controlling the kick is simulated by simulating circulating influx out of a well while maintain a substantially constant drill pipe initial circulating pressure) ; responsive to determining the optimized circulation process, initiating a circulation process in the MPD system based on the optimized circulation process ([0218] well control process included in the simulation engine, the controlling the kick process, is used to perform real-time well control operation). JAMISON explicitly teaches in an analogous art that determining an optimized fluid circulation process comprises: iteratively using the simulator to determine the optimized circulation process ([0033] [0034] simulator changes operational parameters and simulates the circulation profile iteratively) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified VAN OORT to incorporate the teachings of Choe and JAMISON , because they all directed to fluid circulation , to make the method wherein using the simulator to determine an optimized fluid circulation process ; determining an optimized fluid circulation process comprises: iteratively using the simulator to determine the optimized circulation process ; responsive to determining the optimized circulation process, initiating a circulation process in the MPD system based on the optimized circulation process . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to circulate out the kick to keep the wellbore stabilized , as Choe teaches in [00 16 ] , and to adjust operational parameters for ECD profile control, as JAMISON teaches in [0033] . Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VAN OORT as applied to claims 1, 3 and 6 above, in view of Veeningen and Choe . Regarding claim 20, VAN OORT further teaches an MPD system for drilling a wellbore comprising: a drillstring disposed in the wellbore (Fig. 1 [0022] drill string 118); an RCD configured to seal an annulus of the wellbore (Fig. 1 [0022] RCD 106); a choke manifold in fluid communication with the annulus (Fig. 1 [0021] choke 114); a mud pump in fluid communication with the choke manifold and the drillstring (Fig. 1 [0021] mud pump 110); a drilling fluid handling system (Fig. 1 [0021] pump and BOP, etc.) ; one or more sensors configured to sense one or more of the following parameters: influx size, influx duration ([0040] [0041] [0054] [0055] pit gain i.e. “influx size” vs time i.e. “duration” of the detected influx is calculated), mud density ([0036] density of mud), flow rate (Table 1 mud flow rate), post-influx SBP (Fig. 4 [0043] maximum surface backpressure as a result of influx), well temperature, and well inclination (well temperature (Table 1 Tbottom), and well inclination ([0171] well angle); and a control system (Fig. 1 [0030] computing system 150) configured to implement the method of claim 3. VAN OORT does not explicitly further teac h : the drilling fluid handling system including a gas separator ; one or more sensors configured to sense one or more of the following parameters: drill bit depth and mud viscosity . Veeningen explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the drilling fluid handling system including a gas separator ([0034] mud-gas separator) ; Choe explicitly teaches in an analogous art that one or more sensors configured to sense one or more of the following parameters: drill bit depth and mud viscosity ( claim 3 drilling depth, [0093] mud viscosity) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified VAN OORT to incorporate the teachings of Veeningen and Choe , because they all directed to fluid circulation , to make the method wherein the drilling fluid handling system including a gas separator ; one or more sensors configured to sense one or more of the following parameters: drill bit depth and mud viscosity . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to avoid producing a risk , as Veeningen teaches in [00 34 ] , and to simulate controlling the kick , as Choe teaches in [00 26 ] . Claim s 12-13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JAMISON as applied to claim 11 above, in view of DURET . Regarding claim 12, JAMISON does not explicitly further teach the simulator uses a multi-phase flow model. DURET explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the simulator uses a multi-phase flow model ([0045] a multiphase drift flow type modelling). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified JAMISON to incorporate the teachings of DURET , because they all directed to fluid circulation , to make the method wherein the simulator uses a multi-phase flow model . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to model the multiphase flow , as DURET teaches in [00 43 ]. Regarding claim 13, DURET further teaches the simulator uses a Drift Flux Model (DFM) ([0045] a multiphase drift flow type modelling). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified JAMISON to incorporate the teachings of DURET , because they all directed to fluid circulation , to make the method wherein the simulator uses a Drift Flux Model . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to model the multiphase flow , as DURET teaches in [00 43 ]. Regarding claim 19, JAMISON further teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium having program instructions stored thereon for causing a control system ([0039] computer) to perform the method of claim 12 . Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JAMISON in view of DURET as applied to claims 12-13 and 19 above, further in view of Al-Nakhli . Regarding claim 14, neither JAMISON nor DURET explicitly further teaches the simulator is effective for both WBM and OBM, further comprising selecting the model based on mud type . Al-Nakhli explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the simulator is effective for both water-based mud (WBM) and oil-based mud (OBM), further comprising selecting the model for the simulator based on mud type (Table 1 [0069] multiphase model based on the mud type for OBM and WBM) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified JAMISON and DURET to incorporate the teachings of Al-Nakhli , because they all directed to fluid circulation , to make the method wherein the simulator is effective for both water-based mud (WBM) and oil-based mud (OBM), further comprising selecting the model for the simulator based on mud type . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to model the different drilling fluid , as Al-Nakhli teaches in [00 85 ]. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JAMISON in view of DURET as applied to claims 12-13 and 19 above, further in view of Choe . Regarding claim 1 5 , JAMISON further teaches automatically controlling, by the processor, the MPD system to circulate fluid based on the optimized circulation process (Fig. 1 [0029] operational parameter is changed based on the predicted circulation profile) . Neither JAMISON nor DURET explicitly further teaches responsive to circulating fluid, resuming drilling . Choe explicitly teaches in an analogous art that responsive to circulating fluid, resuming drilling ([0016] resume drilling after circulating out the kick) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified JAMISON and DURET to incorporate the teachings of Choe , because they all directed to fluid circulation , to make the method wherein responsive to circulating fluid, resuming drilling . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to circulate out the kick to keep the wellbore stabilized , as Choe teaches in [00 16 ]. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JAMISON in view of DURET as applied to claims 12-13 and 19 above, further in view of VAN OORT and SANTOS CA 3079187 A1 . Regarding claim 17, neither JAMISON nor DURET explicitly further teaches selecting the optimized circulation process based on maximizing flowrate while maintaining pressure and flowrate below equipment limits . VAN OORT explicitly teaches in an analogous art that selecting circulation process while maintaining pressure and flowrate below equipment limits ([0043] [0056] [0059] [0062] when the maximum surface pressure and the maximum flow rate required to arrest the influx are under the equipment limits) ; and SANTOS explicitly teaches in an analogous art that selecting the optimized circulation process based on maximizing flowrate ( [0081] [0082] circulating out kick using maximum flow rate while maintaining the equipment in an operational state ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified JAMISON and DURET to incorporate the teachings of VAN OORT and SANTOS , because they all directed to fluid circulation , to make the method wherein selecting the optimized circulation process based on maximizing flowrate while maintaining pressure and flowrate below equipment limits . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to remove entrained gas in the most efficient and expeditious manner , as SANTOS teaches in [00 8 2 ]. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Holmes US 20160130905 A1 teaches BOP maximum flowrate . JOHANSEN WO 2015110599 A1 teaches mixture momentum equation and drift flux model. JOHNSON WO 2024006478 A2 teaches kick size including inflow rate and duration . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Enter examiner's name" \* MERGEFORMAT Michael Tang whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-7437 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 7:30-4 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Kamini Shah can be reached on FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-2279 . 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. /M.T./ Examiner, Art Unit 2115 /KAMINI S SHAH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2115