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 arguments filed on 09/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, applicant argues that Akkurt et al. (U.S. 2013/0270011A1) fail to teach "collecting while drilling the well, via the drill string, a plurality of drill cuttings from a first point of a depth interval and a second point of the depth interval".
Examiner respectfully disagree. Akkurt et al. disclose, in fig. 1, step 3, and para 0045 “collecting drilling cuttings from shale shaker at surface”. The limitation of “a first point of a depth interval and a second point of the depth interval” is taught by the drilling process. During the drilling process, the cuttings are collected at every single point along the drilling process. The depth interval is any interval in which the cuttings are collected since no specific interval has been claimed. The claim limitation of depth interval, first, and second point are recited broadly.
Applicant argues that Akkurt et al. fail to teach "measuring a gamma ray response for the plurality of drill cuttings at the first point and the second point using a gamma ray device disposed on surface".
Examiner respectfully disagree. Akkurt et al. disclose that “the gamma ray value of the cuttings” collected at the shaker is measured and compared with gamma ray measurements acquired by the LWD tool (refer to para 0044 and 0050).
Applicant argues that Akkurt et al. fail to teach "measuring a plurality of downhole gamma readings at a plurality of depths between the first point and the second point of the depth interval using the BHA tool; and"
Examiner respectfully disagree. Akkurt et al. disclose, in para 0044, and box 102 of fig. 1, that step 102 involves measuring gamma ray values downhole using a logging while drilling tool. This LWD measurement occurs during the drilling process as cuttings are removed from the borehole along any point including from the very top of the wellbore to the target downhole depth. Note that the first and second point are recited broadly.
Applicant argues that Akkurt et al. fail to teach "determining a calibration and validation assessment related to the depth interval, the calibration and validation assessment comprising a comparison between the gamma ray response and an average of the plurality of downhole gamma readings to confirm accuracy of the depth interval of the plurality of drill cuttings."
Examiner respectfully disagree. Akkurt et al. disclose, in fig. 1, step 121 and para 0050, “the cuttings depth can be obtained by comparing the gamma ray value of the cuttings with the gamma ray value measured in 102. If the two gamma ray values match, the cuttings are considered representative of the formation at that depth”. As noted in para 0044, step 102 involves making gamma ray measurements of the cuttings while drilling with the LWD tool. [0044] further states that the measurements obtained provide a weighted average of the gamma ray concentration.
Therefore, Akkurt et al. teach all the limitations argued by applicant.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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 11-12 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Akkurt et al. (U.S. 2013/0270011A1).
Regarding claim 11, Akkurt et al. disclose a method for calibrating and validating depth of cuttings from a well(see fig. 1, “121”; also see fig. 2 and refer to para 0050), the method comprising:
drilling the well using a drill string (fig. 1, step “102” “acquire LWD GR log” imply that the logging while drilling tool is on a drill string; also refer to para 0003 and 0053) comprising a bottom hole assembly (BHA) tool (“LWD” tool; fig. 1, step “102”);
collecting while drilling the well, via the drill string, a plurality of drill cuttings (fig. 1, step “103”; “collect drilling cuttings…”) from a first point of a depth interval (para 0050: measurements are obtained at several depths including “initial estimated cuttings depth”) and a second point of the depth interval (para 0050: “after applying a small shift to the depth”);
measuring a gamma ray response for the plurality of drill cuttings (para 0050: “the gamma ray value of cuttings”) at the first point and the second point (see fig. 1, steps “103”, “111”, “121” and refer to para 0050) using a gamma ray device (para 0050: “gamma ray value of cuttings”, examiner note that the tool used to “measure” the “gamma ray value of the cuttings” is “a gamma ray device”) disposed on surface (step “103” is at surface);
measuring a plurality of downhole gamma readings at a plurality of depths between the first point and the second point of the depth interval using the BHA tool (acquire LWD GR log; fig. 1, step “102”); and
determining a calibration and validation assessment related to the depth interval (fig. 1, step “121” and refer to para 0050), the calibration and validation assessment comprising a comparison between the gamma ray response (para 0050: “the gamma ray value of cuttings”) and an average (para 0044: “weighted average”) of the plurality of downhole gamma readings to confirm accuracy of the depth interval of the plurality of drill cuttings (para 0050: “comparing the gamma ray value of cuttings with the gamma ray values measured in 102. If the two gamma ray values match, the cuttings are considered representative of the formation at that depth”).
Regarding claim 12, Akkurt et al. disclose detecting, via the calibration and validation assessment, a contamination analysis of the plurality of drill cuttings (as broadly claimed, the contamination analysis can be considered [0052] “flagging” the cuttings “as not representative of the formation subsurface” ; “not representative sample identification…used to assess the quantitative uncertainty in the quality”. Also refer to para 0049: “possibility of cuttings being trapped in highly deviated sections of the well, contamination from formation materials at other depths caving”).
Regarding claim 15, Akkurt et al. disclose wherein measuring the gamma ray response comprises measuring natural radioactivity of the plurality of drill cuttings (para 0051-0052: “the gamma ray value” computed from the concentration of Thorium, Uranium, and Potassium, which are natural radioactivity from the cuttings).
Regarding claim 16, Akkurt et al. disclose wherein measuring the plurality of downhole gamma readings comprises measuring continuous data from a formation gamma response tool in the BHA tool (fig. 1, step “102” “acquire LWD GR log”; therefore the formation gamma response tool is in the LWD).
Regarding claim 17, Akkurt et al. disclose wherein determining the calibration and validation assessment comprises extracting the plurality of downhole gamma readings using a software (the logging while drilling tool comprises a software).
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 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akkurt et al. (U.S. 2013/0270011A1), in view of Ruel et al. (U.S. 2023/0122264A1).
Regarding claim 13, Akkurt et al. teach that the depth calibration of cuttings gamma ray provide a more accurate estimate of the cuttings depth (para 0050) which can account for the possibility of cuttings being trapped in highly deviated sections of the well and contamination from formation materials at other depths caving into the well (para 0049).
However, Akkurt et al. is silent to notifying, via an operator, a drill site engineer of the potential underlying hole cleaning issue based, at least in part, on the contamination analysis.
Ruel et al. teach a drilling operation in which wellbore cuttings circulated to surface are analyzed for determining operational conditions, wherein a change in shape, size, or volume may be correlated to a number of operational conditions (para 0167). Such information regarding changes in cuttings condition may be sent to a remote user/well operator in the form of a warning or an alarm (refer to para 0069) so that the operator can execute appropriate actions such as adjust circulation time, weight on the bit, etc. (refer to para 0188). The alarm may also alert the operator to changes in the cuttings volume which may be indicative of hole cleaning, influx, losses, and/or other problems (para 0172).
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 the method of Akkurt et al. to include notifying, via an operator, a drill site engineer of the potential underlying hole cleaning issue based, at least in part, on the contamination analysis, as taught by Ruel et al., for the purpose of taking appropriate actions during the drilling operation to minimize the hole cleaning issues. (refer to para 0172 and 0188).
Claims 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akkurt et al. (U.S. 2013/0270011A1) alone.
Regarding claim 14, Akkurt et al. teach all the features of this claim; however, Akkurt et al. is silent to collection of cuttings samples every 10 feet.
It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 20, Akkurt et al. teach all the features of this claim; however, Akkurt et al. is silent to the plurality of downhole gamma readings comprises of a plurality of measurements every 0.5 feet.
It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akkurt et al. (U.S. 2013/0270011A1), in view of DeHaan et al. (U.S. 5,068,883).
Regarding claim 18, Akkurt et al. teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 11 above; however, Akkurt et al. fail to teach that the gamma ray device is portable.
DeHaan et al. generally teach a surface portable gamma ray device (10; see figs. 1-2 and refer to abstract) for scanning an object at surface (see figs. 1-3).
Akkurt et al. teach a generic gamma ray device at surface for detecting gamma ray value of cuttings. DeHaan et al. teach a portable gamma ray device for detecting gamma ray of objects at surface. Since the gamma ray is detected at surface and there is nothing preventing the device of DeHaan et al. from detecting gamma ray from cuttings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the generic gamma ray tool of Akkurt et al. with that of DeHaan et al. for the predictable result of detecting gamma rays.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akkurt et al. (U.S. 2013/0270011A1), in view of Bingham et al. (U.S. 2008/0196942A1).
Regarding claim 18, Akkurt et al. teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 11 above; however, Akkurt et al. fail to teach processing the plurality of drill cuttings by an operator for proper acquisition.
Bingham et al. teach a drilling operation comprising an operator (para 0035: the “drilling operator” evaluating the collection of drill solids) configured to process a plurality of drill cuttings for proper acquisition (para 0037: “promoting increased cleaning efficiency”).
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 the system of Akkurt et al. to include a geologist to process the plurality of drill cuttings for proper acquisition, as taught by Bingham et al., for promoting increased cleaning efficiency of the drill cuttings and hence a more efficient drilling operation (refer to para 0037).
Claims 1-2, 4-7, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akkurt et al. (U.S. 2013/0270011A1), in view of Bingham et al. (U.S. 2008/0196942A1) and Dorel (U.S. 6,047,784).
Regarding claim 1, Akkurt et al. disclose a system for on surface calibration of cuttings depth (see fig. 1, “121”; also see fig. 2 and refer to para 0050), the system comprising:
a drill string configured to drill a well (fig. 1, step “102” “acquire LWD GR log” imply that the logging while drilling tool is on a drill string; also refer to para 0003 and 0053) and collect a plurality of drill cuttings (fig. 1, step “103”; “collect drilling cuttings…”) at a first point of a depth interval (para 0050: measurements are obtained at several depths including “initial estimated cuttings depth”) and at a second point of the depth interval (para 0050: “after applying a small shift to the depth”);
a gamma ray device (para 0050: “gamma ray value of cuttings”, examiner note that the tool used to “measure” the “gamma ray value of the cuttings” is “a gamma ray device”) disposed at the surface (step “103” is at surface) configured to measure a gamma ray response for the plurality of drill cuttings (para 0050: “the gamma ray value of cuttings”) at the first point and the second point of the depth interval (see fig. 1, steps “103”, “111”, “121” and refer to para 0050);
a bottom hole assembly (BHA) tool (“LWD” tool; fig. 1, step “102”) disposed on the drill string (“logging while drilling”; hence drill string) configured to measure a plurality of downhole gamma readings at a plurality of depths between the first point and the second point of the depth interval (acquire LWD GR log; fig. 1, step “102”); and
determine a calibration and validation assessment related to the depth interval (fig. 1, step “121” and refer to para 0050), the calibration and validation assessment comprising a comparison between the gamma ray response (para 0050: “the gamma ray value of cuttings”) and an average (para 0044: “weighted average”) of the plurality of downhole gamma readings to confirm accuracy of the depth interval of the plurality of drill cuttings (para 0050: “comparing the gamma ray value of cuttings with the gamma ray values measured in 102. If the two gamma ray values match, the cuttings are considered representative of the formation at that depth”).
However, Akkurt et al. is silent to underbalanced coiled tubing drilling and
an operator located on surface configured to determine the calibration and validation assessment. In other words, the disclosure is silent to an operator at calibration and validation step “121”.
Bingham et al. teach a surface system of collecting data from cuttings circulated to surface during a drilling operation (para 0029-0030). The surface system comprises a calibration and validation module (113) that compares cuttings data (para 0032). Such data is used by an operator to determine downhole conditions and discern when downhole conditions change so as to necessitate a change/an adjustment to associated drilling parameters (para 0032).
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 the system of Akkurt et al. to include an operator at surface at calibration and validation step “121”, as taught by Bingham et al., for using the data to determine downhole conditions and discern when downhole conditions change so as to necessitate a change/an adjustment to associated drilling parameters (para 0032).
However, the combination of Akkurt et al. and Bingham et al. is silent to drilling via coiled tubing in underbalanced condition.
Dorel generally teaches drilling a wellbore under high pressure via coiled tubing (refer to col. 1, lines 30-38 and col.2, lines 5-10) in underbalanced drilling to reduce or eliminate chip hold-down, and thereby permit a faster rate of penetration of the bit (refer to col. 1, lines 45-49).
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 the system of Akkurt et al., as modified by Bingham et al., to have substituted the generic drill string of Akkurt et al. with a coiled tubing, as taught by Dorel, for drilling wellbores under high pressure in underbalanced conditions, to reduce or eliminate chip hold-down, and thereby permit a faster rate of penetration of the bit (refer to col. 1, lines 45-49).
Regarding claim 2, Akkurt et al., as modified by Bingham et al. and Dorel, teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; Akkurt et al. further disclose detecting a contamination analysis of the plurality of drill cuttings based, at least in part, on the calibration and validation assessment (as broadly claimed, the contamination analysis can be considered [0052] “flagging” the cuttings “as not representative of the formation subsurface” ; “not representative sample identification…used to assess the quantitative uncertainty in the quality”. Also refer to para 0049: “possibility of cuttings being trapped in highly deviated sections of the well, contamination from formation materials at other depths caving”).
Regarding claim 4, Akkurt et al., as modified by Bingham et al. and Dorel, teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; however, Akkurt et al., as modified by Bingham et al. and Dorel, is silent to collection of cuttings samples every 10 feet.
It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 5, Akkurt et al., as modified by Bingham et al. and Dorel, teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; Akkurt et al. further disclose wherein the gamma ray response is a natural radioactivity measurement of the plurality of drill cuttings (para 0051-0052: “the gamma ray value” computed from the concentration of Thorium, Uranium, and Potassium, which are natural radioactivity from the cuttings).
Regarding claim 6, Akkurt et al., as modified by Bingham et al. and Dorel, teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; Akkurt et al. further disclose wherein the plurality of downhole gamma readings comprises continuous data from a formation gamma response tool in the BHA tool (fig. 1, step “102” “acquire LWD GR log”; therefore the formation gamma response tool is in the LWD).
Regarding claim 7, Akkurt et al., as modified by Bingham et al. and Dorel, teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; Akkurt et al. further teach wherein the calibration and validation assessment comprises an extraction of the plurality of downhole gamma readings using a software (the logging while drilling tool software).
Regarding claim 9, Akkurt et al., as modified by Bingham et al. and Dorel, teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; Bingham et al. further teach wherein a geologist (para 0035: the “drilling operator” evaluating the collection of drill solids) is configured to process the plurality of drill cuttings for proper acquisition (para 0037: “promoting increased cleaning efficiency”).
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 the system of Akkurt et al. to include a geologist to process the plurality of drill cuttings for proper acquisition, as taught by Bingham et al., for promoting increased cleaning efficiency of the drill cuttings and hence a more efficient drilling operation (refer to para 0037).
Regarding claim 10, Akkurt et al., as modified by Bingham et al. and Dorel, teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; however, Akkurt et al., as modified by Bingham et al. and Dorel, is silent to the plurality of downhole gamma readings comprises of a plurality of measurements every 0.5 feet.
It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akkurt et al. (U.S. 2013/0270011A1), in view of Bingham et al. (U.S. 2008/0196942A1) and Dorel (U.S. 6,047,784) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ruel et al. (U.S. 2023/0122264A1).
Regarding claim 3, Akkurt et al., as modified by Bingham et al. and Dorel, teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; however, Akkurt et al., as modified by Bingham et al. and Dorel, is silent to a notification, from the operator to a drill site engineer, comprising a report indicating a potential underlying hole cleaning issue based, at least in part, on the contamination analysis.
Ruel et al. teach a drilling operation in which wellbore cuttings circulated to surface are analyzed for determining operational conditions, wherein a change in shape, size, or volume may be correlated to a number of operational conditions (para 0167). Such information regarding changes in cuttings condition may be sent to a remote user/well operator in the form of a warning or an alarm (refer to para 0069) so that the operator can execute appropriate actions such as adjust circulation time, weight on the bit, etc. (refer to para 0188). The alarm may also alert the operator to changes in the cuttings volume which may be indicative of hole cleaning, influx, losses, and/or other problems (para 0172).
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 the method of Akkurt et al., as modified by Bingham et al. and Dorel, to include notifying, via an operator, a drill site engineer of the potential underlying hole cleaning issue based, at least in part, on the contamination analysis, as taught by Ruel et al., for the purpose of taking appropriate actions during the drilling operation to minimize the hole cleaning issues. (refer to para 0172 and 0188).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akkurt et al. (U.S. 2013/0270011A1), in view of Bingham et al. (U.S. 2008/0196942A1) and Dorel (U.S. 6,047,784) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of DeHaan et al. (U.S. 5,068,883).
Regarding claim 8, Akkurt et al., as modified by Bingham et al. and Dorel, teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; however, Akkurt et al., as modified by Bingham et al. and Dorel, is silent to the gamma ray device being portable.
DeHaan et al. generally teach a surface portable gamma ray device (10; see figs. 1-2 and refer to abstract) for scanning an object at surface (see figs. 1-3).
Akkurt et al. teach a generic gamma ray device at surface for detecting gamma ray value of cuttings. DeHaan et al. teach a portable gamma ray device for detecting gamma ray of objects at surface. Since the gamma ray is detected at surface and there is nothing preventing the device of DeHaan et al. from detecting gamma ray from cuttings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the generic gamma ray tool of Akkurt et al. with that of DeHaan et al. for the predictable result of detecting gamma rays.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YANICK A AKARAGWE whose telephone number is (469)295-9298. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 7:30-5:30.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached at (571) 272-5405. 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.
/YANICK A AKARAGWE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
Prosecution Insights