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 .
Status of Claims
This communication is a Final Office Action in response to Applicant’s amendment for application number 18/416,487 received on 11/11/2025.
In accordance with Applicant’s amendment, claims 3 and 15-20 are amended. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
Applicants claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119 and/or 35 U.S.C. 120 is acknowledged.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 11/11/2025 has been entered.
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection set forth in this Office Action.
Upon review of amended claims, the §112(f) claim interpretation, and the §112(b) and §112(a) claim rejections previously applied to claims 15-20, are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Response to §101 arguments – Applicant’s arguments (Remarks at pgs. 9-14) with respect to the §101 rejections previously applied to the claims have been considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (Remarks at pg. 7): “MPEP § 2016 prescribes a two-step subject matter eligibility test. In the first step (Step 1), a claim is examined to determine whether the claim is directed to one of four statutory categories. The second step (Step 2) includes a two-part analysis. In the first part of the analysis (Step 2A), it is determined whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception (a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea such as a mathematical algorithm). In the second part of the analysis (Step 2B), if the claim is directed to a judicial exception, it is determined whether the claim recites "significantly more" than the judicial exception.”. In response, Examiner reminds Applicant that as described in the office action dated 07/16/2025 (§101 rejections section), as well as the instant office action (§101 rejections below), the eligibility inquiry follows the following process:
Step 1: The claimed invention is analyzed to determine if it falls outside one of the four statutory categories of invention. See MPEP 2106.03
Step 2A, Prong 1: In prong one of step 2A, the claim(s) is/are analyzed to evaluate whether they recite a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04
Step 2A, Prong 2: An evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional elements, that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B: The claims are analyzed to determine whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, is/are sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This analysis is also termed a search for "inventive concept." See MPEP 2106.05.
Applicant argues (Remarks at pgs. 7-8): “Claims 1-20 are not directed to an abstract idea, at least because the alleged abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. The claims provide a meaningful result in the form of, for example, "based on the acquired sensor data and the break even threshold, performing the first action." The above-mentioned limitations are not merely an attempt to generally link the claimed invention to a technological environment, but instead represent practical results that provide improvements in downhole operations such as drilling operations. Examples of such improvements are discussed at least at paragraph [0016] of the specification.”. In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or otherwise add significantly more to the abstract idea because the additional elements recited by the claim limitations amount to using generic computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (generic computing environment). See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h). The limitation "based on the acquired sensor data and the break even threshold, performing the first action." is part of the abstract idea because this step can be accomplished mentally such as via human observation, evaluation, judgement, or with the help of pen and paper. For example, one of ordinary skill in the art could make a decision based on the data observed being above or below a threshold (all steps that can be performed mentally by someone of ordinary skill in the art). Furthermore, regarding Applicant’s argument citing par. [0016] of the specification, this is irrelevant to the analysis because these features are not recited or required by the claim. For example, the claims do not recite or require minimizing time loss, or incorporating Applicant’s claimed invention with existing monitoring systems. Applicant’s argument lacks merit because is relies on limitations not required by the claims and it would be improper to import such limitations from the Specification. See Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also, CollegeNet, Inc. v. Apply Yourself Inc., 418 F.3d 1225, 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (while the specification can be examined for proper context of a claim term, limitations from the specification will not be imported into the claims). Additionally, Applicant is reminded that "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Response to §103 arguments – Applicant’s arguments (Remarks at pgs. 8-10) with respect to the §103 rejections previously applied to the claims have been considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (Remarks at pgs. 8-9): Regarding claims 1-4, 7, 11-12, 14-15, and 17-19 – “However, the CES metric is not related to a cost of performing an action to mitigate a drilling scenario, or a cost associated with not performing the action. Instead, the CES metric is described as being based on estimating an amount of recoverable hydrocarbons associated with a given subsurface structure ("prospect"), as compared to a "break even amount". (See paragraph [0060] of Bryant). There is no discussion or implication that the CES metric is based on performing a specific action to mitigate a drilling scenario.”. In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably interpret a break-even metric in an operational environment, such as the CES metric disclosed by Bryant, as a balance between reward, and cost (where cost can be interpreted as operating cost, or production cost), which is also supported by Bryant in at least the same par. [0060], where Bryant discloses: “The CES metric represents the probability that the prospect will be economically feasible (i.e., the revenue generated from hydrocarbons recovered from the prospect will be greater than the costs associated with the exploration and production of such hydrocarbons)”. Therefore, the break-even calculated (CES metric), is based on a set of costs. As also documented in the Office Action dated 07/16/2025, Ringer teaches costs associated with actions, including actions that can mitigate a situation (see par. [0056] of the Office Action dated 07/16/2025), which one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably interpret as equivalent to a drilling scenario (given the invention disclosed in Ringer is for drilling operations). Examiner further notes that one of skill in the art would consider Ringer and Bryant as analogous to Applicant’s invention because they are all directed to drilling operations (including calculating costs for performing actions, and calculating break-even points for supporting decisions), therefore making it obvious for said person of ordinary skill in the art, to modify Ringer with Bryant’s features as disclosed in the Office Action dated 07/16/2025, as well as the instant Office Action.
Applicant argues (Remarks at pg. 9): “Bryant also teaches away from the Examiner's position. For example, Bryant states at paragraph [0060] that the break even amount "is dependent on the estimated exploration costs of the prospect over time." At least this statement teaches away from using the CES metric based on a specific action to mitigate a drilling scenario.”. In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that as noted in par. [0056] of the Office Action dated 07/16/2025, Ringer teaches the costs associated with multiple actions, including actions to mitigate a situation (in at least pars. [0135], [0204], and [0229]), which as noted above, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably interpret as equivalent to a drilling scenario, while Bryant teaches the calculation of a break-even threshold based on costs in a drilling operation.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of those findings is provided below, in accordance with the “2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance” (published on 01/07/2019 in Fed. Register, Vol. 84, No. 4 at pgs. 50-57, hereinafter referred to as the “2019 PEG”) and further clarified in the “October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility” published on 10/17/2019) and as further set forth in MPEP 2106.
Step 1: The claimed invention is analyzed to determine if it falls outside one of the four statutory categories of invention. See MPEP 2106.03
Claims 1-14 are directed to a Method (i.e., Process), and claims 15-20 are directed to a System (i.e., Machine). Therefore, claims 1-20 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention. Accordingly, claims 1-20 satisfy Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry.
Step 2A, Prong 1: In prong one of step 2A, the claim(s) is/are analyzed to evaluate whether they recite a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04
Independent claim 1 recites a method for performing a drilling operation. As drafted, the limitations recited by claim 1 fall under the “Mental Processes” abstract idea grouping by setting forth activities that could be performed mentally by a human (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Additionally, some of the claim 1 limitations fall under the “Mathematical Concepts” abstract idea grouping for mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations. The claim 1 limitations that fall under these abstract ideas are:
acquiring sensor data during a drilling operation performed in a subterranean region; (The “acquiring” step can be accomplished mentally such as via human observation, evaluation, or judgement. Additionally, even when considered as an additional element, the step for “acquiring amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering.);
estimating a first probability PA of a drilling scenario manifesting if a first action is performed, and estimating a second probability PNA of the drilling scenario manifesting if the first action is not performed or a second action is performed; (The “estimating” step can be accomplished mentally such as via human observation, evaluation, or judgement. Additionally, this claim limitation recites a mathematical relationship between the probabilities and the actions.);
calculating a break even threshold based on the first probability and the second probability, the break even threshold calculated based on a set of costs including a first cost CA of performing the first action to mitigate the drilling scenario and a second cost CNA associated with the drilling scenario if the first action is not performed or the second action is performed; and (The “calculating” step can be accomplished mentally such as via human observation, evaluation, judgement, or with the help of pen and paper. Additionally, this claim limitation recites mathematical relationships and mathematical calculations to obtain a break-even threshold based on a set of costs that fall under the “mathematical concepts” abstract idea grouping.);
based on the acquired sensor data and the break even threshold, performing the first action. (This claim limitation recites a step to perform an action based on a previous data-driven decision, similar to an evaluation or judgement. The step described can be accomplished mentally.);
Independent claim 15 recites a system for performing a drilling operation with limitations that are largely similar to those set forth in claim 1. Therefore, the same analysis applies to claim 15. Furthermore, independent claim recites the step for acquiring sensor data, which will be addressed as an additional element under Step 2A, Prong 2, and Step 2B below. Also, independent claim 15 recites additional elements beyond the abstract idea for consideration under Step 2A, Prong 2, and Step 2B below. The additional elements are: processing device including a processor.
Dependent claims 2-14, and 16-20 further narrow the abstract idea and do not introduce any additional elements for consideration under said steps. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective dependent claims is/are further part of the abstract ideas as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e., they are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim).
Step 2A, Prong 2: An evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional elements, that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Independent claim 15 recites additional elements of a processing device including a processor. This additional element has been evaluated but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it amounts to using generic computing elements (based on Examiner’s interpretation set forth in Claim Interpretation section above) or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (generic computing environment). See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h). Furthermore, the step for acquiring sensor data, amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity, which is not indicative of a practical application, as noted in MPEP 2106.05(g). In addition, these limitations fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Dependent claims 2-14, and 16-20 recite the same abstract ideas (“mathematical concepts” and “mental processes”) as the independent claims along with further steps/details falling under the scope of the abstract idea itself (e.g., data is acquired from…, determined based on…, which are subject to substantially the same analysis/conclusion as the acquiring step recited in claims 1/15 and addressed above), along with the same or substantially same generic computing element addressed.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2B: The claims are analyzed to determine whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, is/are sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This analysis is also termed a search for "inventive concept." See MPEP 2106.05.
Independent claim 15 recites additional elements beyond the abstract idea for consideration under Step 2A, Prong 2, and Step 2B below. The additional elements are: processing device including a processor. These additional element(s) has/have been evaluated, but fail to add significantly more to the claims because they amount to using generic computing elements (computer hardware) or instructions/software (engine) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (network computing environment, the internet, online) and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Applicant’s specification recites the processing device at a high level of generality, such as in par. [0029], where the specification discloses “The method may be performed by a processing system including one or more processing devices, an operator or combination thereof.”. The processing device is further recited in pars. [0004, 0029, and 0113], also at a high level of generality. Therefore, the additional elements merely describe generic computing elements or computer-executable instructions (software) merely serve to tie the abstract idea to a particular operating environment, which does not add significantly more to the abstract idea. See, e.g., Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Furthermore, the step for acquiring sensor data amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity, which has been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional, and thus insufficient to add significantly more to the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) - Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that, as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 2-14, and 16-20 recite the same abstract ideas (“mathematical concepts” and “mental processes”) as the independent claims along with further steps/details falling under the scope of the abstract idea itself, along with the same or substantially same generic computing element addressed above under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, which is incorporated herein. See MPEP 2106.05(d) - Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)).
The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7, 11-12, 14-15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as unpatentable over Ringer et al. (US 20180171774 A1, hereinafter “Ringer) in view of Bryant et al. (US 20100174489 A1, hereinafter “Bryant”).
Regarding Claims 1/15: Ringer teaches method ([0005] A method can include receiving information during a drilling operation) and a system comprising a processing device including a processor ([0005] A system can include a processor) with limitations for:
acquiring sensor data during a drilling operation performed in a subterranean region; (Par. [0119] teaches a method can operate in real-time or near real-time as may be appropriate for a drilling operation; Par. [0136] teaches receiving data, which may include sensor data from one or more sensors.);
estimating a first probability PA of a drilling scenario manifesting if a first action is performed, and estimating a second probability PNA of the drilling scenario manifesting if the first action is not performed or a second action is performed; (Par. [0135] teaches the probability that a particular event will occur. As an example, a Bayesian belief network (e.g., a Bayesian network) can be conducive to understanding a scenario or scenarios as they can be constructed such that a parent(s) of a variable can be a direct cause.);
…based on a set of costs including a first cost CA of performing the first action to mitigate the drilling scenario and a second cost CNA associated with the drilling scenario if the first action is not performed or the second action is performed; and (Par. [0135] teaches a cost associated with an action, based on a Bayesian model that determines the probability of events occurring.; Par. [0204] teaches a GUI with an analysis tab and a what if? tab to enable a user to assess results for one or more scenarios to understand better one or more actions to take with respect to the field operations at one or more wells.; Par. [0229] teaches the GUIs can be used to determine one or more causes and/or one or more actions that can mitigate a situation.);
based on the acquired sensor data…, performing the first action. (Par. [0204] teaches a GUI with an analysis tab and a what if? tab to enable a user to assess results for one or more scenarios to understand better one or more actions to take with respect to the field operations at one or more wells.).
However, Ringer doesn’t explicitly teach: calculating a break even threshold based on the first probability and the second probability, the break even threshold calculated…, and …and the break even threshold…
Bryant teaches:
calculating a break even threshold based on the first probability and the second probability, the break even threshold calculated… (Par. [0060] teaches The CES metric represents the probability that the prospect will be economically feasible. The CES metric is preferably derived by estimating the recoverable hydrocarbon volume for the prospect (e.g., in MMBO) that the company requires in order to "break even" economically.);
…and the break even threshold… ([0060] The CES metric is preferably derived by estimating the recoverable hydrocarbon volume for the prospect (e.g., in MMBO) that the company requires in order to "break even" economically.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of applicant’s invention, to combine Ringer with Bryant’s feature(s) listed above. One would’ve been motivated to do so in order to derive the estimate of the "break even" recoverable hydrocarbon volume for a particular prospect (Bryant; [0060]). By incorporating the teachings of Bryant, one would’ve been able to determine a break-even point and use it to assess the feasibility of a particular action..
Regarding Claim 2: Ringer further teaches:
wherein the first cost CA is weighted based on the first probability PA and the second cost CNA is weighted based on the second probability PNA. ([0135] In terms of an arc of a graph of a network (e.g., directed acyclic graph (DAG), etc.), an individual arc may have a weight or value associated with it, indicating a strength of interaction between nodes that the arc connects. The nature of such a weight can be application dependent. For example, it may represent a cost associated with a particular action, the strength of a connection between two nodes or, in the case of probabilistic models, the probability that a particular event will occur.).
Regarding Claim 4: Ringer further teaches:
wherein estimating the first probability PA includes an indicator of the drilling scenario to occur or not to occur, the indicator based on measured data using a monitoring system. ([0132] teaches the two components 682 and 684 that compute risk of stuck pipe can take multiple indicators of stuck pipe as inputs and generate a single probability of risk.).
Regarding Claim 7: Ringer further teaches:
wherein the first action is performed based on the probability PNA being above… ([0262] teaches a method can include computing that includes determining at least one action to mitigate a risk probability.);
Ringer doesn’t teach: …the break even threshold
Bryant further teaches:
…the break even threshold ([0060] The CES metric is preferably derived by estimating the recoverable hydrocarbon volume for the prospect (e.g., in MMBO) that the company requires in order to "break even" economically.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of applicant’s invention, to combine modified Ringer with Bryant’s feature(s) listed above. One would’ve been motivated to do so in order to derive the estimate of the "break even" recoverable hydrocarbon volume for a particular prospect (Bryant; [0060]). By incorporating the teachings of Bryant, one would’ve been able to determine a break-even point and use it to assess the feasibility of a particular action.
Regarding Claim 11: Ringer further teaches:
wherein the first probability PA and the second probability PNA are determined based on a statistical analysis of reference data. ([0116] As an example, a method can include propagating uncertainty of one or more observations and risks (e.g., using a Bayesian methodology, etc.) to compute a probability of a risk of getting stuck).
Regarding Claim 12: Ringer further teaches:
wherein the reference data is acquired from at least one of: an offset well drilling operation, and a simulation of the drilling operation. ([0119] teaches a method may receive data as that data becomes available during a drilling operation…).
Regarding Claim 14: Ringer further teaches:
wherein the reference data includes bending moment values. ([0205] FIG. 10 also shows curvature of the borehole along with some amount of curvature of the drillstring. In such an example, factors such as BHA equipment, trajectory from a well plan, etc., can be taken into account in an analysis, which, as mentioned, may be part of a “what if?” analysis that aims to arrive at a course of action to take in the field to reduce risk of getting stuck and/or unstick a drillstring in a borehole.).
Regarding Claim 17: Ringer further teaches:
wherein the first probability PA and the second probability PNA are based on at least one of: bending moment values ([0205] FIG. 10 also shows curvature of the borehole along with some amount of curvature of the drillstring. In such an example, factors such as BHA equipment, trajectory from a well plan, etc., can be taken into account in an analysis, which, as mentioned, may be part of a “what if?” analysis that aims to arrive at a course of action to take in the field to reduce risk of getting stuck and/or unstick a drillstring in a borehole. As an example, a system may include storing information as to successful scenarios for particular conditions where, for example, given such conditions in the future (e.g., according to a well plan, real-time data, etc.), the system may provide one or more recommendations as to one or more particular actions that can be taken to address one or more sticking related problems.; [0135] it may represent a cost associated with a particular action, the strength of a connection between two nodes or, in the case of probabilistic models, the probability that a particular event will occur. As an example, a Bayesian belief network (e.g., a Bayesian network) can be conducive to understanding a scenario or scenarios as they can be constructed such that a parent(s) of a variable can be a direct cause.), output values of a stringer detection system, and times between successive stringers.
Regarding Claim 18: Ringer further teaches:
wherein the first probability PA and the second probability PNA are determined based on a statistical analysis of reference data. ([0135] in the case of probabilistic models, the probability that a particular event will occur. As an example, a Bayesian belief network (e.g., a Bayesian network) can be conducive to understanding a scenario or scenarios as they can be constructed such that a parent(s) of a variable can be a direct cause.).
Regarding Claim 19: Ringer further teaches:
wherein the reference data is acquired from at least one of: an offset well drilling operation, and a simulation of the drilling operation. ([0119] a method can operate in real-time or near real-time as may be appropriate for a drilling operation. For example, a method may receive data as that data becomes available during a drilling operation and include analyzing at least a portion of that data to generate one or more outputs…).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as unpatentable over Ringer et al. (US 20180171774 A1, hereinafter “Ringer) in view of Bryant et al. (US 20100174489 A1, hereinafter “Bryant”) as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Hopwood (US 20220356797 A1, hereinafter “Hopwood”).
Regarding Claim 3: Ringer doesn’t explicitly teach:
wherein first cost CA the second cost CNA are based on a change of amount of time to perform the drilling operation if the first action is performed, if the first action is not performed, if the second action is performed.
Hopwood teaches:
wherein first cost CA the second cost CNA are based on a change of amount of time to perform the drilling operation if the first action is performed, if the first action is not performed, if the second action is performed. ([0151] The controller 144 may perform calculations in step 712 that account for various factors that may be analyzed to determine how the last six hundred feet is drilled. These factors may include the rock type and thickness of the remaining six hundred feet, the predicted wear of the drill bit based on similar drilling conditions, location of the bit (e.g., depth), how long it will take to change the bit, and a cost versus time analysis. Generally, faster drilling is more cost effective, but there are many tradeoffs. For example, increasing the WOB or differential pressure to increase the rate of penetration may reduce the time it takes to finish the borehole, but may also wear out the drill bit faster, which will decrease the drilling effectiveness and slow the drilling down. If this slowdown occurs too early, it may be less efficient than drilling more slowly. Therefore, there is a tradeoff that must be calculated. Too much WOB or differential pressure may also cause other problems, such as damaging downhole tools. Should one of these problems occur, taking the time to trip the bit or drill a sidetrack may result in more total time to finish the borehole than simply drilling more slowly, so faster may not be better. The tradeoffs may be relatively complex, with many factors to be considered.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of applicant’s invention, to combine modified Ringer with Hopwood’s feature(s) listed above. One would’ve been motivated to do so in order to optimize the overall drilling operation as well as optimizing the drilling itself (e.g., how to drill faster) (Hopwood; [0213]). By incorporating the teachings of Hopwood, one would’ve been able to base the costs on the change of amount of time to perform the drilling operations.
Claims 5, 10, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as unpatentable over Ringer et al. (US 20180171774 A1, hereinafter “Ringer) in view of Bryant et al. (US 20100174489 A1, hereinafter “Bryant”) as applied to claims 1, 4, 15, and 18 above, in further view of Seydoux et al. (US 20120298420 A1, hereinafter “Seydoux”).
Regarding Claim 5: Ringer doesn’t teach: wherein the indicator indicates a stringer and the monitoring system is a stringer detection system.
Seydoux teaches:
wherein the indicator indicates a stringer and the monitoring system is a stringer detection system. ([0108] FIG. 8K illustrates a model or scenario involving shale stringer detection.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of applicant’s invention, to combine modified Ringer with Seydoux’s feature(s) listed above. One would’ve been motivated to do so in order to achieve reduction of drilling hazard and maximization in the pay result (Seydoux; [0108]). By incorporating the teachings of Seydoux, one would’ve been able to detect stringers.
Regarding Claim 10: Ringer doesn’t teach: wherein the first probability PA and the second probability PNA are based on at least one of: bending moment values, output values of a stringer detection system, and times between successive stringers.
Seydoux further teaches:
wherein the first probability PA and the second probability PNA are based on at least one of: bending moment values, output values of a stringer detection system, and times between successive stringers. ([0096] If more than one stored model was being considered for validation, the highest probability result can be used. Based on further derived data, monitoring and updated model determination can be implemented, as represented by arrow 750.; [0108] FIG. 8K illustrates a model or scenario involving shale stringer detection in a horizontal well and navigating to avoid the shale. Detection of incoming thin shale layers in a homogenous formation (1D). 2D and 3D effects are likely if the formation is already layered. Reduction of drilling hazard and maximization in the pay result from shale avoidance. Look-ahead offers early detection and more efficient well trajectory correction.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of applicant’s invention, to combine modified Ringer with Seydoux’s feature(s) listed above. One would’ve been motivated to do so in order to select the optimum model candidate (Seydoux; [0096]). By incorporating the teachings of Seydoux, one would’ve been able to use stringer detection in the calculation of the probability of events occurring.
Regarding Claim 13: Ringer doesn’t teach: wherein the drilling scenario is an occurrence of a high local dogleg in a drill string due to a stringer in the subterranean region.
Seydoux further teaches:
wherein the drilling scenario is an occurrence of a high local dogleg in a drill string due to a stringer in the subterranean region. ([0108] FIG. 8K illustrates a model or scenario involving shale stringer detection in a horizontal well and navigating to avoid the shale. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably recognize the change in direction as a dogleg.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of applicant’s invention, to combine modified Ringer with Seydoux’s feature(s) listed above. One would’ve been motivated to do so in order to achieve a reduction of drilling hazard and maximization in the pay result from shale avoidance (Seydoux; [0108]). By incorporating the teachings of Seydoux, one would’ve been able to change the direction of the drilling to avoid a stringer.
Regarding Claim 20: Ringer further teaches:
the reference data includes bending moment values. ([0205] FIG. 10 also shows curvature of the borehole along with some amount of curvature of the drillstring. In such an example, factors such as BHA equipment, trajectory from a well plan, etc., can be taken into account in an analysis, which, as mentioned, may be part of a “what if?” analysis that aims to arrive at a course of action to take in the field to reduce risk of getting stuck and/or unstick a drillstring in a borehole. As an example, a system may include storing information as to successful scenarios for particular conditions where, for example, given such conditions in the future (e.g., according to a well plan, real-time data, etc.), the system may provide one or more recommendations as to one or more particular actions that can be taken to address one or more sticking related problems.; [0135] it may represent a cost associated with a particular action, the strength of a connection between two nodes or, in the case of probabilistic models, the probability that a particular event will occur. As an example, a Bayesian belief network (e.g., a Bayesian network) can be conducive to understanding a scenario or scenarios as they can be constructed such that a parent(s) of a variable can be a direct cause.).
Ringer doesn’t teach: wherein the drilling scenario is an occurrence of a high local dogleg in a drill string due to a stringer in the subterranean region, and
Seydoux further teaches:
wherein the drilling scenario is an occurrence of a high local dogleg in a drill string due to a stringer in the subterranean region, and (([0108] FIG. 8K illustrates a model or scenario involving shale stringer detection in a horizontal well and navigating to avoid the shale. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably recognize the change in direction as a dogleg.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of applicant’s invention, to combine modified Ringer with Seydoux’s feature(s) listed above. One would’ve been motivated to do so in order to achieve a reduction of drilling hazard and maximization in the pay result from shale avoidance (Seydoux; [0108]). By incorporating the teachings of Seydoux, one would’ve been able to change the direction of the drilling to avoid a stringer.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as unpatentable over Ringer et al. (US 20180171774 A1, hereinafter “Ringer) in view of Bryant et al. (US 20100174489 A1, hereinafter “Bryant”) as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Marx et al. (WO 2014066981 A1, hereinafter “Marx”).
Regarding Claim 8: Ringer further teaches:
further comprising associating the drilling scenario with a margin value, ([0248] an event may be classified as being associated with a particular type of performance (e.g., drilling, formation, equipment, etc.) and, for example, may be classified as being a “good” event or a “bad” event, optionally along one or more axes.).
Ringer doesn’t teach: the margin value indicating an importance of avoiding the drilling scenario regardless of cost.
Marx teaches:
the margin value indicating an importance of avoiding the drilling scenario regardless of cost. ([00099] According to an embodiment as shown in FIG. 2a, the expert decision engine 328 may receive the adjusted real-time drilling parameters 329 and as well as analogous well data from a historical database 309, and use this information to generate flags and control operations 330 for well control which may generate prompts to the operator through the graphical user interface. The expert decision engine 328 may offer decision support towards potential safety issues during drilling and the associated operational suggestions to drilling engineers and geologists on the rig site or, according to an embodiment, be configured to interface with the drilling control system to automatically adjust drilling parameters to avoid well control hazards.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of applicant’s invention, to combine modified Ringer with Marx’s feature(s) listed above. One would’ve been motivated to do so in order to preventing formation fluid, referred to as kick, from entering into the wellbore during drilling (Marx; [00099]). By incorporating the teachings of Marx, one would’ve been able to determine that a scenario should be avoided regardless of cost.
Regarding Claim 9: Ringer doesn’t teach: further comprising comparing the cost CNA to a cost function based on multiplying the cost CA by the margin value, and performing the first action based on the cost CNA being greater than or equal to the cost function.
Marx further teaches:
further comprising comparing the cost CNA to a cost function based on multiplying the cost CA by the margin value, and performing the first action based on the cost CNA being greater than or equal to the cost function. ([0007] teaches predictions may be used to optimize weight on bit and bit rotation speed in an aim to obtain a maximized drilling rate and a minimized drilling cost.; (Par. [000251] teaches a cost-per-foot assessment where drilling time-per-foot is compared to a drilling cost function to decide if it is more economical to pull a bit.; Pars. [000252-000253] teach the cost equation formula.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of applicant’s invention, to combine modified Ringer with Marx’s feature(s) listed above. One would’ve been motivated to do so, so that a bit may be pulled when it no longer becomes economical to drill with it (Marx; [000251]). By incorporating the teachings of Marx, one would’ve been able to determine when to perform an action based on a comparison between a parameter and a cost function.
Discussion of Closest Prior Art
Regarding Claims 6 and 16: As documented in the Office Action dated 07/16/2025 (see pars. [0095 – 0098]), the claims are rendered neither obvious nor anticipated by the available field of prior art.
Conclusion
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 GABRIEL J TORRES CHANZA whose telephone number is (571)272-3701. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8am - 5pm ET.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached on (571)270-5389. 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.
/G.J.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3625
/BRIAN M EPSTEIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights