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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 29MAY2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Priority
Benefit of domestic priority having an earliest filing date of 07/16/2019 under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 119e is acknowledged.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 line(s) 1 sets forth the limitation “an abnormal condition”, which is undefined and indefinite. The instant application appears to use the term “an abnormal condition” to be synonymous with “a problem” (par. [0288]). However, it is possible that a “problem” is a regular occurrence and thus would not be an “abnormal condition”. Or perhaps the “problem” is not really a problem, but an unpreferred condition. It is also unclear if an unpreferred condition would be “abnormal.” One having ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the scope of the claim.
Claim 1 sets forth the limitation “may”. The term “may” is used to denote a possibility, probability, or something optional. It is unclear whether the Applicant intended the limitation to be optional or a required limitation.
Claim 1 line(s) 2 sets forth the limitation “soon”. As there is no definition of “soon” (e.g. an hour, a month ...?), the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined.
Claim 1 line(s) 3 sets forth the limitation “drilling operation data [...] that is indicative of when one or more well drilling operations occurred”. “Indicative” is defined as “serving to indicate”. “Indicate” is defined as “show” (see definitions by Merriam-Webster). The scope of the claim is unclear as the data appears to only “Indicate” when a well drilling operation has occurred, not necessarily that a well drilling operation has actually occurred.
Claim 1 line(s) 5 sets forth the limitation “condition data that is indicative of at least one condition being experienced by a material separation system”. “Indicative” is defined as “serving to indicate”. “Indicate” is defined as “show” (see definitions by Merriam-Webster). The scope of the claim is unclear as the data appears to only “Indicate” a condition, not necessarily that a particular condition has actually been experienced.
Claim 1 line(s) 8 sets forth the limitation “analyzing the condition data to determine when the condition data appears to indicate the occurrence of a first drilling operation”. “Indicate” is defined as “show” (see definitions by Merriam-Webster). The scope of the claim is unclear as the analysis only “appears to Indicate” an occurrence of a first drilling operation, not necessarily that a particular occurrence of a first drilling operation has actually occurred.
Claim 1 line(s) 8 sets forth the limitation “analyzing the condition data to determine [...] a predicted point in time at which the first drilling operation would have occurred.” The scope of the claim is unclear as the analysis predicts a possibility of a time of a possible occurrence of a first drilling operation, not necessarily a particular time.
Regarding Claim 1 line(s) 11-16, the claim scope does not make sense as to what is being determined and whether an alert is sent. It appears that a determination of whether the first drilling operation identified in the analyzing step occurred approximately at the predicted point in time is based on the drilling operation data. The determination is not the data. Similarly, “causing an alert to be issued” does not positively state that an alert is sent upon the condition specified. Below is a proposed amended claim:
1. (Currently Amended) A method for determining when an abnormal condition* in a well drilling operation has occurred or will occur, the method comprising:
receiving drilling operation data from a well drilling rig
receiving condition data
analyzing the condition data to determine
determining whether
issuing
*subject to the definition of “abnormal condition”
Regarding Claim 3, the claim scope does not make sense as to what is being determined. This issue is similar to Claim 1 line(s) 11-16 above. Below is a proposed amended claim:
3. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, wherein the first drilling operation comprises a connection, and wherein analyzing the condition data comprises determining when
Regarding Claim 4, the claim scope does not make sense as to what is being determined. This issue is similar to Claim 3 above. Below is a proposed amended claim:
4. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1 wherein the first well drilling operation comprises a sweep, and wherein analyzing the condition data comprises determining when
Regarding Claim 5, the claim scope does not make sense as to what is being determined. This issue is similar to Claim 4 above. Below is a proposed amended claim:
5. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1 wherein the determining step comprises determining whether
Regarding Claim 5, the claim scope does not make sense as to what is being determined. This issue is similar to Claim 4 above. Below is a proposed amended claim:
5. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1 wherein the determining step comprises determining whether
Claim 6 line(s) 1 sets forth the limitation “the condition data is indicative of an acceleration being experienced by a portion of a vibratory screening machine”. “Indicative” is defined as “serving to indicate”. “Indicate” is defined as “show” (see definitions by Merriam-Webster). The scope of the claim is unclear as the data appears to only “Indicate” an acceleration being experienced by a portion of a vibratory screening machine, not necessarily that a vibratory screening machine has actually experienced an acceleration. Below is a proposed amended claim:
6. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1 wherein the condition data is
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
The claim(s) recite(s) the following:
A) “A method for determining when an abnormal condition in a well drilling operation may have occurred or may soon occur,”
The preamble sets forth the intended use of the method. Executing a well drilling operation is not a requirement of the method (see below the broad interpretation of the method steps). A preamble is generally not limiting when the claim body describes a structurally complete invention such that deletion of the preamble phrase does not affect the […] steps of the claimed invention." Catalina Mktg. Int’l, 289 F.3d at 808-09, 62 USPQ2d at 1785. See MPEP 2111.02.
B) “receiving drilling operation data […] receiving condition data”.
These steps include data gathering. The steps are very broad and do not specify what data is gathered and is a pre-solution activity.
C) “analyzing the condition data to determine”.
This limitation appears to include comparing data or performing mathematical calculations, although the limitation is broad and does not specify the type of analysis. The specification discusses using machine learning algorithms to make predictions (par. [0263]).
D) “determining whether [...] the first drilling operation [...] occurred approximately at the predicted point in time”.
How the determining step is performed is not specified in the claim (e.g. a computer and/or controller, by hand, or a mental process) and does not exclude a mental process. It appears that the determining step is comparison of data at a specified time period (par. [0315]).
E) “causing an alert to be issued”.
Notwithstanding the broad and unclear language used (see 112(b) rejection above), optionally issuing a notification or alarm is an insignificant extra-solution activity and merely applying the abstract idea. Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 198 USPQ 193 (1978). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981).
The Statutory Categories
The claim is directed towards a statutory category, which is a method or process.
The Judicial Exceptions
The claimed invention is directed to the abstract ideas of comparing data or performing mathematical calculations and determining or performing a mental process.
Analyzing information falls within the "realm of abstract ideas" because information is intangible. Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Merely citing a computer does not provide patentability to the claims. The courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III.
It is noted that while no formulas are explicitly claimed (or disclosed), the analysis step is so broad as to may include a formula. Computation and mathematical formulas are abstract ideas. Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 198 USPQ 193 (1978). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).I.
The Inventive Concept
The claims considered individually and as a whole with respect to the abstract ideas are not significantly more than the abstract ideas themselves. The claims are not an improvement to computer functionality (indeed no computer is claimed) or a well drilling operation per se, or a material separation system per se, but rather the abstract ideas themselves.
Regarding the preamble (part A), a well drilling operation is the intended use of the method and is not a requirement of the method, because no active method steps require a well drilling operation, which may integrate the claims into a practical application.
Regarding receiving data (part B), it established that a step of gathering data is a pre-solution activity for use in a claimed process. MPEP 2106.05(g). The Supreme Court explained that the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978). Gathering unspecified data in the general area of well drilling and solids/fluid separation is well-understood or conventional. See e.g. ELYAS (US 10871762) abstract regarding sensor data collection and analysis.
Regarding the analyzing/determining (parts C and D), this includes a mental process. The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III. The courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The mental process does not require an active step. The analysis and determination require only calculating and/or determining a specified time and a predicted time (occurrence of a first drilling operation) and no details are provided on how the determining is accomplished, whether it is calculating, comparing data, or just guessing.
Regarding the notification (part E), issuing a notification is an optional use of the data for an extra-solution activity (note that no action needs to be taken if the conditions are not satisfied), which is merely applying the abstract idea. As explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978) (holding that a step of adjusting an alarm limit variable to a figure computed according to a mathematical formula was "post-solution activity"). See e.g. FREEMAN (US 8812236) for a warning message displaying symptoms and probable causes as well as suggestions for corrections (Figs. 8-9; C15/L24-38).
The dependent claims recite additional details of the time analysis and prediction analysis (claims 2-6), which is again the abstract idea of calculations.
The dependent claims recite well-understood or conventional aspects of an unclaimed well drilling operation (claims 3-4), unclaimed solid-liquid separation systems including a vibratory screening (shaker) machine (claim 6) and sensors (claims 7-10) for data gathering. See examples of well-understood or conventional of well drilling operations and/or solid-liquid separation systems:
FREEMAN (US 8812236) discloses shaker screens cleaning drilling mud to efficiently drill a wellbore (Fig. 1 and C1/L16-23; C9/L28-46);
BURGESS (US 5190645) discloses a shale shaker cleaning cuttings from drilling mud in a wellbore with a sensor apparatus for sensing changes in volume, flow rate, weight and/or density (Fig. 1; C2/L30-53, C5/L33-51);
ELYAS (US 10871762) discloses real-time measurement and machine learning analysis of drilling operations using sensor data of mud fluid properties (abstract; Fig. 1; C1/L6-11,57-61);
BAILEY (US 8869986) discloses screening methods including improving capacity and reducing load on shale shakers by using finer screens and sensors such as a density sensor for control (C7/L44-47; C37/L43-46);
ROWE (US 10352159) discloses a method for monitoring drilling operations by comparing a measured change to a property of a fluid to a predicted change in property of the fluid accounting for travel time data (abstract; Fig. 2). The drilling fluid may be a sweep or high-density drilling fluid to removing cuttings (C3/L65-67). A control system may issue alarms if an abnormal condition is detected (C5/L20-24).
SCOTT (US 20050242003) discloses a vibratory separator including an accelerometer to control acceleration (par. [0146]) and a temperature sensor (par. [0149]).
TORRIONE (US 20160130928) discloses a shale shaker with computer vision comprising a camera for recording characteristics of drill cutting particles and acquiring visual data for process control (abstract; par. [0004]).
These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application because there is no other structure to the claim. The claims as a whole are directed to an abstract idea and the additional elements recited amount to nothing more than the abstract idea and therefore, the claims are patent ineligible.
Telephonic Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIAM A ROYCE whose telephone number is (571)270-0352. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday, Thursday ~08:30~15:00.
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, Ben Lebron can be reached at (571) 272-0475. 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.
LIAM A. ROYCE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1773
/Liam Royce/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights