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 .
Patent Prosecution Highway Program
The request to participate in the Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) program and the petition under 37 CFR 1.102(a) as filed on December 30, 2025 to make the instant application special are granted on January 23, 2026.
IDS
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 8, 2025 is being considered by the Examiner.
Drawing
The drawing filed on February 5, 2024 is accepted by the Examiner.
Specification
The amendment to the specification field herewith under 37 CFR §1.125 in “marked up” and “clean” forms are accepted and acknowledged. The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim rejection – 35 U.S.C. §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 judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
The requirement for subject matter eligibility test for products and processes requires first, the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories. 35 U.S.C. §101 defines the four categories of invention that Congress deemed to be the appropriate subject matter of a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter. The latter three categories define "things" or "products" while the first category defines "actions" (i.e., inventions that consist of a series of steps or acts to be performed).
Second, the claimed invention also must qualify as patent-eligible subject matter, i.e., the claim must not be directed to a judicial exception unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception. The judicial exceptions (also called "judicially recognized exceptions" or simply "exceptions") are subject matter that the courts have found to be outside of, or exceptions to, the four statutory categories of invention, and are limited to abstract ideas, laws of nature and natural phenomena (including products of nature).
In the first step, it is to be determined whether the patent claim under examination is directed to an abstract idea. If so, in the second step of analysis, it is to be determined whether the patent adds to the idea "something more" or "significantly more" that embodies an "inventive concept."
In the instant case, claim 1 is representative and it is reproduced here with the limitations that are part of the abstract idea in bold:
A method of analyzing torque and drag of a drill string in a wellbore, comprising:
receiving wellbore data including a trajectory of the wellbore at a range of measurement depths of interest;
receiving drill string data for the drill string, at least a portion of the drill string including an inner string positioned inside of the drill string;
generating a virtual wellbore associated with the inner string based on an inner diameter of the drill string and based on the trajectory of the wellbore;
determining a set of inner forces for the inner string, including: an axial force based on a weight of the inner string, and a set of contact forces between the inner string and the virtual wellbore; and
identifying a set of normal forces between the drill string and the wellbore based on simulating the axial force and the set of contact forces as applied forces to the drill string.
Step 2A
Prong I: The claim recites the steps of " receiving wellbore data including a trajectory of the wellbore at a range of measurement depths of interest; receiving drill string data for the drill string, at least a portion of the drill string including an inner string positioned inside of the drill string; generating a virtual wellbore associated with the inner string based on an inner diameter of the drill string and based on the trajectory of the wellbore; determining a set of inner forces for the inner string, including: an axial force based on a weight of the inner string, and a set of contact forces between the inner string and the virtual wellbore; and identifying a set of normal forces between the drill string and the wellbore ". These limitations could be carried out as a purely mental process (at least in a some relatively simple situations) and/or they could amount to a mathematical calculation (for example, determining [computing] a set of inner forces … based on weight of inner string and a set of contact forces). Therefore, the recited method falls in the abstract idea grouping of mental processes and/or mathematical concepts at Prong 1 of the §101 analysis.
Prong II:
This abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application at Prong 2 of the §101 analysis because the claim does not recite sufficient additional elements to integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application. The claim recites the method comprising the additional element steps of " simulating the axial force and the set of contact forces as applied forces to the drill string ". However, a simulation is considered an abstract idea or a “model” that engage in computing and displaying of variable relationship. Furthermore, the simulation is an abstract construct rather than a physical reality for the intended application. In most cases, a computer-implemented inventions, such as simulation of some kind have been deemed “abstract ideas” because they model or “simulate” processes rather than creating a tangible physical improvement of a system or a process by itself.
The courts have found that adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea (such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)) is not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a particular practical application or make the claim qualify as "significantly more" (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
The claim does not recite applying the abstract idea with, or by use of, any
particular machine, nor does the claim affect a real-world transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. The claim amounts to manipulating data: simulating the axial force and the set of contact forces as applied forces to the drill string. The claim does not recite any particular real-world actions that are taken as a result of the notification that is output. The claim identifies “a set of normal forces” through simulation as the general field-of-use, but does not recite a particular practical application being carried out within that field-of-use. Therefore, the claimed invention does not appear to be limited to the use of the mental process or math in a particular practical application, but instead the claim appears to monopolize the mental process or math itself, in any practical application where it might conceivably be used.
Step 2B:
Finally, at Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons as discussed above with regard to Prong 2. Claim 1 is rejected as ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claims 19 and 20 are analogous to claim 1, except that claim 19 and 20 additionally recites “at least one processor” and “a memory”. These elements are additional components separate from the abstract idea that need to be considered at Prong 2 of the §101 analysis. However, these additional elements are merely generic computer processing components that are invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which does not cause the claim as a whole to integrate the abstract idea into a particular practical application or provide significantly more than the recited abstract idea. Claims 19 and 20 are therefore rejected as ineligible under 35 USC §101 as well.
Dependent claim 2: the instant claim is directed to determining one or more axial forces, and is considered a human thought and/or computational analysis.
Dependent claim 3: the instant claim is directed to determining an axial tension, and is considered a human thought and/or computational analysis.
Dependent claim 4: the instant claim is directed to generating a plot of the axial tension, and is considered a human thought and/or computational analysis.
Dependent claims 5-7: the instant claims are directed to determining one or more torsional frictional forces acting on the drill string, and is considered a human thought and/or computational analysis.
Dependent claims 8-12, 14 and 15: the instant claims are directed to determining the set of inner forces and identifying the set of normal forces that includes simulation, and is considered a human thought and/or computational analysis.
Dependent to claim 13: the instant claim is directed to analyzing the set of normal forces, and is considered a human thought and/or computational analysis.
Dependent claims 16-18: the instant claims are directed to characterizing the drill string, and is considered a human thought and/or computational analysis.
In reference to claim 20: the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the BRI of machine-readable media can encompass non-statutory transitory forms of signal transmission, such as a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal per se. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007). When the BRI encompasses transitory forms of signal transmission, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101 as failing to claim statutory subject matter would be appropriate. Thus, a claim to a computer readable medium that can be a compact disc or a carrier wave covers a non-statutory embodiment and therefore should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See, e.g., Mentor Graphics v. EVE-USA, Inc., 851 F.3d at 1294-95, 112 USPQ2d at 1134 (claims to a "machine-readable medium" were non-statutory, because their scope encompassed both statutory random-access memory and non-statutory carrier waves).
Art of Interest
In reference to claims 1, 19 and 20: Samuel (U.S. PAP 2018/0238165, hereon Samuel) discloses a technique for reducing or eliminating casing wear during downhole operation (see Samuel, Abstract). The method or technique analyzes the torque and drag of a drill string in a wellbore (see Samuel, paragraph [0010]). Further, the method comprises receiving wellbore data including a trajectory of the wellbore at a range of measurement depths of interest (see Samuel, paragraph [0009] , wear volume measurement model) and receiving drill string data for the drill string (see Samuel, paragraphs [0019-0023] and claim 5, which includes temperature, pressure or downhole tool data), and at least a portion of the drill string including an inner string (Fig. 3, section 302) positioned inside of the drill string (see Samuel, paragraphs [0024] and [0030].
However, the instant application differs in that it comprises “generating a virtual wellbore associated with the inner string based on an inner diameter of the drill string and based on the trajectory of the wellbore; determining a set of inner forces for the inner string, including: an axial force based on a weight of the inner string, and a set of contact forces between the inner string and the virtual wellbore; and identifying a set of normal forces between the drill string and the wellbore based on simulating the axial force and the set of contact forces as applied forces to the drill string” in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicants.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Pietrzyk et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,725,493) discloses a method for controlling field equipment can include receiving information via an interface of a control system; analyzing the information by the control system with respect to tiered well construction activities; based on the analyzing, generating a workflow that includes at least a series of tiered well construction activities; and transmitting a signal from the control system to the field equipment to control the field equipment to perform at least one of the series of tiered well construction activities.
Brannigan et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,900,341) discloses a system for operation of a borehole which receives time series data associated with a borehole; compute a similarity metric for at least a portion of the time series data with respect to other time series data for the borehole; and analyze the similarity metric with respect to at least one operation associated with the borehole.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIAS DESTA whose telephone number is (571)272-2214. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30 to 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew M Schechter can be reached at 571-272-2302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ELIAS DESTA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857