DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to the Amendment to Application # 18/459,994 filed on January 28, 2026 in which claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 10-12, 15, 16, and 20 were amended.
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
Claims 1-20 are pending, which are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims, the Examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicants are advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Moran et al., US Publication 2008/02628101 (hereinafter Moran) in view of Duplantis et al., US Publication 2018/0347281 (hereinafter Duplantis).
Regarding claim 1, Moran discloses a method of automating the alteration of drilling parameters or an automation configuration during the implementation of an automated drilling-related workflow while drilling a well, wherein the method comprises “storing a plurality of automated drilling-related workflows, including the automated drilling-related workflow, in an electronic database” (Moran ¶ 73) where drilling conditions and parameters are stored in a database. Additionally, Moran discloses “wherein each of the automated drilling-related workflows includes a set of instructions to be executed by a controller so that a task is executed …” (Moran ¶ 49, see also ¶¶ 10-11) where the drilling parameters are instructions to be executed that relate the operation of the drilling process such as the amount of torque to be applied or the rotary speed of the bit. Moran gives further examples, at ¶¶ 10-11, of the drilling parameters including the rotational moment and axial force applied to the bit, the speed of the bit in RPMs, the diameter and type of the drill bit, the flow rate of the drilling fluid, a rate of penetration to be applied to the drill bit, and the mechanical properties of the rocks to be drilled. In other words, these parameters define the proper drill bit to be loaded, the correct amount of force to apply to the bit, the speed at which to rotate the bit, what rate to dispense the drilling fluid, and at what rate to penetrate the rock for the individual rock being drilled. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “instruction” is “knowledge or information imparted” or “an item of such knowledge of information,”2 and each of these parameters are an item of information to be imparted.
Further, Moran discloses “wherein each respective set of instructions comprises instructions for the controller to select a drilling parameter input via one or more database look-up procedures” (Moran ¶ 83) where the parameters, which may be in a database, are selected and, thus, must necessarily be acquired by “look-up procedures,” because a look-up procedure is any computer process that retrieves data. Moreover, Moran discloses “initiating, by the controller, execution of the automated drilling-related workflow to facilitate the drilling of the well” (Moran ¶ 83) by constructing and using the mechanics analysis model. This is “to facilitate the drilling of the well,” because the entire process of Moran is for optimizing tools “for us in well drilling operations.” (Moran ¶ 3). Likewise, Moran discloses “monitoring, by the controller, drilling performance output during the execution of the automated drilling-related workflow” (Moran ¶ 61) where the result data is obtained. Moran also discloses “comparing, by the controller, during the execution of the automated drilling-related workflow while drilling the well” (Moran et al., US Patent 6,424,919 col. 6, ll. 15-32, see also col. 6, ll. 56-62, col. 8, ll. 37-43, col. 10, ll. 16-22, and col. 11, ll. 34-40) by repeatedly disclosing that the use of the ANN may be in real time during the drilling of the wellbore.
In addition, Moran discloses “comparing … the drilling performance output to an expected drilling performance output; wherein the expected drilling performance output is based on a historical drilling performance output of the automated drilling-related workflow; and wherein the historical drilling performance output is based on data from the well or an off-set well” (Moran ¶¶ 58, 61) where the well data is compared to the experience data (Moran ¶ 61), which may include historical data (Moran ¶ 58). Finally, Moran discloses “based on the comparison of the drilling performance output to the expected drilling performance output, automatically altering the automated drilling-related workflow during the execution of the automated drilling-related workflow while drilling the well to: alter the instructions for the controller to select the drilling parameter input via the one or more database look-up procedures; or alter the automation configuration associated with the automated drilling-related workflow” (Moran ¶ 63, see also Figs. 4A-4B) by adjusting (i.e., altering) the drilling parameters based on the result of the comparison.
Moran does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein each of the automated drilling-related workflows includes a set of instructions to be executed by a controller so that a task is executed from beginning to end” or “wherein each of the automated drilling-related workflows comprises an automation configuration; and wherein execution of any one or more of the plurality of automated drilling-related workflow eliminates human variability from the associated task.”
However, Duplantis discloses a system and method for controlling drills “wherein each of the automated drilling-related workflows includes a set of instructions to be executed by a controller so that a task is executed from beginning to end.” (Duplantis ¶ 80). Additionally, Duplantis discloses “wherein each of the automated drilling-related workflows comprises an automation configuration” (Duplantis ¶¶ 127-128) by describing the automation process for handling dependencies, which is a form of automation configuration. Finally, Duplantis discloses “wherein execution of any one or more of the plurality of automated drilling-related workflow eliminates human variability from the associated task.” (Duplantis ¶ 201).
Moran and Duplantis are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of drilling control systems.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Moran and Duplantis before him or her to modify the instruction sets of Moran to include the automated workflows of Duplantis.
The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce the possibility of operator caused error. (Duplantis ¶ 201).
Regarding claim 11, it merely recites a system for performing the method of claim 1. The system comprises computer hardware and software modules for performing the various functions. The combination of Moran and Duplantis comprises computer hardware (Moran ¶ 56) and software modules for performing the same functions. Thus, claim 11 is rejected using the same rationale set forth in the above rejection for claim 1.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, the combination of Moran and Duplantis discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 1 and 11 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Moran and Duplantis discloses “wherein the instructions for the controller to select the drilling parameter input via the one or more database look-up procedures are automatically altered based on the comparison of the drilling performance output to the expected drilling performance output” (Moran ¶¶ 60, 63) where the drilling parameters are altered based on the neural network (i.e., automatically, Moran ¶ 63), which considers the comparison of the drilling performance output and the expected drilling performance output. (Moran ¶ 60).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, the combination of Moran and Duplantis discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 1 and 11 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Moran and Duplantis discloses “wherein the automation configuration associated with the automated drilling-related workflow is automatically altered during the execution of the automated drilling-related workflow” (Moran ¶ 63) where the drilling parameters, which are part of the work flow, are altered based on the neural network (i.e., automatically).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, the combination of Moran and Duplantis discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 3 and 13 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Moran and Duplantis discloses “wherein the automation configuration includes a steering methodology.” (Moran ¶ 95) where the instructions are related to the path of the wellbore, which the present specification includes within the explanation of a steering methodology. (Spec. ¶ 3).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, the combination of Moran and Duplantis discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 1 and 11 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Moran and Duplantis discloses “wherein automatically altering, based on the comparison of the drilling performance output of the expected drilling performance output, the automated drilling-related workflow to alter the instructions for the controller to select the drilling parameter input via the one or more database look-up procedures or alter the automation configuration associated with the automated drilling-related workflow prolongs the life of downhole equipment associated with the automation configuration. (Moran ¶ 137, see also Moran ¶ 10) where the parameters are selected in order to improve the “dull grade” of the equipment, meaning the equipment will dull slower and, therefore, prolongs the life of the equipment.
Regarding claims 6 and 16, the combination of Moran and Duplantis discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 1 and 11 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Moran and Duplantis discloses “wherein the drilling performance output of the automated drilling-related workflow comprises a rate of penetration; a toolface control precision; a change in differential pressure for a given weight on bit; or a stability of a differential pressure measurement (Moran ¶ 11) where the parameters include at least the rate of penetration.
Regarding claims 7 and 17, the combination of Moran and Duplantis discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 1 and 11 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Moran and Duplantis discloses “wherein the historical drilling performance output of the automated drilling-related workflow is based on data from the well.” (Moran ¶ 23).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, the combination of Moran and Duplantis discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 1 and 11 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Moran and Duplantis discloses “wherein the historical drilling performance output of the automated drilling-related workflow is based on data from the off-set well.” (Moran ¶ 23).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, the combination of Moran and Duplantis discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 1 and 11 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Moran and Duplantis discloses “wherein the automated drilling-related workflow is a steering operation. (Moran ¶ 95) where the instructions are related to the path of the wellbore, which the present specification includes within the explanation of a steering methodology. (Spec. ¶ 3).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, the combination of Moran and Duplantis discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 1 and 11 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Moran and Duplantis discloses “wherein the method further comprises: monitoring, by the controller and after the automatic alteration of either the instructions for the controller or the automation configuration, the drilling performance output during the execution of the altered automated drilling-related workflow while drilling the well” (Moran ¶ 115 and Moran et al., US Patent 6,424,919 col. 6, ll. 15-32, see also col. 6, ll. 56-62, col. 8, ll. 37-43, col. 10, ll. 16-22, and col. 11, ll. 34-40) where performance continues to be monitored, which is repeatedly disclosed to occur in real time during the drilling of the wellbore. Further, the combination of Moran and Duplantis discloses “comparing, by the controller during the execution of the altered automated drilling-related workflow while drilling the well, the drilling performance output during the execution of the altered automated drilling-related workflow to the expected drilling performance output” (Moran ¶ 61 and Moran et al., US Patent 6,424,919 col. 6, ll. 15-32, see also col. 6, ll. 56-62, col. 8, ll. 37-43, col. 10, ll. 16-22, and col. 11, ll. 34-40) where the well data is compared to the experience data. Finally, the combination of Moran and Duplantis discloses “determining, by the controller and based on the comparison of the drilling performance output during the execution of the altered automated drilling-related workflow to the expected drilling performance output, that a downhole tool needs to be changed” (Moran et al., US Patent 6,424,919 col. 12, ll. 10-29, see also col. 10, l. 42-col. 11, l. 2) by determining the remaining life span of drill bit. In other words, it determines if any remaining life is left and if it needs to be replaced.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed January 28, 2026, with respect to the objection of claim 5 and the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) (Remarks 9-10) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of claim 5 and the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant's remaining arguments filed January 28, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, Applicant first argues that “Moran’s core disclosure is an offline optimization workflow that uses artificial neural networks (‘ANNs’ and simulations to design and optimize drilling tool assemblies” that, Applicant argues, is “not a real-time, controller-executed ADRW stored in a database and executed beginning-to-end during well drilling.”(Remarks 11). The examiner disagrees.
As an initial matter, Applicant has falsely categorized Moran’s disclosure as “offline.” It is noted that Applicant provides no citation for such a statement nor can the examiner locate any such statement. Additionally, as discussed in the updated rejection above, Moran et al., US Patent 6,424,919, which is incorporated by reference at Moran ¶ 13, repeatedly discloses that the ANN is used during real-time drilling of the wellbore. (Moran et al., US Patent 6,424,919, col. 6, ll. 15-32, see also col. 6, ll. 56-62, col. 8, ll. 37-43, col. 10, ll. 16-22, and col. 11, ll. 34-40). Therefore, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant next argues “Moran lacks the claimed ‘plurality of automated drilling-related workflows’ stored ‘in an electronic database,’ each with a ‘set of instructions to be executed by a controller so that a task is executed from beginning to end’” because “Moran's disclosure centers on modeling and simulating assemblies and mechanical response models, not on persistent ADRWs with executable instruction sets that the controller runs to perform an entire drilling task” while “[n]o portion of Moran discloses a database of ADRWs, let alone multiple ADRWs each executable by a controller, to perform a drilling-related task from beginning to end.” (Remarks 11). The examiner disagrees.
Moran discloses that when drilling “specific optimization parameters” that “may vary based on the specificities of the corresponding drilling operation” are used. (Moran ¶ 51). As discussed in the updated rejection above, Moran discloses a large list of these parameters (Moran ¶¶ 10-11) that are instructions within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term. Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date understood a workflow to be “the way that a particular type of work is organized, or the order of the stages in a particular work process.”3 Thus, each of these varied sets of specific optimization parameters is its own “workflow” within the broadest reasonable interpretation of that term, as well. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant next argues that “Moran also does not disclose that ‘the respective set of instructions comprises instructions for the controller to select a drilling parameter input via one or more database look-up procedures,’” because Moran does not disclose “performing database look-up procedures during execution of an ADRW to select drilling parameter inputs associated with and during execution of the ADRW, as required by amended claim 1.” (Remarks 12). The examiner disagrees.
In response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “select drilling parameter inputs associated with and during execution of the ADRW,” emphasis added) are not required by the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In the present instance, although such a limitation is present, it is in an “or” clause, meaning the broadest reasonable interpretation does not require this limitation to occur. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant next argues “Moran does not disclose ‘initiating, by the controller, execution of the automated drilling-related workflow to facilitate drilling the well; monitoring...during the execution...while drilling the well; [and] comparing...during the execution...while drilling the well, the drilling performance output to an expected drilling performance output; wherein the expected drilling performance output is based on a historical drilling performance output of the automated drilling-related workflow;...from the well or an off-set well’” because “Moran's optimization steps do not disclose deriving an ‘expected drilling performance output’ based on the historical drilling performance output ‘"of the automated drilling-related workflow,’ nor do they disclose real-time comparison ‘during the execution’ while drilling.” (Remarks 12). The examiner disagrees.
In response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “Moran's optimization steps do not disclose deriving an ‘expected drilling performance output’ based on the historical drilling performance output,” emphasis added) are not required by the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). At no point do the present claims “derive” the expected drilling performance output; instead this data just merely “exists.”
Additionally, as discussed above, the performance of Moran is taught to occur in “real-time” during drilling of the wellbore.
Therefore, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant next argues Moran “does not disclose altering the instructions or automation configuration of an ADRW during drilling of a well, as claimed by amended claim 1.” (Remarks 12, emphasis added). Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive for the reasons repeatedly discussed above.
Applicant next addresses specific citations from the office action. (Remarks 13). As these appear to be directed towards previously discussed limitations and do not appear to introduce any new arguments, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive for the reasons discussed above.
Finally, Applicant next argues that “Duplantis does not cure all the above-identified deficiencies of Moran.” (Remarks 13). Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive for the reasons discussed above.
Regarding the rejection of claims 2-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, Applicant argues that these claims are allowable for either the same reasons as claim 1 or for depending on such a claim. (Remarks 14). Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive for the reasons discussed above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 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 C.F.R. § 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 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 ANDREW R DYER whose telephone number is (571)270-3790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-4:30.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached on 571-270-3832. 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.
/ANDREW R DYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
1 Which incorporates Moran et al., US Patent 6,424,919 by reference at ¶ 13
2 Instruction, dictionary.com, June 21, 2019, Page 1.
3 Workflow, Cambridge Online Dictionary, September 20, 2017, Page 1.