DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to the Amendment to Application # 18/459,994 filed on June 9, 2026 in which claims 1, 3, 11, and 13 were amended; claims 4, 8, 14, 17 were cancelled; and claims 21-24 were added.
Continued Examination Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 9, 2026 has been entered.
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 1-3, 5-7, 9-13, 15, 16, and 18-24 are pending, of which claims 1-3, 7, 10-13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1); claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2); and claims 5, 6, 9, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103; and claims 22 and 23 are objected to.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 5 and 15 include the limitation “wherein automatically altering, based on the comparison of the drilling performance output to 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” or similar. (Emphasis added).
The statement that the altered automation configuration “prolongs the life of downhole equipment associated with the automation configuration” is a statement of the intended use of the alteration. “An intended use or purpose usually will not limit the scope of the claim because such statements usually do no more than define a context in which the invention operates.” Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Although “[s]uch statements often . . . appear in the claim’s preamble,” In re Stencel, 828 F.2d 751, 754 (Fed. Cir. 1987), a statement of intended use or purpose can appear elsewhere in a claim. Id; Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also Roberts v. Ryer, 91 U.S. 150, 157 (1875) (‘The inventor of a machine is entitled to the benefit of all the uses to which it can be put, no matter whether he had conceived the idea of the use or not.’). Thus, it is usually improper to construe non-functional claim terms in system claims in a way that makes infringement or validity turn on their function. Paragon Solutions, LLC v. Timex Corp., 566 F.3d 1075, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Papouras et al., US Publication 2020/0318471 (hereinafter Papouras), which is owned by the applicant of the present application and may be subject to an exception under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Regarding claim 1, Papouras 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 using the automated drilling-related workflow, wherein the method comprises “storing a plurality of automated drilling-related workflows, including the automated drilling-related workflow, in an electronic database” (Papouras ¶ 38) by including a variety (i.e., plurality) of sub modules, each associated with a predetermined workflow. Additionally, Papouras 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 from beginning to end” (Papouras ¶ 38) where the workflow “executes a task from beginning to end.” Further, Papouras 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” (Papouras ¶ 38) where “[d]rilling parameters may also or alternatively be selected by the controller 190 via the execution of one or more database look-up procedures.”
Moreover, Papouras discloses “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 workflows eliminates human variability from the associated task” (Papouras ¶ 64) where the steps may be performed automatically and without user instruction (i.e., an automation configuration). By being “automatic,” human variability is removed from the task. Likewise, Papouras discloses “drilling, using the controller, a first portion of the well, which comprises executing, by the controller, execution of the set of instructions of the automated drilling-related workflow to drill the first portion of the well using the automated drilling-related workflow” (Papouras ¶ 57) by executing the drilling instructions. Papouras also discloses “monitoring, by the controller, a drilling performance output during the execution of the set of instructions of the automated drilling-related workflow while drilling the first portion of the well using the automated drilling-related workflow” (Papouras ¶ 57) where the drilling module monitors the drilling operations.
In addition, Papouras discloses “comparing, by the controller during the execution of the set of instructions of the automated drilling-related workflow while drilling the first portion of the well using the automated drilling-related workflow, the drilling performance output to an expected drilling performance output” (Papouras ¶ 57) where the drilling module monitors the drilling operations and “compares the drilling operations of the target path [i.e., the expected drilling performance] and the plurality of inputs [i.e., the automated drilling-related workflow].” Furthermore, Papouras discloses “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” (Papouras ¶ 56) where the plan is based on historical data from an offset well. Finally, Papouras 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 set of instructions of the automated drilling-related workflow while drilling the well using 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” (Papouras ¶ 61) by generating modified instructions based on the comparisons to alter the automations configuration associated with the automated drilling-related workflow.
Regarding claim 11, Papouras discloses a system configured to automate the alteration of drilling parameters or an automation configuration during the implementation of an automated drilling-related workflow while drilling a well using the automated drilling-related workflow, the system comprising “a controller and a non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon a plurality of instructions, wherein the plurality of instructions are executed with one or more processors.” (Papouras ¶ 77). Additionally, Papouras discloses that the instructions are executed “so that the following steps are executed: drilling, using the controller, a first portion of a well, which comprises executing a set of instructions of the automated drilling-related workflow that is stored in an electronic database to drill the first portion of the well” (Papouras ¶ 57) by executing the drilling instructions. Further, Papouras discloses “wherein the automated drilling-related workflow is one of a plurality of automated drilling-related workflows that is stored in the electronic database” (Papouras ¶ 38) by including a variety (i.e., plurality) of sub modules, each associated with a predetermined workflow.
Moreover, Papouras discloses “wherein each of the plurality of automated drilling-related workflows includes a set of instructions, including the set of instructions of the automated drilling-related workflow, to be executed by the controller so that a task is executed from beginning to end” (Papouras ¶ 38) where the workflow “executes a task from beginning to end.” Likewise, Papouras discloses “wherein the set of instructions comprises instructions for the controller to select a drilling parameter input via one or more database look-up procedures” (Papouras ¶ 38) where “[d]rilling parameters may also or alternatively be selected by the controller 190 via the execution of one or more database look-up procedures.” Papouras also discloses “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 workflows eliminates human variability from the associated task” (Papouras ¶ 64) where the steps may be performed automatically and without user instruction (i.e., an automation configuration). By being “automatic,” human variability is removed from the task.
In addition, Papouras discloses “monitoring, by the controller, a drilling performance output during the execution of the set of instructions of the automated drilling-related workflow while drilling the first portion of the well using the automated drilling-related workflow” (Papouras ¶ 57) where the drilling module monitors the drilling operations. Furthermore, Papouras discloses “comparing, by the controller during the execution of the set of instructions of the automated drilling-related workflow while drilling the first portion of the well using the automated drilling-related workflow, the drilling performance output to an expected drilling performance output” (Papouras ¶ 57) where the drilling module monitors the drilling operations and “compares the drilling operations of the target path [i.e., the expected drilling performance] and the plurality of inputs [i.e., the automated drilling-related workflow].”
Moreover, Papouras discloses “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” (Papouras ¶ 56) where the plan is based on historical data from an offset well. Finally, Papouras 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 set of instructions of the automated drilling-related workflow while drilling the well using 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” (Papouras ¶ 61) by generating modified instructions based on the comparisons to alter the automations configuration associated with the automated drilling-related workflow.
Claims 1-3, 7, 10-13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Repin et al., US Publication 2008/0179094.
Regarding claim 1, Repin 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 using the automated drilling-related workflow, wherein the method comprises “storing a plurality of automated drilling-related workflows, including the automated drilling-related workflow, in an electronic database” (Repin ¶¶ 48, 66, 99) by discussing the presence of “drilling plans” that set forth operations controls and parameters for drilling. (Repin ¶ 66). Repin frequently refers to these drilling plans in the plural (Repin ¶ 48), indicating a plurality of such plans. Repin then discloses that the data may be stored in a database. (Repin ¶ 99). Additionally, Repin 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 from beginning to end” (Repin ¶ 66) by defining the drilling process. Further, Repin 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” (Repin ¶ 66) where the drilling plan includes parameters. A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention would have recognized that all data is retrieved from a database by a look-up procedure.
Moreover, Repin discloses “herein each of the automated drilling-related workflows comprises an automation configuration; wherein execution of any one or more of the plurality of automated drilling-related workflows eliminates human variability from the associated task” (Repin ¶ 15) where the drilling commands may be performed automatically (i.e., an automation configuration). By being “automatic,” human variability is removed from the task. Likewise, Repin discloses “drilling, using the controller, a first portion of the well, which comprises executing by the controller, the set of instructions of the automated drilling-related workflow to drill the first portion of the well using the automated drilling-related workflow” (Repin ¶ 41) by performing the drilling operation, which would be according to the drilling plan, as discussed above. Repin also discloses “monitoring, by the controller, a drilling performance output during the execution of the set of instructions of the automated drilling-related workflow while drilling the first portion of the well using the automated drilling-related workflow” (Repin ¶ 64) where sensors collect real-time data about the operations of the wellsite.
In addition, Repin discloses “comparing, by the controller during the execution of the set of instructions of the automated drilling-related workflow while drilling the first portion of the well using the automated drilling-related workflow, the drilling performance output to an expected drilling performance output” (Repin ¶ 93, see also ¶ 106) where the processing module compares the real-time data acquired during drilling to historical data to detect oilfield events. Furthermore, Repin discloses “wherein the expected drilling performance output is based on a historical drilling performance output of the automated drilling-related workflow.” (Repin ¶ 93).
Moreover, Repin discloses “wherein the historical drilling performance output is based on data from the well or an off-set well” (Repin ¶ 10) where the historical data may be from the same well (i.e., the well). Finally, Repin 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 set of instructions of the automated drilling-related workflow while drilling the well using 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” (Repin ¶¶ 48, 111) where the drilling operation (i.e., the automation configuration) may be adjusted (i.e., altered) based on the comparison of the real-time data and the pre-defined earth model (i.e., the expected drilling performance output). (Repin ¶ 111). Repin discloses that this adjustment may be automatic. (Repin ¶ 48).
Regarding claim 11, Repin discloses a system configured to automate the alteration of drilling parameters or an automation configuration during the implementation of an automated drilling-related workflow while drilling a well using the automated drilling-related workflow, the system comprising “a controller and a non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon a plurality of instructions, wherein the plurality of instructions are executed with one or more processors.” (Repin ¶¶ 48, 99). Additionally, Repin discloses that the instructions are executed “so that the following steps are executed: drilling, using the controller, a first portion of a well, which comprises executing a set of instructions of the automated drilling-related workflow that is stored in an electronic database to drill the first portion of the well” (Repin ¶ 41) by performing the drilling operation, which would be according to the drilling plan, as discussed below. Further, Repin discloses “wherein the automated drilling-related workflow is one of a plurality of automated drilling-related workflows that is stored in the electronic database” (Repin ¶¶ 48, 66, 99) by discussing the presence of “drilling plans” that set forth operations controls and parameters for drilling. (Repin ¶ 66). Repin frequently refers to these drilling plans in the plural (Repin ¶ 48), indicating a plurality of such plans. Repin then discloses that the data may be stored in a database. (Repin ¶ 99).
Moreover, Repin discloses “wherein each of the plurality of automated drilling-related workflows includes a set of instructions, including the set of instructions of the automated drilling-related workflow, to be executed by the controller so that a task is executed from beginning to end” (Repin ¶ 66) by defining the drilling process. Likewise, Repin discloses “wherein the set of instructions comprises instructions for the controller to select a drilling parameter input via one or more database look-up procedures” (Repin ¶ 66) where the drilling plan includes parameters. A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention would have recognized that all data is retrieved from a database by a look-up procedure. Repin also discloses “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 workflows eliminates human variability from the associated task” (Repin ¶ 15) where the drilling commands may be performed automatically (i.e., an automation configuration). By being “automatic,” human variability is removed from the task.
In addition, Repin discloses “monitoring, by the controller, a drilling performance output during the execution of the set of instructions of the automated drilling-related workflow while drilling the first portion of the well using the automated drilling-related workflow” (Repin ¶ 64) where sensors collect real-time data about the operations of the wellsite. Furthermore, Repin discloses “comparing, by the controller during the execution of the set of instructions of the automated drilling-related workflow while drilling the first portion of the well using the automated drilling-related workflow, the drilling performance output to an expected drilling performance output” (Repin ¶ 93, see also ¶ 106) where the processing module compares the real-time data acquired during drilling to historical data to detect oilfield events. Moreover, Repin discloses “wherein the expected drilling performance output is based on a historical drilling performance output of the automated drilling-related workflow” (Repin ¶ 93).
Likewise, Repin discloses “wherein the historical drilling performance output is based on data from the well or an off-set well” (Repin ¶ 10) where the historical data may be from the same well (i.e., the well). Finally, Repin 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 set of instructions of the automated drilling-related workflow while drilling the well using 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” (Repin ¶¶ 48, 111) where the drilling operation (i.e., the automation configuration) may be adjusted (i.e., altered) based on the comparison of the real-time data and the pre-defined earth model (i.e., the expected drilling performance output). (Repin ¶ 111). Repin discloses that this adjustment may be automatic. (Repin ¶ 48).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Repin discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 1 and 11 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Repin 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” (Repin ¶¶ 48, 111) where the drilling operation (i.e., the automation configuration) may be adjusted (i.e., altered) based on the comparison of the real-time data and the pre-defined earth model (i.e., the expected drilling performance output). (Repin ¶ 111). Repin discloses that this adjustment may be automatic. (Repin ¶ 48).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Repin discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 1 and 11 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Repin discloses “wherein the automation configuration associated with the automated drilling-related workflow is automatically altered during the execution of the automated drilling-related workflow.” (Repin ¶ 127, Final Sentence). Further, Repin discloses “wherein the automation configuration includes a steering methodology” (Repin ¶ 69) where the available controls that may be in the automatic configuration include steering controls.
Regarding claim 7, Repin discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Repin discloses “wherein the historical drilling performance output of the automated drilling-related workflow is based on data from the well” (Repin ¶ 10) where the historical data may be from the same well (i.e., the well).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Repin discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 1 and 11 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Repin discloses “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; 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; and 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” (Repin ¶ 140) where the process is repeated after the adjustments are made.
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 5, 6, 9, 15, 16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Repin in view of Moran et al., US Publication 2008/0262810 (hereinafter Moran), as cited on the Notice of References Cited dated October 30, 2025.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Repin discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 1 and 11 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Repin does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein automatically altering, based on the comparison of the drilling performance output to 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.”
However, Moran 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.
Repin and Moran are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of automatic controlling of wellbore drills.
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 Repin and Moran before him or her to modify the process of altering the procedure of Moran to include the particular alterations of Moran.
The motivation for doing so would have been that a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would have recognized that a prolonged tool lifespan saves money over time, which is a well-known, desirable feature.
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Repin discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 1 and 11 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Repin does not appear to explicitly disclose “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.”
However, Moran 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.
Repin and Moran are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of automatic controlling of wellbore drills.
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 Repin and Moran before him or her to modify the process of altering the procedure of Moran to include the particular parameters of Moran.
The motivation/rationale for doing so would have been that of applying a known technique to a known device. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(I)(D). Repin teaches the “base device” for updating the automated workflow of a wellbore drill based on parameters. Further, Moran teaches the “known technique” of including the rate of penetration as a parameter for controlling a wellbore that is applicable to the base device of Repin. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system.
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Repin discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 1 and 11 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Repin does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein the automated drilling-related workflow is a steering operation.”
However, Moran 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).
Repin and Moran are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of automatic controlling of wellbore drills.
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 Repin and Moran before him or her to modify the process of altering the procedure of Moran to include the particular purpose of Moran.
The motivation/rationale for doing so would have been that of applying a known technique to a known device. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(I)(D). Repin teaches the “base device” for updating the automated workflow of a wellbore drill. Further, Moran teaches the “known technique” of the purpose of controlling a wellbore being a steering operation that is applicable to the base device of Repin. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system.
Regarding claim 18, Repin discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 11 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Repin does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein the historical drilling performance output of the automated drilling-related workflow is based on data from the off-set well.”
However, Moran discloses “wherein the historical drilling performance output of the automated drilling-related workflow is based on data from the off-set well.” (Moran ¶ 23).
Repin and Moran are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of automatic controlling of wellbore drills.
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 Repin and Moran before him or her to modify the process of altering the procedure of Moran to include the particular sources of historical data of Moran.
The motivation/rationale for doing so would have been that of applying a known technique to a known device. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(I)(D). Repin teaches the “base device” for updating the automated workflow of a wellbore drill based on historical data from the same well or other wells. Further, Moran teaches the “known technique” of including the use of historical data generated from off-set wells in the process of controlling a wellbore that is applicable to the base device of Repin. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system.
Claims 21 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Repin in view of Hopwood et al., US Publication 2020/0362687 (hereinafter Hopwood), as cited on the Notice of References Cited dated October 30, 2025.
Regarding claim 21, Repin discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Repin does not appear to explicitly disclose “determining, by the controller and based on the comparison of the drilling performance output to the expected drilling performance output, that a deviation exists between the drilling performance output and the expected drilling performance output; and automatically altering, by the controller and based on the determination that the deviation exists, the automated drilling-related workflow while drilling the well using 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 procedure to reduce the deviation.”
However, Hopwood discloses “determining, by the controller and based on the comparison of the drilling performance output to the expected drilling performance output, that a deviation exists between the drilling performance output and the expected drilling performance output” (Hopwood ¶¶ 81-82) by calculating well deviation information that is sent to the error vector calculator to correct the error. Additionally, Hopwood discloses “automatically altering, by the controller and based on the determination that the deviation exists, the automated drilling-related workflow while drilling the well using 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 procedure to reduce the deviation” (Hopwood ¶¶ 85-86) by providing a convergence plan to alter the instructions so that the drill will converge on the planned trajectory, which is generated based on the parameters of the drill.
Repin and Hopwood are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of automatic controlling of wellbore drills.
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 Repin and Hopwood before him or her to modify the error detection of Repin to include the deviation detection as a form of error detection of Hopwood.
The motivation/rationale for doing so would have been that of applying a known technique to a known device. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(I)(D). Repin teaches the “base device” for calculating an error in a wellbore drill process. Further, Hopwood teaches the “known technique” for calculating an error of a wellbore drill process based on deviation amount that is applicable to the base device of Repin. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system.
Regarding claim 24, Repin discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Repin discloses “wherein the automated drilling-related workflow is a predetermined workflow associated with a sub-module of a drilling module, and the predetermined workflow is a recipe that implements a repeatable drilling task” (Repin ¶ 66) by discussing the presence of “drilling plans” that set forth operations controls and parameters for drilling.
Repin does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein the set of instructions comprises control signals generated by the drilling module and transmitted to one or more of a top drive control system, a mud pump control system, or a draw works control system, and the control signals include target setpoints for one or more controlled variables; and wherein the drilling parameter input comprises one or more of a weight on bit, a differential pressure, a rotary speed, a top drive input, a draw works input, or a mud pump input that is selected by the controller via the one or more database look-up procedures and used by the drilling module to generate the control signals.”
However, Hopwood discloses “wherein the set of instructions comprises control signals generated by the drilling module and transmitted to one or more of a top drive control system, a mud pump control system, or a draw works control system, and the control signals include target setpoints for one or more controlled variables; and wherein the drilling parameter input comprises one or more of a weight on bit, a differential pressure, a rotary speed, a top drive input, a draw works input, or a mud pump input that is selected by the controller via the one or more database look-up procedures and used by the drilling module to generate the control signals” (Hopwood ¶89) by indicating that a mud pump is monitored and controlled as part of the general execution of the system.
Repin and Hopwood are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of automatic controlling of wellbore drills.
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 Repin and Hopwood before him or her to modify the monitored and controlled components of Repin to include the mud pumps of Hopwood.
The motivation/rationale for doing so would have been that of applying a known technique to a known device. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(I)(D). Repin teaches the “base device” for controlling an automated wellbore drilling process. Further, Hopwood teaches the “known technique” using monitoring and controlling mud pumps during an automated wellbore drilling process that is applicable to the base device of Repin. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22 and 23 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Although the known prior art discloses the limitations of parent claims 1 and 21 and further discloses that it is known to predict a deviation in the drilling of a wellbore, see for example, Repin et al., US Publication 2008/0179094, the known prior art does not appear to compare the actual change in deviation to the predicted change and deviation and then alter the workflow based on that comparison, as claimed in claim 22.
Therefore, claims 22 and 23 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Lannen, US Publication 2016/0201393, System and method for automatically adjusting the process of drilling a wellbore.
Wilson et al., US Publication 2019/0032466, System and method for automatically adjusting the process of drilling a wellbore.
Willerth et al., US Publication 2019/0106982, System and method for automatically adjusting the process of drilling a wellbore.
Stewart et al., US Publication 2023/0272682, System and method for automatically adjusting the process of drilling a wellbore.
Jamieson et al., US Publication 2025/0021905, System and method for automatically adjusting the process of drilling a wellbore.
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
Prosecution Insights