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 .
Notice to Applicant
The following is a Non-Final, first Office Action responsive to Applicant’s communication of 9/7/23, in which applicant filed the application. Claims 1-19 are pending in the instant application and have been rejected below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/19/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “suitable” in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “or another suitable rheological parameter of the drilling fluid” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Examiner suggests removing the word “suitable” in each instance, since it is unclear how one would determine if a parameter is suitable or not.
Claim 12 recites “δ is an accreted gel thickness”, however, there does not appear to be such a symbol anywhere in the formula. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation. Examiner suggests deleting the limitation, or alternatively, adding in something earlier in the claim related to the variable.
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without reciting significantly more.
Step One - First, pursuant to step 1 in MPEP 2106.03, the claim 1 is directed to a method which is a statutory category.
Step 2A, Prong One - MPEP 2106.04 - The claim 1 recites a step for “determining at least one fluid parameter” from one of the three groups where the parameter is either i) first parameter related to shear force; either ii) second parameter characterizing mixing of drill cuttings with drilling fluid (See Applicant’s [0094-0095] – where the characterization can be represented by some mathematical value such as <0.85, or even above the number 4), OR iii) third and fourth parameters characterizing normal stress in drilling fluid.
As drafted, at this time, this is, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, within the Abstract idea grouping of “mathematical relationships,” as the claim is directed to determining parameters that are mathematical values.
Step 2A, Prong Two - MPEP 2106.04 - This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites does not appear to use any additional elements, e.g. a computer, at this time in its active determination of a fluid parameter and the “drilling operation” is not an active step of the method; rather, the claim only requires determining/calculating fluid parameters. Applicant should consider, as an initial step, reciting a computer performing the active steps of determining. Nonetheless, even if just a computer performs the determination, a computer would not make a practical application here (“apply it [abstract idea] on a computer” (See MPEP 2106.05f); and MPEP 2106.05h (field of use – fluid from a drilling operation).
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim also fails to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and/or an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See 84 Fed. Reg. 55. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B in MPEP 2106.05 - The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, no additional elements are recited; but even if a computer is added for “determining” the fluid parameter, the additional element of a computer is treated as MPEP 2106.05(f) (Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception – “Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible.” Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 235) and “field of use” (MPEP 2106.05h). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claims 2-18 narrow the abstract idea by further defining mathematical relationships.
Claim 19 recites that a fluid parameter is determined “by a data processor.” As explained above, this is insufficient at step 2a, prong two and step 2B (“apply it [abstract idea] on a computer” (See MPEP 2106.05f); and MPEP 2106.05h (Field of use).
Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
For more information on 101 rejections, see MPEP 2106.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hammond (US 2022/0186604) in view of Coussot et al, "Rheophysical classification of concentrated suspensions and granular pastes," 1999, Physical Review E, Vol. 59, No. 4, pages 4445-4457.
Concerning claim 1, Kulkarni discloses:
A method for characterizing a drilling fluid for a particular drilling operation (Hammond – see par 55 - Turning to FIG. 1, at step 110, first samples of drill cuttings are extracted from the drilling fluid, and the drill cuttings in the first sample are chosen to be smaller than a predetermined threshold. Second samples of drill cuttings also may be extracted, to obtain ‘large’ drill cuttings bigger than a second predetermined threshold, and this step is represented in FIGS. 2 and 3, at 111.)), the method comprising:
determining at least one fluid parameter for the drilling fluid and the particular drilling operation (Hammond – See par 58 - The samples are then prepared for measurement, for example cleaned further and ground up to a very fine state. At step 120 of FIG. 1 compositions and constituents (e.g. chemical compounds, minerals or elements present etc.), characteristics (e.g. physical properties such as density etc.) and attributes (e.g. color, characteristic distinguishing features including descriptors of shape and size etc.) of drill cuttings in the extracted samples and associated information obtain manually and/or automatically (e.g. via RockWash™ etc.) are characterized (this step corresponding to step 121 in FIGS. 2 and 3), wherein the at least one fluid parameter is selected from the group consisting of:
i) a first fluid parameter that relates to the shear forces that break apart components of the drilling fluid during the particular drilling operation (Hammond see par 99 - the solids carrying capacity of the drilling fluid, as characterized by its viscosity, yield stress, and shear thinning behaviour and its density compared to that of the formation rocks, must be sufficient that the settling of the small cuttings is insignificant over the time taken for a particular volume of drilling fluid to travel from the drill bit to the surface);
ii) a second fluid parameter that characterizes mixing of drill cuttings with the drilling fluid during the particular drilling operation (claim is in alternative – for purpose of compact prosecution, art is applied
Hammond – see par 57 - For example, the drilling fluid including the mixture of drill cuttings at various sizes may be separated for example using a sieve so as to obtain a series of samples of various size relatively smaller cuts containing no large cuttings and a sample of ‘large’ cuttings from which single large cuttings may be selected. In embodiments therefore the selected large cuttings are greater than a second predetermined threshold. As explained above, the larger cuttings are of particular interest because they allow geometry-dependent quantities to be estimated and also allow intact microfossils to be identified for correlation purposes. See par 59 - since barite is uniquely present in the drilling fluid, measuring the barite of the ‘wet’ sample indicates how much of the reference ‘mud’ signal data to subtract. As a result, the formation composition of the drill cuttings in the first sample may be estimated more accurately. see par 65 - the injected mud flow rate as well as the annulus area versus depth may be measured and thus represent known parameters. If one further assumes absence of kicks and losses, the overall hydrodynamic transport of fine cuttings may thus be calculated, and the amount of hydrodynamic dispersion (e.g. Taylor dispersion) is corrected for (at step 130 of FIGS. 1 and 2) by applying a deblurring operator for example).
Hammond discloses “ the solids carrying capacity of the drilling fluid, as characterized by its viscosity, yield stress, and shear thinning behaviour and its density compared to that of the formation rocks, must be sufficient that the settling of the small cuttings is insignificant over the time taken for a particular volume of drilling fluid to travel from the drill bit to the surface” (See par 99).
Coussot discloses:
iii) third and fourth fluid parameters that characterize normal stress in the drilling fluid during the drilling operation (Examiner notes that current claim only requires one fluid parameter from one of the groups. Applicant’s [0097 as published states that stress difference can be measured using standard methodology as described in … Maklad, R. J. Poole, “A review of the second normal-stress difference; its importance in various flows, measurement techniques, results for various complex fluids and theoretical predictions”, Journal of Non-Newtonian Fluid Mechanics, 292 (2021).
Coussot – see page 4452, Col. 2, 2nd paragraph - Indeed, the measured shear stress was proportional to the suspension height in the bob and thus proportional to the mean normal stress due to gravity, and did not vary with the interstitial fluid or velocity. When the rotational velocity increases, the repulsive force increases and the gravity force, which acts vertically but transmits forces transversally through grain contacts, was now unable to maintain particles in direct frictional contact. This appeared from the fact that the suspension behaves as a Newtonian fluid within the range of largest shear rates. In addition, for a given particle size, all curves can be plotted along a master curve in a diagram the ratio of wall shear stress to fluid height and the ratio of (repulsive) viscous force to normal force (C); Le = expression for repulsive viscous force to the normal force ration with any normal stress (N)… also can show the Le (equation 14) is proportional to the ratio of a characteristic time for particle to enter into direct contact with another particle when moving through the fluid under action of external normal stress).
Hammond and Coussot are analogous art as they are directed to analyzing drilling fluids (see Hammond Abstract; See Coussot Abstract, page 4445, col. 1, 1st paragraph “flows of… drilling muds”). Hammond discloses “ the solids carrying capacity of the drilling fluid, as characterized by its viscosity, yield stress, and shear thinning behaviour and its density compared to that of the formation rocks, must be sufficient that the settling of the small cuttings is insignificant over the time taken for a particular volume of drilling fluid to travel from the drill bit to the surface” (See par 99). Coussot improves upon Hammond by disclosing considering normal stress in the fluid. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to further include considering normal stress to efficiently improve upon the characterizing of drill cuttings from drill fluids in Hammond.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the analysis of drilling fluid in Hammond to further consider normal stress as disclosed in Coussot, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable and there is a reasonable expectation of success.
Concerning claim 2, Hammond discloses considering shear thinning behaviour (See par 99) and considering advection-diffusion equation for concentration of formation material of species at the exit of the well (See par 67, 78 – advection-diffusion model for transport of small cuttings).
Coussot discloses:
A method according to claim 1, wherein:
the first fluid parameter represents a Mason number or a critical shear rate based on a Mason number.
Coussot page 4450
PNG
media_image1.png
918
610
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to combine Hammond and Coussot for the same reasons as claim 1. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to further include adding the known calculation for a Mason number using various characteristics to efficiently improve upon the shearing behavior and advection-diffusion analysis of drilling fluid in Hammond.
Concerning claim 3, Hammond discloses:
A method according to claim 1, wherein:
the first fluid parameter represents a Mason number, the Mason number based on a shear rate calculated from operating parameters (Coussot page 4450 above – “Mason Number”) of the particular drilling operation selected from the group consisting of: drill pipe radius, drilled borehole radius, angular velocity of the drill string/drill bit, and drilling fluid flow rate (disclosing alternative of velocity, fluid flow rates - Hammond see par 67 - he concentration (mass per unit volume) of formation material of species i at the exit of the well, W.sub.i(0,t), may be computed from an analytical solution of the advection-diffusion equation [see equation 1, 2]; where U is the (dimensionless) rate of penetration assumed constant in time, L(t)=L.sub.0+Ut is the (dimensionless) depth of the drill bit, V is the (dimensionless) drilling fluid (‘mud’) circulation velocity assumed constant in time, W.sub.i.sup.rock is the composition of the formation, and D is the (dimensionless) coefficient of axial dispersion/diffusion assumed constant; see par 71 – “The above exemplary equations assume that the drilling fluid flow rates and rate of penetration are constant in time, but these parameters could alternatively be assumed to vary in time”; see also par 74-75 – mud circulation velocity; see also par 99 - For settling to be negligible we require that the speed of settling be less than the average speed of drilling fluid in the annulus in proportion to the ratio of the depth resolution required in the log of downhole properties to the total depth of the well (i.e. if we require 10 meter resolution, and the well is 1000 metres deep, then the settling speed must be less than 1/100 of the average drilling fluid velocity). This ensures that the cuttings do not slip so far as to prejudice depth allocation on the basis of the advection diffusion equation where the advection velocity is the average drilling fluid velocity.
see also Coussot page 4450 – same as claim 2 citation above – with Mason Number; see also page 4450, col. 2, paragraph 1 – simple shear behavior of suspensions for a wide range of concentrations can be superimposed on a master curve by simply scaling the shear stress and the shear rate).
It would have been obvious to combine Hammond and Coussot for the same reasons as claims 1 and 2.
Concerning claim 19, Hammond discloses:
A method according to claim 1, wherein:
the at least one fluid parameter is determined by a data processor (Hammond – see par 28 - computer processor programmed to carry out instructions comprising: for each of the one or more formation attributes characterized, estimating a distribution of formation attribute characterization versus depth of provenance including solving a set of equations which define a hydrodynamic transport within the drilling fluid of the drill cuttings characterized, for example the effect of diffusion and dispersion on the hydrodynamic transport).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hammond (US 2022/0186604) in view of Coussot et al, "Rheophysical classification of concentrated suspensions and granular pastes," 1999, Physical Review E, Vol. 59, No. 4, pages 4445-4457, as applied to claims 1-3 and 19 above, and further in view of Koumakis et al., “Tuning colloidal gels by shear,” Soft Matter, The Royal Society of Chemistry, 2015, Vol. 11, pp. 4640-4648 (cited in IDS).
Concerning claim 4, Hammond discloses:
A method according to claim 3, wherein:
the drilling fluid comprises an oil-based mud (Hammond – see par 5 - Drill cuttings are produced as rock is broken by the drill bit advancing through a rock formation. The drill cuttings usually are carried to the surface by a drilling fluid (also known as mud or drilling mud) circulating up from the drill bit so that the drill cuttings are removed from the well to avoid clogging; see par 54 - The drilling fluid (also known as drilling mud) contains a spectrum of cutting sizes, from large sized cut material down to very finely sized cut material.
See also Coussot page 4450, col. 2, 1st paragraph - Experimental works with clay-water suspensions [31], coal slurries, and silica particles in silicone oil showed that the simple shear behavior of suspensions for a wide range of concentrations can be superimposed on a master curve by simply scaling the shear stress by t c and the shear rate by t c /m.).
Coussot discloses Mason number [see claim 2 above].
Koumakis discloses:
the first fluid parameter represents a Mason number calculated from a mathematical equation of the form
PNG
media_image2.png
42
157
media_image2.png
Greyscale
NPL-Koumakis – see page 4642, col. 1 – introducing Peclet number in col.1; col. 2 – “n being the solvent viscosity”;
see page 4643, col. 1 -
PNG
media_image3.png
314
408
media_image3.png
Greyscale
where M.sub.n is the Mason number (Peltet number = Mason Number),
η.sub.0 is the fluid viscosity of the continuous phase in the drilling fluid (NPL Koumakis – has 12π (pi) in numerator, multiplied by the same fluid viscosity (n),…),
ϕ is the volume fraction of the dispersed phase in the drilling fluid (Koumakis – equation 1 –
PNG
media_image4.png
112
600
media_image4.png
Greyscale
a variable is “range of attraction”, which in combination with R3 , is mapped to both Φ and ε),
G.sub.10 is the short time elastic modulus (at 10 second sample age) of the drilling fluid (G.sub.10. is explained by Applicant on paragraph 81 as published with equation 3:
PNG
media_image5.png
170
426
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Coussot discloses page 4450, col. 2 - that master curves obtained when scaling with “G is the elastic modulus”. Koumakis also discloses – see page 4644, col. 1, 1st paragraph “elastic modulus exhibits a moderate increase after weak preshear in contrast to presehear>1 where stronger gel structures, with higher G’, are created at long times.” Koumakis discloses a range of elastic modulus),
σ.sub.y is the dynamic yield stress of the drilling fluid (Hammond – see par 56 - The assumption is thus that the small drill cuttings in the first sample are transported to the surface by the flowing bulk mud because they would be kept in suspension by yield stress effects, turbulence or Brownian motion. See par 99 - . It will further be appreciated that this places requirements in the drilling fluid. For example, the solids carrying capacity of the drilling fluid, as characterized by its viscosity, yield stress, and shear thinning behaviour and its density compared to that of the formation rocks, must be sufficient that the settling of the small cuttings is insignificant over the time taken for a particular volume of drilling fluid to travel from the drill bit to the surface;
see also Koumakis page 4643, col. 2, 2nd paragraph - around the yield stress plateau, plastic flow takes place, and particles are given ample time to reconfigure and compactify within clusters, while the system does not exhibit significant structural rearrangement after shear is stopped),
ε is the range of the interaction potential for the drilling fluid (Koumakis – equation 1 –
PNG
media_image4.png
112
600
media_image4.png
Greyscale
a variable is “range of attraction”, which in combination with R3 , is mapped to both Φ and ε),
r is the size of the dispersed phase in the drilling fluid (Koumakis – page 4641, col. 1, section 2 – explains R = 830 nm is hard-sphere particles of radius suspended in a density), and
PNG
media_image6.png
37
33
media_image6.png
Greyscale
is the shear rate of the drilling fluid (Koumakis – equation 1 has same variable in numerator).
NPL-Koumakis – see page 4642, col. 1 – introducing Peclet number in col.1; col. 2 – “n being the solvent viscosity”).
Hammond, Coussot, and Koumakis are analogous art as they are directed to analyzing drilling fluids (see Hammond Abstract; See Coussot Abstract, page 4445, col. 1, 1st paragraph “flows of… drilling muds”; Koumakis Abstract, page 4640, Introduction – “drilling muds”). Hammond discloses a drilling mud (See par 54) and considering advection-diffusion equation for concentration of formation material of species at the exit of the well (See par 67, 78 – advection-diffusion model for transport of small cuttings) and drilling fluid characterized by viscosity, yield stress, and shear thinning behavior (See par 99). Coussot discloses calculating a Mason number for a fluid (See page 4450) and use of elastic modulus (See page 4450). Koumakis improves upon Hammond and Coussot by disclosing computing a Peclet number that considers viscosity, radius, yield stress, range of attraction, size of particles, and shear rate, where elastic modulus changes at times. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to further include specific factors to form a parameter for drilling fluids to efficiently improve upon the characterizing of drill cuttings from drill fluids in Hammond and the Mason number for a fluid in Coussot.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the analysis of drilling fluid in Hammond to further calculate a Mason number as disclosed in Coussot, and to further calculate a Peclet number in Koumakis, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable and there is a reasonable expectation of success.
Concerning claim 5, Hammond discloses:
A method according to claim 3, wherein:
the drilling fluid comprises a water-based mud (Hammond – see par 5 - Drill cuttings are produced as rock is broken by the drill bit advancing through a rock formation. The drill cuttings usually are carried to the surface by a drilling fluid (also known as mud or drilling mud) circulating up from the drill bit so that the drill cuttings are removed from the well to avoid clogging; see par 54 - The drilling fluid (also known as drilling mud) contains a spectrum of cutting sizes, from large sized cut material down to very finely sized cut material;
Coussot – see page 4446, col. 1 “so-called Atterberg limits (giving the water content of clay materials, respectively, for the plastic failure and flow Beginning) are arbitrarily defined by an experimental protocol.”); and
the first fluid parameter represents a Mason number calculated from a mathematical equation of the form
PNG
media_image7.png
85
139
media_image7.png
Greyscale
where M.sub.n is the Mason number,
K is the plastic viscosity of the drilling fluid,
G is the short time elastic modulus (at 10 second sample age) of the drilling fluid, and
PNG
media_image6.png
37
33
media_image6.png
Greyscale
is the shear rate of the drilling fluid (Coussot – see page 4449, col. 1, 1st paragraph – K is a coefficient which depends on the shape and size of the particle and on the orientation of the particle; It has been shown that the viscosity of hard sphere suspensions can be correctly evaluated by simply considering that the particles are added progressively in a fluid of increasing viscosity as a result of previously added particles [33]. A mathematical rule for the relative viscosity (µ/µ0) results, which makes it possible to determine the form of this function of the solid fraction (with an arbitrary parameter).; see cl. 1, last paragraph – col. 2, 1st paragraph, equation 4 – Peclet number having K multiplied by shear rate y. Instead of G this has b2/kT.
PNG
media_image8.png
88
358
media_image8.png
Greyscale
see page 4446, col. 1, 2nd paragraph - Here the constitutive equation is generally inferred using phenomenological relations concerning plastic dissipation and the so-called flow rule, which enables one to relate a strain increment to a stress increment; page 4450, col. 2 - Similar master curves were obtained [36] when scaling the shear stress with G and the shear rate with G/m, where G is the elastic modulus, which is more or less proportional to t c;
See also Koumakis – page 4643, col. 2, last paragraph – page 4644, col. 1, 1st paragraph – In agreement with the rheological trends inferred from the experiments, the elastic modulus exhibits an increase… with higher G created at “long times”, Koumakis discloses a range of elastic modulus).
It would have been obvious to combine Hammond and Coussot and Koumakis for the same reasons as claim 4. In addition, Hammond discloses a drilling mud (See par 54) and considering advection-diffusion equation for concentration of formation material of species at the exit of the well (See par 67, 78 – advection-diffusion model for transport of small cuttings) and drilling fluid characterized by viscosity, yield stress, and shear thinning behavior (See par 99). Coussot improves upon Hammond by calculating a Mason number for a fluid and having elastic modulus (page 4450), and considering strain increment related to a stress increment (See page 4446) and Koumakis discloses elastic modulus changing at times.
Claims 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hammond (US 2022/0186604) in view of Coussot et al, "Rheophysical classification of concentrated suspensions and granular pastes," 1999, Physical Review E, Vol. 59, No. 4, pages 4445-4457, as applied to claims 1-3 and 19 above, and further in view of Kulkani (US 2013/0332089).
Concerning claim 6, Hammond discloses:
A method according to claim 1, wherein:
the drilling fluid comprises an oil-based mud (Hammond – see par 5 - Drill cuttings are produced as rock is broken by the drill bit advancing through a rock formation. The drill cuttings usually are carried to the surface by a drilling fluid (also known as mud or drilling mud) circulating up from the drill bit so that the drill cuttings are removed from the well to avoid clogging; see par 54 - The drilling fluid (also known as drilling mud) contains a spectrum of cutting sizes, from large sized cut material down to very finely sized cut material;
See also Coussot page 4450, col. 2, 1st paragraph - Experimental works with clay-water suspensions [31], coal slurries, and silica particles in silicone oil showed that the simple shear behavior of suspensions for a wide range of concentrations can be superimposed on a master curve by simply scaling the shear stress by t c and the shear rate by t c /m).
Hammond discloses estimating a formation attribute distribution and can use automated means (e.g. RockWash automated rock-sample washing and photographic process) (See par 20) and that Information derived from the small cuttings collected manually or automatically at surface is then used to better characterize the larger cuttings, selected according to a minimum threshold (e.g. a sieve size) (See par 23). Coussot discloses using rheometer in experiments (See page 4452, col. 2, 2nd paragraph).
Kulkarni discloses:
the first fluid parameter represents a critical shear rate determined from flow curve measurements of the drilling fluid performed by an automated rheometer (Kulkarni – see par 25 - Rheological data from a viscometer/rheometer may be obtained in terms of shear stress and/or viscosity at desired conditions of shear rate (.gamma.), temperature (T) and pressure (P); see par 28 - Equations were derived to model barite sag behavior based on rheological characteristics. Barite sag may be described by the Stokes flow regime, an extreme case of laminar flow where viscous effects are much greater than inertial forces. ; see par 30-32 - Viscosity can be determined by a viscometer/rheometer at an rpm to match the shear rate. Yield stress and shear thinning index are determined by a viscometer/rheometer at multiple rpm settings, which results are then run through Halliburton DFG software to give numbers for yield stress and shear thinning index. see par 50 - FIG. 1 shows a plot of sag rate predicted by the model (Equations 2 and 3) versus experimental sag as determined by DHAST for above 14 selected drilling fluids. T).
Hammond, Coussot, and Kulkarni are analogous art as they are directed to analyzing drilling fluids (see Hammond Abstract; See Coussot Abstract, page 4445, col. 1, 1st paragraph “flows of… drilling muds”; Kulkarni Abstract, par 24-25). Hammond discloses estimating a formation attribute distribution and can use automated means (e.g. RockWash automated rock-sample washing and photographic process) (See par 20) and that Information derived from the small cuttings collected manually or automatically at surface is then used to better characterize the larger cuttings, selected according to a minimum threshold (e.g. a sieve size) (See par 23). Coussot discloses using rheometer in experiments (See page 4452, col. 2, 2nd paragraph). Kulkarni improves upon Hammond and Coussot by disclosing using a rheometer for assessing shear information. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to further include using a rheometer for assessing shear information to efficiently improve upon the automated means in Hammond and the rheometer in Coussot.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the analysis of drilling fluid in Hammond to further calculate a Mason number as disclosed in Coussot, and to further using rheometer for assessing shear information in Kulkarni, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable and there is a reasonable expectation of success.
Concerning claim 10, Hammond discloses considering yield stress (See par 99). Coussot discloses consideration “normal stress” (See page 4452, col. 2) and “shear stress” (See page 4453, col. 1, 1st paragraph).
Kulkarni discloses:
A method according to claim 1, wherein:
the third fluid parameter represents a first normal stress coefficient Ψ.sub.1, an N.sub.1 stress difference, or another suitable rheological parameter of the drilling fluid; and
the fourth fluid parameter represents a second normal coefficient Ψ.sub.2 of the drilling fluid, an N.sub.2 stress difference, or another suitable rheological parameter of the drilling fluid (Kulkani – see par 17, 34 - In addition to shear stress or viscosity data from a viscometer/rheometer, the visco-elastic data may be obtained from a rheometer at desired conditions of temperature (T) and pressure (P). The visco-elastic data may be in terms of first Normal stress difference, second normal stress difference, primary normal stress coefficient, second normal stress coefficient; see par 20 - heological properties include the viscosity of the fluid surrounding the weighting material and visco-elastic properties that may comprise of first Normal stress difference).
It would have been obvious to combine Hammond and Coussot and Kulkarni for the same reasons as claims 1 and 6. In addition, Hammond discloses considering yield stress (See par 99). Coussot discloses consideration “normal stress” (See page 4452, col. 2) and “shear stress” (See page 4453, col. 1, 1st paragraph). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to further include difference between normal stresses to efficiently improve upon the characterizing of drill cuttings from drill fluids in Hammond and the stress consideration in Coussot.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hammond (US 2022/0186604) in view of Coussot et al, "Rheophysical classification of concentrated suspensions and granular pastes," 1999, Physical Review E, Vol. 59, No. 4, pages 4445-4457, as applied to claims 1-3 and 19 above, and further in view of Busch et al., “Cuttings transport modeling—part 2: dimensional analysis and scaling," 2020, SPE Drilling & Completion, Vol. 35, No. 01, pages 69-87.
Concerning claim 7, Hammond discloses estimating speed with which a small cutting would settle in the drilling fluid, using a mathematical formula to relate settling speed to drilling fluid properties and flow rate, cutting size (See par 99). Coussot discloses “In a suspension, each particle will in fact perturbate the velocity field
at every other particle, a phenomenon which is not accounted for in the above expression. It has been shown that the viscosity of hard sphere suspensions can be correctly evaluated by simply considering that the particles are added progressively
in a fluid of increasing viscosity as a result of previously added particles” (see page 4449, col. 1).
Busch discloses:
A method according to claim 1, wherein: the second fluid parameter represents a dimensionless mixing number based on the combination of a Froude number and a Shields number for the drilling fluid (Busch – see page 70, 5th paragraph - Luo (1988) and Luo et al. (1992) used the Buckingham Pi theorem to define four dimensionless groups characterizing the critical condition for initiation of cuttings movement on the basis of a Newtonian viscosity.2 It was shown that the initiation of cuttings movement can be described with a “modified particle Froude number” (in fact, the Shields number corrected with inclination) as a function of the Reynolds number.
See also page 79 Table showing).
PNG
media_image9.png
68
692
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
48
536
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Hammond, Coussot, and Busch are analogous art as they are directed to analyzing drilling fluids (see Hammond Abstract; See Coussot Abstract, page 4445, col. 1, 1st paragraph “flows of… drilling muds”; Busch Summary). Hammond discloses estimating speed with which a small cutting would settle in the drilling fluid, using a mathematical formula to relate settling speed to drilling fluid properties and flow rate, cutting size (See par 99). Coussot discloses “In a suspension, each particle will in fact perturbate the velocity field at every other particle, a phenomenon which is not accounted for in the above expression. It has been shown that the viscosity of hard sphere suspensions can be correctly evaluated by simply considering that the particles are added progressively in a fluid of increasing viscosity as a result of previously added particles” (see page 4449, col. 1). Busch improves upon Hammond and Coussot by disclosing using having a calculation based on a Froude number and a Shields number. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to further include using the known Froude and Shields numbers which are based on n (viscosity), y (shear rate), p (density), to efficiently improve upon the characterization of drilling fluid by viscosity and density in Hammond (see par 99) and the viscosity (See page 4449, col. 2 – n), shear rate y (See page 4449, col. 1, last paragraph), and p density (See page 4453, col. 1) in Coussot.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the analysis of drilling fluid in Hammond to further calculate fluid properties as disclosed in Coussot, and to further use Froude and Shields calculations as disclosed in Busch, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable and there is a reasonable expectation of success.
Concerning claim 8, Hammond, Coussot, and Busch disclose:
A method according to claim 7, wherein: the second fluid parameter represents a dimensionless mixing number calculated from a mathematical equation of the form (Busch – see page 69, Summary – We first perform a nondimensional analysis for the Herschel-Bulkley (HB) material function (also known as the yield power-law [YPL] model) and establish a respective space of nondimensional numbers (P-space) as well as a generic corresponding nondimensional cuttings-transport-process relationship. In a second step and to ease the derivations, we focus on the power-law (PL) material function and introduce a convenient reference shear rate that allows the evaluation of the reference viscosity in the established nondimensional quantities. Finally, on the basis of the established P-space for the PL fluid, we generalize the specific PL case to the currently recommended HB material function by means of a local PL approximation)
PNG
media_image11.png
76
402
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s specificion [0089 as published] explains “the dimensionless number based on the combinat of a Froude number and Shields number for the drilling fluid, Ta is the Taylor number which is the ratio of inerial to viscous stresses”
Busch discloses the limitations based on broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, disclosing Shields, Taylor, and Froude calculations together on page 76 and in table on page 79; below are equations from page 76:
PNG
media_image12.png
72
754
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
116
770
media_image13.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
124
754
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Page 79
PNG
media_image15.png
74
778
media_image15.png
Greyscale
where Ξ is the dimensionless mixing parameter based on the combination of a Froude number and a Shields number for the drilling fluid,
ρ.sub.s is the characteristic density of the particles (drill cuttings) (Busch – see page 83 - p = density),
ρ.sub.f is the fluid density of the drilling fluid (Busch – see page 83 - p = density),
a is the characteristic radius of the particles (drill cuttings) (Busch – see page 83 – uses d = diameter),
R.sub.i is the radius of the drilled borehole (Busch – see page 83 – R = radius),
ω is the angular velocity of the drill string/drill bit (Busch – see page 83 – w = rotational frequency),
η is the viscosity of the drilling fluid at a desired shear rate (Busch – see page 83 – n = viscosity),
H is the gap between the drill pipe and the borehole (Busch – see page 72 – Ej is the distance between the center of the drillpipe and the hole in each direction as displayed in Fig. 1.),
g is the gravitational constant (Busch – see page 83 – g = gravity), and
n is an arbitrary scale factor (Busch – n = power-law exponent).
It would have been obvious to combine Hammond and Coussot and Busch for the same reasons as claim 1 and 7 above.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hammond (US 2022/0186604) in view of Coussot et al, "Rheophysical classification of concentrated suspensions and granular pastes," 1999, Physical Review E, Vol. 59, No. 4, pages 4445-4457, as applied to claims 1-3 and 19 above, and further in view of Wang, “Lubricity and Rheological Properties of Highly Dispersed Graphite in Clay-Water-Based Drilling Fluids,” 2022, Materials, Vol. 15, 1083, pages 1-13.
Concerning claim 9, Hammond discloses:
A method according to claim 1, wherein: the second fluid parameter represents a dimensionless mixing number related to a mixing parameter derived from x-ray … experiments (Hammond – see par 58 - The samples are then prepared for measurement, for example cleaned further and ground up to a very fine state. At step 120 of FIG. 1 compositions and constituents (e.g. chemical compounds, minerals or elements present etc.), characteristics (e.g. physical properties such as density etc.) and attributes (e.g. color, characteristic distinguishing features including descriptors of shape and size etc.) of drill cuttings in the extracted samples and associated information obtain manually and/or automatically (e.g. via RockWash™ etc.) are characterized (this step corresponding to step 121 in FIGS. 2 and 3). The extracted samples are characterized using one or more methods known in the art such as: x-ray techniques for elemental content. ).
Coussot discloses contact mechanics include adhesion (See page 4451, Section VI).
Wang discloses adsorption:
A method according to claim 1, wherein: the second fluid parameter represents a dimensionless mixing number related to a mixing parameter derived from x-ray “adsorption” experiments (Wang – See pages 2-3 – components for drilling fluid mixed and stirred together; see page 7, Section 3.6 – X-ray experiment to analyze change in structure; See FIG. 4 – showing adsorption of CTACT does not change the crystal structure of graphite).
Hammond, Coussot, and Wang are analogous art as they are directed to analyzing drilling fluids (see Hammond Abstract; See Coussot Abstract, page 4445, col. 1, 1st paragraph “flows of… drilling muds”; Wang Abstract). Hammond discloses using x-ray techniques to analyze samples (See par 58). Coussot discloses contact mechanics include adhesion (See page 4451, Section VI). Wang improves upon Hammond and Coussot by disclosing using x-ray to analyze adsorption. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to further include using x-ray to analyze adsorption to efficiently improve upon the x-ray analysis in Hammond and the surface tension consideration in Coussot.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the analysis of drilling fluid in Hammond to further calculate a Mason number as disclosed in Coussot, and to further analyze adsorption from x-ray analysis as disclosed in Wang, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable and there is a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 11, 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hammond (US 2022/0186604) in view of Coussot et al, "Rheophysical classification of concentrated suspensions and granular pastes," 1999, Physical Review E, Vol. 59, No. 4, pages 4445-4457, as applied to claims 1-3 and 19 above, and further in view of Kang, “Flow instability and transitions in Taylor–Couette flow of a semidilute non-colloidal suspension,” 2021, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 916, A12, pages 1-27.
Concerning claim 11, Hammond discloses:
A method according to claim 1, further comprising:
determining a transport efficiency metric based on the second fluid parameter in combination with a settling factor… (Hammond – see par 62 - Estimating the distribution comprises solving a set of equations which define a hydrodynamic transport of the compound within the drilling fluid and correcting for diffusion effects. See par 65 - The injected mud flow rate as well as the annulus area versus depth may be measured and thus represent known parameters. If one further assumes absence of kicks and losses, the overall hydrodynamic transport of fine cuttings may thus be calculated, and the amount of hydrodynamic dispersion (e.g. Taylor dispersion) is corrected for (at step 130 of FIGS. 1 and 2) by applying a deblurring operator for example. As above, ‘deblurring’ refers to correction for the effects of hydrodynamic diffusion of small cuttings within the drilling mud. A probability distribution for a log of formation composition versus depth then may be derived from the measured time series of fine cuttings compositions at surface. See par 99 - For example, we might estimate the speed with which a small cutting would settle in the drilling fluid, using a suitable mathematical formula to relate settling speed to drilling fluid properties and flow rate, cutting size and density, and compare that speed with the average speed of the drilling fluid in the annulus (in the case of Newtonian drilling fluid rheology, Stokes' Law; for non-Newtonian rheology, a rough estimate can be made using Stokes Law with the viscosity taking the average value of that exhibited by the drilling fluid at the average flow rate in the annulus, or alternative a more accurate formula used)).
Kang discloses:
A method according to claim 1, further comprising:
determining a transport efficiency metric based on the second fluid parameter in combination with a settling factor “calculated from the first fluid parameter” (Kang – see page 2, 2nd paragraph - At low Reynolds regime, particles migrate from regions of a higher shear rate to those of a lower shear rate. As a result, a non-uniform distribution of the particle concentration is caused and the velocity profile is altered; see page 6, 3rd paragraph- Here, μs(φ) is the effective shear viscosity of the bulk suspension; page 6, 4th paragraph
PNG
media_image16.png
108
586
media_image16.png
Greyscale
see page 21, last paragraph - Figure 16(b) shows the variation of the pseudo-Nusselt number (Nω) with Res. As menti