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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-2, 5, 7, 11, 14, and 16-20 were amended.
Response to Arguments
Claim objections
Applicant’s amendment to claim 14 overcomes the objection to claim 14 set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 04/29/2026.
35 USC § 112
The rejection of claims 16 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 04/29/2026, are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments filled on 07/24/2026.
35 USC § 101
Applicants’ amendments with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered.
The applicant’s arguments regarding integrating judicial exception into practical application for claims 1, 11, and 20 are unpersuasive. Applicant argues (PP. 7-8) that adding the limitation “modifying an operational parameter of a drilling operation based on the first drilling modification procedure” specifies the nature of the modification, requiring a concrete physical action that impacts the physical downhole environment. Applicant further argues (PP. 8-9) that the specification establishes a technical improvement over conventional systems by using calculated heat generation to determine how to modify drilling fluid to reduce friction.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments as no real-world physical transformation or concrete physical process has been recited in the claims.
Claims 1-20 have been analyzed for patent eligibility and found to recite judicial exceptions that are not integrated into a practical application as amended. The rejections of claims 1-20 mailed on 04/29/2026 are maintained, modified as necessary by the amendments.
35 USC § 102
Applicants’ amendments with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered.
The applicant’s arguments that Parry fails to disclose “modifying an operational parameter of a drilling operation based on the first drilling modification procedure”, contending that Parry’s staging strategy merely discloses the suspension or activation of operating condition is not persuasive, because Parry discloses that calculated downhole heat generation triggers an operational modification procedure that adjusts drilling parameters, ¶ [90 & 122].
The applicant’s arguments that Maus fails to disclose “modifying an operational parameter of a drilling operation based on the first drilling modification procedure”, asserting that Maus’s disclosure is directed strictly to altering physical component functions rather than operational parameters of the drilling operation itself is unpersuasive, because Maus discloses method 800, and step 808 sends a control signal to modify specific drilling parameters (top drive torque, WOB, ROP, and pump rate: ¶ [117-118])
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea as discussed below. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons discussed below.
Step 1 of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine if the claims are to one of the statutory categories of invention. Applied to the present application, claims 1-20 are directed to methods, and a system for modifying drilling operations which fall within one of the statutory categories of invention (Claims 1-19, process) and (claim 20, machine) under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Step 2A prong 1: Claim 1 is reproduced below with the abstract idea underlined.
Claim 1: a method for modifying drilling operations, comprising: obtaining first measured drillstring data associated with a drillstring; generating first calculated drillstring data based on the first measured drillstring data; and performing a first drilling modification procedure based on the first calculated drillstring data and modifying an operational parameter of a drilling operation based on the first drilling modification procedure.
Claim 1 recites steps including obtaining measured drillstring data, performing calculations and making a determination or decision based on the results. Such limitations fall within the categories of mathematical concepts and mental processes, which are recognized as abstract idea.
Claims 11 and 20 are substantially similar in scope to claim 1. Claim 20 merely presents this concept in system form, and claim 11 recites a similar method with slightly different calculated parameters (heat generation). These claims embody the same abstract idea as claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 recite limitations such as calculating specific parameters including friction factors (claims 2, 5, 9, 13-14) and heat generation (claims 5-6, 9-10, 12-13, 17-19), using measured torque as an input (claims 2, 5, 9, 14, 16), comparing calculated values to thresholds (claims 3, 6-7, 10), and making determinations based on those comparisons (claims 3, 6-7, 10, 18-19). The claims further recite repeating measurements and calculations across multiple iterations (claims 4, 8) and associating values with a plurality of borehole sections (claims 15-17). These limitations involve additional mathematical calculations and evaluative determinations, which fall within the categories of mathematical concepts and mental processes.
Accordingly, claims 1-20 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong 1.
In Step 2A Prong 2 examiner needs to determine if the claim(s) recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. The additional elements in the claim 1 have been left in normal font. Claims 1-20 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because of the following reasons:
Claim 1 recites modifying drilling operations but does not specify the nature of the modification or require that it be implemented as a concrete physical action affecting the drilling operation. As such, the recited modification could encompass merely planning, scheduling, or recommending an action based on the calculated results. Modifying an operational parameter of a drilling operation is merely stating a desired functional outcome. Instructing a computer, operator, or system to generically modify an operational parameter after performing mathematical calculations is considered insignificant post-solution activity. Accordingly, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a particular practical application.
Claims 11 and 20 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for reasons similar to those discussed with respect to claim 1. Claim 20 includes a drillstring and an information handling system operatively connected to the drillstring and configured to perform the recited steps. However, these elements are recited at a high level of generality and merely provide a generic environment for implementing the abstract idea.
In the dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19, the only additional element beyond the abstract idea is the recited drilling modification procedure in claim 7. Although claim 7 specifies “modifying a drilling fluid to reduce friction”, it recites the modification functionality at a high level of generality. The claim fails to recite how or by what physical mechanism the drilling fluid is modified (e.g., adding chemical lubricants, adjusting mud density,…). This limitation constitutes insignificant post-solution activity.
Step 2B: claims 1-20 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements in claims 1-20, individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept under step 2B for the same reasons as set forth with respect to Step 2A Prong 2 analysis. Accordingly, claims 1-20 also fail Step 2B analysis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 11, 12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Parry et al. (US 20130132050 A1) hereinafter Parry.
Regarding claim 1, Parry teaches a method (computer-implemented methods for predicting downhole conditions, abstract) for modifying drilling operations (where the resulting calculations can be used to adjust the real-time drilling process, ¶ [90]), comprising: obtaining first measured drillstring data (the processor 416 reads real-time parameter values such as temperature and pressure from a well-site operating environment 412, ¶ [82]) associated with a drillstring (measurement-while-drilling (MWD) modules contain devices for measuring characteristics of the drill string 12 and drill bit 32 such as downhole temperature and pressure, ¶ [22]); generating first calculated drillstring data based on the first measured drillstring data (the system uses these inputs to calculate heat-source terms including distributed heat generation due to torque losses when the drill string is rotated and friction generated by the cutting action of the drill string, ¶ [42-43]); and performing a first drilling modification procedure based on the first calculated drillstring data (the method can include a staging strategy that can include a staging trigger and an action. Upon detection of a staging trigger (e.g., predicted temperature exceeds a limit), selected operating conditions can be suspended, ¶ [122]); and modifying an operational parameter of a drilling operation based on the first drilling modification procedure (teaches a method that simulates a real-time drilling process. Resulting calculations can be used to adjust the real-time drilling process. ¶ [90]).
Regarding claim 11, Parry teaches a method (computer-implemented methods for predicting downhole conditions, abstract) for modifying drilling operations (where the resulting calculations can be used to adjust the real-time drilling process, ¶ [90]), comprising: obtaining measured drillstring data (the processor 416 reads real-time parameter values such as temperature and pressure from a well-site operating environment 412, ¶ [82]) associated with a drillstring (measurement-while-drilling (MWD) modules contain devices for measuring characteristics of the drill string 12 and drill bit 32 such as downhole temperature and pressure, ¶ [22]); calculating a heat generation using the measured drillstring data (the system uses these inputs to calculate heat-source terms including distributed heat generation due to torque losses when the drill string is rotated and friction generated by the cutting action of the drill string, ¶ [42-43]); and performing a drilling modification procedure based on the heat generation (the method can include a staging strategy that can include a staging trigger and an action. Upon detection of a staging trigger (e.g., predicted temperature exceeds a limit), selected operating conditions can be suspended, ¶ [122] ) and modifying an operational parameter of a drilling operation based on the first drilling modification procedure (teaches a method that simulates a real-time drilling process. Resulting calculations can be used to adjust the real-time drilling process. ¶ [90]).
Regarding claim 12, Parry teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the heat generation is caused by a rotation of the drillstring in a borehole (distributed heat generation due to torque losses when the drill string is rotated ¶ [43]. Parry further teaches that the information handling system receives real-time parameter values associated with the drilling process, including drill-bit revolution-per-minute (RPM), to compute the predicated temperature distribution (heat generation) ¶ [90]).
Regarding claim 20, As discussed with respect to claim 11, Parry teaches a method for modifying drilling operations, comprising: obtaining measured drillstring data associated with the drillstring; calculating a heat generation using the measured drillstring data, wherein, based on the heat generation, a drilling modification procedure is performed.
Parry further discloses a system including a drillstring (drillstring 106, ¶ [29]), in a drilling environment (disposed within a borehole, ¶ [29]) , operatively connected to an information handling system (the system includes a computing device 410 featuring a processor 416 and memory 418, ¶ [79-80]), wherein the information handling system is configured to (the processor 416 is configured to read well data from the operating environment, ¶ [82]) perform such methods as discussed in claim 11.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Maus et al. (US20210381361) hereinafter Maus.
Regarding claim 1, Maus teaches a method for modifying drilling operations ( a method (method 800 fig. 8) and a system that can perform one or more actions resulting in modified drilling operation, abstract), comprising: obtaining first measured drillstring data associated with a drillstring (measuring a torque applied to the drill string and an angular position, ¶ [7]); generating first calculated drillstring data based on the first measured drillstring data ( based on the measured torque … the drilling system computes a friction between borehole and the drill string ¶ [7]. This friction coefficient constitutes calculated drillstring data); and performing a first drilling modification procedure based on the first calculated drillstring data (based on the computed friction, performing an action resulting in modified operation of the drilling system, ¶ [7]) and modifying an operational parameter of a drilling operation based on the first drilling modification procedure (if a friction increase exceeds a threshold therefor or falls outside a target range therefor, the drilling system is programmed to automatically alert an operator and send one or more appropriate control signals to adjust one or more drilling parameters to adjust drilling operations, 808 step in fig 8 and ¶ [117]).
Regarding claim 2, Maus teaches the method of claim 1, wherein: the first measured drillstring data comprises a first measured torque (measures a torque applied to the drill string, ¶ [7]), and the first calculated drillstring data comprises a first friction factor (determining a corresponding friction coefficient, ¶ [2] & ¶ [90]), wherein the first friction factor is calculated using the first measured torque (Based on the measured torque and the measured angular position, the drilling system computes a friction between the borehole and the drill string, abstract) and a force between the drillstring and a borehole wall (models wall contact forces in calculating friction residuals, ¶ [129]).
Regarding claim 3, Maus teaches the method of claim 2, wherein after generating the first calculated drillstring data (¶ [7]) , the method further comprises: making a first determination to perform the first drilling modification procedure (Based on the computed friction, the drilling system can perform one or more actions resulting in modified drilling operation, ¶ [12]) based on the first friction factor exceeding a friction threshold (friction exceeds a threshold … adjust one or more drilling parameters to adjust drilling operations, ¶ [117] also claim 9 ).
Regarding claim 4, Maus teaches the method of claim 3, wherein after the first drilling modification procedure is performed (the friction depth sounding is repeated pr performed at regular intervals to monitor changes in the wellbore¶ [111] and ¶ [117]. Because the system is designed to perform an action (modification) when friction is high, the subsequent repeated sounding measurements naturally occur after that modification.), the method further comprises: obtaining second measured drillstring data associated with the drillstring, including a second measured torque (steps 802 and 804 (fig 8) are repeated at a series of different times ¶ [89] & ¶ [109]. These repeated measurements provide the second measured torque.); and generating second calculated drillstring data based on the second measured drillstring data (for each instance of these repeated measurements, the system computes a corresponding plurality of friction values, ¶ [109]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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, 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 non-obviousness.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maus (US 2021/0381361 A1) hereinafter Maus in view of Parry (US 2013/0132050 A1) hereinafter Parry, and Robert Lynn Williams (AU2015406995 B2) hereinafter Williams.
Regarding Claim 5, Maus teaches the method of claim 4, wherein generating the second calculated drillstring data comprises calculating: a second friction factor using the second measured torque (repeating measurements "at a series of different times" and computing a "friction between the wellbore and the drill string" based on those measured torques fig.8 and ¶ [89]); Maus further teaches that measured torque and wall contact normal forces define the friction factor, ¶ [129]. Maus teaches calculating a second/subsequent static friction factor using the second measured torque and spindle position models (eq. 1-3 and ¶ [101 & 105-106]).
Maus does not teach calculating a heat generation from friction between the drillstring and the borehole wall based on at least the second measured torque and the second friction factor; and a hypothetical heat generation based on the first friction factor and the second friction factor.
Parry recites distributed heat generation due to torque losses when the drill string is rotated as a parameter accounted for within its partitioned calculation domain (¶ [43]). To support this calculation, Parry describes a measuring-while-drilling (MWD) module that includes a torque measuring device to measure characteristics of the drill string (¶ [22]). Parry establishes that mechanical energy losses—including those from torque, friction generated by the cutting action, and viscous dissipation—are converted to heat generated and added to the heat source terms of the mathematical model to predict downhole temperature distributions (¶ [43]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine Mau’s real-time updated inputs (second measured torque and second friction factor) into Parry’s thermal model to yield a heat generation value calculated based on at least second measured torque and the second friction factor in order to account for thermal effects during drilling operations. Such a combination would have predictably improved the system by enabling protection of downhole components, improving borehole stability, and allowing real-time adjustment of drilling procedures based on thermal conditions.
Maus in view of Parry does not teach calculating a hypothetical heat generation based on the first friction factor and the second friction factor.
Williams teaches the diagnostic logic of using a hypothetical or tuned baseline to trigger operational changes. Williams teaches generating a predicted value (Abstract), measuring a real value, and using the difference (Δp) to make a determination for future operations (¶ [27]). Hypothetical heat is a theoretical value calculated by applying a prior friction factor to current conditions. This is the functional equivalent of Williams's tuned predicted value, which adjusts a prediction based on historical performance data to create a reliable baseline for making operational decisions (¶ [16 & 38-39]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to integrate the tuning logic of Williams into the automated friction loop of Maus in view of thermal framework of Parry to evaluate the effectiveness of drilling modifications under changing downhole conditions. In particular, because drilling environments are dynamic and parameters such as depth and formation conditions affect torque and heat generation, it would have been desirable to distinguish between changes caused by environmental factors and those resulting from applied modifications.
Therefore, Maus in view of Parry and Williams teaches calculating a hypothetical heat generation (Williams, an initial value generated by a model to forecast an environment or operation, Abstract) based on the first friction factor (Maus, initial computed friction 806, fig. 8 (Williams, original predicted value, ¶ [49])) and the second friction factor (Maus, Repeated friction value, ¶ [89-90], (Williams, current measured value ¶ [49]).
Claims 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maus (US 2021/0381361 A1) hereinafter Maus in view of Parry (US 2013/0132050 A1) hereinafter Parry, Robert Lynn Williams (AU2015406995 B2) hereinafter Williams, and Robert Lynn Williams (AU2015406996 B2) hereinafter Lynn.
Regarding claim 6, Maus in view of Parry and Williams teaches the method of claim 5, wherein after generating the second calculated drillstring data, the method further comprises: calculating a reduction in heat generation using a difference between the heat generation and the hypothetical heat generation (Williams explicitly teaches determining a difference (Δp) by comparing a measured parameter to an associated predicted parameter, ¶ [49]).
While Maus in view of Parry and Williams establishes the automated modification loop and provides the motivation to use heat generation as the safety metric (the thermal limit from Parry ¶ [1 & 122] and predetermined thresholds for triggering warnings, Parry ¶ 86]) and discloses the specific logic (William, ¶ [49] ) required to determine if a reduction in that heat is sufficient to validate the success of a drilling modification,
Maus in view of Parry and Williams does not explicitly teach making a second determination that the reduction in heat generation surpasses a heat reduction threshold.
Lynn discloses the diagnostic step of making a determination in response to the difference exceeding a threshold (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to Incorporate this threshold-based evaluation into the combined system to determine whether the reduction in heat generation is sufficient to meet operational or safety requirements. The combination would have predictably improved the system by enabling reliable validation of drilling modifications under dynamically changing downhole conditions, thereby improving operational control and safety.
Therefore, Maus in view of Parry, Williams and Lynn teaches making a second determination that the reduction in heat generation surpasses a heat reduction threshold.
Regarding claim 7, As discussed with respect to claim 5 and claim 6, Maus in view of Parry, Williams and Lynn teaches the method of claim 5, wherein after generating the second calculated drillstring data, the method further comprises: calculating a reduction in heat generation using a difference between the heat generation and the hypothetical heat generation; making a second determination that the reduction in heat generation does not surpass a heat reduction threshold (Maus in view of Parry, Williams and Lynn teaches determination that the reduction in heat generation surpasses a heat reduction threshold. Making the logical determination that a reduction fails to hit a target is the routine binary counterpart to the threshold monitoring teaching of claim6 ); performing a second drilling modification procedure based on the second determination (Maus, Friction sounding is repeated at regular time or depth intervals ¶ [109] and that this repetition is used for remedial action ¶[111]. Maus also teaches the look back logic by specifying that upon computing the friction at step 806, the drilling system compares the computed friction to the threshold ¶ [117]. If the threshold is still exceeded in a subsequent cycle (the second determination), the system executes step 808 (fig. 8) again ¶ [50]) and modifying a drilling fluid to reduce friction between the drillstring and the borehole wall based at least in part on the second drilling modification (Maus teaches that when computed wellbore friction exceeds a threshold, the system sends control signals to adjust drilling parameters, including pump rate to mitigate friction, ¶ [118]).
Claim 8 is rejected for the same reasoning set forth for claim 7.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to continue the iterative process to obtain additional (third) measured drillstring data (third measured torque) and generate corresponding calculated data following a subsequent drilling modification. Such repetition represents a predictable and routine use of Maus’s disclosed high-frequency measurement and calculation loop to monitor system performance over successive iterations.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected for the same reasoning set forth for claim 8. These claims represent an iterative repetition of the diagnostic and operational logic established in the previous claims (claims 5-8).
Claims 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parry (US 2013/0132050) hereinafter Parry in view of Maus (US 2021/0381361 A1) hereinafter Maus.
Regarding claim 13, Parry teaches the method of claim 12 as discussed in rejection of claim 11 and claim 12,
Parry teaches calculating heat generation due to torque losses but does not recite calculating a friction factor as an intermediate parameter for determining heat generation.
Parry does not teach wherein calculating heat generation comprises: calculating a friction factor between the drillstring and the borehole.
Maus Explicitly teaches computing a friction factor (e.g., a coefficient of static friction) between the borehole and the drillstring (¶ [2]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the friction factor calculated from measured torque as taught by Maus as an input to the thermal modeling of Parry in order to more accurately determine heat generation, thereby enhancing system reliability and safety in drilling operations.
Therefore, Parry in view of Maus teaches wherein calculating heat generation comprises: calculating a friction factor between the drillstring and the borehole (Maus, ¶ [2]).
Regarding claim 14, Parry in view of Maus teaches the method of claim 13 as discussed in rejection of claim 13,
Parry teaches calculating heat generation due to torque losses to evaluate downhole condition ¶ [43] but does not explicitly disclose calculating a friction factor using measured torque applied to the drillstring.
Parry does not teach wherein: the measured drillstring data comprises a measured torque applied to the drillstring, and calculating the friction factor is done using the measured torque.
Maus teaches that top drive torque T(t) (a torque applied to drillstring) is measured and used as an input parameter for the model to compute the friction coefficient ¶ [87 & 91].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use measured top drive torque, as taught by Maus, as an input for calculating a friction factor within the thermal framework modeling of Parry, because this allows the system to calculate the friction factor dynamically rather than relying on theoretical constants and this improves the accuracy of real-time heat generation predictions.
Therefore, Parry in view of Maus teaches wherein: the measured drillstring data comprises a measured torque applied to the drillstring (Parry, ¶ 87& 91]), and calculating the friction factor is done using the measured torque.
Regarding claim 15, Parry in view of Maus teaches the method of claim 13 as discussed in rejection of claim 13, wherein the borehole comprises a plurality of borehole sections (Parry, partitioning the calculation domain into axial sub-domain and mesh cells representing different segments (sections) of the borehole ¶ [36]).
It should be noted that while Parry provides the mathematical framework for partitioning the borehole, Maus provides the mechanical basis for identifying these sections. Maus describes different trajectory-based segments of the borehole, including vertical, build-up, and horizontal sections (Maus, ¶ [59]), and further teaches analyzing drilling parameters over discrete intervals, such as stand-by-stand portions of the wellbore and at regular depth intervals to generate friction profiles (Maus, ¶ [86]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to represent the borehole as a plurality of sections, as taught by Parry and Maus, in order to enable localized analysis of mechanical and thermal parameters along the wellbore. Aligning discrete measurement intervals (as in Maus) with modeled segments (as in Parry) represents a routine and predictable approach to improving the resolution and accuracy of drilling condition monitoring.
Regarding claim 16, Parry in view of Maus teaches the method of claim 15 as discussed in rejection of claim 15,
Parry teaches partitioning of the borehole into multiple sections for analysis.
Parry does not teach wherein a plurality of forces between the drillstring and a borehole wall are calculated for each of the plurality of borehole sections, respectively.
Maus further teaches calculating wall contact forces (normal/side contact forces) between the drillstring and borehole wall across discrete depth intervals/sections along the borehole, ¶ [109 & 112 & 129]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to apply Maus’s calculation of borehole wall contact/normal forces across the partitioned borehole sections of Parry. Doing so allows for a localized section by section evaluation of contact forces and mechanical friction, enabling more precise operational analysis, thereby improving the accuracy of the combined system.
Regarding claim 17, Parry in view of Maus teaches the method of claim 16 as discussed in rejection of claim 16,
Parry teaches that heat is generated by torque losses when the drill string is rotated (¶ [43]) and it incorporates these losses into mathematical model via local heat source terms within the mesh cells (¶ [97]). It further teaches defining modeling equations to predict temperature distributions for each of the sub-domains (¶ [118]).
Parry does not teach calculating the heat generation based on the plurality of forces between the drillstring and a borehole wall.
Parry does not teach wherein a plurality of heat generations is calculated for each of the plurality of borehole sections based on the plurality of forces between the drillstring and a borehole wall, respectively.
Maus teaches measuring a plurality of torque values at a high rate and repeating this at regular time or depth intervals such as at each stand (¶ [89]). Maus further teaches calculating wall contact forces (normal/side contact forces) between the drillstring and borehole wall across discrete depth intervals/sections along the borehole, ¶ [109 & 112 & 129]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to apply the sectional wall contact forces (normal/side contact forces) from Maus to the corresponding mesh cells in Parry to calculate heat generation for each section respectively to identify exactly which borehole section is producing excessive heat, enabling more precise and localized intervention.
Regarding claim 18, Parry in view of Maus teaches the method of claim 13 as discussed in rejection of claim 13, wherein the method further comprises: stopping the drilling modification procedure (Parry, A staging strategy used to manage drilling operations. The staging strategy includes a staging trigger and an action such that upon detection of a staging trigger, selected operating conditions can be suspended ¶ [122])
Parry teaches triggering an action if for example a tool temperature exceeds a certain value and it suspend the operation until a predicted temperature distribution has decreased to a certain value (¶ [122]). Parry also accounts for heat generation due to torque losses in its calculations when the drill string is rotated as well as heat generation due to friction generated by the cutting action of the drill string (¶ [43]). Parry further discloses a stagging strategy that includes conditions for determining repetition of operations (¶ [122]).
However, Parry does not teach stopping the drilling modification procedure based on a second heat generation, wherein the second heat generation is calculated using based on a second friction factor.
Maus teaches that the system computes a friction (coefficient of static friction) (¶ [2]) and it further teaches that these measurements and computations are repeated during drilling… to determine multiple friction values (Abstract); obtaining a subsequent or second friction factor is the literal outcome of this repeated loop. Maus specifies that the system compares the computed friction to the threshold to determine if actions should be performed (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to calculate a subsequent (second) heat generation based on a subsequent (second) friction factor in order to accurately evaluate whether drilling modifications should be continued or stopped in a dynamic drilling environment. Doing so ensures that the system’s staging triggers are based on current and accurate conditions to maintain reliable thermal safety monitoring .
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parry (US 2013/0132050) hereinafter Parry in view of Maus (A1US 2021/0381361 A1) hereinafter Maus, and Williams (AU2015406995 B2) hereinafter Williams.
Regarding claim 19, As discussed with respect to Claim 18, Parry teaches stopping (suspending) drilling operations based on a staging trigger, and Maus teaches repeatedly determining friction factors based on measured torque. Maus further teaches that measured torque and wall contact normal forces define the friction factor, ¶ [129]. Maus teaches calculating a second/subsequent static friction factor using the second measured torque and spindle position models (eq. 1-3 and ¶ [101 & 105-106]).
However, Parry and Maus do not explicitly teach evaluating the stopping condition based on a hypothetical heat generation on at least the friction factor and the second friction factor to determine friction reduction between the drillstring and the borehole wall.
Williams teaches determining a difference between a predicted parameter and a measured parameter to evaluate system performance and validate operational decisions.
Williams teaches the diagnostic logic of using a hypothetical or tuned baseline to trigger operational changes. Williams teaches generating a predicted value (Abstract), measuring a real value, and using the difference (Δp) to make a determination for future operations (¶ [27]). Hypothetical heat is a theoretical value calculated by applying a prior friction factor to current conditions. This is analogous to Williams's tuned predicted value, which adjusts a prediction based on historical performance data to create a reliable baseline for making operational decisions (¶ [16 & 38-39]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to integrate the comparison logic of Williams 995 into the combined friction monitoring and thermal framework Parry and Maus. By taking the difference between the initial baseline friction factor and the updated second friction factor, the system calculates the net change (delta) to determine the actual friction reduction between the drillstring and the borehole wall. Such an approach represents a predictable use of known analytical techniques to improve decision-making accuracy in dynamic drilling operations.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAEEDE NAFOOSHE whose telephone number is (571)272-8629. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am -5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Schechter can be reached at 571-272-2302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SAEEDE NAFOOSHE/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/ANDREW SCHECHTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights