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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on -12/23/2024- is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, claim 1 recites:
A method for managing a drilling fluid, comprising:
receiving a measurement of measured drilling fluid properties for a drilling fluid;
comparing the measurement of the measured drilling fluid properties to setpoint drilling fluid properties to generate a difference between the measurement and the setpoint drilling fluid properties; and
based at least in part on the difference between the measurement and the setpoint drilling fluid properties, preparing a recommendation to return the drilling fluid to the setpoint drilling fluid properties.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above.
Under the step 1 of the eligibility analysis, it is determined whether the claims are drawn to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter fall within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in the statutory category of (process).
Under the step 2A, prong one, it is considered whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into groupings of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation, that cover mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) and mental process – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
For example, a step of comparing the measurement of the measured drilling fluid properties to setpoint drilling fluid properties to generate a difference between the measurement and the setpoint drilling fluid properties (is considered to be a mathematical and mental process); and
based at least in part on the difference between the measurement and the setpoint drilling fluid properties, preparing a recommendation to return the drilling fluid to the setpoint drilling fluid properties (is considered to be a mental process).
These mental steps represent that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of the independent claims 12 and 16
Next, under the step 2A, prong two, it is considered whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, it is evaluated whether the claim recites meaningful additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
In claim 1, the additional element in the preamble of “A method for managing…” is not qualified for a meaningful limitation because it only generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements/steps “receiving a measurement of measured drilling fluid…” is also recited in generality which seem to merely be gathering data and not really performing any kind of inventive step to provide any meaningful additional element. Also, it represents an extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. All uses of judicial exception require it.
In claim 12, the additional elements/steps recite the similar additional elements/steps as of claim 1. The additional elements/steps processor memmory are recited in generality and represent extra- solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional element in the preamble of “A drilling system…” is not qualified for a meaningful limitation because it only generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements/steps “receive a measurement drilling fluid…” is also recited in generality which seem to merely be gathering data and not really performing any kind of inventive step to provide any meaningful additional element. Also, it represents an extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. All uses of judicial exception require it.
In claim 16, the additional element in the preamble of “A method for managing…” is not qualified for a meaningful limitation because it only generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements/steps “monitoring drilling fluid…” is also recited in generality which seem to merely be gathering data and not really performing any kind of inventive step to provide any meaningful additional element. Also, it represents an extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. All uses of judicial exception require it.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claim elements do not reflect an improvement to other technology or technical field, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the step 2B.
Considering the claim as a whole, one of ordinary skill in the art would not know the practical application of the present invention since the claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in some meaningful way.
The independent claims 1, 12, 16, therefore, are not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, the claims 3, 5-11 comprise the analogous subject matter and also comprise additional features/steps which are the part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims (additionally comprising mathematical relationship/mental process steps) and, therefore, the dependent claims are not eligible without additional elements that reflect a practical application and qualified for significantly more for substantially similar reason as discussed with regards to independent claims.
Claims 2, 4, 13-15, 17-20 are considered to integrate with the abstract ideas in the independent claims providing practical application of the invention, therefore are considered patent eligible. Applicant is suggested to include these limitations in the independent claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 8, 10, 12-14, 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Clarke (US 20220243544 A1)
Regarding claim 12 Clarke teaches a drilling system (Fig. 1), comprising:
a processor (Fig. 8, 801); and
memory, the memory including instructions which, when accessed by the processor (Fig. 8 memory 803 instructions accessed by processor 801), cause the processor to:
receive a measurement of measured drilling fluid properties for a drilling fluid (para [0052] In some embodiments, the drilling fluid manager may measure drilling fluid parameters, or receive measurements of drilling fluid parameters at 446);
compare the measurement of the measured drilling fluid properties to setpoint drilling fluid properties to generate a difference between the measurement and the setpoint drilling fluid properties (para [0054] If the measured parameters are outside of the threshold, then the drilling fluid manager may determine a difference between the measured drilling fluid parameters and the setpoint fluid properties at 448.); and
Here determining difference between the measured drilling fluid parameters and the setpoint fluid is viewed to compare the measured and setpoint fluid properties.
based at least in part on the difference between the measurement and the setpoint drilling fluid properties, prepare a recommendation to return the drilling fluid to the setpoint drilling fluid properties (para [0054] Based on the difference and the additive model, the drilling fluid manager may determine an additive amount for each of the additives at 450.
Para [0024] The measurement station 116 may measure the parameters of the re-mixed drilling fluid and compare them to the setpoint fluid properties. Using the measured parameters, the drilling fluid engineer may continue to add additives until the measured parameters are within the setpoint fluid properties).
Herein based on the differences between the measured fluid properties and set point fluid properties, the addition of additive amount is recommended util the measured parameters are within or return to the set point fluid properties.
Regarding claim 13 Clarke teaches the drilling system of claim 12, further comprising: a drilling fluid tank ([0022] The drilling fluid may be stored in a mud pit 112 at a surface location 111.);
mud pit is viewed as a tank and
an additive tank in communication with the drilling fluid tank, and wherein the instructions further cause the processor to, based on the recommendation, add an additive from the additive tank to the drilling fluid tank (para [0040] In some embodiments, the drilling fluid manager 218 includes a fluid mixer 230. The fluid mixer 230 may cause the amounts of the additives determined by the additive quantity manager 226 to be added to the returned drilling fluid. For example, the additive tanks may have valves or other additive mechanisms, and the fluid mixer 230 may cause the valves to open to add the determined amount of each additive. In some examples, the fluid mixer 230 may send a message to a drilling operator or an engineer, instructing the drilling operator or engineer to add the amounts of the additives.).
Here examiner views, when the additive tank valve is opened to be mixed with the drilling fluid at drilling fluid tank, an additive quantity (i.e., recommended) is added from the additive tank to the drilling fluid tank, managed by processor.
Regarding claim 14 Clarke teaches the drilling system of claim 13, wherein the recommendation includes an additive volume and an additive schedule, and wherein adding the additive to the drilling fluid tank includes adding the additive with the additive volume and the additive schedule(para [0063] In some embodiments, after adding the additives to the returned drilling fluid, the re-mixed returned drilling fluid may be circulated through the wellbore again, and the method 662 may be repeated indefinitely. For example, after adding the additive to the returned drilling fluid, the drilling operation may continue to drill and circulate the re-mixed drilling fluid for a second period of time. When the re-mixed drilling fluid is returned to the surface, the drilling fluid parameters may be measured and any differences between the measured fluid parameters used to determine additional additive amounts of the various additives.).
Here examiner views the required amount or volume of additive is added to the drilling fluid tank based on the time period of circulation and return of drilling fluid (i.e. additive schedule).
Claim 1 and 16 are rejected as claim 12 having same claim limitations/elements.
Claim 2 and 17 is rejected as claim 13 having same claim limitations/elements.
Claim 3 and 4 is rejected as claim 14 having same claim limitations/elements.
Regarding claim 5, Clarke teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the measurement includes at least one of density, shear stress, or viscosity (para [0022] The cuttings, swarf, and other material may cause a change to the properties of the drilling fluid, such as a change in density, shear stress, viscosity, and so forth. When the drilling fluid is returned to the surface location 111, such as to the mud pit 112, the properties of the drilling may be changed by the introduction of contaminants from the wellbore 102. Para [0023] A measurement station 116 or sensor station may measure the parameters of the drilling fluid).
Regarding claim 7, Clarke teaches the method of claim 1, Clarke teach wherein the recommendation includes a modification to the setpoint drilling fluid properties (para [0024] The measurement station 116 may measure the parameters of the re-mixed drilling fluid and compare them to the setpoint fluid properties. Using the measured parameters, the drilling fluid engineer may continue to add additives until the measured parameters are within the setpoint fluid properties.)
Here examiner views the fluid properties are modified to the set point drilling fluid properties by adding recommended additives.
Regarding claim 8, Clarke teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising receiving a measurement of drilling parameters, and wherein preparing the recommendation includes preparing the recommendation based at least in part on the drilling parameters ([0067] During drilling operations, the drilling fluid manager may measure drilling fluid parameters of a returned drilling fluid at 784. Using the measured drilling parameters and the developed functions, including the inverted interpolation function, the drilling fluid manager may determine the additive amounts of the additives to place the returned drilling fluid within a threshold of setpoint drilling properties at 786.)
Herein examiner views the amount to additive to be added (i.e., recommended) to the drilling fluid is based on the measured drilling parameters.
Regarding claim 10, Clarke teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the recommendation includes a volume recommendation (para [0054] Based on the difference and the additive model, the drilling fluid manager may determine an additive amount for each of the additives at 450.
Regarding claim 18, Clarke teaches the method of claim 17, wherein adding the volume of the additive to the drilling fluid includes automatically adding the volume of additive with an additive control system (para [0047] For example, the drilling fluid manager may instruct one or more valves or other control systems to automatically add the additive to the drilling fluid and mix them together.)
Regarding claim 19, Clarke teaches the method of claim 16, further comprising: implementing the recommendation at the drilling fluid (para [0054] Based on the difference and the additive model, the drilling fluid manager may determine an additive amount for each of the additives at 450); and circulating the drilling fluid through a drilling system. (Para [0024] The measurement station 116 may measure the parameters of the re-mixed drilling fluid and compare them to the setpoint fluid properties. Using the measured parameters, the drilling fluid engineer may continue to add additives until the measured parameters are within the setpoint fluid properties).
Here examiner views the addition of additive (i.e., recommendation) at the drilling fluid and circulating the drilling fluid through the drilling system.
Here amount of additive is viewed as the recommended volume recommendation.
Regarding claim 20, Clarke teaches the method of claim 19, further comprising: monitoring the drilling fluid properties of the circulated drilling fluid (para [0018] In some embodiments, the drilling fluid manager may determine additive quantities throughout the drilling process.;
determining whether the drilling fluid properties of the circulated drilling fluid are within the setpoint drilling fluid properties (para [0018] For example, as drilling fluid is returned to the surface, the drilling fluid manager may receive and/or collect measurements of the returned drilling fluid. When the measured drilling fluid parameters are out of a threshold of the setpoint drilling fluid properties, then the drilling fluid manager may use the collected measurements to determine the amount of additives to add to the drilling fluid)); and
generating an updated recommendation to return the circulated drilling fluid to the setpoint drilling fluid properties (para [0018] After the returned drilling fluid is mixed with the additives, the re-mixed drilling fluid may be circulated through the wellbore. When the re-mixed drilling fluid returns to the surface, the drilling fluid manager may determine another quantity of additives, mix them in the drilling fluid, and re-circulated through the wellbore.).
Here examiner views the drilling fluid properties are monitored through out the drilling operation, by determining if the fluid properties are within the setpoint drilling fluid properties so that the updated amount of additive (i.e. recommended) is added to the drilling fluid to return to the desired setpoint.
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.
Claim(s) 15, 11, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clarke in view of Elkatatny et al (US 20190323935 A1) herein after Elkatatny
Regarding claim 15 Clarke teaches the drilling system of claim 13, Clarke does not clearly teach wherein the instructions further cause the processor to remove a volume of the drilling fluid from the drilling fluid tank.
Elkatatny teaches wherein the instructions further cause the processor to remove a volume of the drilling fluid from the drilling fluid tank ([0048] A predetermined volume of drilling mud is removed from a drilling fluid tank and placed into a Marsh funnel. This predetermined volume or sample of drilling mud may be taken from one or more positions in a drilling tank).
Herein examiner views a computer or processor is instructed to remove a predetermined volume of drilling mud or fluid from the drilling tank.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have incorporated Elkatatny into Clarke for the purpose of removing of the drilling fluid from the drilling fluid tank so that the fluid can be sampled, tested and circulate fluid with desired volume.
Claim 11 is rejected as claim 15 having same claim limitations/elements.
Regarding claim 6, Clarke teaches the method of claim 1, Clarke does not clearly teach wherein the recommendation includes a recommendation to reduce total volume of the drilling fluid.
Elkatatny teaches wherein the recommendation includes a recommendation to reduce total volume of the drilling fluid (para [0048] Drilling mud sample. The invention may be used to assess rheological properties of muds obtained from vertical, horizontal, deviated, multi-lateral wells and other well types. A predetermined volume of drilling mud is removed from a drilling fluid tank and placed into a Marsh funnel. This predetermined volume or sample of drilling mud may be taken from one or more positions in a drilling tank. For example, in a cylindrical or rectangular drilling tank it may be taken from a level at the bottom or top 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60, 65, 70, 75, 80, 85, 90, or 95% of the drilling fluid in the tank).
Herein examiner views the amount or volume (i.e., recommended amount) of drilling fluid removed from the drilling fluid tank reduce the total amount or volume of the drilling fluid.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have incorporated Elkatatny into Clarke for the purpose of reducing volume of the drilling fluid from the drilling fluid tank so that the fluid can be sampled, tested and circulate fluid with desired total volume.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clarke in view of Abughaban et al (US 20220243543 A1) herein after Abughaban.
Regarding claim 9, Clarke teaches The method of claim 8, Clarke teaches the measurement of the drilling parameters but does not clearly teach includes at least one of rate of penetration, rotations per minute, drilling fluid flow rate, or drilling fluid pressure.
Abughaban teaches drilling parameter includes at least one of rate of penetration, rotations per minute, drilling fluid flow rate, or drilling fluid pressure ([0029] As further shown in FIG. 2, sensors (221) may be included in a sensor assembly (223), which is positioned adjacent to a drill bit (224) and coupled to the drill string (215).)…. the information may be used to make adjustments to drilling operations in real-time. Such adjustments may include rate of penetration (ROP), drilling direction, altering mud weight, and many others drilling parameters)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have incorporated Abughaban into Clarke for the purpose of having rate of penetration of drilling fluid as one of the parameters of measurement during drilling.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Reitsma et al (US 20110284290 A1) discusses monitoring drilling fluid in the borehole.
Burress et al US9255473 A1 discusses monitoring well bore data.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARAD TIMILSINA whose telephone number is (571)272-7104. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00.
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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at 571-270-0349. 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.
/SHARAD TIMILSINA/Examiner, Art Unit 2863
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857