DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are currently presented for examination.
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 has been 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.
Regarding claims 1-20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-7 are directed to a method, which is a process, which is a statutory category of invention. Claims 8-14 are directed to a system, which is a machine, which is a statutory category of invention. Claims 15-20 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium, which is a manufacture, which is a statutory category of invention. Therefore, claims 1-20 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite the abstract idea of determining a ramp up procedure, constituting an abstract idea based on Mental Processes based on concepts performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper. The limitation of "determining, via an optimization framework, an optimized ramp-up procedure for the drilling equipment with respect to one or more transient dynamics of a drilling fluid; and” covers mental processes including making a judgement about what a ramp up procedure should be. But for the inclusion of “an optimization framework”, there is nothing that precludes operation of the claim in the human mind. Thus, the claims recite the abstract idea of a mental process performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In Claims 1, 4, 6-8, 11, 13-15 and 18-20 the additional element of “an optimization framework”, merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) The limitations of “outputting, via the optimization framework, a plurality of time steps to an equipment actuation system; and” in claims 7, 14 and 20, are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP (2106.05(f)) Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)) The additional limitation of “performing the optimized ramp-up procedure via the drilling equipment” recited in claims 1, 8 and 15, as well as “altering a flow rate of the drilling fluid according to the optimized ramp-up procedure”, in claims 2, 9 and 16, as well as “actuating the drilling equipment to perform the optimized ramp-up procedure at the plurality of time steps” in claims 7, 14 and 20 only amounts to mere instructions to apply as it only recites the idea of a solution or outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished MPEP 2106.05(f). The limitations of “drilling equipment” in claims 1-2, 5-9, 12-16 and 19-20, as well as “mud pump” in claims 5, 12 and 19 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they are nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2-11, 13-17 and 19-21 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims, and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration beyond those addressed above.
Step 2B: Claims 1, 12 and 18 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In Claims 1, 4, 6-8, 11, 13-15 and 18-20 the additional element of “an optimization framework”, merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) The limitations of “outputting, via the optimization framework, a plurality of time steps to an equipment actuation system; and” in claims 7, 14 and 20, are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP (2106.05(f)) Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process) does not amount to significantly more. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)) The additional limitation of “performing the optimized ramp-up procedure via the drilling equipment” recited in claims 1, 8 and 15, as well as “altering a flow rate of the drilling fluid according to the optimized ramp-up procedure”, in claims 2, 9 and 16, as well as “actuating the drilling equipment to perform the optimized ramp-up procedure at the plurality of time steps” in claims 7, 14 and 20 only amounts to mere instructions to apply as it only recites the idea of a solution or outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished MPEP 2106.05(f). The limitations of “drilling equipment” in claims 1-2, 5-9, 12-16 and 19-20, as well as “mud pump” in claims 5, 12 and 19 do amount to significantly more because they are nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Therefore, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated in Section I.B. of the December 16, 2014 101 Examination Guidelines, “[t]o be patent-eligible, a claim that is directed to a judicial exception must include additional features to ensure that the claim describes a process or product that applies the exception in a meaningful way, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.”
The dependent claims include the same abstract ideas recited as recited in the independent claims, and merely incorporate additional details that narrow the abstract ideas and fail to add significantly more to the claims.
Dependent claims 2, 9 and 16 are directed to further defining the alterations made in the optimized ramp-up procedure, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claims 3, 10 and 17 are directed to further defining the transient events, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claims 4, 11 and 18 are directed to further defining the properties of the drilling fluid, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claims 6, 13 and 19 are directed to further defining a drilling window, properties of the fluid and a trajectory, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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 1-2, 8-9 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wang et al. USPPN 2019/0032467.
Regarding claim 1, Wang anticipates A method for minimizing a ramp-up time of drilling equipment used to drill a wellbore through a subsurface formation, the method comprising: ([0006], [0090], Figures 1-2, Abstract, a drilling ramp optimization procedure is created)
determining, via an optimization framework, an optimized ramp-up procedure for the drilling equipment with respect to one or more transient dynamics of a drilling fluid; and ([0022], [0077]-[0081], Figure 2, tools are used to optimize the ramp up procedures of the drilling process, including on and off of drilling fluid)
performing the optimized ramp-up procedure via the drilling equipment. ([0078], [0082]-[0084], [0138]-[0142] Figures 2 and 3, the optimized ramp up procedure is used with the drilling equipment multiple times)
Regarding claim 2, Wang anticipates the limitations of claim 1. Wang also anticipates wherein performing the optimized ramp-up procedure via the drilling equipment comprises altering a flow rate of the drilling fluid according to the optimized ramp-up procedure. (Figure 2, [0022], [0030]-[0031], [0078], [0163], a flow rate of the fluid is optimized during the drilling process)
In regards to claim 8, it is the system embodiment of claim 1 with similar limitations to claim 1, and is rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 1. The addional components of the drill string are taught in at leas Wang [0025], [0031], while the computer is taught in at least Figure 8 and [0157]
In regards to claim 9, it is the system embodiment of claim 2 with similar limitations to claim 2, and is rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 2.
In regards to claim 15, it is the computer readable medium embodiment of claim 1 with similar limitations to claim 1, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 1.
In regards to claim 16, it is the computer readable medium embodiment of claim 2 with similar limitations to claim 2, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 2.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 3-4, 10-11 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Yu et al. “The Effect of Shear Rate on Dynamic Gelation of Phenol Formaldehyde Resin Gel in Porous Media.”
Regarding claim 3, Wang anticipates the limitations of claim 1. Wang does not explicitly recite wherein the one or more transient dynamics of the drilling fluid comprise a gel effect, a viscous effect, a momentum effect, and a hydrostatic pressure of the drilling fluid.
Yu teaches wherein the one or more transient dynamics of the drilling fluid comprise a gel effect, a viscous effect, a momentum effect, and a hydrostatic pressure of the drilling fluid. (Abstract, Section 2.2.2 Figures 7 and 8, the gel effect and viscosity and shear rate are taken into account when optimizing the injection of fluid during drilling)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Wang with Yu as the references deal with oil recovery, in order to implement a system that takes into account shear rate with respect to dell effect and viscous effect during drilling. Yu would modify Wang by taking into account shear rate with respect to dell effect and viscous effect during drilling. The benefit of doing so is the effect of injection rate should be considered in the practical application of polymer gel, and the injection rate should be reduced as much as possible to obtain a higher gel viscosity when the field conditions allow. (Yu Section 2.2.2)
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Wang and Yu teaches the limitations of claim 3. Wang does not explicitly recite modeling, via the optimization framework, a shear rate of the drilling fluid with respect to the gel effect and the viscous effect.
Yu teaches modeling, via the optimization framework, a shear rate of the drilling fluid with respect to the gel effect and the viscous effect. (Abstract, Section 2.2.2 Figures 7 and 8, the gel effect and viscosity and shear rate are taken into account when optimizing the injection of fluid during drilling)
See motivation of claim 3
In regards to claim 10, it is the system embodiment of claim 3 with similar limitations to claim 3, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 3.
In regards to claim 11, it is the system embodiment of claim 4 with similar limitations to claim 4, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 4.
In regards to claim 17, it is the computer readable medium embodiment of claim 3 with similar limitations to claim 3, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 3.
In regards to claim 18, it is the computer readable medium embodiment of claim 4 with similar limitations to claim 4, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 4.
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Pobedinski et al. USPPN 2016/0097270.
Regarding claim 5, Wang anticipates the limitations of claim 1. Wang does not explicitly recite wherein the drilling equipment includes a mud pump configured to pump the drilling fluid into the wellbore.
Pobedinski teaches wherein the drilling equipment includes a mud pump configured to pump the drilling fluid into the wellbore. ([0030], [0036], [0170], mud pumps are used)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Wang with Pobedinski as the references deal with oil recovery, in order to implement a system that uses a mud pump. Pobedinski would modify Wang by using a mud pump. The benefit of doing so is the mud pump can be used to measure a fluid influx in the automated system. (Pobedinski [0036])
In regards to claim 12, it is the system embodiment of claim 5 with similar limitations to claim 5, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 5.
Claims 6-7 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Costa et al “Evaluation of rock integrity during well drilling activities using reliability analysis.”
Regarding claim 6, Wang anticipates the limitations of claim 1. Wang also teaches defining a drilling window (Figures 4 and 5, drilling parameter space windows are created)
defining one or more properties of the drilling fluid; and ([0022] the drilling fluid flow rate is defined)
generating, via the optimization framework, a non-linear ramp-up trajectory for the drilling equipment that does not exceed the drilling window. (Figures 4 and 5, the torque and WOB are nonlinear for zero in the parameter space window)
Wang does not explicitly recite pore pressure of the subsurface formation, a fracture pressure of the subsurface formation, and a maximum equivalent circulating density of the drilling fluid;
Costa teaches pore pressure of the subsurface formation, a fracture pressure of the subsurface formation, and a maximum equivalent circulating density of the drilling fluid; (Sections 2.1 and 2.2, the pore pressure, fracture pressure and maximum ECD are used in the drilling process)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Wang with Costa as the references deal with oil recovery, in order to implement a system that takes into account pore pressure, fracture pressure and a maximum equivalent circulating density of the drilling fluid. Costa would modify Wang by taking into account pore pressure, fracture pressure and a maximum equivalent circulating density of the drilling fluid. The benefit of doing so is the integrity of the rock in the wellbore can be taken into account during automatic drilling in cases with and without a kick. (Costa Abstract)
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Wang and Yu teaches the limitations of claim 6. Wang teaches outputting, via the optimization framework, a plurality of time steps to an equipment actuation system; and ([0078], [0160], [0163], the parameters are sent to the control system based on each time step)
actuating the drilling equipment to perform the optimized ramp-up procedure at the plurality of time steps. ([0078], [0082]-[0084], [0138]-[0142] Figures 2 and 3, the optimized ramp up procedure is used with the drilling equipment multiple times; [0093]-[0103] at time step T)
In regards to claim 13, it is the system embodiment of claim 6 with similar limitations to claim 6, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 6.
In regards to claim 14, it is the system embodiment of claim 7 with similar limitations to claim 7, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 7.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Costa et al “Evaluation of rock integrity during well drilling activities using reliability analysis”, and in view of Pobedinski et al. USPPN 2016/0097270.
Regarding claim 19, Wang anticipates the limitations of claim 15. Wang also teaches defining a drilling window (Figures 4 and 5, drilling parameter space windows are created)
defining one or more properties of the drilling fluid; and ([0022] the drilling fluid flow rate is defined)
generating, via the optimization framework, a non-linear ramp-up trajectory for the drilling equipment that does not exceed the drilling window. (Figures 4 and 5, the torque and WOB are nonlinear for zero in the parameter space window)
Wang does not explicitly recite pore pressure of the subsurface formation, a fracture pressure of the subsurface formation, and a maximum equivalent circulating density of the drilling fluid;
Costa teaches pore pressure of the subsurface formation, a fracture pressure of the subsurface formation, and a maximum equivalent circulating density of the drilling fluid; (Sections 2.1 and 2.2, the pore pressure, fracture pressure and maximum ECD are used in the drilling process)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Wang with Costa as the references deal with oil recovery, in order to implement a system that takes into account pore pressure, fracture pressure and a maximum equivalent circulating density of the drilling fluid. Costa would modify Wang by taking into account pore pressure, fracture pressure and a maximum equivalent circulating density of the drilling fluid. The benefit of doing so is the integrity of the rock in the wellbore can be taken into account during automatic drilling in cases with and without a kick. (Costa Abstract)
The combination of Wang and Costa does not explicitly recite wherein the drilling equipment includes a mud pump configured to pump the drilling fluid into the wellbore.
Pobedinski teaches wherein the drilling equipment includes a mud pump configured to pump the drilling fluid into the wellbore. ([0030], [0036], [0170], mud pumps are used)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Wang and Costa with Pobedinski as the references deal with oil recovery, in order to implement a system that uses a mud pump. Pobedinski would modify Wang and Costa by using a mud pump. The benefit of doing so is the mud pump can be used to measure a fluid influx in the automated system. (Pobedinski [0036])
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Wang and Yu teaches the limitations of claim 19. Wang teaches outputting, via the optimization framework, a plurality of time steps to an equipment actuation system; and ([0078], [0160], [0163], the parameters are sent to the control system based on each time step)
actuating the drilling equipment to perform the optimized ramp-up procedure at the plurality of time steps. ([0078], [0082]-[0084], [0138]-[0142] Figures 2 and 3, the optimized ramp up procedure is used with the drilling equipment multiple times; [0093]-[0103] at time step T)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fox et al. USPPN 2020/0175444: Also teaches an automated drilling system that executes according to an optimized plan.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL COCCHI whose telephone number is (469)295-9079. The examiner can normally be reached 7:15 am - 5:15 pm CT Monday - Thursday.
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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at 571-272-4071. 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.
/MICHAEL EDWARD COCCHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights