CTNF 18/515,437 CTNF 96390 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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. PNG media_image1.png 930 645 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 681 881 media_image2.png Greyscale Regarding claim 1, the claim recites a method for controlling operations of a drilling rig through a system, the method comprising: acquiring a measured pressure within fluid lines in communication with a wellbore in real time; and calculating a first magnitude of error between the measured pressure and a target pressure; and calculating an output value proportional to the first magnitude of error between the measured pressure and the target pressure, the output value being a pressure rate of change target; and calculating a second magnitude of error between the pressure rate of change target and a pressure rate of change, the pressure rate of change being a difference in the acquired measured pressure and an average of a plurality of prior measured pressures, the difference being divided by an amount of time between the acquired measured pressure and a prior measured pressure; and calculating a second output value that is a sum of a proportional magnitude of real time error between the pressure rate of change target and the pressure rate of change and a proportional sum of a plurality of prior errors between the pressure rate of change target and the pressure rate of change, the second output value being a position setpoint; and using the second output value to generate a process signal; and using the process signal to actuate a pressure control device; and iterating the process to regulate a pressure within a fluid line in communication with a wellbore. Step Analysis 1: Statutory Category? Yes . The claim recites a method; therefore, it is a process 2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited? Yes . The claim recites the limitation of calculating a first magnitude of error between the measured pressure and a target pressure. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, calculating a first magnitude of error between the measured pressure and a target pressure can be done by a human with pen and paper. The claim recites the limitation of calculating an output value proportional to the first magnitude of error between the measured pressure and the target pressure, the output value being a pressure rate of change target. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, calculating an output value proportional to the first magnitude of error between the measured pressure and the target pressure can be done by a human with pen and paper. The claim recites the limitation calculating a second magnitude of error between the pressure rate of change target and a pressure rate of change, the pressure rate of change being a difference in the acquired measured pressure and an average of a plurality of prior measured pressures, the difference being divided by an amount of time between the acquired measured pressure and a prior measured pressure. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, calculating a second magnitude of error between the pressure rate of change target and a pressure rate of change can performed by a human with pen and paper. The claim recites the limitation of calculating a second output value that is a sum of a proportional magnitude of real time error between the pressure rate of change target and the pressure rate of change and a proportional sum of a plurality of prior errors between the pressure rate of change target and the pressure rate of change, the second output value being a position setpoint. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, calculating a second output value that is a sum of a proportional magnitude of real time error between the pressure rate of change target and the pressure rate of change and a proportional sum of a plurality of prior errors between the pressure rate of change target and the pressure rate of change can be done by a human with pen and paper. 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application? No . the following additional elements merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the abstract idea, or merely includes instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea: drilling rig system, pressure control device 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept? No . the following additional elements merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea: acquiring a measured pressure within fluid lines in communication with a wellbore in real time; using the second output value to generate a process signal; and using the process signal to actuate a pressure control device; and iterating the process to regulate a pressure within a fluid line in communication with a wellbore. As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of controlling operations of a drilling rig in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible . Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 2 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 2 is further recites the element(s) “ … further comprising controlling the pressure control device of the drilling rig with one or more subsystems of the system. ”, which is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 2 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because this limitation(s) is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 3 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 3 is further recites the element(s) “… further comprising controlling one or more mud pumps of the drilling rig with a first subsystem of the system. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 3 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 4 depends on claim 3, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 4 is further recites the element(s) “ … further comprising controlling a pressure control device of the drilling rig with a second subsystem of the system. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 4 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 5 depends on claim 4, which depends on claim 3, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 5 is further recites the element(s) “… further comprising sending a signal from the second subsystem to the first subsystem to control operation of the mud pumps. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 5 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 6 depends on claim 5, which depends on claim 4, which depends on claim 3, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 6 is further recites the element(s) “ … further comprising automatically generating the signal based on a state of the mud pumps and a state of the pressure control device. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 6 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 7 depends on claim 5, which depends on claim 4, which depends on claim 3, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 7 is further recites the element(s) “… further comprising controlling the first subsystem and the second subsystem from one human machine interface. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 7 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 8 depends on claim 5, which depends on claim 4, which depends on claim 3, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 8 is further recites the element(s) “… further comprising controlling the first subsystem and the second subsystem from separate human machine interfaces. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 8 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 9 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 9 is further recites the element(s) “ … wherein calculating the first magnitude of error between the measured pressure and the target pressure comprises generating a target pressure based on at least one of a target flow rate and a flow rate feedback. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 9 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 10 depends on claim 9, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 10 is further recites the element(s) “ … further comprising generating at least one of the target flow rate and the flow rate feedback based on an RPM feedback of a variable frequency drive of one or more mud pumps of the drilling rig. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 10 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 11 depends on claim 3, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 11 is further recites the element(s) “… further comprising automatically manipulating control of the one or more mud pumps based on calculating a target flow rate, a flow rate feedback, and a target derivative of flow rate. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 11 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 12 depends on claim 4, which depends on claim 3, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 12 is further recites the element(s) “… further comprising utilizing a bidirectional communication fault tolerance detection between the first subsystem and the second subsystem. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 12 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 13 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 13 is further recites the element(s) “ … further comprising automatically configuring position limits of the pressure control device and controlling the pressure control device within the limits, inclusive. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 13 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 14 depends on claim 13, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 14 is further recites the element(s) “ … further comprising verifying a position of a pressure control device via a potentiometer. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 14 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 15 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 15 is further recites the element(s) “ … further actuating the pressure control device via a programmed routine when the measured pressure exceeds a pressure threshold. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 15 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Regarding claim 16, the claim recites a system to regulate a pressure within a fluid line in communication with a wellbore, comprising: a sensor configured to sense a pressure within fluid lines in communication with a wellbore; a controller configured to calculate a first magnitude of error between the measured pressure and a target pressure, calculate an output value proportional to the first magnitude of error between the measured pressure and the target pressure, the output value being a pressure rate of change target, calculate a second magnitude of error between the pressure rate of change target and a pressure rate of change, the pressure rate of change being a difference in the acquired measured pressure and an average of a plurality of prior measured pressures, the difference being divided by an amount of time between the acquired measured pressure and a prior measured pressure, calculate a second output value that is a sum of a proportional magnitude of real time error between the pressure rate of change target and the pressure rate of change and a proportional sum of a plurality of prior errors between the pressure rate of change target and the pressure rate of change, the second output value being a position setpoint, use the second output value to generate a process signal, use the process signal to actuate a pressure control device, and iterate the process to regulate a pressure within a fluid line in communication with a wellbore. Step Analysis 1: Statutory Category? Yes . The claim recites a system; therefore, it is a machine 2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited? Yes . The claim recites the limitation of calculating a first magnitude of error between the measured pressure and a target pressure. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, calculating a first magnitude of error between the measured pressure and a target pressure can be done by a human with pen and paper. The claim recites the limitation of calculating an output value proportional to the first magnitude of error between the measured pressure and the target pressure, the output value being a pressure rate of change target. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, calculating an output value proportional to the first magnitude of error between the measured pressure and the target pressure can be done by a human with pen and paper. The claim recites the limitation calculating a second magnitude of error between the pressure rate of change target and a pressure rate of change, the pressure rate of change being a difference in the acquired measured pressure and an average of a plurality of prior measured pressures, the difference being divided by an amount of time between the acquired measured pressure and a prior measured pressure. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, calculating a second magnitude of error between the pressure rate of change target and a pressure rate of change can performed by a human with pen and paper. The claim recites the limitation of calculating a second output value that is a sum of a proportional magnitude of real time error between the pressure rate of change target and the pressure rate of change and a proportional sum of a plurality of prior errors between the pressure rate of change target and the pressure rate of change, the second output value being a position setpoint. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, calculating a second output value that is a sum of a proportional magnitude of real time error between the pressure rate of change target and the pressure rate of change and a proportional sum of a plurality of prior errors between the pressure rate of change target and the pressure rate of change can be done by a human with pen and paper. 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application? No . the following additional elements merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the abstract idea, or merely includes instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea: a sensor configured to sense a pressure within fluid lines in communication with a wellbore; a controller 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept? No . the following additional elements merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea: acquiring a measured pressure within fluid lines in communication with a wellbore in real time; use the second output value to generate a process signal, use the process signal to actuate a pressure control device, and iterate the process to regulate a pressure within a fluid line in communication with a wellbore. As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of regulating a pressure within a fluid line in communication with a wellborein a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible . Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 17 depends on claim 16, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 17 is further recites the element(s) “ … wherein the system further comprises a subsystem configured to control a pressure control device of a drilling rig at the wellbore. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 17 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 18 depends on claim 16, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 18 is further recites the element(s) “ … wherein the system further comprises a first subsystem configured to control one or more mud pumps of a drilling rig at the wellbore. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 18 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 19 depends on claim 18, which depends on claim 16, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 19 is further recites the element(s) “ … wherein the system further comprises a second subsystem configured to control a pressure control device of a drilling rig at the wellbore. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 19 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 20 depends on claim 19, which depends on claim 18, which depends on claim 16, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 20 is further recites the element(s) “ … wherein the second subsystem is configured to send a signal to the first subsystem to control operation of the mud pumps of a drilling rig. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 20 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 21 depends on claim 20, which depends on claim 19, which depends on claim 18, which depends on claim 16, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 21 is further recites the element(s) “ … wherein the signal is automatically generated based on a state of the mud pumps and a state of the pressure control device. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 21 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 22 depends on claim 19, which depends on claim 18, which depends on claim 16, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 22 is further recites the element(s) “ … wherein control of the first subsystem and the second subsystem is executed from one human machine interface. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 22 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 23 depends on claim 19, which depends on claim 18, which depends on claim 16, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 23 is further recites the element(s) “ … wherein control of the first subsystem and the second subsystem is from separate human machine interfaces. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 23 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 24 depends on claim 16, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 24 is further recites the element(s) “ … wherein the system further comprises a subsystem configured to control the pressure control device and one or more mud pumps of the drilling rig at the wellbore. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 24 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 25 depends on claim 16, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 25 is further recites the element(s) “ … wherein the target pressure is generated based on at least one of a target flow rate and a flow rate feedback. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 25 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 26 depends on claim 25, which depends on claim 16, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 26 is further recites the element(s) “ … wherein at least one of the target flow rate and the flow rate feedback comprises a calculation based on an RPM feedback of a variable frequency drive of at least one mud pump. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 26 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 27 depends on claim 18, which depends on claim 16, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 27 is further recites the element(s) “ … wherein the control of the one or more mud pumps can be manipulated automatically based on a calculation involving a target flow rate, a flow rate feedback, and a target derivative of flow rate. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 27 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 28 depends on claim 19, which depends on claim 18, which depends on claim 16, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 28 is further recites the element(s) “ … wherein the first subsystem and the second subsystem are configured to be use a bidirectional communication fault tolerance detection. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 28 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 29 depends on claim 16, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 29 is further recites the element(s) “ … wherein the system is configured to automatically configure position limits of the pressure control device and control the pressure control device within the limits, inclusive. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 29 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 30 depends on claim 29, which depends on claim 16, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 30 is further recites the element(s) “ … wherein the position of the pressure control device is verified via a potentiometer. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 30 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 31 depends on claim 17, which depends on claim 16, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 31 is further recites the element(s) “ … wherein the subsystem is configured to actuate the pressure control device via a programmed routine when the measured pressure exceeds a pressure threshold. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 31 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 32 depends on claim 16, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 32 is further recites the element(s) “ … wherein the system is located on a drilling rig site. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.