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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 USC §103 Rejection.
Remarks
Applicant’s arguments filed (04/30/2026) with respect to pending claims 1-16 have been fully considered and are directed to claims as amended. The arguments addressed to the 103 rejection are not persuasive, but the arguments are persuasive with respect of 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, rejection. The 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection of claims 1-16 is withdrawn.
Argument
Applicant argues (Page 8, lines 15-17, Page 9, lines 5-11):
“Edbury does not disclose, or even contemplate, an alternating sequence of four distinct drilling stages (slide- rotary-slide-rotary) defined by specific time periods or wraps”.
“Applicants' own disclosure as a roadmap, there is no motivation in the prior art to combine the teachings of Edbury and Fisher into the specific four-stage rhythmic sequence of Claim 1. Specifically, the claimed sequence is functionally linked to a specific technical result not found in the prior art. The Specification explains that the sequence is configured such to achieve a desired geometry of the wellbore, for example by providing for cancellation of a first slide by a second slide. See Paragraphs [0166]-[0186]. By alternating these stages, the BHA achieves a precise wellbore curvature while cancelling out errors. Neither Edbury nor Fisher nor Gillian, nor any other reference of record, recognizes the problem of such error accumulation that would necessitate a sequential sliding and rotary drilling that when conducted in the claimed arrangement cancels or reduced error”.
Examiner agrees with Applicant that Edbury does not disclose four distinct drilling stage (slide- rotary-slide-rotary) defined by specific time periods or wraps.
Gillian discloses the rotary drilling in different period of time (see rejection below). Also Gillian discloses (slide-rotary-slide-rotary) stage, see (para [0056], where the rotary drilling segment may be a period of time immediately prior to a slide and may be any period of time), (para [0061], where measured during the slide drilling segment, has a target peak range of about 70% to 80% of the average drilling resistance function taken during the rotary drilling segment time period immediately preceding the slide drilling segment).
Gillian does not disclose the performing the slide-rotary-slide-rotary stage in order: (slide-rotary-slide-rotary), but the claim 1 does not require any particular order for the slide and rotary stages. The two “slide” and two “rotary” stages, as recited in claim 1, require different time periods, but not being performing in a particular sequence or in a specific order. Gillian does disclose slide and rotary drilling in time periods.
Also, Edbury discloses drilling the wellbore for a first time period (Fig. 14, Col. 23, lines 41-45, where is a plot over time illustrating tuning in a transition from rotary drilling to slide drilling with surface adjustments at intervals).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the Edbury and Fisher teachings in order to more efficiently provide the drilling path during the different sections and turns in the drilling path.
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.
Claims 1-4, and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edbury (Pat. 8,939,233 B2), hereinafter Edbury in view of Fisher, JR et.al., (US Pub.20150107899A1), hereinafter [Fisher, JR] and Gillan et. al., (US Pub.20160145993A1), hereinafter Gillan.
Regarding Claim 1, Edbury discloses a method for drilling a wellbore, the method comprising:
determining a desired wellbore curvature to be drilled (Col. 8, lines 26-31, where rotary drilling may follow a relatively straight path and slide drilling may follow a relatively curved path. In some embodiments, rotary drilling and slide drilling modes are used in combination to achieve a specified trajectory; Fig. 16, Col. 24, lines 33, where At 410, a target trajectory is established);
determining a potential build rate for a bottom hole assembly (BHA) to drill the desired wellbore curvature (Col. 25, lines 7-15, where Based on the preceding calculations, 4 deg/30 m would be the expected build rate; Col. 30, lines 52-54, where a project to bit is performed (using for example, best fit curves for buildup rate ("BUR"));
setting the off bottom toolface of the BHA to a target toolface for drilling the curvature (Col. 1, lines 42-46, where some drilling operations (whether manual or automatic) may require that a drill bit be stopped or pulled off the bottom of the well, for example, when changing from a rotary drilling mode to a slide drilling mode);
slide drilling the wellbore for a first time period (Fig. 14, Col. 23, lines 41-45, where is a plot over time illustrating tuning in a transition from rotary drilling to slide drilling with surface adjustments at intervals …Curve 340 represents a toolface target. Points 342 represent readings from a gravity toolface (for example, from an MWD tool). Curve 344 is a curve fit of points 342. Curve 346 represents the rotational position of an encoder on a rotary drive, e.g., the points 348, 342, 362 is point of the slide drilling curve from the drilling curve 340);
Edbury does not explicitly disclose estimating a reactive torque (RT) for a desired weight on bit (WOB) for drilling the curvature; setting the off bottom toolface of the BHA responsive to the estimated reactive torque; rotary drilling the wellbore for a second time period or a first number of wraps; rotary drilling the wellbore for a fourth time period or a second number of wraps.
Fisher, JR discloses estimating a reactive torque (RT) for a desired weight on bit (WOB) for drilling the curvature (Abstract, where controlling slide drilling on a drilling rig are described. The methods include detecting current differential pressure of a mud motor and/or weight on bit (WOB) at a surface of a borehole, predicting current reactive torque of the mud motor based on the current differential pressure and/or WOB).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the applicants' invention was made to estimating a reactive torque (RT), as taught by Fisher, JR into Edbury in order to optimizing product design, ensuring manufacturing quality, improving machine efficiency & safety.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to provide estimated reactive torque, as taught by Fisher, JR, as response to setting of bottom toolface of Edbury in order to better control the efficient drilling process.
Gillian discloses different durations of times (shorter or longer) corresponding to the drilling procedure.
Gillan discloses rotary drilling the wellbore for a second time period (para 0053, where a period of time of the rotary drilling procedure. In some non-limiting examples, the time period may be between about twenty and ninety minutes, although longer and shorter tracking times are contemplated. In some instances, only a short time period immediately prior to slide drilling procedure is recorded.), e.g., rotary operation with different length times and shorter tracking times corresponds to the second time period. (para 0061, where In FIG. 5, the right and left oscillations appear as spikes in the drilling resistance function during the time period of the slide drilling segment ), e.g., slide drilling segment with time period.
Gillan also discloses rotary drilling the wellbore for a fourth time period (para 0053, where a period of time of the rotary drilling procedure. In some non-limiting examples, the time period may be between about twenty and ninety minutes, although longer and shorter tracking times are contemplated. In some instances, only a short time period immediately prior to slide drilling procedure is recorded.), e.g., the longer tracking times corresponds to the fourth time period.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the applicants' invention was made to provide rotary drilling the wellbore for a second and fourth time period, as taught by Gillian in combination applied above in order to more efficiently provide the drilling path during the different section and turns in the drilling path.
Regarding Claim 2, Edbury and Fisher, JR and Gillian disclose the method of claim 1, but Edbury and Fisher, JR do not disclose wherein the first time period and the second time period are different
Gillan discloses the first time period and the second time period are different (para 0053, where a period of time of the rotary drilling procedure. In some non-limiting examples, the time period may be between about twenty and ninety minutes, although longer and shorter tracking times are contemplated. In some instances, only a short time period immediately prior to slide drilling procedure is recorded.), e.g., rotary operation with different length times.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the applicants' invention was made to provide r the first time period and the second time period are different, as taught by Gillian in combination applied above in order to more accurately determine the operation during the rotary drilling procedure.
Regarding Claim 3, Edbury and Fisher, JR and Gillan disclose the method of claim 2, but Edbury and Fisher, JR do not disclose wherein the first time period and the third time period are different.
Gillian discloses different duration of times (shorter or longer) corresponding to the drilling procedure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the applicants’ invention was made to provide the shorter and longer period time as taught by into Edbury to be the first and third time intervals in order to more accurately determine the operation during the rotary drilling procedure.
Regarding Claim 4, Edbury and Fisher, JR and Gillian disclose the method of claim 3, further Edbury discloses wherein the second time period and the fourth time period are the same, or the first number of wraps and the second number of wraps are the same (Fig. 14, Col. 23, lines 41-45, where is a plot over time illustrating tuning in a transition from rotary drilling to slide drilling with surface adjustments at intervals, e.g., the all intervals is the same).
Regarding Claim 9, Edbury discloses a system for drilling a wellbore, the system comprising:
a processor (Col. 7, lines 30-34, where the term "computer system" may refer to any device having a processor that executes instructions from a memory medium);
a memory coupled to the processor, (Col. 7, lines 30-34, where the term "computer system" may refer to any device having a processor that executes instructions from a memory medium) the memory comprising instructions executable by the processor(Col. 4, lines 26-31, where In various embodiments, a computer readable memory medium includes program instructions) for:
determining a desired wellbore curvature to be drilled (Col. 8, lines 26-31, where rotary drilling may follow a relatively straight path and slide drilling may follow a relatively curved path. In some embodiments, rotary drilling and slide drilling modes are used in combination to achieve a specified trajectory; Fig. 16, Col. 24, lines 33, where At 410, a target trajectory is established);
determining a potential build rate for a bottom hole assembly (BHA) to drill the desired wellbore curvature(Col. 25, lines 7-15, where Based on the preceding calculations, 4 deg/30 m would be the expected build rate; Col. 30, lines 52-54, where a project to bit is performed (using for example, best fit curves for buildup rate ("BUR"));
controlling (Abstract, where method of controlling a direction of a toolface of a bottom hole assembly for slide drilling) a first slide drilling operation for a first time period(Fig. 14, Col. 23, lines 41-45, where is a plot over time illustrating tuning in a transition from rotary drilling to slide drilling with surface adjustments at intervals …Curve 340 represents a toolface target. Points 342 represent readings from a gravity toolface (for example, from an MWD tool). Curve 344 is a curve fit of points 342. Curve 346 represents the rotational position of an encoder on a rotary drive, e.g., the points 348, 342, 362 is point of the slide drilling curve from the drilling curve 340);
setting the off bottom toolface of the BHA to a target toolface for drilling the curvature (Col.1, lines 42-46, where some drilling operations (whether manual or automatic) may require that a drill bit be stopped or pulled off the bottom of the well, for example, when changing from a rotary drilling mode to a slide drilling mode).
Edbury does not explicitly disclose estimating a reactive torque (RT) for a desired weight on bit (WOB) for drilling the curvature; setting the off bottom toolface of the BHA to the responsive to the estimated reactive torque; controlling a first rotary drilling operation for a second time period or a first number of wraps; controlling a second rotary drilling operation for the wellbore for a fourth time period or a second number of wraps.
Fisher, JR discloses estimating a reactive torque (RT) for a desired weight on bit (WOB) for drilling the curvature (Abstract, where controlling slide drilling on a drilling rig are described. The methods include detecting current differential pressure of a mud motor and/or weight on bit (WOB) at a surface of a borehole, predicting current reactive torque of the mud motor based on the current differential pressure and/or WOB).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the applicants' invention was made to estimating a reactive torque (RT), as taught by Fisher, JR into Edbury in order to optimizing product design, ensuring manufacturing quality, improving machine efficiency & safety.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to provide estimated reactive torque, as taught by Fisher, JR, as response to setting of bottom toolface of Edbury in order to better control the efficient drilling process.
Gillan discloses controlling a first rotary drilling operation (para 0052, where the controller 210 controls the drive system 140 to perform a rotary drilling procedure) for a second time period (para 0053, where a period of time of the rotary drilling procedure. In some non-limiting examples, the time period may be between about twenty and ninety minutes, although longer and shorter tracking times are contemplated. In some instances, only a short time period immediately prior to slide drilling procedure is recorded.), e.g., rotary operation with different length times and shorter tracking times corresponds to the second time period (para 0061, where In FIG. 5, the right and left oscillations appear as spikes in the drilling resistance function during the time period of the slide drilling segment ), e.g., slide drilling segment with time period.
Gillan also discloses controlling a second rotary drilling operation (para 0052, where the controller 210 controls the drive system 140 to perform a rotary drilling procedure) for the wellbore for a fourth time period (para 0053, where a period of time of the rotary drilling procedure. In some non-limiting examples, the time period may be between about twenty and ninety minutes, although longer and shorter tracking times are contemplated. In some instances, only a short time period immediately prior to slide drilling procedure is recorded.), e.g., the longer tracking times corresponds to the fourth time period.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the applicants' invention was made to controlling a first rotary drilling operation for a second time period, as taught by Gillian in the combination applied above in order to more efficiently provide the drilling path during the different section and turns in the drilling path.
Regarding Claim 10, Edbury and Fisher, JR and Gillan disclose the system of claim 9, wherein the first time period and the second time period are different, as recited in claim 2.
Regarding Claim 11, Edbury and Fisher, JR and Gillan disclose the system of claim 9, wherein the first time period and the third time period are different, as recited in claim 3.
Regarding Claim 12, Edbury and Fisher, JR and Gillan disclose the system of claim 9, wherein the second time period and the fourth time period are the same, or the first number of wraps and the second number of wraps are the same, as recited in claim 4.
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edbury in view of Fisher, JR and Gillan, as applied above and further in view of
Weideman et al., (US Pub. 20210017850), hereinafter Weideman.
Regarding Claim 5, Edbury and Fisher, JR and Gillian disclose the method of claim 4, but do not disclose wherein the second slide drilling operation cancels out the first slide drilling operation.
Weideman discloses the second slide drilling operation cancels out the first slide drilling operation (para 0369, table 1, where regarding slide determines that the intervals (start and stop depths) drilling rig should and slide target orientation to enter slide mode).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the applicants' invention was made to cancels out the first slide drilling operation, as taught by Weideman in combination applied above in order to more efficiently determine the operation during.
Regarding Claim 13, Edbury and Fisher, JR and Gillan disclose the system of claim 9, wherein the second slide drilling operation cancels out the first slide drilling operation, as recited in claim 5.
Claims 6-8, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edbury in view of Fisher, JR and Gillian as applied above and further in view of Hadi (CA2999623A1), hereinafter Hadi.
Regarding Claim 6, Edbury and Fisher, JR and Gillian disclose the method of claim 1, but do not disclose further comprising:
determining at least one of the following:
(i) a time period for drilling parameter changes to propagate to the BHA,
(ii) a hardness of the formation being drilled, or
(iii) a time delay for receiving toolface information from the wellbore.
Hadi discloses (i) a time period for drilling parameter changes to propagate to the BHA (para 0082, where a considerable time period may be required for the transmission of the data from the toolface to the surface. In fact, it is not uncommon for such delay to be 30 seconds or more),
(ii) a hardness of the formation being drilled, or
(iii) a time delay for receiving toolface information from the wellbore (para 0046, where the time delay of the transmission of MWD data to the controller).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the applicants' invention was made to provide time period for drilling parameter changes to propagate to the BHA, as taught by Hadi in the combination applied above in order to provide more accurate data.
Regarding Claim 7, Edbury and Fisher, JR and Gillan disclose the method of claim 6, but do not disclose:
determining an estimated effect on toolface from at least one of:
(i) a time period for drilling parameter changes to propagate to the BHA,
(ii) a hardness of the formation being drilled, or
(iii) a time delay for receiving toolface information from the wellbore; and adjusting a spindle position responsive to the determined estimated effect.
Hadi discloses determining an estimated effect on toolface from at least one of:
(i) a time period for drilling parameter changes to propagate to the BHA (para 0082, where a considerable time period may be required for the transmission of the data from the toolface to the surface. In fact, it is not uncommon for such delay to be 30 seconds or more),
(ii) a hardness of the formation being drilled, or
(iii) a time delay for receiving toolface information from the wellbore; and adjusting a spindle position responsive to the determined estimated effect (para 0046, where the time delay of the transmission of MWD data to the controller).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the applicants' invention was made to provide time period for drilling parameter changes to propagate to the BHA, as taught by Hadi in the combination applied above in order to provide more accurate data.
Regarding Claim 8, Edbury and Fisher, JR and Gillan and Hadi disclose the method of claim 7, further Edbury discloses comprising:
adjusting one or more of the first time period, the second time period, the third time period, and the fourth time period to correct for a curvature of the wellbore (Col. 5, lines 10-12, where FIG. 14 is a plot over time illustrating tuning in a transition from rotary drilling to slide drilling with surface adjustments at intervals).
Regarding Claim 14, Edbury and Fisher, JR and Gillan disclose the system of claim 9, but do not disclose:
wherein the instructions further comprise instructions for: determining at least one of the following: (i) a time period for drilling parameter changes to propagate to the BHA,
(ii) a hardness of the formation being drilled, or (iii) a time delay for receiving toolface information from the wellbore.
Hadi discloses (i) a time period for drilling parameter changes to propagate to the BHA (para 0082, where a considerable time period may be required for the transmission of the data from the toolface to the surface. In fact, it is not uncommon for such delay to be30 seconds or more), (ii) a hardness of the formation being drilled, or (iii) a time delay for receiving toolface information from the wellbore (para 0046, where the time delay of the transmission of MWD data to the controller).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the applicants' invention was made to provide time period for drilling parameter changes to propagate to the BHA, as taught by Hadi in the combination applied above in order to provide more accurate data.
Regarding Claim 15, Edbury and Fisher, JR and Gillan disclose the system of claim 14.
Additionally, Edbury discloses adjusting a spindle position responsive to the determined estimated effect (a rotational position of a BHA is correlated with a rotational position of a top drive rotating a spindle at the surface of a formation. The process of correlating the rotational position of the BHA toolface with a rotational position at the surface of the formation is referred to herein as "synchronization". In some embodiments, synchronization includes dynamically computing a "Topside Toolface" The "Topside Toolface" at a given time may be the estimated rotational position of the toolface determined using the measured actual rotational position of the top drive).
Edbury and Fisher, JR and Gillan do not disclose
determining an estimated effect on toolface from at least one of:
(i) a time period for drilling parameter changes to propagate to the BHA,
(ii) a hardness of the formation being drilled, or (iii) a time delay for receiving toolface information from the wellbore; and adjusting a spindle position responsive to the determined estimated effect.
Hadi discloses (i) a time period for drilling parameter changes to propagate to the BHA (para 0082, where a considerable time period may be required for the transmission of the data from the toolface to the surface. In fact, it is not uncommon for such delay to be30 seconds or more), (ii) a hardness of the formation being drilled, or (iii) a time delay for receiving toolface information from the wellbore(para 0046, where the time delay of the transmission of MWD data to the controller); and
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the applicants' invention was made to provide time period for drilling parameter changes to propagate to the BHA, as taught by Hadi in the combination applied above in order to provide more accurate data.
Regarding Claim 16, Edbury and Fisher, JR and Gillan disclose the system of claim 9, and further Hadi disclose wherein the instructions further comprise instructions for: adjusting one or more of the first time period, the second time period, the third time period, and the fourth time period to correct for a curvature of the wellbore, as recited in claim 8.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KALERIA KNOX whose telephone number is (571)270-5971. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571)2722302. 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.
/KALERIA KNOX/
Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/ANDREW SCHECHTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights