DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. CA3226620, filed on 01/19/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 02/20/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1-5, 7, 11-15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Converset (US20240076946) in view of Benson (US20190309614).
In regards to Claims 1 and 20, Converset teaches “performing a drilling mud measurement during a drilling operation, wherein the drilling mud measurement is of a volume of at least some of the drilling mud used for the drilling operation (“As an example, an approach may actively monitor a drilling fluid circulating system (e.g., drilling fluid system) and associate the drilling fluid circulating system with a state based on the activity. For example, the state may be one of those shown in FIG. 4 . After assigning the drilling fluid circulating system a state (e.g., a pit state), the system may select one or more alarms and/or control actions that are associated with that state and deemed valid for that state” – [0120]; “As an example, a framework may automatically determine a pit state based on one or more inputs, which may include one or more sensor-based inputs (e.g., sensor measurements, etc.). As an example, a framework may automatically detect a pit state, as associated with mud flow, active volume of mud, etc. In such an example, input to detect a pit state may include one or more hoisting system inputs (e.g., block position and hookload with respect to time), bit depth, flow rate, etc. For example, consider a framework that may receive block position and hookload where such values are sampled at approximately once per 5 seconds. As to bit depth, it may provide an indication of how much mud is in a borehole (e.g., wellbore) and/or may provide an indication as to a block position with respect to a stand of drillpipe. As to flow rate, it may provide an indication as to mud leaving and/or mud entering one or more pits. As an example, a framework may utilize one or more parameters that may be operational parameters. In various examples, a framework may include operational parameters that influence mud volume and, for example, not those that may not influence mud volume. As to a number of pit states, a framework may utilize more than three pit states and less than approximately 15 pit states. As an example, a framework may utilize approximately four to six pit states. As an example, a framework may utilize pit states that include stable pit states and dynamic pit states. As an example, a framework may utilize an unknown pit state that may provide for robustness, for example, where detection of a predefined state may be problematic. In such an example, a framework may issue one or more instructions, warnings, etc., where detection results in the unknown pit state” – [0122]);
(c) determining that a differential between the drilling mud measurement and a reference drilling mud value exceeds a differential alarm threshold (“ In the GUI 600, the channels include mud flow rate (e.g., 0 to 1000 gallons per minute), active pit volume (e.g., 20 bbl to 70 bbl), and state. In the example of FIG. 6, the results indicate that a gain has not occurred; however, there is an indication of a loss. In such an example, the loss may be determined by comparing active pit volume during the first stable period and the last stable period in the GUI 600, which indicates a loss of approximately 5 barrels (bbl), which may be compared to a threshold, for example, to trigger issuance of a signal (e.g., an alarm, a communication, a control instruction, etc.).” – [0126]); and
(d) generating an alarm in response to the differential between the drilling mud measurement and the reference drilling mud value exceeding the differential alarm threshold (“ After assigning the drilling fluid circulating system a state (e.g., a pit state), the system may select one or more alarms and/or control actions that are associated with that state and deemed valid for that state. The one or more alarms and/or control actions associated with the state may then be activated. The system may also monitor the drilling fluid circulating system for changes in state. In response to determining that the drilling fluid circulating system state has changed, the system may activate one or more of different alarms that are associated with the new state, and deactivate one or more alarms that are associated with the previous state but not the new state. As explained, a framework may provide for one or more well control actions, which may be prompted by issuance of an alarm” – [0120]; “In such an example, the loss may be determined by comparing active pit volume during the first stable period and the last stable period in the GUI 600, which indicates a loss of approximately 5 barrels (bbl), which may be compared to a threshold, for example, to trigger issuance of a signal (e.g., an alarm, a communication, a control instruction, etc.)” – [0126]).”
Converset is silent with regards to the language of “(b) determining that the drilling mud measurement is within an absolute mud value range.”
Benson teaches “(b) determining that the drilling mud measurement is within an absolute mud value range (“A control system may monitor various parameters, including the volume of drilling mud and any materials entering a borehole, including by a flow rate, and the volume of fluids and materials (such as drilling mud and rock) exiting a borehole, including by a flow rate, and determining if there is a difference, the value of any such difference, whether the value is within one or more target ranges [i.e. absolute mud value range], falls below a threshold therefor, or exceeds a threshold therefor.” – Abstract; “In addition, the target range may be preset by an operator, may be based on historical data, and/or may vary for different borehole segments.” – [0284]).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Converset to incorporate the teaching of Benson to utilize the control system to monitor parameters and evaluate the parameters with respect to target ranges. By utilizing the target ranges for parameters this is an improvement to the monitoring of the drilling fluid with the drilling operators.
In regards to Claim 2, Converset in view of Benson discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Converset further teaches “further comprising displaying, on a display at a drilling site at which the drilling operation is occurring, traces respectively showing a history of drilling mud measurements (Figure 9 shows traces of the TVA with respect to time).”
Converset is silent with regards to the language of “further comprising displaying, on a display at a drilling site at which the drilling operation is occurring, corresponding absolute mud value ranges.”
Benson further teaches “further comprising displaying, on a display at a drilling site at which the drilling operation is occurring, corresponding absolute mud value ranges (display provides many different types of information - [0067]).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Converset in view of Benson to incorporate the further teaching of Benson to display the information. By displaying many different types of information his is an improvement that yields predictable results in the monitoring of the drilling operations.
In regards to Claim 3, Converset in view of Benson discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Converset further teaches “wherein the drilling mud measurement is of total mud volume for the drilling operation, and wherein the total mud volume excludes trip mud used for tripping operations (“As discussed above, determining whether or not to raise an alarm based on changes in the drilling fluid volumes and the drilling fluid circulating system may be challenging. As an example, a framework may provide for determining when there is a fluid loss or a fluid gain in one or more pits that merits generating an alarm and/or a control action. In one embodiment, the approach measures the total active volume of drilling fluids and the sum of volumes to distinguish between fluid gains due to, for example, transfers between pits (e.g., which may be deemed expected behavior and not meriting an alarm and/or control action) and those associated with the formation (e.g., which may be deemed unexpected behavior meriting an alarm and/or control action). For example, when applied to active volume, e.g., the combination of all of the pit volumes that are fed into the well by the mud pump, and to the combination of all the pit volumes of the rig, the approach may help distinguish between fluid gains from a formation and those from mud transfers from reserve pits to active pits” – [0129]; “In one embodiment, an approach may detect gains in a volume of interest using a dynamic window approach for detecting statistically significant volume gains within the volume of interest. In one embodiment, an approach may be applied to an active volume measurement and a total volume measurement. As a result, such an approach may facilitate determining the origin of a gain observed in the active volume and associating it with a possible kick or with an intra transfer of mud within the drilling fluid circulating system. Hence, a framework may operate to distinguish between drilling fluid system operations and drilling fluid formation interactions (e.g., gains or losses)” – [0130]).”
In regards to Claim 4, Converset in view of Benson discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Converset further teaches “wherein the drilling mud measurement is of trip mud used for tripping operations and excludes drilling mud used for other drilling operations (“As an example, a framework may provide a mechanism that may be used to help reduce risk of one or more types of incidents at a wellsite. In such an example, the framework may provide for monitoring one or more trip tanks during one or more stationary periods. In various instances, flow checks may be part of a well control procedure that may involve a period where all drilling, tripping, and circulating operations are stopped in order to monitor the well. A trip tank may be lined up and changes in its volume are monitored to detect the presence of potential gains. This information may be used to prevent events such as kicks. Disclosed herein is an approach to real-time automation of abnormal gain in trip tanks during stationary periods. In one embodiment, the approach involves identifying stationary periods based on the flow in and bit depth signal. The approach may also involve looking for an absence of circulation and a bit depth stability. The approach then looks for volume increases in the trip tank to detect which ones are lined up. Once the line up detection is completed, the approach may monitor the identified trip tanks to detect abnormal volume increases that merit notification” – [0183]).”
In regards to Claim 5, Converset in view of Benson discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Converset in view of Benson is silent with regards to the language of “wherein the differential alarm threshold is approximately 7 m3 of drilling mud.”
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a differential alarm threshold of 7 m3 , since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. This it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Converset in view of Benson to incorporate a threshold of 7 m3.
In regards to Claim 7, Converset in view of Benson discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Converset is silent with regards to the language of “suspending drilling in response to the alarm”.
Benson further teaches “suspending drilling in response to the alarm (“The data received by a computer system from the one or more cameras can be analyzed and used, such as by the computer system, to provide an alert, alarm, or to stop or alter one or more drilling parameters, including ceasing operation of given equipment or stopping drilling operations” – [0356]).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Converset in view of Benson to incorporate the further teaching of Benson to suspend drilling operations. By stopping drilling operations in response to the alarm, this is an improvement that yields predictable results in the drilling operations of a well.
In regards to Claim 11, Converset teaches “(a) a mud tank (mud tank – [0053]);
(b) a mud pump fluidly coupled to the mud tank for pumping drilling fluid from the mud tank into a well (mud pump with drill – [0053]);
(d) a display (display – [0094]);
(e) at least one processor communicatively coupled to the display, the mud pump, and the volume meter (processor system connected – [0091]-[0094]); and
(f) at least one memory communicatively coupled to the at least one processor and having stored thereon computer program code that is executable by the at least one processor and that, when executed by the at least one processor (memory coupled to processor – [0092]), causes the at least one processor to:
(i) perform a drilling mud measurement during a drilling operation using the volume meter, wherein the drilling mud measurement is of a volume of at least some of the drilling mud used for the drilling operation (“As an example, an approach may actively monitor a drilling fluid circulating system (e.g., drilling fluid system) and associate the drilling fluid circulating system with a state based on the activity. For example, the state may be one of those shown in FIG. 4 . After assigning the drilling fluid circulating system a state (e.g., a pit state), the system may select one or more alarms and/or control actions that are associated with that state and deemed valid for that state” – [0120]; “As an example, a framework may automatically determine a pit state based on one or more inputs, which may include one or more sensor-based inputs (e.g., sensor measurements, etc.). As an example, a framework may automatically detect a pit state, as associated with mud flow, active volume of mud, etc. In such an example, input to detect a pit state may include one or more hoisting system inputs (e.g., block position and hookload with respect to time), bit depth, flow rate, etc. For example, consider a framework that may receive block position and hookload where such values are sampled at approximately once per 5 seconds. As to bit depth, it may provide an indication of how much mud is in a borehole (e.g., wellbore) and/or may provide an indication as to a block position with respect to a stand of drillpipe. As to flow rate, it may provide an indication as to mud leaving and/or mud entering one or more pits. As an example, a framework may utilize one or more parameters that may be operational parameters. In various examples, a framework may include operational parameters that influence mud volume and, for example, not those that may not influence mud volume. As to a number of pit states, a framework may utilize more than three pit states and less than approximately 15 pit states. As an example, a framework may utilize approximately four to six pit states. As an example, a framework may utilize pit states that include stable pit states and dynamic pit states. As an example, a framework may utilize an unknown pit state that may provide for robustness, for example, where detection of a predefined state may be problematic. In such an example, a framework may issue one or more instructions, warnings, etc., where detection results in the unknown pit state” – [0122]);
(iii) determine that a differential between the drilling mud measurement and a reference drilling mud value exceeds a differential alarm threshold (“ In the GUI 600, the channels include mud flow rate (e.g., 0 to 1000 gallons per minute), active pit volume (e.g., 20 bbl to 70 bbl), and state. In the example of FIG. 6, the results indicate that a gain has not occurred; however, there is an indication of a loss. In such an example, the loss may be determined by comparing active pit volume during the first stable period and the last stable period in the GUI 600, which indicates a loss of approximately 5 barrels (bbl), which may be compared to a threshold, for example, to trigger issuance of a signal (e.g., an alarm, a communication, a control instruction, etc.).” – [0126]); and
(iv) generate an alarm in response to the differential between the drilling mud measurement and the reference drilling mud value exceeding the differential alarm threshold (“ After assigning the drilling fluid circulating system a state (e.g., a pit state), the system may select one or more alarms and/or control actions that are associated with that state and deemed valid for that state. The one or more alarms and/or control actions associated with the state may then be activated. The system may also monitor the drilling fluid circulating system for changes in state. In response to determining that the drilling fluid circulating system state has changed, the system may activate one or more of different alarms that are associated with the new state, and deactivate one or more alarms that are associated with the previous state but not the new state. As explained, a framework may provide for one or more well control actions, which may be prompted by issuance of an alarm” – [0120]; “In such an example, the loss may be determined by comparing active pit volume during the first stable period and the last stable period in the GUI 600, which indicates a loss of approximately 5 barrels (bbl), which may be compared to a threshold, for example, to trigger issuance of a signal (e.g., an alarm, a communication, a control instruction, etc.)” – [0126]).”
Converset is silent with regards to the language of “(c) a volume meter affixed to the mud tank for measuring pit volume of the drilling fluid stored in the mud tank; (ii) determine that the drilling mud measurement is within an absolute mud value range.”
Benson teaches “(c) a volume meter affixed to the mud tank for measuring pit volume of the drilling fluid stored in the mud tank (“In some embodiments, continuous monitoring of drilling fluids density and flow rate is achieved using Coriolis mass flow meters. In one embodiment, Coriolis meters are provided at both the suction and return line to physically measure the mass flow of fluid entering and exiting the well in real time. The Coriolis meters may provide flow rate, density and temperature data. In one embodiment, a densimeter, flow meter, and viscometer are mounted inline (for example, on a skid placed between the active mud tank and the mud pumps). The densimeter, flow meter, and viscometer may measure fluid going into the well. A second Coriolis meter is installed at the flow line to measure the fluid exiting the well” – [0264]);
(ii) determine that the drilling mud measurement is within an absolute mud value range (“A control system may monitor various parameters, including the volume of drilling mud and any materials entering a borehole, including by a flow rate, and the volume of fluids and materials (such as drilling mud and rock) exiting a borehole, including by a flow rate, and determining if there is a difference, the value of any such difference, whether the value is within one or more target ranges [i.e. absolute mud value range], falls below a threshold therefor, or exceeds a threshold therefor.” – Abstract; “In addition, the target range may be preset by an operator, may be based on historical data, and/or may vary for different borehole segments.” – [0284]).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Converset to incorporate the teaching of Benson to utilize the control system to monitor parameters and evaluate the parameters with respect to target ranges. By utilizing the target ranges for parameters this is an improvement to the monitoring of the drilling fluid with the drilling operators.
In regards to Claim 12, Converset in view of Benson discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Converset further teaches “wherein the computer program code further causes the at least one processor to display, on the display, traces respectively showing a history of drilling mud measurements (Figure 9 shows traces of the TVA with respect to time).”
Converset is silent with regards to the language of “wherein the computer program code further causes the at least one processor to display, on the display, corresponding absolute mud value ranges.”
Benson further teaches “wherein the computer program code further causes the at least one processor to display, on the display, corresponding absolute mud value ranges (display provides many different types of information - [0067]).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Converset in view of Benson to incorporate the further teaching of Benson to display the information. By displaying many different types of information his is an improvement that yields predictable results in the monitoring of the drilling operations.
In regards to Claim 13, Converset in view of Benson discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Converset further teaches “wherein the drilling mud measurement is of total mud volume for the drilling operation, and wherein the total mud volume excludes trip mud used for tripping operations (“As discussed above, determining whether or not to raise an alarm based on changes in the drilling fluid volumes and the drilling fluid circulating system may be challenging. As an example, a framework may provide for determining when there is a fluid loss or a fluid gain in one or more pits that merits generating an alarm and/or a control action. In one embodiment, the approach measures the total active volume of drilling fluids and the sum of volumes to distinguish between fluid gains due to, for example, transfers between pits (e.g., which may be deemed expected behavior and not meriting an alarm and/or control action) and those associated with the formation (e.g., which may be deemed unexpected behavior meriting an alarm and/or control action). For example, when applied to active volume, e.g., the combination of all of the pit volumes that are fed into the well by the mud pump, and to the combination of all the pit volumes of the rig, the approach may help distinguish between fluid gains from a formation and those from mud transfers from reserve pits to active pits” – [0129]; “In one embodiment, an approach may detect gains in a volume of interest using a dynamic window approach for detecting statistically significant volume gains within the volume of interest. In one embodiment, an approach may be applied to an active volume measurement and a total volume measurement. As a result, such an approach may facilitate determining the origin of a gain observed in the active volume and associating it with a possible kick or with an intra transfer of mud within the drilling fluid circulating system. Hence, a framework may operate to distinguish between drilling fluid system operations and drilling fluid formation interactions (e.g., gains or losses)” – [0130]).”
In regards to Claim 14, Converset in view of Benson discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Converset further teaches “wherein the drilling mud measurement is of trip mud used for tripping operations and excludes drilling mud used for other drilling operations (“As an example, a framework may provide a mechanism that may be used to help reduce risk of one or more types of incidents at a wellsite. In such an example, the framework may provide for monitoring one or more trip tanks during one or more stationary periods. In various instances, flow checks may be part of a well control procedure that may involve a period where all drilling, tripping, and circulating operations are stopped in order to monitor the well. A trip tank may be lined up and changes in its volume are monitored to detect the presence of potential gains. This information may be used to prevent events such as kicks. Disclosed herein is an approach to real-time automation of abnormal gain in trip tanks during stationary periods. In one embodiment, the approach involves identifying stationary periods based on the flow in and bit depth signal. The approach may also involve looking for an absence of circulation and a bit depth stability. The approach then looks for volume increases in the trip tank to detect which ones are lined up. Once the line up detection is completed, the approach may monitor the identified trip tanks to detect abnormal volume increases that merit notification” – [0183]).”
In regards to Claim 15, Converset in view of Benson discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Converset in view of Benson is silent with regards to the language of “wherein the differential alarm threshold is approximately 7 m3 of drilling mud.”
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a differential alarm threshold of 7 m3 , since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. This it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Converset in view of Benson to incorporate a threshold of 7 m3.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Converset in view of Benson as applied to claim 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Torrione (US20200248546).
In regards to Claims 6 and 16, Converset in view of Benson discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Converset in view of Benson is silent with regards to the language of “prior to determining that the drilling mud measurement is within the absolute mud value range and to determining that the differential between the drilling mud measurement and the reference drilling mud value exceeds the differential alarm threshold, receiving user input explicitly requesting absolute mud value monitoring,
wherein determining that the drilling mud measurement is within the absolute mud value range is performed in response to receiving the user input,
and wherein determining that the differential between the drilling mud measurement and the reference drilling mud value exceeds the differential alarm threshold is performed automatically in response to the user input.”
Torrione teaches “prior to determining that the drilling mud measurement is within the absolute mud value range and to determining that the differential between the drilling mud measurement and the reference drilling mud value exceeds the differential alarm threshold, receiving user input explicitly requesting absolute mud value monitoring,
wherein determining that the drilling mud measurement is within the absolute mud value range is performed in response to receiving the user input,
and wherein determining that the differential between the drilling mud measurement and the reference drilling mud value exceeds the differential alarm threshold is performed automatically in response to the user input (“The analysis device 124 may, for example, be used only to present data to the user, or the display 1202 may be a touchscreen display that also allows the user to enter commands such as the touchscreen interface depicted in FIG. 14.” – [0186]).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Converset in view of Benson to incorporate the teaching of Torrione to present data to a user and for the user to enter commands in the touch screen interface. By allowing a user to enter commands to adjust operations after presenting the user with data, this is an improvement that yields predictable results in evaluating and monitoring of the mud pit and mud volume during drilling operations.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Converset in view of Benson as applied to claim 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Li (CN104632206A)
In regards to Claim 8, Converset in view of Benson discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Converset in view of Benson is silent with regards to the language of “resetting the reference drilling mud value in response to a user action indicative of user attention.”
Li teaches “resetting the reference drilling mud value in response to a user action indicative of user attention (users can adjust the threshold parameters, i.e. reference drilling mud value – [0021]).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Converset in view of Benson to incorporate the teaching of Li to adjust the parameters. By allowing users to adjust parameters this is an improvement that yields predictable results in the monitoring of logging data.
In regards to Claim 17, Converset in view of Benson discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Converset in view of Benson is silent with regards to the language of “wherein the computer program code further causes the at least one processor to reset the reference drilling mud value in response to a user action indicative of user attention.”
Li teaches “wherein the computer program code further causes the at least one processor to reset the reference drilling mud value in response to a user action indicative of user attention (users can adjust the threshold parameters, i.e. reference drilling mud value – [0021]).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Converset in view of Benson to incorporate the teaching of Li to adjust the parameters. By allowing users to adjust parameters this is an improvement that yields predictable results in the monitoring of logging data.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Converset in view of Benson and Li as applied to claim 8 and 16 above, and further in view of Atchison (US20200318464).
In regards to Claim 9, Converset in view of Benson and Li discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Converset in view of Benson and Li are silent with regards to the language of “wherein the user action comprises at least one of acknowledging the alarm, zeroing trip mud or total mud gain/loss, setting the reference drilling mud value to a current measured pit volume, or changing the absolute mud value range.”
Atchison teaches “wherein the user action comprises at least one of acknowledging the alarm, zeroing trip mud or total mud gain/loss, setting the reference drilling mud value to a current measured pit volume, or changing the absolute mud value range (that on receiving the alarm signal the operator is required to respond – [0252]).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Converset in view of Benson and Li to incorporate the teaching of Atchison to require the operator to respond to the alarm signal. By requiring the operator to respond to the alarm signal this is an improvement that yields predictable results in the monitoring of the drilling process.
In regards to Claim 18, Converset in view of Benson and Li discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Converset in view of Benson and Li are silent with regards to the language of “wherein the user action comprises at least one of acknowledging the alarm, zeroing trip mud or total mud gain/loss, setting the reference drilling mud value to a current measured pit volume, or changing the absolute mud value range.”
Atchison teaches “wherein the user action comprises at least one of acknowledging the alarm, zeroing trip mud or total mud gain/loss, setting the reference drilling mud value to a current measured pit volume, or changing the absolute mud value range (that on receiving the alarm signal the operator is required to respond – [0252]).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Converset in view of Benson and Li to incorporate the teaching of Atchison to require the operator to respond to the alarm signal. By requiring the operator to respond to the alarm signal this is an improvement that yields predictable results in the monitoring of the drilling process.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In regards to Claims 10 and 19, Converset in view of Benson and Li discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Converset in view of Benson and Li are silent with regards to the language of “wherein determining the differential is performed while alarm generation has been disabled by a user, wherein the method further comprises receiving user input enabling the alarm generation while the alarm generation is disabled, and wherein generating the alarm is performed after receiving the user input enabling the alarm generation and is based on the differential determined while the alarm generation was disabled.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOSSEF KORANG-BEHESHTI whose telephone number is (571)272-3291. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 6:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YOSSEF KORANG-BEHESHTI/ Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights