DETAILED ACTION
Claims 4-26 are currently presented for examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/14/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Following Applicants amendments to the Claims, the objection of the Claims is Withdrawn.
Following Applicants amendments, the 112 rejection of the Claims is Withdrawn.
Following Applicants arguments and amendments, and in light of the 2019 Patent Eligibility guidance, the 101 rejection of the Claims is Maintained.
Applicant’s Argument: The claim cannot be performed mentally, citing the measuring, receiving, computing and determining steps. As these limitations involve sensor-based measurement using affixed physical equipment and machine ingestion of a data stream via a coupled data analysis device, followed by rolling statistical operations (e.g., trailing median) and threshold comparisons over successive samples.
Examiner’s Response: The Examiner disagrees and points to the cited limitations. The measuring and receiving steps are properly addressed as additional elements. However, they are mere data gathering and use of a computer as a tool which is not indicative of a practical application or significantly more. The sensors are gathering the machine data that could be either printed or displayed, and then analyzed by the operator. The calculation of a trailing median, while a mathematical concept, can also be done mentally or with pencil and paper. The comparison to a threshold is also well within the bounds of the capability of the human mind. To do the calculations and comparison over successive samples, just means that the operations are performed multiple times. These arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant’s Argument: Specification [00128] describes samples acquired at a frequency of one sample per second and updated computations for each incoming sample (e.g., the estimated pit volume and the deviation). This cannot be practically be carried out by a person in their head, or with pencil and paper.
Examiner’s Response: The Examiner disagrees as the present claims do not reflect the purported improvements cited by the Applicant, with reference to the sections of the specification cited in the arguments, nor do they require the sampling rate recited in the specification. The present claims do not improve the functioning of the computer as well as any other technology or technical field. As discussed above, this sampling is mere data gathering which is not indicative of a practical application or significantly more.
Applicant’s Argument: This is a close call and should therefore be eligible.
Examiner’s Response: The Examiner disagrees as the majority of the claim is abstract elements. As discussed above all of the argued steps can be performed mentally. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Applicant’s Argument: The claims are integrated into a practical application as this coordinated sequence of physical measurements and automated statistical analysis provides a particular way to improve the accuracy of event detection in well drilling.
Examiner’s Response: The Examiner disagrees as a sequence of abstract steps is still an abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(a): “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements...” Additionally, as discussed in 2106.05(a)(II) improvements to technology or technical fields, “an improvement in the abstract idea itself … is not an improvement in technology”.
Applicant’s Argument: Specification paragraph [0004] shows the practical application.
Examiner’s Response: The Examiner disagrees as the present claims do not reflect the purported improvements cited by the Applicant, with reference to the sections of the specification cited in the arguments. The present claims do not improve the functioning of the computer as well as any other technology or technical field.
Applicant’s Argument: The analysis of measurement and alarming as "insignificant extra-solution activity" and asserts that there is "no particular machine" on which the invention is applied is inconsistent with the claim language itself, which recites (i) measuring pit volume using a volume meter affixed to a mud tank, (ii) coupling the data analysis device to the meter, and (iii) sounding one or more alarm elements in response to detected conditions.
Examiner’s Response: The Examiner disagrees as MPEP 2106.06(b) the involvement of the argued elements is s extra-solution activity or a field-of-use, i.e., the extent to which (or how) the machine or apparatus imposes meaningful limits on the claim. Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not integrate a judicial exception or provide significantly more. See Bilski, 561 U.S. at 610, 95 USPQ2d at 1009 (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978)), and CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, 654 F.3d 1366, 1370, 99 USPQ2d 1690 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Additionally, the receiving step contains the machine as merely an object on which the method operates MPEP 2106.06(b). A person can also receive a data stream in the form of numbers on a piece of paper for evaluation.
Applicant’s Argument: The claims are eligible in view of Desjardins.
Examiner’s Response: The Examiner disagrees as the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or a technical field. As discussed in the action and above, there is not an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or a technical field. The claims merely detail when to sound an alarm in response to a threshold. And, Applicant’s claims do not improve a machine learning system like the claims of Desjardins.
Therefore, the 101 rejection of the claims is Maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 4-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 4-7 and 25 recite a method, which is a process, which is a statutory category of invention. Claims 8-13 recite a method, which is a process, which is a statutory category of invention. Claims 14-19 recite a method, which is a process, which is a statutory category of invention. Claims 20-24 and 26 recite a method, which is a process, which is a statutory category of invention. Therefore, claims 4-26 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claims 4, 8, 14 and 20 recite the abstract idea of determining an influx or loss event based on a set of data and sounding an alarm, constituting an abstract idea based on Mental Processes including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, or with the aid of pencil and paper, or alternatively based on Mathematical Concepts including mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. The limitation of “determining, …, one or more drilling modes of the well drilling operations based on drilling parameters;” as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts performed in the human mind including evaluating a drilling mode and making a judgement about the mode. But for the recitation of “via the analysis device”, there is nothing that precludes the operation of the claim in the human mind or with pencil and paper. This follows for each recitation of “the analysis device.” The limitation of “determining an estimated pit volume, wherein the estimated pit volume is one of (i) a value less than or equal to a trailing median of the measured pit volume and (ii) a value greater than or equal to the trailing median of the measured pit volume;” covers concepts performed in the human mind including evaluating a data set under a set of conditions, or alternatively a mathematical concept, including mathematical calculations determine an estimated pit volume. The limitation of “determining a pit volume difference between the estimated pit volume and the measured pit volume;” covers concepts performed in the human mind including evaluating a difference between two values, or alternatively a mathematical concept, including mathematical calculations to determine the difference between two values. The limitation of “determining, …, whether at least one of the one or more drilling modes indicates an influx event or a loss event, comprising” covers concepts performed in the human mind including evaluating a set of data. The limitation of “identifying the influx event or loss event based on the estimated pit volume and the measured pit volume, comprising: identifying the influx event as occurring when the estimated pit volume is the value less than or equal to a trailing median of the measured pit volume, the magnitude of the pit volume difference exceeds an influx event threshold, and the measured pit volume exceeds the estimated pit volume; and” covers concepts performed in the human mind including evaluating a difference or surplus between two values, or alternatively a mathematical concept, including mathematical calculations to determine the difference or surplus between two values. The limitation of “identifying the loss event as occurring when the estimated pit volume is the value greater than or equal to the trailing median of the measured pit volume, the magnitude of the pit volume difference exceeds a loss event threshold, and the estimated pit volume exceeds the measured pit volume” covers concepts performed in the human mind including evaluating a difference or surplus between two values, or alternatively a mathematical concept, including mathematical calculations to determine the difference or surplus between two values. Claim 8 is similarly recites abstract ideas relating to flow in and out, it is abstract for the reasons presented above. The inclusion of a sum that is used in the calculation, further evidences the abstract nature of the claim in both identified groupings. Claim 14 is similarly recites abstract ideas relating to estimated and measured pit volumes, it is abstract for the reasons presented above. The inclusion of historical flow measurements further evidences the abstract nature of the claim in both identified groupings [0127]-[0128]. Claim 20 is similarly recites abstract ideas relating to estimated and measured pit volumes, it is abstract for the reasons presented above. The inclusion of a time and depth sensitive regression further evidences the abstract nature of the claim in both identified groupings [0127]-[0128]. Thus, the claims recite abstract ideas.
Dependent claims 5-7, 9-13, 15-19 and 21-26 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claims 4, 8, 14 and 20 recite the additional elements of “a data analysis device”, “alarm modules” however these additional elements merely link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology or field of use. (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Alternatively, these additional elements merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) The limitations of “receiving, via a data analysis device coupled to the flow meter, a data stream comprising drilling data that include the measured pit volume from the volume meter” and “sounding alarms when the alarm modules” these additional elements merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process or a mathematical concept) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)). The limitations of “measuring a pit volume of a mud tank, which stores drilling fluid to a well, by using a volume meter affixed to the mud tank;” in claims 4, 14 and 20, “(a) measuring a flow in of a drilling fluid out of a mud tank and into a well by using an input flow meter placed between the mud tank and the well or based on a number of strokes of a mud pump for pumping the drilling fluid from the mud tank into the well;” in claim 8, “measuring a hole depth of the well by using a downhole sensor” in claims 25 and 26, are insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of pre-solution data gathering. This is akin to testing a system for a response, the response being used to determine system malfunction, which has been identified by the courts as being insignificant extra-solution activity. MPEP2106.05(g) The limitation of “sounding one or more alarm elements based on the one or more drilling modes, comprising sounding the one or more alarm elements when at least one of the one or more drilling modes indicates the influx event or the loss event” are insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of outputting. This is akin to cutting hair (taking an action) after first determining the hair style (after determining the action to take) which has been identified by the courts as being insignificant extra-solution activity. MPEP2106.05(g) There is no particular machine on which the claimed invention is applied. Thus, the claims are not integrated into a practical application.
Dependent claims 5-7, 9-13, 15-19 and 21-24 further narrow the abstract idea, identified in the independent claims, and do not introduce additional elements that integrate the claimed invention into a practical application.
Step 2B: Claims 4, 8, 14 and 20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In particular, claims 4, 8, 14 and 20 recite the additional elements of “a data analysis device”, “alarm elements” however these additional elements merely link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology or field of use. (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Alternatively, these additional elements merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) The limitations of “receiving, via a data analysis device coupled to the flow meter, a data stream comprising drilling data that include the measured pit volume from the volume meter” and “sounding alarms when the alarm modules” these additional elements merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process or a mathematical concept) does not amount to significantly more. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)). The limitations of “measuring a pit volume of a mud tank, which stores drilling fluid to a well, by using a volume meter affixed to the mud tank;” in claims 4, 14 and 20, “(a) measuring a flow in of a drilling fluid out of a mud tank and into a well by using an input flow meter placed between the mud tank and the well or based on a number of strokes of a mud pump for pumping the drilling fluid from the mud tank into the well;” in claim 8, “measuring a hole depth of the well by using a downhole sensor” in claims 25 and 26, are insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of pre-solution data gathering. This is akin to testing a system for a response, the response being used to determine system malfunction, which has been identified by the courts as being insignificant extra-solution activity. MPEP2106.05(g) The limitation of “sounding one or more alarm elements based on the one or more drilling modes, comprising sounding the one or more alarm elements when at least one of the one or more drilling modes indicates the influx event or the loss event” are insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of outputting. This is akin to cutting hair (taking an action) after first determining the hair style (after determining the action to take) which has been identified by the courts as being insignificant extra-solution activity. MPEP2106.05(g) Therefore, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated in Section I.B. of the December 16, 2014 101 Examination Guidelines, “[t]o be patent-eligible, a claim that is directed to a judicial exception must include additional features to ensure that the claim describes a process or product that applies the exception in a meaningful way, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.”
The dependent claims include the same abstract ideas recited in the independent claims, and merely incorporate additional details that narrow the abstract ideas and fail to add significantly more to the claims.
Dependent claim 5 is directed to further limiting the method by defining the drilling parameters, which is directed to “Mental Process” or alternatively “Mathematical Concepts”.
Dependent claim 6 is directed to further limiting the method by defining the drilling modes, which is directed to “Mental Process” or alternatively “Mathematical Concepts”.
Dependent claim 7 is directed to further limiting the method by establishing further conditions for determining an influx or loss event, which is directed to “Mental Process” or alternatively “Mathematical Concepts”.
Dependent claim 9 is directed to further limiting the method by defining the regression, which is directed to “Mental Process” or alternatively “Mathematical Concepts”.
Dependent claim 10 is directed to further limiting the method by defining the estimated flow as a sum, which is directed to “Mental Process” or alternatively “Mathematical Concepts”.
Dependent claim 11 is directed to further limiting the method by defining weights, which is directed to “Mental Process” or alternatively “Mathematical Concepts”.
Dependent claim 12 is directed to further limiting the method by defining weights, which is directed to “Mental Process” or alternatively “Mathematical Concepts”.
Dependent claim 13 is directed to further limiting the method by defining weights, which is directed to “Mental Process” or alternatively “Mathematical Concepts”.
Dependent claim 15 is directed to further limiting the method by defining the pit volume as a difference, which is directed to “Mental Process” or alternatively “Mathematical Concepts”.
Dependent claim 16 is directed to further limiting the method by defining the flow in measurements as a sum, which is directed to “Mental Process” or alternatively “Mathematical Concepts”.
Dependent claim 17 is directed to further limiting the method by defining the flow out measurements as a sum, which is directed to “Mental Process” or alternatively “Mathematical Concepts”.
Dependent claim 18 is directed to further limiting the method by defining the time when measurements are taken, which is directed to “Mental Process” or alternatively “Mathematical Concepts”.
Dependent claim 19 is directed to further limiting the method by defining how the estimated pit volume is determined, which is directed to “Mental Process” or alternatively “Mathematical Concepts”.
Dependent claim 21 is directed to further limiting the method by defining how the estimated pit volume is determined, which is directed to “Mental Process” or alternatively “Mathematical Concepts”.
Dependent claim 22 is directed to further limiting the method by defining how the estimated pit volume is determined, which is directed to “Mental Process” or alternatively “Mathematical Concepts”.
Dependent claim 23 is directed to further limiting the method by defining how the estimated pit volume is determined, which is directed to “Mental Process” or alternatively “Mathematical Concepts”.
Dependent claim 24 is directed to further limiting the method by further defining regression conditions, which is directed to “Mental Process” or alternatively “Mathematical Concepts”.
Dependent claim 25 is directed to further limiting the method by further defining regression conditions, which is directed to “Mental Process” or alternatively “Mathematical Concepts”.
Dependent claim 26 is directed to further limiting the method by further defining the determination of the estimated pit volume, which is directed to “Mental Process” or alternatively “Mathematical Concepts”.
Accordingly, claims 4-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gumus et al. USPPN 2016/0245027: Also teaches the monitoring of tank volumes to determine influx or loss.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL COCCHI whose telephone number is (469)295-9079. The examiner can normally be reached 7:15 am - 5:15 pm CT Monday - Thursday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan Pitaro can be reached on 571-272-4071. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL EDWARD COCCHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188