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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 11 recites the phrase, “a given measured depth of the second well”. The second well is being drilled, how it is possible to have a already measured depth and provide the that measured depth as given measured depth to the method making the scope of the claim indefinite. Also the specification does not clearly teach a given measured depth. Rather the specification teaches “ a target measured depth of the second well” as taught in [0048], which makes the scope of the claim clear because it indicates the second well to be drilled to reach the target measured depth instead of given measured depth. Suggested correction, replace “given measured depth” with “target measured depth”.
Claims 3 and 13 recite the limitation, “a misfit curve of a stratigraphic vertical depth of the first well and a measured depth of the first well…”. This limitation is indefinite because when determining probability for the stratigraphic vertical depth of the second well, the misfit curve is between the stratigraphic vertical depth of the first and the measured depth of the second well not the first well since it has already been drilled. For examination purposes, in view of [0036] of the specification, examiner is interpreting the limitation as “a misfit curve of a stratigraphic vertical depth of the first well and a measured depth of the second/target well”.
Claims 2-10 and claims 12-20 are dependent claims depending from claim 1 and claim 11, thus inheriting each and every limitations of claim 1 and claim 11 and therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C.112(b) for the reasons discussed above. Note: dependent claims 2,4,6,10,12,14,16 and 20 recite the phrase, “a given measured depth of the second well”.
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(s) 1-3,5, 7,8,11-14, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flanagan et al. (US 20200109618 A1) in view of Mustapha et al. (US 20190271211 A1).
Regarding claim 1 Flanagan et al. teaches, a computer system for drilling a wellbore (system for correlating drilling and reference data for drilling a wellbore, [0024] and [0061]), comprising:
a processor enabled to access memory media storing instructions executable by the processor (processor in communication with memory such as tangible readable media implementing computer executable instructions, [0061]) for:
receiving stratigraphic information from a first well (the reference data may include data of one or more wellbore in the general vicinity of the target wellbore being drilled, [0038]);
receiving stratigraphic information from a second well while the second well is being drilled (during drilling a target wellbore, well data is collected in real-time, as target well data, [0038] and [0041]);
generating a plurality of probabilities (a list of probabilities is generated, [0033] and [0043]), for a plurality of measured depths of the second well (at one more depths, probability at the corresponding points are calculated, [0103], [0090] and [0043]), that a respective plurality of potential stratigraphic vertical depths of the second well correspond to a given measured depth (anchor point 206 of the target zone location/depth for drilling target well, [0087]) of the second well (based on offset from the location of the target well and reference data, probabilities for a range of depths of the target well are generated or calculated to identify potential depths for drilling the target wellbore, [0103], [0090] and [0043]);
adjusting a direction of drilling of the second well responsive to the stratigraphic depth of the second well with the highest probability (based on analysis of the probabilities for multiple depths, the drilling operation is automatically adjusted for geosteering, [0045],[0051] and [0103]).
Flanagan et al. does not teach the details of corresponding stratigraphic depth of the second well with highest probability. However, Flanagan et al. explicitly teaches to calculate probabilities for multiple depths for target wellbore being drilled and based analysis of the probabilities, determine updated drilling parameters and automatically implement the updated parameters as taught in [0038],[0090] and [0103]. The details of how the calculated probabilities are analyzed is not clearly disclosed.
On the other hand, Mustapha et al. teaches, determining, for a particular measured depth of the second well (a combined probability map identifying potential well placement well locations is generated, for each location there is corresponding probability calculated, [0006] and [0090]), of the plurality of measured depths of the second well, a corresponding stratigraphic depth of the second well with a highest probability (from the probability map, the location (measured depth in view of Flanagan et al.) with highest probability is selected to determine the final location (drilling depth) of the well, [0006] and [0090]).
Flanagan et al. and Mustapha et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor that is drilling wellbore based on gathered data.
Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of drilling a wellbore based on calculated/generated probabilities for depths of the second wellbore as taught by Flanagan et al. by applying the known technique of selecting the location or depth with the highest probability out of all the probabilities generated as taught by Mustapha et al. to yield predictable result of effectively and efficiently determining stratigraphic depth for drilling the second well as taught by Mustapha et al. in [0005].
Flanagan et al. teach:
[0038] As previously discussed, systems and methods in accordance with the present disclosure include collecting and comparing multiple data sets that may include drilling data from a target well being drilled and previously obtained reference data. The reference data may include data collected during one or more previous drilling operations. For example, the reference data may include data collected by LWD assemblies or similar equipment during the drilling of one or more wells or other wellbores (including producing wellbores) in the general vicinity of the target wellbore. In
implementations in which the reference data is based on aggregated data from multiple wells, aggregation may include, among other things, averaging data collected from the multiple wells, weighting the data sets obtained from each well, or otherwise applying some mathematical operations to combine the data sets. For example, when multiple data sets obtained from multiple wells are used for the reference data, each data set may be assigned a weight based on the relative proximity of the respective well to the target wellbore being drilled.
[0041] In implementations of the present disclosure, the reference data is generally compared and correlated with data that is collected during drilling of a target well. For example, such target well data may be collected in real-time or in near real-time using a LWD or similar assembly disposed at or near a distal end of a drill string (proximate the drill bit) implemented in drilling the target well. For example, the target well data may include locations of the drill bit along the wellbore1 and measurements of one or more properties of the formation at each location, the property corresponding to that of the
reference data or those from which the reference data is derived.
[0103] In certain implementations of the present disclosure, in addition to identifying potential depths at which a geological feature may be located, a vector of probability measurements corresponding to a range of depths may be generated for one or more points2 along the target well 102. For example, and as described below in more detail, in implementations in which the reference data includes 100 depth measurements, each having a respective gamma response value, a vector for a point along the target well 102 may include a value for each of the 100 depth measurements, with each value being a difference (or other mathematical relationship) between the gamma response value of the point of the target well 102 and the respective reference data extending from the point. As a result, each vector may be considered to represent a vertical column of the geological formation at the point along the target well 102 with the values of the vector indicating the probability of particular offsets between the point and the geological feature of interest. Such vectors may be generated for multiple points along
the target well 120 and combined into a multi-dimensional matrix (referred to herein as an “error matrix”) describing such probabilities for a full well vertical section, such as the well vertical section 200 of FIG. 2B. As described below in more detail, the error matrix may subsequently be, among other things, converted into one or more visualizations and presented through a user interface to a user for further analysis and/or used as a data set for automatically controlling drilling operations.
Mustapha et al. teach:
[0006] The embodiments disclosed herein provide a method, apparatus, and program product that utilize a probabilistic approach to identify areas of interest from multiple realizations of a reservoir model to drive well placement planning under uncertainty. In some embodiments, a combined probability map may be generated from opportunity maps generated for multiple reservoir model realizations such that a probability value in various entries of the probability map represents a probability of opportunity values stored in corresponding entries of the opportunity maps meeting an opportunity criterion. One or more areas of interest may then be identified from the probability map.
[0090] Once a probability map has been determined, the probability map may be used to identify one or more areas of interest in the subsurface volume or reservoir, e.g., by accessing the combined probability map to identify one or more areas of interest in the subsurface volume based upon the probability values stored in the entries of the combined probability map. In some embodiments, the areas of interest may be identified based upon regions of individual values having the values, or at least having higher probability values3 than those of neighboring regions. In other embodiments, however, potential well trajectories may also be taken into account by attempting to calculate connected volumes in the probability map, as represented in block 412.
Regarding claim 2, combination of Flanagan et al. and Mustapha et al. teach the computer of claim 1. In addition Flanagan et al. teaches, wherein a potential stratigraphic vertical depth of the second well corresponds to a given measured depth of the second well if the potential stratigraphic vertical depth of the second well is equal to or within a tolerance of the given measured depth of the second well (when the current measured depth/ location4 of the drill drilling the target wellbore deviates from the target wellbore trajectory (having multiple depths) by less than a predetermined threshold distance, that location or depth is considered as potential location or depth for the target wellbore, and viewed on the heatmap, [0106] and [0069]).
Regarding claim 3, combination of Flanagan et al. and Mustapha et al. teach the computer of claim 1. In addition Flanagan et al. teaches, wherein a probability for each stratigraphic vertical depth is determined based on a misfit curve of a stratigraphic vertical depth of the first well and a measured depth of the second well (based on offset from the location of the target well and reference data, probabilities for a range of depths of the target well are generated or calculated to identify potential depths for drilling the target wellbore and displayed as a graph correlating reference data and measured data (misfit curve), [0103], [0090], [0147] and [0148]).
Regarding claim 5, combination of Flanagan et al. and Mustapha et al. teach the computer of claim 3. In addition Flanagan et al. teaches, wherein the plurality of stratigraphic vertical depths correspond to a plurality of interpretations of stratigraphic vertical depth of the second well based on a subject well log for the second well (target well log, [0137]) and an off set well log for the first well (reference data including well log data from previously drilled well, [0007]. A graphical representation of reference well data including depths and current target well data including currently measured depths are presented showing the deviation between reference data depths and real-time measured depths for the target well, [0137], [0103] and [0147]),
wherein the interpretations are paths through the misfit curve (likely paths to be traversed by the drill bit are generated based deviation between reference data depths and real-time measured depths for the target well and displayed as graph (misfit curve), [0148] and [0103]) .
Regarding claim 7, combination of Flanagan et al. and Mustapha et al. teach the computer of claim 3. In addition Flanagan et al. teaches, wherein the memory media further comprise instructions for: generating a user interface to graphically display the misfit curve (in an user interface the heat map including misfit graph is displayed to the user, [0103], [0145] and [0148]).
Regarding claim 8, combination of Flanagan et al. and Mustapha et al. teach the computer of claim 1. In addition Flanagan et al. teaches, wherein a probability for each stratigraphic vertical depth is determined based on a heat map (the error matrix consisting of probabilities of depths of the second well is displayed in the form of heat map, [0033], [0105] and [0118]).
Regarding claim 9, combination of Flanagan et al. and Mustapha et al. teach the computer of claim 1. In addition Mustapha et al. teaches, wherein the memory media (memory, [0027]) further comprise instructions for:
based on the plurality of probabilities (summed probability values5, [0092] and [0094]), calculating a probability weighted average of the stratigraphic vertical depth of the second well (an average of the probabilities can be used to determine location of the well, [0090], [0092] and [0094]).
Regarding claim 11 combination of Flanagan et al. and Mustapha et al. teach the claimed system for drilling a wellbore. Therefore together they teach the method of drilling a wellbore performing the functional steps of the claimed system as taught above in claim 1 and therefore rejected for the reasons discussed above in claim 1.
Regarding claims 12-13,15 and 17-19, combination of Flanagan et al. and Mustapha et al. teach the claimed system for drilling a wellbore. Therefore together they teach the method of drilling a wellbore performing the functional steps of the claimed system as taught above in claims 2-3,5 and 7-9 and therefore rejected for the reasons discussed above in claims 2-3,5 and 7-9.
Claim(s) 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flanagan et al. (US 20200109618 A1) in view of Mustapha et al. (US 20190271211 A1) and Trainor et al. (US 9,183,182 B2).
Regarding claim 4, combination of Flanagan et al. and Mustapha et al. teach the computer system of claim 3.
Neither in combination nor individually Flanagan et al. and Mustapha et al. teach the details of the probability is calculated based on a sum of an inverse function of an equation describing the misfit curve between a starting measured depth of the second well and the given measured depth for the second well.
Trainor et al. teaches, the probability is calculated based on a sum of an inverse function of an equation describing the misfit curve between a starting
measured depth (possible well locations including depth of the well in relation to a given well location x having particular depth) of the second well and the given measured depth for the second well (for the possible well locations in view of given well location x, a probability is calculated based on summation of weighted values for the possible well locations. The weights includes stochastic inversions of the possible well locations including possible depths in relation to given well location depth, Col.6 lines 30-56).
Flanagan et al., Mustapha et al. and Trainor et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor that is drilling wellbore based on gathered data.
Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of drilling a wellbore based on generated probability of depths as taught by combination of Flanagan et al. and Mustapha et al. by applying the known technique of finding probability as an inverse function describing relation between starting measured depth (possible locations with possible depths) and given measured depth (given well location with particular depth) as taught by Trainor et al. to yield predictable results for successfully determining target or second well location as taught by Trainor et al. in Col.6 lines 65-66.
Regarding claim 14 combination of Flanagan et al., Mustapha et al. and Trainor et al. teach the claimed system for drilling a wellbore. Therefore together they teach the method of drilling a wellbore performing the functional steps of the claimed system as taught above in claim 4 and therefore rejected for the reasons discussed above in claim 4.
Claim(s) 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flanagan et al. (US 20200109618 A1) in view of Mustapha et al. (US 20190271211 A1) and Prange et al. (US 20060151214 A1).
Regarding claim 6 combination of Flanagan et al. and Mustapha et al. teach the computer system of claim 5. In addition Flanagan et al. teaches, wherein the memory media (processor in communication with memory such as tangible readable media, [0061]) further comprise instructions for: ordering the plurality of interpretations ([0071] of Mustapha et al. teaches to rank or order the realizations such as the probabilities for well locations including well depths) according to a stratigraphic vertical depth of the second well (the probability calculated for each measured depth is in relation to the given anchor point and corresponding reference data for other wells, [0137], [0103] and [0147]), wherein the stratigraphic vertical depth of the second well is determined at the given measured depth for the second well (the anchor point is the given depth of the target well, [0111] and [0118]).
Neither in combination nor individually Flanagan et al. and Mustapha et al. teach the details of grouping the plurality of interpretations into sets of interpretations, each set of interpretations respectively having a similar value for the stratigraphic vertical depth of the second well.
Prange et al. teaches, grouping the plurality of interpretations into sets of interpretations (each of the generated well path is considered as interpretation. Once the possible well paths are generated they are clustered (grouped) based on distance from the centroid. The centroid is the depth of the target well. Each path is assigned to the cluster based on each path’s centroid (potential depth6) closer to the given centroid. Several paths are clustered in several groups (set of interpretations) based on individual paths’ centroids, [0064],[0065] and [0044]), each set of interpretations respectively having a similar value for the stratigraphic vertical depth of the second well (based on individual centroid distance from the given centroid, the generated paths including depths are clustered, [0065]).
Flanagan et al., Mustapha et al. and Prange et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor that is drilling wellbore based on gathered data.
Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of drilling a wellbore where interpretations related to second well depth are ordered based on target measured depth of the second well as taught by combination of Flanagan et al. and Mustapha et al. by applying the known technique of grouping the interpretations into set of interpretations based on a value similar (centroid distance) to the stratigraphic depth the second well to yield predictable results for determining the depth of the second well for adjusted geosteering.
Regarding claim 16 combination of Flanagan et al., Mustapha et al. and Prange et al. teach the claimed system for drilling a wellbore. Therefore together they teach the method of drilling a wellbore performing the functional steps of the claimed system as taught above in claim 6 and therefore rejected for the reasons discussed above in claim 6.
Claim(s) 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Flanagan et al. (US 20200109618 A1) in view of Mustapha et al. (US 20190271211 A1) and Haarstad (US 6,834,732 B2).
Regarding claim 10 combination of Flanagan et al. and Mustapha et al. teach the computer system of claim 1.
Neither in combination nor individually Flanagan et al. and Mustapha et al. teach the details of based on the plurality of probabilities, calculating an uncertainty of the stratigraphic vertical depth of the second well being equal to or within a tolerance of the given measured depth for the second well. However Flanagan et al. teaches to calculate probability for each depth of the target/second well as taught in [0103].
Haarstad teaches, based on the plurality of probabilities (calculating probabilities for certain points of the intended drill path, Col.3, lines 41-47 and Col.13, lines 25-32), calculating an uncertainty of the stratigraphic vertical depth of the second well (drilling uncertainty values are calculated for the certain points, Col.8 lines 26-27) being equal to or within a tolerance of the given measured depth for the second well (the geological marker is the given/target measured depth of the well. The uncertainty of each point calculated is within 95% confidence level (equal to tolerance) of the given geological marker representing the target measured depth of the well, Col.10, lines 38-42).
Flanagan et al., Mustapha et al. and Haarstad are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor that is drilling wellbore based on gathered data.
Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system for drilling a wellbore based on calculated plurality of probabilities of the target well depth as taught by combination of Flanagan et al. and Mustapha et al. by applying the known technique of calculating uncertainty for the stratigraphic depth of the second well which is within a tolerance (confidence level) of the target depth of the second well as taught by Haarstad to yield predictable results for determining target well depth to allow for well trajectory adjustments as taught by Haarstad in Col.9, lines 21-22.
Regarding claim 20 combination of Flanagan et al., Mustapha et al. and Haarstad teach the claimed system for drilling a wellbore. Therefore together they teach the method of drilling a wellbore performing the functional steps of the claimed system as taught above in claim 6 and therefore rejected for the reasons discussed above in claim 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Koller (US 4937747) teaches a system for calculating probability for different depths for a borehole and pick the highest probability depth for display to the user to make further decisions.
Canady et al. (US 20180238148 A1) teaches to determine wellbore location based on measurements of distances of log values (e.g., datapoints) from lithofacies responses on a crossplot of log variables. For each log value, probability is calculated to determine which log value has closest match to the target lithofacies response.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANZUMAN SHARMIN whose telephone number is (571)272-7365. The examiner can normally be reached M and Th 7:00am - 3:00pm and Tue 8:00am-12:00pm.
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, KAMINI SHAH can be reached at (571)272-2279. 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.
/ANZUMAN SHARMIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2115
/KAMINI S SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2115
1Depths during drilling the of the target wellbore.
2 Plurality of probabilities for multiple points are generated.
3 The location/depth with highest probability is selected for drilling the well.
4 The location will have both vertical and horizontal depth.
5 The probability values can be weighted in view of [0116] of Flanagan et al.. [0116] clearly teaches different weights are applied to the probabilities.
6 The depth can include either vertical depth or horizontal depth for directional drilling. Each type of depth is an obvious variation of each other.
Prosecution Insights