Detailed Action
The following NON-FINAL office action is in response to application 18/589061 filed on
2/27/24. This communication is the first action on the merits.
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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been rejected as follows.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 2/27/2024 and 6/3/2025 comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and is being considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figs. [8] and [9] possess the following minor errors:
Fig. 8, column 823 reads “zero cange” which presumably should be “zero change”
Fig. 8, column 810 reads “dissassembly” which presumably should be “disassembly”
Fig. 9, column 824 reads “rapidly” which presumably should be “rapidly” and “preassure” instead of “pressure
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 4 reads “a first weigh data.” which should presumably be “a first weight data”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the processing resource" in Line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. Line 10 recites “accessing, by the processing device, the standard sequence of operations from the;” This limitation is incomplete and never identifies the source of the standard sequence of operations. For examining purposes, the source is being interpreted to be the “memory” from the preamble of the claim.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. A subject matter eligibility analysis is set forth below. See MPEP 2106.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
A system for evaluating usage efficiency of an operating tool configured for use within a wellbore, the system comprising:
a detecting system configured to be secured to the operating tool, the detecting system comprising:
a first sensor, wherein the first sensor is of a first sensor type and provides a first sensor data; and
a second sensor, wherein the second sensor is of a second sensor type and provides a second sensor data;
a processing device configured to:
receive a plurality of instances of each of the first sensor data and the second sensor data, wherein each of the plurality of instances corresponds to a respective time;
use a combination of at least instances of the first sensor data and instances of the second sensor data from the plurality of instances to identify a plurality of tool gestures;
determine a time period for each of the plurality of tool gestures based on the combination of at least instances of the first sensor data and instances of the second sensor data; and
determine an efficiency using the time period for each of the plurality of tool gestures and a respective expected time period for each of the plurality of tool gestures.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been underlined above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements.” Similar limitations comprise the abstract idea of Claim 17.
Step 1:
Under Step 1 of the analysis, Claim 1 belongs to a statutory category, namely it is a system claim. Likewise, Claim 17 is a method claim.
Step 2A – Prong I:
Under Step 2A, prong 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
In the instant case, Claim 1 is found to recite at least one judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea), that being a Mental Process and Mathematical calculation. Identifying a plurality of tool gestures based on sensor data amounts to identifying the operation and movement of a tool by comparing sensed data to known data [See Specification, Paragraphs [0047] and [0075]] and categorizing. Such a comparison can be performed either mentally or mathematically, while categorizing the motion is a mental process. Determining a time period for the tool gestures requires measuring the elapsed time for the tool to complete the movement or operation, which can be performed mentally and is thus a mental process. Determining efficiency is a calculation [See Specification Paragraph [0055] – “As an example, the variance may be divided by the expected processing time to yield an efficiency value.”].
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claim 17.
Step 2A – Prong II:
Step 2A, prong 2 of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception(s) into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
Claims 1 and 17 do not amount to the recitation of a particular practical application as they do not recite any specific steps that would improve upon the efficiency of an operating tool being used in downhole operations in a hydrocarbon reservoir, nor do the recited steps improve upon the monitoring of the performance of the operating tool.
Thus, under Step 2A, prong 2 of the analysis, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. No specific practical application is associated with the claimed system and method.
Step 2B:
In addition to the abstract ideas recited in Claims 1 and 17, the claimed system and method recite the elements not underlined in the Claim above. The detecting system secured to the operating tool, comprising a first sensor and second sensor are recited with such a high level of generality as to be directed to any sensor providing any data, and thus amounts to no more than generally linking the judicial exception to the technological environment of a detector comprising two sensors. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Providing the first and second sensor data are merely data gathering and output steps, which are recited at a high level of generality, and thus merely amount to “insignificant extra-solution” activity(ies). See MPEP 2106.05(g) “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity” Such data gathering activities are further found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information from memory, and electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document). Similarly, the processing device itself is generically recited and amounts to no more than a general-purpose computer (See MPEP 2106.05(f)), while the receiving of a plurality of instances of first and second sensor data is mere data gathering and output, amounting to “insignificant extra-solution” activity(ies) that are found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that Claims 1 and 17, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With regards to the dependent claims, Claims 2-14, 16 and 18-20, merely further expand upon the algorithm/abstract idea and do not set forth further additional elements that integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Therefore, these claims are found ineligible for the reasons described for parent claims 1 and 17. Specifically:
Claim 2 merely limits the sensor type of the first sensor, but still recites such a broad range of sensors as to limit the data being sensed to a broad range of data types.
Claim 3 recites comparing at least two tool gestures of the first plurality with at least two tool gestures of the second plurality and based on the comparison, determining that these tool gestures correspond to each other, which are both mental processes. Comparing the sensed tool gestures to stored and determining that they correspond to each other requires data evaluations/judgements that can be performed mentally. Distinguishing between the first and second plurality of tool gestures in the first and second sequence merely places limits on the data to be used in implementing the abstract idea. Finally, the processing device is generically recited and merely amounts to a general-purpose computer on which the mental process is implemented.
Claim 4 merely provides limits on the tool gestures being analyzed and thus is part of the data gathering insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 5 specifies which tool gestures are being considered in the above ground operation and thus is part of the data gathering insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 6 specifies which tool gestures are being considered in the efficiency determination and thus is part of the mental process/mathematical calculation.
Claim 7 recites that the processing device is disposed apart from the operating tool and outside of the wellbore, which merely limits the location of the general-purpose computer.
Claim 8 recites that receiving the plurality of instances to identify the plurality of tool gestures and determining the time period for each of the plurality of tool gestures are operations of the processing device. The receiving step is a mere data gathering step and amounts to insignificant extra solution activity. The identification and determination of time period for the tool gestures are mental processes as discussed above. As such, the recitation of the processing device amounts to no more than the recitation of a general-use computer programmed with instructions to apply the judicial exception. The subsequent description of the processing device maintains a similar level of generality, reciting such components as the first processing device, second processing device, first sensor, second sensor, which amount to no more than components of the general-use computer.
Claim 9 recites that the processing device is incorporated with the first and second sensor, with no limitation on how they are incorporated and therefore, the processing device does not amount to more than a general-purpose computer.
Claim 10 recites that the first sensor type is a weight sensor that senses weight data, which is received by the processing device. This amounts to generally linking the judicial exceptions to the technological field of a weight sensor and mere data gathering, while the calculating of volume and density are both mathematical calculations and mental processes.
Claim 11 limits the first and second fluids to air and fresh water, which merely places a limit on the data gathering steps and generally links the gathered data to the technological environment of sensing air and fresh water.
Claim 12 recites that the second sensor type is a pressure sensor that senses pressure data, which is received by the processing device. This amounts to generally linking the judicial exceptions to the technological field of a pressure sensor and mere data gathering, while the determination of vertical depth is both a mathematical calculation and mental process (comparing).
Claim 13 recites identifying a second plurality of tool gestures, determining a time period for each of the second plurality of tool gestures, determining efficiency by determining a multi-process efficiency are abstract ideas, with the identifying step being a mental process and the determining a time period and efficiencies being a mental process and mathematical calculation. Limiting the plurality of tool gestures to the first plurality of tool gestures and the combination of instances of the first and second sensor data to a first combination of first and second sensor data merely places limitations on the data involved in the data gathering.
Claim 14 merely limits the data being used in the efficiency calculation and is within the abstract idea.
Claim 15 recites determining a trend of changes of efficiency for the operator, who is managing an operating tool. The determination of the trend is an extension of the efficiency calculations and thus within the abstract idea. The operator managing the operating tool is part of the data gathering necessary to calculate the efficiency and thus is insignificant pre-solution activity that is further found to be well-understood, conventional, and routine in the art.
Claim 16 recites determining a first and second efficiency, and comparing the two. Determining efficiencies is a mathematical calculation, while the comparison constitutes both mathematical calculation and mental process.
Claim 18 merely limits the sensor type of the first sensor, but still recites such a broad range of sensors as to limit the data being sensed to a broad range of data types.
Claim 19 recites comparing at least two tool gestures of the first plurality with at least two tool gestures of the second plurality and based on the comparison, determining that these tool gestures correspond to each other, which are both mental processes. Comparing the sensed tool gestures to stored and determining that they correspond to each other requires data evaluations/judgements that can be performed mentally. Distinguishing between the first and second plurality of tool gestures in the first and second sequence merely places limits on the data to be used in implementing the abstract idea. Finally, the processing device is generically recited and merely amounts to a general-purpose computer on which the mental process is implemented, while accessing the standard sequence of operations is a mere data gathering step.
Claim 20 specifies which tool gestures are being considered in the efficiency determination and thus is part of the mental process/mathematical calculation.
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 1-9, 13, 14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mittal et. al. (US 20220065093 A1) in view of Hutchinson et. al. (US 20050087367 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Mittal recites a system for evaluating usage efficiency of an operating tool configured for use within a wellbore [Paragraph [0007] – “Certain aspects and examples of the present disclosure relate to identifying, determining, and outputting micro invisible lost time (MILT) for controlling a drilling operation. MILT may be a result of surface equipment design and efficiency and of process optimization…”], the system comprising: a detecting system configured to be secured to the operating tool [Paragraph [0014] – “The tool string 116 may include one or more sensors 109 for determining conditions in the wellbore 118. The sensors 109 may be positioned on drilling equipment…”], the detecting system comprising: a first sensor, wherein the first sensor is of a first sensor type and provides a first sensor data [Paragraph [0014] – “The tool string 116 may include one or more sensors 109 for determining conditions in the wellbore 118. The sensors 109 may be positioned on drilling equipment, which may be deployable downhole in the wellbore 118, and may sense values of drilling parameters for a drilling operation. The sensors 109 can send realtime signals to the surface 110 via a wired or wireless connection, and the sensors 109 may send real-time data relating to the drilling operation to the surface 110.”]; and
a second sensor [See Fig. [1], 109, Paragraph [0014] – “The tool string 116 may include one or more sensors 109 for determining conditions in the wellbore 118.”].
Mittal does not explicitly disclose wherein the second sensor is of a second sensor type and provides a second sensor data.
Hutchinson, however, discloses disclose wherein the second sensor is of a second sensor type and provides a second sensor data [Paragraph [0038] – “The processor 46 may also include circuits for recording signals generated by the various sensors in the MWD system 37. In this embodiment, the MWD system 37 includes a directional sensor 50, having therein triaxial magnetometers and accelerometers such that the orientation of the MWD system 37 with respect to magnetic north and with respect to earth's gravity can be determined. The MWD system 37 may also include a gamma ray detector 48 and separate rotational (angular)/axial accelerometers, magnetometers, pressure transducers or strain gauges, shown generally at 58. The MWD system 37 may also include a resistivity sensor system, including an induction signal generator/receiver 52, and transmitter antenna 54 and receiver 56A, 56B antennas. The resistivity sensor can be of any type well known in the art for measuring electrical conductivity or resistivity of the formations (13 in FIG. 1) surrounding the wellbore (22 in FIG. 1). In some embodiments, the MWD system includes a pressure sensor 49 configured to measure fluid pressure inside the drill string and/or in an annular space between the wall of the wellbore and the outside of the drill string at a position proximate the bottom of the drill string.” – pressure sensor is second sensor and pressure signal generated by pressure sensor is second data type].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to two or more of the sensor and data types listed in Hutchinson in the detecting system of Mittal in order to monitor downhole conditions.
The combination of Mittal and Hutchinson discloses a processing device configured to: receive a plurality of instances of each of the first sensor data and the second sensor data [Mittal, Paragraph [0016] – “The drilling arrangement and any sensors 109 (through the drilling arrangement or directly) may be communicatively coupled to a computing device 140…In FIG. 1 , the computing device 140 is illustrated as being deployed in a work vehicle 142; however, a computing device to receive data from the sensors 109 and to control the drill bit 114 can be permanently installed with the drilling arrangement, be hand-held, or be remotely located.” – with the second sensor of Hutchinson], wherein each of the plurality of instances corresponds to a respective time [Mittal, Paragraph [0014] – “The sensors 109 can send realtime signals to the surface 110 via a wired or wireless connection, and the sensors 109 may send real-time data relating to the drilling operation to the surface 110.”; Paragraph [0026] – “FIG. 3 is a flowchart of a process 300 for determining and outputting MILT in a drilling operation, according to one example of the present disclosure. At block 302, time-stamp data about a drilling operation is received…The time-stamp data may be real-time data, in which sensors of the drilling operation, like the sensors 109, immediately upon measuring the time-stamp data downhole during formation of the wellbore 118, directly transmit the time-stamp data to a computing device of the drilling operation such as the computing device 140.”];
use a combination of at least instances of the first sensor data and instances of the second sensor data from the plurality of instances to identify a plurality of tool gestures [Mittal, Paragraph [0028] – “At block 304, values of drilling parameters are classified into a rig state, being a sub-process of the drilling operation. This classification may involve determining what type of sub-process the drilling operation is performing based on the values of drilling parameters received at block 302. The classification of sub-process, or rig state, may be made by the computing device 140, and the rig state may include at least one rig activity that may include backreaming, circulating, in-slip, tripping in, tripping out, rotary drilling, sliding, off bottom, reaming, etc. The computing device 140 may identify, for each instance of rig activity of the classified rig state, a start time and an end time, and the computing device 140 may use the start time and the end time for each rig activity for subsequent calculation.” – with second sensor of Hutchinson];
determine a time period for each of the plurality of tool gestures based on the combination of at least instances of the first sensor data and instances of the second sensor data [Mittal, Paragraph [0028] – “The computing device 140 may identify, for each instance of rig activity of the classified rig state, a start time and an end time, and the computing device 140 may use the start time and the end time for each rig activity for subsequent calculation.”]; and
determine an efficiency using the time period for each of the plurality of tool gestures and a respective expected time period for each of the plurality of tool gestures [Mittal, Paragraph [0007] – “Certain aspects and examples of the present disclosure relate to identifying, determining, and outputting micro invisible lost time (MILT) for controlling a drilling operation. MILT may be a result of surface equipment design and efficiency and of process optimization…”; Paragraph [0032] – “At block 312, the identified deviations are combined into MILT, the combined deviations comprising deviations from each identified, deviated rig activity. Subsequent to performing variance analysis and in response to identifying deviate rig activities at block 310, the computing device 140 may combine the deviations to calculate the MILT. For each identified, deviated rig activity, a difference between the actual completion time and the expected completion time may be calculated, the difference being a deviation. Combining the deviations may involve the computing device 140 adding the deviations from each identified, deviated rig activity, the resulting sum being the MILT. The computing device 140 may subsequently output the MILT.” – MILT is a measure of efficiency].
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Mittal and Hutchinson discloses the system of claim 1.
Mittal fails to disclose wherein the first sensor type is selected from a group consisting of: a strain gauge sensor, an acceleration sensor, an inclination sensor, a magnetometer sensor, a pressure sensor, a temperature sensor, and a capacitance sensor.
However, Hutchinson discloses wherein the first sensor type is selected from a group consisting of: a strain gauge sensor, an acceleration sensor, an inclination sensor, a magnetometer sensor, a pressure sensor, a temperature sensor, and a capacitance sensor [Paragraph [0038] – “The MWD system 37 may also include a gamma ray detector 48 and separate rotational (angular)/axial accelerometers, magnetometers, pressure transducers or strain gauges, shown generally at 58. The MWD system 37 may also include a resistivity sensor system, including an induction signal generator/receiver 52, and transmitter antenna 54 and receiver 56A, 56B antennas.”].
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Mittal and Hutchinson discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of tool gestures is a first plurality of tool gestures, wherein the first plurality of tool gestures includes at least two tool gestures in a first sequence [Mittal, Paragraph [0029] – “For example, the rig activity of the classified rig state may change from rotary drilling to reaming, and the computing device 140 may determine the end time of the rotary drilling rig activity by using the first time of the reaming rig activity from the time-stamp data.”], wherein the processing device is communicably coupled to a memory that has stored therein a standard sequence of operations [Mittal, Paragraph [0020] – “The system 200 may include the computing device 140. The computing device 140 can include a processor 204, a memory 207, and a bus 206. The processor 204 can execute one or more operations for identifying, calculating, and outputting MILT for automatically controlling the drilling operation. The processor 204 can execute instructions stored in the memory 207 to perform the operations.”; Paragraph [0030] – “At block 308, the actual completion time of each instance of rig activity is compared to an expected completion time of the rig activity. The expected completion time of the rig activity may be pre-determined and may correspond to benchmark values from historical data from existing wellbores. The expected completion time may be unique to each rig activity.”], wherein the standard sequence of operations includes a second plurality of tool gestures and the respective expected time period for each of the second plurality of tool gestures [Mittal, Paragraph [0030] – “For example, an expected completion time for reaming may be different from an expected completion time for rotary drilling. And, an actual completion time for reaming may be compared to an expected completion time for reaming but may not be compared to an expected completion time for rotary drilling.”], wherein the second plurality of tool gestures includes at least two tool gestures in a second sequence [Mittal, Paragraph [0030] – “The expected completion time of the rig activity may be pre-determined and may correspond to benchmark values from historical data from existing wellbores. In some examples, the pre-determined expected completion time may be calculated by the computing device 140 that uses benchmark values based on historical data from existing wellbores, the benchmark values being average completion times of the associated rig activity. In other examples, an operator or supervisor of the drilling operation may manually set the expected completion time based on experience. The expected completion time may be unique to each rig activity.” – expected unique to at least two rig activities considering change from rotary drilling to reaming described in Paragraph [0029]], and wherein the processing device is further configured to: compare the at least two tool gestures of the first plurality of tool gestures and the first sequence with the at least two tool gestures of the second plurality of tool gestures and the second sequence [Mittal, Paragraph [0030] – “At block 308, the actual completion time of each instance of rig activity is compared to an expected completion time of the rig activity.” – each instance corresponds to at least two as per change from rotary drilling to reaming]; and
based at least in part on the comparison, determine that the at least two tool gestures of the first plurality of tool gestures and the first sequence correspond to the at least two tool gestures of the second plurality of tool gestures and the second sequence [Mittal, Paragraph [0028] – “At block 304, values of drilling parameters are classified into a rig state, being a sub-process of the drilling operation. This classification may involve determining what type of sub-process the drilling operation is performing based on the values of drilling parameters received at block 302. The classification of sub-process, or rig state, may be made by the computing device 140, and the rig state may include at least one rig activity…”; Mittal, Paragraph [0030] – “At block 308, the actual completion time of each instance of rig activity is compared to an expected completion time of the rig activity. The expected completion time of the rig activity may be pre-determined and may correspond to benchmark values from historical data from existing wellbores. In some examples, the pre-determined expected completion time may be calculated by the computing device 140 that uses benchmark values based on historical data from existing wellbores, the benchmark values being average completion times of the associated rig activity”].
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Mittal and Hutchinson discloses the system of claim 1, wherein one or more of the plurality of tool gestures is selected from a group consisting of: an above ground operation [Mittal, Paragraph [0015] – “Fluid or “mud” from a mud tank 120 may be pumped downhole using a mud pump 122 powered by an adjacent power source, such as a prime mover or motor 124. The mud may be pumped from the mud tank 120, through a stand pipe 126, which feeds the mud into the drill-string 106 and conveys the same to the drill bit 114. The mud exits one or more nozzles (not shown) arranged in the drill bit 114 and in the process cools the drill bit 114. After exiting the drill bit 114, the mud circulates back to the surface 110 via the annulus defined between the wellbore 118 and the drill-string 106, and hole cleaning can occur which involves returning the drill cuttings and debris to the surface. The cuttings and mud mixture are passed through a flow line 128 and are processed such that a cleaned mud is returned down hole through the stand pipe 126 once again.”; Paragraph [0028] – “…include at least one rig activity that may include backreaming, circulating, in-slip, tripping in, tripping out, rotary drilling, sliding, off bottom, reaming, etc. The computing device 140 may identify, for each instance of rig activity of the classified rig…”], a downhole operation [Mittal, Paragraph [0028] – “…include at least one rig activity that may include backreaming, circulating, in-slip, tripping in, tripping out, rotary drilling, sliding, off bottom, reaming, etc. The computing device 140 may identify, for each instance of rig activity of the classified rig…”], and a non-productive time [Mittal, Paragraph [0008] – “The drilling operation may involve productive time (PT) that may be a measure of time in which the drilling operation is active and drilling, and the drilling operation may involve NPT that is a measure of time in which the drilling operation is not drilling but may still be performing non-drilling related operations. NPT may include invisible non-productive time (INPT) that may be crew performance differences or other suitable indirect causes of NPT. PT can include ILT, which may be a difference between an actual completion time of an activity relating to drilling and an expected completion time of the activity relating to drilling.”].
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Mittal and Hutchinson discloses the system of claim 4, wherein the above ground operation is selected from a group consisting of: an equipment preparation [Mittal, Paragraph [0015] – “Fluid or “mud” from a mud tank 120 may be pumped downhole using a mud pump 122 powered by an adjacent power source, such as a prime mover or motor 124. The mud may be pumped from the mud tank 120, through a stand pipe 126, which feeds the mud into the drill-string 106 and conveys the same to the drill bit 114. The mud exits one or more nozzles (not shown) arranged in the drill bit 114 and in the process cools the drill bit 114. After exiting the drill bit 114, the mud circulates back to the surface 110 via the annulus defined between the wellbore 118 and the drill-string 106, and hole cleaning can occur which involves returning the drill cuttings and debris to the surface. The cuttings and mud mixture are passed through a flow line 128 and are processed such that a cleaned mud is returned down hole through the stand pipe 126 once again.” – cooling and lubricating drill bit], a tool assembly, a pick up tool and lubricate, a lubricator land on wellhead, a lubricator pressure test, an open well, a close well, a bleed off/open lubricator, a rig down lubricator, and a tool disassembly.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Mittal and Hutchinson discloses the system of claim 4.
Mittal does not disclose wherein the downhole operation is selected from a group consisting of: a run in hole, a run through restriction, a jarring operation, a mission at depth, a tool stuck, a freefall, and a cable cycling fatigue warning.
Hutchinson, however, discloses wherein the downhole operation is selected from a group consisting of: a run in hole [Hutchinson, Paragraph [0029] – “FIG. 1 shows a typical wellbore drilling system which may be used with various embodiments of a method according to the invention. A drilling rig 10 includes a drawworks 11 or similar lifting device known in the art to raise, suspend and lower a drill string.”], a run through restriction [Hutchinson, Paragraph [0038] – “The central processor 46 periodically interrogates each of the sensors in the MWD system 37 and may store the interrogated signals from each sensor in a memory or other storage device associated with the processor 46. Some of the sensor signals may be formatted for transmission to the earth's surface in a mud pressure modulation telemetry scheme. In the embodiment of FIG. 2, the mud pressure is modulated by operating an hydraulic cylinder 60 to extend a pulser valve 62 to create a restriction to the flow of mud through the housing 47. The restriction in mud flow increases the mud pressure, which is detected by transducer (28 in FIG. 1). Operation of the cylinder 60 is typically controlled by the processor 46 such that the selected data to be communicated to the earth's surface are encoded in a series of pressure pulses detected by the transducer (28 in FIG. 1) at the surface.”], a jarring operation, a mission at depth, a tool stuck, a freefall, and a cable cycling fatigue warning.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select from the downhole operations disclosed by Hutchinson as one of the tool gestures evaluated in the method of Mittal in order to improve the analysis of the efficiency of a variety of wellbore operations.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Mittal and Hutchinson discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the processing device is disposed apart from the operating tool and outside of the wellbore [Mittal, Paragraph [0016] – “In FIG. 1, the computing device 140 is illustrated as being deployed in a work vehicle 142; however, a computing device to receive data from the sensors 109 and to control the drill bit 114 can be permanently installed with the drilling arrangement, be hand-held, or be remotely located…”].
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Mittal and Hutchinson discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the receiving the plurality of instances of each of the first sensor data and the second sensor data [Mittal, Paragraph [0014] – “The tool string 116 may include one or more sensors 109 for determining conditions in the wellbore 118. The sensors 109 may be positioned on drilling equipment, which may be deployable downhole in the wellbore 118, and may sense values of drilling parameters for a drilling operation. The sensors 109 can send realtime signals to the surface 110 via a wired or wireless connection, and the sensors 109 may send real-time data relating to the drilling operation to the surface 110.”; See Fig. [1], 109, Paragraph [0014] – “The tool string 116 may include one or more sensors 109 for determining conditions in the wellbore 118.”, applying second sensor type of Hutchinson], using the combination of at least instances of the first sensor data and instances of the second sensor data from the plurality of instances to identify the plurality of tool gestures [Mittal, Paragraph [0028] – “At block 304, values of drilling parameters are classified into a rig state, being a sub-process of the drilling operation. This classification may involve determining what type of sub-process the drilling operation is performing based on the values of drilling parameters received at block 302. The classification of sub-process, or rig state, may be made by the computing device 140, and the rig state may include at least one rig activity that may include backreaming, circulating, in-slip, tripping in, tripping out, rotary drilling, sliding, off bottom, reaming, etc. The computing device 140 may identify, for each instance of rig activity of the classified rig state, a start time and an end time, and the computing device 140 may use the start time and the end time for each rig activity for subsequent calculation.”], determining the time period for each of the plurality of tool gestures based on the combination of at least instances of the first sensor data and instances of the second sensor data [Mittal, Paragraph [0028] – “The computing device 140 may identify, for each instance of rig activity of the classified rig state, a start time and an end time, and the computing device 140 may use the start time and the end time for each rig activity for subsequent calculation.”], and determining the efficiency [Mittal, Paragraph [0007] – “Certain aspects and examples of the present disclosure relate to identifying, determining, and outputting micro invisible lost time (MILT) for controlling a drilling operation. MILT may be a result of surface equipment design and efficiency and of process optimization…”; Paragraph [0032] – “At block 312, the identified deviations are combined into MILT, the combined deviations comprising deviations from each identified, deviated rig activity. Subsequent to performing variance analysis and in response to identifying deviate rig activities at block 310, the computing device 140 may combine the deviations to calculate the MILT. For each identified, deviated rig activity, a difference between the actual completion time and the expected completion time may be calculated, the difference being a deviation. Combining the deviations may involve the computing device 140 adding the deviations from each identified, deviated rig activity, the resulting sum being the MILT. The computing device 140 may subsequently output the MILT.” – MILT is a measure of efficiency] are together operations of the processing device [See “computing device 140,” referenced in above operations];
wherein the processing device includes a first processing device and a second processing device [Mittal, Paragraph [0016] – “Although one computing device 140 is depicted in FIG. 1, in other examples, more than one computing device can be used, and together, the multiple computing devices can perform operations, such as those described in the present disclosure.”];
The combination fails to disclose wherein the first processing device is disposed apart from the operating tool and outside of the wellbore, and wherein the second processing device is incorporated with the first sensor and the second sensor in the detecting system, and wherein at least a first subset of operations of the processing device is performed by the first processing device and at least a second subset of operations of the processing device is performed by the second processing device.
However, Mittal does disclose multiple computing devices which can be disposed apart from the operating tool or incorporated with the first sensor and second sensor in the detecting system [Paragraph [0016] – “In FIG. 1, the computing device 140 is illustrated as being deployed in a work vehicle 142; however, a computing device to receive data from the sensors 109 and to control the drill bit 114 can be permanently installed with the drilling arrangement, be hand-held, or be remotely located. Although one computing device 140 is depicted in FIG. 1, in other examples, more than one computing device can be used, and together, the multiple computing devices can perform operations, such as those described in the present disclosure.”]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the multiple computing devices of Mittal as processing devices, and to dispose one apart from the operating tool and incorporate another with the sensors in order to improve monitoring of aboveground and downhole operations.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Mittal and Hutchinson discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the processing device is incorporated with the first sensor and the second sensor in the detecting system configured to be secured to the operating tool [Mittal, Paragraph [0016] – “The drilling arrangement and any sensors 109 (through the drilling arrangement or directly) may be communicatively coupled to a computing device 140. The computing device 140 may be configured to identify, calculate, and output MILT for controlling the drilling operation. In FIG. 1, the computing device 140 is illustrated as being deployed in a work vehicle 142; however, a computing device to receive data from the sensors 109 and to control the drill bit 114 can be permanently installed with the drilling arrangement, be hand-held, or be remotely located.”].
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Mittal and Hutchinson discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of tool gestures is a first plurality of tool gestures [Mittal, Paragraph [0016] – “The drilling arrangement and any sensors 109 (through the drilling arrangement or directly) may be communicatively coupled to a computing device 140…In FIG. 1 , the computing device 140 is illustrated as being deployed in a work vehicle 142; however, a computing device to receive data from the sensors 109 and to control the drill bit 114 can be permanently installed with the drilling arrangement, be hand-held, or be remotely located.” – with the second sensor of Hutchinson], wherein the combination of at least instances of the first sensor data and instances of the second sensor data from the plurality of instances is a first combination of at least instances of the first sensor data and instances of the second sensor data from the plurality of instances [Mittal, Paragraph [0028] – “At block 304, values of drilling parameters are classified into a rig state, being a sub-process of the drilling operation. This classification may involve determining what type of sub-process the drilling operation is performing based on the values of drilling parameters received at block 302. The classification of sub-process, or rig state, may be made by the computing device 140, and the rig state may include at least one rig activity that may include backreaming, circulating, in-slip, tripping in, tripping out, rotary drilling, sliding, off bottom, reaming, etc. The computing device 140 may identify, for each instance of rig activity of the classified rig state, a start time and an end time, and the computing device 140 may use the start time and the end time for each rig activity for subsequent calculation.” – with second sensor of Hutchinson], and wherein the processing device is further configured to: use a second combination of at least instances of the first sensor data and instances of the second sensor data from the plurality of instances to identify a second plurality of tool gestures [Mittal, Paragraph [0028] – “At block 304, values of drilling parameters are classified into a rig state, being a sub-process of the drilling operation. This classification may involve determining what type of sub-process the drilling operation is performing based on the values of drilling parameters received at block 302. The classification of sub-process, or rig state, may be made by the computing device 140, and the rig state may include at least one rig activity that may include backreaming, circulating, in-slip, tripping in, tripping out, rotary drilling, sliding, off bottom, reaming, etc. The computing device 140 may identify, for each instance of rig activity of the classified rig state, a start time and an end time, and the computing device 140 may use the start time and the end time for each rig activity for subsequent calculation.” – with second sensor of Hutchinson, selecting any activities that were not previously identified as ‘first plurality’];
determine a time period for each of the second plurality of tool gestures based on the second combination of at least instances of the first sensor data and instances of the second sensor data [Mittal, Paragraph [0028] – “The computing device 140 may identify, for each instance of rig activity of the classified rig state, a start time and an end time, and the computing device 140 may use the start time and the end time for each rig activity for subsequent calculation.”]; and
wherein determining the efficiency using the time period for each of the plurality of tool gestures and the respective expected time period for each of the plurality of tool gestures comprises: determining a multi-process efficiency using the time period for each of the first plurality of tool gestures, the time period for each of the second plurality of tool gestures, and the respective expected time period for each of the first plurality of tool gestures and each of the second plurality of tool gestures [Mittal, Paragraph [0032] – “At block 312, the identified deviations are combined into MILT, the combined deviations comprising deviations from each identified, deviated rig activity. Subsequent to performing variance analysis and in response to identifying deviate rig activities at block 310, the computing device 140 may combine the deviations to calculate the MILT. For each identified, deviated rig activity, a difference between the actual completion time and the expected completion time may be calculated, the difference being a deviation. Combining the deviations may involve the computing device 140 adding the deviations from each identified, deviated rig activity, the resulting sum being the MILT. The computing device 140 may subsequently output the MILT.”].
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Mittal and Hutchinson discloses the system of claim 13, wherein the first plurality of tool gestures correspond to a first standard sequence of operations and the second plurality of tool gestures correspond to a second standard sequence of operations that is different from the first standard sequence of operations [Mittal, Paragraph [0028] – “At block 304, values of drilling parameters are classified into a rig state, being a sub-process of the drilling operation. This classification may involve determining what type of sub-process the drilling operation is performing based on the values of drilling parameters received at block 302. The classification of sub-process, or rig state, may be made by the computing device 140, and the rig state may include at least one rig activity that may include backreaming, circulating, in-slip, tripping in, tripping out, rotary drilling, sliding, off bottom, reaming, etc. The computing device 140 may identify, for each instance of rig activity of the classified rig state, a start time and an end time, and the computing device 140 may use the start time and the end time for each rig activity for subsequent calculation.” – with second sensor of Hutchinson, selecting any activities that were not previously identified as ‘first plurality’].
Regarding Claim 17, Mittal discloses a method for characterizing usage of an operating tool configured for use within a wellbore [Paragraph [0007] – “Certain aspects and examples of the present disclosure relate to identifying, determining, and outputting micro invisible lost time (MILT) for controlling a drilling operation. MILT may be a result of surface equipment design and efficiency and of process optimization…”], the method comprising: receiving, by a processing device [see “computing device”, Paragraph [0016]], a plurality of instances of a first sensor data from a first sensor and a second sensor [See Fig. [1], 109, Paragraph [0014] – “The tool string 116 may include one or more sensors 109 for determining conditions in the wellbore 118.”].
Mittal does not explicitly disclose wherein the second sensor is of a second sensor type and provides a second sensor data.
Hutchinson, however, discloses disclose wherein the second sensor is of a second sensor type and provides a second sensor data [Paragraph [0038] – “The processor 46 may also include circuits for recording signals generated by the various sensors in the MWD system 37. In this embodiment, the MWD system 37 includes a directional sensor 50, having therein triaxial magnetometers and accelerometers such that the orientation of the MWD system 37 with respect to magnetic north and with respect to earth's gravity can be determined. The MWD system 37 may also include a gamma ray detector 48 and separate rotational (angular)/axial accelerometers, magnetometers, pressure transducers or strain gauges, shown generally at 58. The MWD system 37 may also include a resistivity sensor system, including an induction signal generator/receiver 52, and transmitter antenna 54 and receiver 56A, 56B antennas. The resistivity sensor can be of any type well known in the art for measuring electrical conductivity or resistivity of the formations (13 in FIG. 1) surrounding the wellbore (22 in FIG. 1). In some embodiments, the MWD system includes a pressure sensor 49 configured to measure fluid pressure inside the drill string and/or in an annular space between the wall of the wellbore and the outside of the drill string at a position proximate the bottom of the drill string.” – pressure sensor is second sensor and pressure signal generated by pressure sensor is second data type].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to two or more of the sensor and data types listed in Hutchinson in the detecting system of Mittal in order to monitor downhole conditions.
The combination of Mittal and Hutchinson discloses using a combination of at least instances of the first sensor data and instances of the second sensor data from the plurality of instances to identify, by the processing device [See Mittal, “computing device”, 140], a plurality of tool gestures [Mittal, Paragraph [0028] – “At block 304, values of drilling parameters are classified into a rig state, being a sub-process of the drilling operation. This classification may involve determining what type of sub-process the drilling operation is performing based on the values of drilling parameters received at block 302. The classification of sub-process, or rig state, may be made by the computing device 140, and the rig state may include at least one rig activity that may include backreaming, circulating, in-slip, tripping in, tripping out, rotary drilling, sliding, off bottom, reaming, etc. The computing device 140 may identify, for each instance of rig activity of the classified rig state, a start time and an end time, and the computing device 140 may use the start time and the end time for each rig activity for subsequent calculation.”];
determining, by the processing device [see “computing device”, Paragraph [0016]], a time period for each of the plurality of tool gestures based on the combination of at least instances of the first sensor data and instances of the second sensor data [Mittal, Paragraph [0028] – “The computing device 140 may identify, for each instance of rig activity of the classified rig state, a start time and an end time, and the computing device 140 may use the start time and the end time for each rig activity for subsequent calculation.”]; and
determining, by the processing device [see Mittal, “computing device”, Paragraph [0016]], an efficiency using the time period for each of the plurality of tool gestures and a respective expected time period for each of the plurality of tool gestures [Mittal, Paragraph [0007] – “Certain aspects and examples of the present disclosure relate to identifying, determining, and outputting micro invisible lost time (MILT) for controlling a drilling operation. MILT may be a result of surface equipment design and efficiency and of process optimization…”; Mittal, Paragraph [0032] – “At block 312, the identified deviations are combined into MILT, the combined deviations comprising deviations from each identified, deviated rig activity. Subsequent to performing variance analysis and in response to identifying deviate rig activities at block 310, the computing device 140 may combine the deviations to calculate the MILT. For each identified, deviated rig activity, a difference between the actual completion time and the expected completion time may be calculated, the difference being a deviation. Combining the deviations may involve the computing device 140 adding the deviations from each identified, deviated rig activity, the resulting sum being the MILT. The computing device 140 may subsequently output the MILT.” – MILT is a measure of efficiency].
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Mittal and Hutchinson discloses the method of claim 17, wherein the first sensor is selected from a group consisting of: a strain gauge sensor, an acceleration sensor, an inclination sensor, a magnetometer sensor, a pressure sensor, a temperature sensor, and a capacitance sensor [Hutchinson, Paragraph [0038] – “The MWD system 37 may also include a gamma ray detector 48 and separate rotational (angular)/axial accelerometers, magnetometers, pressure transducers or strain gauges, shown generally at 58. The MWD system 37 may also include a resistivity sensor system, including an induction signal generator/receiver 52, and transmitter antenna 54 and receiver 56A, 56B antennas.”].
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Mittal and Hutchinson discloses the method of claim 17, wherein the plurality of tool gestures is a first plurality of tool gestures, wherein the first plurality of tool gestures includes at least two tool gestures in a first sequence [Mittal, Paragraph [0029] – “For example, the rig activity of the classified rig state may change from rotary drilling to reaming, and the computing device 140 may determine the end time of the rotary drilling rig activity by using the first time of the reaming rig activity from the time-stamp data.”], wherein the processing device communicably coupled to a memory that has stored therein a standard sequence of operations [Mittal, Paragraph [0020] – “The system 200 may include the computing device 140. The computing device 140 can include a processor 204, a memory 207, and a bus 206. The processor 204 can execute one or more operations for identifying, calculating, and outputting MILT for automatically controlling the drilling operation. The processor 204 can execute instructions stored in the memory 207 to perform the operations.”; Paragraph [0030] – “At block 308, the actual completion time of each instance of rig activity is compared to an expected completion time of the rig activity. The expected completion time of the rig activity may be pre-determined and may correspond to benchmark values from historical data from existing wellbores. The expected completion time may be unique to each rig activity.”], wherein the standard sequence of operations includes a second plurality of tool gestures and the respective expected time period for each of the plurality of tool gestures [Mittal, Paragraph [0030] – “For example, an expected completion time for reaming may be different from an expected completion time for rotary drilling. And, an actual completion time for reaming may be compared to an expected completion time for reaming but may not be compared to an expected completion time for rotary drilling.”], wherein the second plurality of tool gestures includes at least two tool gestures in a second sequence [Mittal, Paragraph [0030] – “The expected completion time of the rig activity may be pre-determined and may correspond to benchmark values from historical data from existing wellbores. In some examples, the pre-determined expected completion time may be calculated by the computing device 140 that uses benchmark values based on historical data from existing wellbores, the benchmark values being average completion times of the associated rig activity. In other examples, an operator or supervisor of the drilling operation may manually set the expected completion time based on experience. The expected completion time may be unique to each rig activity.” – expected unique to at least two rig activities considering change from rotary drilling to reaming described in Paragraph [0029]], the method further comprising: accessing, by the processing device, the standard sequence of operations [Mittal, Paragraph [0059] – “Example 20 is the non-transitory computer-readable medium of example 15, wherein the time-stamp data includes date and time, bit depth, hole depth, block position, hookload, and flow rate, and wherein the expected completion time associated with the respective rig activity corresponds to benchmark values from historical data about existing wellbores, and wherein the rig state is backreaming, circulating, in-slip, tripping in, tripping out, rotary drilling, sliding, off bottom, or reaming.” – expected completion times store in memory, and “computing device” of Paragraph [0020] performs operations to access the expected completion times] from the;
comparing, by the processing resource [Mittal, See “computing device” of Paragraph [0020]], at least two tool gestures of the first plurality of tool gestures and the first sequence with the at least two tool gestures of the second plurality of tool gestures and the second sequence [Mittal, Paragraph [0030] – “At block 308, the actual completion time of each instance of rig activity is compared to an expected completion time of the rig activity.” – each instance corresponds to at least two as per change from rotary drilling to reaming]; and
based at least in part on the comparison, determining, by the processing resource, that the at least two tool gestures of the first plurality of tool gestures and the first sequence correspond to the at least two tool gestures of the second plurality of tool gestures and the second sequence [Mittal, Paragraph [0028] – “At block 304, values of drilling parameters are classified into a rig state, being a sub-process of the drilling operation. This classification may involve determining what type of sub-process the drilling operation is performing based on the values of drilling parameters received at block 302. The classification of sub-process, or rig state, may be made by the computing device 140, and the rig state may include at least one rig activity…”; Paragraph [0030] – “At block 308, the actual completion time of each instance of rig activity is compared to an expected completion time of the rig activity. The expected completion time of the rig activity may be pre-determined and may correspond to benchmark values from historical data from existing wellbores. In some examples, the pre-determined expected completion time may be calculated by the computing device 140 that uses benchmark values based on historical data from existing wellbores, the benchmark values being average completion times of the associated rig activity”].
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Mittal and Hutchinson discloses the method of claim 17, wherein one or more of the plurality of tool gestures is selected from a group consisting of: a non-productive time [Mittal, Paragraph [0008] – “The drilling operation may involve productive time (PT) that may be a measure of time in which the drilling operation is active and drilling, and the drilling operation may involve NPT that is a measure of time in which the drilling operation is not drilling but may still be performing non-drilling related operations. NPT may include invisible non-productive time (INPT) that may be crew performance differences or other suitable indirect causes of NPT. PT can include ILT, which may be a difference between an actual completion time of an activity relating to drilling and an expected completion time of the activity relating to drilling.”], an equipment preparation, a tool assembly, a pick up tool and lubricate, a lubricator land on wellhead, a lubricator pressure test, an open well, a close well, a bleed off/open lubricator, a rig down lubricator, a tool disassembly, a run in hole, a run through restriction, a jarring operation, a mission at depth, a tool stuck, a freefall, and a cable cycling fatigue warning [Mittal, Paragraph [0015] – “Fluid or “mud” from a mud tank 120 may be pumped downhole using a mud pump 122 powered by an adjacent power source, such as a prime mover or motor 124. The mud may be pumped from the mud tank 120, through a stand pipe 126, which feeds the mud into the drill-string 106 and conveys the same to the drill bit 114. The mud exits one or more nozzles (not shown) arranged in the drill bit 114 and in the process cools the drill bit 114. After exiting the drill bit 114, the mud circulates back to the surface 110 via the annulus defined between the wellbore 118 and the drill-string 106, and hole cleaning can occur which involves returning the drill cuttings and debris to the surface. The cuttings and mud mixture are passed through a flow line 128 and are processed such that a cleaned mud is returned down hole through the stand pipe 126 once again.”; Mittal, Paragraph [0028] – “…include at least one rig activity that may include backreaming, circulating, in-slip, tripping in, tripping out, rotary drilling, sliding, off bottom, reaming, etc. The computing device 140 may identify, for each instance of rig activity of the classified rig…”; Paragraph [0028] – “…include at least one rig activity that may include backreaming, circulating, in-slip, tripping in, tripping out, rotary drilling, sliding, off bottom, reaming, etc. The computing device 140 may identify, for each instance of rig activity of the classified rig…”].
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mittal et. al. in view of Hutchinson et. al., in view of Trinh et. al. (US 20100319992 A1), in further view of Urone et. al. (Urone, P. P. (2002). Chapter 11 - Fluid Statics. In College Physics 2e. OpenStax. https://openstax.org/books/college-physics-2e/pages/11-4-variation-of-pressure-with-depth-in-a-fluid - hereinafter, Urone).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Mittal and Hutchinson discloses the system of claim 9, wherein the first sensor type is a weight sensor and the first sensor data is a weight data [Hutchinson, Paragraph [0038] – “The drilling rig 10 in this embodiment includes a sensor, shown generally at 14A, and called a "hookload sensor". which measures a parameter related to the weight suspended by the drawworks 11 at any point in time. Such weight measurement is known in the art by the term "hookload." As is known in the art, when the drill string is coupled to the top drive 14, the amount of hookload measured by the hookload sensor 14A will include the drill string weight and the weight of the top drive 14. During rig operations in which the top drive 14 is disconnected from the drill string, the weight measured by the hookload sensor 14A will be substantially only the weight of the top drive…Hookload may also include measurements related to the weight of the drill string measured more directly, such as using an "instrumented top sub" having axial strain gauges therein.”].
The combination does not disclose wherein the processing device is further configured to: receive the weight data when the operating tool is stationary in a first fluid to yield a first weigh data and receive the weight data when the operating tool is stationary in a second fluid to yield a second weight data.
However, Trinh discloses wherein the processing device is further configured to: receive the weight data when the operating tool is stationary to yield weight data [Paragraph [0007] – “In another aspect, a drill bit is disclosed that, in one embodiment, may include: a sensor in the drill bit for determining a weight-on-bit; and a processor configured to determine: a first weight-on-bit using the measurements made by the sensor with a fluid flowing through the drill bit and no weight applied to the drill bit” – processor must receive sensor measurements to make determination; Paragraph [0024] – “FIG. 6 is a flow diagram depicting a method 600 of determining the corrected weight-on-bit (WOBc) using a static weight-on-bit offset value (WOBo). The static offset value WOBo, in one aspect, may be determined when the drill bit is stationary while the drilling fluid is flowing under pressure through the drill bit, i.e., the pumps are on while no weight is applied on the drill bit. In one aspect, the static drill bit condition may be determined by measuring an acceleration or motion of the drill bit (Block 610). The acceleration or motion may by determined by using one or more accelerometers in the BHA or drill bit.”]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to measure weight of the operating tool while the tool is stationary, as disclosed by Trinh, in the efficiency evaluation system of the combination of Mittal and Hutchinson in order to determine the operating tool weight with greater accuracy.
The combination of Mittal, Hutchinson, and Trinh does not disclose that the operating tool is in a first and second fluid, calculating a volume of the operating tool based on a combination of the first weight data and the second weight data, and determining a density of a fluid in the wellbore based upon a combination of the first weight data, the second weight data, and the volume.
Urone, however, discloses a first fluid and a second fluid. [See Urone, referring to Figs. 11.20 or 11.22 in Section 11.7 for first fluid (air) and second fluid (water)];
calculating a volume of a submerged object based on a combination of the first weight data and the second weight data [See Section 11.7, Fig. 11.19, which shows that buoyancy force (F_B) is equal to the difference between the force before being submerged (F_1) and after (F_2), and that the volume of the submerged object is calculated from its known density and measured weight, from Archimedes’ Principle]; and
determining a density of a fluid in the wellbore based upon a combination of the first weight data, the second weight data, and the volume [See Section 11.7, Eq. 11.30, which relates buoyant force to the weight of the fluid and Eqs. 11.37-11.39, which relate Archimedes’ Principle to fluid density; from this, weight of object before and after being submerged in fluid and volume of the object, determined from displaced fluid volume can be used to determine fluid density].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the first and second fluids pictured in Urone during the weight measurement of the combination of Mittal, Hutchinson, and Trinh, in order to control the force on the operating tool from the fluid.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to apply Archimedes’ Principle, as disclosed by Urone to determine fluid density from weight measurements of the operating tool disclosed by the combination of Mittal, Hutchinson, and Trinh as this is a well-known fundamental principle of fluid statics.
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Mittal, Hutchinson, Trinh, and Urone discloses the system of claim 10, wherein the first fluid is air and the second fluid is freshwater [See Urone, Section 11.7 Example 11.8, which demonstrates solid steel being submerged in water which has a density of 1000 kg per cubic meter, which is the density of fresh water; refer to Figs. 11.20 or 11.22 in Section 11.7 for first fluid being air and second fluid being water].
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Mittal, Hutchinson, Trinh, and Urone discloses the system of claim 10, wherein the second sensor type is a pressure sensor and the second sensor data is pressure data [Hutchinson, Paragraph [0038] – “In some embodiments, the MWD system includes a pressure sensor 49 configured to measure fluid pressure inside the drill string and/or in an annular space between the wall of the wellbore and the outside of the drill string at a position proximate the bottom of the drill string.”], and wherein the processing device is further configured to [Hutchinson, Paragraph [0038] – “Control over the various functions of the MWD system 37 may be performed by a central processor 46.”]: determine a vertical depth of the operating tool in the wellbore by comparing the density of the fluid in the wellbore with the pressure data from the pressure sensor [See Urone, Section 11.4 Eqs. 11.12-11.17, which relate fluid pressure (P) to depth (h) and fluid density (rho)].
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mittal et. al. in view of Hutchinson et. al., in further view of Vempati et. al. (US 20190226333 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Mittal and Hutchinson discloses the system of claim 1, wherein operation of the operating tool is managed by an operator [Mittal, Paragraph [0033] – “At block 314, MILT is output for controlling the drilling operation. The MILT calculated at block 312 may be output by the computing device 140 for viewing by the operator or supervisor of the drilling operation.”].
The combination does not disclose wherein the processing device is further configured to: use the efficiency along with at least one other efficiency for the operator to determine a trend of changes of efficiency for the operator.
Vempati, however, discloses wherein the processing device is further configured to: use the efficiency along with at least one other efficiency for the operator to determine a trend of changes of efficiency for the operator [Paragraph [0051] – “In addition to manual drilling operations, the systems and methods of the disclosure facilitate improved real-time automated control of the drilling system based on a comprehensive and holistic evaluation of the drilling operation parameters such that drilling operations are assessed to determine whether the drilling operation is performing better than, worse than, or the same as prior drilling operations. The drilling operations may be further assessed to determine whether the drilling operation is performing better than, worse than, or the same as an intended/planned drilling operation. Additionally, the controller of the drilling system may more accurately and intuitively assess whether one or more drilling operation parameters should be automatically altered to improve drilling operations, and/or such that the controller may more accurately and intuitively assess whether altering one or more drilling operation parameters improved or deterred the drilling operation.” – the controller is the operator, who performs manual drilling operations; Paragraph [0062] – “The methods of evaluating performance and/or improving performance of the drilling operation may be repeated on an ongoing basis. For example, analysis of the drilling operation including actions 302-324 may be repeatedly conducted after a particular time interval has elapsed such as every 5 minutes, every 30 minutes, every hour, or any other time interval. In other embodiments, analysis of the drilling operation may be completed after a given distance of the borehole 102 or a given depth percentage has been reached. For example, analysis of the drilling operation may be repeatedly conducted in intervals of 50 feet, 100 feet, or any other distance interval or in intervals of 1%, 2%, 5%, etc. of the total drilling depth or of the drilling depth of a given formation material layer within the subterranean formation 118.” – improving performance is a change of efficiency].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to determine a trend in efficiencies of an operator, as disclosed by Vempati, in the efficiency evaluation system of the combination of Mittal and Hutchinson, to better determine if changes in operation efficiencies can be attributed to individual operators’ performances.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mittal et. al. in view of Hutchinson et. al., in further view of Mandava et. al. (US 20170300845 A1).
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Mittal and Hutchinson discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the efficiency is a first efficiency corresponding to a first operator [Mittal, Paragraph [0008] – “Some examples of ILT and MILT may be untrained operators, old, worn, or otherwise suboptimal drilling equipment, and actual events not accounted for during project planning.”; Mittal, Paragraph [0011] – “The actual completion time may be less than or equal to the expected completion time, in which case an operator or supervisor of the drilling operation may desire to take no action, as the drilling operation may be operating at a desired efficiency. The actual completion time may alternatively take more time than the expected completion time, and, if the actual completion time is greater than the expected completion time by an amount greater than a pre-set threshold value, the computing device may identify the associated rig activity as a deviated rig activity.”].
The combination does not disclose wherein the processing device is further configured to: obtain a second efficiency corresponding to a second operator and determine an efficiency comparison between the first operator and the second operator of the operating tool based at least in part on the first efficiency and the second efficiency.
Mandava, however, discloses the processing device is further configured to: obtain a second efficiency corresponding to a second operator [Paragraph [0084] – “FIGS. 7A-7D show exemplary efficiency tracking charts. The controller 252 of FIG. 2 or other controllers may calculate the data shown on the charts and present it to a user. Charts with similar data to FIGS. 7A-7D may be included in display 500 of FIG. 5 and display 600 of FIG. 6. In particular, the charts of 7A-7D may depict measurements of various KPIs tracked for several operators or rigs. The data displayed on these graphs may be used to generate a best composite well time, as well as allowing a side by side comparison of drillers.” – See Fig. [7A-D], any of operators B-I; KPI are key performance indicators, measures of efficiency];
and determine an efficiency comparison between the first operator and the second operator of the operating tool based at least in part on the first efficiency and the second efficiency [Paragraph [0084] – “FIGS. 7A-7D show exemplary efficiency tracking charts. The controller 252 of FIG. 2 or other controllers may calculate the data shown on the charts and present it to a user. Charts with similar data to FIGS. 7A-7D may be included in display 500 of FIG. 5 and display 600 of FIG. 6. In particular, the charts of 7A-7D may depict measurements of various KPIs tracked for several operators or rigs. The data displayed on these graphs may be used to generate a best composite well time, as well as allowing a side by side comparison of drillers.” – See Fig. [7A-D], comparison of Operator A with any of Operators B-I; KPI are key performance indicators, measures of efficiency].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to compare operating efficiencies of one operator with a second operator, as disclosed by Mandava, in the evaluation of efficiency disclosed in the combination of Mittal and Hutchinson, in order to better evaluate the performance of individual operators.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-6367566-B1, Down Hole, Hydrodynamic Well Control, Blowout Prevention
US-5873420-A, Air And Mud Control System For Underbalanced Drilling
US-20180073348-A1, Weight On Bit Calculations With Automatic Calibration
US-20160342916-A1, DOWNHOLE TOOL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANELLE A HOLMES whose telephone number is (571)272-4336. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5 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, Arleen M Vazquez can be reached at (571) 272-2619. 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.
/J.A.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/ARLEEN M VAZQUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights