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 § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8-9, 11, 13, 17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shrivastava (2024/0084689).
Regarding claim 1, Shrivastava discloses a method for use with a subterranean well drilling operation (field operation at a wellsite; see paragraph 214), the method comprising:
training a predictive model (ML model; see paragraph 150) with historical well data (see paragraphs 232-233) to predict a probability of a historical wellbore event occurring (probability for prediction of a loss event; see paragraphs 152-153);
then inputting (providing real-time equipment data to a recurrent neural net; see paragraph 227) to the trained predictive model parameters (real-time equipment data; see paragraph 231) of a target well (see paragraphs 130 and 156) to be drilled; and
the predictive model predicting a probability of a wellbore event (probability of a future drilling-related loss event; see paragraphs 152-153, 214, and 227) occurring in the target well.
Regarding claim 2, Shrivastava discloses the method of claim 1, in which the historical well data comprises data recorded for at least one offset well (see paragraph 130).
Regarding claim 3, Shrivastava discloses the method of claim 1, in which the predictive model comprises artificial intelligence (see paragraph 129).
Regarding claim 8, Shrivastava discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising inputting to the predictive model well data for the target well in real time as the target well is being drilled (see paragraphs 130, 156, and 214).
Regarding claim 9, Shrivastava discloses the method of claim 8, further comprising the predictive model providing guidance for drilling the target well as the target well is being drilled (see paragraphs 152, and 214).
Regarding claim 11, Shrivastava discloses a system for use with a subterranean well drilling operation (field operation at a wellsite; see paragraph 214), the system comprising:
a predictive model (recurrent neural net; see paragraphs 150 and 214) trained (supra) to predict (see paragraph 152) at least one historical wellbore event (loss event; see paragraph 152), based on historical well data (see paragraphs 232-233),
in which the predictive model is configured to predict a probability (probability of future drilling-related loss; see paragraphs 152-153, 214, and 227) of a wellbore event (supra) occurring in a target well (target well; see paragraphs 130 and 156), and
in which the predictive model is configured to provide guidance (suggest action to mitigate or reduce the loss; see paragraph 152) for drilling the target well.
Regarding claim 13, Shrivastava discloses the system of claim 11, in which the predictive model comprises artificial intelligence (see paragraph 129).
Regarding claim 17, Shrivastava discloses the system of claim 11, in which the historical well data is recorded for at least one offset well (see paragraph 130).
Regarding claim 19, Shrivastava discloses the system of claim 11, in which the historical well event comprises at least one of the group consisting of wellbore collapse, wellbore instability and stuck pipe (stuck pipe; see paragraph 228).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Note that, in the following rejections, the highlighting indicates differences from the exact claim language, or items involved in an obviousness argument.
Claim(s) 4 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shrivastava (2024/0084689).
See the foregoing rejections of claims 1 and 11 for limitations recited therein.
Regarding claim 4, Shrivastava does not disclose the highlighted limitations:
in which the predicting comprises providing geomechanics principles to the predictive model.
Shrivastava discloses simulating based on geomechanics principles (see paragraph 44).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the invention of Shrivastava such that the predicting comprises providing geomechanics principles to the predictive model, in order to assist with optimization of operations, as discussed by Shrivastava (see paragraph 44).
Regarding claims 15-16 see the foregoing rejection of claim 4.
Claim(s) 5, 6, 14, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shrivastava (2024/0084689), in view of Han (2022/0236446).
See the foregoing rejections of claims 1 and 11 for limitations recited therein.
Regarding claim 5, Shrivastava does not disclose the highlighted limitations:
further comprising the predictive model predicting a safe mud density window for the target well.
Han discloses predicting a safe mud weight window (see paragraph 52).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the invention of Shrivastava to comprise the predictive model predicting a safe mud density window for the target well, similarly to the invention of Han, in order to enable safe operations as implied by Han (see paragraph 52).
Regarding claim 6, Shrivastava does not disclose the highlighted limitations:
further comprising the predictive model predicting a pore pressure for the target well.
Han discloses predicting a pore pressure for a target well (see paragraph 30).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the invention of Shrivastava to comprise the predictive model predicting a pore pressure for the target well, similarly to the invention of Han, in order to better predict breakout, as discussed by Han (see paragraph 30).
Regarding claim 14, see the foregoing rejection of claim 5.
Regarding claim 20, Shrivastava does not disclose the highlighted limitations:
in which the predictive model is configured to predict horizontal stresses in an earth formation of the target well.
Han discloses estimating horizontal stresses (see paragraph 30).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the invention of Shrivastava such that the predictive model were configured to predict horizontal stresses in an earth formation of the target well, similarly to the invention of Han, in order to better predict breakout, as discussed by Han (see paragraph 30).
Claim(s) 7 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shrivastava (2024/0084689), in view of Jamison et al. (2021/0115789).
See the foregoing rejections of claims 1 and 11 for limitations recited therein.
Regarding claim 7, Shrivastava does not disclose the highlighted limitations:
in which the historical well data comprises historical drill cuttings data.
Jamison et al. disclose using historical drill cuttings data (see paragraph 19).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the invention of Shrivastava such that the historical well data comprises historical drill cuttings data, similarly to the invention of Jamison et al., because such a modification would have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395.
Regarding claim 12, see the foregoing rejection of claim 7.
Claim(s) 10 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shrivastava (2024/0084689), in view of Li et al. (2023/0235636).
See the foregoing rejections of claims 1 and 11 for limitations recited therein.
Regarding claim 10, Shrivastava does not disclose the highlighted limitations:
further comprising producing a correlation model for a relationship between mud density, temperature and mud rheology.
Li et al disclose a correlation model for a relationship between mud density, temperature and mud rheology (see paragraph 82).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the invention of Shrivastava to comprise producing a correlation model for a relationship between mud density, temperature and mud rheology, similarly to the invention of Li et al. because such a modification would have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395.
Regarding claim 18, see the foregoing rejection of claim 10.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEOFFREY T EVANS whose telephone number is (571)272-2369. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9 AM - 5:30 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Walter Lindsay can be reached at (571) 272-1674. 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.
/WALTER L LINDSAY JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2852
/GEOFFREY T EVANS/Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights