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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-13, 23, 24 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hopwood et al. (US 2021/0115779).
As concerns claim 1, Hopwood shows a method of controlling a drilling operation, comprising: receiving rate-of-penetration (ROP) data, wherein the ROP data is indicative of a ROP of a drill bit being operated during the drilling operation; determining, based on the ROP data, that an ROP variability condition has been met, including determining that a variability of the ROP has exceeded a threshold; based on the determination that the ROP variability condition has been met, activating a peak- shaving operation comprising adjusting, based on the ROP data, an ROP setpoint; and controlling the drilling operation according to the adjusted ROP setpoint (paragraph 0068, 0069, 0074-0086, 0089, 0090 & 0102-0126).
As concerns claim 2, Hopwood shows wherein determining that the variability of the ROP has exceeded the threshold comprises: windowing the ROP data by applying a temporal window to the ROP data; and determining, based on the windowed ROP data, that the variability of the ROP during the temporal window has exceeded the threshold (paragraph 0068, 0069, 0074-0086, 0089, 0090 & 0102-0126).
As concerns claim 3, Hopwood shows wherein determining that the variability of the ROP has exceeded the threshold comprises: determining, based on the ROP data, a coefficient of variation of the ROP, wherein the coefficient of variation is a standard deviation of ROP readings comprised in the ROP data divided by an average of the ROP readings; and determining that the coefficient of variation has exceeded the threshold (paragraph 0068, 0069, 0074-0086, 0089, 0090 & 0102-0126).
As concerns claim 4, Hopwood shows wherein adjusting the ROP setpoint comprises: windowing the ROP data by applying a temporal window to the ROP data; and adjusting the ROP setpoint based on the windowed ROP data (paragraph 0068, 0069, 0074-0086, 0089, 0090 & 0102-0126).
As concerns claim 5, Hopwood shows wherein adjusting the ROP setpoint comprises: determining, based on the ROP data, a percentile of the ROP data; and adjusting the ROP setpoint by a sum of the percentile and an offset value (paragraph 0068, 0069, 0074-0086, 0089, 0090 & 0102-0126).
As concerns claim 6, Hopwood shows receiving weight-on-bit (WOB) data, wherein the WOB data is indicative of a weight acting on the drill bit during the drilling operation; determining, based on the WOB data, that a preset condition has been met; and based on the determination that the preset condition has been met: deactivating the peak-shaving operation; and increasing the ROP setpoint (paragraph 0068, 0069, 0074- 0086, 0089, 0090 & 0102-0126).
As concerns claim 7, Hopwood shows wherein determining that the preset condition has been met comprises: determining, based the WOB data, a proportional difference between the WOB setpoint and the WOB; determining that the proportional difference between the WOB setpoint and the WOB is greater than a first threshold; determining, based on the ROP data, a proportional difference between the ROP setpoint and the ROP; determining that the proportional difference between the ROP setpoint and the ROP is less than a second threshold, wherein the first threshold is greater than the second threshold; and based on the determination that the proportional difference between the WOB setpoint and the WOB is greater than the first threshold, and based on the determination that the proportional difference between the ROP setpoint and the ROP is less than the second threshold, determining that the preset condition has been met (paragraph 0068, 0069, 0074-0086, 0089, 0090 & 0102-0126).
As concerns claim 8, Hopwood shows wherein increasing the ROP setpoint comprises linearly increasing the ROP setpoint (paragraph 0068, 0069, 0074-0086, 0089, 0090 & 0102-0126).
As concerns claim 9, Hopwood shows wherein increasing the ROP setpoint comprises: determining, based on the ROP data, a proximity of the ROP to the ROP setpoint; and increasing the ROP setpoint until the proximity of the ROP to the ROP setpoint is less than a proximity threshold (paragraph 0068, 0069, 0074-0086, 0089, 0090 & 0102-0126).
As concerns claim 10, Hopwood shows once the proximity of the ROP to the ROP setpoint is less than the proximity threshold, re-activating the peak-shaving operation (paragraph 0068, 0069, 0074-0086, 0089, 0090 & 0102-0126).
As concerns claim 11, Hopwood shows wherein: the method further comprises monitoring a depth of the drill bit; and the peak-shaving operation further comprises adjusting the ROP setpoint based on the monitored depth (paragraph 0026, 0051, 0068, 0069, 0074-0086, 0089, 0090 & 0102-0126).
As concerns claim 12, Hopwood shows determining a maximum ROP setpoint; and during the drilling operation, preventing the ROP setpoint from being increased above the maximum ROP setpoint (paragraph 0068, 0069, 0074-0086, 0089, 0090 & 0102-0126).
As concerns claim 13, Hopwood shows determining that the ROP setpoint is greater than the maximum ROP setpoint; and before preventing the ROP setpoint from being increased above the maximum ROP setpoint, setting the ROP setpoint equal to the maximum ROP setpoint (paragraph 0068, 0069, 0074-0086, 0089, 0090 & 0102- 0126).
As concerns claim 23, Hopwood shows a system for controlling a drilling operation, the system comprising: a height control apparatus configured to adjust a height of a drill string comprising a drill bit used during the drilling operation; a rotational drive unit comprising a rotational drive unit controller configured to control rotation of the drill bit; and a drilling controller communicatively coupled to the height control apparatus and the rotational drive unit controller, and being configured to perform a method comprising: receiving rate-of-penetration (ROP) data, wherein the ROP data is indicative of a ROP of the drill bit during the drilling operation; determining, based on the ROP data, whether an ROP variability condition has been met, including determining whether a variability of the ROP has exceeded a threshold; if the ROP variability condition has been met, activating a peak-shaving operation comprising adjusting, based on the ROP data, an ROP setpoint; and controlling the drilling operation according to the adjusted ROP setpoint (paragraph 0068, 0069, 0074-0086, 0089, 0090 & 0102-0126).
As concerns claim 24, Hopwood shows a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon program code executable by a processor and configured, when executed, to cause the processor to perform a method of controlling a drilling operation, comprising: receiving rate-of-penetration (ROP) data, wherein the ROP data is indicative of a ROP of a drill bit being operated during a drilling operation; determining, based on the ROP data, whether an ROP variability condition has been met, including determining whether a variability of the ROP has exceeded a threshold; if the ROP variability condition has been met, activating a peak-shaving operation comprising adjusting, based on the ROP data, an ROP setpoint; and controlling the drilling operation according to the adjusted ROP setpoint (paragraph 0068, 0069, 0074- 0086, 0089, 0090 & 0102-0126).
As concerns claim 27, Hopwood shows wherein the height control apparatus is one or more selected from: a drawworks (118); and hydraulics.
Claims 17-20, 22, 25, 26 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shen et al. (US 10,989,038).
As concerns claim 17, Shen shows a method of controlling a drilling operation, comprising: receiving a maximum depth of cut (DOC) value; determining, based on the maximum DOC value, a first recommended ROP setpoint; selecting, from among one or more recommended ROP setpoints, including the first recommended ROP setpoint, one of the one or more recommended ROP setpoints; and controlling the drilling operation according to the selected recommended ROP setpoint (abstract; col 32, In 11 - col 33, In 64; claims 1-20).
As concerns claim 18, Shen shows wherein determining the first recommended ROP setpoint comprises: receiving a revolutions-per-minute (RPM) value, wherein the RPM value is indicative of a rotational speed of a drill bit being operated during the drilling operation; multiplying the RPM value by the maximum DOC value; and determining the first recommended ROP setpoint based on the multiplication (abstract).
As concerns claim 19, Shen shows wherein selecting one of the one or more recommended ROP setpoints comprises selecting, from among the one or more recommended ROP setpoints, the minimum ROP setpoint recommendation (abstract; col 32, In 11 - col 33, In 64; claims 1-20).
As concerns claim 20, Shen shows wherein selecting one of the one or more recommended ROP setpoints comprises: generating one or more additional ROP setpoint recommendations; and selecting, from among the first recommended ROP setpoint and the one or more additional ROP setpoint recommendations, one of the ROP setpoint recommendations (abstract; col 32, In 11 - col 33, In 64; claims 1-20).
As concerns claim 22, Shen shows wherein: the method further comprises monitoring a depth of a drill bit being operated during the drilling operation; and receiving the maximum DOC value comprises receiving the maximum DOC value based on the monitored depth (abstract; col 32, In 11 - col 33, In 64; claims 1-20).
As concerns claim 25, Shen shows a system for controlling a drilling operation, the system comprising: a height control apparatus (207) configured to adjust a height of a drill string comprising a drill bit used during the drilling operation; a rotational drive unit (240) comprising a rotational drive unit controller configured to control rotation of the drill bit; and a drilling controller communicatively coupled to the height control apparatus and the rotational drive unit controller, and being configured to perform a method comprising: receiving a maximum depth of cut (DOC) value; determining, based on the maximum DOC value, a first recommended ROP setpoint; selecting, from among one or more recommended ROP setpoints, including the first recommended ROP setpoint, one of the one or more recommended ROP setpoints; and controlling the drilling operation according to the selected recommended ROP setpoint (abstract; col 32, In 11 - col 33, In 64; claims 1-20).
As concerns claim 26, Shen shows a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon program code executable by a processor and configured, when executed, to cause the processor to perform a method of controlling a drilling operation, comprising: receiving a maximum depth of cut (DOC) value; determining, based on the maximum DOC value, a first recommended ROP setpoint; selecting, from among one or more recommended ROP setpoints, including the first recommended ROP setpoint, one of the one or more recommended ROP setpoints; and controlling the drilling operation according to the selected recommended ROP setpoint (abstract; col 32, In 11 - col 33, In 64; claims 1-20).
As concerns claim 28, Shen shows wherein the height control apparatus is one or more selected from: a drawworks (176); and hydraulics.
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.
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hopwood et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shen et al.
As concerns claim 14, Hopwood discloses the claimed invention except for wherein determining the maximum ROP setpoint comprises: receiving a maximum depth of cut (DOC) value; and determining, based on the maximum DOC value, the maximum ROP setpoint. Shen teaches wherein determining a maximum ROP setpoint comprises: receiving a maximum depth of cut (DOC) value; and determining, based on the maximum DOC value, the maximum ROP setpoint (abstract; col 32, In 11 - col 33, In 64; claims 1-20). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Hopwood, as taught by Shen, to include a maximum depth of cut value for the expected benefit of generating a rate of penetration value by multiplying the maximum depth of cut value and the total revolution rate value, setting a rate of penetration setpoint using the rate of penetration value, and controlling equipment of the rigsite system using the rate of penetration setpoint. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that using a maximum depth of cut valve to determine the maximum ROP setpoint in the system would have provided predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since the expected result of this configuration improves versatility/adaptability/efficiency of the system design.
As concerns claim 15, the combination teaches wherein determining the maximum ROP setpoint comprises: determining a revolutions-per-minute (RPM) value, wherein the RPM value is indicative of a rotational speed of the drill bit; multiplying the RPM value by the maximum DOC value; and determining the maximum ROP setpoint based on the multiplication (Shen: abstract).
As concerns claim 16, the combination teaches wherein: the method further comprises monitoring a depth of the drill bit; and receiving the maximum DOC value comprises receiving the maximum DOC value based on the monitored depth (Shen: abstract; col 32, In 11 - col 33, In 64; claims 1-20).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen et al. as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Hopwood et al.
As concerns claim 21, Shen discloses the claimed invention except for wherein generating the one or more additional ROP setpoint recommendations comprises generating an additional ROP setpoint recommendation from a peak shaving operation comprising: receiving rate-of-penetration (ROP) data, wherein the ROP data is indicative of a ROP of a drill bit being operated during the drilling operation; and determining, based on the ROP data, that an ROP variability condition has been met, including determining that a variability of the ROP has exceeded a threshold; and based on the determination that the ROP variability condition has been met, generating, based on the ROP data, the additional ROP setpoint recommendation. Hopwood teaches generating an additional ROP setpoint recommendation from a peak shaving operation comprising: receiving rate-of-penetration (ROP) data, wherein the ROP data is indicative of a ROP of a drill bit being operated during the drilling operation; and determining, based on the ROP data, that an ROP variability condition has been met, including determining that a variability of the ROP has exceeded a threshold; and based on the determination that the ROP variability condition has been met, generating, based on the ROP data, the additional ROP setpoint recommendation (paragraph 0068, 0069, 0074-0086, 0089, 0090 & 0102-0126). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Shen, as taught by Hopwood, to include additional ROP setpoint recommendations for the expected benefit of adopting to, following, or otherwise changing with the changing drilling parameters, such as changing well conditions, which provides a maximum ROP that is used to control the ROP of the drill string into the formation. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that using additional ROP setpoint recommendations in the system would have provided predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since the expected result of this configuration improves versatility/adaptability/efficiency of the system design.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/02/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that Hopwood does not teach or suggest based on the determination that the ROP variability condition has been met, activating a peak-shaving operation comprising adjusting, based one the ROP data, an ROP setpoint, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Hopwood discloses that the constant ROP setpoint may be replaced with an automatically changing (i.e., variable) ROP setpoint that adopts to, follows, or otherwise changes with the changing drilling parameters, such as changing well conditions and/or changed drilling setpoints (paragraph 0080), and that the control system may use the ROP measurements to generate one or more intermediate (or temporary) ROP setpoints that vary with time as the received ROP measurements vary, wherein the ROP measurements reflect changes in the well conditions (e.g., formation hardness) and drilling parameters (e.g., top drive RPM, mud flow rate, etc.) (paragraph 0082). Thus, Hopwood teaches or suggests adjusting an ROP setpoint based on a variability of the ROP, which reflects changes in the well conditions and drilling parameters. Therefore, Hopwood meets the claim language.
In response to applicant’s argument that Shen does not teach or suggest selecting, from among one or more recommended ROP setpoints, including the first recommended ROP setpoint, which is based on the maximum DOC value, one of the one or more recommended ROP setpoints, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Shen discloses that the ROP engine can, by combining the bit DOC limit, and motor RPM, generate a recommended ROP set point for one or more different flow rates, one or more different surface RPMs and one or more differential pressures (col 27, ln 26-31), and that an ROP engine may be operable in one or more modes, for example, consider execution of an ROP engine in a planning phase to tabulate recommended ROP set points for different bit motor combinations and consider execution of an ROP engine in a drilling phase to recommend one or more ROP set points during one or more drilling operations where the ROP engine can generate one or more ROP set points in real-time (e.g., on the order of ten minutes or less) (col 27, ln 32-40). Shen further discloses generating a rate of penetration value for the bit as operatively coupled to the mud motor by multiplying the maximum depth of cut value and the total revolution rate value (claim 1), setting a rate of penetration set point using the rate of penetration value (claim 6), and controlling equipment of the rigsite system using the rate of penetration set point (claim 7). Thus, Shen teaches or suggests determining, based on a maximum DOC value, a recommended ROP setpoint, selecting the recommended ROP setpoint, and controlling a drilling operation according to the selected recommended ROP setpoint. Therefore, Shen meets the claim language.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW R BUCK whose telephone number is (571)270-3653. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30-5.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached at (571)272-5405. 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.
/MATTHEW R BUCK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679
Prosecution Insights