This Office action is in response to application filed on 5/09/2024.
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 .
Examiner’s Note Regarding Effective Date
This application is claiming the benefit of a prior-filed provisional application 63/465114 on 5/09/2023 under 35 USC 119(e). However, the recitation in present independent claims 1 and 11, “comparing/compare the SWD data to a pilot signal; and
outputting/output drill bit data for the drill bit based on comparing the SWD data to
the pilot signal” are not entitled to the benefit of the provisional application because the above recitations are only found in the current non-provisional application no. 18/659,679, but not found in the provisional application 63/465114. Thus, the filing date 5/09/2024 of the current application 18/659,679, will be treated as the effective date.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 7, 11, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 11 recite “a laser pulse” and “a fiber optic cable”, are suggested to amend as “a first laser pulse” and “a first fiber optic cable” to be in sequence with “a second laser pulse” and “a second fiber optic cable” in claims 9 and 19.
Claims 7 and 17 recite “the surface” should read “a surface”.
Appropriate correction required.
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 as the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon,
or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, the examiner submits that under Step 1 of the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence (see also 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance) for evaluating claim for eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, the claims are method and system “machine” which are the statutory categories of invention.
Regarding claim 1, continuing with the analysis, under Step 2A - Prong One of the test, the limitations (see Italic font below) of:
“determining strain changes over the fiber optic cable based on a change in optical phase over a time period; generating, using the strain changes, seismic while drilling (SWD) data; comparing the SWD data to a pilot signal; and outputting drill bit data for the drill bit based on comparing the SWD data to the pilot signal” fall into the groupings of mathematical concepts (i.e., determining and comparing) and both mathematical concept and mental process (i.e., generating). Therefore, the claim recites a judicial exception under Step 2A - Prong One of the test.
Furthermore, under Step 2A - Prong Two of the test, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements recited in the claims (see below limitations in non-Italic font):
Regarding claim 1, “A method for obtaining information corresponding to a drill bit in use during downhole drilling in a first well (generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h)); sending a laser pulse down a fiber optic cable in a second well; capturing, using distributed acoustic sensing (DAS), backscatter light propagated back from the laser pulse; and outputting drill bit data for the drill bit based on comparing the SWD data to the pilot signal” (capturing, sending, and outputting data are insignificant extra-solution activities, i.e., mere data gathering “capturing”, generic sending and output, recited at a high level of generality, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Similarly, independent claim 11 is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more as explained above with regards to claim 1.
Accordingly, the above additional limitations in claims 1 and 11 when considered individually and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considering the claims as a whole. The claims are directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A of the test.
Additionally, under Step 2B of the test, claims 1 and 11 do not include additional elements that, when considered individually and in combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements:
recite extra-solution activities (i.e., mere data gathering “capturing”, sending, and outputting), adding insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(g),
merely use computer as a tool (i.e., processing circuitry in claim 11) to perform abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f)), and
generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h), i.e., recited in the preamble (a method/system for obtaining...).
The claims, when considered as a whole, do not provide significantly more under Step 2B of the test. Based on the analysis, the claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 are also directed to the non-statutory subject matter because:
they just extend the abstract idea of the independent claims by additional limitations that under the broadest interpretation in light of the specification, cover performance of the limitations using mathematical concepts and/or mental process (claims 3, 8-9, 13, 18-19).
the additional elements recited in the dependent claims, when considered individually and in combination, refer to extra-solution activities recited at a high level of generality, i.e., data gathering, recording, outputting (claims 2, 4-7, 10, 12, 14-17, 20), which as indicated in the Office's guidance does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A -Prong Two) and/or does not provide significantly more (Step 2B).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation under AIA of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action.
A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 5-7, 10-12, 15-17, and 20 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over US 2017/0260839 of Beardmore et al., hereinafter Beardmore in view of US 2013/0094324 of Mateeva et al., hereinafter Mateeva.
As per Claim 1, Beardmore teaches a method for obtaining information corresponding to a drill bit in use during downhole drilling in a first well ( active well considered “first well”, see [0020], [0054], ), the method comprising:
sending a laser pulse down a fiber optic cable in a second well (generate acoustic signal in a “test well” considered a “second well”, see [0030], [0021], i.e., backscatter “acoustic signal” generated from different positions along an optical fiber to create an “interferometric signal” or “seismic signal” is considered based on sending a laser pulse down the fiber-optic cable, see [0096] );
capturing, using distributed acoustic sensing (DAS), backscatter light propagated back from the laser pulse ( Fig 1 shows backscatter returning to DAS, see [0050], [0085], [0093], [0016] );
determining strain changes over the fiber optic cable based on a change in optical phase over a time period (an optical phase variation up to a 1 kHz limit is considered a time-varying change in optical phase, see [0022], [0074] );
generating, using the strain changes, seismic while drilling (SWD) data (Fig 2 shows an optical time domain reflectometer (ɸ-OTDR) or DAS system, with low and high coherence laser that records seismic signals. It is noted ground vibrations physically strain the fiber optic cable, which shift the phase “strain changes” and frequency of coherence backscattered light, see [0077]-[0079] ); and
comparing the SWD data to a pilot signal (determine a distance between the test well and reference well, see [0034], [0074], “acoustic signals” from active well considered “pilot signals” [0041], which for sensing by reference well [0024]. A unique signal pattern “pilot signals” generated from a given source emission location in active well and recorded by the DAS, see [0087] ).
Beardmore does not teach outputting drill bit data for the drill bit based on comparing the SWD data to the pilot signal.
Mateeva teaches outputting drill bit data for the drill bit based on comparing the SWD data to the pilot signal (As it is known in the art, comparing Seismic-While-Drilling (SWD) data to a pilot signal produces a Reverse Vertical Seismic Profile (RVSP) as “standard practice”, see [0006]-[0008], a pilot trace recorded near a drill bit serves as the reference source signature used to process and extract drill bit data [0008] ).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the teaching of Beardmore to produce a reverse vertical seismic profile (RVSP) as taught by Mateeva that would apply the usefulness of the RVSP method, i.e., the signals from the drill bit are detected at surface receivers and processed as RVSP data (Mateeva, [0007]).
As per Claim 2, Beardmore in view of Mateeva teaches the method of claim 1.
Beardmore teaches wherein the drill bit data comprises a drill bit location within the first well (a given acoustic emission source in the active well is considered to be located at the drill bit, see [0087], [0086] ).
As per Claim 5, Beardmore in view of Mateeva teaches the method of claim 1.
Beardmore teaches wherein the drill bit data comprises surface and downhole equipment health monitoring data (monitoring applications include, i.e., pressure, temperature sensor, and pipeline monitoring for distributed flow, considered for “downhole health monitoring data”, and distributed seismic detection and leak detection considered for “surface monitoring data”, see [0017]
As per Claim 6, Beardmore in view of Mateeva teaches the method of claim 1.
Beardmore teaches wherein the pilot signal is recorded on a rig floor (acoustic signals for sensing by the reference well, see [0024], “acoustic signals” considered “pilot signals”, a DAS fiber optic cable is deployed in the reference well, see [0083], DAS cable is connected at the “surface” considered “rig floor”, receives and records signals, see [0085]).
As per Claim 7, Beardmore in view of Mateeva teaches the method of claim 1.
Beardmore does not teach wherein the pilot signal is recorded at the surface. Mateeva teaches the pilot signal is recorded at the surface (signal from the drill bit “pilot signal” is recorded by receivers 16 located on the surface, see [0008] ).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the teaching of Beardmore having the pilot signal is recorded at the surface as taught by Mateeva that would facilitate a deeper investigation can be performed at seismic frequencies, for example by vertical seismic profiling (VSP) (Mateeva, [0006]).
As per Claim 10, Beardmore in view of Mateeva teaches the method of claim 1.
Beardmore further teaches comprising outputting geosteering information based on the drill bit data (a large volume of the data collected at high speeds considered outputting geosteering information based on drill bit data. It is noted high speed and high volume collected near the drill bit meaning outputting real-time geosteering decisions, see [0094], i.e., the drilling of the active well can be steered toward the reference well, see [0086] ).
Claim 11 is rejected for the same rationale as in claim 1.
Claim 12 is rejected for the same rationale as in claim 2.
Claim 15 is rejected for the same rationale as in claim 5.
Claim 16 is rejected for the same rationale as in claim 6.
Claim 17 is rejected for the same rationale as in claim 7.
Claim 20 is rejected for the same rationale as in claim 10.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Beardmore in view of Mateeva and Rao, US patent 6480118.
As per Claim 3, Beardmore in view of Mateeva teaches the method of claim 1.
The combination does not explicitly teach wherein the drill bit data comprises identification of a drilling hazard ahead of the drill bit in the first well.
Rao teaches the drill bit data comprises identification of a drilling hazard ahead of the drill bit in the first well ( identified hazards 17 before being detrimentally encountered by the bit 14, see Abstract, col 3 lines 46-48, col 4 lines 50-60).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the teachings of Beardmore and Mateeva having a drill bit data including a drill bit comprises identification of a drilling hazard ahead as taught by Rao that would facilitate optimizing the design and operation of a drilling program so as to improve the rate of penetration (Rao, Abstract, last 2 lines).
Claim 13 is rejected for the same rationale as in claim 3.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Beardmore in view of Mateeva and Samuel et al., hereinafter Samuel, US 2021/0363871.
As per Claim 4, Beardmore in view of Mateeva teaches the method of claim 1.
The combination does not teach explicitly teach wherein the drill bit data comprises drill bit wear monitoring data.
Samuel teaches the drill bit data comprises drill bit wear monitoring data (monitor the behavior of intrinsic mode data to identify or predict drill bit wear and/or drill bit failure, see [0028], [0037] line 3).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the teachings of Beardmore and Mateeva having a drill bit wear monitoring data as taught by Samuel that would facilitate identifying a drill bit failure or predicted, a drilling operator can determine whether or when to remove the drill bit from the wellbore (Samuel, [0061]).
Claim 14 is rejected for the same rationale as in claim 4.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Beardmore in view of Mateeva and Angeleri et al., hereinafter Angeleri, US patent 5511038.
As per Claim 8, Beardmore in view of Mateeva teaches the method of claim 1.
The combination does not teach wherein comparing the SWD data to the pilot signal comprises using a pilot-based deconvolution and a pilot delay shift.
Angeleri teaches comparing the SWD data to the pilot signal comprises using a pilot-based deconvolution and a pilot delay shift (aligning the pilot signals with each other, to compare deconvoluted corresponding events meaning “aligning pilot signal to compare corresponding events falls under SWD processing with pilot-based deconvolution and relative time or delay, see col 8 lines 1-3 and col 14 lines 11-25, where the pilot signals are time aligned, see col 6 lines 27-32, i.e., shifting two signals to be compared to each other, see col 3 lines 35-44, because the pilot signal has its own delay due to the signal propagation from the drilling bit, see col 3 lines 60-66 ).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the teachings of Beardmore and Mateeva comparing pilot signals as taught by Angeleri that would obtain the absolute delay of the geophysical data measured on the field, the delay already contained in the pilot signal must be compensated (Angeleri, col 3 lines 63-65).
Claim 18 is rejected for the same rationale as in claim 8.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Beardmore in view of Mateeva and Ellmauthaler et al., hereinafter Ellmauthaler, US 2022/0259971.
As per Claim 9, Beardmore in view of Mateeva teaches the method of claim 1.
Beardmore further teaches comprising sending a second laser pulse down a second fiber optic cable on the surface (provide second DAS fiber optic cable in a second reference well, see [0028], [0083], reference well is equipped with DAS, see [0023], the DAS cable is connected at the surface, see [0085], and capturing, using the distributed acoustic sensing (DAS), backscatter light propagated back from the second laser pulse (see Fig 1, backscatter returns to DAS, see [0016], receiving perturbed light signal considered backscatter signal in second DAS cables, see [0031], DAS received at each fiber optic cable, see [0093] ).
Beardmore does not teach wherein generating the SWD comprises using strain changes identified using the backscatter light propagated back from the second laser pulse.
Ellmauthaler teaches generating the SWD comprises using strain changes identified using the backscatter light propagated back from the second laser pulse (the wavelength is reflected back to the second fiber optic cable 308, see [0057], Fig 2: the DAS includes an interferometer 202 with a top 224 and bottom 222 arms, see [0043], the backscattered light 228 passing through the top and bottom arms, the second backscattered pulse “second laser pulse” is sent into bottom 222, see [0045], the length of bottom 222 is longer than the length of top 224, is considered a strain change on the bottom arm identified, see [0046]-[0047] ).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the teachings of Beardmore and Mateeva having strain changes identified using backscatter light from the second laser pulse as taught by Ellmauthaler that would facilitate providing variations in interferometric signal to identify strains in fiber optical cable that may cause (Ellmauthaler, [0047]).
Claim 19 is rejected for the same rationale as in claim 9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2025/0116790 of Wu (System and method for processing distributed acoustic sensing seismic data).
US 2022/0283330 of Willis et al. (Gauge length correction for seismic attenuation from distributed acoustic system fiber optic data).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to LYNDA DINH whose telephone number is (571) 270-
7150. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10 AM - 6 PM ET.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the
Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.
For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LYNDA DINH/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/LINA CORDERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights