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 .
IDS
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on July 23, 2025 is being considered by the Examiner.
Drawing
The drawing filed on May 23, 2024 is accepted by the Examiner.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim rejection – 35 U.S.C. §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.
In reference to claims 1-20: the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
The requirement for subject matter eligibility test for products and processes
requires first, the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories. 35
U.S.C. §101 defines the four categories of invention that Congress deemed to be the appropriate subject matter of a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter. The latter three categories define "things" or "products" while the first category defines "actions" (i.e., inventions that consist of a series of steps or acts to be performed).
Second, the claimed invention also must qualify as patent-eligible subject matter, i.e., the claim must not be directed to a judicial exception unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception. The judicial exceptions (also called "judicially recognized exceptions" or simply "exceptions") are subject matter that the courts have found to be outside of, or exceptions to, the four statutory categories of invention, and are limited to abstract ideas, laws of nature and natural phenomena (including products of nature).
In the first step, it is to be determined whether the patent claim under examination is directed to an abstract idea. If so, in the second step of analysis, it is to be determined whether the patent adds to the idea "something more" or "significantly more" that embodies an "inventive concept."
In the instant case, claim 1 is representative and it is reproduced here with the limitations that are part of the abstract idea in bold:
A method for estimating a differential lag time while drilling, the method comprising:
introducing a multiphase tracer into drilling fluid circulating in a wellbore while drilling, the multiphase tracer including a solid tracer and a fluid tracer, the fluid tracer including at least one of a liquid tracer or a gaseous tracer;
measuring a first arrival time of the solid tracer at a surface location;
measuring a second arrival time of the fluid tracer at the surface location; and
evaluating the first and second arrival times to estimate the differential lag time, wherein the differential lag time includes at least one of a difference between a cuttings lag time and a gaseous lag time or a difference between the cuttings lag time and a liquid lag time.
Step 2A:
Prong I: The claim recites the steps of " measuring a first arrival time of the solid tracer at a surface location; measuring a second arrival time of the fluid tracer at the surface location; and evaluating the first and second arrival times to estimate the differential lag time, wherein the differential lag time includes at least one of a difference between a cuttings lag time and a gaseous lag time or a difference between the cuttings lag time and a liquid lag time". These limitations could be carried out as a purely mental process (at least in a some relatively simple situations) and/or they could amount to a mathematical calculation (for example, evaluating the first and second arrival time [with] difference between the cutting lag time and a liquid lag time). Therefore, the recited method falls in the abstract idea grouping of mental processes and/or mathematical concepts at Prong 1 of the §101 analysis.
Prong II:
This abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application at Prong 2 of the §101 analysis because the claim does not recite sufficient additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim recites the method comprising the additional element steps of " introducing a multiphase tracer into drilling fluid circulating in a wellbore while drilling, the multiphase tracer including a solid tracer and a fluid tracer, the fluid tracer including at least one of a liquid tracer or a gaseous tracer". However, this step is merely a data gathering step recited at a high level of generality.
The courts have found that adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea (such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)) is not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a particular practical application or make the claim qualify as "significantly more" (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
The claim does not recite applying the abstract idea with, or by use of, any particular machine, nor does the claim affect a real-world transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. The claim amounts to manipulating data: method for estimating a differential lag time while drilling. The claim does not recite any particular real-world actions that are taken as a result of this computation. The claim evaluates “the first and the second arrival times to estimate differential lag'' as the general field-of-use, but does not recite a particular practical application being carried out within that field-of-use. Therefore, the claimed invention does not appear to be limited to the use of the mental process or math in a particular practical application, but instead the claim appears to monopolize the mental process or math itself, in any practical application where it might conceivably be used.
Step 2B:
Finally, at Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons as discussed above with regard to Prong 2. Claim 1 is rejected as ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claims 11 and 16 are analogous to claim 1, except that claim 11 additionally recites explicit reference to detector and a processor are additional elements separate from the abstract idea that need to be considered at Prong 2 of the §101 analysis. However, these additional elements are merely generic computer processing and measurement apparatus components that are invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which does not cause the claim as a whole to integrate the abstract idea into a particular practical application or provide significantly more than the recited abstract idea. Claims 11 and 16 are therefore rejected as ineligible under 35 USC §101 as well.
Dependent claims 2-6: the instant claims are directed to or recite that "a multiphase tracer and its characterization” for the purpose of collecting the necessary data for the analysis which merely adds to the insignificant extra-solution activity being recited which is actually a used for the purpose of gathering data.
Dependent claims 7-9: the instant claims are directed to the automation of the system to measure arrival times, mainly first and second arrival time which is part of the data gathering step which merely adds to the insignificant extra-solution activity being recited.
Dependent claim 10: the instant claim is directed to the measurement of downhole arrival time, and is part of data gathering which is insignificant extra-solution activity.
Dependent claims 12-13: the instant claims are directed to or recite that "a multiphase tracer and its characterization” for the purpose of collecting the necessary data for the analysis which merely adds to the insignificant extra-solution activity being recited which is actually a used for the purpose of gathering data.
Dependent claims 14-15: the instant claims are directed to the automation of the system to measure arrival times, mainly first and second arrival time which is part of the data gathering step which merely adds to the insignificant extra-solution activity being recited.
Dependent claims 17-18: the instant claims are directed to or recite that "a multiphase tracer and its characterization” for the purpose of collecting the necessary data for the analysis which merely adds to the insignificant extra-solution activity being recited which is actually a used for the purpose of gathering data.
Dependent claim 19: the instant claim is directed to the automation of the system to measure arrival times, mainly first and second arrival time which is part of the data gathering step which merely adds to the insignificant extra-solution activity being recited.
Dependent claim 20: the instant claim is directed to evaluating the first and second arrival time, and is considered the part of the computational analysis and reads on human mind.
Art of Interest
In reference to claims 1-20: Katterbauer et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,512,576, hereon Katterbauer) discloses a method includes taking at least one image of a plurality of returned cuttings from a well using a fluorescent imaging camera, analyzing the at least one image with an imaging processing system to obtain detection data including a calculated percentage of a first emitted fluorescent light to formation cuttings, sending the detection data to an analysis and control program to correlate the returned cuttings with a depth in the well, and automatically controlling at least one drilling parameter for drilling the well based on the detection data (see Katterbauer, abstract). Further, the injection plan is adjusted from the first or the second injection plan when an overlap between the first and second color tags are detected. For example, the tag quantity, injection pressure, and/or injection time lag of the third injection plan is increased from those of the first and/or second injection plans. In particular, the third injection plan may be adjusted such that a third batch of tags injected according to the third injection plan results in detection of the third batch of tags in returned cuttings that has no overlap with differently colored tags (see Katterbauer, column 15, lines 34-48).
The instant application differs from Katterbauer in that it does not address “evaluating the first and second arrival times to estimate the differential lag time, wherein the differential lag time includes at least one of a difference between a cuttings lag time and a gaseous lag time or a difference between the cuttings lag time and a liquid lag time”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Van Der Zwaag et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,194,972) discloses a method of determining a physiochemical property of a drilling fluid at a drilling site during a drilling phase, said method comprising detecting a nuclear magnetic resonance signal from out-of-hole drilling fluid at the site and calculating a value indicative of the property.
Dumont et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,674,372) discloses a method for processing of hydrocarbons in which a spacer fluid is formulated to reduce miscibility with hydrocarbon content of the fluid from the formation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIAS DESTA whose telephone number is (571)272-2214. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30 to 5:00 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, Andrew M Schechter can be reached at 571-272-2302. 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.
/ELIAS DESTA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights