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 § 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 1-6, 8-13, 15-20, 22, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim 1 recites “a method for predicting drilling parameters for drilling operation, the method comprising: receiving time-based data from a real-time data system including a sensor; filtering the time-based data from the system; generating, using a machine learning model, predictions include a predicted rate of penetration; and selecting drilling parameters that yield the highest predicted rate of penetration”, which is a process.
Step 2, Prong One: Judicial exception? Yes.
Claim 1 is directed to a mental process (steps: receiving time-based data…filtering…generating…and selecting drilling parameters that yields the highest predicted rate of penetration”) and a mathematical calculation (see step “filtering the time-based data from the system; generating, using a machine learning model, predictions based on the filtered time based data from the sensor, wherein the predictions include a predicted rate of penetration”).
The recited steps which fall into mathematical concepts and/or mental processes, that may be carried out in human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper in simple situations. The claim does not recite a particular equation or algorithm for making the recited combining and performing steps, this just means that the abstract idea is being recited broadly enough to monopolize all possible equations or algorithms that might be used (Please also see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), (B), (C), and (D).
The broadest reasonable interpretation of the steps is that those steps fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Practical application? No.
The recited steps are not performed by any particular device. The “sensor” is not a particular device and recited as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
The step “selecting drilling parameters that yield the highest predicted rate of penetration” encompasses insignificant extra solution. The “(selected) drilling parameters” is insignificant extra solution and is merely data. The use of the “(selected) drilling parameters” is unlimited.
The steps as recited in claim 1 when viewed as a whole only provide the outcome without any details about how the outcome is accomplished.
Claim 1 when viewed as a whole or in ordered combination does not provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter (see MPEP 2106.05(e)). Per MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a), the claim as a whole does not provide an improvement to other technology or technical field.
Step 2B: the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, for reasons that are analogous to the discussion of additional elements at Prong 2.
Dependent claims 2 and 3 add limitations which are data merely extending the abstract idea without adding any additional elements.
Dependent claim 4 adds a limitation which is data merely extending the abstract idea without adding any additional elements. The recited “processor” is merely a tool used to perform the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 5 adds a limitation which is a calculation and data merely extending the abstract idea without adding any additional elements.
The recited “processor” is merely a tool used to perform the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 6 adds a limitation which is data merely extending the abstract idea without adding any additional elements. The “predicted values” are merely data and their use is unlimited. The recited limitation encompasses insignificant extra solution and only provides the outcome without any details about how the outcome is accomplished.
Dependent claim 8-13 add limitations which is data merely extending the abstract idea without adding any additional elements.
Dependent claim 15 adds a limitation encompasses an insignificant extra solution merely extending the abstract idea without adding any additional elements. The recited step only provides the outcome without any details about how the outcome is accomplished.
Dependent claim 16 add limitations which is data merely extending the abstract idea without adding any additional elements.
Claim 17 recites a system which does not offer a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the system to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via an electronic processor. In other words, the apparatus and the system claims are no different from the method claim 1 in substance; the method claim recites the abstract idea while the apparatus and system claims recite generic components configured to implement the same abstract idea. The claim does not amount to significantly more than the underlying abstract idea.
Claim 18 adds a limitation which is not an additional element. The recited “sensors” are not particular devices.
Claim 19 adds a limitation which is data merely extending the abstract idea without adding any additional elements.
Claim 20 adds a limitation which merely extend the abstract idea without adding any additional elements. The “visualize” is recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than visualizing the data, i.e. visualizing the crop response surface) that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception. This limitation can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis.
Limitation “when the time measured, predicted drilling parameters, and rate of penetration are visualized in a user interface which may be located remote from the oil well or on -site” represents extra solution activity because it is a mere nomial or tangential addition to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). This limitation represents extra-solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(g), discussing limitations that the Federal Circuit has considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity, for instance the step of printing a menu that was generated through an abstract process in Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1241-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and the mere generic presentation of collected and analyzed data in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
The term “visualize” is not specifically defined in the Specification. In the absence of a specific definition of “visualize" the Examiner must interpret the words in accordance with their usual definition.
Dependent claim 22 adds a limitation which is merely data extending the abstract idea without adding any additional elements. The limitation merely is mathematical calculation (“the predicted drilling parameters and rate of penetration are converted to time or depth series”) and data gathering (the recited “parameters” “are stored in a database”).
Dependent claim 23 adds a limitation which is merely data extending the abstract idea without adding any additional elements.
Dependent claim 26 adds a limitation which is not an additional element. “Virtual machine”, “data center” and “physical server” are not particular devices. They are used to perform the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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.
Claims 1-6, 8-13, 15, 17, 18, 20, 22, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Madasu et al. (WO 2019040091) (hereinafter “Madasu”)( Submitted by Applicants).
Regarding claims 1 and 17, Madasu discloses a method for predicting drilling parameters for drilling operation (Par. 46, Fig. 4), the method comprising:
receiving time-based data from a real-time data system (Par. 48) including a sensor (downhole sensors at Par. 59);
filtering the time-based data from the system (Par. 43);
generating, using a machine learning model, predictions based on the filtered time- based data from the sensor, wherein the predictions include a predicted rate of penetration (Pars. 23, 46);
and selecting drilling parameters that yield the highest predicted rate of penetration (Par. 56).
Regarding claim 2, Madasu discloses wherein the predictions include one or more of weight on bit, revolutions per minute and mud flow (Pars. 23, 42-45).
Regarding claim 3, Madasu discloses wherein the time-based data includes one or more of rate of penetration, weight on bit, revolutions per minute and mud flow (Pars. 23, 42-46, 54, 74, 82).
Regarding claim 4, Madasu discloses wherein the time-based data is received at a processor remote from the oil well (Pars. 23, 42-46, 54, 74, 82).
Regarding claim 5, Madasu discloses wherein the processor calculates the average values for one or more sensor values over a time interval or a depth interval (Pars. 23, 42-46, 54, 74, 82).
Regarding claim 6, Madasu discloses wherein one or more machine learning models predict values of one or more of rate of penetration, weight on bit, revolutions per minute, and mud flow based on the measured time-based data averaged time-based data or logarithmic values of the time-based data (Pars. 23, 42-46, 54, 74, 82).
Regarding claim 9, Madasu discloses wherein predictions are repeated one or more times during the operational sequence (Par. 82).
Regarding claim 10, Madasu discloses wherein one or more of the predicted weight on bit, revolutions per minute and mud flow yielding the highest rate of penetration is selected (Pars. 23, 42-46, 54, 74, 76, 82, 83).
Regarding claim 11, Madasu discloses wherein the predicted weight on bit, revolutions per minute and mud flow yielding the highest rate of penetration is compared with threshold values of said parameters (Pars. 83, 84).
Regarding claim 12, Madasu discloses wherein a different rate of penetration and associated parameters is selected if one or more of the parameters exceeds the threshold values (Pars. 82-84).
Regarding claim 13 and similar claims 20 and 22, Madasu discloses wherein the predicted data values are converted to time or depth series data and stored in a database (see database at Pars. 40, 43, 97) and/or visualized in a computer user interface (visualization at Pars. 44 and 91)(also see Par. 48).
Regarding claim 15, Madasu discloses wherein drilling operations are identified by filtering two or more sensors (Pars. 43, 59, 73).
Regarding claim 18, Madasu discloses wherein the real time data system comprises one or more sensors associated with an oil well (Pars. 4 and 59).
Regarding claim 26, Madasu discloses wherein the instructions executed by the electronic processor is containerized and deployed to a virtual machine in a data center or on a physical server (Pars. 43, 44, 91, 97, and 98).
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madasu and MacDonald et al. (hereinafter “MacDonald”)(EP 1193366)(Submitted by Applicants).
Regarding claim 8, Madasu does not explicitly disclose “wherein an algorithm stepwise modifies the measured sensor values and a machine learning model makes a new prediction for each modification.”
MacDonald teaches “wherein an algorithm stepwise modifies the measured sensor values and a machine learning model makes a new prediction for each modification” (Pars. 13, 14, 51-56).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of filling the Application to modify Madasu's invention using MacDonald's invention to arrive at the claimed invention specified in claim 8 to modify (in automated control mode) values of the control parameters to efficiently bring the system to the optimum drilling mode, in terms of maximizing ROP while minimizing drilling dis-functions under the given parameter constraints (MacDonald: Par. 56).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Madasu and Gardner et al. (hereinafter “Gardner”)(WO 2020018085)(submitted by Applicants).
Regarding claim 16, Madasu does not disclose wherein two or more machine learning models utilize the same filtered and normalized data sets and a selection algorithm selects a single preferred prediction data series.
Gardner teaches wherein two or more machine learning models utilize the same filtered and normalized data sets and a selection algorithm selects a single preferred prediction data series (Gardner: Par. 49 teaches Multiple machine-learning models can be built, taught, and/or used in parallel to determine a more-accurate projected ROP value. See also Par. 50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of filling the Application to modify Madasu's invention using Gardner's invention to arrive at the claimed invention specified in claim 16 to determine a more-accurate projected ROP value (Pars. 49 and 50).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Su et al. (USPAP. 20260043325) discloses a drilling system and techniques for managing dynamic load during drilling operations. The system includes a drilling device prone to propagate a dynamic load such as vibration and/or shock during drilling and electronics that may be susceptible to such dynamic loads. Thus, a control unit is provided that is configured for communications with both the electronics and with equipment directing the drilling operations. The unit also accommodates processing for directing the operations in terms of adjustment to drilling device rpm and/or weight on bit as applied to the device depending on monitoring of the dynamic load and in light of certain dynamic thresholds. Thus, real-time operational adjustments may be made to avoid dynamic load damage to electronics while maintaining efficient drilling operations (Abstract; Pars. 19-26).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUONG HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)272-2718. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM-5:30PM.
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.
/PHUONG HUYNH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 August 7, 2026
Prosecution Insights