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 Objections
Claims 48, 49, 59, and 60 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 48 is grammatically incorrect. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be read as “the position of the well reference point .”
Claim 49 is grammatically unclear. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be read as “The method as claimed in claim 43 wherein, the measurement stations are at positions in the wellbore between which a wellbore trajectory is constant or near-constant.”
Claim 59 includes a typographical error. The word “uncertainties” is misspelled as “uncertainites” in line 2 of the claim.
Claim 60 includes a typographical error. The word “synchronized” is misspelled as “synchronised” in line 2 of the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 43-62 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 43 recites the limitation "calibrating the AHD, Incl and Az. measurements" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is also unclear and indefinite what the acronyms or abbreviations stand for. For the purposes of examination, the limitations will be read as “selecting a well reference point; selecting a measurement station positioned in the wellbore where AHD (Along-hole Depth), Incl. (Inclination) and Az (Azimuth) observations are made; observing AHD, Incl and Az measurements at the measurement station; selecting at least one or more additional measurement station(s); observing the AHD, Incl. and Az measurements at the additional measurement station(s); calibrating the observed AHD, Incl., and Az. measurements from the measurement station.”
Claim 43 recites the limitation "transforming the calibrated interval AHO, Incl. and Az observed measurement values into V, N and E interval values;" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is also unclear and indefinite what the variables V, N, and E stand for. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be viewed as “transforming Vertical Depth (V), North Separation (N) and East Separation (E) interval values;”
Claim 43 recite the limitation "and creating a depiction of these associated uncertainties along the length of the wellbore and/or depicting these in terms of V, N and E positions from ZDP." in line 20. It is unclear and indefinite what ZDP stands for. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be read as and creating a depiction of these associated uncertainties along the length of the wellbore and/or depicting these in terms of V, N and E positions from Zero Depth Point (ZDP)."
Regarding claim 55, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be read as “wherein, the observed drill pipe depth measurement is calibrated and/or corrected for environmental and/or measurement influences ”
Regarding claim 56, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be read as “wherein, AHD is measured using a wireline measurement and the observed wireline length measurement is calibrated and/or corrected for environmental and measurement influences ”
Claims that depend on the above discussed claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35
U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
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 43-60 and 62 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to claim 43,
Step 1:
The claim is directed to a process as it is a method for determining the 3D position of a wellbore.
Step 2A Prong One:
The following bold limitations are considered abstract:
“A method for determining the 3D position of a wellbore, the method comprising the steps of: selecting a well reference point;
calibrating the AHD, Incl and Az. measurements selecting a measurement station positioned in the wellbore where AHD, Incl. and Az observations are made;
observing AHD, Incl and Az measurements at the measurement station;
selecting at least one or more additional measurement station(s);
observing the AHD, Incl. and Az measurements at the additional measurement station(s);
transforming the calibrated interval AHD, Incl. and Az observed measurement values into V, N and E interval values;
summating the V, N and E interval values to create a 3D positional description of each measurement station, determining the AHD, Incl. and Az value uncertainties at each measurement station over each observed interval;
calculating and concatenating the AHD, Incl. and Az value uncertainties at each sequential measurement station;
and creating a depiction of these associated uncertainties along the length of the wellbore and/or depicting these in terms of V, N and E positions from ZDP.”
The above bolded limitations are directed to abstract ideas and would fall within the “Mathematical Concept” and “Mental Process” groupings of abstract ideas. As seen on page 16 of the specification transforming and summating the values are mathematical concepts. Page 17 of the specification also shows that determining and calculating uncertainties is a mathematical concept. According to MPEP 2106.04(C) “A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.” Calibrating measurements is a mental process as calibrating a measurement involves comparing measured data to expected data and adjusting the values based on the comparison. This can be done in the human mind using observation judgement and opinion. Observing measurements is also a mental process as it just requires looking at the data.
Step 2A Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements –
“and creating a depiction of these associated uncertainties along the length of the wellbore and/or depicting these in terms of V, N and E positions from ZDP.”
Examiner views these limitations amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
As such Examiner does NOT view that the claims
-Improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field
-Apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP
2106.05(b)
-Effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing -
see MPEP 2106.05(c)
-Apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally
linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the
claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP
2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo.
Moreover, Examiner views the claims to be merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a wellbore data. Furthermore, creating a depiction from the calculated uncertainties is viewed as necessary data outputting.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Considering the claim as a whole, one of ordinary skill in the art would not know the practical application of the present invention since the claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in some meaningful way. As currently claimed, Examiner views that the additional elements do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, because the claim fails to recite clearly how the judicial exception is applied in a manner that does not monopolize the exception because the limitations “and creating a depiction of these associated uncertainties along the length of the wellbore and/or depicting these in terms of V, N and E positions from ZDP” just tie the claim to wellbore data. Examiner further notes that such additional elements are viewed to be well known routine and conventional as evidenced by Sugiura (US 20160160628 A1) and Maus (US 20220349296 A1).
Dependent claims 44-60 and 62 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, as detailed below:
The dependent claims are directed to further limit how the reference point is defined, transforming values, and how measurement stations are identified which amount to mathematical concepts and mental processes. Claims 54-58 are directed to measuring wellbore data with well-known processes, however, this can be viewed as mere data gathering. Claim 62 is directed to a computer system which is viewed as using a computer as a tool. Therefore, claims 54-58 and 62 contain additional elements but they do not integrate the claims into a practical application.
Therefore, dependent claims 44-60 and 62 further limit the abstract idea with an abstract idea and thus the claims are still directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 61 is not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as it is directed adding measurement stations in the wellbore and further drilling the wellbore. These are additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they amount to applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b), and performing a real-world transformation – see MPEP 2106.05(c).
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 43-46, 48, 51, 52, and 54-62 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chia (A New Wellbore Position Calculation Method; 2003) in view of Sugiura (US 20160160628 A1).
With respect to claim 43,
Chia teaches,
A method for determining the 3D position of a wellbore, the method comprising the steps of: selecting a well reference point; (The Summary Section teaches “The wellbore trajectory is defined as a series of surveyed points in 3D space, typically described in a north, east, and down reference system.” Describing Well Position Section teaches “Alternatively, some inertial survey instruments measure displacement in 3D space from a known initialization point, from which all the previous parameters, including depth, can be obtained to achieve the same purpose.”(i.e. initialization point is viewed as reference point.)
selecting a measurement station positioned in the wellbore where AHD, Incl. and Az observations are made; observing AHD, Incl and Az measurements at the measurement station; selecting at least one or more additional measurement station(s); observing the AHD, Incl. and Az measurements at the additional measurement station(s); (Summary teaches “When a modern wellbore is constructed today, each section may be surveyed for position many times with one or more magnetic, gyroscopic, or inertial survey instruments. By statistically combining the wellbore positions obtained from all the survey instruments run in a given section of the wellbore, a new position, designated the "most accurate position" (MAP), is calculated.” Describing Well Position teaches “Most magnetic or gyroscopic survey instruments in use today provide a survey point that is referenced to measured (or along hole) depth obtained from the driller's pipe tally or a wireline spooling measurement. The survey instrument provides inclination (hole angle) and azimuth (direction) measurements.”)
transforming the interval AHD, Incl. and Az observed measurement values into V, N and E interval values; (Describing Well Position section teaches “When these parameters are used to calculate trajectory with an assigned survey depth, the horizontal displacement (or north and east coordinates) and the vertical depth (or down coordinate) can be derived from the origin and the elevation reference, respectively.”)
summating the V, N and E interval values to create a 3D positional description of each measurement station, (Describing Well Position Section teaches “The wellbore trajectory is defined as a series of surveyed points in 3D space, typically described in a north, east, and down reference system.” Theoretical Example of results section shows a sum of position values to calculate an average position.)
determining the AHD, Incl. and Az value uncertainties at each measurement station over each observed interval; (Mathematical Basis of the MAP section teaches “The MAP is based on the generalized linear regression model: which establishes a linear relationship between the observations and the model parameters; and
ϵ
=
an m by one vector of random errors that characterizes the uncertainty in the observations.” It further teaches “and the error in the ith measurement is equation 8”)
calculating and concatenating the AHD, Incl. and Az value uncertainties at each sequential measurement station; (Survey program teaches “The survey program is a planned sequence of survey instruments to be used at different phases of the well construction. It will normally be presented as a listing indicating the survey depths for each survey tool to be used, required survey frequency, running conditions (run in cased or open hole or in drillpipe), and any special corrections or contingencies to validate the tool error model to be used for each surveyed interval.” Mathematical basis section teaches “A sequence of these position measurements can be written in the following form.” Where error is included in the sequence as seen in equations 8 and 9.)
and creating a depiction of these associated uncertainties along the length of the wellbore and/or depicting these in terms of V, N and E positions from ZDP. (Wellbore Position Uncertainty section teaches “This uncertainty is defined as a statistical confidence region with an associated confidence level. In 3D, the confidence region is most often depicted as an ellipsoid because ellipsoids are the constant value contours of the 3D Guassian probability density function. Such a confidence region is commonly referred to as an "ellipsoid of uncertainty" (EOU). The EOU is used in target analysis by, for example, reducing the size of the geological target by the size of the EOU to define a drilling target.” )
Chia does not explicitly teach,
calibrating the AHD, Incl and Az. Measurements,
Sugiura teaches,
calibrating the AHD, Incl and Az. Measurements. (Para. [0040] teaches “These computed values may then be processed in the inner loop 170 using a plant model 192 (e.g., similar to the parameter models described above) to continuously calibrate the plant 190 (the drilling system in the wellbore) using continuously measured inclination, azimuth, and rate of penetration values. “Para. [0050] teaches “During the course of a drilling operation, measured depth errors may accumulate (e.g., due to small errors in the computed rate of penetration and the errors inherent in mathematical integration). The measured depth may be calibrated (i.e., adjusted) on occasion based on measured depth values obtained at the surface.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chia with calibrating the AHD, Incl and Az. Measurements such as that of Sugauri.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Chia, because calibrating the measurements would help reduce accumulated errors as seen in Para. [0050] of Sugiura which would lead to more accurate results.
With respect to claim 44,
Chia further teaches,
The method as claimed in claim 43 wherein the well reference point comprises a surface marker position or a drill floor or at a defined position along the wellbore. (Describing Well Position Section teaches “Alternatively, some inertial survey instruments measure displacement in 3D space from a known initialization point, from which all the previous parameters, including depth, can be obtained to achieve the same purpose.”(i.e. predefined position in the wellbore.))
With respect to claim 45,
Chia further teaches,
The method as claimed in claim 43 wherein the well reference point is identified as having a defined 3D positional identification which is an elevation from a given surface datum elevation and a north and an east location identified using a geodetic positional reference. (Describing Well Position Section teaches “Most magnetic or gyroscopic survey instruments in use today provide a survey point that is referenced to measured (or along hole) depth obtained from the driller's pipe tally or a wireline spooling measurement. The survey instrument provides inclination (hole angle) and azimuth (direction) measurements. When these parameters are used to calculate trajectory with an assigned survey depth, the horizontal displacement (or north and east coordinates) and the vertical depth (or down coordinate) can be derived from the origin and the elevation reference, respectively. Alternatively, some inertial survey instruments measure displacement in 3D space from a known initialization point, from which all the previous parameters, including depth, can be obtained to achieve the same purpose.”)
With respect to claim 46,
Chia further teaches,
The method as claimed in claim 43 wherein the well reference point comprises a zero depth point (ZDP) for a drilling rig or wellbore. (Describing Well Position Section teaches “Alternatively, some inertial survey instruments measure displacement in 3D space from a known initialization point, from which all the previous parameters, including depth, can be obtained to achieve the same purpose.”(i.e. predefined position in the wellbore which is what ZDP is defined as in the specification.)
With respect to claim 48,
Chia does not explicitly teach,
The method as claimed in claim 43 wherein, the position of the well reference point is subject to a given accuracy which is defined by a fixed uncertainty value for each dimensional measurement (ToolJointError). (Describing Well Position Section teaches “Most magnetic or gyroscopic survey instruments in use today provide a survey point that is referenced to measured (or along hole) depth obtained from the driller's pipe tally or a wireline spooling measurement.” Wellbore Position Uncertainty teaches “To visualize and quantify our ability to hit a target or avoid colliding with another well, position uncertainty is assigned to wellbore trajectories. This position uncertainty represents our modeled knowledge of the collective errors arising from both the intrinsic performance limitations of the survey sensors and those induced by the operating environment.”)
With respect to claim 51,
Chia further teaches,
The method as claimed in claim 43 wherein, the measurement station is positioned to account for changes in well geometry well architecture, or proximity to other well bores. (Describing Well Position Section teaches “The wellbore trajectory is defined as a series of surveyed points in 3D space, typically described in a north, east, and down reference system. These points are joined together to form a continuous trajectory with a geometric calculation method. Most magnetic or gyroscopic survey instruments in use today provide a survey point that is referenced to measured (or along hole) depth obtained from the driller's pipe tally or a wireline spooling measurement. The survey instrument provides inclination (hole angle) and azimuth (direction) measurements.”(i.e. accounting for changes in well geometry))
With respect to claim 52,
Chia further teaches,
The method as claimed in claim 43 wherein, the measurement station is positioned to account for changes in geology and/or reservoir characteristics intercepted by the well bore. (Wellbore Position Uncertainty section teaches “Wellbore survey requirements are typically driven by the need to guide the well to a geological target, to avoid other wells, to ensure that property boundaries are respected, and to record the position of the wellbore for future reference.” (i.e. avoiding wells and ensuring property boundaries is viewed as accounting for changes in reservoir characteristics.)
With respect to claim 54,
Chia further teaches,
The method as claimed in claim 43 wherein, AHD is measured using an observed drill pipe depth measurement. (Describing Well Position Section teaches “Most magnetic or gyroscopic survey instruments in use today provide a survey point that is referenced to measured (or along hole) depth obtained from the driller's pipe tally or a wireline spooling measurement.”)
With respect to claim 55,
Chia further teaches,
The method as claimed in claim 44 wherein, the observed drill pipe depth measurement is calibrated and/or corrected for environmental and/or measurement influences such as temperature and drill pipe axial tension, are included in the reporting process. (Wellbore Position Uncertainty Section teaches “This position uncertainty represents our modeled knowledge of the collective errors arising from both the intrinsic performance limitations of the survey sensors and those induced by the operating environment.”(i.e. environmental influences and measurement influences))
With respect to claim 56,
Chia further teaches,
The method as claimed in claim 44 wherein, AHD is measured using a wireline measurement and the observed wireline length measurement is calibrated and/or corrected for environmental and measurement influences such as temperature and wireline tension are included in the process. (Describing Well Position Section teaches “Most magnetic or gyroscopic survey instruments in use today provide a survey point that is referenced to measured (or along hole) depth obtained from the driller's pipe tally or a wireline spooling measurement.”) Wellbore Position Uncertainty Section teaches “This position uncertainty represents our modeled knowledge of the collective errors arising from both the intrinsic performance limitations of the survey sensors and those induced by the operating environment.”(i.e. environmental influences and measurement influences))
With respect to claim 57,
Chia further teaches,
The method as claimed in claim 43 wherein Az is measured using an observed drill pipe depth measurement. (Describing Well Position Section teaches “Most magnetic or gyroscopic survey instruments in use today provide a survey point that is referenced to measured (or along hole) depth obtained from the driller's pipe tally or a wireline spooling measurement. The survey instrument provides inclination (hole angle) and azimuth (direction) measurements.” )
With respect to claim 58,
Chia further teaches,
The method as claimed in claim 43 wherein, Incl. is measured using an observed drill pipe or conveyed using any other wellbore tubular depth measurement. (Describing Well Position Section teaches “Most magnetic or gyroscopic survey instruments in use today provide a survey point that is referenced to measured (or along hole) depth obtained from the driller's pipe tally or a wireline spooling measurement. The survey instrument provides inclination (hole angle) and azimuth (direction) measurements.”)
With respect to claim 59,
Chia further teaches,
The method as claimed in claim 43 wherein, further comprising the step of ascertaining the calibrated measurement value uncertainites of the V, N and E values is comprised of transforming the calibrated AHD, Incl and Az values and their accuracies into V, N and E uncertainty values through identifying those individual contributory elements of V, N and E from the observed values and the accuracies of AHD, Incl. and Az measurements. (Describing Well Position Section teaches “The survey instrument provides inclination (hole angle) and azimuth (direction) measurements. When these parameters are used to calculate trajectory with an assigned survey depth, the horizontal displacement (or north and east coordinates) and the vertical depth (or down coordinate) can be derived from the origin and the elevation reference, respectively.” Equation 7 further shows true position made up of V,N, and E values and Equation 8 shows error in each of the components.)
With respect to claim 60,
Chia further teaches,
The method as claimed in claim 43 wherein, subsurface data is synchronised to the calculated and presented 3D positional and/or positional uncertainty results. (Practical Sample of Results Section teaches “In this case, with the MAP technique, each of the overlapping surveyed datasets is used in combination to provide the most statistically correct well position and a reduced position uncertainty at this stage of drilling the well. Instead of tying onto the gyro survey to continue drilling progress, the MAP position (MAP Part 1) is used as the MAP of the updated, surveyed wellpath, and the EOU used is smaller than the gyro survey provided in isolation.”)
With respect to claim 61,
Chia further teaches,
The method as claimed in claim 43 wherein, the 3D position and uncertainty can be incrementally ascertained by making AHD, Incl. and Az measurements by drilling the wellbore deeper and then adding (a) further measure station(s), so that the position and uncertainty data is a series of increments defined by sequential additional of measure station 3D positions and the concatenation of sequential associated uncertainties. (Practical Sample of Results Section teaches “Drilling progress continues, as shown in Fig. 5, whereby the MAP and a reduced EOU are once again obtained from the combination of the intermediate casing-gyro survey and the MWD surveys, both of which had been tied onto and had continued from the position of MAP Part 1 to provide a new tie-on point at MAP Part 2. The final two-hole sections are drilled and surveyed with MWD surveys to complete the survey program. In this example, the final well position is obtained, as shown in Fig. 6, and can now be contrasted with our traditional approach shown in Fig. 3. Clearly, this is a much more robust response to the well-positioning problem, in which all survey data obtained from the entire survey program has been used. Fig. 7 shows the final section and the end of the example well in closer detail, indicating an overall change in well position and a significantly reduced position uncertainty as a result of employing the MAP technique.”)
With respect to claim 62,
Chia does not explicitly teach,
A computer system comprising program instructions or process logic for the operation of the method of claim 43.
Sugiura teaches,
A computer system comprising program instructions or process logic for the operation of the method of claim 43. (Para. [0052] teaches “A suitable controller may include, for example, a programmable processor, such as a microprocessor or a microcontroller and processor-readable or computer-readable program code embodying logic. A suitable processor may be utilized, for example, to execute the method embodiments described above with respect to FIGS. 4A, 4B, 5A, 5B, 6, and 7 as well as the corresponding disclosed mathematical equations”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Chia and Sugiura with a computer system comprising program instructions or process logic such as that of Sugiura.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify the combination of Chia and Sugiura, because it would allow the method to be carried out more efficiently and quicker than if performed in any other way.
Claim 47 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chia (A New Wellbore Position Calculation Method; 2003) in view of Sugiura (US 20160160628 A1) as applied to claim 43 above, and further in view of Bang (US 20190257189 A1).
With respect to claim 47,
Chia does not explicitly teach,
The method as claimed in claim 43 wherein, the well reference point is a wellbore sub-surface point identified as having a defined 3D position.
Bang teaches,
wherein, the well reference point is a wellbore sub-surface point identified as having a defined 3D position. (Para. [0161] teaches “Directional data (measured depth MD, inclination I, and azimuth A) may be available at survey intervals (e.g., 10-30 meters (m)) throughout the reference and offset wellbore sections of interest, either from real surveys or from well plans. These data have been quality checked by standard QC procedures, and there are no gross errors present. The directional data are converted into nominal north (n), east (e), and vertical (v) coordinates at the same MD locations by standard techniques. Both wellbores' trajectories are centered on the nominal (n, e, v) positions. [0162] The analysis points M.sub.R and M.sub.O can be chosen anywhere along the reference and offset wellbore sections, i.e., not necessarily at a survey station (see below about data interpolation).”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Chia and Sugauri wherein, the well reference point is a wellbore sub-surface point identified as having a defined 3D position such as that of Bang.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify the combination of Chia and Sugauri, because the measurements are occurring below the surface so in order to make an accurate comparison the reference point should also be placed below the surface.
Claims 49 and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chia (A New Wellbore Position Calculation Method; 2003) and Sugiura (US 20160160628 A1) as applied to claim 43 above, and further in view of Lolla (US 20190302291 A1).
With respect to claim 49,
Chia does not explicitly teach,
The method as claimed in claim 43 wherein, the measurement stations are positions in the wellbore between which a wellbore trajectory is constant or near-constant.
Lolla teaches,
wherein, the measurement stations are positions in the wellbore between which a wellbore trajectory is constant or near-constant. (Para. [0065] teaches “The monitoring well 100 may preferably include between 5 and 12 tri-axial receivers comprising 15 to 36 individual sensors, or more, that record microseismic data continuously at about 2,000 to 3,000 samples per second. Sensors and sensor receivers in the sensor array 104 may be located at different depths within the monitoring well 100. In some instances, sensor receivers within the sensor array 104 may be spaced uniformly along the length of the monitoring well 100, typically tens of meters apart.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Chia and Sugauri wherein, the measurement stations are positions in the wellbore between which a wellbore trajectory is constant or near-constant such as Lolla.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify the combination of Chia and Sugauri, because if the measurement stations were not placed at similar locals within the wellbore the measurements between the station could not be compared with much confidence as the measured values would change drastically between them. Furthermore, according to Lolla Para. [0065] positioning the measurement stations in this way allows for three-dimensional recording.
With respect to claim 50,
Chia does not explicitly teach,
The method as claimed in claim 43 wherein, the measurement station is positioned at the end of constant or near-constant and correction, AHD, Incl. or Az values.
Lolla teaches,
wherein, the measurement station is positioned at the end of constant or near-constant and correction, AHD, Incl. or Az values. (Para. [0065] teaches “The monitoring well 100 may preferably include between 5 and 12 tri-axial receivers comprising 15 to 36 individual sensors, or more, that record microseismic data continuously at about 2,000 to 3,000 samples per second. Sensors and sensor receivers in the sensor array 104 may be located at different depths within the monitoring well 100. In some instances, sensor receivers within the sensor array 104 may be spaced uniformly along the length of the monitoring well 100, typically tens of meters apart.” Fig. 1A shows that the first element 104 is placed after constant inclination and azimuth values)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Chia and Sugauri wherein, the measurement station is positioned at the end of constant or near-constant and correction, AHD, Incl. or Az values such as Lolla.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify the combination of Chia and Sugauri, because according to Lolla Para. [0065] positioning the measurement stations in this way allows for three-dimensional recording.
Claim 53 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chia (A New Wellbore Position Calculation Method; 2003) and Sugiura (US 20190169977 A1) as applied to claim 43 above, and further in view of Maus (US 20190169977 A1).
With respect to claim 53,
Chia does not explicitly teach,
The method as claimed in claim 43 wherein, each measurement station is identified along the wellbore at given well depths whereby the interval to each subsequent measure station has a constant or near-constant AHD correction, Incl., and Az values.
Maus teaches,
wherein, each measurement station is identified along the wellbore at given well depths where by the interval to each subsequent measure station has a constant or near-constant AHD correction, Incl., and Az values. (Para. [0031] teaches “In one embodiment of the present disclosure, a method of correcting wellbore positional error includes applying corrections to the measured attitude at one or both of two adjacent survey stations such that a modeled well path joining the two survey stations reflects the actual change in wellbore position (usually expressed in 3 coordinates, Northing, Easting, and True Vertical Depth) between the two adjacent survey stations. Let the two adjacent survey stations be a previous survey station, n−1, and a current survey station, n. As the terms “previous” and “current” are used, the previous survey station will have a smaller measured depth (MD) compared to the current survey station. For this embodiment, the position vector, P.sub.n, at the current survey station is estimated using additional survey information collected between the previous survey station, n−1, and the current survey station, n. Then, corrections to the attitude measured at the current survey station are computed such that the minimum curvature solution matches the estimated position at the current survey station, n.” (i.e. corrections) Also see Fig.2, the survey stations are positioned at locations of near constant inclination and azimuth.))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Chia and Sugauri wherein, each measurement station is identified along the wellbore at given well depths whereby the interval to each subsequent measure station has a constant or near-constant AHD correction, Incl., and Az values such as Maus.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify the combination of Chia and Sugauri, because according to Para. [0031] of Maus positioning the survey points in this way and performing this analysis would reduce errors in the measurement and create more accurate outputs.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to JOSHUA L FORRISTALL whose telephone number is 703-756-4554. The examiner
can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 AM- 5 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 Schechter can be reached on 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.
/JOSHUA L FORRISTALL/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/ANDREW SCHECHTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights