This Office action is in response to application filed on 6/26/2024.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3, 8, 10, 12-15, and 17-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1:
line 3: recites “a borehole” should read “[[a]]the borehole”,
lines 8-9: “the sonic data” should read “the measured sonic data”.
Note: “a measured sonic data” or “a sonic data acquired from the logging tool”, is the same.
Claim 2:
lines 1-2, “computing MSE with the one or more drilling parameters, wherein MSE is mechanical specific energy applied by the drilling system” is suggested to rephrase as “computing a mechanical specific energy (MSE) with the one or more drilling parameters, wherein the MSE is
Claim 3: “computing MSE” should read “computing the MSE”, further, what “480” means, please clarify for “480”.
Claim 8: “updating WOB weight on bit, TOB torque on bit, RPM rotary per minute, ROP rate of penetration” should read “updating the WOB weight on bit, the TOB torque on bit, the RPM rotary per minute, the ROP rate of penetration”.
Claim 10: “new measured sonic data” should read “a new measured sonic data”.
Claim 11: “wherein the correlation is formed between sonic logs from an offset well and an MSE” should read “wherein [[the]]a correlation is formed between sonic logs from an offset well and [[an]]the MSE”.
Claim 12: “predicting sonic data at the bit with at least the correlation formed between sonic logs from an offset well and an MSE from the offset well and MSE of the drilling system” should read “predicting the sonic data at the bit with at least the correlation formed between the sonic logs from [[an]]the offset well and an the MSE m the offset well and the MSE of the drilling system”.
Claim 13, line 6: “and/or wave” should be “and/or the wave”.
Claim 14 “from an offset well and an MSE from the offset well” should read “from an offset well and a mechanical specific energy (MSE) from the offset well”.
Claim 15, “predicting sonic data at the bit with at least the correlation formed between other measurements from an offset well and an MSE from the offset well and MSE of the drilling system” should read “predicting the sonic data at the bit with at least the correlation formed between other measurements from [[an]]the offset well and [[an]]the MSE from the offset well and the MSE of the drilling system”.
Claim 17 “compute MSE with the one or more drilling parameters, wherein MSE is mechanical specific energy applied by the drilling system” is suggested to rephrase as “compute a mechanical specific energy (MSE) with the one or more drilling parameters, wherein the MSE is
Claim 18 “computing MSE” should read “computing the MSE”, further, what “480” means, please clarify for “480”.
Claim 19 “compute a new MSE by updating WOB weight on bit, TOB torque on bit, RPM rotary per minute, ROP rate of penetration, and d bit diameter in real time or continuously and update the correlation with the new MS” should read “compute a new MSE by updating the WOB weight on bit, the TOB torque on bit, the RPM rotary per minute, the ROP rate of penetration, and d bit diameter in real time or continuously and update the correlation with the new MSE”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Note: Claims 1-3, 8, 10, 12-15, and 17-19 include multiple informalities that require appropriate correction. The examiner has made an effort suggesting language to clarify the recited subject matter. Applicant should refer to these as examples of deficiencies and should make all the necessary corrections to eliminate the claim objections. Applicant’s cooperation is kindly requested.
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.
Claims 4-10, 14-15, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 4-5 and 7 recite “predicted sonic at the bit” lacks antecedent basis. It is unclear whether “predicted sonic” refers to “the sonic pulse” or “the measured sonic data” as recited in claim 1. For purpose of examination, it is interpreted “the measured sonic data”.
Claims 6 and 8-9 are rejected for the same reason as respective parent claim.
Claim 10 recites “the original or a previous computation of correlation” is indefinite. It is unclear what “original” refers to. Does it refer to “the measured sonic data” as recited in claim 1 lines 7-8? In addition, it is unclear whether “correlation” refers to “the correlation” in claim 1? For purpose of examination, it is interpreted “the measured sonic data”, and “the correlation” as recited in claim 1.
Claim 14 recites “the correlation” lacks antecedent basis. It is unclear whether “the correlation” refers to claim 13 lines 10-11, or lines 12-13? For purpose of examination, “the correlation” is interpreted as “the correlation” as recited in claim 13 lines 10-11.
Claims 15 and 19-20 are rejected for the same reason as in claim 14.
Appropriate correction is 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 claim 1, 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 claims for eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, the claim is to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Continuing with the analysis, under Step 2A - Prong One of the test, the limitations (see Italic font) of:
Regarding claim 1:
the limitation “forming a correlation between at least part of the measured sonic data and one measurement from the sonic data and the one or more drilling parameters” under broadest interpretation in light of the specification falls into both groupings of mental process (forming a correlation between dataset, i.e., including observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(III), and mathematical concept (e.g., correlation using algorithms).
the limitation “predicting sonic data at a bit with at least the correlation and at the
one or more drilling parameters” under broadest interpretation in light of the specification, covers performance using mathematical concept (e.g., correlation and using algorithms for predicting).
Regarding claim 13:
the limitation “form a correlation between at least part of the measured sonic data and one measurement from the sonic data and the one or more drilling parameters” under broadest interpretation in light of the specification, falls into both groupings of mental process (forming a correlation between dataset, i.e., including observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(III)), and mathematical concept (e.g., correlation using algorithms).
the limitation “predict sonic data at a bit with at least the correlation and at the one or more drilling parameters” under broadest interpretation, covers performance concepts performed in mathematical concept (e.g., correlation and using algorithms for predicting).
Thus, the claims recite 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 (non-italic text as disclosed in Prong One above):
Regarding claim 1:
“A method comprising: disposing a logging tool into a borehole, wherein the logging tool comprises: a transmitter configured to transmit a sonic pulse into a borehole; and one or more receivers configured to detect reflected sonic pulses as measured sonic data; collecting one or more drilling parameters from a drilling system” generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP.2106.05(h)), appends elements recited at a high level of generality (i.e., transmitting and receiving signals), and used for performing insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g., mere data collection, data source/type to be manipulated, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding claim 13:
“A system comprising: a logging tool disposed within a borehole comprising: a downhole transmitter configured to transmit a particle and/or wave into the borehole; a downhole receiver configured to observe a response from the particle and/or wave, wherein the response is a reflection of or an effect of the particle and/or wave within the borehole or within a formation surrounding the borehole, and an information handling system configured to: collect one or more drilling parameters from a drilling system” generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP.2106.05(h)), appends elements recited at a high level of generality (i.e., transmitting and receiving signals), and used for performing insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g., mere data collection, data source/type to be manipulated, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, 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, the claims 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:
generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., A method/A system comprising: disposing a logging tool into a borehole). These limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application" (see MPEP 2106.05(h)),
recite extra-solution activities (i.e., mere data gathering) using elements recited at a high level of generality (i.e., a logging tool, transmitter, receiver(s)), which as indicated in the MPEP does not amount to significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
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.
With regards to the dependent claims 2-12 and 14-20, they are also directed to the non-statutory subject matter because:
they just extend the abstract idea of the independent claim by additional limitations (claims 2-12 and 14-20), that under the broadest interpretation in light of the specification, cover performance of the limitations using mental processes and mathematical concepts, and
the additional elements recited in the dependent claims, when considered individually and in combination, refer to extra-solution activities and recited at a high level of generality (e.g., updating, claims 7-10, 19-20), which as indicated in the Office's guidance does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A -Prong Two) and/or do 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 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 1-2, 10-17, and 20 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Bakulin et al, hereinafter Bakulin, US 2021/0140298 (of record) in view of Wang et al., US 2021/0231822.
As per Claim 1, Bakulin teaches a method comprising:
disposing a logging tool into a borehole ( logging while drilling “LWD” considered a logging tool uses both drilling string and bottom hole assemble, see Claim 2, also [0018]-[0019] );
collecting one or more drilling parameters from a drilling system (the data acquired during drilling includes drilling parameters, see [0003], [0017] );
forming a correlation between at least part of the measured sonic data and one measurement from the sonic data and the one or more drilling parameters (the data acquired during drilling includes drilling parameters, see [0003], [0017], drilling parameters used to obtain synthetic acoustic logs meaning using drilling parameters to create synthetic acoustic logs, considered forming a statistical or mathematical correlation between real measured data and operational drilling metrics ”drilling parameters”, see [0015] ); and
predicting sonic data at a bit with at least the correlation and at the one or more drilling parameters ( predicts the compressional velocity using a best-fit regression between the compressional velocity and the logging while drilling measurements for the geological formation, considered a method for predicting sonic data at or near the bit, see [0033], i.e., predicting compressional velocity using drilling parameters and statistical correlation counts considered predicting sonic data at the bit, see [0040], [0024] ).
Bakulin does not explicitly teach wherein the logging tool comprises: a transmitter configured to transmit a sonic pulse into a borehole; and one or more receivers configured to detect reflected sonic pulses as measured sonic data.
Wang teaches a method comprising: wherein the logging tool comprises: a transmitter configured to transmit a sonic pulse into a borehole; and one or more receivers configured to detect reflected sonic pulses as measured sonic data ( see Abstract ).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, to modify the teaching of Bakulin including transmitter and receivers to detect reflected sonic pulse as taught by Wang that would facilitate measuring reflected waves from a reflector and borehole guide waves with a hybrid receiver and/or transmitter combination (Wang, [0019]).
As per Claim 2, Bakulin in view of Wang teaches the method of claim 1, Bakulin further teaches comprising computing MSE with the one or more drilling parameters, wherein MSE is mechanical specific energy applied by the drilling system (see equation 1 in [0027], [0032], [0055], [0059] ).
As per Claim 10, Bakulin in view of Wang teaches the method of claim 1, Bakulin teaches updating the correlation with new measured sonic data, wherein the new measured sonic data was not used in the original or a previous computation of correlation (updating “new internal parameters” considered part of “new sonic data”, see [0040]. It is noted the new sonic data meaning not original or previous computation of correlation).
As per Claim 11, Bakulin in view of Wang teaches the method of claim 2, Bakulin teaches wherein the correlation is formed between sonic logs from an offset well and an MSE from the offset well (see [0042], [0030] ).
As per Claim 12, Bakulin in view of Wang teaches the method of claim 11, further comprising predicting sonic data at the bit with at least the correlation formed between sonic logs from an offset well and an MSE from the offset well and MSE of the drilling system (see [0023]-[0024], [0042], [0047]).
As per Claim 13, Bakulin teaches a system comprising:
a logging tool disposed within a borehole ( logging while drilling “LWD” considered a logging tool uses both drilling string and bottom hole assemble, see Claim 2, also [0018]-[0019] ); comprising:
collect one or more drilling parameters from a drilling system (the data acquired during drilling includes drilling parameters, see [0003], [0017] );
form a correlation between at least part of the response and the one or more drilling parameters (the data acquired during drilling includes drilling parameters, see [0003], [0017], drilling parameters used to obtain synthetic acoustic logs meaning using drilling parameters to create synthetic acoustic logs, considered forming a statistical or mathematical correlation between real measured data and operational drilling metrics ”drilling parameters”, see [0015] ); and
predict sonic data at a bit with at least the correlation and at the one or more drilling parameters ( predicts the compressional velocity using a best-fit regression between the compressional velocity and the logging while drilling measurements for the geological formation, considered a method for predicting sonic data at or near the bit, see [0033], i.e., predicting compressional velocity using drilling parameters and statistical correlation counts considered predicting sonic data at the bit, see [0040], [0024] ).
Bakulin does not explicitly teach a downhole transmitter configured to transmit a particle and/or wave into the borehole; a downhole receiver configured to observe a response from the particle and/or wave, wherein the response is a reflection of or an effect of the particle and/or wave within the borehole or within a formation surrounding the borehole; and an information handling system.
Wang teaches a downhole transmitter configured to transmit a particle and/or wave into the borehole; a downhole receiver configured to observe a response from the particle and/or wave, wherein the response is a reflection of or an effect of the particle and/or wave within the borehole or within a formation surrounding the borehole ( see Abstract ); and an information handling system (Fig 1, information handling system 114, see [0020], Abstract last 2 lines).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, to modify the teaching of Bakulin including transmitter and receivers to detect reflected sonic pulse as taught by Wang that would facilitate measuring reflected waves from a reflector and borehole guide waves with a hybrid receiver and/or transmitter combination (Wang, [0019]).
As per Claim 14, Bakulin in view of Wang teaches the system of claim 13, Bakulin teaches wherein the correlation is formed between measurements from an
offset well and an MSE from the offset well (see [0042], [0030] ).
As per Claim 15, Bakulin in view of Wang teaches the system of claim 14, Bakulin further teaches comprising predicting sonic data at the bit with at least the correlation formed between other measurements from an offset well and an MSE from the offset well and MSE of the drilling system (“new internal parameters” considered other measurements, see [0040], [0047]).
As per Claim 16, Bakulin in view of Wang teaches the system of claim 13, Bakulin teaches wherein the information handling system is further configured to form at least one pseudo-sonic measurement with the response ( generating synthetic logs and
calibrating existing velocity models can be performed, considered the process of creating and utilizing a pseudo-sonic log, see [0015], [0040]).
Claim 17 is rejected for the same rationale as in claim 2.
As per Claim 20, Bakulin in view of Wang teaches the system of claim 13, Bakulin teaches wherein the information handling system is further configured to update the correlation with a new response, wherein the new response was not from the response (updating “new internal parameters” considered part of “new sonic data”, see [0040]. It is noted the new sonic data meaning not original or previous computation of correlation).
Examiner’s Notes
Claims 3-9 and 18-19 are considered novel and non-obvious subject matter with respect to the prior art but as currently presently are rejected under 35 USC 101 and 112 as set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for considering novel and non-obvious subject matter:
The prior art does not disclose the equation as recited in claims 3 and 18. Claims 4-9 and 19 are dependent claims also rejected for the same reason as respective parent claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2023/0025566 of Wilson et al. (Magnetic susceptibility and conductivity module).
US 2008/0278169 of Bittar (Electromagnetic Wave Resistivity Tool Having a Tilted Antenna for Determining the Horizontal and Vertical Resistivities and Relative Dip Angle in Anisotropic Earth Formations).
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 PM-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