DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04 May 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the current claims do not fall within the mathematical concept category because the claims on their own do not on their own recite mathematical equations, formula, or calculations. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As applicant admits on pg. 10 of the response to arguments the mathematical concept category includes “math relationships” which the current claim limitations fall into since they describe relationships between mathematical variables (i.e., mean, standard deviation, statistical critical value, zero reference value, etc.).
Applicant argues that the claims are directed to improvements in the field of drilling technologies and not abstract ideas. Examiner respectfully disagrees since the limitations are mathematical relationships (i.e., abstract ideas).
Applicant argues that because the claim recites taking a corrective action (i.e., adjusting one or more drilling parameters) the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. Examiner respectfully disagrees since the limitation does not specifically integrate the abstract idea to perform a specific physical action/transformation. The reciting of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution (i.e., changing a parameter) to an identified problem (i.e., wear on equipment and equipment failures) with no meaningful restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result (i.e., what aspects are changed or how the change is affected by the abstract idea) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1). Specifically, the addition of the limitation following “based on” is too general and does not specifically tie the abstract idea into the practical application.
Examiner suggested that Applicant specifically claim how the abstract idea is used to make adjustments. While the action taken using the abstract idea can be broad it needs to be specific in how the abstract idea is related to the action taken. The phrase “based on” does not provide a specific link between the abstract idea and the physical action.
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 1-2, 4-13, 15-18, and 20-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claims 1-2, 4-13, 15-18, and 20-24 are directed to a method (process), a system (machine or manufacture), and a non-transitory medium (manufacture), respectively. As such, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention.
If the claim recites a statutory category of invention, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A. Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Claims 1 recites abstract limitations, including: “determining a current value of the drilling variable, a mean value of the drilling variable, a standard deviation value of the drilling variable, and a statistical critical value of the drilling variable; determine a steady state condition using the mean value, the current value, the standard deviation value, and the statistical critical value; determining occurrence of the steady state condition for the drilling variable; and responsive to determining that the steady state condition for the drilling variable has occurred: determining a zero reference value for the drilling variable.”
Claims 12 recites abstract limitations, including: “determining a current value of the drilling variable, a mean value of the drilling variable, a standard deviation value of the drilling variable, and a statistical critical value of the drilling variable; determining a steady state condition using the men value, the current value, the standard deviation value, and the statistical critical value; determining occurrence of the steady state condition for the drilling variable; and responsive to determining that the steady state condition for the drilling variable has occurred determining a zero reference value for the drilling variable.”
Claims 17 recites abstract limitations, including: “determining a current value of the drilling variable, a mean value of the drilling variable, a standard deviation value of the drilling variable, and a statistical critical value of the drilling variable; determining a steady state condition using the men value, the current value, the standard deviation value, and the statistical critical value; determining occurrence of the steady state condition for the drilling variable; and responsive to determining that the steady state condition for the drilling variable has occurred determining a zero reference value for the drilling variable.”
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, represent mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and/or mathematical calculations and are therefore mathematical concepts. The mere recitation of a generic computer does not take the claim out of the mathematical concepts grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
If the claim recites a judicial exception in step 2A Prong One, the claim requires further analysis in step 2A Prong Two. In step 2A Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
Claim 1 recites the additional elements of: a control system; monitoring a drilling variable for a drill string during drilling of the wellbore by a drilling rig; adjusting one or more drilling parameters using the zero reference value determined by the control system, wherein the adjustment is based on a value of the drilling variable when the steady state condition for the drilling variable occurred; and drilling the wellbore in accordance with the one or more adjusted drilling parameters.
Claim 12 recites the additional elements of: a non-transitory computer-readable medium; a processor; monitoring a drilling variable for a drill string during drilling of the wellbore by a drilling rig; adjusting one or more drilling parameters responsive to the zero reference value for drilling of the wellbore in accordance with the one or more adjusted drilling parameters, wherein the adjustment is based on a value of the drilling variable when the steady state condition for the drilling variable occurred.
Claim 17 recites the additional elements of: a processor; a memory coupled to the processor; monitoring a drilling variable for a drill string during drilling of the wellbore by a drilling rig; adjusting one or more drilling parameters using the zero reference value determined by the control system, wherein the adjustment is based on a value of the drilling variable when the steady state condition for the drilling variable occurred; providing the one or more adjusted drilling parameters to one or more drilling rig control systems to drill the wellbore in accordance with the one or more adjusted drilling parameters.
“Monitoring a drilling variable” is very broadly claimed. Based on ¶ [0030] of the specifications monitoring means collecting data through the use of the control system and sensors. Monitoring a drilling variable (using a control system and sensors) is considered an insignificant extra solution activity.
A drill sting, a wellbore, and a drilling rig merely link said method to a particular technical environment or field of use.
“[A]djusting one or more drilling parameters using the zero reference value determined by the control system, wherein the adjustment is based on a value of the drilling variable when the steady state condition for the drilling variable occurred” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception.
“[D]rilling the wellbore in accordance with the one or more adjusted drilling parameters” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception.
“[A]djusting one or more drilling parameters responsive to the zero reference value for drilling of the wellbore in accordance with the one or more adjusted drilling parameters, wherein the adjustment is based on a value of the drilling variable when the steady state condition for the drilling variable occurred” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception.
“[P]roviding the one or more adjusted drilling parameter to one or more drilling rig control systems to drill the wellbore in accordance with the one or more adjusted drilling parameters” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., activity incidental to the primary process/product that is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Examiner notes, that this step is merely providing the information and not the actual act of drilling. The act of drilling using the abstract idea is merely “apply it” as discussed above.
A control system, a non-transitory computer-readable medium, a processor, a memory and a drilling rig control system are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application in step 2A Prong Two, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, and requires further analysis under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
As discussed above, monitoring a drilling variable is considered insignificant extra-solution activity as the limitations do not amount to more than mere data gathering. Additionally, the sensors used to collect the data, based on the specifications for 101 analysis, are not recited with any specificity in the claims. Therefore, the sensors are recited with a high level of generality. Given the generality of the type of sensors, position of sensors, and type of data collected by the sensors, this limitation does not contain significantly more to provide a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Furthermore, “drill string,” “wellbore,” and “drilling rig” merely link the method to a particular technical environment or field of use. As they merely confine the use of the abstract idea to a particular technical field of use, they fail to add an inventive concept to the claim. These limitations represent mere token acquiescence to limiting the reach of the claim (see Flook and MPEP 2106.05(h)).
With respect to the control system, the non-transitory computer-readable medium, the processor, the memory, and the drilling rig control system, these elements are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Additionally, the specifications fails to disclose this element is anything other than generic computing elements and are shown as black boxes on the figures. (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
As discussed above, the steps of “adjusting” and “drilling” merely amount to “apply it.” The reciting of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution (i.e., changing a parameter) to an identified problem (i.e., wear on equipment and equipment failures) with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result (i.e., what aspects are changed or how the change is affected by the abstract idea) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1).
Finally, “providing” is considered insignificant extra-solution activity as the limitation of “importing” and “sending” are considered insignificant extra-solution activities as the limitations amount to selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated and transmitting/receiving the data. As noted in Electric Power Group, selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information for collection, analysis, and display is considered insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Additionally, the Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs. and buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere receiving or transmitting data over a network is a well-understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
Claims 2, 4-9, 13, 15-16, 18, 21-22 further recite “the drilling variable is at least one of a hookload variable or a pressure variable; obtaining the steady state condition using the mean value further comprises: determining a difference between the mean value and the current value; determining a product of the standard deviation value and the statistical critical value; comparing the difference and the product; responsive to the difference being greater than the product: indicating that the steady state condition for the drilling variable has not occurred; and responsive to the difference being less than or equal to the product: indicating that the steady state condition for the drilling variable has occurred; determining, by the control system, if the steady state condition for the drilling variable occurs further comprises: using window-based computations and a student-t test; the window-based computations further comprises: determining a time constant of the drilling variable; determining a sampling time period of the drilling variable; dividing the time constant by the sampling time period to obtain a division result; and setting a window length of the window-based computations to, at least, three times the current value of the division result; setting the window length of the window-based computations to, at most, five times the current value of the division result; the one or more drilling parameters comprise at least one of weight on bit, rate of penetration, revolutions per minute, differential pressure, toolface, torque; the statistical critical value is predetermined and obtained from a system monitoring the drilling variable; determining that the steady state condition for the drilling variable has occurred further comprises: using window based computations and a student-t test; the statistical critical value is predetermined and obtained from the control system; and determining that the steady state condition for the drilling variable has occurred is performed while a drill bit coupled to the drill string is off a bottom of the wellbore.” which merely narrows the previously recited abstract idea limitations.
Regarding claim 10, “adding a stand of drill pipe to the drill string before determining that the steady state condition for the drilling variable has occurred” amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 11, “adding a plurality of stands of drill pipe to the drill string before determining that the steady state condition for the drilling variable has occurred” amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 23, “the adjusting is performed during drilling” amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 24, “the adjusting is performed depending on at least one of a drill being off bottom of the wellbore or a number of the drill pipe stands” amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 4-13, 15-18, and 20-24 are allowable over the prior art but stand rejected under 101 as discussed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTYN A HALL whose telephone number is (571)272-8384. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached at (571) 272-5405. 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.
/KRISTYN A HALL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
Prosecution Insights