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 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 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to claims 1 and 11,
Step 2A Prong One:
The following bold limitations are considered abstract:
“A method for advising a coiled tubing wellbore operation, the method comprising: inputting a coiled tubing drilling configuration into a supervisory control system;
inputting coiled tubing drilling operational parameters into the supervisory control system; receiving downhole and surface sensor measurements in the supervisory control system, the sensor measurements made during the coiled tubing wellbore operation;
and evaluating the sensor measurements with the supervisory control system to generate coiled tubing drilling advisories, the generated coiled tubing drilling advisories including supervisory instructions to rig personnel that provide supervisory oversight of the coiled tubing wellbore operation, the coiled tubing drilling advisories including at least one of instructions to meet operational targets, instructions to maintain the coiled tubing wellbore operation within standard operating procedures, and instructions to address operational anomalies.”
The above bolded limitations are directed to abstract ideas and would fall within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Evaluating sensor data to determine instructions can be done in the human mind using observation, judgement, and opinion. A person can look at data and make instructions based off said data in the human mind. As seen in MPEP 2106.04 “The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 (2012) ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).”
Step 2A Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements –
“inputting a coiled tubing drilling configuration into a supervisory control system;
inputting coiled tubing drilling operational parameters into the supervisory control system; receiving downhole and surface sensor measurements in the supervisory control system, the sensor measurements made during the coiled tubing wellbore operation;”
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 – see MPEP 2106.05(a)
-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 coiled tubing wellbore operation. Furthermore, the supervisory control system is viewed as a generic computer and evaluating data with the control system is viewed as simply using a computer as a tool. Inputting parameters and data from generic sensors into the control system is viewed as mere data gathering.
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 “inputting a coiled tubing drilling configuration into a supervisory control system; inputting coiled tubing drilling operational parameters into the supervisory control system; receiving downhole and surface sensor measurements in the supervisory control system, the sensor measurements made during the coiled tubing wellbore operation” just tie the claim to some computational device and a coiled tubing wellbore operation. Examiner further notes that such additional elements are viewed to be well known routine and conventional as evidenced by Boone (US 20220372862 A1) and Liu (US 20220213778 A1).
With respect to claims 16
Step 2A Prong One:
The following bold limitations are considered abstract:
“A method for advising a coiled tubing wellbore operation, the method comprising: inputting a coiled tubing drilling configuration into a supervisory control system;
inputting coiled tubing drilling operational parameters into the supervisory control system;
receiving downhole and surface sensor measurements in the supervisory control system, the downhole and surface sensor measurements received from sensors deployed in a coiled tubing subsystem, a bottom hole assembly subsystem, and an underbalanced or managed pressure subsystem;
estimating an underbalanced or managed pressure drilling indicator, a hole cleaning indicator, and a motor performance indicator based on the received downhole and surface sensor measurements;
and evaluating the estimated underbalanced or managed pressure drilling indicator, the estimated hole cleaning indicator, and the estimated motor performance indicator to generate coiled tubing drilling advisories, the generated coiled tubing drilling advisories including supervisory instructions to rig personnel to change at least one of the coiled tubing drilling operational parameters in the coiled tubing subsystem, the bottom hole assembly subsystem, and the underbalanced or managed pressure subsystem to maintain the under balance drilling indicator, the hole cleaning indicator, and the motor performance indicator within corresponding predetermined operating windows.”
The above bolded limitations are directed to abstract ideas and would fall within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Evaluating sensor data to determine instructions can be done in the human mind using observation, judgement, and opinion. A person can look at data and make and make an indicator based off said data in the human mind. Evaluating the indicators can also be done in the human mind by analyzing data. As seen in MPEP 2106.04 “The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 (2012) ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).”
Step 2A Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements –
“inputting a coiled tubing drilling configuration into a supervisory control system;
inputting coiled tubing drilling operational parameters into the supervisory control system;
receiving downhole and surface sensor measurements in the supervisory control system, the downhole and surface sensor measurements received from sensors deployed in a coiled tubing subsystem, a bottom hole assembly subsystem, and an underbalanced or managed pressure subsystem;”
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 – see MPEP 2106.05(a)
-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 coiled tubing subsection, a bottom hole assembly subsystem, or an underbalanced or managed pressure subsystem. Furthermore, the supervisory control system is viewed as a generic computer and evaluating data with the control system is viewed as simply using a computer as a tool. Inputting downhole sensor data from generic sensors into the control system is viewed as mere data gathering.
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 “inputting a coiled tubing drilling configuration into a supervisory control system; inputting coiled tubing drilling operational parameters into the supervisory control system; receiving downhole and surface sensor measurements in the supervisory control system, the downhole and surface sensor measurements received from sensors deployed in a coiled tubing subsystem, a bottom hole assembly subsystem, and an underbalanced or managed pressure subsystem” just tie the claim to some computational device and a coiled tubing wellbore operation. Examiner further notes that such additional elements are viewed to be well known routine and conventional as evidenced by Boone (US 20220372862 A1) and Liu (US 20220213778 A1).
Dependent claims 2-10, 12-15, and 17-20 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 clarify the instructions generated from the data. Generating these instructions is still a mental process as seen in claim 1 analysis above. Estimating a nitrogen flow rate is a mathematical concept and comparing the nitrogen flow rate with another value to generate an advisory is a mental process. Claim 2 includes the additional element of implementing the instructions automatically which is viewed as using a computer as a tool.
Therefore, dependent claims 2-10, 12-15, and 17-20 further limit the abstract idea with an abstract idea and thus the claims are still directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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.
Claims 1-4, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Boone (US 20220372862 A1).
With respect to claim 1,
Boone teaches,
A method for advising a coiled tubing wellbore operation, the method comprising:
inputting a coiled tubing drilling configuration into a supervisory control system; Para. [0047] teaches “The controller 190 is also configured to receive electronic signals via wired or wireless transmission means (also not shown in FIG. 1) from a variety of sensors included in the apparatus 100, where each sensor is configured to detect an operational characteristic.” Operational characteristic is viewed as drilling configuration. Para. [0061] teaches “For example, the BHA 310 may be substantially similar to the BHA 170 shown in FIG. 1, the drive system 315 may be substantially similar to the top drive 140 shown in FIG. 1, the drawworks 320 may be substantially similar to the drawworks 130 shown in FIG. 1, and/or the controller 325 may be substantially similar to the controller 190 shown in FIG. 1.” Para. [0071] teaches “The drill string may also take the form of coiled tubing, in which case the movement of the drill string in and out of the hole is controlled by an injector head which grips and pushes/pulls the tubing in/out of the hole. Nonetheless, such embodiments may still include a version of the controller 390, and the controller 390 may still be configured to control feed-out and/or feed-in of the drill string.”
inputting coiled tubing drilling operational parameters into the supervisory control system; receiving downhole and surface sensor measurements in the supervisory control system, the sensor measurements made during the coiled tubing wellbore operation; (Para. [0047] teaches “The controller 190 is also configured to receive electronic signals via wired or wireless transmission means (also not shown in FIG. 1) from a variety of sensors included in the apparatus 100, where each sensor is configured to detect an operational characteristic or parameter. One such sensor is the surface casing annular pressure sensor 159 described above. The apparatus 100 may include a downhole annular pressure sensor 170a coupled to or otherwise associated with the BHA 170. The downhole annular pressure sensor 170a may be configured to detect a pressure value or range in the annulus-shaped region defined between the external surface of the BHA 170 and the internal diameter of the wellbore 160, which may also be referred to as the casing pressure, downhole casing pressure, MWD casing pressure, or downhole annular pressure.”)
and evaluating the sensor measurements with the supervisory control system to generate coiled tubing drilling advisories, the generated coiled tubing drilling advisories including supervisory instructions to rig personnel that provide supervisory oversight of the coiled tubing wellbore operation, the coiled tubing drilling advisories including at least one of instructions to meet operational targets, instructions to maintain the coiled tubing wellbore operation within standard operating procedures, and instructions to address operational anomalies. (Para. [0016] teaches “The system includes a receiving device adapted to receive an input comprising a planned drilling path to a target location, a sensory device adapted to determine a projected location of a bottom hole assembly of a drilling system, and a logic device adapted to compare the projected location of the bottom hole assembly to the planned drilling path to determine a deviation amount from the planned path.” Para. [0112] teaches “Based on its findings, the toolface calculation engine 404 creates steering instructions to help keep the actual drilling path aligned with the planned drilling path, i.e., within the tolerance zone. These instructions may be output as toolface orientation instructions, which may be used in input 410h in FIG. 4A. In some embodiments, the created steering instructions are based on the extent of deviation of the actual drilling path relative the planned drilling path, as discussed further below. ‘Para. [0134] teaches “an alerts module may be used to alert drillers and/or a well monitoring station of a deviation of the bit from the planned drilling path, of any potential problem with the drilling system, or of other information requiring attention. When drillers are not at the drilling rig, i.e., the driller(s) are remotely located from the rig, the alerts module may be associated with the toolface calculation engine 404 in a manner that when the toolface calculation engine 404 detects deviation of the bit from the planned drilling path, the alerts module signals the driller, and in some cases, can be arranged to await manual user intervention, such as an approval, before steering the bit along a new path.”)
Claim 11 is the same as claim 1 except claim 11 further teaches “a processor in electronic communication with downhole sensors and surface sensors.” This is viewed as the controller as seen in Para(s). [0047 and 0071]. Processors are also further taught in Para(s). [0076, 0107, and 0241] to be in communication with sensors. They further teach a collection of downhole and surface sensors in Para(s). [0043, 0070, and 0103].
With respect to claims 2 and 12,
Boone further teaches,
wherein the instructions are implemented automatically without human intervention. (Abstract teaches “automatically creating a modified drilling path based on the amount of deviation and a predicted trend of a downhole parameter; detecting a trend of the downhole parameter while drilling along the modified drilling path; and automatically creating a further modified drilling path when the trend of the downhole parameter is a reversal of the predicted trend of the downhole parameter.”)
With respect to claim 3,
Boone further teaches,
The method of claim 1, wherein the coiled tubing drilling advisories comprise supervisory instructions to change at least one of the coiled tubing drilling operational parameters in response to the received downhole and surface sensor measurements. (Para. [0074] teaches “The controller 325 is configured to receive one or more of the above-described parameters from the user interface 305, the BHA 310, and/or the drive system 315, and utilize such parameters to continuously, periodically, or otherwise determine the current toolface orientation. The controller 325 may be further configured to generate a control signal, such as via intelligent adaptive control, and provide the control signal to the drive system 315 and/or the drawworks 320 to adjust and/or maintain the toolface orientation.”)
With respect to claim 4,
Boone further teaches,
The method of claim 1, wherein the supervisory instructions comprise instructions to change at least one of the coiled tubing drilling operational parameters in a coiled tubing subsystem, a bottom hole assembly subsystem, or an underbalanced or managed pressure subsystem. (Para. [0018] teaches “a method of directionally steering a bottom hole assembly during a drilling operation from a drilling rig to an underground target location. The method includes the steps of: generating a drilling plan having a drilling path and an acceptable margin of error as a tolerance zone; receiving data indicative of one or more directional trends and a projection to bit depth; determining the actual location of the bottom hole assembly based on the one or more directional trends and the projection to bit depth; and determining whether the bit is within the tolerance zone. The method also includes comparing the actual location of the bottom hole assembly to the planned drilling path to identify an amount of deviation from the planned path of the bottom hole assembly from the actual drilling path and creating a modified drilling path based on the amount of deviation from the planned path. This includes creating a modified drilling path that intersects the planned drilling path if the amount of deviation from the planned path exceeds a first threshold amount of deviation from the planned path, and creating a modified drilling path to the target location that does not intersect the planned drilling path if the amount of deviation from the planned path exceeds a second threshold amount of deviation from the planned path. The method further includes determining a desired tool face orientation to steer the bottom hole assembly along the modified drilling path;”)
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 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boone (US 20220372862 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Saeed (US 20110024189 A1).
With respect to claims 5 and 13,
Boone does not explicitly teach,
wherein the supervisory instructions comprise instructions to meet operational targets including at least one of underbalanced or managed pressure drilling targets, hole cleaning targets, and drilling performance targets.
Saeed teaches,
wherein the supervisory instructions comprise instructions to meet operational targets including at least one of underbalanced or managed pressure drilling targets, hole cleaning targets, and drilling performance targets. (Para. [0011] teaches “Control of bottom hole pressure is very important in managed pressure drilling, and in other types of drilling operations. Preferably, the bottom hole pressure is accurately controlled to prevent excessive loss of fluid into the earth formation surrounding the wellbore 12, undesired fracturing of the formation, undesired influx of formation fluids into the wellbore, etc. In typical managed pressure drilling, it is desired to maintain the bottom hole pressure just greater than a pore pressure of the formation, without exceeding a fracture pressure of the formation. In typical underbalanced drilling, it is desired to maintain the bottom hole pressure somewhat less than the pore pressure, thereby obtaining a controlled influx of fluid from the formation.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Boone wherein the supervisory instructions comprise instructions to meet operational targets including at least one of underbalanced or managed pressure drilling targets, hole cleaning targets, and drilling performance targets such as that of Saeed.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Boone, because meeting targets is important for maintain efficiency, safety, and cost effectiveness of the system. Furthermore, Boone further teaches that their well may be drilled using under-balanced or managed-pressure drilling methods as seen in Para. [0044].
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boone (US 20220372862 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view Aarsland (US 11391142 B2).
With respect to claims 6 and 14,
Boone does not explicitly teach,
wherein the supervisory instructions comprise instructions to maintain the coiled tubing wellbore operation within standard operating procedures for at least one of a coiled tubing drilling operation, a wiper trip operation, a sidetracking operation, and a tripping operation.
Aarsland teaches,
wherein the supervisory instructions comprise instructions to maintain the coiled tubing wellbore operation within standard operating procedures for at least one of a coiled tubing drilling operation, a wiper trip operation, a sidetracking operation, and a tripping operation. (Col. 4 Ln(s). [15-22]) teaches “For example, coordinated control operations may include the control of downhole pressure during tripping. The downhole pressure may be affected by both the DFC system 214 (e.g., pump rate), the MPDC 213 (e.g., choke position of the MPDC), and the THR system 211 (e.g., tripping speed). Thus, when it is intended to maintain certain downhole pressure during tripping, the central controller 192 may be utilized to direct the appropriate control data to two or more (or each) of the participating subsystems.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Boone wherein the supervisory instructions comprise instructions to maintain the coiled tubing wellbore operation within standard operating procedures for at least one of a coiled tubing drilling operation, a wiper trip operation, a sidetracking operation, and a tripping operation such as that of Aarsland.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Boone, because if standard operating procedures are not adhered to the system could break or become faulty.
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boone (US 20220372862 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view Manocha (US 20240068351 A1).
With respect to claims 7 and 15,
Boone does not explicitly teach,
wherein the supervisory instructions comprise instructions to address operational anomalies including at least one of a stuck event, a motor stall, a kick, a bridge, and a coiled tubing equipment failure.
Manocha teaches,
wherein the supervisory instructions comprise instructions to address operational anomalies including at least one of a stuck event, a motor stall, a kick, a bridge, and a coiled tubing equipment failure. (Para. [0048] teaches “a fluid kick condition is detected at a certain depth where the fluid kick condition was not anticipated, a pre-planned set of rig tasks can be inserted into the current digital rig plan to manage the unanticipated fluid kick that occurs at a certain depth of the wellbore 15. Additionally, for example, when an equipment failure is detected that directly impacts the execution of the digital well plan, then a pre-planned set of rig tasks can be inserted into the current digital rig plan to manage the unanticipated equipment failure.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Boone wherein the supervisory instructions comprise instructions to address operational anomalies including at least one of a stuck event, a motor stall, a kick, a bridge, and a coiled tubing equipment failure such as that of Manocha.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Boone, because the listed operational anomalies can cause the system to fail or to be inefficient. Therefore, it would be obvious to combine the prior art in order to mitigate these issues.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boone (US 20220372862 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Samuel (US 20170074085 A1).
With respect to claim 8,
Boone does not explicitly teach,
The method of claim 1, wherein the evaluating further comprises: estimating an underbalanced or managed pressure drilling indicator, a hole cleaning indicator, and a motor performance indicator based on the received downhole and surface sensor measurements;
and generating the coiled tubing drilling advisory, the generated coiled tubing drilling advisory including supervisory instructions to rig personnel to change at least one of the coiled tubing drilling operational parameters to maintain the under-balance drilling indicator, the hole cleaning indicator, and the motor performance indicator within corresponding predetermined operating windows.
Samuel teaches,
wherein the evaluating further comprises: estimating an underbalanced or managed pressure drilling indicator, a hole cleaning indicator, and a motor performance indicator based on the received downhole and surface sensor measurements; (Para. [0018] teaches “The optimized UBD operation points may represent the best points to achieve selected well operating conditions, such as, the maximum motor performance, vertical hole cleaning capability, or horizontal hole cleaning capability. The optimized UBD points will have GIR/BHP coordinates, but may have different values from the UBD point determined in step 503.”)
and generating the coiled tubing drilling advisory, the generated coiled tubing drilling advisory including supervisory instructions to rig personnel to change at least one of the coiled tubing drilling operational parameters to maintain the under-balance drilling indicator, the hole cleaning indicator, and the motor performance indicator within corresponding predetermined operating windows. (Para. [0020] teaches “Once the optimized parameters are obtained to establish the optimized operating points for achieving the selected well conditions, each of the optimized operating points is displayed on the operation envelope in step 506, such as shown in FIG. 3. This provides the well operator with a visual indication of the current operating point, such as operating point 106, and its location relative to the optimized operation points 108, 109, and 110. This also allows a comparison to be made, in step 507, of the actual and optimized operation points so that operating conditions of the well may be altered, if desired.” Para. [0021] teaches “For example, referring again to FIG. 3, if the well actual operating point is operating point 106, the operator may select to lower the GIR to shift the actual operating point toward optimized operating point 110, so that the horizontal hole cleaning is optimized.” Also, see fig(s). 1 and 3)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Boone wherein the evaluating further comprises: estimating an underbalanced or managed pressure drilling indicator, a hole cleaning indicator, and a motor performance indicator based on the received downhole and surface sensor measurements; and generating the coiled tubing drilling advisory, the generated coiled tubing drilling advisory including supervisory instructions to rig personnel to change at least one of the coiled tubing drilling operational parameters to maintain the under-balance drilling indicator, the hole cleaning indicator, and the motor performance indicator within corresponding predetermined operating windows such as that of Samuel.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Boone, because keeping those values within operating windows would ensure the safety and the efficiency of the wellbore operation. Furthermore, Boone further teaches that their well may be drilled using under-balanced or managed-pressure drilling methods and they also teach a range of desired pressures as seen in Para(s). [0044] and [0262].
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boone (US 20220372862 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Piccolo (US 20180245411 A1).
With respect to claim 9,
Boone further teaches,
The method of claim 1, wherein the evaluating further comprises: estimating a flow rate window for maintaining underbalanced drilling conditions based on the received downhole and surface sensor measurements; (Para. [0267] teaches “The mud flow set point input 802h may be a value indicating the maximum, minimum, or nominal desired mud flow rate output by the mud pump. Alternatively, the mud flow set point input 802h may be a range within which it is desired that the mud flow rate be maintained.”
comparing a flow rate with the estimated flow rate window; and generating the coiled tubing drilling advisory, the generated coiled tubing drilling advisory including supervisory instructions to rig personnel to either increase or decrease the flow rate when the flow rate is outside of the estimated flow rate window. (Para. [0305] teaches “The mud pump drive 808p is configured to provide an electrical signal to the mud pump, thereby controlling the flow rate and/or pressure of the mud pump output.” Para. [0341] teaches “if the current bottom hole pressure is greater than the bottom hole pressure setting, then the choke actuation signal 806l may direct the choke actuator 808m to further open, thereby increasing the return flow rate and decreasing the current bottom hole pressure. Similarly, if the current bottom hole pressure is less than the bottom hole pressure setting, then the choke actuation signal 806l may direct the choke actuator 808m to further close, thereby decreasing the return flow rate and increasing the current bottom hole pressure.”)
Boone does not explicitly teach,
A nitrogen flow rate.
Piccolo teaches,
A nitrogen flow rate. (Para. [0058] teaches “Mud is a very broad drilling term, and in this context it is used to describe any fluid or fluid mixture used during drilling and covers a broad spectrum from air, nitrogen, misted fluids in air or nitrogen, foamed fluids with air or nitrogen, aerated or nitrified fluids to heavily weighted mixtures of oil or water with solid particles.” Para. [0139] teaches “If the riser booster pump 32 is operating, the flow check may comprise using a flow meter to measure the rate of flow of fluid along the first and second return line conduits 47, 48. If the measured flow rate is greater than the known flow rate produced by operation of the riser booster pump 32, this indicates that the well is still underbalanced (i.e., the wellbore pressure is below the pore pressure of the formation) and/or there is gas expanding in the wellbore”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Boone with a nitrogen flow rate such as that of Piccolo.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Boone, because Piccolo teaches that the term mud used in Boone is typically used to describe nitrogen containing fluids as seen in Para. [0058]. Furthermore, nitrogen in the mud column can increase fluid compressibility and decrease specific gravity of the mud column as well as have other beneficial effects on the drilling system.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boone (US 20220372862 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Papouras (US 20200318471 A1).
With respect to claim 10,
Boone does not explicitly teach,
The method of claim 1, wherein the generated coiled tubing drilling advisory includes instructions to the personnel to initiate a wiper trip or a tripping operation.
Papouras teaches,
wherein the generated coiled tubing drilling advisory includes instructions to the personnel to initiate a wiper trip or a tripping operation. (Para. [0065] teaches “After reviewing the screen 700, the drilling operator may determine, in response to an unexpected build rate or slide score, that the bit 175 should be replaced. In that case, the drilling operator may provide instructions to the drilling module 212 to begin tripping out the BHA 170. The instructions may include an instruction to lift the bit 175 off the bottom, etc.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Boone wherein the generated coiled tubing drilling advisory includes instructions to the personnel to initiate a wiper trip or a tripping operation such as that of Papouras.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Boone, because a tripping operation can help mitigate an unexpected build rate or slide score under certain conditions as seen in Para. [0065] of Papouras.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boone (US 20220372862 A1) in view of Samuel (US 20170074085 A1)
With respect to claim 16,
Boone teaches,
A method for advising a coiled tubing wellbore operation, the method comprising:
inputting coiled tubing drilling operational parameters into the supervisory control system; (Para. [0047] teaches “The controller 190 is also configured to receive electronic signals via wired or wireless transmission means (also not shown in FIG. 1) from a variety of sensors included in the apparatus 100, where each sensor is configured to detect an operational characteristic.” Operational characteristics are viewed as drilling configuration. Para. [0061] teaches “For example, the BHA 310 may be substantially similar to the BHA 170 shown in FIG. 1, the drive system 315 may be substantially similar to the top drive 140 shown in FIG. 1, the drawworks 320 may be substantially similar to the drawworks 130 shown in FIG. 1, and/or the controller 325 may be substantially similar to the controller 190 shown in FIG. 1.” Para. [0071] teaches “The drill string may also take the form of coiled tubing, in which case the movement of the drill string in and out of the hole is controlled by an injector head which grips and pushes/pulls the tubing in/out of the hole. Nonetheless, such embodiments may still include a version of the controller 390, and the controller 390 may still be configured to control feed-out and/or feed-in of the drill string.”
receiving downhole and surface sensor measurements in the supervisory control system, the downhole and surface sensor measurements received from sensors deployed in a coiled tubing subsystem, a bottom hole assembly subsystem, and an underbalanced or managed pressure subsystem; (Para. [0047] teaches “The controller 190 is also configured to receive electronic signals via wired or wireless transmission means (also not shown in FIG. 1) from a variety of sensors included in the apparatus 100, where each sensor is configured to detect an operational characteristic or parameter. One such sensor is the surface casing annular pressure sensor 159 described above. The apparatus 100 may include a downhole annular pressure sensor 170a coupled to or otherwise associated with the BHA 170. The downhole annular pressure sensor 170a may be configured to detect a pressure value or range in the annulus-shaped region defined between the external surface of the BHA 170 and the internal diameter of the wellbore 160, which may also be referred to as the casing pressure, downhole casing pressure, MWD casing pressure, or downhole annular pressure.” Para. [0071] teaches “The drill string may also take the form of coiled tubing, in which case the movement of the drill string in and out of the hole is controlled by an injector head which grips and pushes/pulls the tubing in/out of the hole. Nonetheless, such embodiments may still include a version of the controller 390, and the controller 390 may still be configured to control feed-out and/or feed-in of the drill string.” Para. [0044] teaches “In an exemplary embodiment, the apparatus 100 may also include a rotating blow-out preventer (BOP) 158, such as if the well 160 is being drilled utilizing under-balanced or managed-pressure drilling methods. In such embodiment, the annulus mud and cuttings may be pressurized at the surface, with the actual desired flow and pressure possibly being controlled by a choke system, and the fluid and pressure being retained at the well head and directed down the flow line to the choke by the rotating BOP 158. The apparatus 100 may also include a surface casing annular pressure sensor 159 configured to detect the pressure in the annulus defined between, for example, the wellbore 160 (or casing therein) and the drill string 155.”)
Boone does not explicitly teach,
estimating an underbalanced or managed pressure drilling indicator, a hole cleaning indicator, and a motor performance indicator based on the received downhole and surface sensor measurements;
and evaluating the estimated underbalanced or managed pressure drilling indicator, the estimated hole cleaning indicator, and the estimated motor performance indicator to generate coiled tubing drilling advisories, the generated coiled tubing drilling advisories including supervisory instructions to rig personnel to change at least one of the coiled tubing drilling operational parameters in the coiled tubing subsystem, the bottom hole assembly subsystem, and the underbalanced or managed pressure subsystem to maintain the under balance drilling indicator, the hole cleaning indicator, and the motor performance indicator within corresponding predetermined operating windows.
Samuel teaches,
wherein the evaluating further comprises: estimating an underbalanced or managed pressure drilling indicator, a hole cleaning indicator, and a motor performance indicator based on the received downhole and surface sensor measurements; (Para. [0018] teaches “The optimized UBD operation points may represent the best points to achieve selected well operating conditions, such as, the maximum motor performance, vertical hole cleaning capability, or horizontal hole cleaning capability. The optimized UBD points will have GIR/BHP coordinates, but may have different values from the UBD point determined in step 503.”)
and evaluating the estimated underbalanced or managed pressure drilling indicator, the estimated hole cleaning indicator, and the estimated motor performance indicator to generate coiled tubing drilling advisories, the generated coiled tubing drilling advisories including supervisory instructions to rig personnel to change at least one of the coiled tubing drilling operational parameters in the coiled tubing subsystem, the bottom hole assembly subsystem, and the underbalanced or managed pressure subsystem to maintain the under balance drilling indicator, the hole cleaning indicator, and the motor performance indicator within corresponding predetermined operating windows. (Para. [0020] teaches “Once the optimized parameters are obtained to establish the optimized operating points for achieving the selected well conditions, each of the optimized operating points is displayed on the operation envelope in step 506, such as shown in FIG. 3. This provides the well operator with a visual indication of the current operating point, such as operating point 106, and its location relative to the optimized operation points 108, 109, and 110. This also allows a comparison to be made, in step 507, of the actual and optimized operation points so that operating conditions of the well may be altered, if desired.” Para. [0021] teaches “For example, referring again to FIG. 3, if the well actual operating point is operating point 106, the operator may select to lower the GIR to shift the actual operating point toward optimized operating point 110, so that the horizontal hole cleaning is optimized.” Also, see fig(s). 1 and 3)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Boone with estimating an underbalanced or managed pressure drilling indicator, a hole cleaning indicator, and a motor performance indicator based on the received downhole and surface sensor measurements; and evaluating the estimated underbalanced or managed pressure drilling indicator, the estimated hole cleaning indicator, and the estimated motor performance indicator to generate coiled tubing drilling advisories, the generated coiled tubing drilling advisories including supervisory instructions to rig personnel to change at least one of the coiled tubing drilling operational parameters in the coiled tubing subsystem, the bottom hole assembly subsystem, and the underbalanced or managed pressure subsystem to maintain the under balance drilling indicator, the hole cleaning indicator, and the motor performance indicator within corresponding predetermined operating windows such as that of Samuel.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Boone, because keeping those values within operating windows would ensure the safety and the efficiency of the wellbore operation. Furthermore, Boone further teaches that their well may be drilled using under-balanced or managed-pressure drilling methods and they also teach a range of desired pressures as seen in Para(s). [0044] and [0262].
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boone (US 20220372862 A1) and Samuel (US 20170074085 A1) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view Aarsland (US 11391142 B2).
With respect to claim 17,
Boone does not explicitly teach,
The method of claim 16, wherein the supervisory instructions further comprise instructions to maintain the coiled tubing wellbore operation within standard operating procedures for at least one of a coiled tubing drilling operation, a wiper trip operation, a sidetracking operation, and a tripping operation.
Aarsland teaches,
wherein the supervisory instructions comprise instructions to maintain the coiled tubing wellbore operation within standard operating procedures for at least one of a coiled tubing drilling operation, a wiper trip operation, a sidetracking operation, and a tripping operation. (Col. 4 Ln(s). [15-22]) teaches “For example, coordinated control operations may include the control of downhole pressure during tripping. The downhole pressure may be affected by both the DFC system 214 (e.g., pump rate), the MPDC 213 (e.g., choke position of the MPDC), and the THR system 211 (e.g., tripping speed). Thus, when it is intended to maintain certain downhole pressure during tripping, the central controller 192 may be utilized to direct the appropriate control data to two or more (or each) of the participating subsystems.”)
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 Boone and Samuel wherein the supervisory instructions comprise instructions to maintain the coiled tubing wellbore operation within standard operating procedures for at least one of a coiled tubing drilling operation, a wiper trip operation, a sidetracking operation, and a tripping operation such as that of Aarsland.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify the combination of Boone and Samuel, because if standard operating procedures are not adhered to the system could break or become faulty.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boone (US 20220372862 A1) and Samuel (US 20170074085 A1) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Manocha (US 20240068351 A1).
With respect to claim 18,
Boone does not explicitly teach,
The method of claim 16, wherein the supervisory instructions comprise instructions to address operational anomalies including at least one of a stuck event, a motor stall, a kick, a bridge, and a coiled tubing equipment failure.
Manocha teaches,
wherein the supervisory instructions comprise instructions to address operational anomalies including at least one of a stuck event, a motor stall, a kick, a bridge, and a coiled tubing equipment failure. (Para. [0048] teaches “a fluid kick condition is detected at a certain depth where the fluid kick condition was not anticipated, a pre-planned set of rig tasks can be inserted into the current digital rig plan to manage the unanticipated fluid kick that occurs at a certain depth of the wellbore 15. Additionally, for example, when an equipment failure is detected that directly impacts the execution of the digital well plan, then a pre-planned set of rig tasks can be inserted into the current digital rig plan to manage the unanticipated equipment failure.”)
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 Boone and Samuel, wherein the supervisory instructions comprise instructions to address operational anomalies including at least one of a stuck event, a motor stall, a kick, a bridge, and a coiled tubing equipment failure such as that of Manocha.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify the combination of Boone and Samuel, because the listed operational anomalies can cause the system to fail or to be inefficient. Therefore, it would be obvious to combine the prior art in order to mitigate these issues.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boone (US 20220372862 A1) and Samuel (US 20170074085 A1) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Piccolo (US 20180245411 A1).
With respect to claim 19,
Boone further teaches,
The method of claim 16, further comprising: estimating a flow rate window for maintaining underbalanced drilling conditions based on the received downhole and surface sensor measurements; (Para. [0267] teaches “The mud flow set point input 802h may be a value indicating the maximum, minimum, or nominal desired mud flow rate output by the mud pump. Alternatively, the mud flow set point input 802h may be a range within which it is desired that the mud flow rate be maintained.”
comparing a flow rate with the estimated flow rate window; and generating the coiled tubing drilling advisory, the generated coiled tubing drilling advisory including supervisory instructions to rig personnel to either increase or decrease the flow rate when the flow rate is outside of the estimated flow rate window. (Para. [0305] teaches “The mud pump drive 808p is configured to provide an electrical signal to the mud pump, thereby controlling the flow rate and/or pressure of the mud pump output.” Para. [0341] teaches “if the current bottom hole pressure is greater than the bottom hole pressure setting, then the choke actuation signal 806l may direct the choke actuator 808m to further open, thereby increasing the return flow rate and decreasing the current bottom hole pressure. Similarly, if the current bottom hole pressure is less than the bottom hole pressure setting, then the choke actuation signal 806l may direct the choke actuator 808m to further close, thereby decreasing the return flow rate and increasing the current bottom hole pressure.”)
Boone does not explicitly teach,
A nitrogen flow rate.
Piccolo teaches,
A nitrogen flow rate. (Para. [0058] teaches “Mud is a very broad drilling term, and in this context it is used to describe any fluid or fluid mixture used during drilling and covers a broad spectrum from air, nitrogen, misted fluids in air or nitrogen, foamed fluids with air or nitrogen, aerated or nitrified fluids to heavily weighted mixtures of oil or water with solid particles.” Para. [0139] teaches “If the riser booster pump 32 is operating, the flow check may comprise using a flow meter to measure the rate of flow of fluid along the first and second return line conduits 47, 48. If the measured flow rate is greater than the known flow rate produced by operation of the riser booster pump 32, this indicates that the well is still underbalanced (i.e., the wellbore pressure is below the pore pressure of the formation) and/or there is gas expanding in the wellbore”)
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 Boone and Samuel with a nitrogen flow rate such as that of Piccolo.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify the combination of Boone and Samuel, because Piccolo teaches that the term mud used in Boone is typically used to describe nitrogen containing fluids as seen in Para. [0058]. Furthermore, nitrogen in the mud column can increase fluid compressibility and decrease specific gravity of the mud column as well as have other beneficial effects on the drilling system.
With respect to claim 20,
Boone further teaches,
The method of claim 19, wherein the generated nitrogen advisory comprises supervisory instructions to rig personnel to adjust the at least one of the coiled tubing drilling operational parameters to enable the nitrogen flow rate to be reduced. (Para. [0341] teaches “Then the choke actuation signal 806l may direct the choke actuator 808m to further close, thereby decreasing the return flow rate and increasing the current bottom hole pressure”)
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
/LINA CORDERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
