DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection of claims 1, 10 and 19 has been considered but is not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, the Applicant argues the limitations claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea because the claim “The limitations define a system that processes measurement data obtained from different physical locations along a drill string and evaluates whether a detected event corresponds to an actual downhole condition. The claim therefore recites operations carried out within a physical drilling system using multiple measurement sources. The recited operations involve processing of measurement data obtained from sensors during drilling and evaluating relationships between those measurements. Moreover, event probabilities must be timely determined to enable practical response. Such operations are not reasonably performed as a mental process. Accordingly, claim 1 does not recite a mental process.”
The Examiner disagrees with the above arguments. The steps of “detect an event in the wellbore based on a first set of measurement values received from the first sensor; detect the event in the wellbore based on a second set of measurement values received from the second sensor; and assign a probability value to the event based on the event as …” are abstract concepts because a person perform these steps in the mind. An operator can view recorded measurement values and use their understanding of the data to mentally determine/detect if a particular event is occurring in the wellbore. Furthermore, “assign a probability value” can also be performed in the mind because the operator can mentally assign a probability of the event occurring using the measurement data. The Applicant points to “a physical drilling system using multiple measurement sources” but the very generic recitation of “measurement sources” in the claim does not take the claim out of the mental process grouping because the “measure sources”, such as “first sensor” and “second sensor” merely amount to data gathering. CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
The Applicant further argues “The probability value is determined based on multiple measurement sets obtained from sensors located along the drill string. The
determination depends on relationships between measurements obtained at different locations along the drill string, including how the same event is reflected in those different measurement sets. The claim therefore applies any alleged abstract concept in the context of processing measurements from a physical system to evaluate an actual downhole condition. The determination is based on comparison of multiple measurement sets obtained from different sensors, rather than analysis of a single stream of data in isolation.
”
Again, the recitation of “a first set of measurement values received from the first sensor” and “a second set of measurement values received from the second sensor” does not take the claim out of the mental process grouping because the “measure sources”, such as “first sensor” and “second sensor” merely amount to data gathering. A human can form comparisons of data in the mind by viewing the measurement sets. The incorporation of generic sensors that are obtaining generic measurements does not integrate the abstract concepts of “detect an event in the wellbore based on a first set of measurement values received from the first sensor; detect the event in the wellbore based on a second set of measurement values received from the second sensor; and assign a probability value…” into a practical application.
The Applicant argues “The claim requires detecting the same event based on multiple sets of measurements received from different sensors and assigning a probability value based on how those detections relate. The sensors are not incidental inputs. The use of multiple sensors distributed along the drill string enables detection of the same event based on different measurement sets”.
Again, the recitation of generic sensors does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The requirement of “sets of measurements received from different sensors…” and “use of multiple sensors distributed along the drill string” is merely data
gathering. This use of sensors does not provide a physical improvement to the state of the art of drilling. The claim fails to recite any physical transformation/improvement to the drilling
system, e.g. using the abstract idea to adjust a drilling parameter such as changing the trajectory of the drill bit or increasing/ decreasing WOB.
The Applicant further argues “Dependent claim 8 recites halting drilling based on the event being identified as real. While not a limitation of claim 1, this claim indicates that the event determination is used within a drilling operation.”
The claim does not actually require that the drilling IS halted, just that it’s capable of being halted. Therefore, this claim does not result in a physical transformation to the drilling system.
For at least the above reasons, the rejection to claims 1-24 will be maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 1 have been considered but are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues “Tang does not disclose detecting the same event based on separate measurement sets corresponding to different sensors. In Tang, sensor measurements contribute to a unified analysis used to evaluate overall
drilling conditions, rather than serving as distinct bases for detecting the same event in separate measurement sets prior to probability assignment.”
The Examiner disagrees with the above arguments. Tang clearly teaches multiple sensors 110 and each sensor will provide its own measurements. The claim merely requires that “detect an event in the wellbore based on a first set of measurement values received from the first sensor; detect the event in the wellbore based on a second set of measurement values” which, at most, requires both first and second sets of measurement values to detect the same event. Tang very clearly teaches this because Tang’s the measurement sets from the sensors 110 are also used to detect the same kick event (pp[[0042], [0046], [0066]). There’s nothing in the claim that prevents “a unified analysis” because claim 1 is performing the same analysis using the first and second sets of measurement values.
The Applicant further argues “Tang does not disclose assigning a probability to a specific detected event based on how that event is reflected in multiple measurement sets obtained from different sensors.”.
The Examiner disagrees. Tang clearly discloses that the “assigning a probably to a specific detected” is determined using real-time drilling data which is the very first step 201. The drilling data is gathered via sensors 110 which continuously monitor one or more drilling parameters (pp[0041]). Therefore, Tang cannot perform the step of “probability of an abnormal condition is determined” at step 210 and kick at step 212 without the step of 210 of receiving real-time drilling data. As such, Tan very clearly discloses the limitation of “assign a probability value to the event based on the event as detected in the first set of measurement values and the event as detected in the second set of measurement values” as shown in Fig. 7.
The Applicant further argues “Tang's probability determination is based on relationships among trend indicators and thresholds, not on comparison or reconciliation of detections of the same event across multiple sensor-specific datasets.”
The claim does not require any sort of comparison or reconciliation of detections of the same event across multiple sensor-specific datasets. Even if the claim did, Tang teaches this by way of setting thresholds because when a trend analysis indicates that a threshold has been reached or exceeded an alarm may be triggered (pp[0022], [0034]). This disclosure suggests a comparison with the set threshold.
For at least the above reasons, the rejection to claim 1 will be maintained. The rejection to claims 10 and 19 will also be maintained for similar reasons as claim 1.
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 1-24 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 USPTO’s eligibility analysis 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 1-9 are directed to a drilling system (machine), claims 10-18 are directed to a method (process) and claims 19-24 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium (machine). 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 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance is a two prong inquiry. In Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Claim 1 recites the abstract limitations including: “detect an event in the wellbore based on a first set of measurement values received from the first sensor; detect the event in the wellbore based on a second set of measurement values received from the second sensor; and assign a probability value to the event based on the event as detected in the first set of measurement values and the event as detected in the second set of measurement values.”. Claim 10 recites the abstract limitations including: “detecting, by surface equipment, an event in the wellbore based on a first set of measurements provided by the first sensor; detecting, by surface equipment, the event in the wellbore based on a second set of measurements provided by the second sensor; and assigning, by surface equipment, a probability value to the event based on the event as detected in the first set of measurement values and the event as detected in the second set of measurement values.” Claim 10 recites the abstract limitations of “detecting, by surface equipment, an event in the wellbore based on a first set of measurements provided by the first sensor; detecting, by surface equipment, the event in the wellbore based on a second set of measurements provided by the second sensor; and assigning, by surface equipment, a probability value to the event based on the event as detected in the first set of measurement values and the event as detected in the second set of measurement values.” Claim 19 recites the abstract limitations of “detect an event in the wellbore based on the first set of measurement values received from the first sensor; detect the event in the wellbore based on the second set of measurement values received from the second sensor; detect the event in the wellbore based on the third set of measurement values received from the second sensor; assign a probability value to the event based on the event as detected in the first set of measurement values and the event as detected in the second set of measurement values; and update the probability value assigned to the event based on the event as detected in the third set of measurement values.”
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable
interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind, or by a human using pen and
paper, and therefore recite mental processes. The mere recitation of generic computing elements does not take the claim out of the mental process grouping. Mental processes cover concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) as well as decision-making steps which encompasses the limitations listed above. The claims do not require any action as currently worded. Thus, the claims recite abstract ideas.
If the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea enumerated in Section I of
the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, a law of nature, or a natural
phenomenon), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two. In 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 sensor array having first and second sensors distributed along a length of the drill string, the first and second sensors configured to: measure a parameter of a wellbore; and transmit measurement values representative of the parameter to the surface equipment.” Claim 10 recites the additional limitation of “measuring a parameter of a wellbore using a first sensor of a drill string; measuring the parameter of the wellbore using a second sensor of the drill string; detecting, by surface equipment, an event in the wellbore based on a first set of measurements provided by the first sensor.” Claim 19 recites the additional elements of “a processor” and “receive a first set measurement values representative of a parameter of a wellbore measured by a first sensor of a drill string; receive a second set of measurement values representative of the parameter of the wellbore measured by a second sensor of the drill string.”
The recitation of “a sensor array having first and second sensors distributed along a length of the drill string, the first and second sensors configured to: measure a parameter of a wellbore; and transmit measurement values representative of the parameter to the surface equipment.”, “measuring a parameter of a wellbore using a first sensor of a drill string; measuring the parameter of the wellbore using a second sensor of the drill string; detecting, by surface equipment, an event in the wellbore based on a first set of measurements provided by the first sensor.”, “a processor” and “receive a first set measurement values representative of a parameter of a wellbore measured by a first sensor of a drill string; receive a second set of measurement values representative of the parameter of the wellbore measured by a second sensor of the drill string.” amount to insignificant extra-solution activity.
Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into practical applications because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas.
If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, 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).
The recitation of a sensor array having first and second sensors distributed along a length of the drill string, the first and second sensors configured to: measure a parameter of a wellbore; and transmit measurement values representative of the parameter to the surface equipment.”, “measuring a parameter of a wellbore using a first sensor of a drill string; measuring the parameter of the wellbore using a second sensor of the drill string; detecting, by surface equipment, an event in the wellbore based on a first set of measurements provided by the first sensor.” and “receive a first set measurement values representative of a parameter of a wellbore measured by a first sensor of a drill string; receive a second set of measurement values representative of the parameter of the wellbore measured by a second sensor of the drill string.” amounts to mere data gathering because this step uses sensors to measure data to perform the abstract idea. As such, this additional element does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Regarding the recitation of a “processor”, this element merely amounts to “apply it.” The “processor” contains mere instructions to implement the abstract ideas on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984.
Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add
significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
Claim 2 recites the additional limitation of “a third sensor” and ” measure the parameter of the wellbore; and transmit a third set of measurement values representative of the parameter to the surface equipment” which mounts to mere data gathering because this step uses sensors to measure data to perform the abstract idea. As such, this additional element does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Furthermore, the recitation of “detect the event in the wellbore based on the third set of measurement values received from the third sensor; and update the probability value assigned to the event based on the event as detected in the third set of measurement values.” Is an additional element because nothing in the claim precludes the aforementioned limitation from practically being performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. Therefore, similar to claim 1, these recitations do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, and is not significantly more.
Claims 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 recite limitations which further recite abstract ideas. Nothing in the claims preclude the limitations recited from practically being performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. Therefore, similar to claim 1, these recitations do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, and is not significantly more.
Claim 8 recites the limitation of “surface equipment is configured to halt drilling based on the event being identified as real” which merely amounts to “apply it” because this step contains mere instructions to implement the abstract ideas on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984. Therefore, similar to claim 1, these recitations do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, and is not significantly more.
Claim 11 recites “measuring the parameter of the wellbore using a third sensor of the drill string; detecting, by surface equipment, the event in the wellbore based on a third set of measurements provided by the third sensor” which mounts to mere data gathering because this step uses sensors to measure data to perform the abstract idea. As such, this additional element does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Furthermore, the recitation of “updating, by surface equipment, the probability value assigned to the event based on the event as detected in the third set of measurement values.” is an additional element because nothing in the claim precludes the aforementioned limitation from practically being performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. Therefore, similar to claim 10, these recitations do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, and is not significantly more.
Claims 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 18 recite limitations which further recite abstract ideas. Nothing in the claims preclude the limitations recited from practically being performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. Therefore, similar to claim 10, these recitations do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, and is not significantly more.
Claim 17 recites the limitation of “halting drilling responsive to the event being identified as real” which merely amounts to “apply it” because this step contains mere instructions to implement the abstract ideas on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984. Therefore, similar to claim 10, these recitations do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, and is not significantly more.
Claims 20, 21, 23 and 24 recite limitations which further recite abstract ideas. Nothing in the claims preclude the limitations recited from practically being performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. Therefore, similar to claim 19, these recitations do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, and is not significantly more.
Claim 23 recites the limitation of “halting drilling responsive to the event being identified as real” which merely amounts to “apply it” because this step contains mere instructions to implement the abstract ideas on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984. Therefore, similar to claim 19, these recitations do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, and is not significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7, 8, 10-12, 16, 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tang et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20200302353).
Regarding claim 1, Tang teaches a drilling system (drilling system as shown in Fig. 6) comprising:
a drill string (8;pp[0040]) and surface equipment (100) coupled to the drill string (8), in which:
the drill string (8) includes:
a sensor array (sensors 110) having first and second sensors (first and second 110 on logging tool 26; pp[0041]) distributed along a length of the drill string (8), the first and second sensors configured to:
measure a parameter of a wellbore (one or more sensors 110 may continuously monitor one or more drilling parameters; pp[0041]); and
transmit measurement values representative of the parameter to the surface equipment (one or more sensors 110 may continuously monitor one or more drilling parameters, one or more formation conditions, any other downhole parameter or condition or any combination thereof and may transmit corresponding information or data to a surface detector such as the surface transceiver 30, a logging facility 120, an information handling system 130 or any other data collection device; pp[0041]); and
the surface equipment is configured to:
detect an event in the wellbore based on a first set of measurement values received from the first sensor; detect the event in the wellbore based on a second set of measurement values received from the second sensor (the drilling parameters gathering from the sensors 110 are used to detect kick; pp[0042], [0046], [0066], Fig. 7, 8); and
assign a probability value to the event based on the event as detected in the first set of measurement values and the event as detected in the second set of measurement values (At block 212, it is determined if a kick has been detected or meets a threshold likelihood of occurrence based on the determined probability of an abnormal condition from block 210, for example, based on KRI. For example, a probability close to zero may mean or be indicative of a very low chance of kick whereas a probability close to one may mean or be indicative of a kick that is very likely to occur or is occurring; pp[0060], [0066]).
Regarding claim 2, Tang teaches wherein the drill string includes a third sensor (110 on 120; Fig. 6) configured to: measure the parameter of the wellbore (sensors 110 may continuously monitor one or more drilling parameters; pp[0041]); and transmit a third set of measurement values representative of the parameter to the surface equipment ( This is implicit because all of the sensors 110 transmit corresponding information or data to a surface detector; pp[0041]); the surface equipment is configured to: detect the event in the wellbore based on the third set of measurement values received from the third sensor (the drilling parameters gathering from the sensors 110 are used to detect kick; pp[0042], [0046], Fig. 7); and update the probability value assigned to the event based on the event as detected in the third set of measurement values (one or more sensors 110 may continuously monitor one or more drilling parameters, one or more formation conditions, any other downhole parameter or condition or any combination thereof and may transmit corresponding information or data to a surface detector. If the kick is not detected at block 212, the method 200 is exited, and a next set of drilling data for a subsequent time period is read. The subsequent time period of the next set of drilling data may be in close temporal proximity to the time in which the method 200 is occurring; pp[0062]).
Regarding claim 3, Tang teaches wherein the surface equipment is configured to generate smoothed measurement values by partitioning the measurement values into overlapping or non-overlapping segments (the real-time trend is defined. Second, one or more smoothing techniques, probability analysis or both are applied to account for the local abnormal trends resulting from fluctuations and outliers in real world data; pp[0021]) and assigning a slope value to each of the segments, the slope value representing the slope of a line fit to the measurement values of a segment (The second indicator is the slope or is indicative of the slope of a moving linear regression, MK.sub.t. The value of MK.sub.t directly represents one or more local trends of the real-time data, with positive values representing positive trends and negative values representing negative trend or rather a positive value for MK.sub.t indicates a positive trend while a negative value for MK.sub.t represents a negative trend; pp[0053]).
Regarding claim 7, Tang teaches wherein the surface equipment is configured to identify the event as being real based on the probability value exceeding a threshold (To determine a probability of the occurrence of an abnormal condition an alarm threshold may be set, for example, a DMA alarm threshold. The DMA alarm threshold in FIG. 2 provides an upper limit such that when an increasing DMA trend exceeds or reaches the DMA alarm threshold a kick alarm is triggered and the alarm threshold in FIG. 3 provides a lower limit such that when a decreasing DMAK trend falls below or reaches a DMAK alarm threshold a kick alarm is triggered; pp[0058]).
Regarding claim 8, Tang teaches wherein the surface equipment is configured to halt drilling based on the event being identified as real (To determine a probability of the occurrence of an abnormal condition an alarm threshold may be set, for example, a DMA alarm threshold. The DMA alarm threshold in FIG. 2 provides an upper limit such that when an increasing DMA trend exceeds or reaches the DMA alarm threshold a kick alarm is triggered and the alarm threshold in FIG. 3 provides a lower limit such that when a decreasing DMAK trend falls below or reaches a DMAK alarm threshold a kick alarm is triggered; pp[0061]).
Regarding claim 10, Tang teaches a method for downhole event detection comprising:
measuring a parameter of a wellbore using a first sensor of a drill string;
measuring the parameter of the wellbore using a second sensor of the drill string (first and second sensors 110 on logging tool 26 that ids distributed along length of drill string 8. One or more sensors 110 may continuously monitor one or more drilling parameters; ; Fig. 6, pp[0041]);
detecting, by surface equipment, an event in the wellbore based on a first set of measurements provided by the first sensor; detecting, by surface equipment, the event in the wellbore based on a second set of measurements provided by the second sensor (the drilling parameters gathering from the sensors 110 are used to detect kick; pp[0042], [0046], [0066], Fig. 7, 8); and
assigning, by surface equipment, a probability value to the event based on the event as detected in the first set of measurement values and the event as detected in the second set of measurement values (At block 212, it is determined if a kick has been detected or meets a threshold likelihood of occurrence based on the determined probability of an abnormal condition from block 210, for example, based on KRI. For example, a probability close to zero may mean or be indicative of a very low chance of kick whereas a probability close to one may mean or be indicative of a kick that is very likely to occur or is occurring; pp[0060], [0066]).
Regarding claim 11, Tang teaches further comprising:
measuring the parameter of the wellbore using a third sensor of the drill string; detecting, by surface equipment, the event in the wellbore based on a third set (110 on 120; Fig. 6) of measurements provided by the third sensor (sensors 110 may continuously monitor one or more drilling parameters. The drilling parameters gathering from the sensors 110 are used to detect kick; Fig. 7; pp[0041], [0042], [0046]); and updating, by surface equipment, the probability value assigned to the event based on the event as detected in the third set of measurement values (one or more sensors 110 may continuously monitor one or more drilling parameters, one or more formation conditions, any other downhole parameter or condition or any combination thereof and may transmit corresponding information or data to a surface detector. If the kick is not detected at block 212, the method 200 is exited, and a next set of drilling data for a subsequent time period is read. The subsequent time period of the next set of drilling data may be in close temporal proximity to the time in which the method 200 is occurring; pp[0062])..
Regarding claim 12, Tang teaches further comprising generating, by the surface equipment, smoothed measurement values by partitioning the measurement values into segments (the real-time trend is defined. Second, one or more smoothing techniques, probability analysis or both are applied to account for the local abnormal trends resulting from fluctuations and outliers in real world data; pp[0021]) and assigning a slope value to each of the segments, the slope value representing the slope of a line fit to the measurement values of the segment (The second indicator is the slope or is indicative of the slope of a moving linear regression, MK.sub.t. The value of MK.sub.t directly represents one or more local trends of the real-time data, with positive values representing positive trends and negative values representing negative trend or rather a positive value for MK.sub.t indicates a positive trend while a negative value for MK.sub.t represents a negative trend; pp[0053]).
Regarding claim 16, Tang teaches further comprising identifying, by the surface equipment, the event as being real based on the probability value exceeding a threshold (To determine a probability of the occurrence of an abnormal condition an alarm threshold may be set, for example, a DMA alarm threshold. The DMA alarm threshold in FIG. 2 provides an upper limit such that when an increasing DMA trend exceeds or reaches the DMA alarm threshold a kick alarm is triggered and the alarm threshold in FIG. 3 provides a lower limit such that when a decreasing DMAK trend falls below or reaches a DMAK alarm threshold a kick alarm is triggered; pp[0058]).
Regarding claim 17, Tang teaches further comprising halting drilling responsive to the event being identified as real (To determine a probability of the occurrence of an abnormal condition an alarm threshold may be set, for example, a DMA alarm threshold. The DMA alarm threshold in FIG. 2 provides an upper limit such that when an increasing DMA trend exceeds or reaches the DMA alarm threshold a kick alarm is triggered and the alarm threshold in FIG. 3 provides a lower limit such that when a decreasing DMAK trend falls below or reaches a DMAK alarm threshold a kick alarm is triggered; pp[0061]).
Regarding claim 19, Tang teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium encoded with instructions that when executed cause a processor to (pp[0036], [0038], Fig. 5):
receive a first set measurement values representative of a parameter of a wellbore measured by a first sensor of a drill string; receive a second set of measurement values representative of the parameter of the wellbore measured by a second sensor of the drill string (first and second sensors 110 on logging tool 26 that ids distributed along length of drill string 8. One or more sensors 110 may continuously monitor one or more drilling parameters; ; Fig. 6, pp[0041]);
receive a third set of measurement values representative of the parameter of the wellbore measured by a third sensor of the drill string (110 on 120; Fig. 6, pp[0041]);
detect an event in the wellbore based on the first set of measurement values received from the first sensor; detect the event in the wellbore based on the second set of measurement values received from the second sensor; detect the event in the wellbore based on the third set of measurement values received from the second sensor (the drilling parameters gathering from the sensors 110 are used to detect kick; pp[0042], [0046], Fig. 7);
assign a probability value to the event based on the event as detected in the first set of measurement values and the event as detected in the second set of measurement values (At block 212, it is determined if a kick has been detected or meets a threshold likelihood of occurrence based on the determined probability of an abnormal condition from block 210, for example, based on KRI. For example, a probability close to zero may mean or be indicative of a very low chance of kick whereas a probability close to one may mean or be indicative of a kick that is very likely to occur or is occurring; pp[0060], [0066]); and update the probability value assigned to the event based on the event as detected in the third set of measurement values (one or more sensors 110 may continuously monitor one or more drilling parameters, one or more formation conditions, any other downhole parameter or condition or any combination thereof and may transmit corresponding information or data to a surface detector. If the kick is not detected at block 212, the method 200 is exited, and a next set of drilling data for a subsequent time period is read. The subsequent time period of the next set of drilling data may be in close temporal proximity to the time in which the method 200 is occurring; pp[0062]).
Regarding claim 20, Tang teaches wherein the instructions when executed cause the processor to generate smoothed measurement values by partitioning the measurement values into segments (the real-time trend is defined. Second, one or more smoothing techniques, probability analysis or both are applied to account for the local abnormal trends resulting from fluctuations and outliers in real world data; pp[0021]) and assigning a slope value to each of the segments, the slope value representing the slope of a line fit to the measurement values of a segment The second indicator is the slope or is indicative of the slope of a moving linear regression, MK.sub.t. The value of MK.sub.t directly represents one or more local trends of the real-time data, with positive values representing positive trends and negative values representing negative trend or rather a positive value for MK.sub.t indicates a positive trend while a negative value for MK.sub.t represents a negative trend; pp[0053]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 9, 18 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20200302353) in view of Coates et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20120298421).
Regarding claims 9, 18 and 24, Tang is silent regarding based on the event being identified as real:
determine a location of a fluid influx in the wellbore; and determine a time at which the fluid influx will reach a target location.
Tang does disclose early kick detection using real-time data in order to reduce risk of a blow-out (pp[0043],[0046] but does not specify locating where the kick is occurring which forces the reader to look elsewhere for such teachings.
Coates, drawn to detecting influx in a wellbore, discloses determine a location of a fluid influx in the wellbore; and determine a time at which the fluid influx will reach a target location (By monitoring the travel time(s) of the pulse(s) between sensors 136 and/or the amplitude(s) of the pulse(s) as it(they) moves between sensors 136, an influx of gas into the borehole can be detected and/or located. For instance, the monitored travel times of the one or more pulses may reveal that a change in the acoustic velocity of the drilling fluid has occurred and that the magnitude of this change is indicative of the presence of gas circulating in the drilling fluid 116; pp[0042]).
Therefore, 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 sensor assembly of Tang such that it includes the acoustic sensors of Coates along the drill string, with a reasonable expectation of success, as this will allow the location of the influx to be determined within the wellbore (pp[0042]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6, 13-15 and 21-23 are not allowed due to the rejection under 35 USC § 101 above; however, the claims have not been given art rejections as no prior are were found to read on these claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lamia Quaim whose telephone number is (469)295-9199. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10AM - 6PM CST.
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, Tara Schimpf can be reached at (571) 270-7741. 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.
/LAMIA QUAIM/Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights