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 .
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.
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 1-10 are directed to a method (process), claims 11-15 are directed to a computer system (machine) and claims 16-20 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.
Claims 1, 11 and 16 recite the abstract limitations of (or substantially similar to): “identifying the potential offset drilling runs based upon the subject drilling run, wherein the potential offset drilling runs are identified based upon a status of a drilling system component that is used to drill the subject drilling run; determining a score for each of the potential offset drilling runs; ranking the potential offset drilling runs based upon the score of each of the potential offset drilling runs; identifying a subset of the potential offset drilling runs based upon the ranking, wherein the potential offset drilling runs in the subset are most similar to the subject drilling run; performing a plurality of first comparisons of the drilling performance of the subject drilling run against drilling performances of the subset; and selecting one of a plurality of drilling system components used in the subset based at least partially upon the first comparisons.”
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 limitation of “drilling runs”. Claim 11 recites the additional limitations of “drilling run”, “a computer system” and “one or more processors”. Claim 16 recites the additional limitation of “drilling run” and “one or more processors of a computing system”.
The recitation of “drilling run” includes an additional element whose function is recited at a high level of generality and are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Furthermore, the elements of “a computer system” and “one or more processors” mount 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).
As discussed above, the recitation of “drilling run” merely links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technical environment or field of use. Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claim(s) add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Furthermore, as taught by Affinity Labs of Texas v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 120 USPQ2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), additional elements of “cellular telephones” did limit the use of the abstract idea of “providing out-of-region access to regional broadcast content”, however the court explained that this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (cellular telephones) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims.
Regarding the recitation of a “processor” and “computing system”, these elements merely amount to “apply it.” The “processor” and “computing system’ contain 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.
Claims 2-10, 12-15, 17 and 18 are further directed to abstract ideas. Nothing in the claims precludes the limitations from practically being performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. Therefore, similar to claims 1, 11 and 16, these claims do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, and are not significantly more.
Claim 19 recites limitations which are directed to “apply it” because the claim contains mere instructions to implement an abstract idea which is analogous to “A method of assigning hair designs to balance head shape with a final step of using a tool (scissors) to cut the hair”. See In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016) as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Therefore, similar to claim 16, this claim does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, and is not significantly more.
Claim 20 recites “generating or transmitting a signal that instructs or cause a next drilling run to be performed using the selected drilling system component” which is well-understood, routine and conventional because this step merely requires transmission of data and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362. Therefore, similar to claim 16, this claim does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, and is not significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12 and 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites “about 2 hours if the drill bit comprises a polycrystalline diamond cutter (PDC), and/or wherein the predetermined amount of time is about 7 hours” and the term “about” is unclear because the claim and/or the disclosure has not defined what the term “about” entails. The disclosure has not specified what quantitative values are within the threshold of “about”. Is “about” +/- 5 or +/- 0.05? one of ordinary skill in the art would not know what quantitative values are defined by the term “about”. As such, the metes and bounds of this limitation is unclear which renders the claim indefinite.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites limitations such as “wherein a value of the geographic distance is from about 20% to about 40% of a total weight; a difference between a depth of the subject drilling run and the potential offset drilling runs, wherein a value of the difference is from about 10% to about 20% of the total weight…” and the term “about” is unclear because the claim and/or the disclosure has not defined what the term “about” entails. The disclosure has not specified what quantitative values are within the threshold of “about”. Is “about” +/- 5 or +/- 0.05? one of ordinary skill in the art would not know what quantitative values are defined by the term “about”. As such, the metes and bounds of this limitation is unclear which renders the claim indefinite.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6 10, 11, 16, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Benson et al.(U.S. Publication No. 20240362724 ).
Regarding claim 1, Benson teaches a method for selecting potential offset drilling runs to automatically evaluate a drilling performance of a subject drilling run, the method comprising:
identifying the potential offset drilling runs based upon the subject drilling run (paths 108, 110, 112, 114, 116, and 118 illustrate possible convergence paths from a point 106 representing a current or future bottom hole assembly (BHA) location to the target path 104; pp[0017]), wherein the potential offset drilling runs are identified based upon a status of a drilling system component that is used to drill the subject drilling run (the paths are selected based on the current or future location of the BHA; pp[0017]);
determining a score for each of the potential offset drilling runs (after the paths 108, 110, 112, 114, 116, and 118 are calculated, each path may be assigned a cost; pp[0018]);
ranking the potential offset drilling runs based upon the score of each of the potential offset drilling runs (each path may be assigned a cost and then evaluated based on that cost relative to the costs of the other paths to determined which path has the lowest cost; pp[0018],[0039], Fig. 3);
identifying a subset of the potential offset drilling runs based upon the ranking, wherein the potential offset drilling runs in the subset are most similar to the subject drilling run (paths 108, 110, 112, 114, 116, and 118 illustrate possible convergence paths from a point 10; pp[0017]);
performing a plurality of first comparisons of the drilling performance of the subject drilling run against drilling performances of the subset (some paths may go in the wrong direction at some point and yet still converge. These paths can be eliminated as they are not likely to be the lowest cost solution; pp[0035]); and
selecting one of a plurality of drilling system components used in the subset based at least partially upon the first comparisons (implicit as the BHA selected for existing well will used for the selected convergent path from the plurality of paths 108, 110, 112, 114, 116, and 118; pp[0017]).
Regarding claim 11, Benson teaches a computing system, comprising: one or more processors; and a memory system comprising one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by at least one of the one or more processors, cause the computing system to perform operations (computer system 250 may use any operating system. The operating system, as well as other instructions may be stored in the memory unit 254 and executed by the processor 252. The memory unit 254 may include instructions for performing the various methods and control functions disclosed herein; pp[0029], the operations comprising:
identifying the potential offset drilling runs based upon the subject drilling run (paths 108, 110, 112, 114, 116, and 118 illustrate possible convergence paths from a point 106 representing a current or future bottom hole assembly (BHA) location to the target path 104; pp[0017]), wherein the potential offset drilling runs are identified based upon a status of a drilling system component that is used to drill the subject drilling run (the paths are selected based on the current or future location of the BHA; pp[0017]);
determining a score for each of the potential offset drilling runs (after the paths 108, 110, 112, 114, 116, and 118 are calculated, each path may be assigned a cost; pp[0018]);
ranking the potential offset drilling runs based upon the score of each of the potential offset drilling runs (each path may be assigned a cost and then evaluated based on that cost relative to the costs of the other paths to determined which path has the lowest cost; pp[0018],[0039], Fig. 3);
identifying a subset of the potential offset drilling runs based upon the ranking, wherein the potential offset drilling runs in the subset are most similar to the subject drilling run (paths 108, 110, 112, 114, 116, and 118 illustrate possible convergence paths from a point 10; pp[0017]);
performing a plurality of first comparisons of the drilling performance of the subject drilling run against drilling performances of the subset (some paths may go in the wrong direction at some point and yet still converge. These paths can be eliminated as they are not likely to be the lowest cost solution; pp[0035]); and
selecting one of a plurality of drilling system components used in the subset based at least partially upon the first comparisons (implicit as the BHA selected for existing well will used for the selected convergent path from the plurality of paths 108, 110, 112, 114, 116, and 118; pp[0017]).
Regarding clam 16, Benson teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a computing system, cause the computing system to perform operations (the CPU 252 may actually represent a multi-processor or a distributed processing system; the memory unit 254 may include different levels of cache memory, main memory, hard disks, and remote storage locations; pp[0028], The memory unit 254 may include instructions for performing the various methods and control functions disclosed herein; pp[0029]), the operations comprising:
identifying the potential offset drilling runs based upon the subject drilling run (paths 108, 110, 112, 114, 116, and 118 illustrate possible convergence paths from a point 106 representing a current or future bottom hole assembly (BHA) location to the target path 104; pp[0017]), wherein the potential offset drilling runs are identified based upon a status of a drilling system component that is used to drill the subject drilling run (the paths are selected based on the current or future location of the BHA; pp[0017]);
determining a score for each of the potential offset drilling runs (after the paths 108, 110, 112, 114, 116, and 118 are calculated, each path may be assigned a cost; pp[0018]);
ranking the potential offset drilling runs based upon the score of each of the potential offset drilling runs (each path may be assigned a cost and then evaluated based on that cost relative to the costs of the other paths to determined which path has the lowest cost; pp[0018],[0039], Fig. 3);
identifying a subset of the potential offset drilling runs based upon the ranking, wherein the potential offset drilling runs in the subset are most similar to the subject drilling run (paths 108, 110, 112, 114, 116, and 118 illustrate possible convergence paths from a point 10; pp[0017]);
performing a plurality of first comparisons of the drilling performance of the subject drilling run against drilling performances of the subset (some paths may go in the wrong direction at some point and yet still converge. These paths can be eliminated as they are not likely to be the lowest cost solution; pp[0035]); and
selecting one of a plurality of drilling system components used in the subset based at least partially upon the first comparisons (implicit as the BHA selected for existing well will used for the selected convergent path from the plurality of paths 108, 110, 112, 114, 116, and 118; pp[0017]).
Regarding claims 2, Benson teaches further comprising determining that the subject drilling run is valid by: determining that the subject drilling run has drilled footage on a bit record from a well with a known geographic location (this is implicit because the current BHA 220, which includes the drill bit 218, location is known. As such, the bit has drilled footage; pp[0017], [0033]); and determining the status of the drilling system component, wherein the drilling system component comprises a drill bit, a cutter for the drill bit, a drive system, a rotary steerable system (RSS), a motor, a drilling fluid, or a combination thereof (Current BHA information such as location, trajectory, ROP, and other information may also be obtained so that a convergence plan can be calculated to realign the BHA with the target path 104; pp[0033]).
Regarding claim 3, Benson teaches wherein the potential offset drilling runs are identified based upon a determination that: the drilling system components used to drill the potential offset drilling runs are in a same family as the drilling system component used to drill the subject drilling run (the selected path from the plurality of paths 108, 110, 112, 114, 116, and 118 will be drilled using the same BHA 220 used to arrive to the current location of the BHA 220; pp[0031], Fig. 3) ; the potential offset drilling runs are within a predetermined geographical distance of the subject drilling run (The paths 108, 110, 112, 114, 116, and 118 offer various alternatives, each with different curvature, length, offset from the target path 104; Fig. 1, pp[0018]); and the potential offset drilling runs have a starting depth within a predetermined depth of the subject drilling run (108, 110, 112, 114, 116, and 118 have a starting depth within a predetermined depth of the current location of the BHA 220. With this information, the distance to the target 104 for each path is calculated; Fig. 1,pp[0017] , [0018]).
Regarding claim 6, Benson teaches wherein the first comparisons are of the drilling performance of the drilling system component used in the subject drilling run against the drilling performances of the drilling system components used in the subset, and wherein the first comparisons comprise: a distance drilled versus an average rate of penetration (ROP); a bit dull grade; a percentage of drilled footage spent steering the drill bit; or non-productive time ( the geometric paths are pruned to remove illogical options. For example, while geometrically possible, some paths may go in the wrong direction at some point and yet still converge, i.e. “non-productive time” during the periods where the paths are going in the wrong direction; pp[0035]).
Regarding claim 10, Benson teaches further comprising performing a wellsite action using the selected drilling system component, wherein performing the wellsite action comprises drilling a next drilling run using the selected drilling system component (the selected path is output and the output may be used to provide drilling instructions for directing the BHA back to the target path; pp[0039]).
Regarding claim 19, Benson teaches wherein the operations further comprise performing a wellsite action using the selected drilling system component (the selected path is output and the output may be used to provide drilling instructions for directing the BHA back to the target path; pp[0039]).
Regarding claim 20, Benson teaches wherein the wellsite action comprises generating or transmitting a signal that instructs or causes a next drilling run to be performed using the selected drilling system component ( the controller device is adapted to provide control signals to one or more control systems of the drilling rig to drill the wellbore in accordance with the selected one of the plurality of geometric convergence paths; Claim 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, 7-9, 12-15, 17 and 18 are not allowed due to the rejections discussed above; however these claims have not been rejected under prior art as no prior art were found to teach these claims.
Conclusion
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