DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
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 15–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Said claims disclose limitations that implicate abstract ideas, specifically mental processes. MPEP 2106.04(a). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims include actions taken by a human controller of a drilling rig, such as manipulating a camera based on an activity, determining actions based on images, comparing results, and detecting activity on a rig. Because these actions of human activity represent mental processes or human activity Step 2A Prong One is met. Under Step 2A Prong Two, the claims must recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Examiner finds there is no particular improvement beyond merely applying the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, i.e. a drilling rig, and further finds a lack of specificity regarding how to make the claimed determinations, comparisons, manipulations, and detections made by a human operator significant under Parker v. Flook. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(I). Importantly, other than a camera and a rig controller, there are no additional elements that help advance the abstract idea to a practical application beyond merely applying it. The prior art drilling rig’s doghouse having windows through which an operator can view equipment and drill rig activity is not improved by putting a camera in the window rather relying on a person’s eyes or judgement to make the determinations, comparisons, detections, and manipulations of field of view. Likewise, the use of cameras to get a view of the surroundings of the rig is mere extra-solution activity that is a necessary precursor to viewing the activities of the drill rig but does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. For all the foregoing reasons, the claims recite nothing more than an abstract idea. Examiner suggests more detail regarding how the steps are performed or results accomplished and how those actions or outcomes represent a technological improvement could help overcome the finding of a lack of a practical application.
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1–13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savanna Energy, “Savanna Velox Triple Drilling Rig Animation,” available and accessed on 3/9/2026 at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDy1qUDQA_8, June 30, 2014 (herein “Savanna”) and Dunn (US 2024/0005711 A1).
Regarding claim 1, the combination of Savanna and Dunn teaches or suggests a driller's cabin that supports conducting subterranean operations comprising: a structure on a rig floor of a rig that separates an interior space from an exterior space, wherein the interior space is configured to support an operator that controls one or more rig operations from within the interior space, and wherein the structure comprises an outer surface (Examiner interprets this limitation as a drill rig’s “doghouse” or control cabin, etc.; Savanna, 3:25: teaches a doghouse (i.e. control cabin) with windows); a window disposed in the outer surface, wherein the window allows imagery signals to pass through the window between the exterior space and the interior space (Examiner notes drilling rig doghouses are known to have windows; Savanna, 3:25: teaches a doghouse (i.e. control cabin) with windows); and a camera system positioned in the interior space and aligned with the window, wherein the camera system comprises a camera, and wherein a field of view of the camera views a first portion of the rig through the window (While Savanna discloses external camera providing a 360 view of the drilling site (Savanna, Minute 3:45), it does not disclose interior cameras in the cabin aimed through the windows; In the same field of endeavor, i.e. to solve a similar problem of monitoring outside activities, Dunn, ¶ 0027: teaches a camera obtaining images of objects and persons outside of a controlled space by viewing objects and persons through the window).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine the elements taught by Savanna, with those of Dunn, because both references are drawn to the same field of endeavor such that one wishing to practice site surveillance for safety and/or control of an outside environment would be led to their relevant teachings, because substituting Savanna’s exterior-mounted cameras having views of the exterior of a drilling rig doghouse with Dunn’s interior-mounted cameras having exterior views is a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield a predictable result, and because the substitution of one known configuration for another known configuration to achieve the same purpose would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, and because keeping a camera within a climate-controlled interior environment would help keep the camera’s operation from deterioration due to damage, dust, and other disadvantageous elements. This rationale applies to all combinations of Savanna and Dunn used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Savanna and Dunn teaches or suggests the driller's cabin of claim 1, wherein the imagery signals comprise visible light spectrum signals, non-visible light spectrum signals, laser signals, infrared energy signals, radar signals, or a combination thereof (Dunn, ¶ 0026: teaches the camera can be a visible light camera, an infrared camera, or various other types).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Savanna and Dunn teaches or suggests the driller's cabin of claim 1, wherein the camera system further comprises an actuator, wherein the actuator manipulates the camera to orient the field of view of the camera to view a second portion of the rig through the window, and wherein at least a portion of the second portion of the rig includes a portion of the rig that is not included in the first portion of the rig (Dunn, ¶ 0027: teaches the camera can be movable using actuators to effectuate rotation of the camera (i.e. in a PTZ camera system, Dunn at least teaches panning the camera to allow multiple views)).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Savanna and Dunn teaches or suggests the driller's cabin of claim 3, wherein the actuator rotates the camera about an x-axis, a y-axis, a z-axis, or combinations thereof (Dunn, ¶ 0027: teaches the camera can be movable using actuators to effectuate rotation of the camera (i.e. in a PTZ camera system, Dunn at least teaches panning the camera to allow multiple views)).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Savanna and Dunn teaches or suggests the driller's cabin of claim 3, wherein a rig controller is configured to manipulate, via the actuator, the camera such that the field of view of the camera views a portion of the rig floor that is used in an activity of a well plan (Savanna, Minute 3:55: teaches the operator can have a view of the rig floor via a field of view of the camera or the windows; When combined with Dunn’s teachings of the field of view of the camera being the view through a window to the outside, not only does Savanna teach this feature alone, the feature is also taught or suggested through the combination of Savanna and Dunn; see also Dunn, ¶ 0027: teaches the camera can be movable using actuators to effectuate rotation of the camera (i.e. in a PTZ camera system, Dunn at least teaches panning the camera to allow multiple views); Regarding an activity of a well plan, Applicant’s Specification is silent regarding what a well plan is; Examiner interprets a well plan and an activity within a well plan broadly as any activity having to do with the setup or operation of the well and further interprets, in view of Applicant’s para. [0030], that the well plan can include tripping in or tripping out the string (putting sections of well pipe in the wellbore); The skilled artisan knows that these activities principally rely on a view of the rig floor where the borehole is located and includes activities such as screwing together or unscrewing pipes using a roughneck (basically a big, strong pipe wrench capable of gripping cylindrical pipe); Savanna, Minute 3:38: teaches drill rig functions operated by touch screen and joystick control, which covers rig floor activities as claimed).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Savanna and Dunn teaches or suggests the driller's cabin of claim 3, wherein the field of view of the camera mimics a field of view of the operator (Savanna, Minute 3:55: teaches the operator can have a view of the rig floor via a field of view of the camera or the windows; When combined with Dunn’s teachings of the field of view of the camera being the view through a window to the outside, not only does Savanna teach this feature alone, the feature is also taught or suggested through the combination of Savanna and Dunn).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Savanna and Dunn teaches or suggests the driller's cabin of claim 3, wherein a rig controller is configured to receive sensor data from one or more sensors about the rig or downhole (Savanna, Minute 3:40: teaches variables such as weight-on-bit and rate-of-penetration can be monitored and controlled using the rig controller, such monitoring obviously meaning the receipt of sensor data from one or more sensors).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Savanna and Dunn teaches or suggests the driller's cabin of claim 7, wherein a rig controller is configured to determine a rig state of the rig based on the sensor data and determine a rig operation based on the rig state and a well plan (Examiner notes the rig state can be monitored using the sensors according to Savanna and further notes that a well plan, undefined by Applicant in both the claims and Specification, can include a bit pressure for drilling; Savanna, Minute 3:40: teaches variables such as weight-on-bit and rate-of-penetration can be monitored and controlled using the rig controller, such monitoring obviously meaning the receipt of sensor data from one or more sensors).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Savanna and Dunn teaches or suggests the driller's cabin of claim 8, wherein the rig controller is configured to manipulate the camera to position the field of view of the camera to view rig equipment involved in the rig operation (Examiner notes one cannot claim a patent on the content of an image; So long as the physical configuration is capable of acquiring the content, the feature is disclosed, taught, or suggested; Savanna, Minute 3:55: teaches the operator can have a view of the rig floor via a field of view of the camera or the windows; When combined with Dunn’s teachings of the field of view of the camera being the view through a window to the outside, not only does Savanna teach this feature alone, the feature is also taught or suggested through the combination of Savanna and Dunn; Dunn, ¶ 0027: teaches the camera can be movable using actuators to effectuate rotation of the camera (i.e. in a PTZ camera system, Dunn at least teaches panning the camera to allow multiple views)).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Savanna and Dunn teaches or suggests the driller's cabin of claim 9, further comprising a network through which imagery of the rig equipment is transmitted to the rig controller for analysis (Dunn, ¶ 0004: teaches the image is transmitted to the operator within the control room for analysis).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Savanna and Dunn teaches or suggests the driller's cabin of claim 1, wherein the camera system further comprises a mounting bracket, wherein adjustments of the mounting bracket orients the camera to view a second portion of the rig through the window, and wherein at least a portion of the second portion of the rig includes a portion of the rig that is not included in the first portion of the rig (Dunn, ¶ 0027: teaches the camera can be mounted on a movable mount to effectuate rotation of the camera (i.e. in a PTZ camera system, Dunn at least teaches panning the camera to allow multiple views) to view objects and persons through the window).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Savanna and Dunn teaches or suggests the driller's cabin of claim 11, wherein the mounting bracket is adjustable by operators in the driller's cabin to view the second portion (Dunn, ¶ 0027: teaches the rotating mount of the camera is controlled by actuators controlled by the control system operated by the user).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Savanna and Dunn teaches or suggests a method for monitoring a rig floor during subterranean operations, the method comprising: positioning a window in an outer surface of a driller's cabin (Examiner interprets this limitation as a drill rig’s “doghouse” or control cabin, etc.; Savanna, 3:25: teaches a doghouse (i.e. control cabin) with windows); positioning a camera system in an interior of the driller's cabin; aligning the camera system with the window; viewing, via the camera system, a first portion of a rig through the window; capturing imagery, via a camera of the camera system, of the first portion of the rig (While Savanna discloses external camera providing a 360 view of the drilling site (Savanna, Minute 3:45), it does not disclose interior cameras in the cabin aimed through the windows; In the same field of endeavor, i.e. to solve a similar problem of monitoring outside activities, Dunn, ¶ 0027: teaches a camera obtaining images of objects and persons outside of a controlled space by viewing objects and persons through the window); and receiving, via a network, the imagery at a rig controller (Dunn, ¶ 0004: teaches the image is transmitted to the operator within the control room for analysis).
Claims 14–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savanna, Dunn, and Wyman (US 2023/0198293 A1).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Savanna, Dunn, and Wyman teaches or suggests the method of claim 13, further comprising: receiving, via the network, sensor data from one or more sensors about the rig or downhole (Savanna, Minute 3:40: teaches variables such as weight-on-bit and rate-of-penetration can be monitored and controlled using the rig controller, such monitoring obviously meaning the receipt of sensor data from one or more sensors); receiving, via the network, a well plan at the rig controller (Neither Savanna nor Dunn appear to teach receiving via a network a well plan at the rig controller; However, in the same field of endeavor, Wyman’s ¶¶ 0068–0069: teach that the skilled artisan had in his possession the ability and motivation to receive and store a digital well plan at the rig controller); and determining, via the rig controller, a rig state of the rig based on the sensor data and the well plan (Wyman, ¶¶ 0068–0069: teaches the well plan can include parameters like weight, torque, speed, tripping, etc. that, as Savanna teaches, can be monitored and controlled by the rig controller in the doghouse; Examiner notes the rig state can be monitored using the sensors according to Savanna and further notes that a well plan, undefined by Applicant in both the claims and Specification, can include a bit pressure for drilling; Savanna, Minute 3:40: teaches variables such as weight-on-bit and rate-of-penetration can be monitored and controlled using the rig controller, such monitoring obviously meaning the receipt of sensor data from one or more sensors); and determining, via the rig controller, an activity of the well plan being executed by rig equipment on the rig (Examiner notes the rig state can be monitored using the sensors according to Savanna and further notes that a well plan, undefined by Applicant in both the claims and Specification, can include a bit pressure for drilling and a plan for tripping in according to set parameters such as speed, torque, weight, rate of penetration, etc.; Savanna, Minute 3:40: teaches variables such as weight-on-bit and rate-of-penetration can be monitored and controlled using the rig controller, such monitoring obviously meaning the receipt of sensor data from one or more sensors; Wyman, e.g. ¶ 0063: explains, like Savanna, rate of penetration (ROP), which is a “tripping-in” well plan activity that is monitored and controlled by the rig controller).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine the elements taught by Savanna and Dunn, with those of Wyman, because all three references are drawn to the same field of endeavor such that one wishing to practice site surveillance for safety and/or control of an outside environment such as a drilling rig would be led to their relevant teachings and because combining Savanna’s rig control system with Wyman’s rig control system to make a rig control system capable of receiving a well plan via a network represents a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield a predictable result. This rationale applies to all combinations of Savanna, Dunn, and Wyman used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Savanna, Dunn, and Wyman teaches or suggests the method of claim 14, further comprising manipulating the camera, via the rig controller, based on the activity being executed, and directing a field of view of the camera towards the rig equipment (Savanna, Minute 3:55: teaches the operator can have a view of the rig floor via a field of view of the camera or the windows; When combined with Dunn’s teachings of the field of view of the camera being the view through a window to the outside, not only does Savanna teach this feature alone, the feature is also taught or suggested through the combination of Savanna and Dunn; Regarding an activity of a well plan, Applicant’s Specification is silent regarding what a well plan is; Examiner interprets a well plan and an activity within a well plan broadly as any activity having to do with the setup or operation of the well and further interprets, in view of Applicant’s para. [0030], that the well plan can include tripping in or tripping out the string (putting sections of well pipe in the wellbore); The skilled artisan knows that these activities principally rely on a view of the rig floor where the borehole is located and includes activities such as screwing together or unscrewing pipes using a roughneck (basically a big, strong pipe wrench capable of gripping cylindrical pipe); Savanna, Minute 3:38: teaches drill rig functions operated by touch screen and joystick control, which covers rig floor activities as claimed; Dunn, ¶ 0027: teaches the camera can be movable using actuators to effectuate rotation of the camera (i.e. in a PTZ camera system, Dunn at least teaches panning the camera to allow multiple views)).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Savanna, Dunn, and Wyman teaches or suggests the method of claim 15, further comprising determining, via the rig controller, actual operations of the rig equipment based on the imagery; and comparing the actual operations of the rig equipment to an expected operation of the rig equipment in the well plan (Is this a recitation of a mental step?; Examiner notes the well plan, undefined in Applicant’s claims and Specification, could represent any activity at a rig site; Wyman, ¶ 0055: teaches sensors can include camera sensors and can measure or represent any one of a number of parameters related to information, signals, or measurements indicative of equipment operational status).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Savanna, Dunn, and Wyman teaches or suggests the method of claim 15, wherein manipulating the camera further comprises actuating, via the rig controller, an actuator that manipulates the camera to change a field of view of the camera (Dunn, ¶ 0027: teaches the camera can be movable using actuators to effectuate rotation of the camera wherein the actuators are controlled by the control system operated by the user (i.e. in a PTZ camera system, Dunn at least teaches panning the camera to allow multiple fields of view)).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Savanna, Dunn, and Wyman teaches or suggests the method of claim 17, wherein manipulating the camera further comprises changing, via the rig controller, the field of view of the camera to be directed at the rig equipment of a first portion of the rig (Dunn, ¶ 0027: teaches the camera can be movable using actuators to effectuate rotation of the camera wherein the actuators are controlled by the control system operated by the user (i.e. in a PTZ camera system, Dunn at least teaches panning the camera to allow multiple fields of view)).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Savanna, Dunn, and Wyman teaches or suggests the method of claim 18, wherein manipulating the camera further comprises changing, via the rig controller, the field of view of the camera to be directed to a second portion of the rig (Examiner notes this claim is interpreted as not covering human activity, but rather the capability of the system to perform the technological functions; Dunn, ¶ 0027: teaches the camera can be movable using actuators to effectuate rotation of the camera wherein the actuators are controlled by the control system operated by the user (i.e. in a PTZ camera system, Dunn at least teaches panning the camera to allow multiple fields of view)).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savanna, Dunn, Wyman, and Wren (US 2006/0238618 A1).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Savanna, Dunn, Wyman, and Wren teaches or suggests the method of claim 19, wherein changing the field of view of the camera further comprises changing the field of view of the camera based on detecting a second rig state or detecting a second activity of the well plan being executed (While Dunn teaches a camera capable of moving from one field of view to the next, Wren, ¶ 0033: teaches that the functions of a moveable camera, such as panning, tilting, or zooming, to a specific location can be based on a triggering event that corresponds to a location of interest; In other words, in the context of a drilling rig, the combination of Wyman and Wren would teach a PTZ camera that can pan, tilt, and/or zoom to a known field of view of interest based on an alarm or event or activity of a drilling rig so that the operator could view the location corresponding to that event).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine the elements taught by Savanna, Dunn, and Wyman, with those of Wren, because both Wren and Dunn are drawn to rotatable camera mounts, because all four references are drawn to using cameras in a surveillance application (“surveillance” is a term of art that refers broadly to any application of a camera or system of cameras to monitor an environment) such that one wishing to practice site surveillance for safety and/or control of an outside environment such as a drilling rig would be led to their relevant teachings, and because, as Wren evidences, automatic control of PTZ cameras according to a detected event is a prior art feature such that the claimed combination is nothing more than a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield a predictable result. This rationale applies to all combinations of Savanna, Dunn, Wyman, and Wren used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Oklahoma Oil and Natural Gas, “EnergyHQ | Innovation | Doghouse,” available and accessed on 3/9/2026 at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Bg9kHQE09A, Jul 2, 2018.
Savanna Energy, “Drilling Console – Savanna’s Modern Drilling Rigs,” available and accessed on 3/9/2026 at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9yvkJvBl8A, July 20, 2011.
Savana Energy, “Savanna Velox Triple Drilling Rig Animation,” available and accessed on 3/9/2026 at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDy1qUDQA_8, June 30, 2014.
Joao (US 2021/0133406 A1) teaches video surveillance of a premises (e.g. ¶ 0223) wherein the premises can be a drilling rig (¶ 0210).
Thornton (US 2024/0193960 A1) teaches aiming cameras out of the windows of a vehicle cabin to capture video data (¶ 0029).
Johnson (US 2022/0280075 A1) teaches a detectable event triggering a camera to pan toward the region of interest corresponding to the triggering event (¶ 0050).
Xiong (US 2023/0370710 A1) teaches determining events that are used as triggers for operations by other systems such that the triggering event can determine a change in video processing (e.g. increasing resolution, quality) or how the cameras are positioned by a camera control interface (such as using PTZ to control the field of view) (¶ 0094).
Allyn (US 2016/0174072 A1) teaches an alert triggering a PTZ camera to reposition itself to focus the field of view on the location or the corresponding event (¶ 0040).
Trydal (US 2019/0226287 A1) teaches a camera on a drilling rig aimed at a transparent window or glass housing and using wipers to clean the window to improve imaging (¶ 0019).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael J Hess whose telephone number is (571)270-7933. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00am-5:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Vaughn can be reached on (571)272-3922. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8933.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL J HESS/Examiner, Art Unit 2481